Shrink Wrap
For the past six years the U.S. was all about shrinking the size of the military.
Small, well-equipped, highly-trained, units, capable of rapid deployment and short-term operation were the future of this man and woman’s army, navy, air force and marines.
The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the ensuing “war on terror,” should have at least temporarily put those plans on hold, but they didn’t.
The ongoing occupation of Afghanistan should have been cause for a pause, but it wasn’t.
The invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq should have repeatedly brought new perspective to the entire “modernization” concept, but it hasn’t.
Until now.
Now that Rumsfeld has been fired (c’mon, everyone knows he didn’t “retire”), and received the first of what will no doubt be many a medal, award and honor, for his vital service to this country, it appears the time is here at last.
It’s only fair.
I mean, many of the too-few, poorly-equipped, though well-trained, men and women currently serving this country, have already received their medals and such… right?
Anyway, before he had a chance to pack up his office, the Rumsfeld “smaller is better” policy isn’t just on hold; it’s been jettisoned.
No more shrinkage. It’s a wrap. They’ll be no party.
Instead, we are about to see the beginning of a new growth in American military forces.
There will, of course, be no draft. People are already upset enough. The boat’s rocking, and the rudder’s busted. Best ease into it.
Look for “signing bonuses,” increased aid, spiffier uniforms and better latrines.
As Americans, we’re all responsible for what our country does in our name. One day, maybe, the people in office actually calling the shots will accept some responsibility, too.
Or maybe every American can get a medal, award and honor for our vital service to this country.
It’s only fair.
I mean, Rumsfeld’s getting them… right?
December 20th, 2006 at 6:54 am
This should prove interesting. In order to say they met their recruiting goals in 2006, the military had to lower the goals and lower the standards to qualify for recruitment. How are they going to accomplish the increase? The only way I can see is to lower the standards so far that they recruit Dead-eye Dick Cheney, and we all know what a good shot he is.
December 20th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
TC,
I feel for the folks in uniform.
They chose to serve the U.S., and generally put their faith in their military and civilian commanders.
They have to live, and die, and somehow keep believing in the wisdom and honesty of people who consider them expendable.
It seems the further along we go, the less faith anyone has in that wisdom and honesty. Justifiably so, but people go on dying anyway.
The bar of military expectation has been rising with each new month in Iraq.
As you say, the bar for qualifying to serve, like recruiting goals, will now undoubtedly be lowered, in order to “grow” the military.
Dark days, indeed.
December 21st, 2006 at 9:47 am
Tim, don’t get me wrong. I have nothing but respect for the men and women who serve in our armed forces and have held that position since the 1960s when I, a radical, opposed the mistreatment of returning soldiers by demonstrators. It may be true that some of our soldiers have committed atrocities, and without excusing them, I try to understand the inner conflicts and pressure to commit atrocities from the Bush regime that brought them to that point. Our troops deserve our kindness. best wishes and prayers. They, like the Iraqi people, are victims of GW Bush and his neocon/theocon/corporate cronies.
December 21st, 2006 at 7:36 pm
TC,
I have no doubt U.S. troops, Iraqis, and the greater world at large, are paying the price for a misguided modern crusade.
Whether it be oil, revenge, radical religious or geopolitical ideology at its core, the result is the same.
Change must, and will come.
My hope is we manage to keep the pendulum from swinging too far, and keep as many people alive in the process as possible.
Mistreatment is mistreatment. It can be explained and understood, but it should never be justified.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:40 am
Tim, I agree and believe that the individuals responsible need to pay the price for their misconduct. But it must not stop there. The criminals in Washington also need to pay the price for their misconduct.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:37 pm
TC,
A sincere question or two…
• What price, and for what misconduct, should what criminals in Washington pay?
• What would happen if they didn’t?