Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

Note: This post includes some mild profanity in a couple places. My last post included an instance of mild profanity as well. That time I didn’t include a warning because I wanted to jump right into that topic, and I thought that a profanity warning might be distracting. I am not including this warning to placate the Profanity Police. Rather, it comes on the heels of that earlier use of profanity in order to assure my readers that this blog is not going to turn into a collection of profanity-filled screeds. I cannot promise that it won’t be a collection of screeds (it’s probably too late for that anyway), but I do promise that the screeds won’t be filled with profanity.

I am still reeling from reading this article late Saturday/early Sunday. Apparently the top brass in our military are worried about the obesity epidemic in America and its implications for our national security. The article opens with the statistic “nearly one-third of young Americans are now too overweight to join up” and states that this is “worrying” to “military officials already facing recruitment challenges.”

When I read “facing recruitment challenges,” my immediate reaction was: “GOOD.” Why do I say this? Do I want us to have a weak military? Do I want our country to be vulnerable to terrorism and nuclear attacks? No and no.

The people who complain the loudest about the dwindling number of new recruits would certainly say that they want our country to have an elite military, the best in the world. So my question to them is:

Aren’t “elite” and “massive in number” mutually exclusive?

If you are only taking the best and the brightest, you are not going to be taking everybody who walks in the door. And if fewer are walking in the door, that means that the screening process should be that much more streamlined.

A smaller number of recruits also suggests to me that maybe, just maybe, fewer people are seeing military service primarily as a ticket to a free education or some other tangible benefit. And I think that’s a good thing to the extent it indicates that those who are signing up have a more realistic view of the responsibilities and risks of military service.

The mentality of “I’ll never have to go to war – I’ll just serve stateside for two years and then I can do whatever I want and the military will pay for all of it!” doesn’t materialize out of thin air. It is one that has been instilled and promoted by the military itself, via recruiters and recruitment materials. In light of that, here’s another question:

Why is military recruitment even a thing?

You heard me right. Do the best and the brightest need to be recruited at their high school or college campuses? Wouldn’t they be willing and able to find the recruitment office themselves? I get that we need to have military personnel who are available to answer questions from people who are interested in signing up. But these personnel need to be people who deal in cold hard facts. And I suspect we’ve got more than a few out there who would be better suited for used car sales.

The subject article goes on to cite a study done by the group Council for a Strong America entitled “Unhealthy and Unprepared.” Does that title sound ominous to anyone else or is it just me? What exactly are we “unprepared” for? War? What does it matter if civilians are unprepared for war? Oh, wait…could it be that the top brass are worried that civilians are unprepared to become soldiers at the drop of a hat?

Translation: “We need each of you to be in tip-top shape in case your number comes up.”

Notice that I didn’t say, “in case we need to reinstate the draft.” In my opinion, the draft was never un-instated. We still have Selective Service, don’t we? (Isn’t that name kinda stupid? If a majority of a certain group has to participate, how “selective” is it?) As long as compulsory Selective Service registration is a thing, we still have the draft. The likelihood that the draft will actually be used is irrelevant. The mere existence of mandatory registration is an indication that our government and military want to keep all options on the table.

And the alarmism that I read in the subject article tells me that maybe an active draft isn’t as remote a possibility as most think. But don’t worry. Before it would come to that, I’m sure the military would try less extreme tactics. Such as hiring some Sgt. Snake Oils to stand on the street corners shouting, “Free education! Get your free education!”

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is mentioned in the article as “praising efforts of retired service members who are working in schools ‘to try and restore physical education…to try and get school lunches to be things that fuel the body, instead of just giving them crummy food.’ ” Let me start with the positive. I like the idea of veterans who have served honorably working in schools because I think that they can be great role models for children.

But now for the negative. In the part about P.E. and food, there is definitely a subtext of “We need you kids to be big and strong to fight in a future war!” and “You kids better eat right – we won’t be able to ship you out if you don’t!”

The irony here is that even as the military is so worried about kids getting fit for duty, the article suggests that it isn’t exactly doing a bang-up job of helping active-duty soldiers stay fit. A sentence towards the end reads, “Many military facilities are equipped with top-notch gyms, and dining facilities on US bases around the world often provide nutritional guidelines.”

First, the gyms. How is a “top-notch gym” not standard equipment on a military base? This is not an appeal for our government to authorize more funds for military gym equipment. But if I had a choice of my tax dollars going towards gym equipment, a weapon of war, or “hormone therapy” for a private who “just couldn’t cut it”? Say hello to your new Bowflex, boys!

And now the dining issue. I noticed that it didn’t say “nutritious foods.” “Nutritional guidelines” tells me that the mess halls are a place where you can choose from an array of options, some of which have little to no nutritional value. Why are we serving junk food to our troops? They certainly deserve a banquet of delicious junk food, and I’m not opposed to junk food being available in some form on military bases. But I think that healthy foods should be the default as far as meals go. Maybe they are, but that’s not the impression I got from that sentence.

The final quote in the article is the most ominous, and it reiterates the earlier points about getting schoolchildren service-ready. It comes from a man identified as “retired Air Force general Richard Myers.” My assumption is that this is the same General Richard Myers who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during George W. Bush’s administration. If that’s correct, I’m not sure why the article didn’t identify him as such. Perhaps it’s because Yahoo News didn’t want to call attention to Myers’ role in Bush II’s war in Iraq. Because if they did that, the readers might be tipped off about the fact that parts of the media are cozier with the military-industrial complex than they let on. (Fun fact: I had a little crush on Gen. Myers during his Joint Chiefs of Staff days. Yes, this was during my liberal college days during the height of Bush II’s war in Iraq. Gen. Myers’ face was a bright spot amid the bad news.)

So according to Gen. Silver Fox:

“Basic training lasts weeks, but building strong troops takes years. Encouraging healthy lifestyles early in life will help our nation prepare for future challenges.”

“Future challenges,” eh? General, please don’t tell me you’re one of those military men who says things like, “Spare me your sissy euphemisms! Give it to me straight!” Because if you are, you might want to stop saying things like that.

“Future challenges” is a euphemism for war. And to those who might be saying, “Megan. Not every military engagement is war,” I say: “ ‘Military engagement’ is another euphemism for war.”

Some who are reading this might think that I am overstating the sinisterness of the military’s concerns about obesity. After all, it’s only logical that there would be a connection between civilian obesity and a lack of military readiness. So there isn’t necessarily anything sinister about military officials pointing out this connection and being concerned about it, right? Fair enough. But let me remind you of this:

The military is an arm of the government. An armed arm of the government.

And let’s not forget that those guns aren’t just for conflicts with foreign jihadists. They can just as easily be turned on American citizens. What do you think the National Guard is? I am not disputing that members of the National Guard are heroes to many who have been affected by natural disasters and other events. But we should not forget that “calling in the National Guard” is essentially implementing a domestic military occupation. And to those who think that’s an exaggeration, I would ask, “Why do you love martial law so much?” (Especially some of you asleep-at-the-switch libertarians.)

In American society there is (generally) no stigma attached to saying that you don’t trust the government. But if you express anything but unconditional praise for the military as an institution, you will likely be called something like “unpatriotic,” “whacko conspiracy theorist,” or “ungrateful pinko commie scum.” I smell cognitive dissonance.

I would like to see Americans be more open to the thought that suspicion towards the military as an institution is no more scandalous than suspicion towards the rest of the government. This does not preclude having respect for those who serve in the military. Soldiers put their lives on the line; bureaucrats generally do not. But “respect is earned” is not just for civilians. A uniform should not shield you from questioning, criticism, and, when necessary, prosecution.

And if you thought this post couldn’t become more of a downer, you have underestimated me. The concern over obesity among potential recruits and active-duty soldiers would seem to be evidence that our military wants to recruit the best and the brightest. And I think it really does.

But I think it also wants to recruit cannon fodder and guinea pigs.

Perhaps the military is not seeking cannon fodder to the extent that it was in the Vietnam era, but, as previously described, we still have the Cannon Fodder Contingency Plan, a.k.a. Selective Service.

And regarding guinea pigs, they will always be needed because it would be foolish and unethical to use elites when you want to study the progression of an STD or be a trailblazer in the area of “compassionate castration” (anybody remember Christine Jorgensen? #ThanksTruman). And yes, I definitely smell a guinea pig scenario in the Chelsea Manning saga.

Final downer thought: This one was actually my very first thought upon reading the title and first paragraphs of the subject article.

Who needs fit troops when you have drones?

The most “advanced” forms of warfare don’t require physical fitness, because you can wage war 10,000 miles away from your target while sitting in front of a computer. I put advanced in quotes because I believe that the most “advanced” forms of warfare are also some of the most dastardly, cowardly, dishonorable, and all-around punk-ass methods in the history of the world. The farther a method of killing allows a soldier to be from his target, the more likely it is that that method is dishonorable and cowardly. I believe that this is true of the method itself regardless of the character of the individual soldier and the purpose of the mission. Our interventionist foreign policy (perpetuated by both major parties) is putting our soldiers in situations where they have to act like soulless killing machines in order to survive.

And then when they come back (if they come back), the politicians who sent them overseas often won’t accept an ounce of responsibility for the long line at the VA.

And if you really want a drone-related red pill (not the communist one): remember the part in this post about guns being turned on American citizens in the form of a National Guard occupation? Well, drones can also be turned on American citizens.

Does anybody remember that time President Obama used a drone strike to take out an American citizen?

It’s understandable if you don’t, because if I recall correctly, it didn’t exactly get the same level of press coverage that Bush II’s misdeeds in Iraq did. And even if you did hear about it in passing, you might not have realized that the target was an American citizen because his name was Anwar al-Awlaki. He was killed by a drone strike (a.k.a. no-knock warrant on steroids) in Yemen in September 2011.

Help me out here, Mr. Former President. This reminds me a little bit of another form of extrajudicial killing that was a really dark part of our nation’s history. What is that word again? Hmm…I remember!

LYNCHING

Yeah, I went there. And now I’m really regretting it because I just remembered that the Obama administration spent a lot of time crafting this memo about how the killing of al-Awlaki was totally constitutional. A memo changes everything, amirite?

And if that wasn’t enough, two weeks after his own death-by-drone, al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, also an American citizen, was killed, also by a drone strike that was ordered by Obama. But the big difference was that the killing of al-Awlaki’s son was, according to the administration, an accident. (Don’t you hate it when that happens? #OopsMyDroneSlipped)

Mr. Former President, there are at least 99 problems with this picture. And at least half of them revolve around what you said about Trayvon Martin.

And there’s more. In late January 2017, because apparently our weapons love al-Awlaki’s children, his 8-year-old daughter was among other civilians killed in a commando raid in Yemen. #ThanksTrump

That is officially the conclusion of my side rant about drones in this post. But I warn you that there will be future posts on the use of drone strikes. I am not going to let this go.

So can we do anything other than just hang our heads and weep for humanity? You might be surprised to hear that I still have some hope that Americans can make progress in the areas of foreign policy and appropriate use of military force. In addition to fighting for accountability from our politicians and military, I think it is important for each of us to be open to hearing different perspectives and individuals’ personal stories. I hope that every civilian (myself included) will remember not to judge every soldier based on the actions of the worst. And I hope that every soldier will remember that open debate about war and the military is part of what makes this a free country and a great country. And I am also hoping that one day the #CollateralMurder pilots will call up Chelsea Manning and say with sincerity:

“What you did was pretty shitty. But in retrospect, what we did was pretty shitty, too. So what do you say we call it even and go have a beer?”

Verso l’alto,
Megan