As an amateur military historian and enthusiast of military strategy, it took me a while to look at the institution of the military, in its modern capitalist context, as it really is- separating the heroic deeds of individuals from the institution itself. What is relevant about the US military today, is that for almost a century, the US military has spent more time denying the freedom and independence of others than it has defending freedom for Americans or anyone(which it did in WWII). The idea that land-reformers in Central America, Marxists in South-East Asia, or Serbs in the disintegrating Yugoslavia constituted some kind of threat to the American way of life is simply laughable. You don’t believe it either, and you know it.

What the American people need, and what every nation needs, is an army of the people. If the broad masses in any nation were truly in power, in other words if we or any other nation had actualy democracy BY DEFINITION, the military and other institutions of state would be run in the interests of the masses. The US military, like virtually all others of the world today, is not run according to the interests of the masses. We the majority in charge, we would not have these bases around the world, separating families, creating markets for prostitution and human trafficking, and intimidating other peoples. We would not have countless wars and interventions like this one in Iraq. In addition to this, we would eliminate a lot of practices in the army that serve no practical purpose to the defense of the State. A lot of useless tradition would be thrown out, and the gap between officers, NCOs, and lower enlisted would be eliminated in favor of a service that is based on accomplishing its job- real national defense- as opposed to serving the interests of the national ruling class.

Ideally, a standing military would be eliminated, and the masses of people would be trained and armed to defend their own communities. Billions of dollars could be spent on programs that benefit all Americans, rather than on weapons that oppress foreigners.

I suppose you are a veteran, and I know that it is especially difficult for veterans, especially combat vets, to let go of the delusions about the military. But if you were courageous enough to sign up, courageous enough to potentially put your life on the line, you ought to be courageous enough to admit a painful truth about life today. Sometimes that’s the hardest thing to do.

And just like many on the Left think less of people who served, I stand by my belief that those who served are collectively better people than those who have not.

And if that makes me a “sanctimonious prick”, well, I can live with it — because, once again — “for those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never enjoy”.

I hope you and yours have a happy and safe Thanksgiving this year. Please remember to stop and be thankful for the military personnel and the millions of Veterans who make that possible.

But the idea that people who serve automatically have some kind of authority is also flawed. Afterall, rank and file soldiers are not able to view the strategic situation, nor are they able to get all the facts. Plus, militaries lie, period. Nobody wants to admit that they are losing; which is why the Germans dragged their ass reporting the defeat at Stalingrad and the Japanese hid the truth about the Battle of Midway, actually characterizing it as a victory for a while.

Since I assume that the author of this blog is a veteran, I suggest you read some of the US Army’s own publications about guerilla warfare, namely the chapter on OOTW in The Battle Book by Major John Sutherland(forgive me if I got the author’s name wrong, I have been separated from my personal library for over a year now). If you find the publication you will see that the longer an insurgency is active, the more chance of success it has. More importantly, guerillas on their home turf need not “win”, they only need to “not lose”. I would also refer you to the introduction to On Guerilla Warfare by Mao Tse-Tung, which in the edition I had was written by General Samuel B. Griffith, USMC.

And yes, you DID insinuate that someone who hasn’t been in the military, has no right to comment on the war.

Also you wrote: “I think less of any man who has never served (who was physically or mentally capable of it).” What a dumb thing to say. LOL what a sanctimonious prick.

You spent time in the military…hooray. We’re all impressed.

Are you going to be any less pissed off and outraged if I said “I screwed your wife like the cheap whore she is” instead of “I fucked your wife like the cheap whore she is”?

(note — that’s a theoretical “you”, and not anybody’s wife specifically)

I have never read that Hugh Hewitt put a photo of murdered Americans burning bodies hung from a bridge and personally captioned it “Fuck ‘em.” And my outrage for Kos doing that is real. Again, that you think it would be appropriate for Gen. Petraeus to associate himself with Kos shows how out of touch with reality you are.

Though he chose to state it crudely- because of his childhood in El Salvador amongst paramilitary groups and civil war?- the basic underlying point that military contracting is unconstrained by the military code of conduct remains true today.

All of this is beside the point- which is that Petraeus has thus far chosen a conservative outlet and not a liberal one for his appearances- consistent with the administration’s approach with politics over policy.

KMA- considering what’s said every day on right-wing media outlets- regularly patronized by Bush Administration representatives- I’d say your faux outrage is a little shrill to be believable.