The Role of the Military in Our Society

Probably 5 people who now will not have to worry about honoring our Veterans tomorrow.  Although there are some important criticisms to made on this issue and we need a very healthy debate on civil-military relations, foreign policy and national security,  I am especially critical of this comment from Mr. Cox.  I of course respect every draftee who served, but those who volunteered during a time of war knowing they would have to go in harm’s way for their country do not deserve to be denigrated by Mr. Cox.  Draftees and Volunteers served and for that each should be respected.

This may be an artifact of the times when our soldiers were conscripts, not government employees who voluntarily signed on for military duty.
While military employees deserve high praise for work well done under dangerous circumstances, draftees deserved something more.  The government ordered them to pick up a weapon and fight, and those who did so out of pure patriotism perhaps deserved “unequivocal, unhesitating adulation.”

I do not think Mr. Cox understand the concept of selfless service.  And the irony is that most members are the military are uncomfortable with the concept of  “for non-veterans — including about four-fifths of all members of Congress — there is only unequivocal, unhesitating adulation” for the military.”  Most military members do not seek nor want this "unequivocal, unhesitating adulation" and therefore should not be the target of these criticisms.  Let’s debate the decisions to go to war, what to call the war, how we are fighting the war, how the war achieves or does not achieve our national security interests but do not take out one's frustrations with the decisions of senior political leaders on those who selflessly serve.

V/R

Dave

November 9, 2012

The Role of the Military in Our Society

To the Editor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/opinion/the-role-of-the-military-in-our-society.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Re “The Permanent Militarization of America” (Op-Ed, Nov. 5):

I applaud Aaron B. O’Connell for his brave and cogent article. The salute of all things military — and the quick denunciation of any who dare question it — has become a knee-jerk part of American life. It strikes me as a cynical ploy to ensure that the military-industrial-Congressional-entertainment complex is perpetually well fed, even as spending on the rest of society is cut and the debt balloons.

Dwight D. Eisenhower’s warning of the dangers of this imbalance was as prescient as it is unheeded.

Unlike the case in World War II, Korea and Vietnam, today relatively few Americans have direct contact with the professional troops who fight, even as we enter a second decade of continuous conflict. The cost of our permanent state of war — in terms of lives, treasure and spiritual health — is the kind of burden that, in the rearview mirror of history, brings down great nations.

GLENN BAKER
Falls Church, Va., Nov. 6, 2012

The writer was a producer for the PBS television shows “America’s Defense Monitor” and “Foreign Exchange With Fareed Zakaria.”

To the Editor:

Everyone should heed Aaron B. O’Connell’s thoughtful warning about the consequences of our country’s “uncritical support of all things martial.”

Of course we need an effective military for the defense of our country. But it is sad when we reach the point where scrutinizing the cost of that defense is viewed as somehow unpatriotic.

We often hear that our foreign policy should be based on diplomacy, development and defense. Yet as Robert M. Gates, the former defense secretary, once observed, there are more people in American military bands than in the United States Foreign Service.

And are the thrills that we and our children get out of the Blue Angels’ acrobatics really worth a yearly cost of almost $40 million? The extraordinary attention and resources being devoted to “all things martial” should certainly concern us all, especially in these days of financial and economic stress.

WALTER L. CUTLER
Washington, Nov. 6, 2012

The writer is a former career diplomat and United States ambassador.

To the Editor:

If Aaron B. O’Connell may understate somewhat the role of economic vested interests, he goes on to most usefully emphasize broader cultural aspects of the normalization of war. Central to such normalization is a heightened rush to designate an “enemy.”

So long as American foreign policy continues to be tainted by the amorphous concept of a “war on terror,” there will never be a dearth of “enemies,” or a significant reduction in militarization.

EDWIN M. SCHUR
New York, Nov. 5, 2012

The writer is professor emeritus of sociology at New York University.

To the Editor:

Aaron B. O’Connell writes that “for non-veterans — including about four-fifths of all members of Congress — there is only unequivocal, unhesitating adulation” for the military. This may be an artifact of the times when our soldiers were conscripts, not government employees who voluntarily signed on for military duty.

While military employees deserve high praise for work well done under dangerous circumstances, draftees deserved something more. The government ordered them to pick up a weapon and fight, and those who did so out of pure patriotism perhaps deserved “unequivocal, unhesitating adulation.”

They got that after World War II, but not after Vietnam; more’s the pity.

JEFF COX
Kenwood, Calif., Nov. 5, 2012

To the Editor:

How is it that we can talk about the permanent militarization of America when there is no draft and the armed services are more socially isolated than they have been for generations?

ROBERT WELLS
Houston, Nov. 5, 2012