![Function [F(x)]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DWbW3mDlzWc/SXVI30gmC2I/AAAAAAAAADo/rl-_jtqmMjs/S1600-R/BANNER+V2.JPG)
It was National Armed Forces Day 2005, the cafeteria neatly adorned with regalia. Flanking the entrance were tri-fold displays dedicated to each particular branch of the service. At the table were myself, a good friend enrolled in the Air Force ROTC* and several proud civilians. One of them, who wasn't aware of our military presence, had several choice words about the subject as well as the commemoration. Keep in mind our country had just reinstated George W. Bush for a second term. He offered criticisms of the military construct as well as the national administration and questioned the decision to celebrate either. My friend stayed his tongue but clearly held grievance with the man's observations. Sensing visibly his growing incontinence my non-confrontational self moved to prevent a strong encounter over the undeserving dormitory fare. In retrospect, the guy just failed to employ prudence in his half-hearted tirade.
"The military" is simply a tool and is only as good as how it is used. There is a strong difference between the construct and its application. In many ways armed forces stay the same while being manipulated by ever-changing bands of elected and appointed kings-of-state. Get the right president to start two concurrent wars that swiftly become unpopular and you will likely see a decrease in military favor. What detractors often don't recognize is that they disagree with the use of the tool and not the thing itself.
Everybody loves armed forces because animals kill each other. That's what made Ghandi so powerful and remarkable, he made himself an exception to the universal rule. All creatures possess the fear mechanism; everything knows as soon as it can think that something else might try to kill it. The military addresses this issue at the macro level, we fend for ourselves at the micro level. Perhaps even more admonishing to those who would blindly criticize is the fact that most military personnel--particularly high-ranking officers--respect and follow whoever the president is, regardless of party affiliation. We all know the rhetoric because it's true. On paper and in practice the military exists to protect the country and is directed by the commander in chief in meeting that task. They have great utility in this regard.
Beyond the political implications are other interesting considerations. The hallmark of any fighting force is discipline. Order. Efficiency that begs descriptions such as "well-oiled machine." As a thing, in and of itself, it is wonderful: A system that develops strength and ability in the subject in both mental and physical aspects leading to improvement on a level approaching literal augmentation of the human being. It instills courage and skill, ultimately rendering capable, productive people. Then one man can take it and exercise illegitimate use of force.
I have a problem with that. For the sake of humor, here's a thought from Lewis Black# that effectively illustrates my sentiment here:
"The major lesson that can be learned from the hurricane [Katrina] is this: that while we were fighting the terrorists, god bit us in the ass!"
The military are our finest and strongest, most able and vital. It's troubling to recognize that this rather unique faculty could be readily used in ways that are not intended. That's where all the lying came from. In order to bend the rules they had to say we were "protecting national security" by pre-emptively attacking a country for reasons that were ultimately false. We grapple with the concept that our military is subject to arbitrary application.
"The military" is simply a tool and is only as good as how it is used. There is a strong difference between the construct and its application. In many ways armed forces stay the same while being manipulated by ever-changing bands of elected and appointed kings-of-state. Get the right president to start two concurrent wars that swiftly become unpopular and you will likely see a decrease in military favor. What detractors often don't recognize is that they disagree with the use of the tool and not the thing itself.
Everybody loves armed forces because animals kill each other. That's what made Ghandi so powerful and remarkable, he made himself an exception to the universal rule. All creatures possess the fear mechanism; everything knows as soon as it can think that something else might try to kill it. The military addresses this issue at the macro level, we fend for ourselves at the micro level. Perhaps even more admonishing to those who would blindly criticize is the fact that most military personnel--particularly high-ranking officers--respect and follow whoever the president is, regardless of party affiliation. We all know the rhetoric because it's true. On paper and in practice the military exists to protect the country and is directed by the commander in chief in meeting that task. They have great utility in this regard.
Beyond the political implications are other interesting considerations. The hallmark of any fighting force is discipline. Order. Efficiency that begs descriptions such as "well-oiled machine." As a thing, in and of itself, it is wonderful: A system that develops strength and ability in the subject in both mental and physical aspects leading to improvement on a level approaching literal augmentation of the human being. It instills courage and skill, ultimately rendering capable, productive people. Then one man can take it and exercise illegitimate use of force.
I have a problem with that. For the sake of humor, here's a thought from Lewis Black# that effectively illustrates my sentiment here:
"The major lesson that can be learned from the hurricane [Katrina] is this: that while we were fighting the terrorists, god bit us in the ass!"
The military are our finest and strongest, most able and vital. It's troubling to recognize that this rather unique faculty could be readily used in ways that are not intended. That's where all the lying came from. In order to bend the rules they had to say we were "protecting national security" by pre-emptively attacking a country for reasons that were ultimately false. We grapple with the concept that our military is subject to arbitrary application.
* Recruit Officers' Training Corps
# http://www.lewisblack.com/audio.asp#audio (The Carnegie Hall Performance, Track 12 - The Real Problem is Gay Marriage)
No comments:
Post a Comment