|
Post by Tenarke on Jan 8, 2005 18:27:25 GMT -5
Thanks for the link to Senator Boxer.
As a Californian I am very pleased with my two Senators; Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.
Let me share with you an example of what a neat lady Sen. Boxer is, and also how well organized her staff apparently is. I get my mail at a nearby very small mountain town; the population doesn’t quite make it to a thousand. There is really nothing outstanding about it although it is one of the few of the old gold rush camps that managed to survive since its founding in 1854. I am a member of an informal community action group here. I suppose that if we were subject to a fit of grandeur we might claim to be the local government.
Last summer we were surprised and pleased to get, completely unsolicited, congratulations from Sen. Boxer and a special flag to fly over our post office, to commemorate the 150th birthday of this tiny hamlet.
Shows a bit of class I think.
Unfortunately most of my near neighbors are Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Jan 9, 2005 12:08:28 GMT -5
I think the difference between the Reserves and the Regular Army, Robert, is the reason people join. My understanding of the US Army Reserve is that most of its members (about 2/3rds) are Black or Hispanic, and they join, not for adventure, but for health benefits, subsidized education and the chance to learn a trade (Army Reserve is mainly support services -- truck drivers, medical etc.). NG is the same, but without the trade training. In short, I think, you're right in thinking that most of the members in these organisations are apt to be 'socially challenged' -- don't think either has been popular with the wealthy since membership constituted innoculation against conscription for Vietnam service. Can't see, however, how getting shot at in Iraq for long periods of time is apt to facilitate anybody's attempt to improve themselves socially, through education. Medical attention, of course, will remain free . . . More Kipling: Back to the Army Again I done my six years' service. 'Er Majesty sez: "Good day -- You'll please to come when you're rung for, an' 'ere's your 'ole back-pay: An' fourpence a day for baccy -- an' bloomin' gen'rous, too; An' now you can make your fortune -- the same as your orf'cers do."
Back to the Army again, sergeant, Back to the Army again. 'Ow did I learn to do right-about-turn? I'm back to the Army again!
A man o' four-an'-twenty that 'asn't learned of a trade -- Beside "Reserve" agin' him -- 'e'd better be never made. I tried my luck for a quarter, an' that was enough for me, An' I thought of 'Er Majesty's barricks, an' I thought I'd go an' see.
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Jan 9, 2005 19:20:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tenarke on Jan 9, 2005 19:52:40 GMT -5
I think that the preceding analyses of those voluntarily joining the US armed forces is correct. The most prevalent regional accents there are those of the Deep South intermixed with the “Hells Kitchen” neighborhoods of some of our tougher cities. Typically the new volunteer is looking to escape a future of underemployment and poverty. To make it short; if your folks can send you to college, it is not very likely that you will volunteer to sign up.
I have been reading different reports from Iraq that their new military and security forces are facing this same problem. Unemployment is high there and many recruits joining the Police and the Army do so because it is the only job available and not from any particular desire for service. As a result, when the live fire begins local self help security forces tend to be somewhere else.
I can’t say that I blame them.
I doubt that our President is comfortable enough with reality either to restore the draft, or postpone the Iraqi elections. These will be held in just three weeks, ready or not. Whatever the result, it will be officially declared a success. We may even have another “Mission Accomplished” ceremony, that is if the Navy’s budget will enable provision of a suitable aircraft carrier to stage the production.
|
|
|
Post by demgoddess on Jan 9, 2005 19:56:24 GMT -5
First off, Wyn, after reading the article, I have the feeling we will never really know what happened and who is telling the truth. I'm not entirely inclined to take an Iraqi insurgent at his word, but also not inclined to take the soldiers' story at face value either as they may be trying to save their arses.
I think the whole defense of the case is odd. Perkins did order a man thrown in a river, but not these men, as is attested by other soldiers. The defense claims that the one man might still be alive, and if he is dead it wasn't the fault of the US soldiers. Yet, no soldiers contest that the men were forced into the river.
Also the bit about his punishment...6 months of prison time and a demotion is ridiculous as a "maximum sentence" in a case where someone died. I wonder what punishment we would think was appropriate if it was an insurgent being tried for throwing US soldiers in the river to drowned?
Most revolting was this statement: ""I will always consider him a war hero. ... No one can ever take away his outstanding service over there," said Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman." Now, I'm sure that in the course of his service, he did do some heroic things. But maybe some remorse that Perkins actions led to needless deaths would be appropriate?
|
|
|
Post by Tenarke on Jan 9, 2005 20:04:59 GMT -5
Wyn, I must have been working on my last post while you were making yours. Thus mine was referring back to earlier comments here and had nothing directly to do with Sgt. Perkins.
Some hero!
I see that he only got busted one grade.
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Jan 9, 2005 20:57:53 GMT -5
The kind of guy you want to remain in the army?
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Jan 10, 2005 10:17:48 GMT -5
I'm with you on that one Robert, and with Aravis bridled more than a bit at the description of the perp as a 'war hero'. Trying to imagine the civilian equivalent . . . cop walking down the street. Kid hanging out on a street corner flips him a bird. Cop pushes kid into the street to show him who's boss. Approaching bus. Kid gets killed. At the ensuing trial: nobody saw nuthin; and if they saw something they're not sure that the body on the road was the kid pushed; and if it is, nobody saw who delivered the alleged fatal push (was it Constable X or Sergeant Y?); and, since Constable X admits it anyway, maybe the Kid deserved it . . . and d**n it all anyway, have you had a look at his record?
Very strange. Seems to me that one incident like that, at time of tension, indicates that however the guy might have performed in training and garrison, he doesn't have what it takes to be a good NCO, or a good soldier, for that matter. Can be sure too, however the lawyers reconstruct it back home, in Iraq people are saying that two soldiers tried to drown to kids -- and succeeded in murdering one of them.
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Jan 10, 2005 15:24:17 GMT -5
Britain's military has launched more than 100 investigations into the deaths of and injuries to Iraqis in incidents that range from combat to detention to road accidents.
|
|
|
Post by Aravis on Jan 10, 2005 16:02:19 GMT -5
Wyn, that was Dem who "bridled," though believe me, I had a similar strong reaction when I read the story.
Today the soldier who was the supposed ringleader of the Abu Ghraib torture has been quoted as saying that those naked pyramids he forced the prisoners into are standard "softening up" procedure...
|
|
|
Post by Tenarke on Jan 10, 2005 17:01:16 GMT -5
I don’t know how “good” an NCO Sgt. Perkins was, but the fact that after 14 years he had made “Top” Sergeant indicates that he was a successful one.
I also note that the officers in his immediate chain of command have spoken in support of him and his record.
It seems probable to me that this Sergeant was carrying out what he supposed to do as set for him from above. This is of course, the way an Army is supposed to operate. It looks to me that this and other NCOs are taking the heat for the bad policies of their superiors.
This is not the way an Army should operate.
The fish rots from the head.
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Jan 10, 2005 17:12:52 GMT -5
Perhaps it does, but I think if a soldier is in a position of responsibility, its his/her responsibility to refuse unethical orders or practices; in fact, its his/her duty to report them.
I'm thinking here, for example, of the drones who participated in the massacre at Mai Lai IV, in comparison to the one warrant officer who not only tried to prevent the thing, but kept on reporting it until something was done.
Who was the better soldier -- this man (WO Hugh Thompson was his name) or Lt. Calley?
I think when we do too much to protect the Calleys, we do a grave disservice to the Thompsons, and they're still out there. Here's three, pulled off the internet instanced specifically in General Taguba's report:
Master-at-Arms First Class William J. Kimbro, US Navy Dog Handler, knew his duties and refused to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib.
SPC Joseph M. Darby, 372nd MP Company discovered evidence of abuse and turned it over to military law enforcement.
1LT David O. Sutton, 229th MP Company, took immediate action and stopped an abuse, then reported the incident to the chain of command.
|
|
|
Post by Tenarke on Jan 10, 2005 17:48:53 GMT -5
I agree, “good” men to be sure, but I wonder what the rest of their career will be like.
Legally, our military is cut off from the “good German” defense of only following orders. I no longer remember verbatim the oath that I took when I enlisted, but it was in effect to defend the Constitution and to obey the LAWFUL orders of my superiors.
Referring to the cases you cite and remembering stories from my father’s own Navy career, if one successfully refuses an order as “unlawful” it usually spells the end of two careers; both the superior and the subordinate.
The point of my last post was that Sgt. Perkins’ act does not exist in a vacuum. An experienced professional soldier does not readily commit an act that he knows is contrary to established procedure and policy. Someone further up the chain of command should also be answerable for this.
If this hadn’t hit the press I am sure that it would have led to a favorable proficiency rating.
As I said before, it stinks from the top.
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Jan 10, 2005 18:07:26 GMT -5
Guess you're right Tenarke. Thompson, it appears, was persecuted and driven out of the Army, and it was years before Calley was prosecuted -- even then he didn't do very much time. Still, however, I think things have to be made crystal clear. Murder is murder. Here's a bit about Thompson. His story doesn't bode well for the Abu Gharib whistle blowers: www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/thompson.htm
|
|
|
Post by Tenarke on Jan 12, 2005 19:06:48 GMT -5
Much in the news today is Howard Dean’s bid to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
His campaign arguments are that it is necessary for the DNC to bring unity and definition to the Democratic Party, not just in Presidential election years, but on a sustained basis throughout the next four years leading to 2008. He is also asking that the party give more support to “grass roots” local candidates. He also brings his considerable skill in using the internet to create constituents and contributions.
He criticizes that over the past 20 years the party has been essentially reactive, responding mainly to oppose, or at least moderate the actions of the Republicans, but ineffective in championing their own positive agenda. The current party has been criticized as being “Republican Lite”.
The recent election tends to prove that something more positive than “anybody but Bush”, is needed.
The soft center of the existing Democratic establishment is wretchedly wringing its hands for fear of loosing the “center” to the Republicans if Dean becomes chairman or worse yet that people will think that the Democrats are “liberal”.
Dean, in his own estimation, considers that he is centrist and his record as Governor of Vermont does bear this out.
I also wonder if the Democrats lost the election through failure to win the center or because the Republicans sought and gained unexpectedly strong support from the far right.
It appears that the Republicans have continued since the cold war, to sell the public on the notion that “liberal” is synonymous with ineffectual and unpatriotic. I mean, what sort of dweeb would actually use a word like “synonymous”?
However the Democrats have been unable to do anything to answer.
This may be interesting to watch.
|
|