1. FrayVader - July 6, 1998 - 9:46 PM PDT
Slate's latest dialogue examines the US military and some of the issues it faces as we head into the next century. Is the all-volunteer professional military what is needed, or should there be military training provided for all citizens? Read what Lawrence Korb and Gary Hart have to say, and tell us what you think.
2. cigarlaw - July 6, 1998 - 9:51 PM PDT
As an unrepetant draft dodger I think this would be a much healthier country if we still had a draft instead of a bunch of mercenaries.
3. tckrulak - July 7, 1998 - 4:23 AM PDT
Cigs:
Reactionary tripe.
Because of the manpower cutbacks in the US military, they have to do more w/ less. It is unrealistic to think that war will be in the style found in the world wars. Rather, regional conflicts such as those found in Bosnia, etc. as well as the guerilla style found in Vietnam will continue to be the order of the day. The military needs to be forward-deployed and have the ability to respond quickly to regional conflicts. It also needs to utilize available technology to aid communications and movements on the battlefield. Knowledge of urban warfare will also be critical.
Just some thoughts...
4. bubbaette - July 7, 1998 - 5:01 AM PDT
I'm an unrepentant coward. I can't imagine being in a situation in which others are trying to kill me and not hightailing it in the opposite direction. Nonetheless, if being drafted is a part of citizenship, then women should be drafted along with men. For total fairness, women should have to serve in combat positions along with men, so they don't take all the "safe" support positions. I wonder how that would change the face of war?
5. CalGal - July 7, 1998 - 6:27 AM PDT
Bubba,
I agree. Even though I'd then be freezing my buns off in Vancouver. (or is it Ottawa that's cold? I forget.)
I also think that women have to meet the same physical standards as men.
Or maybe two standards--one service, one combat?
6. CalGal - July 7, 1998 - 6:27 AM PDT
oops--support,not service.
7. lazygeorge - July 7, 1998 - 7:46 AM PDT
I do not see how a draft could be fair unless thay take almost everyone. Exemptions make compulsory military service unfair. One thing I learned in the Army is they really do not want everyone. They would also say they cannot afford to keep retraining large numbers of draftees every year.
Maybe it makes sense to have two standards for support and service in some military organizations, but in other services everyone can be called on to face the enemy. Some service jobs can be very physicaly demanding. Ever unload artillery shells from a railroad train? It is not a front line job, but it needs to be done.
I have no problem with watching women die or compelling them to die.
Were Lawrence Korb or Gary Hart ever in the armed forces?
8. bubbaette - July 7, 1998 - 8:14 AM PDT
LazyGeorge
I've never unloaded artillery shells from a train, but I've unloaded stacks of particle board with a forklift. I've also spent many a day shoveling corn into a grinder for feed on the farm -- 8 tons a day is my record.
9. lazygeorge - July 7, 1998 - 10:26 AM PDT
Bubbaette,
I have moved 40 tons of steel rebars a day, bar by bar, and I am a wimp. I usually barely passed the Army PT test. A standard 155mm artillery round weighs 97 pounds. Some weigh more. The lighter 105mm rounds weigh about 35 pounds but are packed two to a case. The reason the rounds weigh what they do is that most adult men can carry them. Do you think that 50 percent of the draftable female population of the United States can handle the job? There was a study done years ago and allegedly covered up by "proponents of women in the armed forces". It said with an extra few weeks of physical training most women could lift 100 pounds from the ground to the bed of 5 ton truck. I thought I saw some videos from this study. The videos did not impress me, but I do no think it disproves the claim.
10. bubbaette - July 7, 1998 - 10:33 AM PDT
Well, George, what's you're point? I doubt I could lift and carry 97 lb shells all day, nor do I particularly wish to serve in the army. If women are drafted, I don't know that they could do all the jobs that men are expected to do, but then I've found that in most jobs what a fellow can do with strength, a woman can do with the application of a little ingenuity.
Nor am I really a proponent of women in the armed forces -- as I mentioned early, I can't conceive of being in a dangerous situation and not running away. However, I do think that there is a fairness issue if men are drafted while women are not, but both share the benefits of citizenship.
11. thomasd - July 7, 1998 - 10:49 AM PDT
Due to changing world dynamics, I don't believe that the US can afford to try to be the world's protector. Powers such as China, India and Russia will be increasingly less welcoming of attempts by the US to assert hegemony in areas of the earth that they feel that their greatest interests lay. We should, therefore, define a sphere of influence as covering somewhat less than the entire earth, but maintain enough of a military reserve that, if a major foreign conflagration should occur (along the lines of WWI or WWII), that the US can effectively intervene, if necessary.
I don't believe that compulsory military training for all citizens is needed; the US is hardly in imminent danger of invasion in the forseeable future. However, an all-volunteer military seems entirely practicable to me, partly because I believe the trend in future military conflicts will result in somewhat less reliance on ground troops.
12. lazygeorge - July 7, 1998 - 11:29 AM PDT
Bubbaette,
If you are an enlisted soldier, the Army is about doing what you do not want to do every single day you are in it. The Army works in an environment where tools break or don't exist. Ingenuity is good, but too often all you can use is brute force. The war does not stop because you do not have the tools, training or desire to do it. Muscle is the tool of last resort that the Army relies on. I do not think that we should let people into the Army just to be fair. I can use the less competent in creative ways: detect snipers, clear mines and test for chemical agents. Maybe they can be a professional "in-flight fuze setters." Is this what you want for your children? There is the issue of military justice they will be subject to. I think the Army should try to get the best men and women it can. As they are killed off then they have to take what they can get as replacements.
13. lazygeorge - July 7, 1998 - 3:24 PM PDT
thomasd,
I agree that the US needs limits on its role in the world. What do you recommend?
I think maintaining a large and efffective reserve component would be a good idea. The current situation has the reserve forces and the active forces fighting over resources. Unfortunately the structure of the reserve forces is also a cold war product and an issue to every local politician.
I disagree that ground troops will be less valuable in the future. Peace keeping missions will put more people on the ground. For the last hundred years people have been predicting technology that will make infantry obsolete and war less manpower intensive. It has not happened. Urban warfare (MOUT) is engineer and infantry intensive. Maybe we can get other nations to serve as infantry in pursuit of US interests, but it did not work for Carthage. I do think that the US needs to pursue any technological military advantage it can find.
14. thomasd - July 7, 1998 - 3:56 PM PDT
Re. 13:
lazygeorge -
"I agree that the US needs limits on its role in the world.
What do you recommend?"
Just a couple of thoughts here: I think the US needs to wean itself from arbitrarily committing to 'peacekeeping' missions, and, as an example, reduce its involvement in Bosnia, which is currently creating tensions with Russia, to being a tripwire force, and perhaps reduce its NATO military commitment in general. Plus, if the US could help broker cooperative agreements with India, China and the ASEAN countries about their relative spheres of influence in the Indian ocean and West Pacific, that should help reduce tensions in these areas, although the US has recently done a fair amount of damage to the prospects of peace in that region with its policy of one-sided favoritism to China.
15. cyrusk - July 7, 1998 - 5:36 PM PDT
lazygeorge -- Hart was in the reserves I believe. Korb retired from the Navy with the rank of Captain. As you know, Hart served on the Senate Armed Services Committee for twelve years.
16. Wombat - July 7, 1998 - 6:21 PM PDT
If the United States is unwilling to play the role of superpower that it inherited when the Soviet Union collapsed, then we should revamp our defense policy and budget downward to a force large enough to defend US territory and keep troops in Korea. What we have now are superpower-sized armed forces that we will not use. This amounts to a massive government employment program that produces little.
Of course, if the US reduces its forces and committments, we can expect a diminuition of our superpower status. I think it is a shame that the US public has become so gun-shy about using the United States' power to positive ends.
17. JRBehrman - July 7, 1998 - 11:13 PM PDT
QUIS CUSTODIES CUSTODIET?
I rise in support of HART.
The first obligation of our military is to uphold our republican government and to give the question above a democratic variation on the prescribed answer, to wit, a well regulated militia. Widespread private ownership and underground circulation of heterogeneous small arms is not necessary or sufficient to formation of militia or any other sort of "nation in arms".
By the same token, universal, egalitarian, and meritocratic military training or national service for men and women is not the same as identical roles in or out of combat. But, shared experience of military training or national service would go a long way towards the national unification that elevation of the U.S. Constitution to a civil religion will not lead to, indeed, leads away from.
In any event, the case for UMT/NS has a basis in both history and comparative political economy. Almost every developed country today but the U.K., U.S., and Japan have some form of large-scale military training or national service.
The case for UMT/NS does not rest on KORB's Straw Man, some golden age in America. Such exceptionalist fantasy is almost as silly as its very opposite, the Pentagon Parody of Horse Guards, Whitehall, The Admiralty, and The Circus.
The case rests on the fact that military institutions distinctive from those of the U.K. are what the U.S. had from 1787 to 1948. At no time then was our republic or democracy perfect. But, we clearly made progress with regular and militia forces which were more patriotic, progressive, and practical that what our Federalist, Whig, and, now Anglo-Confederate Libertarians or Pre-Millenial Dispensationalists favor.
But, let me not complain too much about the right-wing. In fact, the country's problem with armed forces comes also from a pacifistical (moderately liberal) business class and from anti-military (reactionary liberal) leftists. The left-wing, mod
18. cigarlaw - July 8, 1998 - 12:23 AM PDT
tckrulak Message #3 One reason we have had to make the manpower cutbacks you refer to is the constantly rising wages and fringe benefits, such as retirement associated with the military.
If we drafted the people we needed and paid a lot less, we could get qualified people and afford to keep them less time.
19. lazygeorge - July 8, 1998 - 5:09 AM PDT
cigarlaw,
As long as it does not effect recruiting it is possible to make the military retirement system less generous.
20. lazygeorge - July 8, 1998 - 5:30 AM PDT
JRBehrman,
Aren't most of the nations with anything approaching universal military service scaling it back? France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium etc. ? I thought the cost of their current systems was considered too expensive compared to a long serving professional army. If you have to train new troops every year or two the cost really adds up.
The obvious exception is Israel.
If someone is to be called soldier yet not able to do the tasks that a soldier is expected to do, because it is too dangerous or requires too much strength you no longer have an Army. You have a Scout Troop.
If your goal is to provide a good social experience to adolescents, why not fix the schools?
I know for certain that the armed forces do not want all 18 year olds for military training. I doubt you would like to have all of them given expert training on explosives and small arms either.
21. tckrulak - July 8, 1998 - 5:40 AM PDT
Cigs and george:
Of all places to cutback retirement benefits, why the military? These are the folks that are willing to put their butts on the line for their country, they are separated from their families for months on end, and they are not paid nearly what they could make in the public sector. There are so many social programs we could cut back before even coming close to a point where it is necessary to start hammering military personnel.
22. lazygeorge - July 8, 1998 - 7:58 AM PDT
tckrulak,
If you can cut back benefits with no recruiting problems, why not? Congress has already modified retirement benefits more than once, after Vietnam and during the Bush administration. I would grandfather those who were already in the armed forces from any change.
23. tckrulak - July 8, 1998 - 8:09 AM PDT
George:
I see your point. Nonetheless, I don't agree w/ the choices made post-Vietnam and during the Bush years. Before cutting benefits to those who have worked for their country, why not cut benefits to those who haven't (read entitlements)?
24. BackTalk - July 8, 1998 - 9:21 AM PDT
tckrulak Message #23:
We already did cut benefits to those who haven't worked for their country: it's called welfare reform.
25. tckrulak - July 8, 1998 - 9:30 AM PDT
BackTalk:
I am aware of welfare reform. Thanks for the sarcasm.
26. BackTalk - July 8, 1998 - 10:46 AM PDT
lazygeorge:
I've enjoyed your posts. You seem to know a lot more about real-life military matters than I do. I would like to hear your thoughts regarding some of Hart's points. First of all, cost savings is not Hart's goal -- he is a Democrat after all :-). He says his central point is, "It is the responsibility of all able-bodied citizens, not just a military elite, to defend the nation." My interpretation is that there are segments of society that join the military and those that don't. This means that for many people, it is not "us" that goes to war when America goes to war -- it is "them", paid soldiers who are members of a different social group, class, or whatever. Perhaps what Hart is really after is to erase class and social boundaries insofar as the duty to serve one's country is concerned.
At the same time, I agree that we need an army not a scout troop (nice choice of words), and I wonder about the effectiveness of a non-professional army. I recall reading an article about the old Soviet army. Apparently they had a very high proportion of officers -- virtually all of their professional soldiers -- because their enlisted men were all short timers with little training or experience, little personal interest or stake in the army, and who therefore lacked initiative and needed a lot more supervision than American soldiers. Hart acknowledges that we need a professional "911" force, perhaps half the size of our present military. Do you think this addresses the problem?
Actually (not having read his book), I'm not sure Hart is even advocating national service. It sounds more like he's saying we should reduce the size of the professional standing army, and rely more on the draft in time of war. To me, this sounds a lot like saying, "We don't want to be a superpower anymore." Does the world need a superpower?
27. lazygeorge - July 8, 1998 - 3:59 PM PDT
I do not have much to add. I have no strong objection to the idea of "national service" or increased reliance on a draft. During my time as a soldier I saw a lot of immature young men courtmartialed merely because they did not understand they were not at home anymore. I do not think most 18 year olds I meet are ready for military life.
I think it would be hard to implement in the Army. I find it difficult to accept Hart's proposal in part because when he was in the Navy it did not take draftees. How can he know what works? I believe the Navy briefly took draftees during WWII. My biggest problem is that the Army would have to change radically to do what Hart suggests. Closed installations not currently needed would need to be reopened. The Army is so used to training troops who want to be in the Army it has forgotten how to deal with draftees. When you take large numbers of draftees the training and socialization process will need to change. The senior leadership of the Army does not remember the draftee Army. It will all have to be relearned the hard way. A larger part of the professional Army will have to be assigned to training the recruits. Increased demand for Drill Sergeants would not help NCO retention. It is very unpopular duty even though Drill Sergeants are paid more. The Army will fight the idea too. The Army likes dealing with volunteers.
Is there a enough of a consensus to even make a draft widely acceptable? It strikes me as strange that a generation that generally did not serve in the Army would want to have their children drafted.
28. lazygeorge - July 8, 1998 - 4:42 PM PDT
I read some reviews of Hart's book. It was not clear exactly what Hart's point really is. On reviewer says Hart is not for universal military service, yet Korb implies that is one of Hart's points. I believe one reviewer thought Hart wanted more reliance on the reserves. I do not think the US Navy is near as dependent on the reserves as the other branches.
Armies do not have to be made of long serving professionals to be effective. Israel is the obvious example of a high tech western army that is primarily reserves in peacetime. I do not know if we can keep overseas peace time commitments with forces that are primarily made up of reserve units. You may be right that Hart wants to retreat from world wide commitments.
Calling up large numbers of reservists could really interfere with an economy.
29. BackTalk - July 8, 1998 - 5:56 PM PDT
lazygeorge, I too am still waiting to find out what Hart really means. His first post DOES refer to the reserves and the National Guard, and does NOT refer to universal service. But if he doesn't advocate universal service, I don't see how his program would achieve the cultural/political goal he sets out.
In any case, a smaller standing military means a reduced involvement overseas, as you point out, and I'm not sure this is a good thing. Fewer 'peacekeeping' missions (as advocated by thomasd) is one thing. But what would about scaling back our commitments to our allies? A recent WP article on China contains an interesting quote from national security advisor Anthony Lake:
"Another part was that the American military presence in Asia had not been drawn down and, I believed, neither should nor would be, and this was not a part of containing China but was there for the sake of stability. I asked him to consider what would happen if we withdrew our presence from Northeast Asia. There would be almost certainly an arms race, probably a nuclear arms race, among Japan, China and Korea, and this was in nobody's interest."
(Lake is describing a talk with his approximate Chinese counterpart Liu Huaqiu. The article was the second of a two part series: one and two.)
30. cigarlaw - July 8, 1998 - 6:19 PM PDT
The simpilest reform of the military retirement system would be to require they wait until at least 50 to draw it.
I put in 20 years with the govt and quit at 42. I have another month to go before I can draw any of the money I put in out.
I know of a couple guys who retired from the navy at 34. Why?
31. margeson2 - July 8, 1998 - 7:17 PM PDT
Many interesting posts on this thread. It seems to me the kind of army you have and the way you "stock" it depends on what kind of wars you expect to fight. The concept of the "citizen soldier" has a long and honorable history but that was at time when wars were likely to be relatively long and there would be time for training. I am not sure that is the case today. Weaponry has become much more sophisticated and you can't just train two weeks a year and expect to maintain any degree of proficiency or take it down from the wall and run to the village green to take your place with the local militia. I think that I prefer a standing army of some size. Should it be all "volunteer" or should there be a draft or some type of universal military service? Interesting question. I fall in the middle ground there. I like the idea of a core regular Army/Navy/Air Force ect but with a two year universal service commitment to be started between the ages of 18 to 24. Should that include women? I waffle on that. Should there be an alternate, non-military, two year civilian service option for all young people? Maybe.
32. Wombat - July 8, 1998 - 7:53 PM PDT
It is interesting that the period Hart cites as the military ideal to return to was the period before the United States became a superpower. This was a time when Chile was able to bully the United States (Valparaiso, 1880s), when the standing army was smaller than Holland or Yugoslavia (1939). I think that it would be foolish to revert back to those times.
33. lazygeorge - July 9, 1998 - 4:40 AM PDT
cigarlaw,
I am not aware that anyone can retire with less than 20 years, but it is possible to get out early and get generous disability benefits.
34. Wombat - July 9, 1998 - 8:53 AM PDT
Add "'s" to Holland and Yugoslavia.
35. lazygeorge - July 9, 1998 - 4:37 PM PDT
After reading Hart's response to Korb it is clear that he wants a citizen army. He want to be able to use it internationally in place of a professional force. He thinks the government would have to make a better argument for intervention than it has in the past if it had to mobilize the Guard. I think to do that he will have problems. It will have nothing to do with the quality of the National Guard, but the politics in individual states.
Immediately after Vietnam the Army restructured itself so it could not be mobilized without the National Guard and Reserve.
In support of the Gulf War, artillery and support units from the Guard performed very well. The Army could not get Guard maneuver units up to operational quality soon enough to participate in the Gulf War. There were good reasons for some of these problems. For instance, the Guard units had sent their best equipment and personnel with the regulars and the Guard Brigades had to be put back together. There were also leadership problems that sounded embarrassing.
I understand that after the Tet Offensive and President Johnson called up Guard units for Vietnam he only took units from states whose governors volunteered their troops. Is this true? Why did he do this when he had the authority to federalize any Guard unit?
One of the things necessary to "professionalize" the Guard will be to further integrate it into the Regular force. Doing this will dilute the Governor's control. He will not be able to appoint cronies to high rank. The cronies lose their rank when they are federalized. The Guard has a budget that can be used for political influence.
I disagree that our current professional armed forces are a threat to our democratic way of life. I do agree that in other times and places professional armies have supported tyrannies.
36. lazygeorge - July 9, 1998 - 4:42 PM PDT
I think our nation would be a better nation if more of its citizens knew more of what the armed forces were about. I think there would be a higher level of debate on security issues.
I doubt that the youth of the United States would submit to a draft. I have even stronger doubts that their parents would encourage them to submit. My parents were disappointed in me when I enlisted. Many of my peers described the same situation to me. Some of my friends asked me to discourage their children from considering military service.
37. cigarlaw - July 9, 1998 - 9:20 PM PDT
lazygeorge: Both these guys enlisted when they were 17 and got added time credits for reupping. Hence, you and I started supporting their retirement when they were 34.
38. lazygeorge - July 10, 1998 - 5:03 AM PDT
cigarlaw,
I have heard that with the post Gulf War manpower "draw downs" that some early retirements were authorized. I do not know the details, but I thought that those getting retirement benfits after less than 20 years service got less thna half their base pay and depending on the number of years served did not get to receive their beneifts till they approached a civilian retirement age.
39. DocBrown - July 10, 1998 - 1:19 PM PDT
I have mixed feelings about military service. On the one hand, every single American youth needs more discipline. I can make such a generalization safely since will always be true. Saying a young person has enough discipline is like saying you have enough happiness. For some things in life, more is always better.
But on the other hand, the mission of the military is not handled efficiedtly by large numbers of human footsoldiers. A few highly trained warriers in F-15s and Stealth Bombers are all we really need. The machines make today's military much more productive and the masses of human soldiers much less important.
40. SharonSchroeder - July 10, 1998 - 6:01 PM PDT
I have never heard of such a thing as time benefits for re-upping. If you work in certain fields you can receive monetary bonuses for re-upping but I have never heard of any kind of time credit. Early outs usually receive a lump sum payment upon getting out or you may receive it in payments over a period of time but it is a set amount unlike retirement.
41. SharonSchroeder - July 10, 1998 - 6:03 PM PDT
BTW disability benefits for veterans are becoming less generous all the time. The criteria for receiving benefits is becoming stricter and the benefits are becomin smaller.
42. lazygeorge - July 10, 1998 - 6:10 PM PDT
DocBrown,
I really wish I could agree. I think high tech, but non soldier intensive, approach to war is an unrealized dream. How does your technological model deal with Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia or any low tech enemy? Of course you can claim we should not be involved in these situations. I think the Bosnia situation illustrated what can happen when the US will not get involved. How do you defend someone from bandits or guerillas with an F15 or B2? A motivated enemy can infiltrate/assault the airbase where these aircraft are housed and destroy them. It might cost a lot of lives, but it would be a tremendous victory for a low tech enemy.
I do agree that training and maintaining a large ground force is expensive. What needs to be developed is a force that can be rapidly expanded when needed.
I think the kids need discipline too, but I do not think our children are ready for the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I escorted too many of my immature peers to prison.
43. SharonSchroeder - July 10, 1998 - 6:19 PM PDT
I think the UCMJ and the military would be good for today's young people but not only are they not ready for it... it isn't ready for them. How can the military remain at battle-readiness and still train an entire generation of snot-nosed brats? I would recommend the military for anyone considering it... it did me a lot of good and showed me the big bad world and the responsibilities that go with it. I think in the current social situation the draft is a bad idea, but if we did have a draft it should be for all young people not just males. Plenty of males don't want to fight in a war, plenty of males have physical limitations, plenty of males can't handle the pressures of the military, and plenty of females can. Lets not discriminate on the basis of gross generalizations. Lets train 'em all and place them (male or female) according to their abilities. Let us not assume that females are the weaker sex and can't handle the job. I met some women in the military that were tougher than most of the guys I was stationed with. I also met some guys that washed out of boot camp and went back home to ma & pa.
44. Wombat - July 10, 1998 - 7:52 PM PDT
I think Korb's counter to Hart hits the nail on the head. Times have changed, and wishing it weren't so is no solution to the dilemmas faced by the US military in the post-bipolar world.
45. cigarlaw - July 11, 1998 - 1:25 AM PDT
All I know is what these guys told me. During the VN war they got time credit bonuses for reupping.
46. mynagle - July 11, 1998 - 8:38 AM PDT
I don't know if this is appropriate to the discussion of draftees, but here goes: My husband is writing up a claim to the VA for some disability benefits and parts of it read: "My first injury was to my hip, which happened during a night jump on maneuvers in Tennessee. This happened in October 1943 near Gallatin, TN. We were making a night jump and there were 16 fully equipped men in my stick and I was the last man. It was scheduled as a low level jump, about 750 feet. By the time I was able to exit the plane we were so low that after my chute opened and I swung beneath it and on the return swing I hit the ground just where I had my canteen positioned on my belt. Needless to say it hurt but we didn't have time to discuss it as we had objectives to carry out. At that time I spoke to my squad leader, platoon sergeant and others but they just said it will go away. Needless to say it never did go away although I learned to live with it as one of those little things that happen. (Continued)
47. mynagle - July 11, 1998 - 8:42 AM PDT
(continued) My left knee was injured on night maneuvers in N. Ireland in the peat bogs. I was carrying a 60mm mortar plate as we were climbing over the uneven digging places from which the peat was cut and I stepped into an excavation spot which was black. The entire area was black and there was very little light with the fog. My knee twisted and caused a great deal of pain, as a result I limped the remainder of the maneuver and for some time later. I went on sick call to see the doctor and he said that I would just have to walk it out. That is what I did and it only bothered me occasionally until the night we jumped into Normandy. This again was a night jump and instead of jumping at 700 feet, (to be continued)
48. mynagle - July 11, 1998 - 8:49 AM PDT
(continued) I estimated I was about 2,000 feet which gave me time to slip to the left, to avoid the heavier machine gun fire, over three fields and just miss trees landing mostly on my left leg. This caused my left knee to give me sharp pain. As it was I was in no position to get on my feet as there was continuous machine gun fire aimed in my direction. I realized I also had a slight wound on my left hand which must have happened on the descent. It was several hours of crawling with all the equipment that I found a place to rest. I was alone since the two men from "F" Co. who landed near me were killed (cont.)
49. mynagle - July 11, 1998 - 9:01 AM PDT
(continued) ...were killed as we tried to exit the field in the direction we agreed was our assembly area.
I had covered myself with an abandoned chute and fell asleep (I had little or no sleep at this time for over 50 hours. I had been on guard duty the night of June 4th.) I awoke with at least eight German soldiers aiming weapons at me. When they told me to stand, my left knee gave out and they aided me to get to their headquarters area. Following this capture, there were four others from my stick already in custody, (we had dropped in and around the command post of the German 91st Infantry Division.) we were put into trucks with canvas tops and driven out in a convoy. After we were on the road for a short time the convoy stopped and the Germans all got out and went to the side of the road. Before we knew what had happened we were strafed by some P-47's and since I was at the rear of the truck I was hit in the left forehead, a glancing blow which indented my forehead and caused considerable bleeding and a big headache. I was never treated for this except to put on something from my first aid kit. The same bullet hit the man two seats from me, C.D. Foster, in the foot. (continued)
50. mynagle - July 11, 1998 - 9:09 AM PDT
(continued) We were shuttled to several locations, a monastery which we called Starvation Hill, St. Lo, Alencon, Chartres and a propaganda march through Paris. These movements were made by marching, trucks and box cars on trains where we eventually arrived at Stalag XIIA near Limberg, Germany. Upon arrival, we were processed as official POW's. This included pictures taken on August 12, 1944 which shows the physical condition where I had lost about 45 to 50 pounds since June 6th. We were then sent to a camp, Stalag IVB, and after a while were transferred to Stalag IIIC, about 35 miles east of Berlin on the Odor River. We stayed here until overrun by the Russian Army on Jan 31 '45
51. mynagle - July 11, 1998 - 9:18 AM PDT
(continued) The Russians were of no help so with about 10 other soldiers we left to make our way to Odessa to try to get back to our units. The Russians put us in with German prisoners. I came down with a severe temperature and was put in a Russian hospital and wound up being an orderly, taking care of US Air Force, British Air Force and GI's fromthe prison camp who had been wounded by the Russians in their advance on our camp."
He goes on to describe the rest of his military career, and then he asks, "Why have I waited until now to make this claim? Despite the suffering I endured I felt myself very lucky to have even survived and my definition of disabled was to look at the men I knew who lost the use of limbs and were paralyzed, especially my buddy Harold Cavanaugh who was a parapaplygic in a VA hospital near where I lived and whom I visited often. (continued)
52. mynagle - July 11, 1998 - 9:22 AM PDT
(continued) I equated "disabled" with their condition and thanked God I had not suffered as they, to say nothing of the men with whom I lived for over two years and one who I grew up with who were killed. I just did not feel comfortable complaining until, now, etc"
I wanted to present this picture to remind us of what wonderful guys we are talking about, on the ground, in this thread. (not continued)
53. SharonSchroeder - July 11, 1998 - 10:18 AM PDT
My; Thank you for the reminder! Give your hubby a big hug and kiss from me (one vet who never had to serve among the enemy.) My family and I are extremely grateful to him and others like him for the great personal strength and the sacrifices that they gave for our country.
54. lazygeorge - July 11, 1998 - 3:34 PM PDT
SharonSchroeder,
If the Army would simply discharge the obviously unfit I would agree with you. Unfortunately we retained them till they created problems that were dealt with by Special or General Court Martial. I think the Army is not a good place for social rehabilitation. It is a good place for people who just need a little more motivation and a bit more experience and education. Do you want to patrol a perimeter with someone you think might shoot you in the back? I have. I disarmed him.
I know we have had this discussion before. The Army does not place anyone on the basis of their abilities. The Army places people where they most need bodies. They will not care about your math skills and IQ when they are losing infantry at a rate of thousands per day.
Unlike you, I have been underwhelmed by the military knowledge and skills of enlisted women in the Army. What disturbs me is these women were good enough to die usefully, but they were too ignorant to manage that. They all seemed to be good clerks and technicians, but they could only do "their job". I make no comment about women officers or women in other services.
55. SharonSchroeder - July 11, 1998 - 8:44 PM PDT
but they could only do "their job".
Who's job did you expect them to do? I'm afraid that you lost me here.I agree with most of your post but don't quite understand the women comment. Most guys can only do "their job"... isn't that what we want? Someone who does their job well?
56. cigarlaw - July 11, 1998 - 10:18 PM PDT
mynagle: When VA denies your husbands claim as they generally do, let me know. I have a friend who specializes in veteran's law and deals with VA daily.
57. lazygeorge - July 12, 1998 - 8:45 AM PDT
SharonSchroeder,
A soldier's job is to obey any lawful order without any regard to their talent, survival, training or inclination. Even though my Military Occupational Specialty was "Fire Direction Computer" I made charts, programmed digital and analog computers, clerked, worked as a wireman, mechanic, NBC defence specialist, surveyor, cannoneer, armorer and infantryman. I did not volunteer for the jobs. I was not trained for these tasks. I picked them up as I went along. My peers did not have quite as diverse an experience, but they found out very quickly that "not my job" would do them no good. A soldier is not a specialist unless you can be female.
58. lazygeorge - July 12, 1998 - 2:52 PM PDT
I used to be amazed at the resistance I encountered from young women soldiers when I had to train them in map reading, land navigation and NBC. I never encountered this with young men. At one point I thought it was because of their non combat arms orientation, but the men from headquarters and support units did not exhibit this problem. When I read that surveys by Charles Moskos showed that almost 90 percent of Army enlisted women did not want the exclusion from females in combat removed it became clear to me. Unfortunately this problem goes right up to women Sergeants Major. I have heard comments like, "I do not need to use a map. I can use GPS." "The next war is going to be nuclear. I do need to worry about this." "I run A PAC." "I am a logistician." I find this kind of talk appalling when it comes from senior NCOs.
There is nothing inherently masculine about what I was teaching. In fact, I read years ago that women, like me, prefer to use terrain association, rather than dead reckoning when trying to follow a route.
I think the Army can easily fix this, but to fix it would require them to admit the problem exists. That is politically impossible.
59. mynagle - July 18, 1998 - 9:10 AM PDT
Cigarlaw: Thank you for your message about my husband's VA claim; I'll certainly let you know if he runs into a brick wall.
60. cyrusk - July 20, 1998 - 5:43 PM PDT
So, DoD officials are reviewing military rules on adultery. The Marines have spoken out in protest saying the changes would undermine discipline, according to the pentagon. Well, did you see Frank Foer's piece in SLATE discussing the rules of adultery? Here it is for you if you'd like to discuss this more.
61. lazygeorge - July 21, 1998 - 1:40 PM PDT
The Marine Corps, which is resisting the loosening of standards because, in the words of a spokesman, "If you can't trust the Marine next to you to remain faithful, how can you trust him on the battlefield?"
I do not disagree with the Marines, but an awful lot of successful military organizations tolerated adultery. For example, Pershing, Eisenhower and MacArthur in the US Army. I do not think that making adultory a more narrowly defined or lessor offense will make it less of a publicity problem since I think the Flynn Affair would have been a problem no matter what.
My experience in the Army was, no one really wanted to know who you were copulating with. There were problems in gun batteries if two immature men were just pursuing the same women. If one was committing adultery with the others wife it could be dangerous to be in the same battery with the parties of the dispute.
62. Hamlet - July 21, 1998 - 5:08 PM PDT
Regarding Mr. Kinsley's elaborate critique on the fatal nerve gas (sarin) allegation...what Mr. Kinsley failed to mention is that the U.S. Government made the threat to CNN/TIME that they would never again be given access to military war coverage (something that CNN prides itself on since it was _selected_ out of the major networks by the Gov. to cover the Gulf War) if they did *not* apologize for the report ie claim that it was "false." Thus, the choice was clear: fire the senior editor and his researcher, and make the apology.
And even if the allegations could not be positively confirmed, is that a sufficient reason for firing the senior editor, who happened to be a well respected editor at CNN for many years, and his researcher? If the answer is yes, then that means every single reporter/editor should be fired for all the allegations made against President Clinton should it all turn out to be "unconfirmed."
The fact is CNN is simply a "branch" off the Government. Independence? Yeah, sure. Dream on.
63. HCaulfield - July 21, 1998 - 6:10 PM PDT
Hamlet -- If those producers are merely interested in making unconfirmed allegations, there are many publications where they can find employment. CNN purportedly is in the business of reporting facts, and their own independent investigation revealed that the story was severely flawed.
64. ckrohn - July 22, 1998 - 12:37 PM PDT
Hamlet (msg 62) says the Pentagon threatened to withhold accreditation from CNN/Time unless the sarin story was retracted. This is an incredible assertion, although given the atmosphere in Washington these days, perhaps anything is theoretically possible. I admit that Pentagon probity is under suspicion ever since Ken Bacon (Asst Sec Def for Public Affairs) was not fired for leaking private matters from Linda Tripp's security files. But a threat to the news media would generate a flood of lawsuits. The problem with April Oliver's assertions is that she's confusing issues of substance (was or was not sarin used in Laos?) with CNN's internal politics. For the record, I looked into the sarin issue just after the story broke. I quickly learned that the release authority for lethal chemical agents is about the same as the release authority for nuclear weapons. The process begins with the President. So the notion of planes circling Laotian skies looking for targets of opportunity to bombard with sarin is a trifle far-fetched. The only story I know about the use of sarin comes from a Time-Warner book of fiction, THE CHARM SCHOOL. It depicts the US killing American defectors who are helping the Russians train spies to behave like Americans. It's a good read actually.
65. 109109 - July 22, 1998 - 12:46 PM PDT
Ckrohn
Not that I buy the story, but were the chemical release strictures the same during the Vietnam conflict? Especially in light of the times - sponsored assassination and all that?
66. ckrohn - July 22, 1998 - 2:09 PM PDT
It's true that the Joint Chiefs of Staff revised their policy around 1970, according to (then) Defense Secretary Mel Laird in a discussion with me. I suspect he was referring to an update of the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan. But even before that the President had to approve the use of even non-lethal chemical agents. LBJ granted this approval on 2 Nov 65 for search and clear operations in South Vietnam only. This was later expanded (20 Jan 68) when the Secretary of Defense allowed the used of riot control agents by the Air Force to rescue pilots shot down over Laos. Nixon, on 25 Nov 69, renounced the first use of lethal agents by the US, but riot control agents and herbicides were excepted. This info is contained in a memo from the Director of the Joint Staff, subject Report of Operation TAILWIND, 17 Jul 98. I was furnished a copy at the DoD briefing on 21 Jul 98 by DOD public affairs people. Still a question lingers: would SLATE readers use lethal agents to save their own lives, provided they could acquire them?
67. cyrusk - July 22, 1998 - 3:26 PM PDT
FFD: "Fraygrant Full Disclosure": ckrohn is my father. Go easy on the old man!
To answer your question pater: I wouldn't want the Fraygrants to get their hands on any lethal gas. They're likely to attack me w/it!
68. Hamlet - July 22, 1998 - 5:34 PM PDT
HCaulfield Message #63 Was this "independent investigation," conducted before the Pentagon boys called with the threat or after? With a good deal of cynicism, let me answer for you: _After,_ of course.
cyrusk: You have all the necessary information _that is provided_. What is untold and unprovided remains, as always, under guard. But, I imagine, having been once employed, yourself, at CNN that you know how the _truth_ slips through the grapevine.
Still, let's assume that our Government officials are being honest about this "allegation," it doesn't explain why CNN producers would have to go so far as to fire their senior editor and their researcher for attempting to examine and report what was available -- to the best of their ability?
CNN is willing to chop a couple of heads in order to get access to military coverage. And CNN is, like other networks, something of an extension to the Pentagon/Government.
Now as for our Good Brothers in the Government, research the present situation in Central America (unreported, of course) where the farmers are being sprayed daily by U.S. Government surveillance in the honorable name of the _War on Drugs_. Take a good, long look at how many innocent lives are being poisoned right now as we speak...
69. SharonSchroeder - July 25, 1998 - 7:13 PM PDT
LazyGeorge, I was a Second Class Boatswains Mate in the U.S. Navy. I never had any formal training for my job. All I ever got was ojt (on the job training)... any other words, here it is... do it. I think you use a very broad brush to paint women in the military. I doubt that it has anything to do with their gender. Perhaps they were, lazy, stupid or all of the above... but I know plenty of men that are the same way. I know guys that can run and repair very technical equipment but they can't find their seabag without assistance. Does that mean men should not be in the military? No.! It means that some people want to get away with as much as possible. It is sad but true. Many people would much rather take the easy way out. The easiest way to get out of work is to claim it isn't your job or to disavow any knowledge or ability. It is not a female trait. Unfortunately it appears to be much more common in todays young people. (Or maybe I'm just getting too old ;->)
70. lazygeorge - July 26, 1998 - 12:38 PM PDT
SharonSchroeder,
I know that I restricted my comments to my experience in the US Army, post #54. I also never said that women did not belong in the armed forces, post #7. It has been my experience that the Army had two standards for men and women. When female senior NCOs of the US Army sound like I quoted in post #58 then the Army has a problem.
71. lazygeorge - July 26, 1998 - 3:34 PM PDT
Does anyone have any opinion on the new International War Crimes Court and its possible effects on US military operations? Is US opposition justified?
72. jbaird - July 29, 1998 - 10:59 AM PDT
Of course US opposition is justified: as the biggest war criminal around, the US gov. doesn't want anyone sticking its nose into its business. It wouldn't have any effect even if we signed on, of course - just as with UN resolutions or World Court verdicts, we would simply ignore anything we didn't like. Still, the US is (understandably) averse to the bad publicity that entails, and so wishes that this whole movemnet would just go away...
73. lazygeorge - July 29, 1998 - 12:35 PM PDT
I think it is a non issue as well, but for different reasons. They make it sound as if it is unusual for US military personnel to be subject to foreign law. I was subject to the laws and judicial system of the host nations I served in, unless the local authorities declined jurisdiction.
I am interested in hearing about the war crimes you believe the US government has recently committed.
74. Wombat - July 29, 1998 - 6:29 PM PDT
What makes the U.S. government--and myself--uneasy about the court is that it gives someone like Saddam Hussein equal standing to bring a case against the U.S. for such "war crimes" as the bombing campaign against Iraq's infrastructure during the Gulf War.
75. chloel - July 29, 1998 - 6:32 PM PDT
Well, speaking as another US citizen, if we can't convince a world court that something we've done wasn't a war crime... we probably shouldn't have done it.
Or are we building a City on a Hill just for the ballistic advantage?
76. Wombat - July 29, 1998 - 6:50 PM PDT
Speaking as someone who has major problems with moral equivalency, the idea of Iraq taking the U.S. to court would be like Nazi Germany taking the Allies to court for their strategic bombing campaign. Would that bother you, Chloel?
The idea that countries with repressive, non-democratic regimes could potentially sit in judgement on the United States for UN sanctioned actions taken to liberate a country that was invaded by a totalitarian state boggles my mind.
77. chloel - July 29, 1998 - 6:59 PM PDT
Eh, Wombat, one of the principles we're purportedly bombing to defend is justice under the law. Are you claiming that a world court as proposed would in fact support Iraqi claims against the UN-supported US while ignoring the numerous and earlier claims against Iraq? Or are you twitchy about the mere possibility that Iraq will lodge a complaint? We're a superpower, it's about time we outgrew schoolyard defensiveness.
It does not make life in civilized nations worse when the citizens have legal remedies against abuses of police power, even though the criminals the police generally pursue are dreadful.
78. Wombat - July 29, 1998 - 7:30 PM PDT
I don't know, Chloel, how are the judges who sit on this court selected? Would a court with judges from Russia, France, and China rule in favor of the United States, given the politics that have now come up over continuing sanctions? Such a court will inevitably become politicized, particularly when the United States is involved.
Your analogy of legal remedies against abuses of police power is false. As you said, in "civilized" nations, these have done little harm and much good. Unfortunately, the world does not consist solely of "civilized" nations, who believe in the rule of law as we understand it. Nor do they necessarily accept an international body as an impartial arbiter. They will see it as a body that may enable them to score political points on an issue, or as a tool of the developed world (or whatever) if their case fails.
We already have a war crimes tribunal in place to try those who have committed actual atrocities. We also have the World Court, which nations can use to arbitrate disputes. There are recognized means of apologizing for and compensating victims of unfortunate accidents such as the downing of KAL 007 or the Iranian Airbus.
79. chloel - July 29, 1998 - 8:04 PM PDT
Mmmm; but the US isn't really good at paying attention to the existing bodies that you cite, either.
Your point that many nations are not civilized explains why it's hard to have a rule of law among nations, but it needn't make it impossible - it makes it all the more necessary. After all, the civilized nations have many uncivilized citizens, which is why we need both the police and remedies against them.
The belief that the World Court & alternatives would *not* rule according to law is a more interesting one, and would bring up lots of lively debate. Do you in fact hold it? Why? What distressed me in your post 74 was that you objected to Saddam Hussein being able to merely bring a case. *Anyone* should be able to submit a grievance to a court, although there should be a reasonably quick mechanism for preposterous cases being thrown out.
80. lazygeorge - July 30, 1998 - 7:36 AM PDT
chloel,
To me war signifies that the power of persuasion no longer works. Accept for the "legal limits" placed on its conduct by ideas like the "Laws of War", I consider war to be an extra legal act. Accusing a nation of waging a war of aggression sounds silly to me. What other kind of war is there? Were we invited by the "People of France" to invade Normandy?
There do need to be limits on levels of violence against civilians.
Consider WWII. Germany claimed invasion by Poland. I do not believe there were any living witnesses to the incident by 1945.
We successfully prosecuted the Germans for the Katyn Forest Massacre when we knew it was committed by the Soviets.
I think the War Crimes Court will degenerate into something other than a search for truth and justice.
81. chloel - July 30, 1998 - 11:50 AM PDT
lazygeorge
Well, there are a lot of things for which the power of persuasion shouldn't work. Sometimes war signifies nothing but greed on the part of the aggressor. What should the world do subsequently? If a non-military response might work, far better we should try that than wait until the aggressor finally bites a superpower in the wallet.
There are wars of defense, on one side.
I thought the US was invited into Normandy by the guerrila defense & the remnants of the pre-Vichy government.
82. lazygeorge - July 30, 1998 - 4:12 PM PDT
chloel,
The Germans could counter claim that French Fascists invited them into France in 1940. The Allies declared war on Germany after Germany invaded Poland. The Germans could claim they did not start the war with France and England. I think any unelected government in exile has less credibility in court than any local puppet regime. I do not see how these issues lend themselves to a legal process. Winners decide the legal aspects of victory not an international juduciary.
83. lazygeorge - July 30, 1998 - 4:16 PM PDT
In my opinion, which is based on my incomplete knowledge of the US judicial system, the worst aspect of a war crimes trial will be: the side with the best lawyers will win the case.
84. chloel - July 30, 1998 - 4:26 PM PDT
lazygeorge
On the best lawyers winning: Alas, it seems so! but
1) does that justify not having the justice system, say, inside the US? and
2) well, I'd be really embarassed if the US didn't *have* the best lawyers, since we surely have the most.
I need to do some work, will think about the general problem of making nasty nations behave. Will you think about the problem of who makes the US behave? It is entirely my loyalty to the ideal of our country as a model for peace and freedom among the nations that makes me wish for a wider court that we would listen to. I would far rather we were rebuked for our errors than that we got away with them, for our own sakes.
85. lazygeorge - July 30, 1998 - 4:33 PM PDT
I think what makes the US government behave is a free press looking over its shoulder. I think we have to many secrets in the US government. I think we should make it harder to keep government information out of public hands.
86. ScottLoar - July 30, 1998 - 8:36 PM PDT
What makes the US government behave is not a free press which grossly exaggerates its influence a al Sam Donaldson on the polity but that the responsibilities and hence power of the government is not absolute but diffused throughout overlapping and sometimes conflicting agencies all staffed by rather pedestrian bureaucrats. Secrets are closely held bits of information open to only a coterie of insiders; surely that does not describe the US government, not even its supposedly most secret of agencies the CIA and NSA, nor even the conversations of the President with his cabinet.
The US has not a press that informs the public or serves as that much touted "watchdog of freedom", but an advocacy press that lunges at the topic of the moment and worries it to death over the allotted 3-minute span on the 6 o'clock newshour.
87. 109109 - July 30, 1998 - 8:46 PM PDT
Well, someone has to sell those panty liners.
88. Wombat - July 31, 1998 - 3:04 PM PDT
I just read an Op-Ed in the NYT that discusses some of the safeguards built into the treaty that sets up an International War Crimes Court. In large part it addresses my objections. I am withdrawing vehement objections and replacing them with a more cynical je m'en fiche-ism. While Jesse Helms runs the Foreign Relations Committee, it ain't going to happen.
89. chloel - July 31, 1998 - 5:02 PM PDT
Wombat -
If you thought the court would be fairly run, would you *want* it to happen?
lazygeorge
Are you assuming that the informed citizenry of the US would never do anything seriously wrong in foreign relations? Or that, if we did, the rest of the world should be content that our remorse was enough punishment? I am thinking of the debate over Mitylene. (I start with Cleon at a catchy quote, but agree more with Diodorus.)
90. Wombat - July 31, 1998 - 7:03 PM PDT
I don't think it will make much difference one way or another. The international scene is Hobbesean, not Lockean, and I would much rather be the big dawg than a little one. If the court will not adversely affect the United States, than it can exist...or not.
91. cyrusk - Aug. 5, 1998 - 10:24 AM PDT
FYI -- final entry in this dialogue appearing tonight from Gary Hart. Hope you've found the exchange interesting. More to follow. Cyrus