A friend recently sent me an article dealing with recent attacks on SecDef Rumsfeld that was filled with references citing the many times that military failures were blamed on civilians.
I'm not exactly sure what the point of this article was. Although it was stuffed with facts and parallels (some strained to be sure) it never seems to come to any conclusion. Furthermore, the apparent conclusion is that military failures are frequently and wrongfully blamed on civilian leadership and the various facts and parallels are intended to bear out this point (I think). Carl Von Clausewitz stated quite clearly in his military text "On War" that war is simply an extension of diplomacy and its objective is to return to a diplomatic solution. Therefore, the idea of "winning" and "losing" a war is really a simplistic view of the situation. Secondly, the Roman Empire insisted that in order to be a "Consul" or "Proconsul" the man must have had military experience. There was no such thing as purely civilian leadership. Personally I think there is merit in this position. But to return to the article(s), the assumption throughout seems to be that civilians are blamed for the general incompetence of the civilian leadership when in fact the failures are almost always military.
Personally, I think this conclusion is over-reaching the facts, because the fact is that sometimes the military is wrong and sometimes the civilians are wrong. I thought Robert McNamarra was (and still is) a total nincompoop who was put in place by JFK solely on the basis of his Eastern Aristocratic background. He and his "brain trust" screwed up Ford and then proceeded to screw up the Viet Nam War -- ably abetted by the President, the media, and a whole host of other civilians. Admittedly this was not the military's finest hour but how quickly we seem to forget that it was the administration and McNamarra who refused to bomb the dikes, to bomb Hanoi flat, to attack the Viet Cong in their hideouts in other countries. The military was hamstrung -- the same was true in Korea although the rationale there was on firmer ground.
Historically, the military has always trained and prepared to fight the last war not the future wars. Rumsfeld has changed that by simply forcing the military to face the fact that the last Gulf War was the last war to be fought using classical military strategy. He is forcing the military to change and in doing a great job. The distinctions between Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines is blurring very fast as Rumsfeld creates task forces made up of joint units designed to solve specific problems using strategies that are unconventional and focused on the problem at hand. In this case the military is wrong and the civilians are right.
The same could be said for Lincoln in the Civil War. The Union Generals were political and generally inept but both sides were locked into military strategies based on the Napoleonic Wars, which were not suitable for the task at hand, the weapons available, and resulted in appalling casualties. The Revolutionary War was fought by a brilliant General Washington aided by some equally brilliant officers leading a woefully inept and ill equipped army. He could have done better with more Congressional support but there wasn't any revenue and only a skeleton government so to blame Congress is wrong but to blame Washington for failing to win battles is idiotic.
So I'm not sure what the purpose of the article was and the sources were truly suspect since all of them could be construed as having an agenda. There is no doubt in my mind but that the media and the left wing want Rumsfeld out because he is winning and proving them wrong. I think there are conservative elements in the military who want to preserve their traditions and place them before winning -- remember Billy Mitchell -- same thing here.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Underwear, Outerwear, and Innerwear
Earlier this week while waiting in line, I observed that the man in front of me had ripped the pocket of his levi’s so that most of his right buttock was showing. However, he was wearing red boxers so that appeared to be OK – at least in his estimation and that of everyone else. At one time even a small hole in the seat of your pants would have been a source of mild embarrassment. Apparently that is no longer the case and men go to great lengths to show off their underwear or in some cases their – no wear(?). While in (where else) San Francisco, I observed two men walking down the street holding hands. A common sight in SF but as I neared this strolling pair of love birds I noticed that one had some sort of odd back pockets. As I drew closer I realized that he didn’t have any back pockets – what he had was two circular holes where the pockets should have been and he wasn’t wearing any underwear at all. He had his little rosy cheeks exposed for the world to ---- enjoy? Similarly, and on the same trip, I observed this very large woman approaching me. She stood out because of her size – easily six foot three – and with a Prince Valiant haircut. She was wearing a very short little dress which caught my attention but as she neared I came to realize two things. First she wasn’t a she, she was a man wearing a woman’s slip – very lacy and I’m certain intended to be quite sexy but appropriate as street wear? Obviously my lack of fashion sense and tolerance for diversity is showing because no one seemed shocked by any of this so I guess some how I missed the new rules that said underwear is in and can substitute for outerwear.
All of this has caused me to reflect on the recent fashion (?) of boys wearing their trousers somewhere below their buttocks which leaves their boxer (always boxers) shorts totally exposed. How they keep from exposing themselves I have been unable to determine but I can assure you were I to wear my pants in the same location they would be around my ankles before I could say “hey check me out”. Of course at my age I wouldn’t be arrested for indecent exposure but would probably be cited for a shocking display of fashion failure and offending public taste. But more to the point – what makes anyone think that exposing your drawers is something that everyone wants to see? In fact, what’s up with the drawers in the first place? Women complain about wearing brassieres but any man who has ever worn boxer shorts knows how uncomfortable they are. While they offer a certain feeling of “freedom” they also chafe and bunch up and that freedom can be achieved by simply not wearing any underwear at all.
I’m reminded of the little boy who opened the family Bible and a leaf that had been placed there long before, fell out. The little boy took the leaf and ran to his mother waving the leaf and said “look – I think I found Adam’s underwear”. Now the history of underwear goes back a long way but it is unlikely primitive man found it necessary to wear something under his bear (or is it over his bare) skin but at some point people found it necessary to wear something underneath their outer-clothes. Without delving into the history of underwear any further, it is worth noting that underwear became more and more elaborate and restrictive until the 20th Century. The first World War changed things in the world of underwear because the military gave up the “union suit” in favor of the shorter underwear now known as “boxers”. This shift also affected women who began to join the work force in significant numbers and who needed less bulky underwear and by the 1920’s women were wearing short slips and panties.
Then in the 1930’s Jockey introduced what became known as “Jockey Shorts.” These rapidly became the underwear of choice for men and were almost universally worn by men until relatively recently. The important point here is that from the time of it’s inception underwear was not on display – which is why it was called UNDER WEAR. However, somehow boxer shorts have become fashionable once again but not really as underwear, although that is what they masquerade as. In reality these new boxers are INNER wear. That is they are worn more or less under the outer clothes but with intent of being exposed for all to see. Unfortunately this fashion trend has dramatically underscored a rampant lack of aesthetics and certainly taste as this innerwear is displayed in garish colors, tacky designs, and questionable taste, for example the pair of boxers with the happy face on the front, giving the observer a glimpse of a happy face with a NOSE.
Of course there are signs that this fashion trend is beginning to fade as some of the boys begin to grow up and realize that permanent “wedgies” don’t have to be a way of life. While they haven’t achieved enough maturity to totally abandon the trend they do want to abandon the “wedgie” so they opt for the “boxer brief.” While this may be an improvement since these tend to revert to underwear rather than inner wear, they also mark the wearer as somewhat indecisive. This is a person who can no longer live with the boxer but who cannot bring himself to return to the brief so they compromise. They give up the wedgie but retain the “bunching” meaning that they still constantly “adjust” themselves which gives their peers the impression that they have not abandoned the boxer. The probable outcome of this fashion cycle will be the return of the “commando” as the stylish give up discomfort in favor of comfortable freedom, which of course will renew the cycle. But then hopefully, the commando will bring the britches back to a place above the buttocks rather than its current location above the knees. Hopefully this shift in fashion will occur soon because every time I see one of these young men with their pants hanging below their butt I filled with the urge to give their trousers a gentle tug knowing that they will fall down. However, so far I have been able to resist this urge but it gets more and more difficult.
While on the subject of fashion, who has decided that men who are unshaven are attractive? Guys with three days of beard are everywhere and they simply look like they have very little regard for their appearance and it certainly makes their hygiene suspect. What’s even funnier is you see these guys in the movies, where they have three days of beard throughout the entire movie. Their beard never grows and they never shave – how realistic is that? Wearing a beard is one thing and some men actually look better with a beard than without just as some men look better shaven than with beards, but no one looks good with just stubble. What is even funnier is when you see these guys who have obviously shaved the beard under their chin because stubble there can be very annoying – so they shave that but leave the rest of their beard stubbified. Presumably these are men who are fashion sensitive but they come across as men who are uncertain, unsure, and insecure about themselves. These are men who feel they must conform and need to have approval from others. Not the type to lead others into new territory.
But I must confess that I couldn’t grow a beard if my life depended on it and would be hard pressed to even produce the currently popular stubble after a month of not shaving. The same is true of the low slung look so popular among the young. If I let my pants slide even a little they almost immediately succumb to gravity and I am left with my pants down. So maybe I am just one of those people who have been left scratching their head wondering where everyone went. Maybe I need to go out an buy a pair of really appalling boxers to demonstrate that I am really part of the current fashion scene. Perhaps those boxers with the Happy Face and (in my case Pug) nose.
All of this has caused me to reflect on the recent fashion (?) of boys wearing their trousers somewhere below their buttocks which leaves their boxer (always boxers) shorts totally exposed. How they keep from exposing themselves I have been unable to determine but I can assure you were I to wear my pants in the same location they would be around my ankles before I could say “hey check me out”. Of course at my age I wouldn’t be arrested for indecent exposure but would probably be cited for a shocking display of fashion failure and offending public taste. But more to the point – what makes anyone think that exposing your drawers is something that everyone wants to see? In fact, what’s up with the drawers in the first place? Women complain about wearing brassieres but any man who has ever worn boxer shorts knows how uncomfortable they are. While they offer a certain feeling of “freedom” they also chafe and bunch up and that freedom can be achieved by simply not wearing any underwear at all.
I’m reminded of the little boy who opened the family Bible and a leaf that had been placed there long before, fell out. The little boy took the leaf and ran to his mother waving the leaf and said “look – I think I found Adam’s underwear”. Now the history of underwear goes back a long way but it is unlikely primitive man found it necessary to wear something under his bear (or is it over his bare) skin but at some point people found it necessary to wear something underneath their outer-clothes. Without delving into the history of underwear any further, it is worth noting that underwear became more and more elaborate and restrictive until the 20th Century. The first World War changed things in the world of underwear because the military gave up the “union suit” in favor of the shorter underwear now known as “boxers”. This shift also affected women who began to join the work force in significant numbers and who needed less bulky underwear and by the 1920’s women were wearing short slips and panties.
Then in the 1930’s Jockey introduced what became known as “Jockey Shorts.” These rapidly became the underwear of choice for men and were almost universally worn by men until relatively recently. The important point here is that from the time of it’s inception underwear was not on display – which is why it was called UNDER WEAR. However, somehow boxer shorts have become fashionable once again but not really as underwear, although that is what they masquerade as. In reality these new boxers are INNER wear. That is they are worn more or less under the outer clothes but with intent of being exposed for all to see. Unfortunately this fashion trend has dramatically underscored a rampant lack of aesthetics and certainly taste as this innerwear is displayed in garish colors, tacky designs, and questionable taste, for example the pair of boxers with the happy face on the front, giving the observer a glimpse of a happy face with a NOSE.
Of course there are signs that this fashion trend is beginning to fade as some of the boys begin to grow up and realize that permanent “wedgies” don’t have to be a way of life. While they haven’t achieved enough maturity to totally abandon the trend they do want to abandon the “wedgie” so they opt for the “boxer brief.” While this may be an improvement since these tend to revert to underwear rather than inner wear, they also mark the wearer as somewhat indecisive. This is a person who can no longer live with the boxer but who cannot bring himself to return to the brief so they compromise. They give up the wedgie but retain the “bunching” meaning that they still constantly “adjust” themselves which gives their peers the impression that they have not abandoned the boxer. The probable outcome of this fashion cycle will be the return of the “commando” as the stylish give up discomfort in favor of comfortable freedom, which of course will renew the cycle. But then hopefully, the commando will bring the britches back to a place above the buttocks rather than its current location above the knees. Hopefully this shift in fashion will occur soon because every time I see one of these young men with their pants hanging below their butt I filled with the urge to give their trousers a gentle tug knowing that they will fall down. However, so far I have been able to resist this urge but it gets more and more difficult.
While on the subject of fashion, who has decided that men who are unshaven are attractive? Guys with three days of beard are everywhere and they simply look like they have very little regard for their appearance and it certainly makes their hygiene suspect. What’s even funnier is you see these guys in the movies, where they have three days of beard throughout the entire movie. Their beard never grows and they never shave – how realistic is that? Wearing a beard is one thing and some men actually look better with a beard than without just as some men look better shaven than with beards, but no one looks good with just stubble. What is even funnier is when you see these guys who have obviously shaved the beard under their chin because stubble there can be very annoying – so they shave that but leave the rest of their beard stubbified. Presumably these are men who are fashion sensitive but they come across as men who are uncertain, unsure, and insecure about themselves. These are men who feel they must conform and need to have approval from others. Not the type to lead others into new territory.
But I must confess that I couldn’t grow a beard if my life depended on it and would be hard pressed to even produce the currently popular stubble after a month of not shaving. The same is true of the low slung look so popular among the young. If I let my pants slide even a little they almost immediately succumb to gravity and I am left with my pants down. So maybe I am just one of those people who have been left scratching their head wondering where everyone went. Maybe I need to go out an buy a pair of really appalling boxers to demonstrate that I am really part of the current fashion scene. Perhaps those boxers with the Happy Face and (in my case Pug) nose.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Gray Becomes The World
How I envy the young, not for their lithe bodies and tight skin but for their clarity. For the young the world is black and white where everything is good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral with very little in between. Decisions come swiftly and with certainty but with the onset of maturity tinges of gray begin to creep in. Decisions begin to take longer and when made they lack that air of absoluteness that once was present. Gradually – oh so gradually – gray spreads and the black and white view of the world fades until nothing seems to be absolutely right or wrong, totally moral or completely immoral, and decisions come slowly, if at all, and when they do come, they are filled with uncertainty and ambiguity.
Increasingly I observe via the television this clarity of vision that I seem to have lost. Yet I see people rendering decisions that I think would have confounded Solomon and certainly have confounded me. Perhaps the most visible today is the situation with Teri Schaivo. There are people who are vehemently supporting both sides, apparently comfortable in making decisions for others without actually having any facts on which to base their decision. Personally I don’t know what to think and can only thank God that I do not have to make the decision whether she should live or die. Who is right? The husband maintains he is carrying out her wishes while the parents plead for the right to care for her. The husband refuses to divorce her while living outside of his marriage vows – why? The parents are determined to keep her alive but perhaps only as a living vegetable regardless of what her wishes might have been. How do I know who is right? The courts have stayed within the framework of the law and have refused to get involved in the moral aspect of the case. Perhaps that is wise but then perhaps it is the coward’s way. Of course I have an opinion – like everyone else – but it is an OPINION and not based on anything other than my own individual moral compass.
Then we have the situation with that Man-boy Michael Jackson. Everyone seems to have made up their mind regarding whether or not he is a child molester. How can anyone be absolutely sure of his guilt or innocence? Clearly he is someone in desperate need of psychiatric help because he appears to my untrained eye, to be a case of arrested development. I think he reacts like a ten year old boy, who likes to hang out with his friends and do the things that ten year old boys do, and that includes all of the titillating aspects of sex and sexual exploration. This is certainly does not condone any behavior that would fall into the category of molestation because he is in fact a 40 year old man. But I’m not trained and I wasn’t there and the accusers all seem to have an agenda. So how can anyone be so certain that he is guilty or innocent? There is no doubt that he acted inappropriately for an adult but then being a physical adult doesn’t make him a mental adult. So his actions have to be examined in terms of his mental development, which is far from normal -- and any decision regarding him and his conduct falls into the realm of gray and uncertainty – at least for me.
But there are many more issues where people seem to have a clarity that I lack and among these is abortion. This is a matter that moves people to violence – sort of – kill a commie for Christ – while purporting to protect the unborn from violence. The nub of this argument really lies with some philosophical issues that have plagued mankind for years. To some the moment the sperm enters the egg life begins so any deliberate violence to the egg is tantamount to murder, except for those who believe life begins with the first breath. To the atheist, the soul doesn’t exist so when life begins is open to interpretation—presumably with the first breath otherwise abortion would be murder. For others, life begins with the entry of the soul into the body but the problem seems to be – when does this happen? Some think it happens at the time of conception so abortion is murder – pure and simple, but others think the soul enters the body with the first breath so abortion is purely a clinical matter. Others take the view that the decision to abort is purely the woman’s decision and is independent of these philosophical issues, which sidesteps the issue of what constitutes murder. Personally, I don’t know and I am puzzled by how so many people are convinced they know the answer, when these are questions that have been debated for centuries. From my perspective these people are entitled to their opinion but that is all it is – their opinion. To foist their opinion onto the rest of us is wrong. This does not mean I am pro-abortion or pro-life, it simply means I don’t know. I do think the decision to abort is a very personal one and not one that any woman makes lightly. So to me this is another one of those areas where everything is gray and unlike so many others, I don’t this issue with any clarity.
Then we have the issue of war – not just the current Iraqi affair, but war in general. I see people of various ages – some old enough to know better – marching around with anti-war slogans. Many of these people are simply anti-Bush agitators, but some are sincere in their feelings that war is wrong. This issue was addressed by Aristophanes in his play Lysistrada hundreds of years before Christ. I think everyone would be willing to concede that war is a bad thing but at no time in history of man has there been a period of total peace. Peace – such as it has been – has been maintained by the force of arms and those countries that were weak or undefended were exploited at best and destroyed at worst. There is no doubt that war is bad but is it immoral? Is it morally wrong to use force to defend those who cannot defend themselves from those who would destroy them? In effect these anti-war activists are saying that war is morally wrong and that it is better to allow the weak to be destroyed by the strong because this is the Darwinian way and to intervene in this natural process is immoral. To make it more relevant essentially Hussein had every right to murder and pillage his people because to intervene as President Bush did, is morally wrong because it interfered with the natural process. This same argument could be mounted to defend Hitler, because to go to war to stop murder is wrong.
This argument then escalates to weapons – because weapons kill people and the atomic bomb is the most potent weapon for mass killing and therefore, it should be outlawed. Of course, I don’t think in the history of mankind has their ever been an example of a weapon murdering someone unless the weapon was employed by a human hand. Weapons are bad, guns are bad, but so are people. In fact, every society has outlawed bad behavior and has punished those who violate the rules – these are called criminals. Criminals act immorally but to disarm the populace is to place them at risk to those individuals who are willing to use force to take what they want. So who is the most immoral – the person who disarms the people so they can’t defend themselves or the person who is willing to take advantage of those unable to defend themselves?
So as I stated at the outset – how I envy the young their clarity and certainty because as you age, things get very gray and certainty about anything comes in very small doses.
Increasingly I observe via the television this clarity of vision that I seem to have lost. Yet I see people rendering decisions that I think would have confounded Solomon and certainly have confounded me. Perhaps the most visible today is the situation with Teri Schaivo. There are people who are vehemently supporting both sides, apparently comfortable in making decisions for others without actually having any facts on which to base their decision. Personally I don’t know what to think and can only thank God that I do not have to make the decision whether she should live or die. Who is right? The husband maintains he is carrying out her wishes while the parents plead for the right to care for her. The husband refuses to divorce her while living outside of his marriage vows – why? The parents are determined to keep her alive but perhaps only as a living vegetable regardless of what her wishes might have been. How do I know who is right? The courts have stayed within the framework of the law and have refused to get involved in the moral aspect of the case. Perhaps that is wise but then perhaps it is the coward’s way. Of course I have an opinion – like everyone else – but it is an OPINION and not based on anything other than my own individual moral compass.
Then we have the situation with that Man-boy Michael Jackson. Everyone seems to have made up their mind regarding whether or not he is a child molester. How can anyone be absolutely sure of his guilt or innocence? Clearly he is someone in desperate need of psychiatric help because he appears to my untrained eye, to be a case of arrested development. I think he reacts like a ten year old boy, who likes to hang out with his friends and do the things that ten year old boys do, and that includes all of the titillating aspects of sex and sexual exploration. This is certainly does not condone any behavior that would fall into the category of molestation because he is in fact a 40 year old man. But I’m not trained and I wasn’t there and the accusers all seem to have an agenda. So how can anyone be so certain that he is guilty or innocent? There is no doubt that he acted inappropriately for an adult but then being a physical adult doesn’t make him a mental adult. So his actions have to be examined in terms of his mental development, which is far from normal -- and any decision regarding him and his conduct falls into the realm of gray and uncertainty – at least for me.
But there are many more issues where people seem to have a clarity that I lack and among these is abortion. This is a matter that moves people to violence – sort of – kill a commie for Christ – while purporting to protect the unborn from violence. The nub of this argument really lies with some philosophical issues that have plagued mankind for years. To some the moment the sperm enters the egg life begins so any deliberate violence to the egg is tantamount to murder, except for those who believe life begins with the first breath. To the atheist, the soul doesn’t exist so when life begins is open to interpretation—presumably with the first breath otherwise abortion would be murder. For others, life begins with the entry of the soul into the body but the problem seems to be – when does this happen? Some think it happens at the time of conception so abortion is murder – pure and simple, but others think the soul enters the body with the first breath so abortion is purely a clinical matter. Others take the view that the decision to abort is purely the woman’s decision and is independent of these philosophical issues, which sidesteps the issue of what constitutes murder. Personally, I don’t know and I am puzzled by how so many people are convinced they know the answer, when these are questions that have been debated for centuries. From my perspective these people are entitled to their opinion but that is all it is – their opinion. To foist their opinion onto the rest of us is wrong. This does not mean I am pro-abortion or pro-life, it simply means I don’t know. I do think the decision to abort is a very personal one and not one that any woman makes lightly. So to me this is another one of those areas where everything is gray and unlike so many others, I don’t this issue with any clarity.
Then we have the issue of war – not just the current Iraqi affair, but war in general. I see people of various ages – some old enough to know better – marching around with anti-war slogans. Many of these people are simply anti-Bush agitators, but some are sincere in their feelings that war is wrong. This issue was addressed by Aristophanes in his play Lysistrada hundreds of years before Christ. I think everyone would be willing to concede that war is a bad thing but at no time in history of man has there been a period of total peace. Peace – such as it has been – has been maintained by the force of arms and those countries that were weak or undefended were exploited at best and destroyed at worst. There is no doubt that war is bad but is it immoral? Is it morally wrong to use force to defend those who cannot defend themselves from those who would destroy them? In effect these anti-war activists are saying that war is morally wrong and that it is better to allow the weak to be destroyed by the strong because this is the Darwinian way and to intervene in this natural process is immoral. To make it more relevant essentially Hussein had every right to murder and pillage his people because to intervene as President Bush did, is morally wrong because it interfered with the natural process. This same argument could be mounted to defend Hitler, because to go to war to stop murder is wrong.
This argument then escalates to weapons – because weapons kill people and the atomic bomb is the most potent weapon for mass killing and therefore, it should be outlawed. Of course, I don’t think in the history of mankind has their ever been an example of a weapon murdering someone unless the weapon was employed by a human hand. Weapons are bad, guns are bad, but so are people. In fact, every society has outlawed bad behavior and has punished those who violate the rules – these are called criminals. Criminals act immorally but to disarm the populace is to place them at risk to those individuals who are willing to use force to take what they want. So who is the most immoral – the person who disarms the people so they can’t defend themselves or the person who is willing to take advantage of those unable to defend themselves?
So as I stated at the outset – how I envy the young their clarity and certainty because as you age, things get very gray and certainty about anything comes in very small doses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)