America’s infrastructure is a mess. Whether you live in a city, a suburb, a small town, a village, or a rural area, you don’t need to go far to see the neglect and deterioration of our shared public spaces. Roads and bridges are crumbling. The country’s railroad system is lagging decades behind the technological modernization that’s been underway for years across Europe and Asia. The power grid is all too susceptible to winds, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, flooding, and thunderstorms. The terrifying effects of climate change are real and present. Planning for sea-rise flooding in coastal cities and communities is more than four decades behind where it could have been had the fossil-fuel companies not engaged in a successful, multi-million-dollar campaign to hoodwink the American public about the reality of the connection between global warming and fossil fuels.

Misplaced priorities

With all of the dire infrastructure needs and climate-change effects threatening the future of the planet and the country’s national security, what is the current priority for large-scale projects our taxpayer dollars will be paying for in the near future?  We all know the answer. Look no further than the glint in Donald Trump’s eyes when he pontificates about his “beautiful” wall. Tragically, the building of the wall is becoming more than just a vanity project. The Trump administration recently announced its intention to divert an additional $7.2 billion from the military budget to build Trump’s wall at the southern border. Add that $7.2 billion to the $3.6 billion already diverted, and you come up with an eye-bulging price tag of $10.8 billion that might be used to build a fence or steel slats or a wall—or some unknown combination that’s being kicked around in the White House on any given day.

Not addressing the real crises

Set aside for a moment doubts about the necessity for America’s bloated and often wasteful military budget, because, according to Military Times, of the $7.2 billion, $3.7 billion had been designated for sorely needed infrastructure improvements to outdated facilities on military bases, like training centers and schools. The balance, another $3.5 billion, had been earmarked to increase counter-drug operations. Would anyone doubt that that’s a worthy investment when you consider the number of drug-related deaths due in large part to illegally produced fentanyl? In 2019 alone, there were more than 70,000 Americans who died from drug-related causes and overdoses. That’s not a delusion of desperate families and refugees taking over America. That’s a real crisis.

$24.4 million per mile

To put the cost of building the border barrier in perspective, consider what the cost per mile might be. In January of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget sent a letter to Congress outlining that $5.7 billion could pay for about 234 miles of a new steel barrier along the 2,000-mile southern border. That means that in 2019 dollars, the cost of the construction of a steel-slatted barrier (not a concrete wall) would be $24.4 million per mile. And that number doesn’t even take into account typical construction-cost overruns, earth moving, or short- and long-term maintenance costs.

Border barrier versus sustainable energy

Here’s the question. To what better use could the cost of just one mile of border barrier that’s being touted as a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist be spent for a problem that does? Here’s an example of how our taxpayer dollars might be used more effectively to address a real crisis—the necessity to create sustainable energy on a large scale in order to prevent the most dire effects of a warming planet.

Here are the facts. Installing solar panels on a residential building in the U.S. costs, on average, $15,000 per home after tax rebates. That means that for the cost of one mile of border barrier, 1,626 buildings—or all of the buildings in the two contiguous villages where I reside in Columbia County, New York, plus every farm in the county could be solarized. Imagine for a moment the volume of electricity that could be fed back into the grid from solar panels on 1,626 buildings. And take another moment to reflect on what it could mean in long-term cost savings for individuals, families, businesses, farmers, and municipalities in just one county to become energy self-reliant. Now zoom out and reflect on how the total cost of construction of a 234-mile barrier (which, by the way, leaves approximately 1,800 miles of unprotected border) could solarize 700,020 homes—or all of the homes in the Upstate New York cities of Albany, Rochester, Syracuse, and Buffalo.

Border barrier versus a future of sustainable energy—which one would get your vote?

The post Trump’s “beautiful wall” vs. America’s ugly infrastructure appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a remarkable act of self-awareness, courage and public accountability, rising Democratic star Jason Kander, 37, has published a letter revealing his personal struggle with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD]. In his letter, he describes his previously undisclosed 11-year history of depression, stress and anxiety resulting, at least partially, from a tour of duty in Afghanistan as a U.S. Army intelligence officer.

As he privately fought his mental-health demons, Kander had a very public life: He served Missouri as Secretary of State, and then ran—unsuccessfully—for U.S. Senate against Missouri’s entrenched incumbent, Roy Blunt. After losing that bruising election, Kander picked himself up, dusted himself off and founded Let America Vote. Earlier this year, he threw himself back into the electoral ring with a bid to become Mayor of Kansas City, Mo.

Now that he has revealed his struggle with PTSD, and has acknowledged that he has delayed seeking psychological help until now, the bullet points in his resume take on new meaning—particularly his Army service: He volunteered—probably out of patriotic motivation [possibly as a result of the jingoistic propaganda pushed in this country ever since 9/11, and maybe even being suckered into the notion that that, in military-worshipping America, serving in the Army would be good for a political career.] Then, in his campaign for U.S. Senate, he famously ran an ad that built on his military training: In the ad, he demonstrates his ability to assemble an Army assault rifle while blindfolded. The ad went viral, and helped propel Kander to a near-miss against Blunt. Just as a reminder, here’s the ad. [Now that he has revealed his PTSD, you have to wonder what he was feeling as he filmed this.]

After he lost to Blunt, Kander began presenting himself as a political pundit—and a witty one, at that. He began appearing as a commentator on CNN, MSNBC and other national outlets, as well as creating a Twitter feed laced with pithy, quotable comments. In light of his recent open letter, you have to wonder how difficult it was for him to maintain the public persona of an upbeat, on-the-rise politico. Judging from comments on his letter, from people who know him personally, I am sure that Kander’s effort to establish Let America Vote was sincere in its purpose [he had been, after all, Missouri’s Secretary of State—responsible for overseeing elections and voting—before running for Senate, so he has the credentials.] But now we know that everything he did was shaded by his internal struggle to keep it all together. It makes you feel really bad for him.

His decision to run for Mayor of Kansas City was seen by many as an effort to stay in the game while making an honest effort in public service, and possibly position himself for another run for higher office. But looking at this resume point now—along with his run for Senate—you have to wonder how much damage campaigning has inflicted on Kander, or has compounded his problems. In his run for Senate, Kander had to raise tens of millions of dollars. I am sure that he sincerely believed that he could do a good job as Senator and that he wanted to bring his more progressive ideas to office as a way of serving Missouri constituents. But to get there, he was under daily pressure to suck up to potential donors, appear upbeat, cowtow to the national Democratic fundraising and political apparatus, and cold-call thousands of people to beg for money. Even the most glued-together human being would be strained by the absurd demands of campaigning in 21st Century America. Imagine how it must have felt for Kander.

I don’t know Kander personally, but I am rooting for him. His openness about his personal struggle is a rarity among politicians. It’s risky to be open like that. Another Missouri politician—Senator Thomas Eagleton—got dumped as George McGovern’s vice-presidential running mate in 1972 when it was revealed that he had been treated for depression. I admire Kander’s courage, and I wish him the best in his journey back to wellness.

I fear that he will be mocked, that his political career will be irreparably damaged, and that a worthy, well-intentioned man will never get the chance to do the good that he is clearly capable of.

I hope, though, that Kander’s story will help us understand the perils of worshipping the military, glorifying “heroism” on the battlefield, recruiting young men and women by touting patriotism and jingoism, and by promising adventure and glory. We need to stop valuing military service over all other forms of service—such as teaching, nursing, and even parenting.

Kander’s story is a perfect example of how our political system and our fascination with power, weaponry and war have come together to create an environment where PTSD and other mental-health disorders are becoming features of our culture, rather than bugs.

Here is the full text of Kander’s remarkable letter:

The post Jason Kander’s PTSD, and what it says about America appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I have to share some thoughts about how we are being manipulated into repeating the falsehood that our military men and women are “fighting to protect our freedom.” Everywhere you look, we are forced to see and hear this over and over… at ballgames, big ads in the paper, fundraisers for military families, etc. The fact is that humans have been fighting for power and over resources since the first caveman hit his neighbor over the head with a club in order to steal his food.

The post Fighting to protect our freedom? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

(reprinted from Midwest Socialist)

Francis Horton is that rarest of U.S. soldiers: a leftist and self-identifying socialist. Born in Missouri in 1983, he joined the U.S. Army in July of 2000 and served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and various NATO countries. Currently he serves as a Public Affairs Non-Comissioned Officer and lives in St. Louis. He is also the creator of What a Hell of a Way to Die, a podcast examining military politics from a left perspective. After gaining some popularity on Twitter (@armystrang) and an appearance on Chapo Trap House, Horton launched the podcast over a year ago and was soon joined by fellow soldier Nate Bethea. It’s a witty, fun, and informative look at the absurdities of military life and American empire.

Are you a DSA member or member of any other socialist or left group? To what extent is political involvement curtailed for on- and off-duty soldiers, particularly PA officers?

I am not a member of the DSA because I am aware that there are some in the DSA and other leftist organizations who wouldn’t feel comfortable with a currently serving member of the military in the ranks. Though I am familiar with my local DSA chapter and have done a meet and greet with them at a local gun range.

I’ve never noticed political involvement being curtailed. The UCMJ (Uniform code of military justice, basically our laws in the military) say troops are encouraged to be active in politics, but we can’t wear our uniforms or belong to hate groups. My commander isn’t really concerned with anything we do as long as it isn’t illegal, nor are most leaders. The important thing is keeping it to yourself and not bringing it into work, just like any other job. My job in public affairs isn’t anymore a help or hindrance really. Though I do hear stories from time to time about leaders who try to push their politics onto their soldiers. As always, it depends on the person above you. Personally I’ve been to rallies and protests and no one seems to care as long as you aren’t breaking anything.

What were your politics like before joining the army? What was your reason for joining?

I can’t say I really had politics before joining as I was 17. I voted for Bush in an absentee ballot in Afghanistan in 2004 with the resounding logic of “Well he started it so I guess he should finish it out,” which we see how well that went today. I was 20 and didn’t know any better, which should be a little frightening when it comes to who is doing the voting in this country. I’m from Missouri though, so my presidential choices don’t mean squat. As for why I joined, I guess I saw my incredible privilege as something I owed back to the country and not exactly what it was, the privilege of being born a straight white dude into a middle class Midwest family. Though I got lucky as my father is a socialist as well, but never really talked politics at the dinner table. I didn’t have to deal with super racist family members as even they knew better than that.

These days, I know I joined because I was bored and had no idea what I was planning to do with my life at 17. I knew I didn’t want to go to college, and figured I’d join the reserves. Not like we were at war or anything. 

What caused you to move left or explicitly identify as leftist or socialist?

I suppose I moved left after the 2016 election, though it was a direction I was always headed. I saw that democrat leaders were staying beholden to whatever was going to keep making them money, and I was tired of being scolded by Hillary supporters for daring to question voting for more of the same. I saw that better things were possible and I was mad people wanted to keep it the same for their own selfish reasons. That’s not how you have a healthy country and it’s not how you stay strong together.

What caused you to start What a Hell of a Way to Die?

I felt there had to be more veterans and soldiers like me. And not even necessarily socialist, but certainly not right leaning. Nate and I get messages all the time thanking us for being a voice for the more left veteran community, and I think that’s why we like to keep doing it. As someone still serving on a contract, the world has somehow become even more uncertain and awful for troops, and it’s good to know there are others you can reach out to and have that connection you might not be able to find in your own unit.

I also wanted to be a bridge between the military and the civilian world as there’s a huge gap between the two. Many civilians don’t know a troop, and I want to be more accessible to them.

Besides your podcast, are there outlets for discussion and promotion of socialist thought in the veteran community? You’ve written for Task and Purpose, is that a potential opportunity for left-wing veterans?

My writing isn’t particularly socialist for T&P, and I’ve bee approached a few times for pitches as a socialist veteran, but veterans don’t read Jacobin. The easiest way to spread a message of socialism is to show troops they’re already living it. Guaranteed housing or housing stipend, education benefits for you and your family, guaranteed healthcare, tax-free shopping, maternity leave, 30 days paid vacation from day one. We have it really good on active duty. Once you get out into the civilian world, you find it a lot harder. I’ve met more than one veteran try to scramble back into the military or go back to active duty following separation because, as hard as we think we have it in the Army, it’s really hard out here for civilians.

Service members are stereotypically reactionary; How frequently does one encounter left-leaning soldiers and vets?

I don’t meet left leaning veterans because I don’t talk about my politics in ranks to anyone other than people I already know lean Democrat. And even then it’s sparse. It’s not that I don’t trust people to not do some kind of witch hunt, but I just don’t want to deal with a lecture, nor do I want anyone to think I’m lecturing them.

Thomas Frank wrote in What’s the Matter With Kansas about how many Vietnam vets leaned left rather than right. What do you think has changed since then?

When Vietnam vets came home, they weren’t greeted with the heroes welcome veterans today enjoy. Vietnam was a war that took kids from their families and flung them overseas to a war most people couldn’t understand why we were fighting for so long. The image of the soldier coming home was a perfect target for a nation mad at their government. Like screaming at the customer-service representative when the electric company raises your rates, it was an outlet for rage, and the victims of that rage stood against the war themselves many times. Not only was it shit overseas, but it was now shit at home.

Today veterans are put up on a pedestal for joining and going overseas. It’s actually a very impressive massaging of propaganda aimed at the civilian masses to support the troops, even if you’re against the war. But at this point, no one who is a troop has an excuse. The war has been going for 16 years and it’s ramping back up. But this time the deployments are small enough that the volunteer military can fill in (even though the cracks in our ranks are showing and we’re absolutely not ready for any of the conventional wars we’re beating the drum for). Couple that with extremely low fatality rates in a nation that doesn’t even slow down when 500 people are wounded at a madman opening fire on a concert in Las Vegas and you have a country that is placated.

Maybe it’s also that some of us are spoiled. They were told they were owed and they still have their hands out asking for things. Asking for your respect. Asking you to shut up because the troop is talking and you’re just a weak civilian who never joined because you’re a pussy. Really there’s lots of small things that I think make this big right-wing stew. Isolation and insulation away from the civilian world and thinking that because we dragged a rifle across a foreign country we suddenly have some trump card in any argument.

That was super rambling, but I think it will make a good podcast episode after I sort my brain out a bit more.

St. Louis has been at the center of movements for racial equality in the last decade or so. How have soldiers reacted to the protests surrounding Ferguson (2014) and the Stockley verdict (2017)? Do servicemen find anything objectionable about the militarization of local police departments? How about you personally?

Lots of troops are against the militarization of the police because the cops are getting weapons that they don’t have the same training regimen as we do. Combat troops are always (in theory at least) training on their various weapons systems. When you aren’t actually doing war, you’re practicing. Police don’t have that same luxury and end up driving black MRAPs (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) out to a peaceful protest in case it gets violent. Those things are meant to keep you safe from anti-tank mines, you don’t need it if someone chucks a bottle at you.

I’ve watched our police department make mistake after mistake with the people of this city and the people who protest, but that’s more of incompetent leadership than anything else. Some of the soldiers I’m around are of the mindset that “protest is fine, just don’t bother me with it,” which is a hard hill to climb and I generally don’t get into it during my weekend duties.

On What a Hell of a Way to Die, you speak facetiously about being an “imperial stooge” and the like. How do you reconcile left-wing, anti-imperial politics with working for what the left considers to be an imperial entity? How do you respond to leftists who feel service members should not be a part of revolutionary politics?

Every troop has to make peace with who and what they are. I can’t get out of the Army without financially screwing myself for the rest of my life, but I’ve found a little corner I can coast out to the end of my contract without contributing too much to the global imperial war machine. For myself and my past in the military, I can only admit that I wasn’t paying attention when I was in, and promising myself to do better with open ears and an open heart in the future.

As for the ones who say I have no part in revolutionary politics, it’s nothing new. As I said, I’m not a member of the DSA or PSL because there are those who wouldn’t feel comfortable with me. But to me, the point of socialism in being inclusive, not exclusive. Will you turn away the person who was a bootstrap conservative if they have a change of heart just to be petty? If so, your socialism needs to be checked, because it’s not one I want to participate in anyway.

Personally, I have little local things I’m a part of to help and give back to the community. For me, the real socialism is finding the people near you and doing what you can to help them if they need it. National politics is fine, but it’s not helping the person down the street with an empty cupboard.

What is the most important thing civilian leftists should know about the military and service members?

We exist, and there’s more than I thought there were. And to not hold service in the military against people. I reenlisted twice because they offered me money, school, and healthcare. If you can’t understand why in this time that might be attractive, then you aren’t paying attention. And don’t discount Democrat troops either. Maybe they aren’t into socialism, but they can still be allies and they can still fight for the things they enjoy in the military, such as housing and healthcare. Some democrats are going to need coaxing over to the left, but it’s important to not shout them down because their politics don’t fully align with yours. Though mostly I only see that online. In person, people are generally more polite.

A century ago, the Midwest was the breeding ground for left movements like the Populists and the Socialist Party. Do you see any hope for a leftward shift in the region? In particular, among the region’s service members and veterans?

I bring up Southern Missouri as a perfect place to kickstart a new socialist movement. I often hear the same with Appalachia because it shares the same economic demographics. The problem with rural areas in the country, and I don’t just mean flyover states, I mean outside the big cities, is that they are largely ignored politically. Democrats see them as lost causes and Republicans do drive-by handshakes on their way to expensive fundraising dinners. But no one actually addresses the issues happening in those areas, like massive opiate problems and crippling poverty. In some ways, Being born in a trailer park can be just as hard to claw your way out of as an inner city. You don’t leave your financial class.

I think soldiers have a unique position as potential ambassadors to these areas. Your average infantry platoon of 40-ish troops will vary wildly from rural Texas, San Francisco, the bayou of Louisiana, at least a couple guys born in foreign countries, and an NYC guy. They all have to work and live together and find a way to talk and get along. I wasn’t born in Southern Missouri, but I know most of the roads, I can put on the accent, and I’m handy with a 12 gauge on a turkey hunt. I also want to make sure you can get that thing checked out at the doctor that’s suddenly started aching but your hours got cut and you can’t afford a 5k deductible.

Francis Horton can be found on Twitter (@armystrang). What a Hell of a Way to Die is available on a variety of podcasting platforms such as SoundCloud and Apple Podcasts. It is free, but Horton offers bonus content to supporters of his Patreon.

The post What a Hell of a Way to Organize: An Interview With Francis Horton appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Recently, many of us learned that the US has troops stationed in Niger and in other African nations. The news came as a surprise to many—not the least of whom was Sen. Lindsay Graham [R-SC], who is a long-time member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and who often touts his credentials as a foreign policy wonk.

“I didn’t know there was 1,000 troops in Niger,” Graham told NBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. “They are going to brief us next week as to why they were there and what they were doing.”

It has to make you wonder: Where else in Africa does the US have troops? How many are there? And what is their mission?

One person who seems to know a great deal about this subject is Nick Turse, who writes at Tom Dispatch.com, and who published a book in 2015 called Tomorrow’s Battlefield: US Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa. A summary of the book says:

You won’t see segments about it on the nightly news or read about it on the front page of America’s newspapers, but the Pentagon is fighting a new shadow war in Africa, helping to destabilize whole countries and preparing the ground for future blowback. Behind closed doors, U.S. officers now claim that “Africa is the battlefield of tomorrow, today.”

What is AFRICOM?

The US military presence is not new. US troops have been stationed in African nations since 2007, mostly as part of Special Operations units. They are overseen by U.S. Africa Command [AFRICOM], a unit that is only now, in light of the recent ambush in Niger, beginning to get press coverage. AFRICOM’s headquarters is in Stuttgart, Germany, rather than in Africa, because, according to an NPR report, “While many African nations welcome the U.S. assistance, they aren’t interested in a high-profile U.S. presence.”

Much of the US’s engagement in African nations comes by way of Joint Combined Exchange Training, known informally as JCET missions. The budget for these operations in Africa has been growing in recent years, and that budget escalation reflects a steady rise in the number of special operations forces deployed in African nations.

According to CBS News,

The US has roughly 800 military personnel temporarily deployed to Niger, and roughly 6,000 military personnel spread across the continent.

Turse reports that on average,

Special Operations are “routinely engaged in about half of Africa’s 54 nations… Special Operations Command Africa [SOCAFRICA], is busy year round in 22 partner nations.”

As an example of the scope of US presence, U.S. Special Operations forces conducted 20 JCETs in Africa during 2014, according to documents obtained from SOCOM.  These missions were carried out in 10 countries, up from eight a year earlier.  Four took place in both Kenya and Uganda; three in Chad; two in both Morocco and Tunisia; and one each in Djibouti, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tanzania.

A few nations host the bulk of US military personnel. CBS News reports that:

Djibouti is one of the world’s smallest countries, but it currently hosts more US military personnel than any other African nations. Roughly 4,000 U.S. military personnel on the continent are temporarily deployed to Djibouti.

U.S. troops have been in Djibouti for years. Camp Lemonnier is the only permanent U.S. base in Africa, and serves as a key outpost for surveillance and combat operations against al Qaeda and other extremist groups in the region.

The country with the second most U.S. military personnel deployed there is Niger, with roughly 800, according to AFRICOM. Next comes Somalia, Djibouti’s neighbor, with roughly 400 U.S. military personnel. The fourth nation in terms of U.S. military personnel is Cameroon, with more than 100.

Reportedly, the US has one drone base in Niger, and is working on a second one.

It should be noted, though, that exact figures are hard to come by, and Turse points out the many discrepancies in counts that come from different military sources. The question then becomes, “does anyone really know what America’s most elite force are doing in Africa?”

What are we doing?

The Pentagon says that US troops are in Africa “support African partners, alongside allies like France, with the goal of increasing the African nations’ own security capabilities and stabilize the region.”

NPR says,

In almost all of the missions, the Americans are there to advise, assist and train African militaries—and not to take part in combat. The operations tend to be small; they are carried out largely below the radar, and most are focused on a specific aim: rolling back Islamist extremism…Still, those supporting roles can often take US forces into the field with their African partners, as was the case in Niger…It’s hard to say it’s not a combat mission when there’s the potential for conflict and combat as they accompany African troops.

“Africa is an enduring interest for the United States,” said the commander of AFRICOM in a statement.  “Small, but wise investments in the capability, legitimacy, and accountability of African defense institutions offer disproportionate benefits to Africa, our allies, and the United States, and importantly, enable African solutions to African problems.”

It’s hard to decipher what the first part of that crypto-statement actually means–and  the obfuscation is probably intentional. But the part about enabling “African solutions to African problems?” That sounds eerily, worryingly, and dangerously familiar.

The post Where does US have troops in Africa, how many, and why? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When the U.S. Army recently announced that two women had successfully completed its toughest training regimen, my initial reaction was, “Good for them, and good for the U.S. Army. It’s about time!” But rather quickly, my feminist joy became tempered by a healthy dose of sadness and misgiving.

The two women, Capt. Kristen Griest, 26, a military police platoon leader, and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver, 25, an Apache attack helicopter pilot, knew that they were blazing a new trail. Griest said, “I was thinking really of future generations of women that I would like them to have that opportunity so I had that pressure on myself.”

Of course, equal opportunity is a good thing. I’m glad to see these women getting the chance to show that their physical strength, endurance and toughness match—even surpass—that of the men who tried out for Ranger status. [Let’s not forget that women have been demonstrating courage and resilience for ages—just in other ways: as mothers, breadwinners, healers, inspirers, caregivers and teachers–to name just a few such roles. It’s just that these types of strengths have, traditionally, not been equated with the “real” courage of men in battle.]

I’m glad that Griest and Hayer got the opportunity to self-actualize in a way that is meaningful for them—a way that had previously been not available to women. And I’m happy to note, too, that it was a government institution that was willing to give them that chance.

We may not be able to, as Hillary Clinton recently said, “Change people’s hearts,” but, as she also said, “We can change laws.” That, in my mind, is an excellent and appropriate role for government: to lead progressive social change, sometimes by enacting laws [expanding voting rights, for example] and sometimes by example, which is what happened when President Harry S Truman instituted racial desegregation in the US military in 1948—long before integration became acceptable among the general American population.Truman may have reasoned that integrating the military—an organization revered by the American public [at least in the era immediately following World War II]—would have a trickle-down social effect on the rest of the country.

Truman was doing what government does best: tackling the big issues and projects that individuals can’t. I don’t love that he did it through the military—whose track record tends more toward destruction and harm than it does toward helping people—but I respect the impulse to use government to do the really big things.

Retired U.S. Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, appearing on the Rachel Maddow Show, noted that the Army could have taken a more gradual approach to gender equality.

The original assumption was that if they’d wanted to see if women could be in combat units, they’d stick them in combat units in the States, where they were in garrison..doing war games and small-unit tactics, and then, maybe, much later on, they’d send them to the toughest school.They didn’t do that.They did it exactly the opposite way.They sent women to the toughest school first. And the result of that, of course, is that it’s difficult to engender any support for the idea that women can’t take it.

If you stick them in a regular unit, but don’t send them to ranger school, people can say, ok, they’re in a regular unit, but they can’t make it in ranger school. But if you put them in ranger school and they complete it, and 40% to 60% of the men don’t complete it, you’re way down the road to putting them in combat units. Which I think is the ultimate objective.

So I must applaud the Army powers-that-be for taking the boldest route to showing that women can do all the jobs previously restricted to men.

However, there’s also a downside to the particular form of progress exemplified by the women graduating from Ranger School.

The ability of women to become Army Rangers means that the military has a whole new demographic that it can recruit into the top ranks of its war machine. There’s a whole new population—women—that can be thrown into the toughest battlefield assignments—whether battle is justified or not. A whole new demographic that can be injured, maimed or killed in the most dangerous assignments in nonsensical, no-win wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, and who knows where else in the future.

The availability of women for the top ranks of combat jobs might even embolden the military to undertake more adventures, because they’ll have the additional person-power to do so. No more complaining that there aren’t enough highly qualified troops for the most high-risk operations.

Of course, I know that women have been serving in the military for many years now. And don’t forget that, at the same time that they have been barred from official combat roles, they’ve been driving trucks and flying supply planes into very risky areas–resulting in many injuries not specifically recognized as combat-created.

And look, I can understand why women want to—and deserve to—achieve full gender equality in the military: For a military-minded women—as for a man—serving in the elite units means moving up in the ranks, earning more pay, and fulfilling the quest for leadership positions. The sad part is that all of that takes place in the military, where the metrics of success are invasion, occupation, subjugation, colonization, economic plunder and body counts.

As an aside, I have long been bemused by the “gentlemanly” and “chivalrous” argument that women shouldn’t be allowed in combat. Hah! In fact, women have always been involved in combat—as invading and occupying armies overrun their homes; kill their husbands, brothers, sons and daughters; terrorize and injure them with bombs, bullets, cannonballs, howitzer shells and drones; steal their food and money; force them to pick up what few belongings they have and flee; and rape them as war trophies. The only difference now is that women will be allowed to be the leading-edge invaders and the assassins.

Don’t get me wrong: I want women to enjoy all of the same societal rights and economic opportunities afforded to men. I just want us to think about whether, bottom line, the opportunities afforded by a gender-equal military career—for women and for men—are ultimately good for anyone.

The post Women graduate from US Army Ranger School: Pro and con appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you were a child of the ‘60s, one of the most gripping novels and then movies was Seven Days in May (video link below). The compact plot summary from IMDB is, “United States military leaders plot to overthr,ow the President because he supports a nuclear disarmament treaty and they fear a Soviet sneak attack.”

If you were trying to relate this plot line to contemporary times, and if you were either a conservative or a “no-matter-what” supporter of Israel, you might think that it could happen again and the president would be Barack Obama. Fortunately, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are in support of the treaty that Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Secretary of Energy Dr. Ernest Moniz negotiated with Iran along with five other allies on the issue (China, France, Germany Russia, United Kingdom). And as the Washington Post just reported, “Dozens of retired general, admirals back Iran nuclear deal.”

When “Seven Days in May” was written, the U.S. President was John F. Kennedy. Some may have disagreed with him on nuclear disarmament, but few questioned his intelligence, his temperament or his psychological stability. Could the same be said about a President Donald Trump?

Trump is just now beginning to flesh out policy statements. To his credit, he has not been hesitant about giving us hints about how he would address foreign policy issues. His campaign slogan is “Make America Great Again.” This is obviously open to interpretation, but Trump has left a trail of bread crumbs indicating that his foreign policy would be guided by threatening to use, or actually using, American military might wherever and whenever he might wish to.

He is opposed to the Iran nuclear agreement along with his hawkish Republican cohorts. He thinks that the United States should demand 24/7 inspection of Iranian nuclear facilities and that Iran must thoroughly disarm immediately, or else. Obviously the key to his policy is what “or else” means. To some it’s an idle talking point, to others it is a negotiating point that must remain flexible, because there are no negotiations without flexibility. And then there is the Trump perspective (theoretically shared by many right-wing conservatives): If Iran does not agree to the Trump demands, then the U.S. should go to war with them and possibly break the 70-year hiatus that the U. S. has had on using nuclear weapons.

Turn your gunnery a few degrees to the left and Trump has his sights on Iraq and Syria. Eschewing all complexities in the troubles there, he wants to take out ISIL. First he plans to take over Iraq’s oil fields. He obviously couldn’t “nuke them to save them,” but nationalizing Iraqi oil fields for the U.S. would involve considerable ground fighting resulting in significant casualties to American soldiers, as well as to the American treasury. Trump would hope that a successful capture of the oil fields by the U.S. would result in a surrender by ISIL, but obviously there is no such assurance. He has already said that he will do whatever is necessary to “wipe them out,” so once again it brings the nuclear option into play.

Trump also wants to “man down” Vladimir Putin in Russia. This means the cold war would heat up again. Putin may be less stable than any previous Soviet/Russian leader since World War II, so all bets are off as to what would happen in a ramped-up conflict.

Trump doesn’t like China devaluing its currency, which would make its products even cheaper in the United States. Is Trump forgetting how much U.S. debt China holds? Is Trump’s solution to the monetary problems between the U.S. and China to go to war with China in order to force them to accede to U.S. demands?

If Trump would take the United States into any one of these expeditions, how would the American military react? Would they say, “Yes sir, we’re here to follow whatever orders you give us,” or might they think that their job is to serve and protect, and if they would serve a President Trump they would not be protecting the American people, much less the citizens of the world.

The “Seven Days in May” scenario just might come into play with a President Trump. Regardless of how many billions of dollars represent his net worth, and regardless of how much taxpayer money he might throw at these follies, he would likely lose the confidence and support of the military – in a big way and in a quick way.

Progressives are often leery of the military, but in the case of a President Trump, the military just might be our best friend.

Trailer from “Seven Days in May”

The post The “President Trump,” Seven-Days-in-May scenario appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I recently read that our “representatives” in Congress plan to authorize a yet-to-be named corporation to build 80 to 100 new LRS-B aircraft for the Air Force at a fixed price of no more than $550 million each. I immediately wanted to write something profound about how screwed up our priorities are in the good old US of A. But I decided to ignore the urge. What good would one more rant do from an old lady who specialized in the Cold War in grad school?

Let’s set aside the argument about how much safer our country would be if we invested half that money in prenatal care, parenting classes, early childhood education and public schools that can afford to do the best job possible for each student based on that student’s abilities.

Let’s set aside the debate about universal health care, a living wage and justice for all.

Instead, I’ll tell you about a novel I read in a graduate level political science class back in the late 1980’s. It’s a story about a young Russian soldier who was sent to an outpost to guard military equipment and ammunition. When he arrived at the small village, there was no equipment, no ammunition dump, nothing of military value. He returned to his commanding officer and reported his non-findings. The officer assured him the equipment must be there because it was entered into the official military accounting ledger. So the young man went back two more times, each time looking in different sections of the countryside but finding nothing to report. After being told for the third time that the equipment had to be there, the young man moved to the village, married a local girl, raised a family and lived happily ever after, all the time collecting his military pay for finding nothing of value.

The novelist’s intention was to point out the absurdity of life under Soviet rule. There were other stories about Russians being paid to dig holes and other Russians paid to fill them up again. Or how parts from one bus were scavenged to fix another bus, etc. I don’t know how many of those stories were true.

Coincidentally, my daughter and her husband recently visited Macedonia as part of a church mission group. Macedonia has been independent from communist governance only since 1991. My son-in-law is a neurologist, my daughter a family therapist. My son-in-law visited some of the smaller hospitals outside the capital, Skopje. At two of them he found that the MRI machines were broken. He asked why they didn’t get repaired and was told the funding was never approved. When he returned to the main hospital and asked someone in authority why the machines weren’t fixed, he was told that the workers at those hospitals were just lazy and wouldn’t use them anyway. Is this a holdover from communist rule? I don’t know.

That way of thinking sounds strange to us, but people who live everyday with certain values and attitudes don’t think it’s strange at all.

Speaking of which, here’s another story from the Cold War era, one I can attest is absolutely true. While I was teaching at Southwest MO State U in the mid 80’s, a group of anti-war protesters decided to make the trip to Whiteman AFB for a public hearing. The event was held in a school auditorium near the base. We each filled out a card and gave it to someone who drew names from a box. Our contingent from SMS included at least one priest and two other faculty members in addition to about a dozen students. We all agreed to say the same thing if our name was drawn. Mine wasn’t drawn, but the priest’s was. He made an eloquent statement against the proposed plan………..(take a deep breath) to put nuclear missiles on railroad cars, store them on base, and then take them on tours around Missouri if there was an imminent threat of a Russian attack. No, this is not a Woody Allen movie. A very impressive high ranking Air Force officer gave the presentation on stage complete with a slide show on a huge screen behind him. With a straight face, he explained how clever it was to keep the missiles moving around the state so the Russians wouldn’t know where they were.

The local residents applauded as if they’d been told someone was going to pay their mortgages and send their kids through college at no expense. One local woman said she was so thankful that the Air Force was right next door because it made her feel really safe. I don’t think I’d feel safe living within 10 miles of a target during a nuclear war, but maybe she did.

Eventually, the plan was scrapped for reasons unknown to mere mortals like myself. But the military-industrial-congressional complex always needs more money, so the beat goes on.

Today, Sen. Claire McCaskill is lobbying her fellow members of the people’s congress to authorize $29.5 million for a consolidated operations facility at Whiteman. McCaskill is quoted as saying:

Whiteman and the men and women who serve there are fundamentally important to defending our national security…. These resources will help enhance the operational
effectiveness of the base’s bomber crews and boost readiness, and I look
forward to working with my colleagues to get this important priority – for
Missouri and the nation—across the finish line.” (Star-Journal)

Whiteman AFB is home of some of “our” B-2 stealth bombers. Keep in mind these are the airplanes the Air Force now wants to replace with the new fleet of LRS-B “long-range strike bombers.” We keep hearing every day how warfare has changed.

We cannot bomb our way to peace around the world. In fact, if we want to kill certain people, we have drones that are more accurate and safer for the video commandoes who “fly” them thousands of miles from the target. So why do we need 80 to 100 of these new long range bombers at a cost of “no more than” $550 million apiece? I don’t even know how many zeroes that figures out to be. But I know that’s a LOT of money that could be put to better use.

Ironically, one of the reasons the Soviets had for assigning meaningless tasks to their citizens was because communism promised a basic standard of living for everyone. Everyone had a job to do no matter how useless. In the article about the new AF contract being let, the AF acquisitions chief, William LaPlante, was asked about the negative effect on jobs and the economy for the company that does not get the contract. He assured reporters that the AF “always considers broad industrial base issues in making contract awards.” In other words, jobs, jobs, jobs.

I think it was David Stockman, one of President Reagan’s budget gurus who said in later years that the Cold War arms race was a contest to see which country could bankrupt the other first. He concluded that the U.S. won by a hair. Really? What have we won? Billions being spent on useless weapon systems, billions more being spent on maintaining the largest military complex in the world, and for what?

We are about to enter the season of remembering and honoring those who serve and have served in the military. We thank them for their service. We pretend they are making us safer and protecting our freedom. We have to maintain the pretense because we need the jobs and because we hate to admit we are shortchanging our children and grandchildren in order to pay for our fantasy of superiority.

We can’t bomb our way to peace and prosperity. But we willingly cough up the money for 80 to 100 airplanes at the cost of “no more than” $550 million each.

If this is “winning,” I’d hate to see what losing would have done to us.

The post Who really won the Cold War? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

They look almost prehistoric. Like  ancient pictographs drawn on the wall of a tomb.

They are Google Earth views of the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson. What creates this tableau is an aircraft boneyard – a place where aircraft find their final rest. In this case it is the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG).

AMARG is the home for all out-of-service aircraft from all branches of the U.S. government. Some 4,200 military aircraft ranging from modern F-16s and F-18s to drones to Vietnam-era fighters rest at Davis-Monthan.

Why here? Because the desert conditions greatly reduce the chance of rust and corrosion.
The aircraft stored here fall into four categories:
• Long Term – Aircraft kept intact for future use
• Parts Reclamation – Aircraft kept, picked apart and used for spare parts
• Flying Hold – Aircraft kept intact for shorter stays than Long Term
• Excess of DoD needs – Aircraft to be sold off whole or in parts

The post Aircraft “boneyard” paints a picture of military spending appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The country was distraught; the world was shocked when it heard that man with no flaws and impeccable integrity was found to have been involved in a peccadillo with a woman who had been his biographer. The former general had lead U.S. troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Most recently, he took off his uniform and put on “the suit” to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

It was not too long ago that 60 Minutes did a feature on the general. He was presented as an almost god-like figure; keeping himself in remarkable physical shape  with long jogs every morning, while being a true student of war with remarkable acumen about strategy and the handling the men and women he commanded.

In its November 26, 2012 edition, Time Magazine reported, “The U.S.’s entire security apparatus seems rattled. And every news cycle brings hew questions about the judgment, morals, methods and command focus of some of America’s most powerful public servants.”

The article also includes reference to how Paula Broadwell, Petraeus’ biographer and lover, wanted to present a special birthday gift to the general. Petraeus and Broadwell were born twenty years and two days apart, so apparently they have shared their birthdays together. Because of Petraeus’ compulsive commitment to physical fitness (something Broadwell also shared), Broadwell tried to arrange a bicycle tour with Lance Armstrong. It didn’t take place, because scandal was in the air about all three of them.

Petraeus and Armstrong had public personae; Broadwell did not. Armstrong was considered a hero because of his seven wins in the Tour de France and his outstanding charitable work in the fight against cancer. Petraeus was the presumably flawless military commander and director of the CIA.

The mighty have fallen.  That’s what happened to Petraeus and Armstrong; the cyclist for using illegal performance-enhancing drugs and the general for an illicit affair. However, anyone can fall if he or she is placed on a pillar or perch. Everyone, including our heroes, walk by putting one foot in front of the other.  We all need air to breathe and water to drink.

We can do a favor to those among us who for whom we hold special admiration by giving them credit for their accomplishments and recognizing that, like the rest of us, they are mortal and have flaws. No one should have to try to live up to perfection, because no one can do so. When we learn of the flaws of those whom we admire most, in many ways it is affirming. It reminds us that no one is immune from reaching hills they cannot climb; from setting goals they cannot achieve; and from living in a way that includes flaws as well as accomplishments.

Time Magazine further reminds us, “The guy [Petraeus] is supergifted, superdetermined, supercommitted. He’s the closest thing most of us have ever met to a superman, but he’s still a man.”

Petraeus needed to be removed from his position as director of the CIA. This is not because he succumbed to a temptation that many a man would. Rather, it is because of the sensitivity of his position and the secrets that he harbored from both his time as head of our espionage agency, as well his commanding position in the military. His affair made him a target for blackmail. He affirmed that notion by trying for as long as he could to keep his job at the CIA, all the while using sloppy techniques to try keep his affair secret. As far as we now know, he did not compromise any secure data. However, it’s likely that Congressional committees will investigate the affair. If they don’t find that any national security was compromised, they will at least have titillating gossip. As the story gets more and more complex, members of Congress, who often see themselves as without flaws, will likely engage in unseemly leaking of the gossip. And so the world turns, with none of us even approaching perfection.

The post Petraeus: Hero is a dangerous word appeared first on Occasional Planet.