Run to Me
You don't have to call me darlin', darlin' You never even call me by my name
--You Never Called Me By My Name, Steve Goodman
'Cause when the feelin's right I'm gonna run all night
I'm gonna run to you
--Run to You, Bryan Adams
_________
Ranger is unmoved by sweet-talkin', pro-veteran campaign rhetoric from all sides.
Standing in place of their absent service records are loud proclamations of being pro-veteran and pro-military. Usually uttered after they tell you how Christian they are. It is the whole and necessary enchilada for being a contender for public office in our secular U.S. of A. And it would be gauche in a time of war to say otherwise.
Strange days for the republic when military options preempt diplomacy, intelligence (CIA) is placed under military leadership and each civilian leader attempts to out gun the next guy in the earnestness of his patriot games. Yet the political Brahman and Mandarin classes, never needing the financial incentives, never actually don the uniform.
Standing in place of their absent service records are loud proclamations of being pro-veteran and pro-military. Usually uttered after they tell you how Christian they are. It is the whole and necessary enchilada for being a contender for public office in our secular U.S. of A. And it would be gauche in a time of war to say otherwise.
Strange days for the republic when military options preempt diplomacy, intelligence (CIA) is placed under military leadership and each civilian leader attempts to out gun the next guy in the earnestness of his patriot games. Yet the political Brahman and Mandarin classes, never needing the financial incentives, never actually don the uniform.
If we love our military so much, why must we buy our soldiers with monetary bonuses and other financial inducements, and then again to have them re-up or extend their periods of service? We love us some soldiers when it feels good or buys votes, but love is a short-term phenomenon.
If the pols are pro veteran, why do veterans groups always have to fight to ensure adequate funding from the discretionary budget to cover veterans health care and other issues? With the exception of Huckabee and Romney, all of the current crop of presidential candidates are career federal weenies, and it is equally a fact that battles are always fought over meeting the DVA budget, and shortfalls are par for the course.
They are all pro veteran, but what do they do that is so exceptionally pro vet? We vets do not expect a free ride, but we do expect to be treated equitably when the shrinking federal pie is cut up. Veterans' rights are one of those things like access to health care which should not be seen as a munificent gesture, but rather, a given in a successful society.
Ranger looks for a pro-American bias rather than a pro-Afghani or Iraqi one. Take care of America first. The Hippocratic oath is a good start: first, do no harm.
If this country supported its vets properly, we wouldn't have to scramble for the platitudes and crumbs tossed out so munificently by the candidates. They can promise the moon, but whoever is elected in '08 will by necessity be making drastic program cuts across the board by 2012.
Veterans benefits saw a 2.1% cost of living increase this year. This cost of living increase will not cover the increase in the cost of living; everything the average person needs -- gas, heating oil, food -- has gone up exponentially, concomitant with a devalued dollar. When the time comes to pay for this war in real USD, the monetary value will have to come from somewhere other than the printing presses. Benefits for veterans will suffer, along with all other governmentally-funded programs.
Veterans benefits are always an afterthought, save when it'll buy a few votes. In a government which claims to love its vets, they should be the first consideration before embarking on a feel-good war.
--Jim
Labels: candidates pandering to veterans, veterans benefits, veterans n=benefit lag behind cost of living increase
posted by Lisa at 9:07 PM
4 Comments:
one of the things that i have watched with alarm after the military meltdown of vietnam was the way our "all volunteer" armed forces have degenerated into a mercenary wing of professional "warriors". the hallmark of democratic states used to be the absence of any but a token, standing army. madison warned about having a large, standing, professional armed force. he believed that it would exert undue influence on the government and the society. even if you only comprise 12% of the population with folks under arms, the fact that they are under arms will tend to skew all arguments to their favor.
the american way (and the athenian way, and the roman way, and the british way) used to be that there would be a small, underpaid, core group of veteran officers and non-coms who would stand by, waiting for the call. then, the first thing, once the threats had been identified, would be to train the influx of recruits and draftees while the small group of career soldiers tried desperately to hold the line.
that's what happened all through our history. in ww2 the men who stormed the beaches at normandy were mainly guys who had less than a year and a half time in service. the guys who were there from the beginning has mostly died already, fighting outnumbered and underequipped to bring them to that point.
you want to support the troops? disband the large standing army. let them go home and live their lives. there will always be enough lifers to staff the skeleton force needed to defend the borders and keep watch at night. that way, when we do need to mobilize we will be mobilizing for a real, and present threat. not something cooked up in foggy bottom so that a new generation of mercs can have "their war" as they appear to think is their due.
MB,
You are absolutely correct that there was no war the U.S. entered -- either major or minor -- with a large standing army.
Your 12% under arms could probably be reduced to 1-3% and still adequately control the population.
Fleshing out the military with personnel can be easily achieved with a draft. However, under today's system, the physical plants have been destroyed via base closure, and the industrial base is lacking with which to support a military machine.
The standard mobilization equation is personnel + training + equipment, and of course training implies manouevre space. (I'm assuming when you speak of personnel you are implying trained and equipped personnel. I'm simply clarifying for the non-military sorts.)
The mercenary nature of our armed forces is clearly a topic for major discussion. Speaking for the officer corps, if not mercenary, they are definitely divorced from the mainstream of American thought in terms of their general conservatism. Therefore, the military no longer reflects the general values of America, due to this unrepresentative and self-regenerating, sampling.
--Jim
2.1%?
I haven't seen a raise like that in 8 years. While my yearly pay is fairly reasonable, it has been fairly static since 2000.
This is what happens when "growth" is the prime objective and the area that we have to grow in is strictly limited: Everyone's share gets smaller.
Historically, the purpose of any military benefit like medical treatment or retirement benefits is a means to hide the results of the costs of combat to soldiers from potential recruits. No one told recruits during the War Between the States how amputations were performed. Until they either assisted or suffered one.
Is this a great country or what?
Post a Comment
<< Home