Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts)
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 07:57 AM Mar 2012

The Costs of War, Collective Amnesia and Learning From Experience

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-bobrow/the-costs-of-war-collecti_b_1324609.html

The Costs of War, Collective Amnesia and Learning From Experience
Joseph Bobrow
Posted: 03/ 6/2012 3:49 pm

Last year I attended the annual Memorial Day commemoration at a military cemetery. A retired general officer was among the speakers. I had seen him over the years in various settings and he was always super patriotic and upbeat. This time his presentation sounded different. He spoke of how acutely he felt the burden, more than 20 years on, of having sent men and women into harm's way, and how deeply he felt responsible for their injuries and deaths. You could hear his voice tremble. Then he said something that startled me. With complete conviction, this patriot's patriot said that the costs of war are so great that we just have to find ways to solve our problems that do not involve killing one another.

A decorated commander from the Fallujah conflict often speaks publicly about his experiences. As tough, dedicated and respected as they come, each time I've heard him speak, he will say "war is obscene." None of the scores of military personnel I've met over the past five years, especially those who know or work closely with returning service members, veterans, and their families have a hankering for war. They know the impacts too well. They know the costs are staggering and multi-dimensional. Then why this new cycle of loose talk and bellicose rhetoric on the part of some?

In a recent piece in the New York Times, news analyst Scott Shane writes that "Despite a decade of war, most Americans seem to endorse 'the politicians' martial spirit.' In a Pew Research Center poll this month, 58 percent of those surveyed said the United States should use military force, if necessary, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Only 30 percent said no. Yet, 75 percent of respondents said that Mr. Obama was withdrawing troops from Afghanistan at the right pace or not quickly enough, a finding in keeping with many indications of war weariness."

One expert who has studied security threats since the Cold War found it puzzling: "You'd think there would be an instinctive reason to hold back after two bloody noses in Iraq and Afghanistan." Another expert on conflict prevention said, "Faced with an intractable security challenge, both politicians and ordinary people want to 'do something,' and nothing 'does something' like military force." He sees an old pattern. And here's the line that jumped out at me:
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Costs of War, Collective Amnesia and Learning From Experience (Original Post) unhappycamper Mar 2012 OP
Your signature line says it all... K&R DianaForRussFeingold Mar 2012 #1
Here's that line.. Fumesucker Mar 2012 #2
Starve the MICC. nt DCKit Mar 2012 #3
Got a good one for you: unhappycamper Mar 2012 #4
Always have been zipplewrath Mar 2012 #5
Yeah, we heard that mentioned on the news last night. DCKit Mar 2012 #7
We've glorified war for too long zipplewrath Mar 2012 #6

DianaForRussFeingold

(2,552 posts)
1. Your signature line says it all... K&R
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 08:16 AM
Mar 2012
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.", Dwight Eisenhower 1/10/1946

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
2. Here's that line..
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 08:26 AM
Mar 2012
"It's true throughout history: there's always the belief that the next war will go much better than the last war,"

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
5. Always have been
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 09:42 AM
Mar 2012

These are legacy costs that are from the pension plans of the past. The government changed the way that they were billed for them. With the markets doing poorly, the companies were having to make larger pension payments and now have to pass on those costs to the government quicker. If the markets perform better here in the future, the impact will be lessened.

Lockheed ended defined benefit plans years ago. The others are slowly following suit. The core problem is the ever spiraling cost of health care, which is basically a direct bill to the federal government. It'd be much cheaper if the government just handled this cost directly. One idea I had once was for "federal contractors" to be able to purchase their health insurance for their employees directly from the federal goverment. When you realize how many federal contractors there are, it'd be a good start to a back door "single payer".

 

DCKit

(18,541 posts)
7. Yeah, we heard that mentioned on the news last night.
Thu Mar 8, 2012, 12:16 AM
Mar 2012

Had to play it back three times, then we both picked our jaws up off the floor.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
6. We've glorified war for too long
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 10:26 AM
Mar 2012

We get young people to go off and fight wars by glorifying war to begin with. We place the warriors on pedestals. We write songs and mythologize the dead. We make the movies, and equate the dead to saints. We don't talk much about the pain, the senselessness, the blood, or the suffering of the innocent. We talk about "blood and treasure" but don't speak much about the cost to those caught in our wars who didn't have a choice.

War is suppose to be what you do after all the chances to do the right thing have passed us by. All this drum beating for war amongst the political right is obscene.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Costs of War, Collect...