how to win friends and allies

There appears to be a high degree of unanimity among the posters on this thread concerning the "right" interpretation of the events under discussion. However I observe very little in the way of penetrating analysis or interpretation of the events themselves - just a lot of mutual reenforcement of the view that the Administration is wrong, wrongheaded and ill-intentioned, while its French and German critics are certainly right and well-intentioned. Do you all really believe that?

On what basis can one suppose that the world view of France and Germany concerning these matters is certainly correct and that of the U.S. government certainly wrong? Is there an objective basis for the presumption that their intelligence services keep their governments better informed, or that their governments will exhibit more wisdom and humanity in the positions they take and the actions they undertake to advance them? On what basis can one suppose that self-interest is less a factor in their actions than it is in ours? The history that I read gives me very little support for such propositions.

Rumsfeld deliberately and pointedly stated some self-evident facts - France and Germany have indeed knowingly made themselves into "problems" for the U.S. government; the political center of gravity in Europe has indeed shifted eastward, and that shift is a factor behinf the actions of the French & German governments and behind the relations of our countries in NATO and other trans-Atlantic forums. Saying this is far, far less significant for the harmony of our relations than has been the doing of it by the French and German governments, which now loudly proclaim that they "are vexed" with our impertenence for stating facts.
Was Hans Christian Andersen's emperor so vexed when the boy pointed out he had no clothes?

Rumsfeld apologizes about draftees

Democrats criticized remarks he said were ?'misinterpreted'

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 ?- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld apologized to veterans for remarks he made on the military draft that he said had been misconstrued by some as disparaging their service. Rumsfeld issued a written apology Tuesday evening just hours after three Democrats in Congress criticized his statement that draftees had added "no value, no advantage" to the U.S. military because they served for such short periods of time.
?'They added great value. I was commenting on the loss of that value when they left the service.'
?- DEFENSE SECRETARY DONALD RUMSFELD
THE LETTER signed by Sens. Tom Daschle of South Dakota and John Kerry of Massachusetts and Rep. Lane Evans of Illinois argued that Rumsfeld's remarks at a Pentagon news conference were offensive to veterans.
"We are shocked, frankly, that you were apparently willing to dismiss the value of the service of millions of Americans, tens of thousands of whom gave their lives for their country in World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam," they wrote.

DRAFT CRITIQUE
Rumsfeld made his comments Jan. 7 in response to a reporter's question about an effort by some in Congress to reinstitute the draft. Rumsfeld, 70, who served in the active duty Navy from 1954-57, said he saw no need for a draft because the all-volunteer system that replaced conscription in the 1970s works better.
"If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in, they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market because they were without choices," Rumsfeld said.

"Big categories were exempted ?- people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married. It varied from time to time, but there were all kinds of exemptions. And what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."
?'NOT ELOQUENTLY STATED'
In his written apology Tuesday, Rumsfeld described his remarks on draftees as "not eloquently stated."
He said he had not meant to say draftees added no value while they were serving. "They added great value. I was commenting on the loss of that value when they left the service."
Rumsfeld said he had no intention of disparaging the service of draftees.
"I always have had the highest respect for their service, and I offer my full apology to any veteran who misinterpreted my remarks."
When Rumsfeld spoke to a convention of the Retired Officers Association on Monday he made no mention of the draft and no one in the audience who posed questions after the speech mentioned the Jan. 7 comments.
It is rare for a defense secretary to issue a written apology on any topic. "It is painful for anyone, and certainly a public servant whose words are carried far and wide, to have a comment so unfortunately misinterpreted," Rumsfeld said, adding that it was "particularly troubling" to know there are service men and women ?- past and present ?- "who may believe that the secretary of defense would say or mean what some have written. I did not. I would not."

Emphasis are mine.

Lash, i would give rumsfeld credit for the apology and accept that a mountain was made of a mole hill, however when a high-level postion speaks off the cuff as Rumsfelt etal seem to often do, they have a more than ordinary responsibity for the words they chose and we can expect more carefully chosen verbage.

dys--

Its good of you to give him credit for the apology.

As I stated earlier, politics aside, I can't imagine having to get up in public and speak from the cuff on a million different subjects, and have people analyze everything I said.

I'd be before a firing squad in no time.

They should be prudent, but will never be perfect.

It's good of you to say "it's good of You".

The Draft business was a tempest in a teapot and a contrived one at that.

It is an observable fact, and one discussed often in military councils, that a professional military, if it can be maintained, will yield higher proficiency, and readiness, and will entail fewer social problems if it is to be used in peacekeeping functions in the current world, -- all at lower cost than will a service based on the draft. These benefits are consequences of the long-term comittment of men and women who choose a military career and whose proficiency ans capability in the military arts grows over longer periods of service than would prevail with a draft. Indeed the accumulation of ever more complex laws regarding combat has already caused both a proliferation of lawyers in military units and an enormous increase in the training and understanding required of all service personnel. Hard to believe we could control this with a draft.


I recall that amidst the celebrations over the 75th anniversary of Naval Aviation in 1986, one of my squadron mates observed that ".. we don't have 75 years experience in Naval Aviation: we have three years experience, twenty-five times."

The recent draft proposal was put forward by Democrat Congressman Rangel and others precisely to raise such distracting issues and to cause embarassment for the administration. It was not motivated by any serious political, military, or even social consideration. In short, it was utterly cynical and represented a serious misuse of the perogatives of public office for purely sectarian purposes.

The stable of Democrat presidential hopefuls, who were all 'shocked, shocked' to hear Rumsfeld's truthful and candid remarks, knew this was a charade. Those, such as Sen. Kerry, who loudly proclaim their military service, have a personal basis on which to know better, and fully deserve our contempt. It is a pity that the media, knowing this full well, chooses to focus on the charade, instead of the issue.

Rumsfeld's answers were candid and truthful. They were a positive contribution to the public discourse on the subject. The cynical misuse of this situation by the Democrats, not only pollutes the current debate, it also taxes future public discourse by reducing all public speech to moves in a political chess game. We can already see the effects of this in other areas of our public life. Most of this crap comes from the menagerie of single issue zealot groups that make up today's Democrat party.

"It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1788. (*) FE 5:3

please note "and yoking them with a standing army------"

The most profound source of concern may be what Eisenhower called spiritual: the corrupting effect on the uniformed military by their alliance with contractors. Most career soldiers leave the service by their mid-40s. A tiny handful last until their mid-50s, and nearly all the retirees look for a second career. Far and away the most lucrative opportunities are with defense industries. Knowing that their careers will end this way, soldiers face difficult decisions while still in uniform. Two valuable recent books, Path to Victory by Maj. Donald Vandergriff and Boyd by Robert Coram, consider the distortions of today's military career path.

The United States is back where Eisenhower started, with a renewed appreciation of the problem posed by a military-industrial complex--and recognition of his advice that "[o]nly an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" could bring it under control.

dyslexia,

What could be the possible relationship between your concerns about 'the military industrial complex' and the contrived question about the draft that is the subject of this thread ?

Even when we had a draft, the officer corps, which was involved in matters of weapons development - and connection with the dreaded complex - was made up of professionals who, as you accurately described it, served for 20 or 30 years and went on to other careers. Ending the draft had no effect on this whatsoever.

Dyslexia "that looks like a red car to me"
Georgeob1 "not at all, its a very very dark pink"

Inaccurate and misleading figure of speech, Dixlexia.

You asserted we were back where we were when Eisenhower commented on the military industrial complex, and cited the end of the draft as a decisive or contributing factor.

I pointed out that ending the draft had no effect whatever on this matter and on the specific process (officer career paths) you used to argue for it.

The dialogue would be

Dyslexia : "that looks like a red car to me"

Georgeob1 "no Dislexia, it is a horse"

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Dwight Eisenhower

georgeob1 seems to have attended the Bush Charm School Advanced Conservative Course: "How to Lose Friends and Influence Nobody" :wink:

Were your grades higher than a gentleman's 'C'?

Personal insults aside, let's re-establish that Dubya campaigned on slogans like "uniter, not a divider" and "changing the tone in Washington".

Could someone please show me some evidence of this in action?

Perhaps the samples are stored next to the file cabinets of "compassionate conservatism", which is why no one can locate them...

Dyslexia,

Nice words from President Eisenhower. I agree with him.

However, they have nothing to do with the matter of the draft. Repeating them won't change that.



Pdiddle,

I'll be glad to discuss the points you raise if you like. Don't confuse an attempt to cut through distractions and irrelevancies in a discussion with an attempt to be deliberately offensive.

My undergraduate grades were, as you guessed, average at best. I did rather better in grad school and earned a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering.

I only meant grades earned in the fictional post-gradaute course mentioned in my post before yours, g.

Don't overreact...we're all trying to change the tone here.

Except President Bush, apparently.

Some rusty cars and swaybacked horses in here, huh?



timber