Retired military officers,
By A. M. Johnson
May 07, 2006
"On leaving the service, these men should have realized
that they, like convicted felons, had lost their full rights
and responsibilities as citizens."
Harsh words from the author of this statement. A different slant
on the issue may lay with the Secretary of Defense changing the
makeup of the military to address current needs. In the past,
our wars were fought in army to army configuration. This is fine
if you are fighting the Russian, Chinese, or North Korea armies.
Fighting terrorist with full blown military forces has been shown
to bog down the effort. As an example, when President Bush decided
to go after the Taliban in Afghanistan he utilized the special
force concept of small deadly forces comprised of enlisted men
led by NCO's or perhaps a young Lt. officer.
These forces in a short time accomplished what a massive force
could not. This concept continues today in Afghanistan. On
the other hand the first and second effort into Iraq has been
with large forces and that is when the death rate of American
fighting men began adding up. This can be contributed to two
main factors. (1) We did not go into Iraq with overwhelming force.
(2) Our political/National mentality suffers from world view
of our super power. The second led us to the first. We do not
want to appear to the world as conquerors. We did not use all
of the forces and weapons at our disposal for fear that reaction
to the use would harm our vision and place in the world court.
That carries a cost. Lives of our fighting forces.
Secretary Rumsfeld visions a fighting force that is quick, deadly,
not bogged down in bureaucratic layers of military brass. It
is that issue, I believe is the root problem of the retired officers
raising their objections. It is the concern that the reduction
of higher ranking officers resulting from smaller swift reactionary
forces comprised of components of all the services, moving rapidly
into a precise combat situation will replace the past of large
armies, big guns, heavy weapons, and tons of logistics. All of
which supports the bureaucratic layers of military promotions.
The big boys want all the big toys require lots mid and high
ranking officers, many of which would be redundant in a new table
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recognizes mobility is key to
fighting an enemy numbering in small groups or even individuals.
In line with this thinking, you are seeing as one example, development
of fast mobility in the form of Syriker Brigades, capable of
deep fast penetration of enemy territory.
All of this to the consternation
of the upper levels of military brass. Hence, in addition to
possible political bias against the President and Secretary Rumsfeld,
it is my opinion that the carping is about "Me" in
terms of fellow and future promotions of military offices in
a shrinking outdated table of organization.
For a current portrayal of these small effective penetrating
forces, I suggest you turn into the "Unit" on ABC (Satellite)
on Tuesday evening 1800 hrs. [6PM. for civilians]
Obviously there is more depth and detail than this summary, it
is given to reflect another view on the reasons of currently
outspoken retired military. Bare in mind that ultimately it
is the civilian oversight with final word that our Constitution
speaks to, not the military.
All of these fine retired military should be viewed as proud
citizens of our country, personal views not withstanding. They
obeyed their orders and have every right to speak.
A. M. Johnson
Ketchikan, AK - USA
About: A. M. Johnson writes he is a "huge supporter of Secretary
Rumsfeld and our armed services. Yes, I have served."
and felons By Sam Osborne
Note: Comments published
on Viewpoints are the opinions of the writer
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.
Write a Letter -------Read Letters
E-mail the Editor
Stories In The News