A lot of people are grousing that the war in Afghanistan, like the war in Iraq, appears never-ending.
A lot of Americans are grousing that the war in Afghanistan, like the war in Iraq, are so personnel-intensive to require a "stop loss" programme that turns loyal, patriotic citizens into militarized slaves indefinitely prohibited by force of law from leaving the military. These people get rotated in and out of combat tours again and again as their family lives, businesses and futures steadily drain away.
So, what's with these wars? Why aren't they won and over by now? I've got a hunch that there's a problem with the top brass, the Big Chief generals who get to play "war commander" until they're ready to hand the gig on to their successors. Everybody gets to play General MacArthur. Except - here's the best part - nobody every loses. Yes, nobody ever loses and yet, the downside to this endless gravy train, is that nobody ever wins either.
The wars just get handed down like precious family heirlooms and, so long as you don't actually have to win, it's a bottomless well of military goodness.
So, here's an idea. Since we have the kids "stop lossed" to the point where they've become a virtual hostage army, how about we move that same idea straight up the chain of command? Imagine if all those generals who've had their moment of military glory and then slipped away to a gentle life of golf and mojitos had to stay on just like the troops? If they didn't produce results then they'd be relieved and reduced to majors in the logistics branch but they wouldn't get out. They'd stay on active duty until someone actually did the job they were all so generously paid to do.
Imagine if our very own Rick Hillier was "stop lossed" into mandatory, continued military service. If he'd known that fate was in store for those who commanded, would he have been so hot to trot to field his miniscule force in a hellhole like Kandahar in the first place? Today, instead of being Chief of Staff, he'd be in command of some warehouse responsible for getting supplies to Afghanistan and bodies returned home. Somehow that would be fitting, in my view.
I'd bet that wars would get planned a lot differently if a more direct, personal responsibility was carried by those with the greatest authority over the lives of those beneath them. There'd be a sharper, probably more limited focus and always with a clear "exit strategy."
A lot of Americans are grousing that the war in Afghanistan, like the war in Iraq, are so personnel-intensive to require a "stop loss" programme that turns loyal, patriotic citizens into militarized slaves indefinitely prohibited by force of law from leaving the military. These people get rotated in and out of combat tours again and again as their family lives, businesses and futures steadily drain away.
So, what's with these wars? Why aren't they won and over by now? I've got a hunch that there's a problem with the top brass, the Big Chief generals who get to play "war commander" until they're ready to hand the gig on to their successors. Everybody gets to play General MacArthur. Except - here's the best part - nobody every loses. Yes, nobody ever loses and yet, the downside to this endless gravy train, is that nobody ever wins either.
The wars just get handed down like precious family heirlooms and, so long as you don't actually have to win, it's a bottomless well of military goodness.
So, here's an idea. Since we have the kids "stop lossed" to the point where they've become a virtual hostage army, how about we move that same idea straight up the chain of command? Imagine if all those generals who've had their moment of military glory and then slipped away to a gentle life of golf and mojitos had to stay on just like the troops? If they didn't produce results then they'd be relieved and reduced to majors in the logistics branch but they wouldn't get out. They'd stay on active duty until someone actually did the job they were all so generously paid to do.
Imagine if our very own Rick Hillier was "stop lossed" into mandatory, continued military service. If he'd known that fate was in store for those who commanded, would he have been so hot to trot to field his miniscule force in a hellhole like Kandahar in the first place? Today, instead of being Chief of Staff, he'd be in command of some warehouse responsible for getting supplies to Afghanistan and bodies returned home. Somehow that would be fitting, in my view.
I'd bet that wars would get planned a lot differently if a more direct, personal responsibility was carried by those with the greatest authority over the lives of those beneath them. There'd be a sharper, probably more limited focus and always with a clear "exit strategy."
No comments:
Post a Comment