I'm guessing "oops" doesn't quite cover it this time...

[cantdog]

Well, strictly speaking, Joe, you had to redefine civilian into a form none but you would recognize in order to set it up on pins.

One of the master ideas of the republic is the civilian conrol of the military, but of course that would be using the term civilian in its usual and ordinary sense. The Commander in Chief is a civilian for that reason, again using the term as everyday people do. There is not supposed to be a great gulf placed between the political and the military. Rubicons have been crossed erenow. The problem is as old as armies. I am not making this up, Joe. It is not a sidebar.

cantdog

 

[shereads]

Tell me we don't need civilian oversight!

We don't. It gets in the way. My ex was in advertising and had a major defense contractor as an account. When the boys had a few martinis, they'd commisserate over the limitations imposed by Congress and the so-called federal budget. If we just gave the military-industrial complex the money they want and stopped asking questions, the USA could rule whatever would be left of the world.

One of the marketing guys at the client said, of their new anti-tank missile: "It turns the contents of the tank into a brown paste." These are the people I want, together with the Pentagon, determining what kind of world we'll live in as the New American Century progresses.

They make me feel safe. From everybody except my own military.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
Well, strictly speaking, Joe, you had to redefine civilian into a form none but you would recognize in order to set it up on pins.

I think I'd be willing to extend myself a bit and say "when most of us talk about civilians and the military in a functonal way, a significant portion of us, independant of the definition, are referring to a simplified difference between those in charge and involved and those of us who are just private citizens".

How sure are you that nobody but me recognized it?

One of the master ideas of the republic is the civilian conrol of the military, but of course that would be using the term civilian in its usual and ordinary sense. The Commander in Chief is a civilian for that reason, again using the term as everyday people do. There is not supposed to be a great gulf placed between the political and the military. Rubicons have been crossed erenow. The problem is as old as armies. I am not making this up, Joe. It is not a sidebar.

Given the clarification of "civilian" how I chose to use it, I think that when asserting that I have a "no-legged" position, things like "well, some of us were objecting to Rumsfeld" are side-bars... because my point had nothing to do with either Rumsfeld (as an example) or disagreeing with him.

They only had to do with specifically what I said them to do. Nothing more.

You say there isn't supposed to be a great gulf between the political and the military, just as an example, but I never said there was. Only that there is supposed to be one, by agreement, between the civilian population and the military. I have nothing intelligent to say about the line between political and military--and haven't yet.

And, this may be the most important part, while we can get into a disagreement over the actuality of some of our points, I think it a knee-jerk and not terribly well thought out response to say that I simply have a "no-legged" position. That just simply isn't the case. At worst, I may have a position that demands clarification (as we've seen with the definition of civilian) or a position that possessed of exceptions that aren't general... but that's hardly "no legs".

Originally posted by dr_mabeuse
So in other words, all military decisions are, by virtue of being military decisions, exempt from meaningful civilian review?

---dr.M.

Strictly speaking? Without confounders like "what about civilian analysts who were once military or military historians or scholars or people hired to analyze the military by the military, etc., etc."?

Yes, I'd say that they are exempt from meaningful questioning and criticizm by virtue of their internal and associated policy. That isn't to say that its the best way to go about things, I haven't made a value-judgement in any way... that's just to say that objective control has given the military a great deal of autonomy, which is limited sometimes by political leaders (usually when they want something done), and leaves the civilian population out of the loop.

I recall my father relating a story from a friend in CDI where they were dealing with a case of deriliction and some minor drug offenses. A man was shot, he tried bringing up negligence and improper procedure lawsuits out (something that the civilian authorities might have had to care about) and was quickly shut down. The military doesn't answer to the civilian, was the name of the game. He was told "you should call your congressman".

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Strictly speaking? Without confounders like "what about civilian analysts who were once military or military historians or scholars or people hired to analyze the military by the military, etc., etc."?

Yes, I'd say that they are exempt from meaningful questioning and criticizm by virtue of their internal and associated policy. That isn't to say that its the best way to go about things, I haven't made a value-judgement in any way... that's just to say that objective control has given the military a great deal of autonomy, which is limited sometimes by political leaders (usually when they want something done), and leaves the civilian population out of the loop.

I'm not talking about meddling in the internal affairs of the military, but in reviewing strategies and tactics that the military might employ that have political and even strategic effect, such as whether POW's may be tortured, or whether certain weapons may be employed in a theater of war.

If I understand you correctly, you' re saying that the average citizen has no business criticizing such decisions or policies. Is that right?

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Trust el Generalissimo. He has your best interests at heart.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by dr_mabeuse
I'm not talking about meddling in the internal affairs of the military, but in reviewing strategies and tactics that the military might employ that have political and even strategic effect, such as whether POW's may be tortured, or whether certain weapons may be employed in a theater of war.

If I understand you correctly, you' re saying that the average citizen has no business criticizing such decisions or policies. Is that right?

---dr.M.

I am trying to avoid the word "review", as a scholar I have a duty to the freedom of things like "review" as a practice. "Reviewing strategies" is pretty harmless, I think. I don't know that I have any active objection to that.

I wouldn't even say that the average citizen has no business in criticism of decisions or policies. I think I made the point, a bit back, that the civilian has an interest and, possibly, an investment in the actions of their military.

But, does the civilian have a meangful objection or criticism of military action? No. To quote Major Mendoza, "We [ARMY] stopped listening to their [citizens] bitching after we [military and civilians] all agreed that it'd be best if we [ARMY] didn't listen to their bitching".

Edited to add the example of:

Sort of like signing a contract that says Ted is going to pay the rent, Steve is going to carry the baseball bat and protect the apartment, and Dave is going to make sure Steve is doing things right. Everyone agrees. Steve then goes off and scares off the dog that's been scratching up the front door. Dave said that was alright to do. Ted doesn't really have a meaningful objection to Steve's action, though he may have issues with how Dave does his job.

 

[shereads]

The role of Commander in Chief is given to a civilian, the president, under the Constitution. A military commander who doesn't think civilians have a right to influence military decisions is essentially saying that the Commander in Chief shouldn't be.

 

[cantdog]

Given the clarification of "civilian" how I chose to use it, I think that when asserting that I have a "no-legged" position, things like "well, some of us were objecting to Rumsfeld" are side-bars... because my point had nothing to do with either Rumsfeld (as an example) or disagreeing with him.

They only had to do with specifically what I said them to do. Nothing more.

Given that the rest of us had no clue you had a private definition of civilian, I think it was a small step to the conclusion that it had no legs.

But now the discussion has passed on to what you did say, now that we have your new definition. You did say that a citizen has no duty to regulate her government's military endeavors, in a republic.

I think you'll find that has few takers, either.

cantdog

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Granted, and no doubt that decision cost American lives. But it hardly effected the outcome of the war, or even denied our bombers full use of the skies. In the calculus of war, those American lives were weighed against the possible involvement of the USSR, and the air crews came up losers. That’s the way war works, and that's why I hate it so much.

In any case, I don’t know that the civilians fuck up any worse than the Generals do on their own. The more I study war, the more I see it as a horrible, disorganized mess. The victors like to say how it was all cleverly planned and executed, but the more I read, the more it seems that once the first gun is fired it’s a battle against chaos as much as it is against the enemy.

I read a lot about WWI. I wonder what it was like to be a soldier waiting to go over the top at the Battle of the Somme, where 60,000 men died in 24 hours. The soldiers knew that it was certain death to charge emplaced machine guns through a quarter mile of concertina wire. The generals knew it too, but they sent the men into it anyway, simply because they hoped it might work.

What do you do if you’re a soldier being asked to throw your life away just because of another man’s poor judgment? In war, it happens all the time, and most of the time it’s not because of civilians’ meddling.

At Verdun, the German general Staff—the finest generals in the world, probably—devised a strategy that consisted of nothing more than trying to “bleed the French white”. There military fortress of Verdun was the nominal objective, but the real strategy was to keep on throwing Germans at them till the French ran out of men, hoping that they’d run out of men before the Germans did. 400,000 men on both sides died over a ten month period. The front moved a total of 500 meters. 40,000 men a month because of the stupidity of guys with brass on their shoulders.

What do you do if you’re a grunt serving under a general like that? Furthermore, what should the French people at home have done? Defer to the French command because they’re the ‘experts’?

Keeping his troops safe is not a Commander’s first priority. Sometimes it’s not even in the top four or five.

An interesting fact about modern war and collateral damage is that in WWI, something like 90% of the casualities occurred among combatants. In WWII, with air power and mobile warfare, 80-90% of casualities were among civilians.

I read a detailed account of Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire in Afghanistan. We had the best equipment money could by, highly trained people, state-of-the-art communication equipment, and still they shot him dead with rifle fire. Fear, confusion, fog of war.

I don’t know what the stats are on death by friendly fire. I doubt anyone even keeps them, just like we don’t keep stats on innocent Iraqis killed in collateral damage. We just don’t want to know.

---dr.M.

The most accepted Axiom of war is that the plan goes out the window the moment the first shot is fired. No plan can compensate for the reactions of indiviuals on the field, from commanders to grunts. For every Cannae, ther is an Antitam. For every El Alimein a Market garden.

I'm not qualified to question tactical decisions made by professional soldiers. I doubt there are many civilians who are. I still feel we have a right and obligation to question the doctines the soldiers operate under, but I don't think anyone has the right to kibitz on the tactics of the commander sin the field, unless their tacts are in defiance of the doctrines set for them.

 

[rgraham666]

Colleen, I quite agree that Clausewitz gets a bum rap.

Like every book that has something useful to say on a subject, it's been appropriated by people to back up their own prejudices. And to keep them from doing their own thinking.

I'm not sure I agree that applying Sun Tzu to business is such a bad idea. The bad idea is comparing business to war. A business should create something. War is only about destruction.

To get back to the original topic, I am not questioning the decision to use that bomb. I am questioning the doctrine that allows heavy weapons to be used in a situation such as the one now occurring in Iraq.

And, still, the reasons for being in Iraq at all.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen, I quite agree that Clausewitz gets a bum rap.

Like every book that has something useful to say on a subject, it's been appropriated by people to back up their own prejudices. And to keep them from doing their own thinking.

I'm not sure I agree that applying Sun Tzu to business is such a bad idea. The bad idea is comparing business to war. A business should create something. War is only about destruction.

To get back to the original topic, I am not questioning the decision to use that bomb. I am questioning the doctrine that allows heavy weapons to be used in a situation such as the one now occurring in Iraq.

And, still, the reasons for being in Iraq at all.

I think everyone should be questioning the doctrine that calls for heavy ordinance in a city setting. Questioning why we are there is also somethinbg everyne should feel obligated to do.

I would only have a problem with someone questioning the field level commander calling for an air strike. No one know sthe tactical situation, no one knows the field conditions he was operating under and close air support is a fixture in most modern military tactical doctrine. I just don't feel like we, as civilians, are qualified to examine that battlefield call and hindsight 20/20 it, is all.

 

[rgraham666]

True. If I was on the ground and I thought my people were in danger, I would call in that air strike and cheerfully face the board of inquiry later.

Colleen? You should read David Drake's Hammer's Slammers stories sometimes.

The man served with the 11th ACR (The Blackhorse) in Vietnam.

The Slammer's stories are one of the best pieces of literature I've read on what it's like to be a soldier at the sharp end.

There was one, Hangman, where a character deliberately set up a massacre. It sounds really bad put that way, but it was necessary and ended centuries of oppression. And the story showed how nothing is simple in a war

I highly recommend them.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

True. If I was on the ground and I thought my people were in danger, I would call in that air strike and cheerfully face the board of inquiry later.

Colleen? You should read David Drake's Hammer's Slammers stories sometimes.

The man served with the 11th ACR (The Blackhorse) in Vietnam.

The Slammer's stories are one of the best pieces of literature I've read on what it's like to be a soldier at the sharp end.

There was one, Hangman, where a character deliberately set up a massacre. It sounds really bad put that way, but it was necessary and ended centuries of oppression. And the story showed how nothing is simple in a war

I highly recommend them.

I read the Green Berets. If anything will give you a sense of just how futile war must seem on the ragged edge, that book will. Also With the Old Breed: At Peliu and Okinowa by E.B. Sledge. I reccomend both and will look for the slammers when I have finances. thanks Rg

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Edited to add the example of:

Sort of like signing a contract that says Ted is going to pay the rent, Steve is going to carry the baseball bat and protect the apartment, and Dave is going to make sure Steve is doing things right. Everyone agrees. Steve then goes off and scares off the dog that's been scratching up the front door. Dave said that was alright to do. Ted doesn't really have a meaningful objection to Steve's action, though he may have issues with how Dave does his job.

Well, I have to admit I don't understand the analogy at all. Are you implying that the military operates under a piece-work contract with the government? That Bush told the army, "Go topple Saddam and we don't care how you do it."

And I have all the right int the world to criticize Steve if he starts torturing the dogs or bashing their brains in. And if I dont stop him, who will? Dave? Dave thinks Steve's doing an A-One job making an example of those torturd dogs. In fact, it's entirely in Dave's interes not to criticize Steve. They're in bed together.

We could get hung up on the difference between tactical and strategic, but personally, I think a democracy is all about open discourse. Everything and anything is subject to criticism and review and discussion. We may not know what it's like to be in a particular commander's shoes while his men are getting hit, but if he orders a tactical nuke strike I like to think that someone's going to say "wait a minute!" And in a review he gets top tell his side of it as well. I don't see what's wronmg with that.

We have civilian oversight of police and firemen. Why should the military be different? Besides, if you do away with civilian oversight of military operations, then you've got a military dictatorship, plain and simple.

---dr.M.

Edited to add: I don't think anyone's criticizing the commander in the field who ordered the air strike. We started out by talking about Rumsfeld's overall strategy of using a small, high-tech force to subdue Iraq, and the failures it's led to.

My comments were intended to try and disabuse people who think that we're waging a clean, surgical war in Iraq, and only killing bad guys. While our intentions to do so are comendable, the truth is that many many innocent lives are being lost, and that's something they're trying to hide from us.

I wrote before about my neighbor's grandfather --an Iraqi citizen, and hardly an insurgent or Baathist-- being killed in Iraq by an American bomb, so I don't pretend to be an objective spectator of this war. But in my opinion, none of us should be objective.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
Given that the rest of us had no clue you had a private definition of civilian, I think it was a small step to the conclusion that it had no legs.

More accurately, you didn't have a clue. There's a big difference between you and everyone.

But now the discussion has passed on to what you did say, now that we have your new definition. You did say that a citizen has no duty to regulate her government's military endeavors, in a republic.

I think you'll find that has few takers, either.

cantdog

No, my position is that a citizen hasn't a meaningful criticism. I think it liekly that by virtue of their investment, they have a responsibility to use the government to ensure a positive return... but that still isn't the same as a meaningful criticism of a military action.

We should endeavor to quote me accurately and warmly.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by dr_mabeuse
Well, I have to admit I don't understand the analogy at all. Are you implying that the military operates under a piece-work contract with the government? That Bush told the army, "Go topple Saddam and we don't care how you do it."

Honestly, I think that probably resembles reasonably closely the situation. I don't think Bush had much of a hand in directing the conflict, beyond stating the goal. I think that's what's led to a lot of problems, had we a more competant military leader we might have had greater micro-management of our behavior.

And I have all the right int the world to criticize Steve if he starts torturing the dogs or bashing their brains in. And if I dont stop him, who will? Dave? Dave thinks Steve's doing an A-One job making an example of those torturd dogs. In fact, it's entirely in Dave's interes not to criticize Steve. They're in bed together.

The rub is, if its agreed that Dave is supposed to handle it... your objection hasn't any meaning. I'm saying that's our relationship to the military, we have a proxy that we have empowered to act--our grief is with them, not Steve, because we agreed we wouldn't have authority over Steve.

We could get hung up on the difference between tactical and strategic, but personally, I think a democracy is all about open discourse.

So do I, up to a point. But that's more personal than objective, really, and I don't like founding an argument on it. I entirely believe, for personal reasons, that lambasting the military or the work of the military during war-time is treasonous.

We have civilian oversight of police and firemen. Why should the military be different? Besides, if you do away with civilian oversight of military operations, then you've got a military dictatorship, plain and simple.

And, honestly, that's a big issue concerning military reform. That we don't have any convenient civilian (non-involved, non-authoritative) response to the military. Militias have been forming for years because of it. Ultimately, the military is a dog on a leash, and we elect the guy that decides who holds it. That's far from our controlling or having meaningful power over it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

So do I, up to a point. But that's more personal than objective, really, and I don't like founding an argument on it. I entirely believe, for personal reasons, that lambasting the military or the work of the military during war-time is treasonous.

How did we get from reviewing and criticizing to "lambasting"?

Then in your opinion, those who revealed Abu Ghraib, for instance, are traitors to their country? Germans who opposed what the SS was doing in the camps were traitors?

---dr.M.

P.S. By the way: are we really at war? I mean legally? Is the Unitied States currently in a state of war? Because I don't know what the status is.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

How did we get from reviewing and criticizing to "lambasting"?

Then in your opinion, those who revealed Abu Ghraib, for instance, are traitors to their country? Germans who opposed what the SS was doing in the camps were traitors?

---dr.M.

P.S. By the way: are we really at war? I mean legally? Is the Unitied States currently in a state of war? Because I don't know what the status is.

No. A declaration of war has to be voted for by both houses of congress. While we are nominally at war with terrorism, that is a far cry from an actual state of war.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

No. A declaration of war has to be voted for by both houses of congress. While we are nominally at war with terrorism, that is a far cry from an actual state of war.

When's the last time a state of war existed in the USA? WWII?

---Z

 

[Colleen Thomas]

When's the last time a state of war existed in the USA? WWII?

---Z

World War II.

Korea was a U.N. Action.
Vietnam was described as a police action, in fact it was an extended use of the war powers of the C-inC and led to modifications of those powers.
Since then every action, up until Iraq, fell into peacekeeping, U.N actions or, rarely, Humanitarian actions.

Iraq currently most resembles vietnam, inthat it is not U.N. sponsored and is not a declared war. theoretically, it is GWB using the war powers he gets as C-inC. There are congressional controls of those powers, but with a compliant congress, they are really not much of a restraint.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by dr_mabeuse
How did we get from reviewing and criticizing to "lambasting"?

I was expressing an opinion related to, but not dependant on, the discussion at hand.

Then in your opinion, those who revealed Abu Ghraib, for instance, are traitors to their country? Germans who opposed what the SS was doing in the camps were traitors?

On the first, no, revelation isn't quite the same thing as either criticism or lambasting, is it?

On the second, yes, I think that would be an accurate way to look at them. However, at no point have I made any value judgement on situations in which doing the right thing means doing the treacherous thing. The Founding Fathers were committing high treason, but I support that.

And I state, again, the "treasonous" thing is just a personal belief I have... I neither base reasoned opinions on it nor do I laud it as some kind of truth by necessity.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

So much Ares-worshipping. Some people decide, golly a war, how jolly much fun. Like the fucking idiot Europeans on the dawn of World War I. There seems to be people that just like war. The cause, casualties, ramnifications, or opposing troop strength don't matter. All that matters to them is that Our Boys are Victorious. There are buzzwords attributed to the mess of tangled limbs. Glory is the pregnant woman with an eyepatch and a missing leg. Honor is the beautiful and chaste 16-year old girl who had the misfortune to be pretty in an occupied area with people who have been shot at one too many times by people of her color. Courage is a 6 year old boy trying to carry his dead mother or baby sister out of the town before the falling naplam catches up with him. Freedom are the lovers blown up by a misguided bomb before their first copulation. War is Hell but some just don't fucking get it. Still after so much fucking evidence they cling to the idea that war is a fucking game where everyone hops in the pickup and grabs a beer afterwards. War isn't football. It affects people and none more heavily than those caught in the middle.

Ask the Kurds about the glory of war or the residents of Bosnia-Herzegovina (sp) or the Cambodians.

That's not to say it isn't ever neccessary. But it'd be nice if a certain type of personality wasn't so fucking eager for a war, any war.

Maybe if we had fought more wars on our own soil we wouldn't be so 50/50 over Empire Building. Maybe if we knew the taste that the civilians get in the horror of falling bombs wondering when one would go "off-course" or that some enemy soldier decided a family member "didn't look right" or worse "looked too right". Maybe then. Cause now with only soldier's accounts retelling again and again how "war is hell", the people who need to get the message aren't. And that's a tragedy. One that breeds war and suffering and pain and atrocity.

We can't blame shit like this on the soldiers though the men in power will of course do so. This shit happens in war. Atrocities and dead civilians and shattered lives. It's why war is not to be entered like a damn game. There aren't fucking flowers. There's only pain and a grim waiting for peace, any peace, no matter how small.

 

[SeaCat]

So much Ares-worshipping. Some people decide, golly a war, how jolly much fun. Like the fucking idiot Europeans on the dawn of World War I. There seems to be people that just like war. The cause, casualties, ramnifications, or opposing troop strength don't matter. All that matters to them is that Our Boys are Victorious. There are buzzwords attributed to the mess of tangled limbs. Glory is the pregnant woman with an eyepatch and a missing leg. Honor is the beautiful and chaste 16-year old girl who had the misfortune to be pretty in an occupied area with people who have been shot at one too many times by people of her color. Courage is a 6 year old boy trying to carry his dead mother or baby sister out of the town before the falling naplam catches up with him. Freedom are the lovers blown up by a misguided bomb before their first copulation. War is Hell but some just don't fucking get it. Still after so much fucking evidence they cling to the idea that war is a fucking game where everyone hops in the pickup and grabs a beer afterwards. War isn't football. It affects people and none more heavily than those caught in the middle.

Ask the Kurds about the glory of war or the residents of Bosnia-Herzegovina (sp) or the Cambodians.

That's not to say it isn't ever neccessary. But it'd be nice if a certain type of personality wasn't so fucking eager for a war, any war.

Maybe if we had fought more wars on our own soil we wouldn't be so 50/50 over Empire Building. Maybe if we knew the taste that the civilians get in the horror of falling bombs wondering when one would go "off-course" or that some enemy soldier decided a family member "didn't look right" or worse "looked too right". Maybe then. Cause now with only soldier's accounts retelling again and again how "war is hell", the people who need to get the message aren't. And that's a tragedy. One that breeds war and suffering and pain and atrocity.

We can't blame shit like this on the soldiers though the men in power will of course do so. This shit happens in war. Atrocities and dead civilians and shattered lives. It's why war is not to be entered like a damn game. There aren't fucking flowers. There's only pain and a grim waiting for peace, any peace, no matter how small.

I don't think I have ever seen it said better.

Cat

 

[shereads]

Maybe if we had fought more wars on our own soil we wouldn't be so 50/50 over Empire Building.

Bingo.

It makes a difference, being a continent away from the bloodshed.

 

[Kassiana]

Ever read Mark Twain's "War Prayer," Luc? Your speech above reminded me of it a lot.

War is not a game. Unfortunately I don't believe our President thinks it isn't, especially since no one he knows will die as a result.