PDA

View Full Version : Supporting the Troops


Newscaster
07-11-2006, 10:29 AM
Ever since the first US troops set foot in Afghanistan, we have been admonished to "SUPPORT THE TROOPS."

This of course is the absolute correct thing to do. Now, being as old as I am, I was a part of the homeland troop support system when I was five and six years old. My friends and I collected newspapers, scrap metal (Pots and pans, etc), scrap rubber (old tires, etc) and we carrying them in our little red wagons to collection points. I was also part of Civuil Defense (a civilian effort to really protect our neighborhood.) I was a messenger and it was my job to carry messages from one point toi another. Kids older than me and adults too, were litter bearers, plane spotters, air raid wardens, and some actually guarded building armed with rifles from home.

My father who was too old to enlist, left his job and went to work in a shipyard, building ships for the Navy. He stayed in that kind of work until the war ended. It was a scary time but it was also exhillarating because we all felt we were accomplishing something.

Today, we dont have Civil Defense. We dont have shipyards turning out warships and auto manufacturing plants do not convert over to producing warplanes.

Today, we hear about supporting the troops at almost every turn. We see flags flying and people wearing little flags in their lapels. Beyond that, support for troops is almost invisible. Oh sure, there are churches and private groups that put together a shipment of items to send to our guys in Iraq but I dont see this as an ongoing effort. I see the project last thru maybe three shipments and then people return to their private affairs. One church near where I live, two years ago, made a big deal over their project to send food and other necessities to the soldiers and they did a great job....once. A newspaper reporter, a friend of mine, was assigned the job of covering plans for their next shipment but when he got to the church, the pastor told him there would be no second shipment bacause he couldnt attract enough people to do the work. As he put it...."They all seem to be too busy."

Remember when we heard reports that the troops were not getting kevlar bulletproof vests and families had to go and buy them and send them to their sons, brothers, fathers and friends. Thats is supporting the troops...protecting them from harm. Brining pressure on the DOD that if you asre going to send humvees to Iraq, equipment them with proper armor. THat may not be glamorous, but that is what supporting the troops means to me. Supporting the troops means helping them get home in one piece, alive and healthy.

So, now, the reason for this posting. How do you define supporting the troops? With slogans and waving flags which are nice but not effective in stopping bullets or with activities that require an amount of sacrifice by all those involved?

And oh yeah, I would hope you guys could treat this subject with intelligence instead of smart aleck remarks and name calling.

utahraptor
07-12-2006, 01:02 PM
Well said.

PittsburghAfterDark
07-12-2006, 01:33 PM
I actually agree with you 100%.

There is very little civillian support for troops beyond a few charities, talk shows (Hannity's Freedom Concert that raises college funds for children of those who died in the line of service.) and of course extended families of military personnel.

A bumper sticker or ribbon on your car antenna does not equal support.

One of the great problems with the war on terror is the tremendous disconnect with the American people about what is going on.Â*Â*Part of that is to be laid at the feet of the media, part of that is to be laid at the Commander In Chief.

I'll never forget that after 9/11 the thing Bush said would help the nation would be get back to business as usual.Â*Â*Spend money, continue to invest, keep the economy moving.Â*Â*Now yes, that's the right attitude to take.Â*Â*However it's hardly inspiring any kind of sacrifice or creating a united effort/front of shared struggle.

The big difference between when you were doing your service during WW II as a kid, my dad did the same thing, my grandfather was an air raid warden.Â*Â*Is there is no nation state to defend against for civillians to be anything but vigilant.Â*Â*When they are, they're also potentially labled as "profilers".

Next, the American economy is absolutely huge in comparison to WW II.Â*Â*This graph represents defense spending relative to GDP.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size-graph.php?meas=GDP
Link (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php)

The type of fund drives, war bonds, scrap metal collection, fat/grease collection, rationing etc. is not a key issue.Â*Â*We're not spending 30+% ofÂ*Â*our GDP on a war.Â*Â*Thus, civillians will not feel attached as they were then.Â*Â*Hell, we're still only spending 25% of our Federal budget on defense and around 4.5% of GDP.

If we ever spent $2.8-3.5 trillion in any given year on defense, we're in shit shape.Â*Â*It's also never going to happen.Â*Â*We're never again going to be building fleets of 1,000 bombers for missions to carpet bomb metropolitan areas.Â*Â*We're also not going to be building dozens of aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers and countless fighter aircraft for an ongoing conflict.Â*Â*We're likely not going to be building 1,000's of merchant marine vessels because of massive loses to submarines.Â*Â*Our SSN fleet coupled with the British alone would best any would be adversary in that department.

Those factors alone ensure that the war effort then will never be similar to the war effort now.Â*Â*Production will never have to be as great for items with high ticket values like planes and ships.Â*Â*Any real strategist will tell you a country now will fight a war with the army it has, not that it builds after a conflict has started.Â*Â*Things will move too fast and if things get too ugly the conflict goes nuclear.

The problem, as I see it, is largely societal.Â*Â*I saw some statistic that less than 2% of American families are directly affected by having members serving in the armed forces.Â*Â*Break that down a little and 150-170k in Iraq and Afghanistan in a combined force (Navy, Marines, Army, AF) of 2.5 million and even fewer have relatives in harms way.

This is a sharp contrast to WWII when we were a nation of 150 million and 10 million were in uniform.

Would I like to see a little more civillian involvement?Â*Â*Of course.Â*Â*But to tell you the truth the only thing that's going to mobilize the American public is another catastrophic event.Â*Â*The one thing I most fear is that the reaction will not be one of unity or commonality but complete political meltdown and attacks/blame.

I can't see the members of Congress ever standing together again on the steps of the capital singing God Bless America.Â*Â*If the political side fails in that area what takes up the slack of unifying leadership is scary.

Okay, I got off topic and rambled.