Hypocrisy (was Re: Card's "Homecoming" series)
what does THIS button do?
>Will Shetterly said:
>>Wiliam December Starr said:
>>>I have a lot of problems with the doctrine of "If you aren't willing to
>>>fight and die, you have no business sending others to do so."
>>What's "cunning" about this tactic is that it asks people to consider their
>>positions in a direct and an intimate way.
>
>In such a way that the answer as to whether or not to fight will always be
>"no", because most people cannot serve as frontline combat soldiers. Thus, it
>is not an honest test.
>
>>But if you're not willing to do something yourself, perhaps it
>>shouldn't be done, even if there are poor people around who might do it for
>>you if you paid them.
>
>The nature of modern warfare is such that only a minority of troops actually
>engage the enemy. This is unavoidable.
I don't have any trouble with this formulation. In fact, I see it as
syntactically (topologically? logically?) equivalent to that cornerstone
of the dominant Western religion: Do unto others as you would have them etc...
Neither am I persuaded that actual front-line service in an active conflict
is required to validate one's "willingness".
I would like to see a coherent argument from the affirmative illustrating
the moral correctness of sacrificing another's life for a purpose unworthy of
one's own.
Or, more bluntly, how can you possibly say to someone "I don't _wanna_ die --
die in my stead."
"But we can't all be on the pointy end" doesn't cut it.
My solution: give everyone a turn in the barrel, and good luck to all.
.max
William December Starr
monn...@adcon.fnal.gov (what does THIS button do?) said:
> Or, more bluntly, how can you possibly say to someone "I don't _wanna_
> die -- die in my stead."
>
> "But we can't all be on the pointy end" doesn't cut it.
That's easy: "He volunteered to die in my stead."
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
what does THIS button do?
>J (what does THIS button do?) said:
>
>> Or, more bluntly, how can you possibly say to someone "I don't _wanna_
>> die -- die in my stead."
>>
>> "But we can't all be on the pointy end" doesn't cut it.
>
> That's easy: "He volunteered to die in my stead."
But then you end up with the situation we're seeing more of in this
country: members of the less economically advantaged classes fighting, and
dying -- or at least finding themselves in harm's way -- for the priveleged
class. If any of them complain about their lot, they're told "Shut up
and soldier, Soldier, you volunteered."
Now I believe it's proper to tell a soldier to shut up and soldier (barring
war crime type stuff, duh), because the pointy end shouldn't be a debating
society.
But. I'm a little disquited by the concept of a priveleged class which
reaps all the benefits of a military force, but never shares it's mortal
jepordy.
.max
what does THIS button do?
> Monningh said:
>
>>My solution: give everyone a turn in the barrel, and good luck to all.
>
> untrained people in this role, your side would LOSE. I understand your moral
> point, but there is no way to implement it in reality.
My it's chilly in here. Is there a window open? I feel the chill breeze of a
(wait for it)
Draft.
It's not really necess' for everyone to be CI (an army needs a lot of tail
for each tooth). And when all is done, esp. in the modern theatre, there's
plenty of risk for all, some more than others, but safety for none.
The idea here is that having spent some time at risk, one might better
appreciate the implications of sending others into the sludge.
I am pleased that we have common ground in the moral arena, even if we
disagree about implementation.
.max
Jordan S. Bassior
>My solution: give everyone a turn in the barrel, and good luck to all.
How, though? Combat infantry are trained specialists; if you simply put random,
untrained people in this role, your side would LOSE. I understand your moral
point, but there is no way to implement it in reality.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and
a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Jordan S. Bassior
>If fallible organic RAM serves, anybody who wanted to enlist HAD to be taken
in for
>service of some kind. If a paraplegic demanded his right to serve -- in order
>to become a full voting citizen -- then the military HAD to find a suitable
place for
>him, if only testing new bugs and cures.
>
>Personally I have no truck with people who demand OTHERS die in causes that
they
>themselves are not willing to die in. That includes pacifists who demand the
protection
>of the law and the military, militant religious types who demand their rights
>(but refuse to serve) and others of that ilk.
Ok ... that's a totally different scenario. I'll agree with you on that.
See, what I *thought* the original poster had said was that only combat
veterans were qualfiied to vote for war, which implied that all non-veterans
must vote against war, which would mean ... you do see the problem with that,
right?
Will Shetterly
>they
>themselves are not willing to die in. That includes pacifists who demand
>the protection
>of the law and the military, militant religious types who demand their rights
>(but refuse to
>serve) and others of that ilk.
>
>
>Reply to Lan...@TieTax.com
Do you know of any pacifists who demand military protection? I don't.
cheers,
Will
--
"Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest."
--Mark Twain
Jordan S. Bassior
>But then you end up with the situation we're seeing more of in this
>country: members of the less economically advantaged classes fighting, and
>dying -- or at least finding themselves in harm's way -- for the priveleged
class.
This is hardly something new, either in this or in other countries. I would
point out that if we didn't fight our wars, the consequences of our cowardice
would hurt the less "privileged" classes, probably before they hurt the richer
people. Example: if we'd backed down in the Gulf, the resultant rising oil
prices would have hurt the lower-middle classes a lot more than the wealthy.
Jordan S. Bassior
>My it's chilly in here. Is there a window open? I feel the chill breeze of a
>(wait for it)
>
>Draft.
We had a peacetime draft before; the results were hardly happy for our country
or the fortunes of our arms. In anything short of a major war, most Americans
aren't that interesteed in joining up.
Losing the capability to fight small to medium sized wars would be disastrous
both for America and the rest of the world; our inactivity would practically
ensure that we'd have to fight large wars later. Fighting such wars at the
expense of major unrest at home would be very bad for our social cohesion.
Also, you would either have to have an exemption for college students and
people engaged in crucial work, or the draft would disrupt our whole
educational and research system. (The British made that mistake in one phase of
World War One). But if you have these exemptions, you wind up with the worst
case scenario ... poor kids FORCED to join the Army and risk their lives for
America; rich kids staying at home and protesting. We saw how well that split
worked in the Vietnam War.
>The idea here is that having spent some time at risk, one might better
>appreciate the implications of sending others into the sludge.
I do see your point, but most of the rich kids would wind up either exempt or
as REMF's anyway. You know that's how it would work, if you remember the
1960's.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Do you know of any pacifists who demand military protection? I don't.
Any pacifist who understood what would actually happen to him were he somehow
magically exempted from the military protection that covers his whole society
would commit suicide; it's an easier death. I suspect that most pacifists don't
understand the nature of the beasts that an organized military keeps at bay.
(Hint: foreign governments are the LEAST of them).
William Davis
what does THIS button do? wrote:
>
> jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) writes:
> > Monningh said:
> >
> >>My solution: give everyone a turn in the barrel, and good luck to all.
> >
> > How, though? Combat infantry are trained specialists; if you simply put random,
> > untrained people in this role, your side would LOSE. I understand your moral
> > point, but there is no way to implement it in reality.
>
> My it's chilly in here. Is there a window open? I feel the chill breeze of a
> (wait for it)
>
> Draft.
>
> It's not really necess' for everyone to be CI (an army needs a lot of tail
> for each tooth). And when all is done, esp. in the modern theatre, there's
> plenty of risk for all, some more than others, but safety for none.
>
> The idea here is that having spent some time at risk, one might better
> appreciate the implications of sending others into the sludge.
>
> I am pleased that we have common ground in the moral arena, even if we
> disagree about implementation.
>
> .max
Of course, the base assumption of this is that if everyone knew what it
was like to be a soldier, there would be fewer, or no, wars. I'm not
sure how spending four or more years being indoctrinated on the use of
force in a culture where successful participation in a conflict is
helpful, if not necessary, in your status will produce more pacifists,
but it is worth a try.
Robert A. Woodward
> jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) writes:
> > Monningh said:
> >
> >>My solution: give everyone a turn in the barrel, and good luck to all.
> >
> > How, though? Combat infantry are trained specialists; if you simply
put random,
> > untrained people in this role, your side would LOSE. I understand your moral
> > point, but there is no way to implement it in reality.
>
>
> My it's chilly in here. Is there a window open? I feel the chill breeze of a
> (wait for it)
>
> Draft.
>
> It's not really necess' for everyone to be CI (an army needs a lot of tail
> for each tooth). And when all is done, esp. in the modern theatre, there's
> plenty of risk for all, some more than others, but safety for none.
Unless you have to raise a BIG army; the draft is only going to take a
small fraction of your 18-22 year olds. And since the pressure to avoid
drafting the most "useful" civilians would be irresitable, we are back to
the original situation.
Universal service doesn't help either (again the most "useful" civilians
will end up in reserve organizations).
Kristopher/EOS
>
>> J (what does THIS button do?) said:
>>
>>> Or, more bluntly, how can you possibly say to someone
>>> "I don't _wanna_ die -- die in my stead."
>>>
>>> "But we can't all be on the pointy end" doesn't cut it.
>>
>> That's easy: "He volunteered to die in my stead."
>
> of in this country: members of the less economically
> advantaged classes fighting, and dying -- or at least
> finding themselves in harm's way -- for the priveleged
> told "Shut up and soldier, Soldier, you volunteered."
That's all that needs to be said...they volunteered.
Kristopher/EOS
James Nicoll
Robert A. Woodward <robe...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>>
>> My it's chilly in here. Is there a window open? I feel the chill breeze of a
>> (wait for it)
>>
>> Draft.
>>
>> It's not really necess' for everyone to be CI (an army needs a lot of tail
>> for each tooth). And when all is done, esp. in the modern theatre, there's
>> plenty of risk for all, some more than others, but safety for none.
>
>Unless you have to raise a BIG army; the draft is only going to take a
>small fraction of your 18-22 year olds. And since the pressure to avoid
>drafting the most "useful" civilians would be irresitable, we are back to
>the original situation.
>
males 18-20? What do they do with all those people [aside from lowering
the apparent unemployed rates]?
--
Larisa Migachyov
Israel has a universal draft for both males and females; but considering
how small the country is, they need all the people they can get.
--
Larisa Migachyov
Quaternion Press Publishing House
Have a math question? Ask the Quaternion at
http://www.quaternionpress.com/mathhelp.html
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <robertaw-261...@blv-pm101-ip2.halcyon.com>,
> Robert A. Woodward <robe...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> My it's chilly in here. Is there a window open? I feel the chill breeze of a
> >> (wait for it)
> >>
> >> Draft.
> >>
> >> It's not really necess' for everyone to be CI (an army needs a lot of tail
> >> for each tooth). And when all is done, esp. in the modern theatre, there's
> >> plenty of risk for all, some more than others, but safety for none.
> >
> >Unless you have to raise a BIG army; the draft is only going to take a
> >small fraction of your 18-22 year olds. And since the pressure to avoid
> >drafting the most "useful" civilians would be irresitable, we are back to
> >the original situation.
> >
> Don't various European countries have a universal draft for
> males 18-20? What do they do with all those people [aside from lowering
> the apparent unemployed rates]?
In the case of France, _not_ send them overseas to fight.
Nathan Raye
Mikkel Larsen
>Don't various European countries have a universal draft for
>males 18-20? What do they do with all those people [aside from lowering
>the apparent unemployed rates]?
>
In Denmark they take as many as they need and let the rest go
home with a letter which say that they can be drafted until the
age of 40 in case of war. (At least they did in 1973 when I tried
it)
Mikkel Larsen
what does THIS button do?
>
>>But then you end up with the situation we're seeing more of in this
>>country: members of the less economically advantaged classes fighting, and
>>dying -- or at least finding themselves in harm's way -- for the priveleged
> class.
>
> point out that if we didn't fight our wars, the consequences of our cowardice
> would hurt the less "privileged" classes, probably before they hurt the richer
> people. Example: if we'd backed down in the Gulf, the resultant rising oil
> prices would have hurt the lower-middle classes a lot more than the wealthy.
You're correct that it's not a new situation, but it -- the disconnect of
shared risk between the rich and poor -- is getting worse. There are fewer
veterans now serving in congress than have served in the last several decades,
and affluent white (the largest element of the "rich") participation in
military service is at all time lows.
It's my belief that those holding the reigns of power would be more restrained
in its application if their children had to serve as its instruments. [yes,
there's a hole here, but i'll address it in a different followup]
.max
what does THIS button do?
> Max said:
>>Draft.
>
> We had a peacetime draft before; the results were hardly happy for our country
> or the fortunes of our arms.
(We're talkin' Viet Nam, right?)
I'd argue that one reason the peace movement was so widespread is because of
the draft. God know how long we'd have been there w/o all those protests.
> Losing the capability to fight small to medium sized wars would be disastrous
> both for America and the rest of the world; our inactivity would practically
> ensure that we'd have to fight large wars later. Fighting such wars at the
> expense of major unrest at home would be very bad for our social cohesion.
I don't see it the same way. I believe we can generate a national concensus
_if_ the adventure is justified. But it ought to be hard to get everyone
whipped up to fight a war.
> Also, you would either have to have an exemption for college students and
> people engaged in crucial work, or the draft would disrupt our whole
> educational and research system.(The British made that mistake in one phase
> of World War One).
[ I don't know to what you refer to wrt WWI, sorry I can't respond to it]
I am utterly, resolutely, unalterably, absolutely opposed to academic
deferments. Any argument justifying academic deferments is, at its core
an assertion that some people are more valuable than others. Academic
deferments are repugnant, elitist, classist, anti-American, and anti-religious.
Did I mention that I have a low opinion of academic deferments?
> I do see your point, but most of the rich kids would wind up either exempt or
> as REMF's anyway. You know that's how it would work, if you remember the
> 1960's.
Sad, but probably true. Blue sky me.
.max
what does THIS button do?
> Unless you have to raise a BIG army; the draft is only going to take a
> small fraction of your 18-22 year olds. And since the pressure to avoid
> drafting the most "useful" civilians would be irresitable, we are back to
> the original situation.
>
> Universal service doesn't help either (again the most "useful" civilians
> will end up in reserve organizations).
You have a valid point, and i agree that exempting the most "useful" would
utterly destroy the social equality of the draft. Ditto reservist duty. (I'm
not dumping on reservists, I'm specifically thinking about Dan Quayle).
Although it does occur to me that novel litigation might concievably make a
dent in this problem. naaaah.
.max
what does THIS button do?
>> appreciate the implications of sending others into the sludge.
>
> was like to be a soldier, there would be fewer, or no, wars. I'm not
> sure how spending four or more years being indoctrinated on the use of
> force in a culture where successful participation in a conflict is
> helpful, if not necessary, in your status will produce more pacifists,
> but it is worth a try.
Well, if one what it's like to shoot a gun (or cannon), maybe one can better
appreciate the consequences of asking someone else to shoot one, or face the
fire of one.
.max
what does THIS button do?
>> But then you end up with the situation we're seeing more
>> of in this country: members of the less economically
>> advantaged classes fighting, and dying -- or at least
>> finding themselves in harm's way -- for the priveleged
>> class. If any of them complain about their lot, they're
>> told "Shut up and soldier, Soldier, you volunteered."
>
> That's all that needs to be said...they volunteered.
I'm gonna plead acute l-tryptophan syndrom when I wrote the above. What it
should say is "If anyone (not necessarily a soldier) complains abou tthe
soldier's lot, they're told the Soldier volunteered, end of discussion."
I'm not trying to weasel on this, but I was trying to avoid prolix yesterday,
and with brevity lost precision.
///
I wrote before I realized what was in the >> above:
There evolves an environment where no one speaks for the serviceperson. I cite
your and Starr's followups as proof of point.
Take a look at recruitment, retention and manning numbers: they're awful.
"They volunteered" can easily become a justification for neglect, indifference,
contempt.
.max
Michael Brazier
>
> Of course, the base assumption of this is that if everyone knew what it
> was like to be a soldier, there would be fewer, or no, wars. I'm not
> sure how spending four or more years being indoctrinated on the use of
> force in a culture where successful participation in a conflict is
> helpful, if not necessary, in your status will produce more pacifists,
> but it is worth a try.
Do you know many soldiers? Combat veterans generally aren't warmongers;
they know, from their own experience, what "going to war" really means
in terms of human suffering. For that reason it's quite hard to
convince them that going to war _this_ time is justified. And any army
worth its pay will see to it that its veterans' knowledge of war's
horrors is communicated to the new recruits -- along with the need for
courage when facing said horrors, of course.
--
Michael Brazier But what are all these vanities to me
Whose thoughts are full of indices and surds?
X^2 + 7X + 53 = 11/3
-- Lewis Carroll
what does THIS button do?
I'd like to take this opportunity to revise and extend my earlier remarks in
this thread.
What is all this willingness stuff about?
Let's set the way-back machine to yesterday, when I came upon the following:
>Wiliam December Starr said:
>
>>I have a lot of problems with the doctrine of "If you aren't willing to
>>fight and die, you have no business sending others to do so."
As I've said, I don't have problems with that doctrine, so far so good, nothing
new here.
I think it's morally incumbent upon _anyone_ imprecating for the use of
military force to reflect carefully before coming to their conclusion. It
shouldn't be a trivially reached dedision to send people in harm's way.
Now let's talk about "willingness". As I've said earlier, I'm not persuaded
you have to be a front line Infantryman to have "willingness". I'm not sure
that you have to be a vet -- or even in the military!
A quick observation: it's not at all reasonable to expect every citizen of
the US to serve at arms. Our population is too big, and our military is too
small.
Another observation: a vet, retired or discharged from the military, is
unlikely to ever be sucked back in.
So, where does that leave willingness? How about as a deeply considered
thought experiment?
Two examples of thought experiment: I've thought about WWII on occaison, and
I believe it was morally correct for us (US) to get involved. I can never serve
in WWII, but I'd be willing to -- I'd like to believe that were I alive then
that I'd have joined up.
Next example: Balkans peacekeeping. This is a very tough one for me. Are we
really doing any good? Will the various embittered subnational factions live
in peace when we leave or are we just delaying yet another episode in a
centuries-long tradition of genocide and reprisal? Is it worth it? _Could_ the
balkans flame up into another regional, and eventually global, conflict?
I dunno the answers to these questions and I've heard _all_ the arguments from
both sides. I don't know. So how does that relate to willingness?
Well....I guess I'd say that I wouldn't be all that willing to die to keep
two mutually villified religio-ethnic groups bent on mutual extermination
apart, unless I was darned sure that I was saving the world from WWIII.
If these mutual victimizers couldn't spark WWIII, and if they were going to
go at it tooth and nail, hammer and anvil as soon as I left (or after they
killed me so they could get at each other) I'd be damnably UNwilling to go
there.
So I have a difficult time supporting peacekeeping in the Balkans. I support it
while holding my nose, hoping that the Commander in Chief, for whom my respect
is occaisonally ... ambiguous ..., knows what the hell he's doing.
My trepidations about peacekeeping means that you won't hear me extolling the
virtues of playing beat cop to every cursed corner of the planet. Simply
because if it was me going there, I'd not want to die just to protect two
nutcases who are going to kill me first and each other second. [Again, if
it prevented WWIII or something like that, I'd go anyway, or would have if
I were younger -- too old to join now]
So for me, willingness _can't_ translate into service. But that immunity from
service doesn't immunize me from the moral responsibility to think very
carefully about the consequences of sending a 19 year old out to do my bidding.
So that's part of my revised, extended remarks.
.max
loox like prolix to me.
what does THIS button do?
If you know me personally, you know why I have bugs up my kiester when it
comes to service, drafts, deferments, military adventures etc.
So why is this stuff a hot button w/ me? What's my perspective?
Lessee...
I was born in Ft. Knox while my dad was learning to be a tank commander. I
didn't really see him until I was 5. He spent a bit of time in what we used
to call West Germany as a tank commander guarding somethig called the Fulda
Gap from bad people called commies.
When I was 6 I watched my father on national television, protecting Freedom
Marchers in the south from clansmen.
Military virtues were part of the zietgiest of growing up in places where I
grew up. Places like Fort Hood and Fort Riley. Every day at 5:00 (6?) all
outdoors activity would stop and we would face the nearest flagpole with
respect for the lowering of the Flag. Pledge of Allegance -- we _believed_!
As a kid, I was surrounded by genuine war heros. I looked up to the Seargants
Major, the Colenols, Brigadiers, Majors and Captains, Spec.4's and Corporals
as avatars of Truth Justice and all that stuff.
Insulated from the social upheavals of the 60's, my cultural references were
t.v. shows like Combat, Rat Patrol, Victory At Sea, Star Trek and Voyage to
See What's at the Bottom.
On Army posts, the Boy Scouts were __very__ popular. I did the whole schmeer of
scouting (cub, webelo, BS). When I was in second grade joined the Jr. NRA, and
went to shooting practice every tuesday night.
When my father was in 'Nam the second time, I was in the sixth/seventh grade.
It was then I discovered [writer bows to west] Heinlein.
My first kiss was with a Colonel's daughter. Second and third one's too. :-)
Child of the Fortress, me.
.max
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>
>Do you know of any pacifists who demand military protection? I don't.
Most of them live in countries where they get it, even as they loudly
condemn it. Funny how that works.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
button do?) wrote:
>But then you end up with the situation we're seeing more of in this
>country: members of the less economically advantaged classes fighting, and
>dying -- or at least finding themselves in harm's way -- for the priveleged
>class. If any of them complain about their lot, they're told "Shut up
>and soldier, Soldier, you volunteered."
Actually, military service, at least in the United States, is a
traditional path of social mobility. Persons who serve in the
military get an employment record, acquire some skills, get some
educational benefits. The rate of pay does periodically drift below
what it should, particularly for junior noncoms with families, but
senior noncoms usually do pretty well. What's more, the _children_ of
senior noncoms go to college and join the "privileged classes."
One of the problems with the current, volunteer, high-tech military,
is that from this standpoint, the standards are too high. We take
high school grads and people who are already on their way to doing
reasonably well in life. The traditional path of joining the marines
or serving time is no longer open to many unsocialized young men.
IOW, we should be taking more of the "less privileged class," not
less.
--
Pete McCutchen
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
what does THIS button do? wrote:
<snip>
> Military virtues were part of the zietgiest of growing up in places where I
> grew up. Places like Fort Hood and Fort Riley. Every day at 5:00 (6?) all
> outdoors activity would stop and we would face the nearest flagpole with
> respect for the lowering of the Flag.
Yes, 5:00.
Nathan Raye
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
Pete McCutchen wrote:
Which is, I think, a reason to support the Army's plan to accept more non-high
school graduates. Recruits under this program must prove their bona fides by
possessing a GED and several years good work experience.
Nathan Raye
what does THIS button do?
> monn...@adcon.fnal.gov (what does THIS button do?) writes:
>
>>I am utterly, resolutely, unalterably, absolutely opposed to academic
>>deferments. Any argument justifying academic deferments is, at its core
>>an assertion that some people are more valuable than others.
> But, in fact, some rather small number of people are *immensely* more
> valuable to their country in a war doing relevant R&D than they are
> out there with a rifle. I don't think we can afford the luxury of the
> sort of "handicapper general" egalitarianism that ignores this. War is
> not a gentleman's game any longer; it's real.
I'll readily agree some people have more apparent econometric potential than
others, and even agree (or possibly assert) that birthright has some non-trival
effect on potential.
But we don't (shouldn't) evaluate a person's right to life, the persuit of
happiness, their potential for spiritual growth, etc. based on econometric
projections. In theory, we are all equal before the Law (and presumably God).
Now, I believe boffin caught up in a draft shouldn't be deferred simply because
of her potential for breakthrough science or engineering. She should be drafted
and sent back to school, and when she matriculates, march smartly to ONR and
discharge her duty.
But I'm not persuaded a large percentage of the not-at-risk class falls into
the boffin category.
(There's some debate in the US right now as to the intellectual stature of a
major presidential candidate, one known to have come from a _very_ well off
family. I'd probably not send him to the Office of Naval Research, in spite
of his silver spoon pedigree. Hmmm... what do you call those guys that screw
the pointy things into artillery shells..... that'd be job he could handle)
[apologize.cheap.shot.acknowleged]
I summation, I agree, but I don't think the population of folk in question is
so large as to invalidate the core of my argument.
.max
William December Starr
monn...@adcon.fnal.gov (what does THIS button do?) said:
>> That's easy: "He volunteered to die in my stead."
>
> But then you end up with the situation we're seeing more of in this
> country: members of the less economically advantaged classes fighting,
> and dying -- or at least finding themselves in harm's way -- for the
> priveleged class. If any of them complain about their lot, they're
> told "Shut up and soldier, Soldier, you volunteered."
Ouch. I admit I hadn't thought of that. Too much exposure to a perhaps
romanticized view of non-conscript militaries in various sf works,
including -- under a special let's-call-it-sf-just-this-once exemption --
Tom Clancy's, I suppose.
If we postulate a military comprised only of people who signed up truly
willingly -- out of patriotism, naivete/foolishness, desire to play with
big toys that go bang, nothing better to do, whatever -- rather than in
part or full because of economic necessity, I'd stick to my point. Add
in the reality of a seriously unbalanced economic structure on the
civilian side, though, and it does tend to all go mushy.
> Now I believe it's proper to tell a soldier to shut up and soldier
> (barring war crime type stuff, duh), because the pointy end shouldn't
> be a debating society.
>
> But. I'm a little disquited by the concept of a priveleged class
> which reaps all the benefits of a military force, but never shares
> it's mortal jepordy.
Speaking as something of a liberal, I'd suggest that the answer is to
use -- gasp -- governmental force to reduce the size of the economic gap
between the top and bottom levels of the society.
We will now have a brief moment of silence while the propertarians, the
Randites and assorted other usual suspects scramble for their blood-
pressure medicine. And their guns.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
William December Starr
> My trepidations about peacekeeping means that you won't hear me
> extolling the virtues of playing beat cop to every cursed corner of
> the planet. Simply because if it was me going there, I'd not want to
> die just to protect two nutcases who are going to kill me first and
> each other second. [Again, if it prevented WWIII or something like
> that, I'd go anyway, or would have if I were younger -- too old to
> join now]
I believe the theory is that "you" would not be protecting the nutcases
but rather everybody else in the area who's being perpetually victimized
_by_ the nutcases.
Whether such a mission is logistically feasible will depend upon the
specific circumstances of the situation, of course, but I think it's
important to at least properly define the mission goals.
Justin Fang
what does THIS button do? <monn...@adcon.fnal.gov> wrote:
[draft, desireability of]
>It's my belief that those holding the reigns of power would be more
>restrained in its application if their children had to serve as its
>instruments. [yes, there's a hole here, but i'll address it in a different
>followup]
The fear of a public opinion backlash (as expressed in polls and at the
ballot box) caused by American casualties already seems to serve as a
substantial restraint on the application of military power by those holding
the reigns, at least in America.
David Dyer-Bennet
>I am utterly, resolutely, unalterably, absolutely opposed to academic
>deferments. Any argument justifying academic deferments is, at its core
>an assertion that some people are more valuable than others. Academic
>deferments are repugnant, elitist, classist, anti-American, and anti-religious.
But, in fact, some rather small number of people are *immensely* more
valuable to their country in a war doing relevant R&D than they are
out there with a rifle. I don't think we can afford the luxury of the
sort of "handicapper general" egalitarianism that ignores this. War is
not a gentleman's game any longer; it's real.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Join the 20th century before it's too late! / dd...@dd-b.net
http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms
David Dyer-Bennet
> William Davis <wis...@weblnk.net> writes:
>> what does THIS button do? wrote:
>>
>>> The idea here is that having spent some time at risk, one might better
>>> appreciate the implications of sending others into the sludge.
>>
>> Of course, the base assumption of this is that if everyone knew what it
>> was like to be a soldier, there would be fewer, or no, wars. I'm not
>> sure how spending four or more years being indoctrinated on the use of
>> force in a culture where successful participation in a conflict is
>> helpful, if not necessary, in your status will produce more pacifists,
>> but it is worth a try.
>Well, if one what it's like to shoot a gun (or cannon), maybe one can better
>appreciate the consequences of asking someone else to shoot one, or face the
>fire of one.
Well, I haven't tried it myself. I'm sure we're likely to hear from
people who can speak to the subject from personal authority. But,
from my research, gathering the reactions of many people over time, it
appears to be the case that facing the fire of one is really
*immensely* different from anything else. I doubt that basic training
particularly teaches you anything about that part.
Jordan S. Bassior
>One of the problems with the current, volunteer, high-tech military,
>is that from this standpoint, the standards are too high. We take
>high school grads and people who are already on their way to doing
>reasonably well in life. The traditional path of joining the marines
>or serving time is no longer open to many unsocialized young men.
>IOW, we should be taking more of the "less privileged class," not
>less.
Problem is that the primary role of our armed forces is to defend America and
her interests. To this end, we do need a certain minimum troop quality. I
wouldn't want to turn the Army into a mammoth jobs program at the price of
destroying its effectiveness.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and
a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
David Dyer-Bennet
>(David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>> monn...@adcon.fnal.gov (what does THIS button do?) writes:
>>
>>>I am utterly, resolutely, unalterably, absolutely opposed to academic
>>>deferments. Any argument justifying academic deferments is, at its core
>>>an assertion that some people are more valuable than others.
>> But, in fact, some rather small number of people are *immensely* more
>> valuable to their country in a war doing relevant R&D than they are
>> out there with a rifle. I don't think we can afford the luxury of the
>> sort of "handicapper general" egalitarianism that ignores this. War is
>> not a gentleman's game any longer; it's real.
[snip]
>I summation, I agree, but I don't think the population of folk in question is
>so large as to invalidate the core of my argument.
Now, what happened to people with academic deferments when they
graduated? Seems like *then* (in a major, draft-based, war) would be
the time to grab the ones that didn't find deferred jobs.
(I'm pretty much against the idea of the draft; if there aren't enough
people willing to volunteer to save their society, I tend to think it
dosn't deserve to be saved. )
Will Shetterly
Can you name three of these pacifists who demand military protection? Or even
one? Or maybe give me the name of one of their groups?
All the pacifists I know of have the courage of their conviction. They often
end up in prison for things like protesting American tax dollars going toward
teaching the officers of Central American dictators how to be effective
torturers at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, GA. I haven't heard of
one of them asking for military protection from the military that they're
protesting.
cheers,
Will
--
"Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest."
--Mark Twain
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
Will Shetterly wrote:
> >On 26 Nov 1999 07:56:51 GMT, wshet...@aol.compost (Will Shetterly)
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>Do you know of any pacifists who demand military protection? I don't.
> >
> >Most of them live in countries where they get it, even as they loudly
> >condemn it. Funny how that works.
> >
> >Pete McCutchen
>
> Can you name three of these pacifists who demand military protection? Or even
> one? Or maybe give me the name of one of their groups?
>
> All the pacifists I know of have the courage of their conviction.
The Quakers for one. They live in a society whose freedom (including religious
freedom) has been protected by force. They declaim force while reaping its
benefits. In a free society, people can believe what they wish. What really bugs
me is that pacifists are often regarded with respect - not for having the courage
of their convictions - but for _not_ serving.
Nathan Raye
William Davis
Michael Brazier wrote:
>
> William Davis wrote:
> >
> > Of course, the base assumption of this is that if everyone knew what it
> > was like to be a soldier, there would be fewer, or no, wars. I'm not
> > sure how spending four or more years being indoctrinated on the use of
> > force in a culture where successful participation in a conflict is
> > helpful, if not necessary, in your status will produce more pacifists,
> > but it is worth a try.
>
> Do you know many soldiers? Combat veterans generally aren't warmongers;
> they know, from their own experience, what "going to war" really means
> in terms of human suffering. For that reason it's quite hard to
> convince them that going to war _this_ time is justified. And any army
> worth its pay will see to it that its veterans' knowledge of war's
> horrors is communicated to the new recruits -- along with the need for
> courage when facing said horrors, of course.
>
>
They may not be warmongers, but neither are they pacifists. I do not
believe soldiers will reject war wholesale because they know its
realities, that is the mistake made by many after World War I (The War
to End All Wars).
William Davis
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net wrote:
>
> The Quakers for one. They live in a society whose freedom (including religious
> freedom) has been protected by force. They declaim force while reaping its
> benefits. In a free society, people can believe what they wish. What really bugs
> me is that pacifists are often regarded with respect - not for having the courage
> of their convictions - but for _not_ serving.
>
> Nathan Raye
There is also a long tradition of Quakers serving in the military in
non-combat roles, like medics.
William Davis
"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
>
> Pete McCutchen said:
>
> >One of the problems with the current, volunteer, high-tech military,
> >is that from this standpoint, the standards are too high. We take
> >high school grads and people who are already on their way to doing
> >reasonably well in life. The traditional path of joining the marines
> >or serving time is no longer open to many unsocialized young men.
> >IOW, we should be taking more of the "less privileged class," not
> >less.
>
> Problem is that the primary role of our armed forces is to defend America and
> her interests. To this end, we do need a certain minimum troop quality. I
> wouldn't want to turn the Army into a mammoth jobs program at the price of
> destroying its effectiveness.
>
> Sincerely Yours,
> Jordan
The U.S. Army actually tried to lower the IQ bar for recruits in the
post-Vietnam 70's. They let in a limited number of mildly retarded
recruits and tracked them to see how well they could function as infantry.
The program was not a success.
Martin Wisse
wrote:
>In article <robertaw-261...@blv-pm101-ip2.halcyon.com>,
>Robert A. Woodward <robe...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My it's chilly in here. Is there a window open? I feel the chill breeze of a
>>> (wait for it)
>>>
>>> Draft.
>>>
>>> It's not really necess' for everyone to be CI (an army needs a lot of tail
>>> for each tooth). And when all is done, esp. in the modern theatre, there's
>>> plenty of risk for all, some more than others, but safety for none.
>>
>>Unless you have to raise a BIG army; the draft is only going to take a
>>small fraction of your 18-22 year olds. And since the pressure to avoid
>>drafting the most "useful" civilians would be irresitable, we are back to
>>the original situation.
>>
> Don't various European countries have a universal draft for
>males 18-20? What do they do with all those people [aside from lowering
>the apparent unemployed rates]?
When we, (Netherlands) had the draft, nothing much. Getting bored at the
state's expense in some windy part of Holland or Germany mostly.
Martin Wisse
Klyfix
writes:
>
>> But. I'm a little disquited by the concept of a priveleged class
>> which reaps all the benefits of a military force, but never shares
>> it's mortal jepordy.
>
>Speaking as something of a liberal, I'd suggest that the answer is to
>use -- gasp -- governmental force to reduce the size of the economic gap
>between the top and bottom levels of the society.
>
>We will now have a brief moment of silence while the propertarians, the
>Randites and assorted other usual suspects scramble for their blood-
>pressure medicine. And their guns.
>
Can we use "government gentle patting" as opposed to force? :)
V. S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Eckzylon: http://members.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
Klyfix
wshet...@aol.compost (Will Shetterly) writes:
>
>Can you name three of these pacifists who demand military protection? Or even
>one? Or maybe give me the name of one of their groups?
>
>All the pacifists I know of have the courage of their conviction. They often
>end up in prison for things like protesting American tax dollars going toward
>teaching the officers of Central American dictators how to be effective
>torturers at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, GA. I haven't heard
>of
>one of them asking for military protection from the military that they're
>protesting.
>
But they receive it nonetheless. Let's be real here; it's not as if we can say
to other countries, "Okay, you can come in and take the property and freedom
of Mennonites and Quakers and other pacifists". And were we to disband the
military we'd be conquered in peices by nations wanting our resources. As
they most likely would be seeking our land and resources, "passive resistance"
would make little difference to them; if you don't need the people you can
just shoot them.
I'd also make the observation that the issue of training soldiers in techniques
they end up using to abuse their own people is a not one of pacifism; one can
favor having a national defence and still decry torture.
Jordan S. Bassior
>All the pacifists I know of have the courage of their conviction. They often
>end up in prison for things like protesting American tax dollars going toward
>teaching the officers of Central American dictators how to be effective
>torturers at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, GA. I haven't heard
of
>one of them asking for military protection from the military that they're
protesting.
Well, <chuckle>, it's not like they aren't going to get it. How likely is it
that some hostile foreign power will go "We declare war on Pete Pacifist ...
but not the rest of you ..." and that our government will go "Ok, attack Pete,
we're cool with that."
By virtue of being citizens of a significant military power, or a state allied
with a significant military power, you are protected by the military. Were you
to achieve your end and abolish the military of your own and all allied powers,
you would swiftly learn why militaries are necessary.
But there's no real chance of that happening. Which allows you pacifists to
strike dramatic moral poses with very little danger of ever having to suffer
the *real* consequences ... not a weekend in county jail for protesting; but
conquest or raiding by aggressors or brigands.
Jordan S. Bassior
>I'd also make the observation that the issue of training soldiers in
techniques
>they end up using to abuse their own people is a not one of pacifism; one can
>favor having a national defence and still decry torture.
I'll make the further observation that torture, both mass and specific, are
hoary Latin American traditions; to blame the US School of the Americas for
introducing the idea to Latin officers bespeaks an astonishing blindness to the
history of the region. And no, I'm not accusing you of holding that position :)
Jordan S. Bassior
>If we postulate a military comprised only of people who signed up truly
>willingly -- out of patriotism, naivete/foolishness, desire to play with
>big toys that go bang, nothing better to do, whatever -- rather than in
>part or full because of economic necessity, I'd stick to my point.
Oh, please. What percentage of the US military do you really imagine joined-up
in order to avoid starvation?
To "better themselves", yes, but then they CHOSE to make that bargain ...
>Speaking as something of a liberal, I'd suggest that the answer is to
>use -- gasp -- governmental force to reduce the size of the economic gap
>between the top and bottom levels of the society.
By taxing the rich heavier? They'll just take their marbles and leave the game,
along with their assets. Say bye-bye to productivity in the capital market, and
you haven't even gotten very much money.
By taxing the middle classes heavier? Now you've gutted productivity amongst
professionals and skilled workers. Oh, and you've also made your program
politically unpopular, because they are the *majority*.
If you were able to stay in power, you've just gutted the economy. Now the best
and brightest of *all* classes are leaving America for sunnier climes. Say hi
to the "brain drain", only this time we'd be the coutnry being drained.
Jordan S. Bassior
>I'd argue that one reason the peace movement was so widespread is because of
>the draft. God know how long we'd have been there w/o all those protests.
Possibly long enough that the Sino-American alliance, which started in the
early to mid 1970's, would have led to the inability of North Vietnam to
continue the war. In short (gasp), we might have WON.
And then 4-6 million Southeast Asians who died in our time line would have
LIVED. Horrors.
>I don't see it the same way. I believe we can generate a national concensus
>_if_ the adventure is justified.
We could have over Vietnam had LBJ been a competent war leader.
>But it ought to be hard to get everyone whipped up to fight a war.
Even a small to mid-sized one? Such are often necessary for a power with global
committments ...
>I am utterly, resolutely, unalterably, absolutely opposed to academic
>deferments. Any argument justifying academic deferments is, at its core
>an assertion that some people are more valuable than others. Academic
>deferments are repugnant, elitist, classist, anti-American, and
>anti-religious.
>
>Did I mention that I have a low opinion of academic deferments?
Problem is, if you yank a whole generation out of college, you are causing
immense economic damage a decade down the road. A peacetime draft without
academic deferments would be a nightmare.
The current volunteer Army system seems to be working well. We've won several
wars since we started it, lost only one, why fix what ain't broke?
Coyu
And a Quaker made a special trip to visit Adolf Hitler, just to tell him off.
William Davis
what does THIS button do? wrote:
> Now, I believe boffin caught up in a draft shouldn't be deferred simply because
> of her potential for breakthrough science or engineering. She should be drafted
> and sent back to school, and when she matriculates, march smartly to ONR and
> discharge her duty.
>
Wars are fought on the back of economies, not scientific or engineering
advances (although they help tremendously). One competent civilian
middle manager at a sock factory contributes as much or more to the war
effort as any single junior officer.
That's the theory behind deferments. While other sources of labor can be
found, trained managers, accountants, executives and repairmen are just
as important as scientists and engineers. We are keeping the budding GM
junior manager in school as well as the budding scientific genius.
William Davis
"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
>
> Klyfix said:
>
> >I'd also make the observation that the issue of training soldiers in
> techniques
> >they end up using to abuse their own people is a not one of pacifism; one can
> >favor having a national defence and still decry torture.
>
> I'll make the further observation that torture, both mass and specific, are
> hoary Latin American traditions; to blame the US School of the Americas for
> introducing the idea to Latin officers bespeaks an astonishing blindness to the
> history of the region. And no, I'm not accusing you of holding that position :)
>
Doesn't mean we have to train them to be better at it. I'm sure it will
be just a matter of time before the media has stories about how the new,
improved, democratically-trained graduates of the School of America are
involved in some massacre.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Doesn't mean we have to train them to be better at it. I'm sure it will
>be just a matter of time before the media has stories about how the new,
>improved, democratically-trained graduates of the School of America are
>involved in some massacre.
Look, it's not like we stick control chips in the graduates. If they choose to
abuse their own civilian populace, this is not our fault. We are hardly
encouraging them to do so.
How would *you* run the School of the Americas so as to prevent such atrocities
by its graduates. Include civil rights and the laws of war in the curriculum?
Guess what ... they are already part of that curriculum.
Education is not mind control, and the graduates of the School of the Americas
are still freewilled. For good ... or evil.
Kristopher/EOS
>
> "Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
>>
>> Klyfix said:
>>
>>> I'd also make the observation that the issue of training
>>> soldiers in techniques they end up using to abuse their
>>> own people is a not one of pacifism; one can favor
>>> having a national defence and still decry torture.
>>
>> I'll make the further observation that torture, both mass
>> and specific, are hoary Latin American traditions; to
>> blame the US School of the Americas for introducing the
>> idea to Latin officers bespeaks an astonishing blindness
>> to the history of the region. And no, I'm not accusing
>> you of holding that position :)
>
> sure it will be just a matter of time before the media has
> stories about how the new, improved, democratically-trained
> graduates of the School of America are involved in some
> massacre.
Is there any kind of proof that the SoA actually had "torture
classes," or is this one of those "everybody knows" truisms?
Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
>
>
>>> But then you end up with the situation we're seeing more
>>> of in this country: members of the less economically
>>> advantaged classes fighting, and dying -- or at least
>>> finding themselves in harm's way -- for the priveleged
>>> class. If any of them complain about their lot, they're
>>> told "Shut up and soldier, Soldier, you volunteered."
>>
>
> I'm gonna plead acute l-tryptophan syndrom when I wrote
> the above. What it should say is "If anyone (not
> necessarily a soldier) complains abou tthe soldier's lot,
> they're told the Soldier volunteered, end of discussion."
Which is not what I'm saying. I was refering only to the
question of whether soldiers should be asked to fight.
What exactly is it that soldiers do, anyway, and how is
anyone confused on this matter when they volunteer?
> I'm not trying to weasel on this, but I was trying to
> avoid prolix yesterday, and with brevity lost precision.
>
> ///
> I wrote before I realized what was in the >> above:
>
> There evolves an environment where no one speaks for the
> serviceperson. I cite your and Starr's followups as proof
> of point.
>
> Take a look at recruitment, retention and manning numbers:
> they're awful.
>
> "They volunteered" can easily become a justification for
> neglect, indifference, contempt.
The opposite should be the case. Volunteering to fight wars
and risk death so that others don't have to should earn one
exactly the opposite of neglect, indifference, and contempt.
Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
>
> The current volunteer Army system seems to be working
The only loss I can think of here is Somalia, and I'd
point out that, at least IMO, the *UN* lost that, not
the US.
Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
>
> most "useful" would utterly destroy the social equality
> of the draft. Ditto reservist duty. (I'm not dumping on
> reservists, I'm specifically thinking about Dan Quayle).
Would *you* want Dan Quayle behind you with a rifle?
Kristopher/EOS
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
William Davis wrote:
> "Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
> >
> > Klyfix said:
> >
> > >I'd also make the observation that the issue of training soldiers in
> > techniques
> > >they end up using to abuse their own people is a not one of pacifism; one can
> > >favor having a national defence and still decry torture.
> >
> > I'll make the further observation that torture, both mass and specific, are
> > hoary Latin American traditions; to blame the US School of the Americas for
> > introducing the idea to Latin officers bespeaks an astonishing blindness to the
> > history of the region. And no, I'm not accusing you of holding that position :)
> >
>
> Doesn't mean we have to train them to be better at it. I'm sure it will
> be just a matter of time before the media has stories about how the new,
> improved, democratically-trained graduates of the School of America are
> involved in some massacre.
Now, I am not defending torture by anyone, but it seems to me that the US newsmedia
pay much more attention to war crimes committed by Latin American governments than
those committed by the guerillas they are fighting.
Nathan Raye
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
Jordan S. Bassior wrote:
> Kristopher said:
>
> >The only loss I can think of here is Somalia, and I'd
> >point out that, at least IMO, the *UN* lost that, not
> >the US.
>
> Well ... it's convoluted.
I basically agree with your analysis
<snip>
> Aidid laid a trap for the airmobile Ranger units tasked with the raiding.
Army Delta Force and Air Force Pararescue, too.
> A Ranger platoon was surrounded and attacked by swarms of Aidid's militiamen; the
>
> Rangers cut 300 of the foe down but were wiped out. No relief was possible,
> because the fighter-bombers and tanks which could have blasted a path to the
> American special forces were not available.
More Rangers and other UN forces eventually rescued most of them. Pakistani
tankers participated in the rescue because Clinton, Aspin, et al. had refused to
send tanks or even armored personnel carriers.
> At which point, Clinton decided that we had lost the war (again for no obvious
> reason). US Secretery of Defense Les Aspin took responsibility for Clinton's
> blundering and resigned, and within a month or two we were ferrying Mohammed
> Farah Aidid around on US Army Transport planes.
>
> Why one of them didn't just land at a US base and take the criminal into
> custody is known only between Clinton and his witch-wife, I guess.
There is more to the story. The US State Department had been secretly negotiating
with Aideed. He was to meet with that ex-President for all seasons Jimmy Carter.
The Clinton Administration and Carter double-crossed Aideed and tried to kill him.
We failed miserably. It is believed within the national security community that
Aideed's forces were trained by mujahedin veterans allied with Osama bin Laden, and
that bin Laden's men set up the ambush of the Special Operations troops, including
provision the many RPGs that were used to shoot down the American helicopters
Aideed's son has now taken over for his late father. Aideed the younger was
educated at, IMS, Boston College and served as a Corporal of artillery in the USMC
Reserve during the 1980s. These facts combined with Aideed's contacts with the
State Department lead me to wonder whether he had once been a US ally.
Nathan Raye
Phil Fraering
>Unless you have to raise a BIG army; the draft is only going to take a
>small fraction of your 18-22 year olds. And since the pressure to avoid
>drafting the most "useful" civilians would be irresitable, we are back to
>the original situation.
>Universal service doesn't help either (again the most "useful" civilians
>will end up in reserve organizations).
Personally, I think it might be worthwhile to draft everyone into
the reserves, just so they'll at least have some knowledge of what
they're electing politicians to make policy decisions on wrt whether
or not to use military force, and how to do so.
Almost more of an educational measure than a military one.
--
Phil Fraering "What are we going to do tonight, Miles?"
p...@globalreach.net "Same thing we do every night, Ivan,
/Will work for tape/ try to take over the Imperium!"
MADAM IM ADAM
Jordan S. Bassior
>The only loss I can think of here is Somalia, and I'd
>point out that, at least IMO, the *UN* lost that, not
>the US.
Well ... it's convoluted.
The original problem, in 1992, was that the battling warlords weren't
permitting food shipments into the famine zones. George Bush sent a properly
equipped force, mostly of US Marines, into the country (*). This force secured
Mogadishu and some other strategic points, and then turned over these places to
UN peacekeeping forces of other nationality
(*) The landing was funny; the US Marines were prepared for resistance and as a
result executed a full-dress combat landing, coming in on choppers, hovercraft,
and LCP's and LCT's. However, the only "opposition" consisted of a swarm of
silly reporters, who ran right up to landing troops with lights and cameras.
It speaks volumes for the magnificent discipline of the US Marine Corps
that this did not result in a rather predictable tragedy (it is *not* safe to
charge combat troops from the front, regardless of who you are, nerves being
what they are!)
As time went on, one warlord, Mohammed Farah Aidid, started raiding the aid
convoys. For no obvious reason, Bill Clinton decided that only America could
handle the situation (despite the fact that other nationalities had contingents
committed to the opreration). For no good reason, Bill Clinton decided that the
objective would be Aidid *himself*, rather than his faction. For no *sane*
reason, Bill Clinton refused to let the forces he committed be equipped with
tanks or fighter-bombers, because he felt that these would "look like we were
starting a war" (while what we were of course doing was joining a war already
in progress!)
Aidid laid a trap for the airmobile Ranger units tasked with the raiding. A
Ranger platoon was surrounded and attacked by swarms of Aidid's militiamen; the
Rangers cut 300 of the foe down but were wiped out. No relief was possible,
because the fighter-bombers and tanks which could have blasted a path to the
American special forces were not available.
At which point, Clinton decided that we had lost the war (again for no obvious
reason). US Secretery of Defense Les Aspin took responsibility for Clinton's
blundering and resigned, and within a month or two we were ferrying Mohammed
Farah Aidid around on US Army Transport planes.
Why one of them didn't just land at a US base and take the criminal into
custody is known only between Clinton and his witch-wife, I guess.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan S. Bassior
>Is there any kind of proof that the SoA actually had "torture
>classes," or is this one of those "everybody knows" truisms?
I'm not sure. It would be an odd sort of thing to teach at an officer's school,
but maybe it was part of counterinsurgency tactics?
Kristopher/EOS
>>
>>> The only loss I can think of here is Somalia, and I'd
>>> point out that, at least IMO, the *UN* lost that, not
>>> the US.
>>
>> Well ... it's convoluted.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> with the raiding.
>
>
>> of Aidid's militiamen; the Rangers cut 300 of the foe
>> down but were wiped out. No relief was possible,
>> because the fighter-bombers and tanks which could have
>> blasted a path to the American special forces were not
>> available.
>
> of them. Pakistani tankers participated in the rescue
> because Clinton, Aspin, et al. had refused to send tanks
> or even armored personnel carriers.
>
>> (again for no obvious reason). US Secretery of Defense
>> Les Aspin took responsibility for Clinton's blundering
>> and resigned, and within a month or two we were ferrying
>> Mohammed Farah Aidid around on US Army Transport planes.
>>
>> Why one of them didn't just land at a US base and take
>> the criminal into custody is known only between Clinton
>> and his witch-wife, I guess.
>
> been secretly negotiating with Aideed. He was to meet
> with that ex-President for all seasons Jimmy Carter. The
> Clinton Administration and Carter double-crossed Aideed
> and tried to kill him. We failed miserably. It is
> believed within the national security community that
> Aideed's forces were trained by mujahedin veterans allied
> with Osama bin Laden, and that bin Laden's men set up the
> ambush of the Special Operations troops, including
> provision the many RPGs that were used to shoot down the
> American helicopters
It seems, after Jordan and Nathan's accounts of Somalia,
that I must retract my blame of the UN for the disaster
in that forsaken little hell-hole.
One wonders, though, after reading those posts, why anyone
bothered trying to impeach Mr Clinton for his sexual acts,
when Somalia was available?
Kristopher/EOS
Jordan S. Bassior
>The US State Department had been secretly negotiating
>with Aideed. He was to meet with that ex-President for all seasons Jimmy
Carter.
>The Clinton Administration and Carter double-crossed Aideed and tried to kill
>him. We failed miserably.
Good Lord ... why did we do that? And if we did, why did we then turn around
and act as an air taxi service for him?
>Aideed's son has now taken over for his late father.
How did his father eventually die?
>These facts combined with Aideed's contacts with the
>State Department lead me to wonder whether he had once been a US ally.
Sounds likely, in the context of the latter Cold War (in which we allied with
virtually all non-Iranian Muslim Fundamentalists against Communists). Politics
makes strange bedfellows, eh?
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
Jordan S. Bassior wrote:
> Nathan Raye said:
>
> >The US State Department had been secretly negotiating
> >with Aideed. He was to meet with that ex-President for all seasons Jimmy
> Carter.
> >The Clinton Administration and Carter double-crossed Aideed and tried to kill
> >him. We failed miserably.
>
> Good Lord ... why did we do that? And if we did, why did we then turn around
> and act as an air taxi service for him?
As to your first question, Clinton was asked by the father of a Ranger killed in
Mogadishu (and himself a combat veteran). Clinton replied, "You'd have to ask
(ex-National Security Adviser) Tony Lake about that." As to your second question,
beats me.
> >Aideed's son has now taken over for his late father.
>
> How did his father eventually die?
Natural causes, perhaps cancer.
Nathan Raye
William Davis
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net wrote:
>
> Now, I am not defending torture by anyone, but it seems to me that the US newsmedia
> pay much more attention to war crimes committed by Latin American governments than
> those committed by the guerillas they are fighting.
>
> Nathan Raye
Probably has something to do with the fact that we expect the forces
fighting our allies to commit atrocities, but get a little bit uneasy
when our allies are the ones committing the war crimes. This is
especially true when we are funding, equipping, training or directly
aiding them.
William Davis
"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
>
> William Davis said:
>
> >Doesn't mean we have to train them to be better at it. I'm sure it will
> >be just a matter of time before the media has stories about how the new,
> >improved, democratically-trained graduates of the School of America are
> >involved in some massacre.
>
> Look, it's not like we stick control chips in the graduates. If they choose to
> abuse their own civilian populace, this is not our fault. We are hardly
> encouraging them to do so.
>
> How would *you* run the School of the Americas so as to prevent such atrocities
> by its graduates. Include civil rights and the laws of war in the curriculum?
> Guess what ... they are already part of that curriculum.
>
Pretty easy question. I wouldn't run the School of Americas. It really
seems to be more trouble than it's worth.
Considering the stories of corruption in the Latin American militaries
that are actively fighting rebels or drug lords (or alliances of both),
it really seems like we should be washing our hands of the school and
tying any aid to direct oversight by American advisors. And don't start
talking about another Vietnam, we've had advisors on the ground in most
of the Latin American states we aid for decades.
William Davis
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net wrote:
>
> > >Aideed's son has now taken over for his late father.
> >
> > How did his father eventually die?
>
> Natural causes, perhaps cancer.
Actually no, in 1996 Aideed and his forces attacked two rival warlords
in Mogadishu. Aideed was wounded in the battle and operated on at a
Somalian hospital. He never fully healed and died in August.
Alex Jech
> >non-combat roles, like medics.
>
> And a Quaker made a special trip to visit Adolf Hitler, just to tell him
off.
>
Alex Jech
"Jordan S. Bassior" <jsba...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991127223357...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
> Kristopher said:
>
> >Is there any kind of proof that the SoA actually had "torture
> >classes," or is this one of those "everybody knows" truisms?
>
> I'm not sure. It would be an odd sort of thing to teach at an officer's
school,
> but maybe it was part of counterinsurgency tactics?
>
practice, which would lead me to believe it does happen, otherwise, why
would he defend it (when he could instead deny it)? However, I heard this
second hand, so it's not 100% reliable.
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
William Davis wrote:
My mistake.
Nathan Raye
William Davis
Something on the edge of my memory says you may be half right. For some
reason, I remember that Aideed did have cancer. It just wasn't what
killed him.
Jordan S. Bassior
>One wonders, though, after reading those posts, why anyone
>bothered trying to impeach Mr Clinton for his sexual acts,
>when Somalia was available?
Well ... I don't know that anything he did in connection with Somalia, or at
least anything we can *prove* he did, was actually *illegal*. Insanely
incompetent, yes, but it's not a good idea to criminalize policy differences.
Jordan S. Bassior
>As to your first question, Clinton was asked by the father of a Ranger killed
in
>Mogadishu (and himself a combat veteran). Clinton replied, "You'd have to
>ask (ex-National Security Adviser) Tony Lake about that."
Well, heh, couldn't expect Clinton to be aware of his own foreign policy, now
could we?
Jordan S. Bassior
>Pretty easy question. I wouldn't run the School of Americas. It really
>seems to be more trouble than it's worth.
So we can't train the military officers of Third World countries?
>Considering the stories of corruption in the Latin American militaries
>that are actively fighting rebels or drug lords (or alliances of both),
>it really seems like we should be washing our hands of the school and
>tying any aid to direct oversight by American advisors.
Thus humiliating the Latin elites. That's a good way to keep your allies loyal
...
>And don't start
>talking about another Vietnam, we've had advisors on the ground in most
>of the Latin American states we aid for decades.
Yes, but now you'd need them more thickly on the ground.
William Davis
"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
>
> Wiliam Davis said:
>
> >Pretty easy question. I wouldn't run the School of Americas. It really
> >seems to be more trouble than it's worth.
>
> So we can't train the military officers of Third World countries?
We can train the garbage collectors of Third World countries if we want
too. I just don't see a compelling reason for us to do so.
Give me a compelling reason to operate the school. Keep in mind, to
convince me you're going to have to come up with a reason that could not
be done by other means that do not involve instruction in torture.
> >Considering the stories of corruption in the Latin American militaries
> >that are actively fighting rebels or drug lords (or alliances of both),
> >it really seems like we should be washing our hands of the school and
> >tying any aid to direct oversight by American advisors.
>
> Thus humiliating the Latin elites. That's a good way to keep your allies loyal
> ...
If the simple act of eliminating the School of Americas is enough to
destroy our alliances with a Latin American nation, it wasn't the
strongest alliance to begin with. Of course, it would not be hard to
sugarcoat the action, a trade deal will go along way towards repairing
the booboo to the relationship that would result.
> >And don't start
> >talking about another Vietnam, we've had advisors on the ground in most
> >of the Latin American states we aid for decades.
>
> Yes, but now you'd need them more thickly on the ground.
Or used more judiciously. Instead of letting our allies decide where
they need aid, we mandate where we want to give aid. If the allies balk,
we eliminate the aid, machismo be damned.
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>>On 26 Nov 1999 07:56:51 GMT, wshet...@aol.compost (Will Shetterly)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Do you know of any pacifists who demand military protection? I don't.
>>
>>Most of them live in countries where they get it, even as they loudly
>>condemn it. Funny how that works.
>>
>>Pete McCutchen
>
>Can you name three of these pacifists who demand military protection? Or even
>one? Or maybe give me the name of one of their groups?
Will, did you read what I said? I didn't say that they demand
military protection; I said that most pacifists live in countries in
which they actually _get_ military protection, whether they demand it
or not. My point was that pacifism is a rather easy philosophy to
adopt, when one is in no particular danger.
Obmovies: _High Noon_.
>
>All the pacifists I know of have the courage of their conviction. They often
>end up in prison for things like protesting American tax dollars going toward
Huh. You must mean that they go to prison for protesting against US
policy _in a particular way_, because, in fact, it's legal in the
United States to protest against US policy. People don't, in fact, go
to prison "for protesting American tax dollars going toward teaching
the officers of Central American dictators how to be effective
torturers," because doing that is perfectly legal. Most likely they
actually went to prison for trespassing or vandalism.
It's quite possible to protest against the School of the Americas
without being imprisoned for it. That's one of the benefits of living
in a country with a First Amendment.
>teaching the officers of Central American dictators how to be effective
>torturers at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, GA. I haven't heard of
Oh, just to be clear, I agree with you that I think teaching South
Americans how to torture people is bad practice. If nothing else,
it's kind of like teaching teenage boys how to masturbate, as one
former Surgeon General of the United States once proposed. Most of
them already know how.
I would teach them things like respect for duly constituted civilian
authority, and civil rights.
>one of them asking for military protection from the military that they're
>protesting.
>
Right. They don't ask. They just get it.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>Pete McCutchen said:
>
>>One of the problems with the current, volunteer, high-tech military,
>>is that from this standpoint, the standards are too high. We take
>>high school grads and people who are already on their way to doing
>>reasonably well in life. The traditional path of joining the marines
>>or serving time is no longer open to many unsocialized young men.
>>IOW, we should be taking more of the "less privileged class," not
>>less.
>
>Problem is that the primary role of our armed forces is to defend America and
>her interests. To this end, we do need a certain minimum troop quality. I
>wouldn't want to turn the Army into a mammoth jobs program at the price of
>destroying its effectiveness.
>
Nor would I, Jordan. But the point is that for generations the army
has served that role, whether we like it or not. Part of the reason
that it did so, by the way, is that it demanded that people actually
shape up. Drill sergeants are so much better at getting young, tough
kids to shape up than social workers.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>The U.S. Army actually tried to lower the IQ bar for recruits in the
>post-Vietnam 70's. They let in a limited number of mildly retarded
>recruits and tracked them to see how well they could function as infantry.
>
>The program was not a success.
That was not what I advocated, by the way. What I said was that the
army was a traditional path of social mobility, and that I think
that's a good thing. I think we should retain that function, if
possible, while at the same time retaining combat effectiveness. But
combat effectiveness always comes first.
--
Pete McCutchen
James Nicoll
I've seen photos his Quayleness holding some sort of
rocket launcher with the open 'f*ing hot flames come out of
this end' hole pressed manfully against his shoulder during
a PR shoot.
James Nicoll
--
Will Shetterly
>> Can you name three of these pacifists who demand military protection?
>Or even
>> one? Or maybe give me the name of one of their groups?
>>
>
>
religious
>freedom) has been protected by force. They declaim force while reaping
>its
>benefits. In a free society, people can believe what they wish. What really
>bugs
>me is that pacifists are often regarded with respect - not for having the
>courage
>of their convictions - but for _not_ serving.
>
>Nathan Raye
Hmm. You think American Quakers should move elsewhere? Do you think Canadian
Quakers also live in a society whose freedom has been protected by force? Are
you aware that American Quakers have been imprisoned for refusing to serve in
the military?
cheers,
Will
--
"Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest."
--Mark Twain
Will Shetterly
>classes," or is this one of those "everybody knows" truisms?
>
Yes. The teaching manuals have been produced. The SoA claims it no longer uses
those manuals.
Will Shetterly
>are
>for
>introducing the idea to Latin officers bespeaks an astonishing blindness
>to the
>history of the region.
>
And who suggested that? I only pointed out that the School of the Americas
taught torture. I didn't say it invented the notion. I have to assume that
Latin American techniques aren't quite as good as ours.
Phil Fraering
> One wonders, though, after reading those posts, why anyone
> bothered trying to impeach Mr Clinton for his sexual acts,
> when Somalia was available?
Since when is it criminal for a President of the US to issue
incompetent orders that needlessly get US soldiers killed?
William December Starr
jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) said:
> I'm not sure. It would be an odd sort of thing to teach at an
> officer's school, but maybe it was part of counterinsurgency tactics?
Why is it odd? Aren't military officers likely to at one time or
another be in a position in which they have possession of somebody from
whom they want to extract information?
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Coyu
> I've seen photos his Quayleness holding some sort of
>rocket launcher with the open 'f*ing hot flames come out of
>this end' hole pressed manfully against his shoulder during
>a PR shoot.
That problem should take care of itself, no?
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
Will Shetterly wrote:
> >Will Shetterly wrote:
> >> Can you name three of these pacifists who demand military protection?
> >Or even
> >> one? Or maybe give me the name of one of their groups?
> >>
> >> All the pacifists I know of have the courage of their conviction.
> >
> >
> >The Quakers for one. They live in a society whose freedom (including
> religious
> >freedom) has been protected by force. They declaim force while reaping
> >its
> >benefits. In a free society, people can believe what they wish. What really
> >bugs
> >me is that pacifists are often regarded with respect - not for having the
> >courage
> >of their convictions - but for _not_ serving.
> >
> >Nathan Raye
>
> Hmm. You think American Quakers should move elsewhere?
If they like.
> Do you think Canadian
> Quakers also live in a society whose freedom has been protected by force?
Yes. War of 1812, WWII, Cold War.
> Are
> you aware that American Quakers have been imprisoned for refusing to serve in
> the military?
Yes. They have the option of military service in a noncombatant capacity - they
need not even take weapons training. They also have the option of civilian
service, in a hospital for example.
Nathan Raye
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
William December Starr wrote:
> In article <19991127223357...@ng-xa1.aol.com>,
> jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) said:
>
> > I'm not sure. It would be an odd sort of thing to teach at an
> > officer's school, but maybe it was part of counterinsurgency tactics?
>
> Why is it odd? Aren't military officers likely to at one time or
> another be in a position in which they have possession of somebody from
> whom they want to extract information?
Actually, no. Most officers are not trained in interrogation. Enemy
Prisoners of War (EPWs) are interrogated by specially trained intelligence
personnel.
Nathan Raye
Jim Lovejoy
>
> "Jordan S. Bassior" <jsba...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991127223357...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
> > Kristopher said:
> >
> > >classes," or is this one of those "everybody knows" truisms?
> >
> school,
> > but maybe it was part of counterinsurgency tactics?
> >
> practice, which would lead me to believe it does happen, otherwise, why
> would he defend it (when he could instead deny it)? However, I heard this
> second hand, so it's not 100% reliable.
Keep in mind too, that the source was supposedly Oliver North, "so it's
not 100% reliable."
Phil Fraering
>what does THIS button do? wrote:
>>
>> You have a valid point, and i agree that exempting the
>> most "useful" would utterly destroy the social equality
>> of the draft. Ditto reservist duty. (I'm not dumping on
>> reservists, I'm specifically thinking about Dan Quayle).
>Would *you* want Dan Quayle behind you with a rifle?
He only has to shoot straight. He doesn't have to spell.
--
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>And who suggested that? I only pointed out that the School of the Americas
>taught torture. I didn't say it invented the notion. I have to assume that
>Latin American techniques aren't quite as good as ours.
Why? I'd be willing to bet we make better microchips than most Latin
American countries, but better torturers? I doubt it; they've had a
lot more practice.
--
Pete McCutchen
Jordan S. Bassior
>Why is it odd? Aren't military officers likely to at one time or
>another be in a position in which they have possession of somebody from
>whom they want to extract information?
Yes, but in a standup shooting war, that sort of thing is called a "war crime",
and is against the UCMJ. In a Latin American insurgency, on the other hand ...
Jordan S. Bassior
>We can train the garbage collectors of Third World countries if we want
>too. I just don't see a compelling reason for us to do so.
How about the maintenance of our influence over the Latin militaries?
>Give me a compelling reason to operate the school. Keep in mind, to
>convince me you're going to have to come up with a reason that could not
>be done by other means that do not involve instruction in torture.
Oh, we don't need to teach them torture techniques. My point is that there is
absolutely no way that we can teach them that will *prevent* them from
torturing people. We don't control their minds, you know ...
>If the simple act of eliminating the School of Americas is enough to
>destroy our alliances with a Latin American nation, it wasn't the
>strongest alliance to begin with.
No, the "tying any aid to direct oversight by American advisors" is the part
they would find horribly humiliating. I suspect it would lead in the end to
their turning to other Powers for military supply and support, and thus
endangering our hemispheric security.
Del Cotter
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Will, did you read what I said? I didn't say that they demand
>military protection; I said that most pacifists live in countries in
>which they actually _get_ military protection, whether they demand it
>or not. My point was that pacifism is a rather easy philosophy to
>adopt, when one is in no particular danger.
When they can't do anything about that fact one way or another, then
talking as if they were to blame for it is a rather easy stunt to pull.
Otherwise known as a cheap shot.
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
"Choose the Dark Side... now why would I do a thing like that?"
--Obi-Wan Renton
William Davis
Del Cotter wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, in rec.arts.sf.written
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Will, did you read what I said? I didn't say that they demand
> >military protection; I said that most pacifists live in countries in
> >which they actually _get_ military protection, whether they demand it
> >or not. My point was that pacifism is a rather easy philosophy to
> >adopt, when one is in no particular danger.
>
> When they can't do anything about that fact one way or another, then
> talking as if they were to blame for it is a rather easy stunt to pull.
>
> Otherwise known as a cheap shot.
Not really. The point was raised that pacifists do not want or ask for
military protection. The counterpoint was raised that they get it
whether they ask for it or not, so its not really a cheap shot.
In an indirect way, a lot of pacifist groups in the U.S. did ask for
military protection. Every group, like the Quakers and Amish, who
immigrated to this country from nation's that did not tolerate them
sought the protection of a tolerant, militarized nation.
You want to raise my respect of your pacifist ideas, then go practice
them somewhere where they will get a good workout, like Afghanistan,
Iran or any other Third World country involved in a war. Pacifists there
truly must have the courage of their convictions.
Sten Thaning
Nicoll) wrote:
>>Unless you have to raise a BIG army; the draft is only going to take a
>>small fraction of your 18-22 year olds. And since the pressure to avoid
>>drafting the most "useful" civilians would be irresitable, we are back to
>>the original situation.
>>
> Don't various European countries have a universal draft for
>males 18-20? What do they do with all those people [aside from lowering
>the apparent unemployed rates]?
Sweden has, in theory, a universal draft for males aged about 18. They
usually train for 8-16 months (the most common time being 10 months)
depending on task. Non-military training (firemen, toxic waste
disposal, hospital work, that sort of thing) is possible to choose.
Since the budget isn't what the military wants it to be, they
simultanously manages to reject people who wants to be in the army
*and* put people who don't want to join in prison.
- Sten (argued my way out of the draft, myself) Thaning
Pete McCutchen
>monn...@adcon.fnal.gov (what does THIS button do?) writes:
>
>>I am utterly, resolutely, unalterably, absolutely opposed to academic
>>deferments. Any argument justifying academic deferments is, at its core
>>an assertion that some people are more valuable than others. Academic
>>deferments are repugnant, elitist, classist, anti-American, and anti-religious.
>
>But, in fact, some rather small number of people are *immensely* more
>valuable to their country in a war doing relevant R&D than they are
>out there with a rifle. I don't think we can afford the luxury of the
>sort of "handicapper general" egalitarianism that ignores this. War is
>not a gentleman's game any longer; it's real.
Well, yes. But that doesn't mean that we ought to defer every
sociology major or Rhodes Scholar who comes along, particularly if all
they're going to do is go to Yale Law School.
I'm all right with giving deferments to people involved in important
R&D, but the notion of deferring _everybody_ who's in college is just
idiotic.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, in rec.arts.sf.written
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Will, did you read what I said? I didn't say that they demand
>>military protection; I said that most pacifists live in countries in
>>which they actually _get_ military protection, whether they demand it
>>or not. My point was that pacifism is a rather easy philosophy to
>>adopt, when one is in no particular danger.
>
>When they can't do anything about that fact one way or another, then
>talking as if they were to blame for it is a rather easy stunt to pull.
>
>Otherwise known as a cheap shot.
No. Shetterly claimed that pacifists neither need nor ask for
military protection; I pointed out that they get it whether they ask
for it or not. If I'd brought up the point out of the blue, then it
would have been a cheap shot. As it was, it was merely a response to
Shetterly's inanity.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>> >Pretty easy question. I wouldn't run the School of Americas. It really
>> >seems to be more trouble than it's worth.
>>
>> So we can't train the military officers of Third World countries?
>
>We can train the garbage collectors of Third World countries if we want
>too. I just don't see a compelling reason for us to do so.
>
>Give me a compelling reason to operate the school. Keep in mind, to
>convince me you're going to have to come up with a reason that could not
>be done by other means that do not involve instruction in torture.
I'm not actually convinced that any person who would not otherwise
have been tortured was, in fact, tortured as a result of the School of
the Americas; torturing people is one thing that Latin American
military officers seem to know how to do without much help.
Even so, it's probably bad practice to encourage the custom.
In any event, it does seem that training foreign military officers by
means of a special school run by the CIA is a bad idea. Far better to
let them simply attend West Point, or even a traditional four-year
college with an ROTC program. That might give them the feel of living
in a country which doesn't routinely torture people.
--
Pete McCutchen
Jordan S. Bassior
>Who else is left.
In the long run, Japan is the obvious candidate. The Japanese already have
consierable influence in Western Latin America.
>China does not have the strategic interest and I doubt
>they would consider the damage to American relations worth it,
Not at present ...
>Russia is
>out of the game as far as spreading it influence worldwide (it's a
>regional, not an international, power now)
Russia will rise again, but I doubt she will focus on Latin America. No good
reason to.
>and any of the European
>countries would have to weigh whether Latin America is worth the
>economic loss of a tiff with the U.S.
I don't know how paranoid we'd get about European influence in Latin America.
Likely candidates here are England and France (with anybody), Germany (with
Argentina, Chile, and Paraguay), and Italy (with Argentina).