Skip to main content

they must be giving comfort to the enemy....

...cause they're sure not giving it to our side.
i can't escape the feeling that despite all of the families' grief, our military deaths mean little more to the president than the quarterly profit losses he grew used to hearing about in every business he ran into the ground. and like in those businesses, ultimately the loss is someone else's problem.
i think that anytime i post about the military i will start with that quote (pardon the self-quoting) because the mound of evidence supporting it is growing weekly. the gall of this administration somehow still continues to surprise me. if their actions were fiction i would say it was too over the top to be believable. god i wish they were a fiction.

it's bad enough that haliburton got no-bid contracts and keeps over-charging us for billions, but then to give the troops contaminated water is unbelievable. is it really too much to ask that our vice-presidential crony war-profiteerers at least be competent? in the face of situations like this is it any wonder that i get migraines every time i hear all of the support the troop rhetoric? when the basic life-saving mechanisms are insecure for the troops-- armor, food, water-- retention will continue to be an issue. i get the feeling that bunnatine greenhouse will be vindicated, eventually enjoying the suffering of halliburton execs.

the disrespect for our troops is actually much more systematic and widespread than this incident illustrates. another example from the army times (tip think progress)

“This is wrong on so many levels,” said Steve Strobridge, government relations director for the Military Officers Association of America.

“In the middle of a war, with troops and families vastly overstressed, recruiting already in the toilet, and retention at risk, the Defense Department wants to pay for weapons by cutting manpower and trying to cut career military benefits by $1,000 a year or more? That’s just flat unconscionable. Not only is it grossly unfair to the people, but it poses terrible risks for long-term retention and readiness.”

the unconscionable in this case is the pentagon's desire to triple the pentagon health insurance program costs. tax cuts for the wealthy increased health costs for the military (and the elderly).

the most blatant disrespect shown our troops is the whole stay the course plan. former defense sec. william perry released a study recently, as did the pentagon, detailing the dangers of our army breaking. rumsfeld's response:
It’s interesting — I haven’t read the report. I’ll have to do that. Yeah, I mean, these are the people, basically — who did that report — who were here in the ’90s. And what we’re doing is trying to adjust what was left us to fit the 21st century.
(think progress)
perhaps putting the armed services in the hands of someone who has a clue and actually gives a damn will help with retention, or at least not leave the military completely broken when this administration finally goes to jail.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Making the White Supremacist Argument in Blackface

What are the stakes that people imagine to be bound up with demonstrating that capitalism in this country emerged from slavery and racism, which are treated as two different labels for the same pathology? Ultimately, it's a race reductionist argument. What the Afro-pessimist types or black nationalist types get out of it is an insistence that we can't ever talk about anything except race. And that's partly because talking about race is the things they have to sell. Adolph Reed Jr.
If it's not clear already, it's worth thinking about the ways in which the history revision of the 1619 Project is less about understanding history than it is using history to justify a specific approach to defining and dealing with racism in the present. It serves the same purpose as all of the moral idealism pretending to represent justice-- identity politics, intersectionality, reparations-- that exist in the discourse to deter economic redistribution generally, and specifically, in th…

Anti-racism - Class = Status Quo: The Neoliberal Argument Against Coalition

I was approached a few months ago around the idea of collaborating to make the progressive case for reparations. I've said before that while the idea of reparations is morally appealing I don't believe in them as an immediate political project. It's not clear to me that it's possible to build a coalition around a reparative justice focused on just 13% of the population. Encouraged by a recent Twitter conversation that included economists Sandy Darrity and Darrick Hamilton where they suggested that saying reparations will never happen is cynical I've begun trying to think of them as an eventuality and lay out the steps to reaching them. Doing this has made clear that our understanding of reparations as a form of compensation to the descendants of the enslaved is not the reparative justice that we think it to be. If we were living with the kind of understanding of justice that made reparations possible we would not be a nation where war, healthcare, education, and cr…

Is Cynicism More Disqualifying Than Ignorance?

I was somewhat reluctant at the time to ascribe any specific intent to Elizabeth Warren's DNA stunt, just focusing on what it said about her political instincts. In retrospect, because of subsequent choices, I see it as craven cynicism. I get that, "I have a plan for that!" is supposed to be her new brand, but obviously, a working plan isn't a central part of that. Her brand should actually be "Pandering Cynic". I now find myself wondering if even she thinks the policy she offers will do what she says it's intended to do. I've been saying in my head that I feel irrational anger towards her, but it's actually quite rational and specific.


My posting schedule has been off because I've been playing with the idea of submitting pieces for publication. I've been thinking a lot about how we talk about disparities and how the conversation is used as a cudgel against universal policy. The closest to a good faith version of this argument is usually…