Not the only one having problems with today’s military under Trump?

1. 82

   Credence2posted 3 weeks ago

   https://www.salon.com/2025/08/10/our-ai … shing-out/
   
   I am older than the former military officer who penned this article, but we are of the identical sentiment.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      tsmogposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      Okay, Okay . . . I’ve been in a writing mood of late. I’m returning to my HP life when first joined. A little wandering inspired by your OP . . .
      
      Your post and the Salon article you referenced stir something deep—an ache, perhaps, or a vibration in the compass needle that refuses to settle. The retired officer’s lament reads like a requiem for a republic, and I find myself nodding not just in agreement, but in recognition. His words echo the quiet disillusionment many of us carry, especially those who remember a different America—or at least believed in one.
      
      I’m older than the author, I think, but I share his sentiment. I’ve seen the arc of empire stretch from Cold War bravado to today’s fevered nationalism. And I’ve watched the bleachers slowly empty, as the game of moral leadership gives way to spectacle, profit, and militarized identity.
      
      I think of my dad serving on the Chosin Reservoir with the Korean War. Maybe you saw the movie, “Retreat Hell” from back in 1952. He was stationed at Camp Horn on the edge of Da Nang air base in Viet Nam tool. Flashing now in my mind is a picture of him with my cousin in Viet Nam. Two different generations doing what?
      
      What strikes me most is not just the critique of militarism, but the absence of essence. The article lays bare our existence—our actions, our policies, our wars—but where is our essence? What do we stand for, beyond dominance and defense? Sun Tzu once wrote, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” That principle, rooted in wisdom and restraint, seems lost in the noise of trillion-dollar budgets and warrior ethos.
      
      I think of my Uncle Jack, who participated in the Berlin Airlift after Germany’s defeat. He didn’t drop bombs—he dropped food, medicine, hope. That was a military mission, yes, but it was also a humanitarian one. It asked not what we could destroy, but what we could restore. Is that spirit still alive today? Or has it been buried beneath the ambitions of men like Hegseth, whose vision of Christian nationalism seems more about conquest than communion?
      
      Rubio’s dismantling of USAID, folding its responsibilities under a different umbrella, feels symbolic. Aid is no longer a priority—only arms. War versus ???. What fills that blank? Compassion? Diplomacy? Wisdom? Or have we forgotten how to name the alternatives?
      
      Lazarus Long, Heinlein’s immortal wanderer, once said, “By the data to date, there is only one animal in the Galaxy dangerous to man—man himself.” He also warned, “Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate—and quickly.” These are not easy truths. They ask us to see the humanity in our adversaries, even as we prepare for conflict. They ask us to question the game itself, even when it’s rigged.
      
      And the game does feel rigged. The industrial-military complex, firmly rooted in capitalism, thrives on perpetual tension. China, for all its differences, plays the same game with equal fervor. The BRICS alliance, the shifting global order, the specter of war over Taiwan—all of it feels like a slow march toward confrontation. But is confrontation inevitable? Or is it simply profitable?
      
      I don’t pretend to have answers. My compass needle is vibrating, not pointing. But I do have questions:
      
      ** Can a republic survive when its moral compass is calibrated by profit and power?
      ** Is humanitarian aid now seen as weakness, rather than strength?
      ** What does it mean to “win” in a world where victory often leaves ruins behind?
      ** Are we still capable of subduing enemies without fighting—or have we forgotten how?
      
      I offer these not as challenges, but as invitations. The world is changing, and tradition is trading blows with difference. Fear of the unknown is real. But so is the possibility of renewal—if we’re willing to listen, to reflect, and to wander a bit before we act.
      
      As Lazarus Long might say, “To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks.” Perhaps we need to bite into truth, even when it’s bitter. Perhaps we need to ask not just what America is, but what it could be—if we dared to imagine a different kind of strength.
      
      Thanks for opening the door, Cred. I’m still finding my way through it. I hope I didn't trip over my left foot, said with jest. Seems my feet has better coordination with the cadence of skipping to an old Boy Scout ditty. . .
      
      Left - Right - Left - Right
      Left - Right - Left - Right
      
      Two old maids were laying in bed,
      One turned over to the other and said,
      
      That's all I remember of it. Do you remember those marching ditties? Were there hidden meanings?

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         Nice to have you back, Tim.
         
         Yes, with all my gripes about our country, here, I wanted to see progress and that history would have shown me that in spite of sinister undercurrents in the background, we were the “good guys”
         
         Seeing an exhibition drill team from a local high school perform during the 9th grade, I fell in love with the military, the camaraderie and spit and polish. I joined Junior Army ROTC in my sophomore year during the height of the Vietnam conflict. You know, because you and I are contemporaries. Your Uncle Jack was a hero, while I listened to my father’s tales of woe about the scarcity during WWII and his hearing of the attack on Pearl when he was 9 or 10 over the radio. I would have like to have met Uncle Jack for his first hand account of events during the immediate post-war period.
         
         As Sharlee mentioned, with today’s backdrop it may not be possible for any one to be a hero in the classic sense. Who could measure up to a Dwight Eisenhower, Chester Nimitz or Douglas McArthur?
         
         But who could accommodate the vast gulf between the generosity of the people of the United States regarding the rescue efforts during the Berlin Airlift and compare it with the flinty attitude surrounding the decimation of USAID whose costs barely scratched the budget yet the good will toward the US on international scene was money in the bank exponentially in comparison to the cost?
         
         Who would be so short sighted to destroy the underlying principle of the Peace Corps and peaceful global outreach?
         
         Who could accommodate the vast gulf in 80 years between our conflicts with      The axis powers during WWII, clearly a dangerous and evil enemy with our stance now of threatening the very sovereignty of Greenland, Panama and even Canada?
         
         And the vast change in attitude reflection in this contrast regarding the role of the press
         
         “I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.”
         
         John Kennedy, April, 1961
         
         Compare With “The press is truly the enemy of the people”
         
         President Donald Trump, April, 2019
         
         There always have been many dark undercurrents as part of American life over the last 80 years that bring to question our vaunted role as supporting a peaceful and orderly world. There has been Korea, Vietnam, the Contras, 9-11, Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. Then there are the undermining of legitimate governments that are in direct conflict with American political and economic interests, black ops, CIA, etc. The lines between good and evil have become blurred and with age, I find myself more cynical than before once you appreciate the contradictions. The truth, once you absorb it, is ugly. Principles that were once sacrosanct are now on the auction block. A principle by definition would not so easily give way to expediency. I would want to think that young men and women put their lives on the line for bedrock principles, legitimate threats, not as mere cannon fodder for industrialists that continue to profit regardless of the death toll. Yes, I have become quite the cynic regarding this country and who is REALLY in control of it.
         
         Oh well…
         
         We used to used those marching candance ditties during training exercises, but I am hard pressed to remember any of them. I am glad that I had a role in breaking your “writers block”.
         
         Do we have a Department of Offense rather than Defense?

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Cred,   I found your words both profound and moving, and certainly food for thought. You raised important contrasts between the America we were brought up to believe in and the realities that history has revealed with time. I can see how your early admiration for the military, the sense of honor and camaraderie, and the stories passed down from your father and others shaped your view of service and patriotism. At the same time, I think you capture well the disillusionment that can come later, when we recognize the contradictions between our ideals and some of the actions taken in our name. Your point about the Berlin Airlift compared to the present attitude toward international goodwill struck me, what was once seen as an investment in peace and stability is now too often dismissed as waste, when in truth it bought us respect and strengthened our place in the world.
            
            I also found your comparison of Kennedy’s words with Trump’s telling. Kennedy emphasized candor and responsibility, offering a carefully measured statement about the importance of acknowledging mistakes. Trump’s remark about the press being the enemy of the people was more off-the-cuff, delivered on the run, and I think that matters. In a more formal setting, Trump spoke in a tone closer to Kennedy’s when he said: “We must choose whether we will squander our great inheritance,  or whether we will proudly declare that we are Americans, and we will never give in, never give up, and we will never, ever stop striving for a better future. Because we are Americans, and our hearts bleed red, white, and blue.” Different styles, yes, but both statements in their own way touch on accountability, perseverance, and the responsibility we bear for the future.
            
            Your reflections remind me that cynicism is often the product of caring deeply and of being disappointed by a country you love. It doesn’t erase the good, whether it was the spirit of unity in WWII, the generosity of the Berlin Airlift, or even the idealism of programs like the Peace Corps, but it does make us question who is steering the ship and whether the course has drifted from what we once believed. I think the fact that you can articulate these tensions so clearly is itself valuable, because conversations like this force us to look honestly at where we have been and where we are going.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Credence2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               A very kind and gracious acknowledgment, Sharlee, thank you.

               replyreport
   2. 82

      Readmikenowposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Can't agree much with this guy.
      
      I looked him up.  He was a desk jockey in the Air Force. Not impressed.  Never held a major command position.  A LTC who never was even in charge of a small base says much.  Also, in as long as he was, not retiring as a one star general speaks volumes.  He lacked command experience.
      
      I couldn't get past the genocide against Palestinian people.  He did fail to speak about Hamas, October 7th, which destroyed his argument in my mind.  Absolutely bogus on all levels.  I could go on to point out how there is no such thing as Palestine, it's never been a country, they have no leaders, etc. etc.  It's a tired argument and you either can accept reality or choose to ignore it.
      
      The US and China are no even close to a war.  China needs the United States markets to sell their goods.  This means China really can't afford a war with the United States.  They would lose too much money.  That is an economic reality.
      
      I think the 12 day war with Iran was justifiable and a huge success.
      
      A proper use of the military.
      
      It's just an opinion piece for a far left website.
      
      It provides no research or has any merit.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Credence2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         Well, Mike, to each, their own.
         
         Because he falls short on your yardstick and can be justify called a liberal makes him a poor officer? I served under 3 or 4 superior officers in my 4 year stint and they were all fine examples. I did not know anyone that attained the BG rank. The officers I knew retired at Light or Full Colonel. The Colonel was in charge of a supply and materials squadron for a Strategic Air Command base. Our flying machines could not be left in mothballs because of the lack of component parts. That is a bit more than just a desk jockey. As a lieutenant, I was his executive officer and had a great time in the job. You don’t have to be a “Top Gun” to be a great officer. Getting that first star is almost as political as it is based on competence. We all have our opinions, Mike, mine simply do not and cannot coincide with yours.
         
         Palestinian non existence is just rightwing opinion fodder. The reality is that we live in a world, a tinder box, where the assurances you give can be turned on its head at the drop of a hat. Military and Economic realities do not coincide. That applies to China and Russia.
         
         Yet on the other hand, the 4 star black (Joint chief) was considered unqualified because of DEI and fired?
         
         Why should I take the opinion of any conservative seriously in the face of such contrasts?

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Readmikenowposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            "Palestinian non existence is just rightwing opinion fodder."
            
            When I hear this I say...okay...what's the history?  Point to me where there was ever a nation state called Palestine.  Who are their great leaders?
            
            There were no such thing as a Palestinian until Yasser Arafat started the Palestinian Liberation Organization in 1969.  That's it.  You can't just start an organization and then claim you are a people and entitled to land. Claim you have a distinct culture.
            
            I don't know why this reality is unable to be understood by so many.

            replyreport
2. 84

   Sharlee01posted 3 weeks ago

   As one man’s thoughtful reflection, this article presents a deeply heartfelt and critical view of America’s military and political trajectory, grounded in the author’s long service as a U.S. Air Force officer. I respect the sincerity and principled commitment behind his call for civilian control of the military, adherence to law, and moral clarity in the exercise of American power. His concerns about historical injustices, the costs of militarism, and the erosion of what he calls the “American experiment” are poignant and reflect a genuine desire to see the country live up to its highest ideals.
   
   That said, it is worth considering a broader perspective on some of these points. While the critique of past and present military actions is valid and important, it is also true that the United States has played a complex role on the world stage, often striving to balance competing interests of security, humanitarian aid, and diplomacy. Many argue that America’s military engagements have at times prevented larger conflicts, supported the defense of oppressed peoples, and maintained a global order that, despite its flaws, has allowed for unprecedented prosperity and stability in many regions.
   
   The view that the United States has fully “lost its moral authority” may overlook ongoing efforts by many in government and society who work tirelessly to uphold democratic values, pursue peace, and address systemic injustices, including reforming military policies and advocating for diplomacy over force where possible.
   
   On the question of military leadership, the lack of iconic generals comparable to World War II figures may reflect the different nature of modern conflicts, which often involve asymmetrical warfare, nation-building, and coalition operations rather than traditional battlefield victories. The challenges faced by today’s leaders are arguably more complex, involving not only military strategy but also political, cultural, and humanitarian dimensions.
   
   While the trhis vet rightly draws attention to the enormous costs of military spending and its impact on domestic needs, others contend that a strong defense budget is necessary to deter adversaries, support allies, and preserve national security in an unpredictable global environment. The debate over “peace through strength” versus “war is peace” slogans is nuanced, and reasonable people differ on how best to maintain America’s security and values.
   
   This article was a compelling and earnest critique from a seasoned veteran who mourns what he sees as a moral decline.  Yet, the conversation about America’s role in the world and the nature of its military leadership benefits from acknowledging the difficult trade-offs, complexities, and diverse viewpoints that shape these vital issues. His story is relevant, but only one view, one outlook, be it an important one.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      Ok, this is a well written comment. And I really cannot take issue with your point of view here.

      replyreport