Such Nonsense!

[Edward McGlinn <mcglinn@ix.netcom.com>]

Don Zwiefel wrote:

 "Perhaps this is a point where we need to draw the line on any 
 action that significantly impacts defense preparedness, 
 especially when it may eventually place national security in 
 jeopardy."

Yes, let's sacrifice the environment any time the Pentagon and its 
apologists say we should.

He also wrtoe:

 "The Office of the Secy of Defense (OSD), the JCS (Joint Chiefs 
 of Staff)and the C-in-C (Commander in Chief) when acting in that 
 capacity, have a direct responsibility to our citizenry to 
 maintain the peace through sufficient maintenance of our ready 
 reaction forces. They must be capable of responding 
 instantaneously to any crisis scenario that could create 
 regional and/or global destablization."

Just like they did in Vietnam, and everywhere else I can think of, 
including the Persian Gulf. (The above quote and the rest of his message 
sounds like it was written by a PR hack in the Pentagon.)

I really don't have time to respond in detail to the sophistic BS in 
Zeeifel's message, especially the nonsense regarding the occupation of 
our Tehran embassy. So I will let those, better qualified than I, nail 
this crap to the wall for what it is. But I will point out we still live 
in a democracy run by and for civilians. We are not yet a military 
dictatorship. Therefore, we should not suspend ANY law just because some 
general, admiral, or Secretary of Defense says we should. Nor should we 
do so even if the President says so. (That seems obvious to me, but 
not to Zweifel.) Such a serious decision should be made by Congressional 
action with Presidential concurrence, but only after much debate. And it 
should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Even then that doesn't make it the correct or proper decision. We have so 
many examples of such decisions in the past.

God, some people never learn, do they?

Ed McGlinn
The Riverwatch
http://www.mich.com/~anglers 

Shouldn't we place enough trust in our SecDef to promulgate accurate and
equitable judgments as to what constitutes a detrimental impact on force
readiness and an adequate level of training? Any attempt to usurp or
attenuate this newly augmented authority calls to mind a basic tenant of
unwritten military doctrine, i.e., "Civilians meddling excessively in
matters miitary usually end up as too many cooks spoiling the broth."

A case in point being the Carter administration's successful attempt at
eviscerating or gutting our armed forces so effectively that we became
incapable of responding in any significant way to the 444-day occupation
of our embassy in Tehran.*

The People on the other hand, have an inalienable right to fully expect
prompt and thorough remediation and restoration efforts at all
contaminated military and DOE sites. We, however, have no right to demand
immediate clean-up and reversion to civilian control if it adversely
affects our ability to exercise force deployments in a timely manner.

Force readiness is our nation's sine qua non or absolute prerequisite.
Don't we need to maintain our credibility as a viable world power?
If not then expect us to take a back seat in any future global
deliberations affecting the status quo.

The environment should be protected at practically all costs but shouldn't
we factor in other crucial details into the equation, such as whether we
wish to remain a superpower or not? This is actually what it ostensibly
boils down to.

Do you take issue with this premise or concur?

* Occupation began on 4 Nov. 1979

 Don Zweifel