What seems to be missing from the public discourse on the military is the lack
of appreciation of wht the military has become, as opposed to what it was.
Generals and Admirals are politically appointed to mirror the politics of the
civilian government. There are no "Pattons" or "MacArthurs" to
be found in the upper crust of the military. Those who fought to win any
conflict are "dinosaurs". There has not been a war since WWII that the
military was permitted to "win". Wherever they are used is a political
statement. Mr Hagel is no different.. He will mirror the administration's
policies on where and how the military is used. His views on alliance with
Israel are already in question in some circles.My answer - Elect only
those to high office that will use the military as it should be.. For defense
primarily, and to fight to win in the event of an attack on this country.
I don't understand how his critical comments of Israel would be a problem
being the Secretary of Defense. 1) I agree with him and 2) He is not the
secretary of state. It seemed in the Bush year that Rumsfled, the secretary of
defense and Cheney, the VP, controlled our foreign policy more than Colin
Powell, the secretary of state. I hope that we are not going to go down that
As one who believes that the American Military is being controlled by a bunch of
greedy, self aggrandizing seekers of world control with very little concern for
the welfare of Americans, sounds like Chuck Hagel is the man for me. Can we get
him to run for President?The Military Industrial Complex seems
totally blind to the nature of the world today and to the nature of the war we
are losing right now. Today we are in a war for the minds of men. There are no
cities to bomb, ships to sink, lands to conquer with our giant monstrosities.
It would seem that it would be obvious that our military is more concerned about
business profits than protecting America.
@TimjDon't we live in the jet age?How much longer
does it truly take to deploy troops from Ft. Benning, Georgia than from a base
in Germany? Is the few hours difference really worth the billions we spend on
bases in Eurpoe?
"Might fewer than 54,000 U.S. forces in Germany suffice to defend that
country, or Western Europe, from whatever threat they are there to
deter?"I think we spend way, way too much on the military.
Still, I've heard this talking point from a lot of people (usually
conservatives who want to put down Europe). Clearly people who haven't
thought things through.We're not there to defend Germany or
Western Europe. We're there because it allows the military--and their
families--to live in a safe, civilized country while being much, much closer to
the action in the Middle East. Germany and the rest of Western Europe can
defend themselves just fine. Germany, for example, has mandatory military
service for almost all men, meaning most men in Germany have spent time serving
in the German military. We're not there to protect them--we're their
to make our wars easier to fight.Again, we're there for easy
access to the Middle East and other trouble zones, not because Germany needs us.
Geaorge Will is so talented at sounding totally reasonable while at the same
time sticking daggers in the backs of those he is addre4ssing and discussing.
These questions sound totally reasonable to be included in a Senate confirmation
hearing and some of them are. But of course some of them are simply the use of
eloquent language to degarde the president that he despises.I think
it would be good for each member of Congress who voted for, or supported in
anyway, the deployment of our military personnel in foriegn campaigns over the
past thrity years to answer these same questions. Each one of them should be
called to publically explain the reasons behind their choices.