The Conflict Overseas

Terminate the, enemy
Eradicate the hated enemy
I am an enemy
My very greatest enemy
--Conflict, Disturbed

Eyes may open but cannot see
Torn open to a bleak reality
The silent waves of a pitch black sea
Laying waste the last of me
--Words Mean Nothing, Veil of Sorrow

After serving in the conflict overseas.
And the time that he served,
Had shattered all his nerves,
And left a little shrapnel in his knee
--Sam Stone, John Prine

Ranger Observation:
Calling a war a conflict is like
calling a sniper a people person
_________________

After watching viewing several memorial Day programs stating how we honored our dead from foreign conflicts, the word began assaulting my ears.

Conflict (n): A state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash. A state of open, often prolonged fighting; a battle or war.

Why do we use the word "conflict" to describe the brutal fact of war? It seems too mild a word when the result is the reality of combat deaths. Since WW II the U.S. somehow lost the will or ability to declare war, even when our armies were locked in deadly conflict. Even when 35,000 Soldiers died in Korea or 58,000 in Vietnam, we could not bring ourselves to call the deadly activity for what it was. They were conflicts, altercations, scuffles . . .

Why do we have an overseeing agency called the Department of Defense? Why not call it the Department of Overseas Conflict? Then our wars would be simple matters of conflict resolution, with our Soldiers becoming arbitrators. The Combat Action Badge (CAB) could then morph into the Conflict Arbitration Badge, with the Combat Infantry Badge (CIB) becoming the Conflict Infantry Badge.

The next logical step would be to amend The Constitution to legalize the concept of endless conflict by granting the President the authority to declare CONFLICT, thereby simplifying the whole shooting match by making WAR obsolescent. Congress would be disburdened of a duty they are clearly too timid to exercise.

It is so simple: In a snap of the finger war becomes truly a thing of the past. Simple, except the dead patriots in the cemeteries will still stay dead a long time.

Dumb and Dumber

People only see
what they are prepared to see
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

A man willing to work, and unable to find work,
is perhaps the saddest sight
that fortune's inequality exhibits under this sun
--Thomas Carlyle

Let me tell you
You are no exception to the rule
--Boogie Oogie Oogie, A Taste of Honey
_____________

People hear what they want to hear and see what they wish to see. Ranger is no exception.

When he read,

U.S. officials recently have warned that the nation's recession and global financial crisis were top security concerns. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has said the economic weakness could lead to political instability in many developing nations.

Ranger thought Blair was saying that the economy was so bad it is obvious that the U.S.'s elective wars must be reined in, with the resultant savings redirected to the domestic economy. But as the article progressed, it was clear that what he actually meant was the dead opposite.

Though President Obama has proposed a 4% increase in defense spending over the next fiscal year, "many defense analysts believe that Pentagon budgets, one of the largest shares of government spending, are likely targets for cuts," which could "create the perception of American weakness," said Dov Zakheim, a Defense Department comptroller.

You may say the 4% increase is small, but put into perspective, remember how hard it is to raise the minimum wage, or to have a Veterans Administration health care budget ready before the start of the fiscal year (it has only happened 3 times in the last 22 years, according to DAV Magazine.) Federal money is always hard won, but it is always there for the lean, green killing machine.

It is foolishness to further militarize an economy which cannot sustain a civilian sector, let alone a military one. As for weakness, that is not a perception, but a fact. Strength is not determined by the fact that the U.S. can dust the world over with our nukes.

We cannot win a conventional war against any major power. We can't even secure the street corners of Kabul and Baghdad. Throwing more money at the Department of Defense will not change this fact.

Analysts said, "Russia appears to be continuing efforts to modernize its military, especially its nuclear forces, which could pose a problem for a U.S. government that may slash defense spending." Does anyone see the contradiction: When the U.S. beefs up its military, that is good and necessary; when Russia does it, it is a bad thing.

The best course of action would seem disarmament, rather than perpetuation of the futile arms race. Arms races never have winners.

However, on a brighter note, economist Richard Cooper testified that not all is gloom and doom. "Cooper said that a tighter job market could drive more recruits to the military. . ."

This seems like a return to economically induced indentured servitude. Slavery may be illegal, yet this is a back-door enslavement. So, broken banks and a failing economy turn out to have a patriotic lining, after all.

It is time for America to become a real world player by abandoning the war policies that dictate every aspect of our national life. The U.S. is not the sole remaining superpower, but it is the last nation stupid enough to embrace war as a way of life. in his Army Echoes essay, General George Casey wrote we are in an era of "perpetual conflict."

He is correct, but he fails to mention the conflict is of our own making.