T Nation

Alienating Our Military

A big reason Rome fell was because the Legionnaires felt no ‘connection’ with people back in Rome. Here they were, risking life and limb, for unappreciative assholes having orgies back home.

Substitute the cut-and-run Democratic vermin for the Romans and we’ve got a good analogy. Send 'em out to fight and then become cowards, hiding under their comfortable beds.

Why do voters put cowards and people who use the war for political power into office? Wake the fuck up, America!!!

Hahaha!
Headhunter, you never fail to make me smile.
But why do you persist on contributing in the politics forum? Clearly, your humorous analogies would fit better in the get-a-life subforum.

Robur et Iocus-
Schwarzfahrer

I agree that for the most part, liberal America doesn’t give a flying F*** about military personnel. They will say “bring the troops home” and all that “we just want the troops to be safe” crap, but when the rubber meets the road, they really don’t care about troop welfare. It’s all about discrediting and criticizing President Bush no matter what he does. Protestors at the D.C. “Peace Protest” were spitting, cursing, and throwing cigarette butts at the military folks who were there as part of the anti-protest. Those hippie ass-holes are all about ANYTHING anti-Bush. They are THE MOST intollerant people in this country. If you don’t believe their agenda you get branded a racist, a sexist, intollerant, ignorant, and GASP fundamentalist. They vandalized the Fox News truck. Come on, libs. Grow up.

Libs do not truly care about the troops. “Bring them home” is just a neat little political slogan to discredit the President. In fact, they actually pitty the troops and consider them like second-class citizens. I have seen MANY liberal references to the military as “cattle”.

I say "STFU! Let me do my job. You shut your pie-hole and let the real men and women of this nation go out and protect your liberties. I volunteered for this. I am capable of making my own decisions. Not everyone thinks like a lib. Some people are actually PROUD of this country and willing to die for it. If you would quit calling us and our boss “murderers and terrorists”, maybe we could instill some confidence in the Iraqis that we are there till the job is done. So, in closing, I say to liberal America, you are not as smart as you think you are. There are people out there who want you dead. They don’t see R or D, they see American. You had 8 years under Clinton to do something about this and did NOTHING. It’s not pretty, and people will die. That’s American history. Americans are willing to die for freedom. Unfortunately, liberals do not feel this way. Liberals have nothing worth fighting for. That is very sad.

Off soapbox.

A much, much bigger issue is the cultural disconnect between American society and the military. Selfishness and consumerism versus sacrifice and unity. That dwarfs any political problems. Read Thomas Ricks’ book “Making the Corps” sometime.

[quote]PGJ wrote:
I agree that for the most part, liberal America doesn’t give a flying F*** about military personnel. They will say “bring the troops home” and all that “we just want the troops to be safe” crap, but when the rubber meets the road, they really don’t care about troop welfare. It’s all about discrediting and criticizing President Bush no matter what he does. Protestors at the D.C. “Peace Protest” were spitting, cursing, and throwing cigarette butts at the military folks who were there as part of the anti-protest. Those hippie ass-holes are all about ANYTHING anti-Bush. They are THE MOST intollerant people in this country. If you don’t believe their agenda you get branded a racist, a sexist, intollerant, ignorant, and GASP fundamentalist. They vandalized the Fox News truck. Come on, libs. Grow up.

Libs do not truly care about the troops. “Bring them home” is just a neat little political slogan to discredit the President. In fact, they actually pitty the troops and consider them like second-class citizens. I have seen MANY liberal references to the military as “cattle”.

I say "STFU! Let me do my job. You shut your pie-hole and let the real men and women of this nation go out and protect your liberties. I volunteered for this. I am capable of making my own decisions. Not everyone thinks like a lib. Some people are actually PROUD of this country and willing to die for it. If you would quit calling us and our boss “murderers and terrorists”, maybe we could instill some confidence in the Iraqis that we are there till the job is done. So, in closing, I say to liberal America, you are not as smart as you think you are. There are people out there who want you dead. They don’t see R or D, they see American. You had 8 years under Clinton to do something about this and did NOTHING. It’s not pretty, and people will die. That’s American history. Americans are willing to die for freedom. Unfortunately, liberals do not feel this way. Liberals have nothing worth fighting for. That is very sad.

Off soapbox.[/quote]

Supporting the troops was a political slogan for the Dems. It has not happened in practice, deed or word. Comments made by Kerry, Durbin and Murtha are well documented.

Read the following article I linked below. The WAPO columnist refers to the troops as Mercs and makes a few comments that frankly speak more to his agenda then anything else. The Arkin piece is gettin a lot of play on the internet. He apparently wrote the peace in response to comments from the troops about how they percieve the home front these days.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_troops_also_need_to_suppor.html

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
A much, much bigger issue is the cultural disconnect between American society and the military. Selfishness and consumerism versus sacrifice and unity. That dwarfs any political problems. Read Thomas Ricks’ book “Making the Corps” sometime.[/quote]

Old fashioned military conservatism with rules and regualtions vs. the liberal agenda of total tolerance and “any excuse is a good excuse” mentality.

[quote]PGJ wrote:
I agree that for the most part, liberal America doesn’t give a flying F*** about military personnel. They will say “bring the troops home” and all that “we just want the troops to be safe” crap, but when the rubber meets the road, they really don’t care about troop welfare. It’s all about discrediting and criticizing President Bush no matter what he does. Protestors at the D.C. “Peace Protest” were spitting, cursing, and throwing cigarette butts at the military folks who were there as part of the anti-protest. Those hippie ass-holes are all about ANYTHING anti-Bush. They are THE MOST intollerant people in this country. If you don’t believe their agenda you get branded a racist, a sexist, intollerant, ignorant, and GASP fundamentalist. They vandalized the Fox News truck. Come on, libs. Grow up.

Libs do not truly care about the troops. “Bring them home” is just a neat little political slogan to discredit the President. In fact, they actually pitty the troops and consider them like second-class citizens. I have seen MANY liberal references to the military as “cattle”.

I say "STFU! Let me do my job. You shut your pie-hole and let the real men and women of this nation go out and protect your liberties. I volunteered for this. I am capable of making my own decisions. Not everyone thinks like a lib. Some people are actually PROUD of this country and willing to die for it. If you would quit calling us and our boss “murderers and terrorists”, maybe we could instill some confidence in the Iraqis that we are there till the job is done. So, in closing, I say to liberal America, you are not as smart as you think you are. There are people out there who want you dead. They don’t see R or D, they see American. You had 8 years under Clinton to do something about this and did NOTHING. It’s not pretty, and people will die. That’s American history. Americans are willing to die for freedom. Unfortunately, liberals do not feel this way. Liberals have nothing worth fighting for. That is very sad.

Off soapbox.[/quote]

The problems have nothing to do with being liberal. The vast majority of the American public has no connection to the military therefore they have no idea what it means to make personal sacrifices for the ideals of a nation. The only thing they are familiar with is the rhetoric that comes from politicians who use the military as a personal soapbox–either as a banner for democratic principles or a banner for republican principles. Its all rhetoric and all incorrect in one way or another.

There are many questions that have not been answered from both sides of the table and until then blaming one side over the other is purely therapeutic.

BTW, I share your distaste for the blind “objectionists” though I myself object whole heartedly. The question that needs to be asked is, in the end what do we hope to acheive and is it really achievable? I don’t know.

BOY do I agree with GDollar in this one!

The basic core values of every branch of the Military (especially The Corps and the Army) are SO far removed from the selfishness, greed, lack of sacrifice, blame others, “it’s all about me” attitude of much of America, that it should be no surprise that there is an apparent Gulf.

DEFINITELY read “Making the Corps”.

Mufasa

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Substitute the cut-and-run Democratic vermin for the Romans and we’ve got a good analogy. Send 'em out to fight and then become cowards, hiding under their comfortable beds.[/quote]

Ridiculous.

The Romans didn’t have an all voluntary, paid army.

You don’t like the civilians commanding the US Army? Don’t sign up, or don’t re-enlist when your tour is up.

Anyone signing up should expect to serve under either of the two parties during their service. Don’t want to? You don’t have to. You signed up? STFU and do as you’re told.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
I agree that for the most part, liberal America doesn’t give a flying F*** about military personnel. They will say “bring the troops home” and all that “we just want the troops to be safe” crap, but when the rubber meets the road, they really don’t care about troop welfare. It’s all about discrediting and criticizing President Bush no matter what he does. Protestors at the D.C. “Peace Protest” were spitting, cursing, and throwing cigarette butts at the military folks who were there as part of the anti-protest. Those hippie ass-holes are all about ANYTHING anti-Bush. They are THE MOST intollerant people in this country. If you don’t believe their agenda you get branded a racist, a sexist, intollerant, ignorant, and GASP fundamentalist. They vandalized the Fox News truck. Come on, libs. Grow up.

Libs do not truly care about the troops. “Bring them home” is just a neat little political slogan to discredit the President. In fact, they actually pitty the troops and consider them like second-class citizens. I have seen MANY liberal references to the military as “cattle”.

I say "STFU! Let me do my job. You shut your pie-hole and let the real men and women of this nation go out and protect your liberties. I volunteered for this. I am capable of making my own decisions. Not everyone thinks like a lib. Some people are actually PROUD of this country and willing to die for it. If you would quit calling us and our boss “murderers and terrorists”, maybe we could instill some confidence in the Iraqis that we are there till the job is done. So, in closing, I say to liberal America, you are not as smart as you think you are. There are people out there who want you dead. They don’t see R or D, they see American. You had 8 years under Clinton to do something about this and did NOTHING. It’s not pretty, and people will die. That’s American history. Americans are willing to die for freedom. Unfortunately, liberals do not feel this way. Liberals have nothing worth fighting for. That is very sad.

Off soapbox.

The problems have nothing to do with being liberal. The vast majority of the American public has no connection to the military therefore they have no idea what it means to make personal sacrifices for the ideals of a nation. The only thing they are familiar with is the rhetoric that comes from politicians who use the military as a personal soapbox–either as a banner for democratic principles or a banner for republican principles. Its all rhetoric and all incorrect in one way or another.

There are many questions that have not been answered from both sides of the table and until then blaming one side over the other is purely therapeutic.

BTW, I share your distaste for the blind “objectionists” though I myself object whole heartedly. The question that needs to be asked is, in the end what do we hope to acheive and is it really achievable? I don’t know.[/quote]

Agreed. It’s not a partisan issue. At all. Both sides are in the wrong here, and they both exploit the idea of the troops to their own advantage.

How is sending troops to a war we don’t need to be in supporting the troops? How is not giving them the proper tools or strategy or planning needed for said war supporting the troops?

It’s a non-partisan fault.

And as for American’s being willing to die for freedom, how the fuck is freedom being threatened in America? In Iraq Israel and the rest of the Middle East, perhaps, freedom is at stake, but here? No. Here, Americans are being threatened. But is the terrorism supported or disabled by starting wars in the Middle East, in countries where, before the war, few terrorists were being bred?

Since 9/11, there has not been a single real threat to American safety on American soil. If their has, I’d love for someone to point it out to me.

The reason there is a disconnection between the military and the people, is how polarized everything in America has become. You want to send our soldiers to war?!?! You don’t support the troops!!! You want to bring our soldiers back and retreat like cowards?1?! You don’t support the troops!

The truth is we has a payed, volunteer army. Not the army of conscripted and often “adopted” soldiers of Rome.

And Rome also feel due to stretching it’s military into the Middle East. Part of the disconnection might have been the distance, something corrected by todays communication and transportation technology.

When the values of the Soldiers and Marines begin to vary markedly from those of the people they’re protecting, when the fighting men and women begin to perceive that their blood and sacrifice is unappreciated and/or used for a political agenda, then WE’VE GOT A PROBLEM!

How long will America’s Finest continue to protect us if they are spat upon, ridiculed, and humiliated when they come home? Those who do such things dishonor themselves and their country. They attack their protectors!? That is clinically insane.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Ridiculous.

The Romans didn’t have an all voluntary, paid army.

[/quote]

Sorry, voice of reason here. See Gaius Marius and the “Marian reforms.”

Then see Octavian and professionalizing the Roman Army.

In short, around the fall of the Republic, the Roman Army was voluntary, professional, paid, and a path to citizenship.

JeffR

beowolf:

You do know that this dink who wrote the merc commentary is the military advisor for nbc/msnbc?

Does anyone have the percentage of active and former military that voted for Republicans in 2004?

I’ll leave it up to some of the guys on this site to confirm this: It seems more military are skeptical of the democrats’ sincerity.

While I agree that some Republicans haven’t been behaving themselves with regard to the military, I think the dems are the party with the most to answer for in this regard.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
In short, around the fall of the Republic, the Roman Army was voluntary, professional, paid, and a path to citizenship.[/quote]

Give me the Cliff Notes version please.

As far as I’m aware, the Roman army was “paid” by being allowed to share part of the plunder. When the rich, plunder-worthy enemies became scarce, the army wasn’t too happy about it.

[quote]beowolf wrote:

How is sending troops to a war we don’t need to be in supporting the troops? How is not giving them the proper tools or strategy or planning needed for said war supporting the troops?[/quote]

Did you vote for john kerry?

Yes or no please.

Thanks,

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Sorry, voice of reason here. See Gaius Marius and the “Marian reforms.”[/quote]

I read the Wikipedia article on Marian Reforms.

It’s not quite the same situation… offering the disenfranchised a chance to serve in the army for 25 years, in exchange for pay and participation in the spoils (including the attribution of land conquered) makes for a rather different situation.

The service was voluntary in that you could choose to stay poor and starving instead. Not much of a choice, now, is it?

The 25 years term is also quite different from those the US Army offers.

And finally, while it’s not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia, I remember reading somewhere that without spoils to make up for it, the base pay was rather thin.

And the attribution of land meant the many of the armies became loyal to their generals and their conquered territory, not Rome.

Spin it as you will, I fail to see much similarities between the Roman legions and the current US Army, except in the most broad, general description. When the details are considered, they’re about as similar as wine and ketchup.

I think our colleges and other institutions play a huge role in the way our society feels about the military.

We have kids in college looking down on those who joined the military to fight for their country. Most college kids think that it must’ve been their only option. The professors help mold these beliefs by spewing their liberal garbage.

By the way, I just ran a search at my college’s library. “Making the Corps” is not there, but “Making the Peace Corps” is.

[quote]pookie wrote:
[/quote]

Come on pookie, don’t be obtuse. When you are wrong, sack up and admit it.

You clearly stated, “Ridiculous. The Romans didn’t have an all voluntary, paid army.”

The last 5 centuries of Roman existence the Roman Army consisted of volunteers. They were also paid. They were paid in specie and citizenship. They acquired status. The countries that were conquered had plenty of wealthy, landed, gentry who chose to serve to obtain Roman citizenship for themselves and their descendents. Once a provincial did his time, his descendents would obtain all the rights and privileges of Roman citizenship. That was attractive to many.

These were the centuries of the greatest Roman glory.

So your commentary was incorrect. Please don’t compound it with more factual errors such as: “The service was voluntary in that you could choose to stay poor and starving instead. Not much of a choice, now, is it?”

Just admit it and we’ll move on.

JeffR

[quote]pookie wrote:

The service was voluntary in that you could choose to stay poor and starving instead. Not much of a choice, now, is it?

[/quote]

And how many Americans that join are poor, or at least not well-off, and see the military as an option to get themselves out of that situation?

By the time of Rome’s acute military decline the fighting units consisted almost entirely of foreigners or recent quasi-legal immigrants rather. City dwellers lack the stature, experience as well as inclination to fight effectively. Moreover the ethnicities and tribal characteristics of the soldiers was frequently the same as the enemies on the frontier being fought.

The comparison to Rome on this issue would be more relevant if our army was composed heavily of Middle Easterners with little connection to this country and its values and moreover if a great deal of turnover in our armed forces was due to casualties suffered in internecine civil wars. Until the majority of the US power transitions come through multi-party civil wars, I don’t think this issue is particularly germane.