I am constantly reading where some mother is communicating with her son in college, whether he has the right socks or maybe is eating properly; and, of course, the usual tenor of the article is that if there's any negative, must be the Mom's fault. On a related but more serious vein is a recent article I read with a title of "When we let them down, kids get high"--bored kids doing drugs. The article is written by a therapist who basically is lifting the responsibilty of taking drugs from the kids to being our fault--we're not listening to them. They are bored with life with a mantra that life sucks and consequently a way to make it not suck is to do drugs. OK!
According to the story, many of these kids know how to score Oxycontin, a pain medication derived from opium, along with the designer drug, methamphetamines with the ease of opening a coke can. Her statement, "It's happening here at beautiful Lake Tahoe, where people come to enjoy a nice vacation, where people drive SUVs the size of tanks and people are unwilling to face the reality that the local ski areas would probably have very few employees at all if they tested for drugs and enforced a clean and sober policy at work." Wow! What ever happened to kids doing homework, having an afterschool job, playing sports, hanging out with girl friends or boyfriends. And, more important where are the parents? Are they scared of their kids--no confrontation less they alienate! Give me a break.
I have a solution for the therapist who feels so strongly the plight of the teenagers she's counseling. What about the Army or Marines. What about kids knowing that at some point, bored or not, they are going to have to face the military draft or best case, some alternative. Why not? What do we think is going to happen to these kids who at eleven know how to get drugs and get high. They are going to be a burden at some point on society. Even with baby boomers today, many are facing health problems from their "summers of love' and these kids are going to be so much worse even if they make it.
If we at least get these kids in the military they might have a chance. There should be an AllServe and we need a system where those drugged out will do best in the militry where there is a possibility that they can get straighten out. Sound far fetched. Well, not any more than doing nothing.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Sunday, October 30, 2005
AN OPEN LETTER TO GEORGE SOROS
AN OPEN LETTER TO George Soros
I have followed your contributions for a better American over the last several years. Thank you. You have stated that you want to make a difference in changing our fractured America. I see only one way--a youth culture built around service.
ARE WE A FRACTURED SOCIETY
For some time, I too have been concerned about our fractured culture. Recently, Readers Digest had an article about whether we are truly a "fractured America." It said "not as much as we think" but unfortunately, we let the left and right wings drive us according to the article. To be perfectly honest, I'm not so sure. I would like to think that most of us congregate in the middle but have my doubts.
The last presidential election is credited to the right wing fundamentalists of the Republican party for tipping the scales. However, they were only able to do this because a large contingency of who Democrats were counting on--the young people, simply didn't vote. To me, there's a great lesson in this. We have to have something other than politics to unite us. The benefits to an AllServe Universal Service are legion. One, above all, however, is the unifying factor. In our extremely polarized country, we need something to unify us. What better than youth, 18-26, with a common experience. An AllServe would provide such an experience.
UNIVERSAL SERVICE WILL SELL
What I am discovering is that many Americans will go for Universal Service if youth is given an option. When I first began my campaign ten years ago, it was just about the military draft. I could count on one hand those who mildly agreed, especially those with children. Thinking has changed and more and more parents of eligible kids see the advantage. Having a choice is the selling point. AllServe needs to be promoted, a formal organization created, and a build up of support in the country. Once this happens, the Congress will follow.
There are so many positives to this approach. First of all, it could be phased in over ten years and promoted among our youngsters now. A success story and the way AllServe could work is Teach America. They are getting top graduates who could be in medical school or Wharton business or wherever--yet choose to do something meaningful before they start their careers. Teach America sends graduates into poor rural and urban schools for two years. For many, it has become a next step after graduation. These kids want to contribute to improving society while keeping their options open. At Yale for instance, Teach America, drew applications from 12% of the graduates, 11% at Dartmarth, and 8% at Harvard. All told a record 17,350 applied in one year.
Are our present kids a post 9-11 generation ready to opt more aggressively for public service? I think so. Many of those volunteering for Teach America don't know what they want to do. The thought is that not knowing what to do, why not take some time to do something meaningful for a couple of years and think about the future. The military is only one of the options. Universal Service will work.
To be able to make something like this successful, we know that it is about marketing as much as anything. Consequently, a blitz of goals and an organized campaign over a five or ten year period is the secret. What think?
I have followed your contributions for a better American over the last several years. Thank you. You have stated that you want to make a difference in changing our fractured America. I see only one way--a youth culture built around service.
ARE WE A FRACTURED SOCIETY
For some time, I too have been concerned about our fractured culture. Recently, Readers Digest had an article about whether we are truly a "fractured America." It said "not as much as we think" but unfortunately, we let the left and right wings drive us according to the article. To be perfectly honest, I'm not so sure. I would like to think that most of us congregate in the middle but have my doubts.
The last presidential election is credited to the right wing fundamentalists of the Republican party for tipping the scales. However, they were only able to do this because a large contingency of who Democrats were counting on--the young people, simply didn't vote. To me, there's a great lesson in this. We have to have something other than politics to unite us. The benefits to an AllServe Universal Service are legion. One, above all, however, is the unifying factor. In our extremely polarized country, we need something to unify us. What better than youth, 18-26, with a common experience. An AllServe would provide such an experience.
UNIVERSAL SERVICE WILL SELL
What I am discovering is that many Americans will go for Universal Service if youth is given an option. When I first began my campaign ten years ago, it was just about the military draft. I could count on one hand those who mildly agreed, especially those with children. Thinking has changed and more and more parents of eligible kids see the advantage. Having a choice is the selling point. AllServe needs to be promoted, a formal organization created, and a build up of support in the country. Once this happens, the Congress will follow.
There are so many positives to this approach. First of all, it could be phased in over ten years and promoted among our youngsters now. A success story and the way AllServe could work is Teach America. They are getting top graduates who could be in medical school or Wharton business or wherever--yet choose to do something meaningful before they start their careers. Teach America sends graduates into poor rural and urban schools for two years. For many, it has become a next step after graduation. These kids want to contribute to improving society while keeping their options open. At Yale for instance, Teach America, drew applications from 12% of the graduates, 11% at Dartmarth, and 8% at Harvard. All told a record 17,350 applied in one year.
Are our present kids a post 9-11 generation ready to opt more aggressively for public service? I think so. Many of those volunteering for Teach America don't know what they want to do. The thought is that not knowing what to do, why not take some time to do something meaningful for a couple of years and think about the future. The military is only one of the options. Universal Service will work.
To be able to make something like this successful, we know that it is about marketing as much as anything. Consequently, a blitz of goals and an organized campaign over a five or ten year period is the secret. What think?
Sunday, October 02, 2005
ARMY RECRUITING IN THE TOILET
Why? Many reasons: a war, economy good, resistance to the military by parents and zealots growing. Congress at leasts wants the Army to expand by 50,000 more while the military can hardly maintain the status quo. Where are they going to get these fifty thousand? In other words, the Army is in a hurt. Afghanistan and Iraq are long term commitments and there seems to be no let up in either war. The Generals give these rosy pictures but who believes them anymore. Not anybody I know. So, what to do!
In a perfect world, we would not need an Army but unless horses start to fly and the Democrats and the Republicans lay down together in the Biblical concept of Lions and Sheep, forget it. There's a real lesson for us here. I've been pushing the idea of AllServe for years and feel mostly like a voice crying in the wilderness. However, I am beginning to see a crack in the intransigent views. Congress, gutless as they are, will not even consider a draft. And, when the draft issue was raised, it was merely symbolic. However, all of this is missing the boat, big time. If we had an AllServe approach to Universal service, the draft, for instance, would be only one small aspect of the total picture. We would be limited only by our own imagination. We could have teachers corps, peace Corp, domestic service, minic many of the programs that the States or Cities already have in place. Military service would only be a small portion of it.
This idea doesn't even sound radical, merely practical. Would young Americans join the military in great numbers? Sure. We've already seen the evidence in crisis: in fact, many of our volunteer Army now were recruited after 9-11. The most famous recruit, of course, is the now deceased, killed in battle, Pat Tillman. A million dollar NFL contract would not deter him. And, despite many obstacles, it was his choice. Even though now, there is a question on how he died, this does not take away from his sacrifices. And, it would not deter many other Americans. All the AllServe would do for many is nudge them toward what they want to do anyway. There would be no deferments.
This idea is exceedingly more feasible than initiating a military draft which may become a possibility. And, we are at the point where we can give no credence to those like Rumsfelt or the Generals who run the recruiting program. They have failed and all their pronouncements are not going to make it any different. Our present military is woefully undersized for the commitments we have undertaken. We are incredibly lucky that we have not had to deal with a truly major conflict.
What if by some stretch of the imagination, we had to take on a major power like China with its unlimited manpower. They could easily overwhelm us, creating unthinkable options like nuclear. Without getting into strategy, an AllServe needs merely to think in terms of numbers. The benefits to an AllServe Universal Service are legion. One, above all, however, is the unifying factor. In our extremely divisive country, we need something to unify us. What better than youth, 18-26, with a common experience. An AllServe would provide such an experience.
UNIVERSAL SERVICE IS THE ANSWER
In a perfect world, we would not need an Army but unless horses start to fly and the Democrats and the Republicans lay down together in the Biblical concept of Lions and Sheep, forget it. There's a real lesson for us here. I've been pushing the idea of AllServe for years and feel mostly like a voice crying in the wilderness. However, I am beginning to see a crack in the intransigent views. Congress, gutless as they are, will not even consider a draft. And, when the draft issue was raised, it was merely symbolic. However, all of this is missing the boat, big time. If we had an AllServe approach to Universal service, the draft, for instance, would be only one small aspect of the total picture. We would be limited only by our own imagination. We could have teachers corps, peace Corp, domestic service, minic many of the programs that the States or Cities already have in place. Military service would only be a small portion of it.
This idea doesn't even sound radical, merely practical. Would young Americans join the military in great numbers? Sure. We've already seen the evidence in crisis: in fact, many of our volunteer Army now were recruited after 9-11. The most famous recruit, of course, is the now deceased, killed in battle, Pat Tillman. A million dollar NFL contract would not deter him. And, despite many obstacles, it was his choice. Even though now, there is a question on how he died, this does not take away from his sacrifices. And, it would not deter many other Americans. All the AllServe would do for many is nudge them toward what they want to do anyway. There would be no deferments.
This idea is exceedingly more feasible than initiating a military draft which may become a possibility. And, we are at the point where we can give no credence to those like Rumsfelt or the Generals who run the recruiting program. They have failed and all their pronouncements are not going to make it any different. Our present military is woefully undersized for the commitments we have undertaken. We are incredibly lucky that we have not had to deal with a truly major conflict.
What if by some stretch of the imagination, we had to take on a major power like China with its unlimited manpower. They could easily overwhelm us, creating unthinkable options like nuclear. Without getting into strategy, an AllServe needs merely to think in terms of numbers. The benefits to an AllServe Universal Service are legion. One, above all, however, is the unifying factor. In our extremely divisive country, we need something to unify us. What better than youth, 18-26, with a common experience. An AllServe would provide such an experience.
Friday, September 30, 2005
NOBODY WENT TO VIETNAM WHO DIDN'T WANT TOO
THE SIXTIES
I watched this program about the Sixties the other night on public TV. It had been on before but I saw it totally through for the first time. Very interesting. I was in Vietnam during the pivotal time, according to the show. And, like all documentaries, it tells the story from a particular perspective. The perspective being that the entire country was into the summer of love, San Francico and Berkeley being the place to be--the student movement, the black panthers, etc.. And, of course for the discerning person that was not true. The events that they think were turning points, I don't see at all and was mostly in their imagination. Someone said that "a person's perception is their reality" and so true. The documentarian of the program, The Sixties, has a perception and for him and the writers, it is their reality. But, for many of us, so entirely different.
One of those interviewed on the draft said something like, "anybody with intelligence, sophistication and didn't want to go to Vietnam, could get out of it. Relatively true and was one of the things wrong with the draft.
And, some of the facts in the program were wrong. An event in 67, before I went to Vietnam, I was with the 503d Military Police Battalion. We went to Washington for the March on the Pentagon. The 503d was shown in lots of pictures and the documentary called them the 82d Airborne. Not. The 82d was not even there. Now, does that make any difference? No. But, I think what it means is simply that TV, movies, etc. have a story to tell and sometimes the facts, even very relevant ones, get lost in the process.
The facts are that Vietnam was a sorry war. The draft was incredibly inequitable and consequently there was no sense of shared sacrifice. The Sixties were an important time in reflection but the perception of the TV documentary did not fit the rest of the country. But, surely cannot be minimized either in terms of the events and the significance even if not universal. As far as the "draft" is concern, what we are shown that we do not want a draft in the Sixties context. The draft to be successful must be only one avenue for an AllServe approach to service. For that fact alone, thanks for the good documentary.
I watched this program about the Sixties the other night on public TV. It had been on before but I saw it totally through for the first time. Very interesting. I was in Vietnam during the pivotal time, according to the show. And, like all documentaries, it tells the story from a particular perspective. The perspective being that the entire country was into the summer of love, San Francico and Berkeley being the place to be--the student movement, the black panthers, etc.. And, of course for the discerning person that was not true. The events that they think were turning points, I don't see at all and was mostly in their imagination. Someone said that "a person's perception is their reality" and so true. The documentarian of the program, The Sixties, has a perception and for him and the writers, it is their reality. But, for many of us, so entirely different.
One of those interviewed on the draft said something like, "anybody with intelligence, sophistication and didn't want to go to Vietnam, could get out of it. Relatively true and was one of the things wrong with the draft.
And, some of the facts in the program were wrong. An event in 67, before I went to Vietnam, I was with the 503d Military Police Battalion. We went to Washington for the March on the Pentagon. The 503d was shown in lots of pictures and the documentary called them the 82d Airborne. Not. The 82d was not even there. Now, does that make any difference? No. But, I think what it means is simply that TV, movies, etc. have a story to tell and sometimes the facts, even very relevant ones, get lost in the process.
The facts are that Vietnam was a sorry war. The draft was incredibly inequitable and consequently there was no sense of shared sacrifice. The Sixties were an important time in reflection but the perception of the TV documentary did not fit the rest of the country. But, surely cannot be minimized either in terms of the events and the significance even if not universal. As far as the "draft" is concern, what we are shown that we do not want a draft in the Sixties context. The draft to be successful must be only one avenue for an AllServe approach to service. For that fact alone, thanks for the good documentary.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
THE POWER OF GRIEF
One of my Vietnam buddies told me once that when his brother was killed in Vietnam, his Mom went into the house and did not come out for seven years. Amazing but I am not surprised. Grief is a powerful force and affects all of us in different ways. For some, we move right on or appear too. For others, we never move on. The Mother of Pat Tillman is having trouble. I've been following her story and understand. She is after truth. How was he killed? Why was she lied too? What is the Army trying to conceal? The questions are endless and when her answers come, will they satisfied her?
I doubt it. Pat Tillman's loss is huge. Every loss in war is huge but his strikes a blow most unusual. An American success story: NFL star football player with a gigantic financial future. Enlists in the military after the attack on the World Trade Center. Becomes an elite Army Ranger. Is killed at war by friendly fire.
FRIENDLY FIRE HAPPENS ALL THE TIME
It happens all the time in war. I was amazed in Vietnam that we did not have more of it. Everybody had a weapon or several. We did not have the sophisticated communication systems we have now. And, for Vietnam or presently at war, under the best of circumstances, friendly fire happens!
I am not about to speak for the military or to justify any approach they have taken and surely understand Pat Tillman's mother's grief. Her grief appears to be vastly different than the grief of now celebrity protestor, Cindy Sheehan, who also lost a son. Whereas Pat Tillman's Mom shuns the limelight, Ms. Sheehan seeks it. Her motives to me are somewhat suspect as she appears to have morphed into a sound bite. Ms. Sheehan's picture smiling while being arrested appears to indicate that she definitely has moved on in her grief. Not so for Pat Tillman's Mom.
There will be no final answers is all that I can assure Pat Tillman's Mom, even when the Army has laid itself bare, if it ever does. As sad as it is, at the base level, we have to accept that Pat Tillman made a choice to "join up." And, unfortunately, the decision casts him forever facing the possibilities that at war anything and everything can and does happen. Even horrible mistakes! What makes the loss of life so hard to take, Tillman's life or any life in war, is the finality of it. And, these sacrifices aren't shared sacrifices, as only a miniscule number of our democracy owns the sacrifice. It is the peril of a Volunteer Army and it is simply a travesty.
I doubt it. Pat Tillman's loss is huge. Every loss in war is huge but his strikes a blow most unusual. An American success story: NFL star football player with a gigantic financial future. Enlists in the military after the attack on the World Trade Center. Becomes an elite Army Ranger. Is killed at war by friendly fire.
FRIENDLY FIRE HAPPENS ALL THE TIME
It happens all the time in war. I was amazed in Vietnam that we did not have more of it. Everybody had a weapon or several. We did not have the sophisticated communication systems we have now. And, for Vietnam or presently at war, under the best of circumstances, friendly fire happens!
I am not about to speak for the military or to justify any approach they have taken and surely understand Pat Tillman's mother's grief. Her grief appears to be vastly different than the grief of now celebrity protestor, Cindy Sheehan, who also lost a son. Whereas Pat Tillman's Mom shuns the limelight, Ms. Sheehan seeks it. Her motives to me are somewhat suspect as she appears to have morphed into a sound bite. Ms. Sheehan's picture smiling while being arrested appears to indicate that she definitely has moved on in her grief. Not so for Pat Tillman's Mom.
There will be no final answers is all that I can assure Pat Tillman's Mom, even when the Army has laid itself bare, if it ever does. As sad as it is, at the base level, we have to accept that Pat Tillman made a choice to "join up." And, unfortunately, the decision casts him forever facing the possibilities that at war anything and everything can and does happen. Even horrible mistakes! What makes the loss of life so hard to take, Tillman's life or any life in war, is the finality of it. And, these sacrifices aren't shared sacrifices, as only a miniscule number of our democracy owns the sacrifice. It is the peril of a Volunteer Army and it is simply a travesty.
Didn't Do The Math On English
Monday, Lynndie England was found guilty of Iraqi prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. She was sentenced to 3 years in prison. Please! Give me a break! Is there something wrong with this picture? You take a National Guard type who is as emotionally sophisticated as a tree, put her in a position to screw up, along with others without training and supervision; and, when she messes up, you zap her. Talk about making the military look bad-The black eye is on the military at the highest levels.
One of the reasons that the military is usually so effective is the chain of command. In this case, the first question that should be asked is where was the chain of command? Private England had a squad leader, a platoon sergeant, a first sergeant, a platoon leader, a company commander, a battalion commander, and on up the chain. Where were these people? I can tell you. They were asleep at the wheel. In one sense, she is hardly responsible. In another sense, she is not smart enough to be responsible! And, to convict her and send her to prison is a gross injustice and it ought to make military people ashamed. The entire chain of command is at fault and yet they are unscathed.
Further still, England should never have been in Iraq. The National Guard should not have been in Iraq but that aside, a youngster like England is there because the volunteer is not working. We do not have enough forces to be in a war like Iraq which is going to go on endlessly. Therefore, we have to use the National Guard which traditionally has always been available for Governors. It is indeed a sorry situation when we have to use youngsters like England and all those involved in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Untrained, unsophisticated, unsupervised and we send her to prison. Sad and scandalous.
One of the reasons that the military is usually so effective is the chain of command. In this case, the first question that should be asked is where was the chain of command? Private England had a squad leader, a platoon sergeant, a first sergeant, a platoon leader, a company commander, a battalion commander, and on up the chain. Where were these people? I can tell you. They were asleep at the wheel. In one sense, she is hardly responsible. In another sense, she is not smart enough to be responsible! And, to convict her and send her to prison is a gross injustice and it ought to make military people ashamed. The entire chain of command is at fault and yet they are unscathed.
Further still, England should never have been in Iraq. The National Guard should not have been in Iraq but that aside, a youngster like England is there because the volunteer is not working. We do not have enough forces to be in a war like Iraq which is going to go on endlessly. Therefore, we have to use the National Guard which traditionally has always been available for Governors. It is indeed a sorry situation when we have to use youngsters like England and all those involved in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Untrained, unsophisticated, unsupervised and we send her to prison. Sad and scandalous.
Friday, September 23, 2005
MILITARY RECRUITING AT SCHOOLS UNDER FIRE
With Katrina and now hurricane Rita, somehow much of this loses its urgency but talking about things military shouldn't. We still have soldiers at war and soldiers who are dying. The count is nudging on toward 2000. I see this as a more than difficult time in the entire scenario. Right now, things domestic are on people's minds: the news clips have to do with hurricanes and things right here at home--Americans at all levels are suffering. And, to the average man on the street, fighting a war in Iraq, for whatever reasons the President and his die-hard supporters come up with, it does not resonate as it did before the Hurricanes!
TROOPS ON THE FOREFRONT
With Katrina, it did seem to suddenly take a different turn when the troops showed up. One guy said, "I thought my country had abandoned me and then I saw the 82d Airborne." Now, that is an indorsement and rightly so. American soldiers like the 82d are the best trained in the world and could have alleviated much suffering in the first 72 hours of Katrina.
However, with all the Fauntleroy of supporting the troops, it is a sham; I want to say "what sort of show are people putting on?" Support the troops while at the same time headlines like "schools opt out" What this means is that schools are opting out of recruiters being allowed to talk to students. Does this speak volumes or what! NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). One mother said, "I don't want the military recruiters contacting her teenage daughters but she wants the teens to hear about college scholarships and job opportunities from other organizations." NIMBY! What she is all shook up about is the federal law, No Child Left Behind Act which requires that military recruiters have the same access to student information as educational recruiters. Schools that do not let the recruiters have at the students risk access to federal funds.
TOO GOOD FOR THE MIILITARY
After Vietnam, vets got no sympathy mainly because the prevailing attitude was that if we weren't so stupid, we could have avoided Vietnam like most everybody else. What is the attitude now? Iraqnam? Maybe or maybe those hollow concepts of "support the troops" are really a mask for "my kids are too good for the military." I don't know and doubt anybody would admit it if they felt that way. And, until we have some sort of equitable AllServe, those troops who show up in New Orleans or Houston or wherever will come from a small segment of our culture. It ain't fair.
With Katrina and now hurricane Rita, somehow much of this loses its urgency but talking about things military shouldn't. We still have soldiers at war and soldiers who are dying. The count is nudging on toward 2000. I see this as a more than difficult time in the entire scenario. Right now, things domestic are on people's minds: the news clips have to do with hurricanes and things right here at home--Americans at all levels are suffering. And, to the average man on the street, fighting a war in Iraq, for whatever reasons the President and his die-hard supporters come up with, it does not resonate as it did before the Hurricanes!
TROOPS ON THE FOREFRONT
With Katrina, it did seem to suddenly take a different turn when the troops showed up. One guy said, "I thought my country had abandoned me and then I saw the 82d Airborne." Now, that is an indorsement and rightly so. American soldiers like the 82d are the best trained in the world and could have alleviated much suffering in the first 72 hours of Katrina.
However, with all the Fauntleroy of supporting the troops, it is a sham; I want to say "what sort of show are people putting on?" Support the troops while at the same time headlines like "schools opt out" What this means is that schools are opting out of recruiters being allowed to talk to students. Does this speak volumes or what! NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). One mother said, "I don't want the military recruiters contacting her teenage daughters but she wants the teens to hear about college scholarships and job opportunities from other organizations." NIMBY! What she is all shook up about is the federal law, No Child Left Behind Act which requires that military recruiters have the same access to student information as educational recruiters. Schools that do not let the recruiters have at the students risk access to federal funds.
TOO GOOD FOR THE MIILITARY
After Vietnam, vets got no sympathy mainly because the prevailing attitude was that if we weren't so stupid, we could have avoided Vietnam like most everybody else. What is the attitude now? Iraqnam? Maybe or maybe those hollow concepts of "support the troops" are really a mask for "my kids are too good for the military." I don't know and doubt anybody would admit it if they felt that way. And, until we have some sort of equitable AllServe, those troops who show up in New Orleans or Houston or wherever will come from a small segment of our culture. It ain't fair.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
THE CINDY SHEEHAN SAGA
SON WANTED TO BE A CHAPLAIN'S ASSISTANT
As I understand it, Cindy Sheehan actually met with the president at some point and heard his "noble" cause speech. Since then, her grief has somewhat overwhelmed her I believe and regardless of what camp we are in, she has a dead son killed in war. She now says since all those "noble cause" issues are gone, No weapons of mass destruction, etc., "Then what, Mr. President, what is the noble cause?" But, her question has morphed into politics and so to me, there's some question now of disrespecting her son and the sons of other grieving parents: very confusing.
Although it is a free country and people can demonstrate or do whatever they want about the war, I admit that as much as I detest the mismanagement of the war, there is something disconcerting about protesting while we are fighting. When I was in Vietnam, along with most vets, I think, the demonstrating seemed at best disingenuous. We weren't sophisticated enough then to sort it out. It seemed so personal then, while the protests now seem so hollow.
I don't see any grand numbers of people getting on board the "movement" Sheehan has started. She has lost a son but for those who are there to show support, unless they are willing for their sons and daughters to be a part of the process, i. e., meaning some real investment like a son or daughter in the military, I don't want to hear it.--not much empathy from these quarters--there's little shared sacrifice because of the war, not effecting most of these people's lives. For example, they had a big vigil in San Francisco and someone said, "We'd like to be with Cindy but just can't work it out right now." Hell, they can't work it out because it's inconvenient.
Her crusade definitely became a "media circus" and now her grief has morphed into a "cause." Those who hate Bush and the war mostly are zeolots and like to think that Ms. Sheehan's cause is gaining momentum. Conversely, the Bush ideologues aren't going to change.
And, just yesterday, I read where Casey Sheehan had been promised he could be a Chaplain's Assistant. The Army reneged she said. Casey was a very religious kid and there is some thought that he was even thinking about the Priesthood. Cindy was a lay Minster in the Catholic Church. Her husband is divorcing her--the son's death simply destroyed the marriage. I can understand. There are no winners in the Cindy Sheehan saga. kt
As I understand it, Cindy Sheehan actually met with the president at some point and heard his "noble" cause speech. Since then, her grief has somewhat overwhelmed her I believe and regardless of what camp we are in, she has a dead son killed in war. She now says since all those "noble cause" issues are gone, No weapons of mass destruction, etc., "Then what, Mr. President, what is the noble cause?" But, her question has morphed into politics and so to me, there's some question now of disrespecting her son and the sons of other grieving parents: very confusing.
Although it is a free country and people can demonstrate or do whatever they want about the war, I admit that as much as I detest the mismanagement of the war, there is something disconcerting about protesting while we are fighting. When I was in Vietnam, along with most vets, I think, the demonstrating seemed at best disingenuous. We weren't sophisticated enough then to sort it out. It seemed so personal then, while the protests now seem so hollow.
I don't see any grand numbers of people getting on board the "movement" Sheehan has started. She has lost a son but for those who are there to show support, unless they are willing for their sons and daughters to be a part of the process, i. e., meaning some real investment like a son or daughter in the military, I don't want to hear it.--not much empathy from these quarters--there's little shared sacrifice because of the war, not effecting most of these people's lives. For example, they had a big vigil in San Francisco and someone said, "We'd like to be with Cindy but just can't work it out right now." Hell, they can't work it out because it's inconvenient.
Her crusade definitely became a "media circus" and now her grief has morphed into a "cause." Those who hate Bush and the war mostly are zeolots and like to think that Ms. Sheehan's cause is gaining momentum. Conversely, the Bush ideologues aren't going to change.
And, just yesterday, I read where Casey Sheehan had been promised he could be a Chaplain's Assistant. The Army reneged she said. Casey was a very religious kid and there is some thought that he was even thinking about the Priesthood. Cindy was a lay Minster in the Catholic Church. Her husband is divorcing her--the son's death simply destroyed the marriage. I can understand. There are no winners in the Cindy Sheehan saga. kt
Sunday, July 10, 2005
A VOLUNTARY ARMY THAT WORKS
WAR WITHOUT END
In the cowboy movie, Silverado, Kevin Kline is talking to the part owner of a saloon. He adores her as an honest, kind, and special person: a mother/sister figure. It has been established that Kline is one of those moral cowboys who is somewhat of a renaissance man. And, those he cares about, he really cares about. Not to mention he is a person to be feared in a gunfight. The bad guy who was once his riding partner has threatened to do harm to Kline's friend. A battle is raging over right and wrong: cattle barons versus the little guys. Kline's friend realizes the reason that he has not taken sides is because he fears for his friend. She says to him, "If," and she names the bad guy, "Cobb, is dead, he can't hurt anybody," thus giving Kline permission to do what he has to do.
WORLD HAS CHANGED SINCE SEPTEMBER 11
No one needs me to tell them that things have changed for all of us since that fateful day in September, 2001. We see it in everything and the recent tragic bombings in London show us anew. Terrorism is a way of life! And, we have a choice on how we are going to deal with it.
We have chosen to take the war to the terrorists. An unpopular war to many Americans but one that undeniably is the right approach to me. It is a strategy and whether it is a somewhat selfish philosophy or not, terrorism has not come back to our shores since 9-11. So, is it working? I think so with a price.
SADDAM HAD TO GO
My complaint about the Iraqi War all along is not the fact we are waging it--at some point Saddam would have had to be taken out. He was insane surrounded by lunatics. To me, our timing was off, and we mismanaged the aftermath in such a way as it is almost embarrassing when you think of the smart people we have in our country. To ignore the obvious: securing the borders, the storehouse of weapons, the national treasuries, disbanding the Army and totally not understanding the mind of the Muslim, just to name a few. It was almost as though the planners sat around some table and said: "How can we screw this up?"
THE RIGHT MIX OF TROOPS
We still do not have the right mix of soldiers in Iraq and there appears to be nobody listening to the many voices dealing with this. I am constantly reading articles by this very smart guy, John Arquila, a Professor of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Always, his articles have a disclaimer: "Views do not reflect official defense department policy." Obviously not because they make too much sense. He advocates among many things: small teams of Special Forces troops who can hunt down the terrorists.
VIETNAM TAUGHT US NOTHING
I echo his philosophy from our experience in Vietnam with some expansion. "Uncle HO" realized that he could wait us out as long as we fought the Vietnam War with conventional soldiers. The American Army in Vietnam was a good one that fought bravely but they were conventional soldiers. Simply stated, the American public would not stand for the war to go on forever. If Vietnam had WW ll front lines or even like Korea, conventional soldiers could have done the job posthaste. However, Vietnam and now Iraq are not conventional. The VC operated among the populace: we couldn't tell foe from friend.
Sound familiar? In Iraq, the complaint of our soldiers is that they know that often when the insurgents strike, they then hide among the populace. Very frustrating. What we need in Iraq as we did in Vietnam are unconventional soldiers: those who will fight the terrorists at their own game: hit and run, chase them down, equip the populace to help, train the police and mostly be unrelenting both in the fight and our resolve to stay till the job is done.
SPECIAL OPERATIONS SOLDIERS
Special Operations troops are volunteers, they are experts in explosives, living off the land, weapons, and they know how to endure. They are the elite of the elite. And, they know how to train indigenous forces. Older and more experienced, these soldiers love this sort of stuff; they are Rangers, Navy Seals, Green berets--they are what are affectionately called, snake eaters. This is what we need in Iraq. And, it is what Professor Arquilla is suggesting but like so much in this war, nobody is listening. God bless us. kt
In the cowboy movie, Silverado, Kevin Kline is talking to the part owner of a saloon. He adores her as an honest, kind, and special person: a mother/sister figure. It has been established that Kline is one of those moral cowboys who is somewhat of a renaissance man. And, those he cares about, he really cares about. Not to mention he is a person to be feared in a gunfight. The bad guy who was once his riding partner has threatened to do harm to Kline's friend. A battle is raging over right and wrong: cattle barons versus the little guys. Kline's friend realizes the reason that he has not taken sides is because he fears for his friend. She says to him, "If," and she names the bad guy, "Cobb, is dead, he can't hurt anybody," thus giving Kline permission to do what he has to do.
WORLD HAS CHANGED SINCE SEPTEMBER 11
No one needs me to tell them that things have changed for all of us since that fateful day in September, 2001. We see it in everything and the recent tragic bombings in London show us anew. Terrorism is a way of life! And, we have a choice on how we are going to deal with it.
We have chosen to take the war to the terrorists. An unpopular war to many Americans but one that undeniably is the right approach to me. It is a strategy and whether it is a somewhat selfish philosophy or not, terrorism has not come back to our shores since 9-11. So, is it working? I think so with a price.
SADDAM HAD TO GO
My complaint about the Iraqi War all along is not the fact we are waging it--at some point Saddam would have had to be taken out. He was insane surrounded by lunatics. To me, our timing was off, and we mismanaged the aftermath in such a way as it is almost embarrassing when you think of the smart people we have in our country. To ignore the obvious: securing the borders, the storehouse of weapons, the national treasuries, disbanding the Army and totally not understanding the mind of the Muslim, just to name a few. It was almost as though the planners sat around some table and said: "How can we screw this up?"
THE RIGHT MIX OF TROOPS
We still do not have the right mix of soldiers in Iraq and there appears to be nobody listening to the many voices dealing with this. I am constantly reading articles by this very smart guy, John Arquila, a Professor of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Always, his articles have a disclaimer: "Views do not reflect official defense department policy." Obviously not because they make too much sense. He advocates among many things: small teams of Special Forces troops who can hunt down the terrorists.
VIETNAM TAUGHT US NOTHING
I echo his philosophy from our experience in Vietnam with some expansion. "Uncle HO" realized that he could wait us out as long as we fought the Vietnam War with conventional soldiers. The American Army in Vietnam was a good one that fought bravely but they were conventional soldiers. Simply stated, the American public would not stand for the war to go on forever. If Vietnam had WW ll front lines or even like Korea, conventional soldiers could have done the job posthaste. However, Vietnam and now Iraq are not conventional. The VC operated among the populace: we couldn't tell foe from friend.
Sound familiar? In Iraq, the complaint of our soldiers is that they know that often when the insurgents strike, they then hide among the populace. Very frustrating. What we need in Iraq as we did in Vietnam are unconventional soldiers: those who will fight the terrorists at their own game: hit and run, chase them down, equip the populace to help, train the police and mostly be unrelenting both in the fight and our resolve to stay till the job is done.
SPECIAL OPERATIONS SOLDIERS
Special Operations troops are volunteers, they are experts in explosives, living off the land, weapons, and they know how to endure. They are the elite of the elite. And, they know how to train indigenous forces. Older and more experienced, these soldiers love this sort of stuff; they are Rangers, Navy Seals, Green berets--they are what are affectionately called, snake eaters. This is what we need in Iraq. And, it is what Professor Arquilla is suggesting but like so much in this war, nobody is listening. God bless us. kt
Sunday, June 12, 2005
MILITARY RECRUITMENT
By all accounts, military recruiters are facing untold hostility just in trying to do their jobs. It is Vietnam revisited: Iraqnam!!! I can surely understand the resistance of parents; afterall, 1700 dead Americans and 6000 wounded in Iraq is no small thing. And, parental resistance is a problem. Recruiters are telling stories of kids signing on the dotted line, getting them all the way to the starting line and whamo, the resistance of the parents is so strong, they back out.
Recruiting is tougher in urban centers obviously but supposedly not in the South and rural areas, where military service is more often considered a duty and a rite of passage. Why is a good question? I would not want to attribute too much to the South in terms of patriotism but facts are facts. From a 2002 Pentagon study of troops on active duty, something like 43% are Southerners. One would be hard pressed to go through a household in Dixie and not find some "connection" to the military. The two states, according to the Study, with the highest percentage of military, is Louisiana and South Carolina. The state with the lowest number serving is MA. Now there is a surprise!
I can still remember walking through my house growing up, there were all my brothers pictures in uniform scattered throughout. The day I went in, I had my picture taken and immediately sent it to my Mom. It could be in our genes.
The recruiters are like anybody, they are working the phones, cold calling--they approach kids at bus stops. They go to high schools. And, they are not very well received! A lot of teachers, counselors and administrators don't want them on campus. This seems a little unseemly to me as they are just doing their jobs. Many of the schools have a kind of subtle benign resistance, they throw their pamphlets away.
The Marines, in many cases, just looking those few good men, can't take everybody; a kid is overweight, another busted for smoking pot, a no go. In my way of thinking, the military is exactly where they ought to be. Shape the fat kid up and pound some sense into a possible drug user. This would happen in an AllServe mandatory community service environment.
To simply oppose kids from going into the military is one thing but there are groups who actively make the recruiters jobs almost impossible. One group called Peace People distributes pamphlets on military life, the draft and how to get out of a commitment once you've enlisted. Recruiters say they face all sorts of insults and screaming on campus. "I don't' think it's like this in Texas," one says, rolling his eyes.
According to one article, at some schools there are "counter recruiters." Another group is called, Raging Grannies. Sometimes, they are not grannies but dressed up like them. Some have on buttons or have signs that make fun of the Army. One sign read, "Travel to exotic foreign lands, meet interesting people and kill them." The Grannies say they just want to tell the full truth about the military.
What is fascinating is that you would think that the military is like some negative institution dedicated to America's destruction as opposed to defense. The Grannies say the recruiters stretch the truth, i. e, once you've signed the enlistment papers, you cannot change your mind. Untrue say the Grannies--a fact that the recruiters forget to mention. The Grannies believe that the military is targeting the disadvantaged and those with few opportunities. I think so. Yes, those with little prospects and why not? What is wrong with this?
Let's face it. The military is no "day at the beach." It is not a democracy. You don't get to choose but then again, it is what discipline is all about. America's youth could use a little of that I would think. Another group called Vets For Peace is very active. One says "When I talk to students, I try to make it very clear to them: the purpose of the military is to kill and in the process, you might be killed." Potential enlistees get a lot of talk from recruiters about travel and money for a college education say the military detractors. But the truth is, most people in the military don't get to travel and only a small percentage ever use their educational benefits. I'm not so sure that is true.
What it boils down to in many ways is respecting the right of kids to make adult decisions. They are not stupid and can be discerning enough to know the smoke and mirrors from real facts. Afterall, they've weaned themselves in buying cars and as consumers. I don't think we have to tell them that being in the Marines, for instance, is a twenty-four hour job nor is it a piece of cake.Once you're in the military, you're under its control 24 hours a day, every day. You can be ordered to do any task, work any hours. It is what's called dedication by Marine standards, it is called the military. And, for most American kids, it would be a good thing.
We're not going to sort out situations like Iraq any time soon but military recruiters are not the problem. They are just doing their jobs and ought to be left alone and certainly not denigrated. Let's respect the rights of kids to choose and in the privacy of their own homes, if they parents want to object, so be it. My thoughts.
Recruiting is tougher in urban centers obviously but supposedly not in the South and rural areas, where military service is more often considered a duty and a rite of passage. Why is a good question? I would not want to attribute too much to the South in terms of patriotism but facts are facts. From a 2002 Pentagon study of troops on active duty, something like 43% are Southerners. One would be hard pressed to go through a household in Dixie and not find some "connection" to the military. The two states, according to the Study, with the highest percentage of military, is Louisiana and South Carolina. The state with the lowest number serving is MA. Now there is a surprise!
I can still remember walking through my house growing up, there were all my brothers pictures in uniform scattered throughout. The day I went in, I had my picture taken and immediately sent it to my Mom. It could be in our genes.
The recruiters are like anybody, they are working the phones, cold calling--they approach kids at bus stops. They go to high schools. And, they are not very well received! A lot of teachers, counselors and administrators don't want them on campus. This seems a little unseemly to me as they are just doing their jobs. Many of the schools have a kind of subtle benign resistance, they throw their pamphlets away.
The Marines, in many cases, just looking those few good men, can't take everybody; a kid is overweight, another busted for smoking pot, a no go. In my way of thinking, the military is exactly where they ought to be. Shape the fat kid up and pound some sense into a possible drug user. This would happen in an AllServe mandatory community service environment.
To simply oppose kids from going into the military is one thing but there are groups who actively make the recruiters jobs almost impossible. One group called Peace People distributes pamphlets on military life, the draft and how to get out of a commitment once you've enlisted. Recruiters say they face all sorts of insults and screaming on campus. "I don't' think it's like this in Texas," one says, rolling his eyes.
According to one article, at some schools there are "counter recruiters." Another group is called, Raging Grannies. Sometimes, they are not grannies but dressed up like them. Some have on buttons or have signs that make fun of the Army. One sign read, "Travel to exotic foreign lands, meet interesting people and kill them." The Grannies say they just want to tell the full truth about the military.
What is fascinating is that you would think that the military is like some negative institution dedicated to America's destruction as opposed to defense. The Grannies say the recruiters stretch the truth, i. e, once you've signed the enlistment papers, you cannot change your mind. Untrue say the Grannies--a fact that the recruiters forget to mention. The Grannies believe that the military is targeting the disadvantaged and those with few opportunities. I think so. Yes, those with little prospects and why not? What is wrong with this?
Let's face it. The military is no "day at the beach." It is not a democracy. You don't get to choose but then again, it is what discipline is all about. America's youth could use a little of that I would think. Another group called Vets For Peace is very active. One says "When I talk to students, I try to make it very clear to them: the purpose of the military is to kill and in the process, you might be killed." Potential enlistees get a lot of talk from recruiters about travel and money for a college education say the military detractors. But the truth is, most people in the military don't get to travel and only a small percentage ever use their educational benefits. I'm not so sure that is true.
What it boils down to in many ways is respecting the right of kids to make adult decisions. They are not stupid and can be discerning enough to know the smoke and mirrors from real facts. Afterall, they've weaned themselves in buying cars and as consumers. I don't think we have to tell them that being in the Marines, for instance, is a twenty-four hour job nor is it a piece of cake.Once you're in the military, you're under its control 24 hours a day, every day. You can be ordered to do any task, work any hours. It is what's called dedication by Marine standards, it is called the military. And, for most American kids, it would be a good thing.
We're not going to sort out situations like Iraq any time soon but military recruiters are not the problem. They are just doing their jobs and ought to be left alone and certainly not denigrated. Let's respect the rights of kids to choose and in the privacy of their own homes, if they parents want to object, so be it. My thoughts.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
RECRUITMENT WOES
Military Recruitment has gone South based on everything we read. The NY Times recently did an editorial called, The Death Spiral of the Volunteer Army. Pretty good title and I hope they are right! What I have been lobbying for is the return of the draft as part of a Universal Service option. The Volunteer Army worked when there was no war. Kids could go in with the idea of money for college, learn a skill, maybe even see a foreign port or two. Plus, most of them had little prospects for the outside anyway or if they did, couldn't figure out what the prospects were. Parents liked the idea of the military: get the kid out of the house, instill some discipline, teach independence. It was win win.
For years, military recruitment has been a "piece of cake." With the arrival of Iraq, in particular, the cake has turned to stone. We could cogitate our navels for lots of reasons but the idea of maybe chasing some educational money while dodging bullets in Iraq has caused a little loss of appeal. Thank you very much! For years, the Army has had its pick of the numbers of available males, by all accounts, to be around 60 million with the military quota as something like 80,000. What has gotten the old "pucker factor" up is that the Marines, who have great looking uniforms, can't even get their few good men.
American youngsters are no dummies! They read or listen to the news, check out the net, talk to their friends, and although the brass constantly says we are winning, they are looking at the numbers: over 800 Iraqis killed last month and the death toll of Americans creeping up and up. And, recruitment has lost maybe their key ally--parents who are no longer seeing the military as an option for their youngsters. Even if Mary Lou and Johnny could stand a little discipline, they prefer them alive.
The Guard and Reserves have even greater woes in recruitment. For years, the Guard has been called out in Stateside emergencies while allowing plenty of time for a little "grab ass" and swigging a few brews. Suddenly, they are in Iraq, expected to soldier full time. What is this? They didn't sign up for war. And, they have taken a hit for being involved in most of the black eyes in Iraqnam mismanagement.
The Volunteer Army is not working. It is time to figure out another course and the time is NOW!
For years, military recruitment has been a "piece of cake." With the arrival of Iraq, in particular, the cake has turned to stone. We could cogitate our navels for lots of reasons but the idea of maybe chasing some educational money while dodging bullets in Iraq has caused a little loss of appeal. Thank you very much! For years, the Army has had its pick of the numbers of available males, by all accounts, to be around 60 million with the military quota as something like 80,000. What has gotten the old "pucker factor" up is that the Marines, who have great looking uniforms, can't even get their few good men.
American youngsters are no dummies! They read or listen to the news, check out the net, talk to their friends, and although the brass constantly says we are winning, they are looking at the numbers: over 800 Iraqis killed last month and the death toll of Americans creeping up and up. And, recruitment has lost maybe their key ally--parents who are no longer seeing the military as an option for their youngsters. Even if Mary Lou and Johnny could stand a little discipline, they prefer them alive.
The Guard and Reserves have even greater woes in recruitment. For years, the Guard has been called out in Stateside emergencies while allowing plenty of time for a little "grab ass" and swigging a few brews. Suddenly, they are in Iraq, expected to soldier full time. What is this? They didn't sign up for war. And, they have taken a hit for being involved in most of the black eyes in Iraqnam mismanagement.
The Volunteer Army is not working. It is time to figure out another course and the time is NOW!
Friday, May 27, 2005
WE ARE JUST BSING YOU
On a recent Sixty Minutes episode, an emeritus professor from Princeton talked about his runaway best seller (every book seems to be a best seller even if you haven't heard of it), called ON BS. He talked about BS in our lives. "Nobody really tells the unadulterated truth," he says.
Few of us take the time to delineate BS from lies--its worth the effort and Professor Frankfurt has spelled it out. The interesting little "read" got its biggest boost from Jon Stewart's, The Daily Show, which fits perfectly with this book as the show is a perfect metaphor for the term BS--A fake-news show that walks the line between social commentary and yes, BS on one hand and comic hyperbole and "over the top exaggeration" on the other? And, what makes The Daily Show so good is that they don't care what the truth really is. Consequently, what they have to say is more truth than fiction as it pokes fun at BS, especially government BS.
Jon Stewart was interviewed on his view and said, simply, "BS is a way of life." The biggest purveyor, of course, and the most important is the government. The most egregious incident of government BS is Iraqnam. It started out as weapons of mass destruction. They weren't found, then it became Iraqi Freedom, and now it is the war on terrorism. According to the good professor, "in there somewhere is some shade of the truth."
The little book is a quick read and worth the time. It will not change your life but just might make you more aware of your own BS and that of others.
On a recent Sixty Minutes episode, an emeritus professor from Princeton talked about his runaway best seller (every book seems to be a best seller even if you haven't heard of it), called ON BS. He talked about BS in our lives. "Nobody really tells the unadulterated truth," he says.
Few of us take the time to delineate BS from lies--its worth the effort and Professor Frankfurt has spelled it out. The interesting little "read" got its biggest boost from Jon Stewart's, The Daily Show, which fits perfectly with this book as the show is a perfect metaphor for the term BS--A fake-news show that walks the line between social commentary and yes, BS on one hand and comic hyperbole and "over the top exaggeration" on the other? And, what makes The Daily Show so good is that they don't care what the truth really is. Consequently, what they have to say is more truth than fiction as it pokes fun at BS, especially government BS.
Jon Stewart was interviewed on his view and said, simply, "BS is a way of life." The biggest purveyor, of course, and the most important is the government. The most egregious incident of government BS is Iraqnam. It started out as weapons of mass destruction. They weren't found, then it became Iraqi Freedom, and now it is the war on terrorism. According to the good professor, "in there somewhere is some shade of the truth."
The little book is a quick read and worth the time. It will not change your life but just might make you more aware of your own BS and that of others.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
BLUE COLLARS IN OLIVE DRAB
This was the title of a NY Times piece which dove tailed into their series on Class in America. Very good and the series has surfaced many of those things that we don't talk about in this country. However, I thought the piece on the National Guard as blue collar workers who peopled the Guard was especially poignant for now that we are war.
In the Volunteer Army, there is nothing more apparent than "class." Officers are mostly taken from the upper middle class, either college graduates and more likely West Point or another of the Service Academies. And, the enlisted ranks are filled from the working class, whatever that comprises. Where the Times got it a little skewed is that it isn't just the Guard but the Army at large. I don't have any hardcore statistics but believe it to be true. The Navy and Air Force are peopled with a higher "class" of soldier. If by "class" we mean education, family background and the "priviledged" in various ways. For opening up this, we thank the Times.
If there is anything that makes the case for the failure of the All Volunteer Army, it is the fact that the working class of Americans are fighting America's wars and nothing is more representative of this fact than the National Guard.
To take the tact of the Times and tackle the hard subjects, think of the most egregious national embarrassment, among many, that we have dealt with in Iraqnam--prison scandal and who was at the center of it? The National Guard. A group of rogue Guardsman whose claim to fame was stupidity but mostly emotionally unsophisticated men and women who were without supervision and proper training. It was and is an abomination and an indictment of the shortcomings of leadership and of the Volunteer Army they have promoted.
According to the article which I think is true. The Guard is almost entirely made up of those from the working class and is a far cry from a cross section of America. And, in my opinion, these patriotic Americans are to be lauded not condemned. During Vietnam days, the Guard was used as a harbinger for those dodging the draft and Vietnam. Think of the President.
The Guard doesn't view its role in class terms but by in large as patriotic duty. Who can complaint about that great attitude! And, let's face it, there's some consolation that in most circles, rising from poverty to the White House is a plus. And, we cannot imagine any politician who doesn't want to tout his common roots.
There's lots to be said for how the Guardsmen see themselves. I especially like the comments from one Sergeant who had served three years on active duty and then joined the Guard. He said, "there are rich people, who are the thinkers. There are blue collar people like us, who are the doers. And there are the poor people, who don't do anything but will follow." This sergeant favors a draft. Good for him. Yes, these are the working class, the salt of the earth: a crane operator, Walmart worker, a fireman, and a prison guard. GOD BLESS AMERICA
In the Volunteer Army, there is nothing more apparent than "class." Officers are mostly taken from the upper middle class, either college graduates and more likely West Point or another of the Service Academies. And, the enlisted ranks are filled from the working class, whatever that comprises. Where the Times got it a little skewed is that it isn't just the Guard but the Army at large. I don't have any hardcore statistics but believe it to be true. The Navy and Air Force are peopled with a higher "class" of soldier. If by "class" we mean education, family background and the "priviledged" in various ways. For opening up this, we thank the Times.
If there is anything that makes the case for the failure of the All Volunteer Army, it is the fact that the working class of Americans are fighting America's wars and nothing is more representative of this fact than the National Guard.
To take the tact of the Times and tackle the hard subjects, think of the most egregious national embarrassment, among many, that we have dealt with in Iraqnam--prison scandal and who was at the center of it? The National Guard. A group of rogue Guardsman whose claim to fame was stupidity but mostly emotionally unsophisticated men and women who were without supervision and proper training. It was and is an abomination and an indictment of the shortcomings of leadership and of the Volunteer Army they have promoted.
According to the article which I think is true. The Guard is almost entirely made up of those from the working class and is a far cry from a cross section of America. And, in my opinion, these patriotic Americans are to be lauded not condemned. During Vietnam days, the Guard was used as a harbinger for those dodging the draft and Vietnam. Think of the President.
The Guard doesn't view its role in class terms but by in large as patriotic duty. Who can complaint about that great attitude! And, let's face it, there's some consolation that in most circles, rising from poverty to the White House is a plus. And, we cannot imagine any politician who doesn't want to tout his common roots.
There's lots to be said for how the Guardsmen see themselves. I especially like the comments from one Sergeant who had served three years on active duty and then joined the Guard. He said, "there are rich people, who are the thinkers. There are blue collar people like us, who are the doers. And there are the poor people, who don't do anything but will follow." This sergeant favors a draft. Good for him. Yes, these are the working class, the salt of the earth: a crane operator, Walmart worker, a fireman, and a prison guard. GOD BLESS AMERICA
Monday, May 23, 2005
HOW TO HONOR HIS SON
TRICKY
The grieving father, Fernando Suarez del Solar, lost his Marine son, Marine Lance Corporal Jesus Suarez, in Iraq in March of 2003. Devastating! This is the second time I've read about this sad Father. The first time was when he literally went to Baghdad with Global Exchange, an antiwar group. I understand and grief does something to people. He is presently making a campaign out of attempting to talk Latinos out of joining the military. He appears to be relatively successful. Less Latinos are joining up. This is not good news for the recruiting woes of the military.
That having been said, still, this is not just about a grieving father. You have a father who, in his grief, has a need to blame someone for the death of his son. I can understand but war by its very nature means loss. The military is about war and fighting wars. It is not about gaining citizenship, educational opportunities, or career possibilities. It is about war and in war, people are killed. It is a choice Lance Corporal Suarez made.
I think that quite possibly the father of Lance Corporal Suarez might be desecrating more the memory of his son than promoting his cause. It is a "tricky" emotional difficulty. He cannot bring back his son who willingly joined the Marines and bought into their philosophy. He died in service to his country. Taking it a step further, what would it have been had Lance Corporal Suarez lived: he would have easily become a citizen and made a different and better life for himself. Thousands and thousands who have gone on before him have done exactly that.
Peace groups like Global Exchange and the Quaker antiwar group, American Friends Service Committee, are missing the boat in my opinion. They are not achieving their goals with individuals like a grieving father when they would do better to promote something like a Universal Service for America's youth--an AllServe. By so doing, if America's youth were required to AllServe, an American president would be much less likely to send those like Lance Corporal Suarez to war.
The grieving father, Fernando Suarez del Solar, lost his Marine son, Marine Lance Corporal Jesus Suarez, in Iraq in March of 2003. Devastating! This is the second time I've read about this sad Father. The first time was when he literally went to Baghdad with Global Exchange, an antiwar group. I understand and grief does something to people. He is presently making a campaign out of attempting to talk Latinos out of joining the military. He appears to be relatively successful. Less Latinos are joining up. This is not good news for the recruiting woes of the military.
That having been said, still, this is not just about a grieving father. You have a father who, in his grief, has a need to blame someone for the death of his son. I can understand but war by its very nature means loss. The military is about war and fighting wars. It is not about gaining citizenship, educational opportunities, or career possibilities. It is about war and in war, people are killed. It is a choice Lance Corporal Suarez made.
I think that quite possibly the father of Lance Corporal Suarez might be desecrating more the memory of his son than promoting his cause. It is a "tricky" emotional difficulty. He cannot bring back his son who willingly joined the Marines and bought into their philosophy. He died in service to his country. Taking it a step further, what would it have been had Lance Corporal Suarez lived: he would have easily become a citizen and made a different and better life for himself. Thousands and thousands who have gone on before him have done exactly that.
Peace groups like Global Exchange and the Quaker antiwar group, American Friends Service Committee, are missing the boat in my opinion. They are not achieving their goals with individuals like a grieving father when they would do better to promote something like a Universal Service for America's youth--an AllServe. By so doing, if America's youth were required to AllServe, an American president would be much less likely to send those like Lance Corporal Suarez to war.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
RECRUITING INFLUENCERS
For the past three months the Army has failed to meet its recruiting quotas, and some recruiters have been accused of signing up young men and women they knew were not qualified. The head of the army recruiting command says that recruiting these days is the toughest he's ever seen.
One of my oft repeated mantras used to be that every young man and woman in America could benefit from a time in the military. In fact, with great regularity I use to recommend it to kids at my Church, those I saw on the bus, wherever: "Have you ever considered the military?" I thought that the youngsters who mostly would benefit were the ones who didn't have a clue what they wanted to do with their lives. Little or no resources and for sure were not going to college. They could go in the military and get some discipline, build up some bucks for college and come out with some relative direction. A few actually followed my advice.
And, then something happened to me: I quit recommending the military. Why? In a word, Iraqnam. And, I suddenly discovered that I am, like many Americans who care, are part of the reasons that the Volunteer Military is in a world of hurts. We have cease to be the influencers to our children, our neighbors, our friends. And, according to the head knocker of the Recruiting Command, General Michael D. Rochelle, recognizes this is why it has become so difficult for recruitment. Recruiters have lost the support of parents, grandparents, and friends to influence America's youth to sign up.
And, in a sense, maybe this is a good thing. When we realize that the All Volunteer Military is not working, then we are in a position to consider what we should have had all along, an AllServe military. The All Volunteer force is workable when we are at peace and it has been sold on that basis. It's a job. Now, that we are war, these parents are reluctant to put their children in harms way. For most, they probably haven't thought much about putting other peoples' children at war but now that they do, noway are they going to encourage it.
One of my oft repeated mantras used to be that every young man and woman in America could benefit from a time in the military. In fact, with great regularity I use to recommend it to kids at my Church, those I saw on the bus, wherever: "Have you ever considered the military?" I thought that the youngsters who mostly would benefit were the ones who didn't have a clue what they wanted to do with their lives. Little or no resources and for sure were not going to college. They could go in the military and get some discipline, build up some bucks for college and come out with some relative direction. A few actually followed my advice.
And, then something happened to me: I quit recommending the military. Why? In a word, Iraqnam. And, I suddenly discovered that I am, like many Americans who care, are part of the reasons that the Volunteer Military is in a world of hurts. We have cease to be the influencers to our children, our neighbors, our friends. And, according to the head knocker of the Recruiting Command, General Michael D. Rochelle, recognizes this is why it has become so difficult for recruitment. Recruiters have lost the support of parents, grandparents, and friends to influence America's youth to sign up.
And, in a sense, maybe this is a good thing. When we realize that the All Volunteer Military is not working, then we are in a position to consider what we should have had all along, an AllServe military. The All Volunteer force is workable when we are at peace and it has been sold on that basis. It's a job. Now, that we are war, these parents are reluctant to put their children in harms way. For most, they probably haven't thought much about putting other peoples' children at war but now that they do, noway are they going to encourage it.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
RECRUITING WOES
No one denies that our country is facing all kinds of crisis. Maintaining an armed forces at the level to protect and defend is suddenly surfacing as a number one problem. The Army is way behind in recruiting as well as the venerable Marines who have missed their goals for the last three months--unheard of! The head general of the recruiting command, Major General Michael Rochelle, is getting more TV time than Britney Spears. And, the General has been to all the schools: calling Lou Dobbs, "Lou." Lou, of course, is on a break from bashing illegal aliens, to talk to the good general. And, according to the General, the Army is going to hold a conference, a "stand down," as they are calling it and as we did in Vietnam, to figure out the problem. Good luck!
I've got a few suggestions. An AllServe military. A universal service, choices for America's young people, ages 18: they can choose different avenues to be named, i. e., Teach America, etc. But, enough would choose the military to fill the ranks. However, something larger is at stake here rather than just filling the ranks--a chance to restore a sense of community to the country. Think about it. A hundred years ago, a national consensus existed and today, no way--the country is fractured and is in despeate need of repair. What better way than through national service, an AllServe.
The military holds the greatest possibility in restoring a sense of unity to our country. The AllServe military could easily restore a sense of balance and tradition not to mention some sense of discipline. Americans today disagree on fundamentals, ethics, a thousand and one things and this is not going to change. But, we have no unifying institution--an AllServe universal service could do that for us.
The schools have failed miserably in doing what they should be doing, the least of which is to introduce a shared Amcrican culture. A concept of universal service--youngsters being required to give back to America a little something in service. I'm convinced that youngsters, given this opportunity, will respond.
It is unseemly for Generals like Rochelle and these poor young recruiters going out hat in hand begging young men and women to serve their country. AllServe is the answer.
I've got a few suggestions. An AllServe military. A universal service, choices for America's young people, ages 18: they can choose different avenues to be named, i. e., Teach America, etc. But, enough would choose the military to fill the ranks. However, something larger is at stake here rather than just filling the ranks--a chance to restore a sense of community to the country. Think about it. A hundred years ago, a national consensus existed and today, no way--the country is fractured and is in despeate need of repair. What better way than through national service, an AllServe.
The military holds the greatest possibility in restoring a sense of unity to our country. The AllServe military could easily restore a sense of balance and tradition not to mention some sense of discipline. Americans today disagree on fundamentals, ethics, a thousand and one things and this is not going to change. But, we have no unifying institution--an AllServe universal service could do that for us.
The schools have failed miserably in doing what they should be doing, the least of which is to introduce a shared Amcrican culture. A concept of universal service--youngsters being required to give back to America a little something in service. I'm convinced that youngsters, given this opportunity, will respond.
It is unseemly for Generals like Rochelle and these poor young recruiters going out hat in hand begging young men and women to serve their country. AllServe is the answer.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
A SHAM
Base Closings. Every few years, there's a big exercise where the American public, those of us who care, are put through this experience. There's a Commission: they look at all the military facilities. They have staffs, they go for visits, they intimidate the people at these bases. The people at the bases put on a good show, taking them away from what they are suppose to be doing. The Commission goes back to the funny farm, Washington DC, and they make a recommendation to a gutless Congress who lamely accepts the recommendations.
All the while, it is a sham. Basically, all that happens is that we transfer tax payer dollars from one pot to the other. In the long run, nothing is saved for the taxpayer and an exercise in futility takes place. And, there's the psychological effect which is incalculable. A local military presence disappears from the American conscience: a sham.
And, worse of all, the person making the recommendations is the Secretary of Defense, who has been the architect for the worst debacle in modern military history, IRAQNAM. And, we are to trust his guidance. Give me a break!
All the while, it is a sham. Basically, all that happens is that we transfer tax payer dollars from one pot to the other. In the long run, nothing is saved for the taxpayer and an exercise in futility takes place. And, there's the psychological effect which is incalculable. A local military presence disappears from the American conscience: a sham.
And, worse of all, the person making the recommendations is the Secretary of Defense, who has been the architect for the worst debacle in modern military history, IRAQNAM. And, we are to trust his guidance. Give me a break!
Saturday, May 14, 2005
ALL NEWS IS SLANTED
The below comments were in response to an email that someone sent regarding a female chaplain at the Air Force Academy who bad mouthed too much religion at the Academy. The full article can be found at the Thursday, May 12, NY Times. The article was sent to me by a chaplain buddy of mine.
Thanks for sharing this article, Lamar. My basic feeling is that probably much has been taken out of context by the news media. All news media slant; whether it is the NY Times, Newsweek, Time or some of the various patron saints of Conservatives: O'Reilly, Fox, etc.; all slant, even us "bloggers." My suspicion is that this is true of the comments of this female chaplain. I started to say, gal, but then decided to be PC. I think the account of her comments were probably slanted.
My basic reaction is "to hell" with the crowd wanting us to be other than what we are. Fight their asses tooth and nail. I know you guys won't remember this but at the big Reserve Chaplain Conference when I was at the Presidio (of San Francisco when it was a full scale military installation), the Chief (of Chaplains) was suppose to show up for the morning talk and cancelled. The 6th Army Chaplain made the mistake of asking me to fill in at the last moment. I developed a talk about an outfit in San Francisco called, "Class Act." They would do anything for you in the way of organizing a party, gathering, etc. and their concept was that it should always show "class." I did a take off on this idea that chaplains should always be who they were: if they were Mormons, Baptists, Catholic, Jewish, whatever--just because they were in the chaplaincy should not change who they were. I thought the speech was fairly benign, nobody reacted to it as I remember. Later in the day, I almost got in a fistfight with the Rabbi that the Chief, (of Chaplains) had hired to waste money fighting the unconstitutionaly (two law students back during the 80s filed a law suit attemtping to get the chaplincy decared unconstitutional. They did it as a school assignment and the Chief of Chaplains overreacted) suit against the chaplaincy. The Rabbi who happened to be a lawyer and a Reserve Chaplain later wrote a book. Anyway, this Rabbi goes back to the Chief's Office and distorts everything. I don't know what happened but as I remember, nobody stood up for me. The moral of this war story is "Let's give this gal the benefit of the doubt" and if the story is accurate, "to hell with 'em, chaplains need to be a "class act" and who they are. Airborne. Power in the blood.
I am much more concerned with spending all this money on sending us these lapel pins, etc. (see previously published blog article). We need an AllServe conscription plan in America and it ain't going to happen with stupid stuff like spending money on us "over the hill" types to help them recruit--how many people have you talked into joining the Army lately? God bless America. What a great country!
Thanks for sharing this article, Lamar. My basic feeling is that probably much has been taken out of context by the news media. All news media slant; whether it is the NY Times, Newsweek, Time or some of the various patron saints of Conservatives: O'Reilly, Fox, etc.; all slant, even us "bloggers." My suspicion is that this is true of the comments of this female chaplain. I started to say, gal, but then decided to be PC. I think the account of her comments were probably slanted.
My basic reaction is "to hell" with the crowd wanting us to be other than what we are. Fight their asses tooth and nail. I know you guys won't remember this but at the big Reserve Chaplain Conference when I was at the Presidio (of San Francisco when it was a full scale military installation), the Chief (of Chaplains) was suppose to show up for the morning talk and cancelled. The 6th Army Chaplain made the mistake of asking me to fill in at the last moment. I developed a talk about an outfit in San Francisco called, "Class Act." They would do anything for you in the way of organizing a party, gathering, etc. and their concept was that it should always show "class." I did a take off on this idea that chaplains should always be who they were: if they were Mormons, Baptists, Catholic, Jewish, whatever--just because they were in the chaplaincy should not change who they were. I thought the speech was fairly benign, nobody reacted to it as I remember. Later in the day, I almost got in a fistfight with the Rabbi that the Chief, (of Chaplains) had hired to waste money fighting the unconstitutionaly (two law students back during the 80s filed a law suit attemtping to get the chaplincy decared unconstitutional. They did it as a school assignment and the Chief of Chaplains overreacted) suit against the chaplaincy. The Rabbi who happened to be a lawyer and a Reserve Chaplain later wrote a book. Anyway, this Rabbi goes back to the Chief's Office and distorts everything. I don't know what happened but as I remember, nobody stood up for me. The moral of this war story is "Let's give this gal the benefit of the doubt" and if the story is accurate, "to hell with 'em, chaplains need to be a "class act" and who they are. Airborne. Power in the blood.
I am much more concerned with spending all this money on sending us these lapel pins, etc. (see previously published blog article). We need an AllServe conscription plan in America and it ain't going to happen with stupid stuff like spending money on us "over the hill" types to help them recruit--how many people have you talked into joining the Army lately? God bless America. What a great country!
Friday, May 13, 2005
SUPPORT THE TROOPS
Most Americans support the troops to do their fighting for them for sure. Uncle Sam desperately needs new soldiers. How is the best way for him to find them? This was the lead sentence in a story in the NY Times on the critical nature of the recruiting problems for the military. The Army has missed their goals for enlisting America's youth for several months. And, the forever successful and stalwart Marines, have missed their goals for three months in a row. What portends are dire scenarios if shortages reach a stage where truly national security is in peril. In my view, "the powers that be" have only themselves to blame anyway. The military is treated somewhat like the "play thing" of the President and the "illegitimate son of Buffalo Bill" by most Americans who give any thought to the military anyway. They do support as long as it is not their sons and daughters.
The article in the Times tried to help the military with a few ideas, none of which were useful in my opinion. Appealing to the "jobs and training mentality" is definitely not working. For almost the entire life of the Volunteer Army, this has worked. No longer. Once on a planeload of soldiers heading to AIT (advanced individual training), I casually asked about why they had joined the military. To a person, it was training and job skills, educational expenses after the military, and their best offer at the time. Patriotism was never even mentioned.
Idea number (1) Basically, use all sorts of measures now to appeal to young men, especially peer pressure, the opposite sex--smart TV ads, etc. Dumb! Wasting money on advertising with Nascar and in popular magazines are not going to get America's young men to enlist. Give me a break. Already, our voluntary military has reached out to the lower socio category of our populace. We don't have lawyers, doctors, chemists, Indian Chiefs sons and daughters now serving. While the Volunteer Army, up till now, has worked in terms of numbers, it no longer is, given the shortages faced.
The dumbest idea, however, appears to have come from some author of a book called, The Kinder, Gentler Military: How political Correctness Affects Our Ability to Win Wars. (2) She wants to privatize nearly everything outside of the infantry. In other words, let's outsource everything except those who die. If the NY Times article has conveyed her ideas correctly, what she doesn't have a clue about are the workings of the military in combat. You can't take some military contractor and give him/her the dedication to support the troops doing the fighting. There's aspects to the military that defy logic and esprit de corps is one of them. Esprit can't be outsourced. Sure, it might sound good to some civilian sitting in an armchair at the Pentagon but it won't work and will actually hinder. Stupid, stupid.
Almost equally as dumb is an idea of letting illegal immigrants fill the ranks of the military. Now, wait till Lou Dobbs hears this. (Lou is an anchorman on CNN who appears to have made his entire mission in life ridding the borders of illegal aliens). It is bad enough for us to have a volunteer Army where only a small portion of the people incur the risks. What about taking people from another country and letting them fight America's wars. This takes the Volunteer Army to a new level of mercenaries. Now there's some real patriotism, put people in harm's way simply because they are poor and want a better way of life. Why don't we go to the projects in Baltimore and offer the drug dealers the same amount of money they're making to get their troops to enlist. (Idea of Baltimore comes from the TV show, The Wire, which shows the Baltimore drug scene--could be any large city).
All of these silly ideas are surfaced simply because we don't want to face the problem that in order for our Armed forces to solve this problem, we have to admit that what is happening to us now is the result of a lack of foresight and designing a fair and objective system for all of America's young people to serve their country. AllServe. Some may choose the military. Others can choose a variety of things: the Peace Corps, Teach America, other possibilities of which we haven't even thought. In the final analysis, AllServe, problem solved.
The article in the Times tried to help the military with a few ideas, none of which were useful in my opinion. Appealing to the "jobs and training mentality" is definitely not working. For almost the entire life of the Volunteer Army, this has worked. No longer. Once on a planeload of soldiers heading to AIT (advanced individual training), I casually asked about why they had joined the military. To a person, it was training and job skills, educational expenses after the military, and their best offer at the time. Patriotism was never even mentioned.
Idea number (1) Basically, use all sorts of measures now to appeal to young men, especially peer pressure, the opposite sex--smart TV ads, etc. Dumb! Wasting money on advertising with Nascar and in popular magazines are not going to get America's young men to enlist. Give me a break. Already, our voluntary military has reached out to the lower socio category of our populace. We don't have lawyers, doctors, chemists, Indian Chiefs sons and daughters now serving. While the Volunteer Army, up till now, has worked in terms of numbers, it no longer is, given the shortages faced.
The dumbest idea, however, appears to have come from some author of a book called, The Kinder, Gentler Military: How political Correctness Affects Our Ability to Win Wars. (2) She wants to privatize nearly everything outside of the infantry. In other words, let's outsource everything except those who die. If the NY Times article has conveyed her ideas correctly, what she doesn't have a clue about are the workings of the military in combat. You can't take some military contractor and give him/her the dedication to support the troops doing the fighting. There's aspects to the military that defy logic and esprit de corps is one of them. Esprit can't be outsourced. Sure, it might sound good to some civilian sitting in an armchair at the Pentagon but it won't work and will actually hinder. Stupid, stupid.
Almost equally as dumb is an idea of letting illegal immigrants fill the ranks of the military. Now, wait till Lou Dobbs hears this. (Lou is an anchorman on CNN who appears to have made his entire mission in life ridding the borders of illegal aliens). It is bad enough for us to have a volunteer Army where only a small portion of the people incur the risks. What about taking people from another country and letting them fight America's wars. This takes the Volunteer Army to a new level of mercenaries. Now there's some real patriotism, put people in harm's way simply because they are poor and want a better way of life. Why don't we go to the projects in Baltimore and offer the drug dealers the same amount of money they're making to get their troops to enlist. (Idea of Baltimore comes from the TV show, The Wire, which shows the Baltimore drug scene--could be any large city).
All of these silly ideas are surfaced simply because we don't want to face the problem that in order for our Armed forces to solve this problem, we have to admit that what is happening to us now is the result of a lack of foresight and designing a fair and objective system for all of America's young people to serve their country. AllServe. Some may choose the military. Others can choose a variety of things: the Peace Corps, Teach America, other possibilities of which we haven't even thought. In the final analysis, AllServe, problem solved.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
THE ARMY WANTS ME
I am absolutely astounded. Today, in the mail I received a letter, telling me how great I am and thanks for continuing to be an enlistee in the war on terrorism. Signed by no less than the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army. Plus, I got a nice certificate that I can hang on my wall and an army pen to wear in my lapel. And, then I have a couple of decals to put on my car. Wow, what is this! I've got to email my retiree buddies to see that they got the same thing. We are talking beaucoup bucks here. What is this all about? My suspicion is it is an attempt to enlist the retirees in recruitment efforts. If so, I doubt it will be successful but I'm just as concerned over the expense. What would be the motive to do something like this? It is beyond me.
What seems to totally escape the mentality of the "powers that be" is that the very Voluntary Army is the creation of the problem. The Army, for instance, is about to have a "day" when they sit around and try to brainstorm the problem. Why are not America's young people joining up? They didn't invite me to the conference but I could tell them. We have created a mentality in our country which simply put says, "let other people's children fight our wars." And, it is OK when recruiters can talk to kids about educational opportunities, learning skills, adventure but dodging bullets in Iraq and Alfganistan, now that is another story.
We are approaching the problem entirely from a "no win" possibility. It is time to be realistic and float the "AllServe" possibility, at least start the debate.
What seems to totally escape the mentality of the "powers that be" is that the very Voluntary Army is the creation of the problem. The Army, for instance, is about to have a "day" when they sit around and try to brainstorm the problem. Why are not America's young people joining up? They didn't invite me to the conference but I could tell them. We have created a mentality in our country which simply put says, "let other people's children fight our wars." And, it is OK when recruiters can talk to kids about educational opportunities, learning skills, adventure but dodging bullets in Iraq and Alfganistan, now that is another story.
We are approaching the problem entirely from a "no win" possibility. It is time to be realistic and float the "AllServe" possibility, at least start the debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
