Thanks for the reply, Joan. I think the fact civilians were spared to a large extent in WWI was because forces dug in early on and got stuck in the mud, so to speak.
I make no distinction between draftees and enlistees. Once you're a soldier (or whatever), you're a soldier. Bit hard to sort that out during "business hours."
FWIW, I believe ending conscription was bad for the U.S. I think a purely "professional" military is not the best thing and I think the lack of military veterans in all walks of life is a loss.
I went into the military as a volunteer. I certainly believed I had an obligation to accept risk as part of my duty. I believe the draftee who may have been beside me had exactly the same obligation. No military unit could function otherwise.
Your view of recent (there's that darn word again) military actions may be skewed. Launching a cruise missile certainly qualifies as "long range." And, I think these weapons have been badly used by the Clinton Defense team. That said, sending one cruise missile will increase the odds of hitting the actual target and be a hell of a lot less destructive in general than a bunch of iron bombs from a flight of B-52s directly over the target AREA.
As for air attacks in Yugoslavia (I strongly opposed our intervention), I take your reference to "long range" to mean the higher altitudes from which weapons were released from attacking aircraft. Could we have been MORE accurate in these attacks? Yes -- BUT.....
As you increase exposure of the attacking force you also increase the possibility of some ordnance going WAY off target. And, as we know, captured pilots complicate exit strategies and terms.
Without debating details encompassed by above paragraph, I believe our involvement and tactics were driven by civilians (not by the best available military advice) for purely political considerations.
I had NO problem with the Gulf War. I believe we needed to go. I believe we achieved a significant victory because the politicians set the policy and let the military fight the war. It also helped that there weren't a million reporters running around. FWIW, I think Bush made the best decision by not pushing on. He made a lot of promises to put that coalition together -- to act outside its scope would have been the diplomatic equivalent of "Read my lips....."
I think Chechnya is not the same from a military point of view (I leave the history and objectives to you). Russia certainly took advantage of our posture re. Yugoslavia, in moving against Chechnya. Using air vs. ground was in Russia's best interest, politically and militarily. I doubt there are/were too many appropriate targets for smart munitions in Chechnya. I hear conflicting reports on Russia's capabilities in this area and note that iron bombs are much cheaper. I'm not sure Russia would use much of the "good stuff" on Chechnya. I suspect Russia is quite pleased to "punish" Chechnya and let the CBUs fall where they may.
Please ignore any of the last paragraph you want. Your understanding, insights and information re. Chechnya are no doubt better than my own. I am agreeing with any disagreement in advance.
As for the perks, try "forcing" everyone at GM or Intel or in civilian government agencies to retire in their forties.
Benefit packages of many companies and institutions are far more generous than those provided by the military.
On the medical front I was recently on the golf course with a military retiree when he had an emergency health problem. I'll be glad to PM you the details if you're interested but, believe me, you'd hope for better care for your dog.
Got to give up the computer for a while.
Mike |
