[psychohistory] Two mistakes (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:51:49 +0300 From: "[iso-8859-7] Χρήστος Κώνστας" <granazis@otenet.gr> 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
Jim Choate wrote:
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).
Psst - your ignorance is showing! The French term "soldier" refers to a warrior who is paid - "solde" means pay - as contrasted originally with feudal levies, who were not. Nowadays the distinction is meaningless because even conscripts are paid at regular rates, so we say "professional soldier" for a volunteer and "conscript" for a short-term draftee. A . "Salary," by the way, refers to a portion of the pay of the Roman legionaire, which was paid in salt.
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).
The US eliminates involuntary military servitude, and you call it imperialism. It develops a career army, and you call it mercenary. I know this won't make any impression on you, but do try to consider the obvious military advantages of having continuity in training, experience and DISCIPLINE. I would just add that by your criterion, Canada must be planning to take over the world because they have always had a professional military in all services!
Of course profesional soldiers are in for the money and generally do not look forward to a glorious death in Afganistan,
Have you ever actually talked to a US soldier? I don't think anybody "looks forward" to death in combat, but if you think our military is intimidated by the likes of OBL or the Taliban, you obviously don't know much about the current state of morale in the US military. And your ignorance shows again when you say professional soldiers are "in it for the money" - you contradict yourself. How much would it cost to convince YOU to put your life on the line? There probably isn't enough money in the world for that, because you are a moral coward, and such people tend to be physical cowards as well. Fortunately, your kind is the exception, something you are naturally incapable of perceiving from your perspective. Marc de Piolenc
Psst...I didn't write it. On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
Jim Choate wrote:
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).
Psst - your ignorance is showing! The French term "soldier" refers to a
-- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
That's funny - the post had your return address in the header. Somebody trying to make you look bad? Superfluous, if so. Marc Jim Choate wrote:
Psst...I didn't write it.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
Jim Choate wrote:
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).
Psst - your ignorance is showing! The French term "soldier" refers to a
-- ____________________________________________________________________
The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.
Edmund Burke (1784)
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, ...Congress should be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
No it doesn't you dunder head. It's a forward from another list. All I did was forward it, I didn't write it. Keep practicing reading those headers, you'll get it right sooner or later. On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
That's funny - the post had your return address in the header. Somebody trying to make you look bad? Superfluous, if so.
Marc
Jim Choate wrote:
Psst...I didn't write it.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
Jim Choate wrote:
Nations with imperial aspirations, invariably, throughout History
-- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
F. Marc de Piolenc
-
Jim Choate