Pres. Obama on Defense

President Obama has posted his position on all the big issues. In the following weeks I'm going to comment on his position. Check it out for yourself at www.whitehouse.gov but watch out my porn blocker won't let me go to www.whitehouse.com who knows what that means! who knows what that means.

Disclaimer I am very much a layman when it comes to military issues. I have values but not a whole lot of knowledge about the nuts and bolts of how it works. Here is what the President says:


President Obama and Vice President Biden will invest in a 21st century military to maintain our conventional advantage while increasing our capacity to defeat the threats of tomorrow. They will ensure our troops have the training, equipment and support that they need when they are deployed.

Invest in a 21st Century Military
meh... aside from funding what is the military asking for?

Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground:
I would support an increase of military population but are we talking about accountants/cooks/janitors/bureacrats necessary for the militray to function or actual fighting soliders.

Leadership from the Top:
I am in support of this.

Lighten the Burdens on Our Brave Troops and Their Families:
sounds nice

Build Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century

Fully Equip Our Troops for the Missions They Face:
okay

Review Weapons Programs:
I guess this is a nice way of saying that we will not be continuing n the Star Wars proggram.

Preserve Global Reach in the Air:

The Air Force gets the first nod. Meh, I'd give it to the fighting soliders which exist in all of the branches of the military.

Maintain Power Projection at Sea:

second nod to the navy.

National Missile Defense:
yeah they are cutting down missile defense

Ensure Freedom of Space:
yeah they are cutting star wars too

Protect the U.S in Cyberspace:

cool

Restore the Readiness of the National Guard and Reserves
Equip, Support, and Modernize the National Guard and Reserves: "They will make the head of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff..." that seems huge to me and will ruffle a lot of feathers but I think will help maintain our local military population.

Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability
Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts:

meh, I am sure someone in the field understands this better than me.

Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC):
If this is a means to split the military into fighting troops and support personel (with different classification and benefits) I support it.

Restore Our Alliances
Engage Our Allies in Meeting Our Common Security Challenges:

that's nice... we'll see how it goes.

Organize to Help Our Partners and Allies in Need:
"win hearts and minds in the process"
okay sounds cool.

Reform Contracting

Create Transparency for Military Contractors:

meh

Restore Honesty, Openness, and Commonsense to Contracting and Procurement:

I've heard that no-bid contracting is bad... that is about it.

Military and Honor

Not too long ago I was having a conversation with Martin Murray about Senator Obama (he had not yet won the election) and he said the things he expected the senator to do if elected. Martin is politically very principled and would not give any politician a free pass. Martin does not "hope" President Obama does these things, he expects them to be done. But he finished with "... and end the war in Iraq." Mostly to be sly, I added "With honor. You got to win those Red states." But I thought about it and think that there is more to ensuring that "our brave boys" blah blah for the camera. In general this tendency is worthy only a laugh but there is something essential to guarding, respecting and most important expecting honor from our military.

At one level the military is just a bunch of people with a lot of very very dangerous weapons. Really just one of those small Coats Guard destroyers I've seen in the bay could shut down all naval traffic in and out of the bay, an aircraft carrier could destroy the entire infrastructure of the Bay Area in a matter of days. We don't have many army bases around here that I know about but I imagine a regularly stocked US army base could out-gun all of Oakland without breaking a sweat (think artillery on the other side of the Bay followed by tanks supported by infantry with real machine guns... and all of this is pretty close to WWII technology. I can only imagine that their killing power is much greater now.

Because we have had a stable democracy for so long it is difficult to imagine and easy to dismiss the idea that a part of the military could do this. This is a wonderful circumstance to be in, but just keeping one eye on the state of the world and a decent understanding of history we easily recognize that this is an unusual situation. It is important to acknowledge the reasons that the military, which is so much more powerful that the civilian population consistently submits to the will of the civilian government.

To be sure part of this is self-interest. With the military industrial complex and a strong economy there is little reason to overthrow the government. But I can't help that thinking that many people, if they think of the military at all, believe it is somehow subdued by our Constitution or the mighty will of the people. They watched "V for Vendetta" and imagine the military as impotent without central leadership... which the civilian government controls. This supposed impotence is largely self-imposed. The military trains (brain washes) the ideal of chain of command thoroughly in its members but really a bunch of guys with guns can do what they want.

Which takes us to the idea of civilians (such as Martin and myself) insisting that our soldiers be keep their honor. It would seem strange to what we call common sense that this honor is more valuable than even one human life. That does seem to be the conflict, a bunch of Blue State people wanting the end the war to spare human tragedy, save lives and promote peace and a bunch of Red State people harping about "ending the war with honor." It is easy to imagine how the peace lobby supporters would have trouble understanding this conflict.

How I understand it is that the United States military is a semi-religious institution, it is almost a cult. The regular "soft" civilians are not simply toughened up and taught to shoot strait but there is a great emphasis on the ideals of the military which we will call simply "honor." This is the ideal though perhaps not the fullness of practice. The desired result is a new kind of person.

What kind of person does the military strive to produce? Obedient, selfless, efficient and dangerous. But these traits are not permanent reprogramming but a somewhat willing mask based upon the mythology of honor. This honor can be stripped away by disrespect and shame. That is part of the real argument against burning the flag. So-and-so mentioned that in his boot camp an extraordinary effort was to impose this idea that the flag must always be respected. It is a kind of religious symbol. The disrespect of that symbol does more than hurts the feelings of patriotic citizens; it destroys the power of the symbol. If soldiers have been living obedient, selfless, efficient and dangerous lives "for the flag" find that perhaps the flag isn't such a big deal then it is all the easier to drop the obedient, selfless and efficient lifestyle they impose on themselves but they remain dangerous people.