Interesting piece in this month’s Atlantic Monthly.
He writes, “It heralds the appearance of something new to the American political landscape: a soldiers’ lobby. In formulating their appeal, men and women in
Furthermore:
“The creation of the all-volunteer force had a second consequence. Military service, once viewed (at least nominally) as a civic obligation, has become a matter of choice. As a result, the burden of “defending our freedom” no longer falls evenly across society. Those choosing to serve do not represent a cross section of
To assuage uneasy consciences, the many who do not serve proclaim their high regard for the few who do. This has vaulted
He concludes:
“[E]mpowering groups of soldiers to join in the debate over contentious issues is short-sighted and dangerous. Implicit in the appeal is the suggestion that national-security policies somehow require the consent of those in uniform. Lately, media outlets have reinforced this notion, reporting as newsworthy the results of polls that asked soldiers whether administration plans meet with their approval.”
I am not so concerned about the folks who agree or disagree with the current operations in
The full (subscription) article can be found here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705/military-dissent
-Bill
2 comments:
Hasn't there always been some form of internal dissent in the military? Unlike Bacevich, I'm not surprised, and I'm not sure we really need to worry about it. In a war this long and this controversial, it's inevitable that a certain number of service members voice their opinion about it.
I agree. Bacevich's point about these small group of dissenters is on the surface very localized. But I think there are larger implications. Does easier access to mass communication make dissenters more influential? To other servicemembers? To the American public? I don't know. I do agree with Bacevich in questioning how much of a disruption to an all volunteer force this can be. I'm interested to see what the larger trend here is, if any.
Post a Comment