Re: History of Struggle at Cape Impact Area

[Richard Hugus <rhugus@cape.com>]

Mike:

Are you suggesting I might be held for treason because of my
posting? Give me break!

Richard Hugus

>Richard,
>
>This a bit of an extreme position, don't you think? I spent nearly three
>years of my life, stationed as a soldier with the 3rd Infantry
>Division along the border of what used to be East Germany. I saw
>first-hand what the "German Democratic Republic" (with Soviet backing)
>had in place there -- the guard towers manned by people with orders to
>shoot to kill, the mined areas and razor wire. My wife's East German
>relatives couldn't even cross into West Germany to attend the funeral
>of family members. We probably exaggerate our role in toppling the
>system that did that to people, as that was largely a result of a
>"quiet revolution" by the East Germans (who were probably inspired by the
>Soviets' failure in Afghanistan). But I do think we in the U.S. military
>played a part in promoting freedom in Europe by maintaing our military
>strength. (That's one of the reasons I was over there, participating
>in maneuvers along the border.) I guess, from your perspective, that
>was the result of "intense domestic indoctrination," but don't you
>concede that some of us can use our thinking capacity to come to
>different conclusions from yours?

>We have made many mistakes, and Vietnam is one good example, but those were
>primarly mistakes made by civilian political leaders in Congress and the White
>House, who really are the ones who dictate military actions and policy,
>for the most part. The U.S military is far from perfect; I also know
>that from first-hand experience. But I'm also convinced it's quite
>different from what you portray in your vitriolic message. By the
>way, some people would consider talk of "overthrowing the bases" to be
>treasonous, and I'm not sure I would disagree. It's that kind of "us
>against them" sentiment that led to the disaster in Oklahoma City, as
>far as I'm concerned.

>I do see your point that the Army did not agree to a cease fire but had to be
>forced. But the same holds true for any large organization that is asked
>to take actions contrary to its self-interest. In that respect, the
>U.S. military is probably no different from most institutions in the
>United States (or any other country). I think the issues at Camp
>Edwards (or something else) have >made you so angry you have lost the
>ability to be objective. When you state, "this is war," I think you
>are greatly overstating your case, and probably losing some
>support you might otherwise receive.
>
> Regards,
> Mike Cast