An American Foreign Legion

This report, first posted at TomDispatch.com, comes from historian and retired Lieutenant Colonel William J. Astore:

A leaner, meaner, higher tech force -- that was what George W. Bush and his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised to transform the American military into. Instead, they came close to turning it into a foreign legion. Foreign as in being constantly deployed overseas on imperial errands; foreign as in being ever more reliant on private military contractors; foreign as in being increasingly segregated from the elites that profit most from its actions, yet serve the least in its ranks.

Now would be a good time for President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to begin to reclaim that military for its proper purpose: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now would be a good time to ask exactly why, and for whom, our troops are currently fighting and dying in the urban jungles of Iraq and the hostile hills of Afghanistan.

A few fortnights and forever ago, in the Bush years, our "expeditionary" military came remarkably close to resembling an updated version of the French Foreign Legion in the ways it was conceived and used by those in power -- and even, to some extent, in its makeup.

For the metropolitan French elite of an earlier era, the Foreign Legion -- best known to Americans from countless old action films -- was an assemblage of military adventurers and rootless romantics, volunteers willing to man an army fighting colonial wars in far-flung places. Those wars served the narrow interests of people who weren't particularly concerned about the fate of the legion itself.

It's easy enough to imagine one of them saying, à la Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the legion you have, not the legion you might want or wish to have." Such a blithe statement would have been uncontroversial back then, since the French Foreign Legion was -- well -- so foreign. Its members, recruited worldwide, but especially from French colonial possessions, were considered expendable, a fate captured in its grim, sardonic motto: "You joined the Legion to die. The Legion will send you where you can die!"

Looking back on the last eight years, what's remarkable is the degree to which Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration treated the U.S. military in a similarly dismissive manner. Bullying his generals and ignoring their concerns, the Secretary of Defense even dismissed the vulnerability of the troops in Iraq, who, in the early years, motored about in inadequately armored Humvees and other thin-skinned vehicles.

Last year, Vice President Dick Cheney offered another Legionnaire-worthy version of such dismissiveness. Informed that most Americans no longer supported the war in Iraq, he infamously and succinctly countered, "So?" -- as if the U.S. military weren't the American people's instrument, but his own private army, fed and supplied by private contractor KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary whose former CEO was the very same Dick Cheney.

Fond of posing in flight suits, leather jackets, and related pseudo-military gear, President Bush might, on the other hand, have seemed overly invested in the military. Certainly, his tough war talk resonated within conservative circles, and he visibly relished speaking before masses of hooah-ing soldiers. Too often, however, Bush simply used them as patriotic props, while his administration did its best to hide their deaths from public view.

In that way, he and his top officials made our troops into foreigners, in part by making their ultimate sacrifice, their deaths, as foreign to us as was humanly possible. Put another way, his administration made the very idea of national "sacrifice" -- by anyone but our troops -- foreign to most Americans. In response to the 9/11 attacks, Americans were, as the President famously suggested only 16 days after the attacks, to show their grit by visiting Disney World and shopping till they dropped. Military service instills (and thrives on) an ethic of sacrifice that was, for more than seven years, consciously disavowed domestically.

As the Obama administration begins to deploy U.S. troops back to the Iraq or Afghan war zones for their fourth or fifth tours of duty, I remain amazed at the silent complicity of my country. Why have we been so quiet? Is it because the Bush administration was, in fact, successful in sending our military down the path to foreign legion-hood? Is the fate of our troops no longer of much importance to most Americans?

Even the military's recruitment and demographics are increasingly alien to much of the country. Troops are now regularly recruited in "foreign" places like South Central Los Angeles and Appalachia that more affluent Americans wouldn't be caught dead visiting. In some cases, those new recruits are quite literally "foreign" -- non-U.S. citizens allowed to seek a fast-track to citizenship by volunteering for frontline, war-zone duty in the U.S. Army or Marines. And when, in these last years, the military has fallen short of its recruitment goals -- less likely today thanks to the ongoing economic meltdown -- mercenaries have simply been hired at inflated prices from civilian contractors with names like Triple Canopy or Blackwater redolent of foreign adventures.

With respect to demographics, it'll take more than the sons of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin to redress inequities in burden-sharing. With startlingly few exceptions, America's sons and daughters dodging bullets remain the progeny of rural America, of immigrant America, of the working and lower middle classes. As long as our so-called best and brightest continue to be AWOL when it comes to serving among the rank-and-file, count on our foreign adventurism to continue to surge.

Diversity is now our societal byword. But how about more class diversity in our military? How about a combat regiment of rich young volunteers from uptown Manhattan? (After all, some of their great-grandfathers probably fought with New York's famed "Silk Stocking" regiment in World War I.) How about more Ivy League recruits like George H.W. Bush and John F. Kennedy, who respectively piloted a dive bomber and a PT boat in World War II? Heck, why not a few prominent Hollywood actors like Jimmy Stewart, who piloted heavy bombers in the flak-filled skies of Europe in that same war?

Instead of collective patriotic sacrifice, however, it's clear that the military will now be running the equivalent of a poverty and recession "draft" to fill the "all-volunteer" military. Those without jobs or down on their luck in terrible times will have the singular honor of fighting our future wars. Who would deny that drawing such recruits from dead-end situations in the hinterlands or central cities is strikingly Foreign Legion-esque?

Caught in the shock and awe of 9/11, we allowed our military to be transformed into a neocon imperial police force. Now, approaching our eighth year in Afghanistan and sixth year in Iraq, what exactly is that force defending? Before President Obama acts to double the number of American boots-on-the-ground in Afghanistan -- before even more of our troops are sucked deeper into yet another quagmire -- shouldn't we ask this question with renewed urgency? Shouldn't we wonder just why, despite all the reverent words about "our troops," we really seem to care so little about sending them back into the wilderness again and again?

Where indeed is the outcry?

The French Foreign Legionnaires knew better than to expect such an outcry: The elites for whom they fought didn't give a damn about what happened to them. Our military may not yet be a foreign legion -- but don't fool yourself, it's getting there.

William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), taught for six years at the Air Force Academy. He currently teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. A TomDispatch.com regular, he is the author of Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism (Potomac Press, 2005), among other works. He may be reached at wastore@pct.edu.

Comments (40)

1. This, as usual for Engelhardt, is a complete distortion of the facts and a series of fashionable lefty stupidities.

   The US military is now smaller than it has been in half a century, not even half as large, and with far fewer Americans serving oversees. But those numerous bases and massive deployments oversees kept the world safe, prevented a new world war, won the Cold War and progressively helped bring prosperity and democracy to regions like the Pacific Rim.

   Engelhardt can't get over the fact that we prevailed in Iraq where there was not supposed to be a military solution, and that the insurgency he supported, was defeated, and that Iraq's democratic govt has a real chance of succeeding.

   Moreover, Rumsfeld was right in his restructuring of the military. He created a highly effective fighting machine that succeeded in Iraq at very low cost. Moreover, formerly military jobs have for decades before Rumy gone to foreign contractors. It's a long time since Americans did KP.

   Incidentally, the job of supporting and protecting the Constitution falls on our elected officials, not on our military as Engelhardt thinks. We don't want our officer corps, like some in Latin America, viewing itself as the guardian of the Constitution. Their job is to obey our elected officials, not their political conceptions.

   Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/17/2009 @ 10:41am

2. Always interesting how the neo-cons, who wanted the Iraq War to be their "World War-II"....

   never wanted to bring back the draft???

   Usually saying "We don't need it!"...but "strangely" coinciding with the idea that if there WAS a draft, that they wouldn't have held out the popular support for the war as long as they did....which might have resulted in Dubya not getting re-elected.

   Neither was there any call for a "World War-II" style TAX policy.

   Both of which would have made the "War on Terror" more like World War-II....

   but less EASY politically.

   Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 10:43am

3. Incidentally, the job of supporting and protecting the Constitution falls on our elected officials, not on our military as Engelhardt thinks.----Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/17/2009 @ 10:41am

   Military Oath of Enlistment-

   "I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

   Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 10:53am

4. US army 'wants more immigrants'

   The United States army is to accept immigrants with temporary US visas, for the first time since the Vietnam war, according to the New York Times.

   Until now immigrants have had to have permanent residency - a "green card" - in order to qualify for the services.

   But those with temporary visas will be offered accelerated citizenship if they enrol, the Times says.

   The Pentagon hopes the scheme will cover shortages in areas like medical care and language interpretation.

   Many temporary immigrants will have been granted visas on the basis of their education or skills, so the defence department expects the new recruits to be more qualified than applicants who are US citizens - and in particular to have languages useful in combat zones like Afghanistan and Iraq.

   "The American army finds itself in a lot of different countries where cultural awareness is critical," said Lt-Gen Benjamin C Freakley, the top recruitment officer for the army.

   "There will be some very talented folks in this group," he told the New York Times.

   "The army will gain in its strength in human capital, and the immigrants will gain their citizenship and get on a ramp to the American dream."

   BBC News; 02/15/09; Excerpt

   Just the beginning - a way to open the door to future "recruitment" of combat forces. Your tax dollars at work. For sale........."The American Dream."

   Posted by OneVote at 02/17/2009 @ 10:57am

5. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/17/2009 @ 10:41am

   First, Engelhardt isn't the author, William Astore is...

   Second, you are the worst kind of revisionist. Nothing about the Rumsfeld plan worked and you know it.

   Posted by HAL9000 at 02/17/2009 @ 11:39am

6. Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 10:53am

   I swore that oath administered by a Marine Corps major, with a picture of the President on the wall.

   Everyone who serves the federal govt in any capacity swears it. But the oath of a soldiers is to obey his commander and chief, and the civilian leadership. That is how he defends the Constitution. He does not defend it against a perverse President and wrong headed Secretary of Defense.

   Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/17/2009 @ 11:48am

7. A professor at Harvard Med the other day said that, since we've reconstructed the Neanderthal genome (just announced in Germany), it will now cost about $30 million to create a real live Neanderthal.

   There you go ... the answer to the Pentagon's recruitment dreams.

   The Neanderthal Division. Go anywhere, do anything, no backtalk.

   Posted by sloper at 02/17/2009 @ 11:51am

8. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/17/2009 @ 11:48am

   Odd...you said-

   "Incidentally, the job of supporting and protecting the Constitution falls on our elected officials, not on our military as Engelhardt thinks."----Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/17/2009 @ 10:41am

   But the oath you CLAIM to have sworn says-

   "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..."

   Odd??!?!???

   Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 12:27pm

9. You are absolutely correct we may not be at the foreign legion stage, but, damn, we are close. I was watching an Indian support and argue for Black Water KBR types and heard him quote my favorite imperialist idiot, Napolian, and being French I perked right up. I believe the quote was "and army marches on its stomach". Did you notice that the Brits and the French just ran a couple of their nuclear subs together because they couldn't hear each other. The Chinese are said to have even superior technology. Isn't that where total world destruction is going to come from? I mean,both French and Brit subs contained enough nukes to blow up an entire continent. And how about those drones that are flown from New Jersey and blow up wedding parties in Iraq? Brave new world run by idiots. Zero sum game!!!!!

   Posted by julien38 at 02/17/2009 @ 12:38pm

10. I am in general agreement with the sentiments expressed in this article. The military has been trashed and abused in the two wars in which we are presently involved. Most of the defense budget goes for corporate welfare for defense contractors. Billions and billions of dollar have been wasted on the Star Wars Missile Defense System and using private contractors in government. Foreign aid has become pork for multinational corporations. While we can argue about how many troops should be involved in our various conflicts, we have to realize that the volunteer army is a failure. Even at the present troop levels, our soldier need relief from multiple combat tours. The more combat tours they serve the more likely they will be killed or injured. Your luck can run out at any time, but multiple tours are really pressing their luck. We need the draft to improve the quality of our soldiers and to maintain the tradition of the citizen soldier. We need people in the services that have no vested interest in the military, and who will blow thew whistle when things go wrong. This our country, and everybody should be willing to defend it.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/17/2009 @ 1:05pm

11. The leftist are really laughable in their fraudulent arguements on the "war on terror". First it was pull out of Iraq because it can't be won and we SHOULD be fighting in Afganistan were the real battlefront against terrorism is!

    Now we have this promulgated stinking pile of anti-Americanism sentiment from Englehardt! What liar and hypocrits these traitors be!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 1:34pm

12. Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 1:34pm

    Damn skippy, RIO....just because bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, stupid lefties thought that's where we should have fought the War on Terror!

    What are these guys thinking?!?!??!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 1:38pm

13. There you go ... the answer to the Pentagon's recruitment dreams.

    The Neanderthal Division. Go anywhere, do anything, no backtalk.

    Posted by sloper at 02/17/2009 @ 11:51am

    oh, the pentagon's been full of those types for years...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 2:27pm

14. never wanted to bring back the draft???

    Usually saying "We don't need it!"...but "strangely" coinciding with the idea that if there WAS a draft, that they wouldn't have held out the popular support for the war as long as they did....which might have resulted in Dubya not getting re-elected.

    Neither was there any call for a "World War-II" style TAX policy.

    Both of which would have made the "War on Terror" more like World War-II....

    but less EASY politically.

    Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 10:43am

    I for one would like to see the draft brought back. I have never dropped my view that every able bodied male should serve in the military. It is the very least that one can do to repay this country for the opportunity it gives us.

    It is unfortunate that more don't volunteer to serve; but that is based mostly upon the 1)era of coddled children that never understand sacrifice and duty, 2)that don't believe in "laying down one's life for another", 3)that take this liberty and opportunity that is the US for granted, 4) that have in many instances become cowards in life.

    I place anyone who serves with honor in the military above everyone who doesn't.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 3:16pm

15. I place anyone who serves with honor in the military above everyone who doesn't.----Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 3:16pm

    Well, first, why do you think most of your neo-con friends DIDN'T want a draft for the "civilization-defending War on Terror"???

    Second, do you place those who served in actual COMBAT above those who stayed in the States and say...made movies or flew "combat missions" over West Texas???

    Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 3:40pm

16. Second, do you place those who served in actual COMBAT above those who stayed in the States and say...made movies or flew "combat missions" over West Texas???

    Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 3:40pm

    Of course, but even someone who serves in the National Guard is for me way above anyone who doesn't serve at all.

    As if your snide little question isn't apparent Mask.

    And I don't care about their reasons. I'm talking about mine.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 6:03pm

17. The 1960's began with a partial mobilization of the National Guard as part of the U.S. response to the Soviet Union's building of the Berlin Wall. Although none left the United States, nearly 45,000 Army Guardsmen spent a year in Active Federal Service.

    As the decade progressed, President Lyndon Johnson made the fateful political decision not to mobilize the Reserves to fight the Vietnam War, but to rely on the draft instead. But when the bombshell of the Viet Cong Tet Offensive struck in 1968, 34 Army National Guard units found themselves alerted for active duty, eight of which served in South Vietnam.

    It is an affront and malicious LIE that leftist tried to perpetrate all during G.W. Bush's 8 yr. term that servicemen and women of our Army, Navy, and Air Force National Guard never saw service or were some kind of "refuge" from service. No wonder the right despises such small cowardly minds!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 7:43pm

18. This our country, and everybody should be willing to defend it. Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/17/2009 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    we are not defending our country in Iraq and afghanistan, we are just meddling.

    no draft. you motherfuckers are not getting MY kid

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/17/2009 @ 7:45pm

19. casey, you go. who is stopping you?

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/17/2009 @ 7:46pm

20. I place anyone who serves with honor in the military above everyone who doesn't. Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    slobbering soldier worship.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/17/2009 @ 7:48pm

21. I for one would like to see the draft brought back. I have never dropped my view that every able bodied male should serve in the military. It is the very least that one can do to repay this country for the opportunity it gives us.

    •• couldn't they plant trees or build hospitals? i think jesus would approve.

    It is unfortunate that more don't volunteer to serve;

    •• well, mr bush et al. have certainly upped the number of "willing" recruits with their clever handling of finance.

    but that is based mostly upon the 1)era of coddled children that never understand sacrifice and duty,

    •• maybe they think killing is stupid.

    2)that don't believe in "laying down one's life for another",

    •• i'm sure those coddled children would pull your butt out of a burning car.

    3)that take this liberty and opportunity that is the US for granted,

    •• well, maybe if you asked people to pay taxes to pay for all the killgizmos, they'd be more interested.

    4) that have in many instances become cowards in life.

    •• and in many instances have gone on to do great things. i bet most doctors have never been a soldier.

    I place anyone who serves with honor in the military above everyone who doesn't.

    •• jesus would think that was arrogance.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 3:16pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 9:45pm

22. If you are dumb enough to be used as cannon-fodder & fight other people's wars, in foreign lands, for a paycheck, you deserve to die or be exploited.

    Our REAL enemies are right here in the USA, in Government, Banks & Corporations.

    Posted by ZombieNation at 02/18/2009 @ 01:43am

23. Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 6:03pm

    Just curious though I figure you voted for the guys who stayed state-side (Nixon, Reagan, Dubya)...

    over the guys who actually saw combat (McGovern, Kerry).

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 09:01am

24. Our REAL enemies are right here in the USA, in Government, Banks & Corporations. Posted by ZombieNation at 02/18/2009 @ 01:43am | ignore this person | warn this person

    only a zombie would post this crap

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 10:38am

25. Just curious though I figure you voted for the guys who stayed state-side (Nixon, Reagan, Dubya)...

    over the guys who actually saw combat (McGovern, Kerry).

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 09:01am

    But then the next logical step is what is their position on the issues.

    So a guy like Kerry who served but came home and then trashed his country (he did and I heard him personally in a VVAW meeting), doesn't merit my vote. He gets my respect over someone like you for his service, but that is seperate.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 10:46am

26. but that is seperate. Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 10:46am | ignore this person | warn this person

    er, separate

    Kerry's beef was My Lai and the many My Lais we never found out about. it is those perps who trashed the US, not Kerry.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 11:05am

27. er, separate

    Kerry's beef was My Lai and the many My Lais we never found out about. it is those perps who trashed the US, not Kerry.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 11:05am

    EB,

    You don't know what you are talking about. I was referring to a meeting I attended in California at the chapter of VVAW that I belonged to in the early 70's. Kerry spoke to us and talked with nothing but vile hated towards the US. Unfortunately, he had some who echoed his comments at that meeting. It was one of the last meetings I attended as a member of VVAW.

    I had joined as I've shared before, not because I was against the war, but it was the only veterans group at the time on my campus. And only vets understood other vets. Certainly not the younger students who had never served. I actually was kicked out when I could no longer stand the vitriol and began speaking out in defense of our country.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 1:13pm

28. Mask: Why would we want to have the draft? With the all volunteer force we get motivated people who generally want to be there. FYI, people who served stateside can be sent overseas at anytime. As a vet I had absolutly no input as to where I went. GIs never do.

    emile duBois: "slobbering soldier worship" ? Somehow I don't think anyone would trust you to "have their back". And as for your son, that will be his choice when he gets to that age, as it was mine.

    I am also constantly perplexed by the casual attitude the left has about radical Islam. Here is a quote that may or may not be of interest:

    "Those who know nothing about Islam pretent that Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless." -Ayatollah Khomeini-1942

    Posted by pyeatte at 02/18/2009 @ 3:59pm

29. My views:

    1) A draft would be arguably "democratic," in the following sense. Our all-volunteer army is not reflective of the demagrahpics of our society - a disproportionate numbers of our soldiers are minorities and from lower economic classes. If we had a draft - if everyone had to go - our military would more accurately reflect our society in terms of class, race, etc. (Even rich kids would have to go.) I think all would agree on the logic of this - that it would be fairer, more representative, etc, than the current system. Consider also - Congressmen would be sending - unlike now - their OWN kids to fight these wars, and just perhaps, they might be less likely therefore to start them.

    2) It's interesting that the right is so worshipful of/towards armies, wars (militarism in general), because nationalism/patriotism itself is an inherently collectivist/communitarian idea - that idea being that each of us as individuals OWES something to the larger COLLECTIVE society of which we are a part - usually and generally (on most other issues) the right is hyper-individualist, as we know. This contradiction comes out whenever there is anything to do with war - for example, these usually libertarian rightists turn into anti-dissenters when we go to war (except of course, when a Democrat does something, such as Kosovo, in which case dissent magically becomes perfectly acceptable). The whole idea of individuals owing something to the society as a whole (such as by serving in the military, not to benefit themselves, but rather, the WHOLE country and its interests), is actually, philosophically speaking, an idea associated with tyhe left, not the right. Just something I've always noted, and found fascinating.

    Note: I don't actually favor a draft.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 4:45pm

30. Kerry's beef was My Lai and the many My Lais we never found out about. it is those perps who trashed the US, not Kerry.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 11:05am

    Emile,

    Interestingly, Kerry makes an unusla argument about the My lai incidents in Vietnam (that is, you go back and actually listen to his testimoney on fron of Congress). He does not "trash" the entire military; he states that of those American soldiwers who DID commit atrocities and war crimes there, that they were/are "victims," in that they were placed into an untenable situation, and, under the circumstances, some of them "cracked" and lashed out in the way they did at places like My Lai. In other words, Kerry argued that the American soldiers were (in addition to the Vietnamese, etc) victims AS WELL, in this sense, of the intervention into Southeast Asia.

    I'm not sure I entirely BUY his argument, but it is a fascinating way of looking at it - and it is quite a different argument that the right makes when it twists his testimony for its own purposes. (Misrepresenting Kerry's position, making it sound like he was arguing that all American soldiers were natural born killers or something.)

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:00pm

31. Nixon "stayed stateside"?

    I don't think so. Believe he was in the Pacific somewheres. So was LBJ (Silver Star).

    My favorite? George McGovern. A hero, though you'd never hear him say it. :)

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 02/18/2009 @ 5:04pm

32. Reagan got out of the war, didn't he?

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:09pm

33. Hugo:

    One's sworn duty, as I remember, is to obey the LAWFUL orders of those appointed above you (or something like that.) Big difference from blind following.

    :)

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 02/18/2009 @ 5:09pm

34. Otherwise, we get down the road towards all that nasty old Nuremberg type stuff of "I was just obeying my superiors". Now THOSE boys knew how to run a military!

    As for Reagan, I think he made films for the War Department, had very bad eyesight, I believe.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 02/18/2009 @ 5:12pm

35. Made the trains run on time, too.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 02/18/2009 @ 5:13pm

36. Hugo, one other very important point (or, more to the point): soldiers are actually expected to DISOBEY unlawful orders. That is, if they are ordered - as at My lai - to murder unarmed men, women and children, they are expected (under both military protocal and international law, as laid down at Nuremberg and other covenents, etc) to actually REFUSE to obey them.

    A few soldiers at My Lai did refuse to slaughter the old men, women and children civilians there.

    I think most would agree with me that such Americans were heroes in doing so.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:15pm

37. if they were heros, they would have stopped the massacre, and reported it right away.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 11:09am

38. heroes

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 11:10am

39. Reagan got out of the war, didn't he?

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:09pm

    ------------

    He had terrible eyesight. 4F. He did war MOVIES as his service.

    Posted by Irmanator at 02/21/2009 @ 12:22am

40. 2) It's interesting that the right is so worshipful of/towards armies, wars (militarism in general), because nationalism/patriotism itself is an inherently collectivist/communitarian idea - that idea being that each of us as individuals OWES something to the larger COLLECTIVE society of which we are a part - usually and generally (on most other issues) the right is hyper-individualist, as we know. This contradiction comes out whenever there is anything to do with war - for example, these usually libertarian rightists turn into anti-dissenters when we go to war (except of course, when a Democrat does something, such as Kosovo, in which case dissent magically becomes perfectly acceptable). The whole idea of individuals owing something to the society as a whole (such as by serving in the military, not to benefit themselves, but rather, the WHOLE country and its interests), is actually, philosophically speaking, an idea associated with tyhe left, not the right. Just something I've always noted, and found fascinating.

    Note: I don't actually favor a draft.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 4:45pm

    ---------

    Very good. Hadn't thought of that.

    Posted by Irmanator at 02/21/2009 @ 12:24am