====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
We should not forget how this discussion started-- which was about discrimination in the military services and not the role of the army. I don't think there is any disagreement about the role of the army as an institution. I don't think that I disagree with Dan's characterization of the army as "an enemy of the people." Certainly, as an institution, that is the military's role The issue of contention was how best to "crack" the cohesiveness, the discipline that the military must have to function in that role. The suggestions by Peggy, IMO, are mistaken not because they are so utopian, but rather because they're so "Proudhonian"-- that old "we want the capital, but without the capitalists" idea. Here "we want the military, without the miliarists-- we want the military to play a different role, to change its spots." That's not going to happen, and agitating for a million recruit increase is not going to crack that discipline. First off, we don't advocate the military as a way to reduce unemployment-- that's the military's line. We don't advocate it because that doesn't attack the class structure within the military, separate the ranks from the officer corps. We don't advocate it because it's all too close to the "war is good for business, and what's good for business is good for labor" argument. As for the humanitarian capacity of the armed forces, I'd like to point out the great results of the humanitarian actions of the US military in taking logistical command of the arrival and distribution of relief supplies, personnel, and efforts after the earthquake in Haiti-- particularly the redirecting away from Haiti of the shipments to support the MSF doctors; the delay in accepting the rescue teams from Iceland; the rejection of the specially trained and organized search and rescue teams from Houston, Texas... etc. etc. etc. And it's my personal opinion that there are no such things as "grassroots teabaggers." This is not a populist movement of poor and lower middle class working and shopkeeper types. The teabaggers are well-to-do, materially comfortable and exactly the type of people who invest in corporations like Halliburton without blinking an eye about the abuse of military contracts, the overcharging, double-billing, etc. etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peggy Dobbins" <pegdobb...@gmail.com> To: <sartes...@earthlink.net> ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
