---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:51:49 +0300
From: "[iso-8859-7] Χρήστος Κώνστας"
Reply-To: psychohistory@yahoogroups.com
To: psychohistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [psychohistory] Two mistakes
Nations with imperial aspirations, invariably, throughout History change their conscript based army in favor of an army of paid soldiers. Today euphimisticaly called 'profesional' soldiers, but know also as mercenaries and soldiers of fortune in the not-so-distant past. (Note: Ligustically a "soldier" is 'someone-who-is-SOLD' anyway).
Now this trend is well documented in past history and definately has its own Psychohistorical significance as it's one of the notable 'landmarks' of an Imperium (ie. a nation/state pursuing local/regional/global hegemony - dominance).
What I find interesting and relating with the above 'historical' symptom in todays' US history making actions, are two choices made by the current US administration. I call those choices 'mistakes' for a number of reasons. Both can be atributed to the so-called 'Vietnam Syndrom' of the US society, but IMO they go deeper than that, into the effects and side-effects of profesional armies.
The first is choice is a call for minimal US military casualties. OK the general public might have not liked it before 9/11, but in retrospect after 9/11 things look different. Think about it.
First In an imaginary situation. Before, but after as well, 9/11 even a 'what's-his-name' journalist could arrange a meeting with Bin Laden should we belive that he eluded the US inteligence? The answer is that they probably knew Bin Laden's location but could not just send 1,000 troops in to get him because of the very real probability of high casualties. Of course profesional soldiers are in for the money and generally do not look forward to a glorious death in Afganistan, but 6,000 civilians died because of this US amy inaction. In retrospect the general public would be far more willing to 'understand' the need of high arny casualties in order to save civilian lives.
Second in today's real situation. The US army is stil reluctant to go in even though their projected casualties are still far less than the 6,000 civilian deat toll. Instead they resort an air campain that cannot distinguise between guilty and inocent, slowly making the US look more and more like the terrorists, at least in the common Afganis' eyes and not only.
6,000 civilians dead and the US military still fights a war without the ability to 'afford' military casualties. That's the combination af a profesional army with the Vietnam Syndrome. Extremely unproductive too, thus, a mistake.
The other choice is that they make this 'War-on-terror' a non-hero war, at a time that heroes are needed.
First here we can note the overlooking of the first heroes, the passengers of Flight 95. They received far less laurels than they deserved - unless the US administration 'knows' something we don't abt. the termination of Flight 95 (Was it shot down by an F-16 or and F-15 fighter?). Firefighters etc. received a heroes treatment for doing their duty, but a hero is someone who does beyond duty, like the passengers of Flight 95.
Then there is the choice to keep the two dead servicemen who died in Pakistan, nameless. The US administration let pass a unique opportunity to make new heroes and show that not only US civilians die in this war, but, this fear for casualties struck again and the two dead Americans do not receive any heroes treatment. OK they were pros, in for the money, not for death 'n glory, but still they could be treated better. Additionaly, I don't think that their comrades haven't noticed that their 'sacrifices' do not weight much. That can and will affect their morale. Angain a mistake.
It is in the best interests of the US and their allies go in and finish what they started. This is a time where the general public will allow for military casualties, but this 'window' will close, sooner than later, and the image of the US will be more damaged than anything else.
Regards
Christos Konstas
