At long last, the dirty little details about how America-its government-and its wonderfully would-be “patriotic” citizens tend to caste a blind eye to the mistreatment of those who have sacrificed life and limb because a little pipsqueak of a president sought to demonstrate his machismo in the Middle East; the images of his landing on the aircraft carrier and his resolute “bring it on” statement are never more present in my minds-eye and ear.
It is not as though this is the first time such neglect of America’s fighting men and women have been treated so shabbily. And while America conveniently rejects comparisons with the experience of the armed-conflict of Vietnam; the evidence of the post-conflict of neglect of those men and women is still visible to all (who would dare to look and see it) in the vast numbers of physically and mentally disabled Vietnam vets seen on the streets, living under highway and byway underpasses, found temporarily residing in the faith-based half-way houses or locked away (from the public) in the jails and prisons of this country.
In the post-Vietnam period, the problems of Vietnam vets and their families (where families have survived) have been ignored; their complaints have fallen on the deaf ears of subsequent Congresses, presidential administrations as well as the American public at large.
Thank god for those who have come forward to expose the sorry behavior of a government and its military leadership; it is this sorry aggregation of individuals who view those exposed to the death, physical maiming and psychological effects of combat as an unfortunate, but necessary expendable commodity in the conduct of war. Finally, and at long last, heads area beginning to roll, as rightly they should.
It must be noted that treatment of battlefield casualties is exceptional, however; it must also be noted that treatment of battlefield injuries are accomplished with the primary goal of returning those injured to the battlefield. Those whose physical injuries preclude their return to the battlefield and the psychological horror imposed upon the mind, are relegated to the under budgeted, poorly administered confusion and mishandling of the military (and Veteran’s Affairs) bureaucracy.
As short sightedness in the planning and prosecution of the armed-conflict part of the war has been exposed by the past week’s revelations by investigative journalists who have made the tragedy of poor planning evident in the treatment of this war’s casualties.
America should be careful in its tendency to blame everyone from the senior non-commissions officer(s) to the generals for what we now know, America should be reminded that with the exception of that 20-30% of the American public that did not support the war from its outset, 70-80% of this country’s citizens must accept responsibility for its thoughtless drinking and enjoyment of the rhetorical cool aide offered up by the Bush Administration in the lead up to punching Uncle Remus’ tar baby.
Be careful America, the administration is once again pouring the rhetorical cool aide; this time the Bush administration flavor of choice is Iran.
thebrotherman
Monday, March 05, 2007
Sunday, January 07, 2007
On the Threat of Democratic Control of Congress and Taxation
It is high time that the 24 hour televised news cycle as well at the media, in general, stop contributing to the hyperbolic, rhetorical question, “Will the newly elected Democratic majority in Congress raise taxes?” The answer is that an increase in taxes it is inevitable. Moreover; the media really needs to stop repeated showing and repeating the erroneous speculations of anti-government business spokespersons, and advocacies such as “Tax Watch” and other would-be, wanna-be pundits and economists of all political stripes.
Get real! Taxation is a fact of life and America needs to get a grip on this reality. Stop buying into such foolish notions that taxes paid to government “is your money.” Taxes to government is no less the costs of government, and once paid is the government’s money; it is not my money—hogwash.
It must be understood that governments provide services, (the effectiveness and efficiency may be justifiably questioned) and just as we pay for television cable and telephone services, we must also pay for the services rendered by government—at all levels. I seriously doubt that there is anyone foolish enough to go down to his/her local television cable service office and claim that the money paid for services rendered belongs to him or her.
It is easy to ignore the realities of taxation and fall victim to such nonsensical notions which are propagated in the name of some would-be newsworthy story or political advantage.
When considering the question of whether a congressional majority will or will not raise taxes, consider this:
It may be consider an article of faith that non-governmental employees expect some sort of annual (cost-of-living) increase in their salaries. It should be understood that federal government employees are not exempt from the exigencies of living in a society where costs of living increases are just as inevitable as the sun rising in the East and setting in the West. Based on this reality, it should come as no surprise that federal government employees, just as their non-governmental counterparts, expect an annual increase in salary?
That said; consider that as of FY 2003, there were 2,428,330 million employees earning a living as federal government employees. If only once during a single two-year congressional cycle every civilian employee is granted a one dollar per hour increase in salary this would result in 2,428,330 million dollars per hour; and this, by the way, does not include Americans serving in the (active) armed forces.
On the 2nd day of the 110th Congress, now Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter (R. Calif) speaking from the floor of the House of Representatives noted that under the Republican majority in the109th Congress military salaries were increased by 40%.
There are some 1.4 to 1.9 million (depending on who you might read) Americans serving in the armed services of the United States; how did they pay for this increase??? They didn’t, and while holding to traditional electoral campaign mantra of “no new taxes” this crew put the costs on the deficit credit card. And as history is doomed to repeat itself we have a crew that thinks it is possible to increase spending while cutting taxes. This is reminiscent of addition and subtraction during the Ronald Reagan administration with the same results—“no new taxes.”
It is striking that in each case, claims that tax cuts contribute to economic growth, job increases, and a growing economy occurs with monumental increases in defense spending.
In Reagan’s case, excessive spending was necessary to prevent those godless Soviets from getting ahead in the arms race which would result in their “taking us over.”
In the latter instance, defense-spending increases are directly related to the fiasco in Iraq, and are necessary for victory over the terrorists, lest we will have to “fight them in the streets of America.” Please, America can you see what is going on in Iraq happening in New York City, Chicago, Los Angles, Atlanta, and so on?
Get a grip America, wake up; think and begin to demand that the media play it straight.
The brotherman
Get real! Taxation is a fact of life and America needs to get a grip on this reality. Stop buying into such foolish notions that taxes paid to government “is your money.” Taxes to government is no less the costs of government, and once paid is the government’s money; it is not my money—hogwash.
It must be understood that governments provide services, (the effectiveness and efficiency may be justifiably questioned) and just as we pay for television cable and telephone services, we must also pay for the services rendered by government—at all levels. I seriously doubt that there is anyone foolish enough to go down to his/her local television cable service office and claim that the money paid for services rendered belongs to him or her.
It is easy to ignore the realities of taxation and fall victim to such nonsensical notions which are propagated in the name of some would-be newsworthy story or political advantage.
When considering the question of whether a congressional majority will or will not raise taxes, consider this:
It may be consider an article of faith that non-governmental employees expect some sort of annual (cost-of-living) increase in their salaries. It should be understood that federal government employees are not exempt from the exigencies of living in a society where costs of living increases are just as inevitable as the sun rising in the East and setting in the West. Based on this reality, it should come as no surprise that federal government employees, just as their non-governmental counterparts, expect an annual increase in salary?
That said; consider that as of FY 2003, there were 2,428,330 million employees earning a living as federal government employees. If only once during a single two-year congressional cycle every civilian employee is granted a one dollar per hour increase in salary this would result in 2,428,330 million dollars per hour; and this, by the way, does not include Americans serving in the (active) armed forces.
On the 2nd day of the 110th Congress, now Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter (R. Calif) speaking from the floor of the House of Representatives noted that under the Republican majority in the109th Congress military salaries were increased by 40%.
There are some 1.4 to 1.9 million (depending on who you might read) Americans serving in the armed services of the United States; how did they pay for this increase??? They didn’t, and while holding to traditional electoral campaign mantra of “no new taxes” this crew put the costs on the deficit credit card. And as history is doomed to repeat itself we have a crew that thinks it is possible to increase spending while cutting taxes. This is reminiscent of addition and subtraction during the Ronald Reagan administration with the same results—“no new taxes.”
It is striking that in each case, claims that tax cuts contribute to economic growth, job increases, and a growing economy occurs with monumental increases in defense spending.
In Reagan’s case, excessive spending was necessary to prevent those godless Soviets from getting ahead in the arms race which would result in their “taking us over.”
In the latter instance, defense-spending increases are directly related to the fiasco in Iraq, and are necessary for victory over the terrorists, lest we will have to “fight them in the streets of America.” Please, America can you see what is going on in Iraq happening in New York City, Chicago, Los Angles, Atlanta, and so on?
Get a grip America, wake up; think and begin to demand that the media play it straight.
The brotherman
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
SOME REFLECTIVE THOUGHT ON THE IRAQ SITUATION
ON THE U.S. MILIATRY STANDING DOWN AS IRAQI FORCES ARE ABLE TO STAND UP:
It has been some time since George W. Bush’s proclamation that the (Iraq) mission was accomplished.
That said, it is time for a bit of reflective thought on what has transpired since that misguided statement.
ON THE U.S. MILIATRY STANDING DOWN AS IRAQI FORCES ARE ABLE TO STAND UP
Part of the Bush Administration’s exit strategy calls for the creation of a 300K Army. According to this plan, as this massive army gains proficiency, it will incrementally assume responsibility for Iraqi security.
Recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee by General John Abazaid provides ample evidence of the intractable problem facing this administration, notwithstanding the haphazard efforts at training an Iraqi force to a level that they will be able to provide the new “democracy” with physical security.
Upon reflection, this plan, in part, underlies such prognostications that “we could be in Iraq for as long as ten or more years.” Why is that so? Well, hidden beneath such estimates is the reality that building a minimally effective army will take at least that long to develop, and the emphasis is on “minimally effective.”
How, you might ask do I arrive at such a conclusion? My conclusion is based on personal experience and after-the-experience reflection.
I speak to the experience of 22.5 years of service with the United States Army. Having retired a senior non-commissioned officer in 1979, I have had plenty of time to reflect upon this experience that informs the above noted conclusion.
Speaking from personal experience, I recall becoming a junior non-commissioned officer after two and one half years after enlisting.
Upon reflection, I must admit that while I demonstrated leadership skills and potential for advancement, it was probably 8 – 10 years of learning the ropes and schooling, and the honing of leadership skills before becoming a truly effective non-com.
That said, consider the range, in number of years it takes to make a senior executive (One through Four stars general) military officer. In today’s armed forces, the years of service experience ranges from 25 to 45 years.
The combination of senior enlisted and officer experiences explains why the U.S. Armed forces are considered to be one of the most formidable military forces in the history of mankind.
If we accept my observations as credible, then we must question the development of an army, from scratch, to an effective force in under 10years as being just plain dumb and calls into question the motivations senior military officers directly involved in Iraq.
It is tragic that we have a “go along” to “get along” senior officer staff that is fully aware of just how ridiculous the proposed “stand up, stand down” exit strategy is.
What is more tragic is the fact that many of these involved general officers all proclaim their concern for the welfare of the service men and women facing the horrors of this conflict who are dying and being horribly maimed and disfigured because they are concerned for a military career that is at an end anyway but, nevertheless, lack the backbone to stand up to their civilian numskulls who develop and foist such dumb policies on the general populace.
Food for thought
the brotherman
It has been some time since George W. Bush’s proclamation that the (Iraq) mission was accomplished.
That said, it is time for a bit of reflective thought on what has transpired since that misguided statement.
ON THE U.S. MILIATRY STANDING DOWN AS IRAQI FORCES ARE ABLE TO STAND UP
Part of the Bush Administration’s exit strategy calls for the creation of a 300K Army. According to this plan, as this massive army gains proficiency, it will incrementally assume responsibility for Iraqi security.
Recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee by General John Abazaid provides ample evidence of the intractable problem facing this administration, notwithstanding the haphazard efforts at training an Iraqi force to a level that they will be able to provide the new “democracy” with physical security.
Upon reflection, this plan, in part, underlies such prognostications that “we could be in Iraq for as long as ten or more years.” Why is that so? Well, hidden beneath such estimates is the reality that building a minimally effective army will take at least that long to develop, and the emphasis is on “minimally effective.”
How, you might ask do I arrive at such a conclusion? My conclusion is based on personal experience and after-the-experience reflection.
I speak to the experience of 22.5 years of service with the United States Army. Having retired a senior non-commissioned officer in 1979, I have had plenty of time to reflect upon this experience that informs the above noted conclusion.
Speaking from personal experience, I recall becoming a junior non-commissioned officer after two and one half years after enlisting.
Upon reflection, I must admit that while I demonstrated leadership skills and potential for advancement, it was probably 8 – 10 years of learning the ropes and schooling, and the honing of leadership skills before becoming a truly effective non-com.
That said, consider the range, in number of years it takes to make a senior executive (One through Four stars general) military officer. In today’s armed forces, the years of service experience ranges from 25 to 45 years.
The combination of senior enlisted and officer experiences explains why the U.S. Armed forces are considered to be one of the most formidable military forces in the history of mankind.
If we accept my observations as credible, then we must question the development of an army, from scratch, to an effective force in under 10years as being just plain dumb and calls into question the motivations senior military officers directly involved in Iraq.
It is tragic that we have a “go along” to “get along” senior officer staff that is fully aware of just how ridiculous the proposed “stand up, stand down” exit strategy is.
What is more tragic is the fact that many of these involved general officers all proclaim their concern for the welfare of the service men and women facing the horrors of this conflict who are dying and being horribly maimed and disfigured because they are concerned for a military career that is at an end anyway but, nevertheless, lack the backbone to stand up to their civilian numskulls who develop and foist such dumb policies on the general populace.
Food for thought
the brotherman
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
What the Bush Aministration Has Wrought
Recent discoveries that this "rump" administration is invading the privacy of America's citizens, notwithstanding descecrating the Constitutuion, by first; evesdropping on the international telephone calls "only" to be discovered, second; that they have collected the telephone records of millions of Americans. Third; this bunch of less than truthful bandidits were revealed to now be listening to domestic phone communications also.
Well folks! Guess what? In a monkey-see-monkey-do imitation of the federal government, the Rhode Island State Police have requested that the state allow it to evesdrop on the citizens of Rhode Island. Which one of America's county sheriff's departments or some city police department will be next to demand permission to listen?
Remember the "slippery slope?" Remember "Nero fiddled while Rome burned?" Remember the population of German Jews believed (individually) that it could not happen to him/her, while Hitler was destroying their businesses, pinning identification badges on them, rounding them up and shipping them off to the concentration camps while sitting idly by?
Wake up American, what in the h... is it going to take? This adminstration will be in control for another two years. What's next.
Thebrotherman
Well folks! Guess what? In a monkey-see-monkey-do imitation of the federal government, the Rhode Island State Police have requested that the state allow it to evesdrop on the citizens of Rhode Island. Which one of America's county sheriff's departments or some city police department will be next to demand permission to listen?
Remember the "slippery slope?" Remember "Nero fiddled while Rome burned?" Remember the population of German Jews believed (individually) that it could not happen to him/her, while Hitler was destroying their businesses, pinning identification badges on them, rounding them up and shipping them off to the concentration camps while sitting idly by?
Wake up American, what in the h... is it going to take? This adminstration will be in control for another two years. What's next.
Thebrotherman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)