2
   

Patriotism: Trash or Treasure?

 
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2003 08:28 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Wth sincere regards to deb the dlowan, i offer an opinion. Patriotism, that is the desire to protect the power in a society by way of increasing the power of a society, is inherently belligerent. Since there can be no awards of accomplishment without opponents, patriots must create enemies before we can require protection from them. Patriots can ony flourish where boundries are well-defined, hostile and dangerous. The spirit of patriotism is therefore characterisacally associated with the military or other modes of international conflcit. Because patriotism is always the desire to contain others outside its purvue it is always evil in its intent. Wanting the best outcome for your family, your neighborhood, your communityis very positive in a sense of patroitism, but needing that by diminishing others is offensive.


When I first read this diatribe of nonsense I actually thought it might be original and it is in wording but the context is right out of the anarchists handbook. What you forget or maybe never realize Dys is that the monsters that make war inevitable are created by human nature and those monsters will always find a means of manipulating the citizens of their country. Some like Stalin chose torture, imprisonment, and fear while others like Hitler used an appeal to nationalism which some of you equate to patriotism. Manipulating nationalism is but one symtom of the real sickness---greed and the lust for absolute power.

It is absolutely childish to brand patriotism as the evil cause of war.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2003 08:51 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
What is it with you, perception?

I let your insulting remark to me slide. But then you make a snide crack at Walter for no discernible reason. And then you intentionally misunderstand Craven's position. I can't find a single place on this thread where he has said he is against patriotism. Nor have I ever said that.

I am an exteremly even-tempered person who seldom raises to the bait. But if you keep driving your garbage truck up my street, I'm coming off the porch.


I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you MA---it's just that I have a particular revulsion for the quote from Samuel Johnson. I actually agree with most of what you have said on this thread-----no offense meant.

Regarding Craven -----he and I go back a long way on this particular subject and I won't belabor that point any further.

Regarding Walter----he and I go back a way also----sometimes I misunderstand his intent because of the translation problem---sometimes the other way. Then sometimes he nails me to the wall---he is the best at finding factual references on the web.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2003 09:22 pm
Dlowan wrote:

However, I now find myself wondering, Perception, does your segue from the preceding posts to your gibe against Walter, imply that patriotism actually is a slippery slope for fascism in your mind, or was that segue inspired more by talk of jingoism?

You misinterpret my comments bunny-----while others may infer patriotism as a slippery slope to fascism I do not. Many here use patriotism as a synonym for nationalism. While understandable, I believe it misguided. Nationalism is much more likely IMO to be abused in an arrogant way and thus is a slippery slope to fascism.

My definition for patriotism is what many of you would label as very simplistic and naive----but it is also honest. It is a pride of country which fits very nicely with the pledge to the flag. Allegiance to a society which is compassionate and believes in the rule of law must be the building blocks for a decent world for our children. Automatic ridicule of this concept is in itself something to be pitied, and could be labeled anti-civilization.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2003 09:46 pm
perception wrote:
My definition for patriotism is what many of you would label as very simplistic and naive----but it is also honest. It is a pride of country which fits very nicely with the pledge to the flag. Allegiance to a society which is compassionate and believes in the rule of law must be the building blocks for a decent world for our children. Automatic ridicule of this concept is in itself something to be pitied, and could be labeled anti-civilization.


Heh.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2003 09:57 pm
No, Perception - I understand your comments - but I note, despite them, that you made an apparent leap from patriotism or jingoism (I sought clarification as to which) to the behaviour of Germany under fascist leadership in invading its neighbours. It seemed to me that this apparent association was interesting preciselt because of your comments.

Nor am I labelling people's comments about what patriotism means to them as being either simple, or complex - I am merely stating, sometimes, whether these meanings fit the definition of the word as I understand it to be formally defined.

I would like to hear more about your differentiation between patriotism and nationalism.

I have no argument with the behaviour you describe as being patriotism - I do differ from you about whether that behaviour is exactly what is usually meant by the word.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2003 09:59 pm
I shall comment on your anti-civilisation comment later.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2003 10:26 pm
ye110man said.....

"I will speak from where i came from; korea.
without patriotism, korea may still be a colony of japan. is that necessarily a bad thing?

korea would have lost its culture; language at the very least. perhaps religion and tradition as well."

------------------------------------------------------------

Merry Andrew said....

"For George Bush to appeal to the patriotism of all Americans is disingenuous, at best. For a Latvian patriot of the second half of the 20th Century to work against the Russian overlords who had forcibly incorporated Latvia into the Soviet Union is something entirely
different. We use the same word -- patriotism -- in two entirely different contexts."

------------------------------------------

dyslexia said..............

"Wanting the best outcome for your family, your neighborhood, your communityis very positive in a sense of patroitism, but needing that by diminishing others is offensive."

and later.........

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

---------------------------------------------------------------

These definitions, or functions, are all relevant and accurate from the perspective of those making the statements.

Ye110man and MA give important illustrations of how patriotism can be defined and understood differently by people from another country. Both men spoke of the possible extinction of their countries by invaders and the positive results of patriotism in the resurection of their countries and cultures.

Since Dyslexia has gone to bed, I will speak of the effect his experiences during his childhood in Arabia and later, as an 18 year old in Vietnam, had on his definition of patriotism.

He lived in Arabia from the age of 3 to 14 while his father worked for an oil company. He went to school with children from many different countries and spoke several languages during that time. He has a sense of patriotism but not a sense of nationalism. Most important, being with so many different ethnic groups gave him a real sense of multiculturalism.

At 18, he joined the Navy, never realizing that Vietnam was lurking in the background. He was in a group that was sent to Laos (of course, in 1963 we were NOT in Laos). They went in without uniforms or any kind of identification. The leader of their squad was with the CIA. This can be verified by using the FOI.

When he and a buddy were on a mission, they were hit by a trap--Bob was wounded and his buddy, an American Indian, lost his leg. His buddy later commited suicide.

That experience defined his views of nationalism and political patriotism at their worst.

To me, all these definitions of patriotism are valid and speak of a feeling of identification, closeness, pride in one's culture and a willingness to work for the betterment of one's country; not a sense of "We are better than anyone else," or a mindless devotion to a politically motivated call for patriotism.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2003 03:24 am
Perception wrote:

"My definition for patriotism is what many of you would label as very simplistic and naive----but it is also honest. It is a pride of country which fits very nicely with the pledge to the flag. Allegiance to a society which is compassionate and believes in the rule of law must be the building blocks for a decent world for our children. Automatic ridicule of this concept is in itself something to be pitied, and could be labeled anti-civilization."

Perception - does your definition imply that you would no longer feel patriotic towards the USA if it were not compassionate and believing in the rule of law? Would you only feel patriotic if you lived in a particular type of country? Do you think you would not feel patriotism towards China, for instance, if you were Chinese? Do you feel less patriotic towards the USA when it does things which are not compassionate and furthering the rule of law - or - is it possible that your patriotism might blind you to your country's lapses in this regard?

This last, by the way, is where I fear you are going with the above definition - ie saying that the USA IS the things that you say inspire patriotism. It doubtless is - at times - do you argue that it is not, at other times?

The definition you give is, in my view, a sort of "motherhood" statement - that is one with which few people would argue. However - the extremity of your comment about it being anti-civilization not to agree with the sentiment you describe suggests - to me at any rate - that you may, in fact, be advocating a type of sentiment that is closer to my understanding of the meaning of patriotism, which implies a degree of uncritical partisanship.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2003 08:26 am
Dlowan wrote:

Perception - does your definition imply that you would no longer feel patriotic towards the USA if it were not compassionate and believing in the rule of law? Would you only feel patriotic if you lived in a particular type of country? Do you think you would not feel patriotism towards China, for instance, if you were Chinese? Do you feel less patriotic towards the USA when it does things which are not compassionate and furthering the rule of law - or - is it possible that your patriotism might blind you to your country's lapses in this regard?

Your last sentense poses the real "zinger" and I would never be able to answer that to your satisfaction but I will say the following:

I can't speak for the Chinese or the citizens of any other country but take China and it's record of tyranny toward it's citizens who have NO--ZIPPO--individual freedom. How could any citizen of that country feel patriotic? There could be however a certain feeling of nationalism based on their economic and technological accomplishments even though these achievments are dimished by the manner in which they were attained i.e., cheap labor and stolen technology. As you go around the world from China there are varying degrees of the same accomplishments. Do citizens of those countries feel patriotism----I honestly don't know but probably to some degree. However I would say they all feel a strong sense of nationalism and pride in their country.
Would they volunteer to fight and die for their country---I don't know. I do know that if this country comes under attack, a very large percentage of able bodied men and women would volunteer to fight and die for this country because this country was founded on the principle that it is unacceptable to live without freedom. This principle applies to every country that has individual freedom because all citizens of today's world have seen what happens when that freedom is taken away.

The danger in this country today is not patriotism or the lack thereof ---it is the pervasive feeling that somehow the rights we enjoy in this country are God given and that those rights will never go away no matter what happens. That belief is sheer naivete. While it is arguable that those rights are God given what is not arguable is that God will not protect those rights and guarantee them for you as will our magificent military or any standing army.

Many in this country believe the attack on freedom and our bill of rights will come from within. Will it come from our gov't as true anarchists believe---not a chance because there are too many checks and balances.
Will it come from other anti-democracy forces----yes---but they will never be successful because the electorate will take notice and force them back under the rocks from which they slithered. (I will now step down from my soapbox)

Dlowan:

I will not attempt to address every criticism you put forward because many of your questions are unknowable----at any rate not by this average citizen. I can only express my beliefs about patriotism as I perceive them to be.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2003 08:34 am
Thanks Perception, I will look properly at your post tomorrow - I seem to be always at work or going to bed! - such is the reality of the time difference.

Meanwhile - if anyone else is interested in how nationalism vs patriotism is defined (in one dictionary at least!) here is nationalism:

na?tion?al?ism

Pronunciation: (nash'u-nl-iz"um, nash'nu-liz"-), [key]
?n.
1. national spirit or aspirations.
2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4. the desire for national advancement or independence.
5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.
7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nati
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2003 12:41 pm
i posted the following on another thread re anarchy which perception seems intent to use as a label to catagorically disregard a point of view he considers beneath him. i should like to hear an actual coment from him adressing this post.
Quote:
Roger is one of the most decent and well thought persons i know, i think however there are the non-conformists who make no conscious effort to not conform, but do so out of their essential nature. They shun joining groups because they understand, innately, the danger inherent in group "thinking." (Which too often in history spawns "mob mentality" which in turn spawns evils such as riots, lynching, wars, and religion.) This type of non-conformist requires a rational, valid reason before she or he will engage in a group / social behavior: they are therefore generally loathed, misunderstood, reviled, and even abused by the majority (i.e., the conformists).

(It is hardly worth adding that nearly 100% of conformists believe they are non-conformists. The tiny fraction of conformists who recognize and accept their conformity are to be praised; the others are to be pitied for their lack of self-knowledge.)

What happens when the latter type of non-conformist runs up against Organized Conformity (i.e., GOVERNMENT)? When this happens, the non-conformist has no choice but to be an anarchist, out of self-defense. I consider it a self-evident fact that abusive government engenders anarchy: it is the natural response to tyranny. It is also, I think, the appropriate response.

The chief problem facing the non-conforming anarchist is that the Government almost never understands the fact that it is abusive and therefore deserves criticism and opposition: the individuals steering the juggernaut of Government do not understand that the system they build, enforce, and defend is often abusive, debasing, insulting, enslaving, tyrannical, and contrary to ethical, decent, rational behavior. Government, being a product of mob mentality, is fundamentally anti-individuality. There can be no formal redress, rectification, or remedy by the Government because the Government does not comprehend the fact that it is abusive and dehumanizing, and therefore sees no reason to cease its abuse.

so rail against me or rail against anarchy Perception, but with some degree of an open and thoughtful mind you just might find I offer a point of view that does have some merit even if you dont agree with it.
btw telling me i am full of bull **** is hardly conducive to further dialogue and is seldom considered a polite form of address.

_________________
fiat lux
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2003 02:49 pm
Dys

I'll be happy to give your post all the consideration it merits --- AFTER----you give my post above some careful consideration. Civil discourse is a two way street last time I looked-----you seem to only consider one side ---your side. It's always me---me---me---I----I ----I.

You've very adept at throwing in your opinion but you never come back with a follow-on especially if someone is critical of what you say. If anyone has the audacity to not applaud your offering you come back with some childish comment about how offended you are.

I read Dianne's comments about your disallusionment with the ugliness of war. How much longer are you going to blame the gov't and anyone who will listen because you made a bad decision to enlist in the Navy before your pre-frontal cortex had developed to the point where you could make reasonable decisions?

Sorry----I'm fresh out of charitable thoughts today.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2003 06:18 pm
Perception, I seldom respond to childish, inane comments, especially those which are insults aimed at people who truly value integrity and honor. This time, I can't hold back (I'm sure I'll regret my inability to refrain from joining the fray).

Dys hasn't mentioned his military experience except in the most limited terms. He does not use his experience to blame the government anymore than Eisenhower used his experience to warn of the military/industrial complex.

His prefrontal cortex is inhabited by one of the most intelligent brains I've ever known; also, his intelligence has grown from his honest interest in what makes the world work to the advantage of everyone, not just a few intellectually elitist, socially limited citizens who's only pleasure in life is to put down those people who disagree with them. Unfortunately, these same people tend to develop a jealous rage when confronted by a superior intellect combined with true integrity and honesty, which is never used to demean anyone else.

I feel sorry for you Perception, but I refuse to stand by and read your rubbish without making it quite clear that I think your petty insults are beneath contempt.

BTW, I was mistaken about Bob's being in Laos in 1963. It was Cambodia--another country that we "hadn't entered" in 1963.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2003 09:15 pm
The pre-frontal cortex of the brain is the section controlling decision making and there is now considerable evidence that it is not fully developed until age 21. This is why I contend that the military should not accept any trainees for combat under the age of 21.

I had nothing to do with Dys's decision to favor anarchy over a more conventional form of gov't and I deeply resent your insult that I don't have just as much integrity as you or Dys. I consider it a form of illness to blame everything and everyone except the one responsible for his plight. Your apology will be graciously accepted.
0 Replies
 
RicardoTizon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2003 10:08 pm
Patriotism begins in the concept of man being a social being. As a social being man has an inherent need to belong to a group. This is further explain by Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. If there is an interschool competition we cheer our school. When our school gets eliminated we cheer for our city, when our city is eliminated we cheer for our state. The circle goes bigger and bigger but always we are looking for that common bond. If there is a war between mars and earth, there is no doubt that we earthling will unite and be "patriotic".

What I see as the real danger is when our leaders exploit this "need to belong" call it patriotism and make us to do things that are harmful to others. McCarthy made a mockery of patriotism by labelling people who differ from his point of view as anti-American or communist. Many people lost their jobs because of this labeling. He almost made it to the Presidency.

George Bush is using patriotism into a dangerous tool. Is our attack in Iraq a patriotic act. Are we really in danger that we have to attack in order to defend ourselves. Our armed forces are there but I wonder if they feel very patriotic or just doing it out of sense of duty. I am not surprise if most of them questions the logic of their deployment.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 07:35 am
Ricardo_Tizon wrote:

Patriotism begins in the concept of man being a social being. As a social being man has an inherent need to belong to a group. This is further explain by Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. If there is an interschool competition we cheer our school. When our school gets eliminated we cheer for our city, when our city is eliminated we cheer for our state. The circle goes bigger and bigger but always we are looking for that common bond. If there is a war between mars and earth, there is no doubt that we earthling will unite and be "patriotic".

You have captured the essence of how nationalism and patriotism came into being and I applaud you but I was disappointed then when you used it to criticize the current president. Can you provide proof that Bush has ever made an appeal to patriotism in order to gain support for his war on terrorism or for going to war in Iraq. I can not find evidence of that charge. Regarding your suspicion that our soldiers are questioning the reason for being in Iraq----you are the only one who can find that answer by going to Iraq and asking that question. If that is not possible read the reports of non-partisan members of congress and other officials who have made the trip and reported back. I would ask that you be very suspicious of any media reports..........
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 09:07 am
Low morale plagues UN troops
16/10/2003 13:45 - (SA)
Washington - A survey of US troops in Iraq by the military newspaper Stars and Stripes has found that nearly three-quarters of those questioned said unit morale was low or average, and that nearly half did not plan to re-enlist.

The survey, published in the Wednesday edition of the paper, is part of a seven-part series on troop morale and re-enlistment problems in Iraq.

The Stars and Stripes is Pentagon-funded newspaper published by civilians - often former military - with some military personnel also working on staff. Among the findings:

Some 34% of those surveyed said morale was low or very low, 27% said it was high or very high, and the rest said it was average. Morale levels however varied considerably - reservists ranked morale as lowest, while Air Force and Marine units largely considered their morale high.

Many Reserve and National Guard respondents said they often felt like second-class soldiers who received lesser quality equipment, support and treatment than their full-time comrades.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 09:19 am
Following is the original report from the Stars and Stripes
Quote:

http://www.estripes.com/index_files/logo_main.gif
What is the morale of U.S. troops in Iraq?

Answers vary. High-ranking visitors to the country, including Department of Defense and congressional officials, have said it is outstanding.

Some troops on the ground have begged to differ, writing to Stars and Stripes and to others about what they call low morale on their part and on the part of their units.

There was a correlation between such things as local services and release dates on the one hand, and morale on the other.

Stars and Stripes sent a team of reporters to Iraq to try to ascertain the states of both conditions and morale. Troops were asked about morale, among many other issues, in a 17-point questionnaire, which was filled out and returned by nearly 2,000 persons.

The results varied, sometimes dramatically:

¶ Among the largest group surveyed, Army troops, the results looked much like a bell curve. Twenty-seven percent said their personal morale was "high" or "very high." Thirty-three percent said it was "low" or "very low." The largest percentage fell in the middle, saying it was "average."

¶ Among the second largest group, reservists and National Guard members, the differences were much starker. Only 15 percent said their own morale was "high" or "very high," while 48 percent said it was "low" or "very low."

¶ Among Marines, the next largest group, 44 percent said their morale was "high" or "very high," and only 14 percent said it was "low" or "very low."

¶ Among airmen, the smallest of the four major groups surveyed because fewer questionnaires were allowed to be circulated to them, the results were also very positive. Thirty-nine percent said their morale was "high" or "very high," and only 6 percent said it was "low" or "very low."

¶ Very few Navy servicemembers could be found to question in Iraq.

The questionnaire findings can't be projected to all the servicemembers in Iraq. Still, the reporting of "lows" among the two largest groups surveyed, Army and Reserve/National Guard, seemed significant. The views of these troops, at least, appeared to contrast sharply with those of the visiting VIPs.

Respondents to the survey were not given a definition of morale. They responded according to what they interpreted the word to mean. Some believe morale reflects the degree of well-being felt by the servicemember. On the other hand, commanders say that in measuring morale, they want to know if the servicemember is following orders and getting the job done.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. officer in Iraq, said that low morale isn't an issue because troops are fulfilling the mission.

"Morale is … not necessarily giving them Baskin-Robbins," he said in a Stars and Stripes interview. "Sometimes it's being able to train them hard and keep them focused in a combat environment so they can survive.

"So at its most fundamental level within our Army, taking care of soldiers and their morale could have very few worldly comforts. But the morale of the soldier is good. He's being taken care of, he's accomplishing his mission, he's being successful in the warfighting."

Other military leaders say they are always looking at ways to improve the morale of their troops. "Morale begins with caring leaders looking their soldiers in the eye," said Lt. Col. Jim Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman. "When senior leaders visit the troops in Iraq, they relate that the troops tell them that morale is good, a fact that's backed up by re-enlistment and retention rates."

(These rates have been acceptable or good for the services overall. Figures for re-enlistments in Iraq are not available yet, officials said. In the Stripes survey, half or more respondents from the Army, Marines and Reserves said they were unlikely to stay in the service. Officials say re-enlistments normally drop after conflicts.)

Cassella said that leaders visiting Iraq seek out the opinions of troops. Some say the views expressed may be distorted as a result of the nature of the get-togethers, "dog and pony shows," in the words of combat engineer Pfc. Roger Hunsaker.

"When congressional delegations came through," said one 36-year-old artillery master sergeant who asked not to be identified, commanders "hand-picked the soldiers who would go. They stacked the deck."

Others on the ground in Iraq think top leaders are right more times than they are given credit for.

"I heard that reporters/politicians were trying to say morale was down out here," Petty Officer Matthew W. Early wrote on his questionnaire at Camp Get Some in southern Iraq. "What do people back home expect us to feel after a war? Are we supposed to be as happy here as we are with our friends and families back home? Hell no.

"Of course, when confronted by reporters, we're going to voice our opinions about our situation. Unfortunately, some people like to complain about how they live or what they don't have. The complaint concerning morale is the voice of the minority, not the majority."

In the Stripes survey, troops consistently rated their unit's morale as lower than their own. John Kay, marketing director for the Army Research Institute, said, "Soldiers always rate self [personal] morale higher than unit morale. This is nothing new."

Troops may wish to report what they perceive as the true morale situation without getting themselves into trouble, a way of saying, "I'm OK, but the unit's not."

Some of the gap can also be the result of hearing other troops complain, compounding the impression that unit morale is low, even if each complainer believes his or her own morale is better.

"Both are true," said Charles Moskos, a military sociologist with Northwestern University.

The military studies morale regularly, but "the further you go up the chain in the officer corps, the reality of day-to-day morale cannot register completely," said Lt. Col. Daniel Smith, retired chief of research for the Center for Defense Information. "Whereas when you talk to the platoon sergeants, platoon leaders and even company commanders, you get a better sense of the true state of affairs. Do the weapons work? Are they getting hot meals? Are they getting enough rest? Are their leaders competent and not taking unnecessary risks?"

Unlike some officials who have visited Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, during a September stop in Iraq, spoke not about morale per se, but about the importance of the mission and about sacrifice.

"You're people ... who weren't drafted, you weren't conscripted, you searched your souls and decided that you wanted to step forward and serve your country," he told the 4th Infantry Division, according to a Pentagon transcript.

Another speech to air assault soldiers of the 101st Airborne division echoed the sentiment:

"The important thing I would also add is that every one of you is a volunteer. You all asked to do this, and that is impressive and it's appreciated."
http://www.stripes.com/morale/personal.jpg
http://www.stripes.com/morale/unit.jpg
http://www.stripes.com/morale/related.jpg

Staff writer Jon R. Anderson contributed to this story.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 11:05 am
The above statistics are extremely interesting and since they were presented by opponents of the war in Iraq it must be assumed that you both consider them factual and relevant.

1. When defining the jobs actually engaged in vs what they were trained for( 20% said their actual job in Iraq had nothing to do with their training) there is considerable correlation with their moral being low ( 34% said their individual moral was low or very low)
I would also note that when analysing unit moral there is always a direct correlation of moral to the effectiveness of the unit leadership.
2. I also note that the moral of marine units was high. This is significant because the Marines are involved in very similar jobs to the Army. You can disregard the Air Force because they are generally not faced with the same problems and conditions.
3. When one imagines the conditions ( unbearable heat, constant battles with insects, poor food, scarce and warm water to drink, frustrations of dealing with ungrateful arabs, and the constant danger of sneak attacks) to me these statics are remarkably favorable.
While the re-enlistment rate is less than desireable I believe there will be sufficient volunteers to replace the losses

When you face the fact that traditionally the military is trained and organized to win wars and not to enforce the peace I believe the military has exhibited great flexibility in accomplishing what seemed to be impossible 6 months ago. These people are all real heroes in my mind. They certainly do not deserve the dissent and backstabbing exhibited by hypocritical elitists like Ted Kennedy.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2003 02:17 pm
Hey---does anyone know how to narrow the width of this column? How did it get sprung out of shape? Help!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What are your national delusions? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Homeless Man Saves American Flag - Discussion by failures art
I want the US to lose the war in Iraq - Discussion by joefromchicago
kneel v stand - Question by dalehileman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 04:58:16