PHOTOS, PAGE 1

       Editor and prime reporter is Doug Terry, a veteran television and radio reporter in   Washington, DC, (details below)

Our military is always ready for battle

Our policies toward the world and toward playing the role of global enforcer are created and influenced by many forces, but the strongest the military's need to keep its forces sharp and ready for the essential conflict that people always assume might be just around the corner. An army that doesn't fight is an army that forgets how to fight. Also, don't dismiss the idea the all the leadership of the military forces need to get their files stamped with war time action to keep their positions and advance. Being in the military without fighting is liking being called as \"astronaut\" and never getting to go into space. I remember reading what John McCain said he thought when someone addressed his unit when he was in the military and told them that war was an outdated concept. He said he asked himself if this would mean he would never get to use his skills again in an important way. He dismissed that idea out of hand. War is a career and it is also one of the ultimate endeavors of humans and many just don't want to give it up.

So, we are always getting ready for battle, studying battles and, yes, scouting the globe for the next \"opportunity\" to engage with \"kinetic solutions\" (fire power) whenever and wherever we can. And, just imagine how many defense contractors, sub-contractors, consultants, engineers, designers and computer makers would lose their jobs if we ever slowed this runaway train down, even a bit.

As for \"cutting the rate of growth\" of spending, that's the governments take on just about everything. I have been in Washington, DC, , as a reporter and editor, and around, as a commentator/writer for several decades now and I have heard this expression applied to almost everything Congress has ever done to cut back. Slow the growth. This is a formula for budgetary defeat similar to Gen. Custer's battle plan.

The rest of the world is more than happy to have our sappy U.S. government play this role on the world stage, even while they also really enjoy sticking it to us for doing it. By the way, one of the first debates I ever sat in on in the U.S. Senate was an argument about pulling back forces from NATO. The year was 1971 and the passionate speaker was the late Mike Mansfield from Montana. He didn't get his bill passed and the troops stayed.

Some of our reaching out around the world is just plain overreaching by our military. Each war brings a new batch of bases. Is there any country in the world in which they would not like a base or two? EVERY base is described as absolutely vital when it comes up for review. That was true in the 1990s in the Phillipines, they said, until Mt. Pinatubo erupted and settled the argument about the Air Force base. Home we came. So, too, were the bombing ranges on the INHABITED island of Vieques, part of Puerto Rico, we were told, until the local citizens took a firm stand and home we came. I suppose the bombing practice runs got moved to Iraq. We needed bases in Saudi Arabia, too, right? 9-11, 2001, settled that argument in ways that were never discussed. The base was closed, done deal.

Yes, the world should share the burden, but it would remove some options for unilateral action that exist now and would lessen our influence around the world. Yet, if we drive our selves to the poor house in an armored tank, we will lose our influence entirely, won't we?

Right now, we have the unfortunate habit of reaching out to enemies wherever they might happen to be, face it, wherever we can find them. We are far too smart and have too many brilliant minds working for the purpose of keeping us in this sort of trouble.

Doug Terry 1.8.11

CONTACT THE TERRYREPORT

       HOME PAGE

end