[lit-ideas] Re: The US Army in mutiny?
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 20:26:39 -0400
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't referring to the U.S. Army
at all but to the civilian suprastructure that runs the Army and the rest
of the military. The civilian command, the ones Zinni is attacking, are
the ones who run the country for the benefit of the corporations. That's
not cynicism. It's simply true. And now, off to watch Tokyo Story, 1952
Japanese movie. Will let you know if it's any good.
> [Original Message]
> From: John Wager <john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 4/15/2006 7:52:26 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The US Army in mutiny?
>
> Andy Amago wrote
>
> >Eric, we (including you) are so irrelevant to these people that it can't
be
> >described. If they cared about keeping you safe, they wouldn't have
> >invaded Iraq and wouldn't even be considering invading Iran. This
country
> >is an afterthought. You saw it yourself in the Forbes quotes. The ADM
> >thing I posted sounds like a conspiracy, but ultimately it's like Donald
> >Trump's tag line for The Apprentice: It's nothing personal. It's just
> >business. They're just doing business at the top of the world. The U.S.
> >as a nation exists for the corporations and that's all.
> >
> >
>
> The U.S. Army is one of the most responsible and humane organizations
> that I have had the opportunity to serve in. I did not always agree with
> their decisions, and I got into a bit of hot water over this, but my
> considered opinion is that these people know the cost in blood of
> military action, and try to do their job knowing that.
>
> Of course there are officers who just want to advance rank and have all
> the right tickets punched to do so, and don't care about anything except
> their pet project. But I'd be willing to bet that for every officer at
> the Pentagon who does this, there are one or two other officers who are
> kept up at night worrying about how to deal with that guy.
>
> Of course there are military weapons that get out of budget. The two
> most clear examples are the Army mobile anti-aircraft platform
> nick-named "Sgt. York" and the new howitzer. But to be fair, even
> though the newer cruise missiles or smart bombs might be cheaper and
> more accurate, you've probably never had to call in air strikes or
> artillery counter-battery fire. What counts is how fast the support
> gets to you. I am not sure about whether the new howitzer was the best
> solution to this problem, but depending on munitions from another branch
> of the service like the Navy or Air Force will NEVER get to the troops
> fast enough. The Army is trying to make close-up, modern, fast support
> available to the front-line troops, and I can't find fault with that.
>
> Rumsfeld strikes me as a person who looks at spreadsheets and decides on
> the basis of cost-effectiveness what to do, without even talking to the
> actual people most affected by the decisions, pre-judging them as
> "biased" because they know what they're doing.
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> "Never attribute to malice that which can be
> explained by incompetence and ignorance."
> -------------------------------------------------
> John Wager john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Lisle, IL, USA
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
