posted
I looked for a post anything like this one before I started typing and apologize in advance if someone has asked anything like this before.
I just re-read OSC's "American Soldiers and How We Use Them" and skimmed Richard Chiu's "An American Military" and am wondering what kind of research was done in preparation for those essays. Now, granted, I am not a soldier, nor have I been to Iraq. I do, however, work very closely with all branches of our military, and am good friends with many (mostly Army) who have deployed. As a truely joint militaryperson I feel I am moderately qualified to wonder how OSC reached the conclusions he did.
Now maybe the Officer Corps feels differently than the Enlisted Corps does, but as someone who has talked to friends about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't feel the essays have the ring that they would had some veterans conversed with the authors. Both essays read more like a romantic version of the military in literature than the unyeilding and strictly defined beaurocracy that people have to deal with on a daily basis. What was it that prompted OSC to write the article, and what was it that most contributed to the tone?
I don't mean to be offensive in any sense of the word, nor confrontational or combative, but that question has been festering for weeks and the answer would really interest me.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you saying all your acquaintances have been officer corps? It's roughly equivalent to the relationship of management and workers in any other field, so yes the experiences are quite different.
P.S. I finally read the Card piece. It was very long. But I don't especially doubt any particular parts of it. My only qualification was being married to a Zoomie and working at the NCO club overseas. Nothing about the background assumptions for either essay seemed especially out of touch.
posted
Virtually none of my aquaintances belong to the Officer Corps. Partly by design, and partly because I have so little contact with them. My job specialty is very Enlisted-heavy.
I just read the thread referenced above and would like to distance myself and this thread from it as much as possible. While I agree with some of the points made, I don't believe the way it was presented could possibly lead to constructive discussion.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I meant is that OSC replied to it already and might not again. World Watch is an "opinion" article where OSC draws on a lot of observation and life experience more than library research (which is full of liberal-elite propaganda anyway)
As for what inspired him to write it (and the tone he used), it was probably the way the military is portrayed in the liberal media--pretty negatively.
But hey, correct me if I'm wrong, OSC.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote]Now, granted, I am not a soldier, nor have I been to Iraq.[/i] I just noticed your handle. An odd choice, but maybe you didn't realize "Airman" is a military term? Or were you being hyperliteral about the "not a soldier" bit?
So, anyway, I'm really confused if you are claiming a familiarity with enlisted and not officers.
Another thing OSC was replying to was the "news" that had been circulated that 6 retired generals had called for Rumsfeld to be dismissed. But that seemed pretty clear from the article.
You know what I don't like about new headlines? The other day Yahoo posted on that read in essence: "Group: violence in Iraq a response to rape". So we're quoting generalized "groups" on negative news about the war. I don't know who the group was, because I'm not going to reward them by clicking on such a dumb headline.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: [quote]Now, granted, I am not a soldier, nor have I been to Iraq.[/i] I just noticed your handle. An odd choice, but maybe you didn't realize "Airman" is a military term? Or were you being hyperliteral about the "not a soldier" bit?
So, anyway, I'm really confused if you are claiming a familiarity with enlisted and not officers.
Another thing OSC was replying to was the "news" that had been circulated that 6 retired generals had called for Rumsfeld to be dismissed. But that seemed pretty clear from the article.
Soldier and Airman are service specific. You won't ever hear a serviceperson refer to him/herself as anything other than what he/she is. You can research this by calling out any Marine you see on the street as a Seaman. They'll love it. I'm a Senior Airman in the active duty Air Force, not to be confused with a Soldier in the Army. I hope that clears up any future mistaken identity. (I was kidding about the calling out Marines thing. Please don't)
Enlisted and Officers are not allowed to "hang out". That includes discussing politics or their personal convictions regarding the military itself. Free discussion is what I meant by familiarity. We enlisted people can chat it up all we want among ourselves. And do.
When OSC brought up the retired generals calling for the Secretary's resignation, I'm pretty sure his position on that matter was pretty clearly Rumsfeldian. I'm not sure I'm allowed to have an opinion of the Secretary, so I don't for another three years.
The "group" like that is just an excuse for people that have felt a certain way for a long time to whine about the things they're against, together. A pretty sad state of affairs.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...someone commented on my article. Only here in Hatrack rather than anywhere else.
I would hardly say that my view of the military was "romantic"...though I did stop short of saying that our current military should be abolished altogether.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(I was kidding about the calling out Marines thing. Please don't) 
