Ask the Air Force Guy, again.

Great Debates
21

:smiley: Yeah… but I wonder who the Deparment of the Navy’s Hollywood agent is – they get a lot of pseudo-“glamorous” media time!
(Then again, a weekly dramatic series set in Minot would be a challenge to writers…)

First, to actual AF/military-related issues, for our blue-suiters -

  1. Actual personnel quality-of-life issues: The “military-families-on-food-stamps” (or military-families-in-trailers) issue seems to have dropped off the public’s radar. What has been done? You think it’s enough to solve the problem?
  2. Do you see active force levels going back up significantly, or just stabilizing?
  3. Any ideas as to alternatives to restore a sense of mutual ID between the citizenry and its military members?

speaking of which… well, this is an interesting battle of the perceptions, isn’t it? It seems to me that Chumpsky is buying into precisely the sort of PR myth that JAG and the like are attempting to create: making it look like “America” is 100%foursquare behind “the Boys” and gung-ho about “glamorous” militaria – ah, but the “right kind” of “glamorous” militaria (notice no show about military marriage counselors dealing with couples falling apart due to deployments)

That perception has been helped of late by the rally-round-the-flag reaction to very recent history, as well as by the high visibility and audibility of those who are enthusiastic about it all, and the browbeaten timidity of many who would normally have reservations about it.

However, I read Bluesman’s point as that those in the real military see right through that, know it’s all a PR caricature, that it’s all just a lot of rah-rah stuff for holiday parades but a large segment occupying the middle ground between cheerleaders and critics, at best takes them for granted – and those in power in DC and Hollywood would rather (a) not show the public the real face of the service, lest anyone be disappointed and it hurt sales, and (b) have the troops settle for all those "attaboy"s and "you go girl"s rather than real improvements.

Then again, in American history the usual state of affairs is the military is out-of-sight-out-of-mind until the you-know-what hits the fan and then we have to build up in a damn hurry. Maybe it’s the national character, who knows.

BTW, one big problems I see in JAG/etc. is the frequent portrayal of military characters with a “warrior caste” mentality – whether portrayed as good or bad, it spreads the notion that people in the military are placing themselves onto a higher plane from the People. Not good PR

22

Paul, I trust bluesman to keep this unclassified. He knows where that line is. Yeah, he knows stuff, but he’ll keep this clean. You can check his last thread like this, he had the same duty station.

23

Air Force Wife here to answer your question.

Sadly, military families occasionally do qualify for public-assistance programs. It can be very difficult for a spouse to find a good job; many employers don’t want to go through the expense of hiring and training an employee only to have the employee leave when the military spouse transfers or gets out. So the non-military spouse either stays at home or has to take whatever job they can find. (Once in a while, you get lucky. If the non-military spouse has a professional license, the military takes that into consideration and basically keeps you in areas where the spouse is licensed.) So, many families (especially those in the lower-enlisted ranks) have to survive on a salary that is comparatively lower than what the servicemember can make in the outside world. You also have to consider the fact that the cost of living is different for various areas. It costs more to live in California than it does to live in Texas.

That being said, the military is doing a better job providing for military families than they used to do. Airman makes (as an E-4) enough to provide for me and Aaron, factoring in base pay, housing and subsistence allowances, and other pay. When Airman travels, he does so at the Guard’s expense, so it’s not out of our pocket. We also get goodies such as commissary privileges (the prices for some things are significantly lower than at the civilian supermarket) and base-exchange privileges (again, the prices are decent, and it’s tax-free, so we save money that way, too). Also, we have access to VERY affordable daycare for Aaron that is excellent and charges one-third of what comparable care costs in the civilian world. So, it’s cheaper for us to live than a non-military family.

The food-stamp issue hasn’t completely gone away, though. What I would like to see is salaries raised to comparable levels in the civilian world, access to jobs for non-military spouses (or military assistance in securing jobs), and consideration for families when determining transfers for the servicemembers. Yeah, I know. It’s all at the convenience of the gummint, and if they need you in Minot, N.D., that’s where you go. I just think they need to take more into consideration than that.

These are my own opinions. They don’t reflect Airman’s, nor the military’s.

Robin

24

Bluesman, I’ve heard the worst horror stories about Fort Meade. I worked intel at Kunia Tunnel for three years and was advised to get out of the military before I got sent to Fort Meade. So I did. To this day, I’ll never know if working at Fort Meade was any worse than working at an RSOC:).

I found, from a lifetime as either a dependent, or an active duty member/reservist of the AF, that its just like every other position in life. You generally are going to see a big swath of every kind of person/philosophy. I think the AF provides a pretty large cushion that shielded us from some of the stuff civilians go through. In the AF, I never worried about whether I’d be laid off or not. Choosing doctors from my insurance plan still flummoxes me. I just now registered to vote, when I got off my fat ass and did it myself, instead of my first shirt handing me a piece of paper to sign. I now pay full taxes on my car registration, instead of the discounted rate I was used to.

OTOH, in the military, you’re asked to do things that a civilian job would never ask you to do. Squadron commander wants cigarette butts picked off the parade ground? OK. First shirt wants to inspect your barracks locker at 1:30 in the morning? OK. The President wants you to drop everything and fly to another country and possibly put your life on the line for whatever objective he or she chooses? OK.

MsRobyn, the daycare my son attended when I lived at Hickam AFB, was far and away the best quality care I’ve ever seen. It was also highly subsidized. I was paying maybe $60 a week. I knew a lot of female airmen who qualified for WIC, which I thought was a shame. I felt like we should take care of our own, or something.

25

"CarnalK, the article makes a declaration, and then proceeds to say “I believe” for the rest of the time. I saw no actual evidence. Self-medication is completely against the rules, and if it were common, it would be caught. Flight Surgeons don’t screw around. "

Sorry, I should have mentioned to take a look at the Performance Maintenence, -A Guide For Flight Surgeons(warning pdf file) linked to by the article I gave. Quote(can’t cut’n paste so spelling errors mine):

“At low dosages amphetamines primarily increase alertness with significant side effects only beginning as the dosage increases…This is consistent with reports from USAF pilots during Desert Storm that stated that 5mg of dextro-mphetamine(dexedrine) helped maintain alertness without causing other changes in mood or perception”

And next paragraph re Coffee/caffeine:

“Based purely on efficacy [caffeine] is a second choice to amphetamines” - though d/t availability and low-abuse potential it still has utility.
On self-regulation/dosage:

“The delegation of responsibility for the use of these medicatoins to the individual aviator, with close follow up by the flight surgeon is extremely important and the key to success in the operational theatre… If the operational tempo is intense enough to generate significant fatigue, then an overly restrictive medication protocol will probably lose its utility due to lack of flexibility.”

Maybe you should get a couple less stealth bombers and use the money to hire a night-shift. :slight_smile:

26

How realistic are the best PC flight-sims like Falcon 4.0 ? What is your opinion of computer wargames in general (the serious ones like Operational Art of War)?

Could you recommend a few books on the modern military written for the layman. I have read How to Make War by James Dunnigan and I am looking for other similar books by other authors.

27

I can’t say enough good things about Aaron’s daycare. We pay $258 a month, and it’s worth every penny. They encourage the children to interact and socialize, and they have equipment and space that we can only dream about. All in all, a great deal.

Robin

28

Wow. I pay $171 per week for Baby Kate.

Q) Is it all worth it? The travel, the moving, etc? I moved one hell of a lot as a kid (hippy mother on wanderjahr) and it was pretty painful all around.

Q2) Do you all get issues really hot spouses like Lucretia?

29

Well, I for one, am deeply suspicious of “armchair hawks”, or as someone pointed out to me, any warmongers. I think such skepticism about war is important. Being in support of someday getting rid of Saddam Hussein, I am constantly examining my own motives and reasons. Mr. Hitchen’s motives are apparent to me to promote himself.

That being said, let’s go for the gusto:

What is the military so homophobic? The Spartans were gay and every military in the world since is modeled on them. They did pretty well at Thermapolye for a 327 gay soldiers against 80,000 straight Persians. Don’t you guys protest a bit too much? What with your spiffy men in snappy uniforms and all.

And now for our little quip: This thread promises answers to our questions, doesn’t that violate both parts of “don’t ask, don’t tell?”

And aren’t all the medals and “fruit salad” really gay too?

30

Actually, no. (I have never seen this show JAG, so I can’t comment on that.)

The actual record of portrayals of the U.S. military in the popular culture shows an overwhelming tendency to glorify war in general, and the U.S. military in particular. This is hardly something new, but runs right back to the beginning of the country. It is hardly unique to the U.S. either, but is rather a general tendency.

Just looking at high-profile movies in the recent past, those that I can think of off the top of my head that have dealt with the U.S. military are (feel free to add to the list):

Blackhawk Down
Once Were Soldiers
Behind Enemy Lines
Rules of Engagement
A Few Good Men
Forest Gump
Top Gun
Platoon
Full Metal Jacket
Heartbreak Ridge
The Rambo trilogy
The Thin Red Line
Saving Private Ryan

With the exception of Platoon and Full Metal Jacket, these all glorify the U.S. military, presenting the Americans as noble saviors fighting against recalcitrant evil. Spielberg won a Defense Department Public Service Award cite for Saving Private Ryan. Blackhawk Down and Rules of Engagement are particularly reprehensible for their virulent racism. Heartbreak Ridge portrays the glorious invasion of Grenada in which 6000 elite troops overcame the resistance of a few dozen cubans and some Grenadan militiament, winning over 8000 medals for their bravery. The most despicable of all these movies has to be Once Were Soldiers, a more blatant attempt to re-write history is impossible to imagine.

This record hardly betrays the pattern asserted by Bluesman, that “the picture painted by popular culture is usually not flattering, even when it tries to be. (Which is almost never; the influences that portray the military to the public tend to be hostile…” The picture is quite the opposite in reality.

In fact, if the media wanted to portray the U.S. in an unfavorable light, there is no shortage of story lines. How about a movie depicting the actions of the CIA in Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, a systematic slaughter of tens of thousands of political operatives and civilians? Or how about a movie about the FMLN resistance in El Salvador in resisting the U.S. backed and supplied military government that was massacring tens of thousands? Or how about a movie about the U.S. sponsored Contra terror war in the 1980’s in Nicaragua? I mean, the list of atrocities carried out by the U.S. or its proxies could go on all day, but they are wiped from history.

Generally, the only times U.S. military are shown in a bad light are in de-contextualized situations, such as Platoon, where atrocities are carried out by “bad apples,” not as systematic programs of oppression and destruction.

31

:confused:

I haven’t seen Blackhawk Down, so I don’t know for sure, but the articles I read about it indicate it’s a pretty straight-up retelling of the Battle of Mogadishu – that is, the film is pretty accurate. Why is that racist? Is it because the other side was composed entirely of blacks? Isn’t that just historical reality? I mean, if you’re gonna run operations in Somalia, your opposition is going to be black. It wouldn’t make much sense to throw a bunch of Norwegians in there.

Same for Rules of Engagement (which I have seen, and dislike not because of any political incorrectness but rather because it is a dull film). In a movie about an attack on the US Embassy in Yemen, it’s hardly fair to expect the attackers to be named Sven and Inga.

**

Are you referring to “We Were Soldiers,” the Mel Gibson film based on the novel “We Were Soldiers Once, And Young”? Again, I haven’t seen it, but my understanding is that it is a pretty by-the-numbers depiction of one particular battle during the Vietnam War, in much the same vein as Black Hawk Down. What do you think they re-wrote? Are you suggesting that battle did not happen in the way depicted on screen? If so, what specifically was inaccurate?

And do those inaccuracies go beyond typical dramatic license in war movies (e.g., Saving Private Ryan’s guys walked closer together than they actually would have and wouldn’t have been so chatty while in transit for safety’s sake – but that kind of thing is necessary for exposition)?

32

—I think such skepticism about war is important.—

Sure, but why would we expect “chicken-hawks” to be less qualified than other civilians (or veterans) to make the decisions about whether to go to war or not? Is the principle that only ex-military personel should be able to decide what our county’s policies are?

—Being in support of someday getting rid of Saddam Hussein, I am constantly examining my own motives and reasons. Mr. Hitchen’s motives are apparent to me to promote himself.—

Sure sure, classic attack against him: and here’s my classic response: it’s ineffectual, irrelevant, and desperate to assert that his views are all about self-promotion.

33

Chumpsky, you’re simply ignoring films like Universal Soldier 1 and 2, or perhaps Kurt Russel’s “Soldier.” How about the portrayal of the Army in Beetle Bailey?

34

“Black Hawk Down” racist? Bullshit. What the hell was racist about it? Unless, perhaps, you’re calling history racist. And how is the US glorified in ‘BHD’? The movie was neutral, as the director said.

And ‘We Were Soldiers Once,’ where’s the ahistorism in it? The man who played the Vietnamese commander actually went to Vietnam and worked with their military to get realism down (much to the chagrin of some Vietnamese beauracrats). The movie was also based on a history book.

And, in ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ the Americans were glorious, yes, but do you have any concept of the movie? They fought Nazis for Chrissake. Perhaps you don’t consider fighting Nazis noble. Perhaps Nazis to you are, as was stated in South Park, “people with political differences.”

And ‘Rambo’? WTF? The story is about a Vietnam vet who goes nuts. How does that glorify the military?

Overall, Chumpsky, here’s a truth that needs to be established: popular entertainment is not always equatable with popular opinion inherent within a society. Got that? Movies are not necessarily representative. And why exclude yourself to movies? Why not include popular books and music, too?

Anyway, to answer someone else’s previous question, I’m an officer in my school’s Air Force ROTC program, and head a unit which specializes in drug awareness programs for the local community.

35

If you think BlackHawk Down was “neutral” I am afraid we have no common ground of understanding. Perhaps, though, you might ask how neutral a film is that is depicting a battle in which 19 Americans died and thousands of Somalis, where every American death is portrayed with great pathos, but the Somalis die like the dogs that they are. The Somalis are represented as less-than-human animals, crazed killers out to kill Americans for no discernible reason. When an American dies, it is a great tragedy, but when hundreds of Somalis are gunned down by an overwhelmingly more powerful force, this is glorious! Look at our glorious gunships cutting down that crazed mass of animals in the street! USA!

I actually watched this putrid exercise in propaganda last night, and it fairly turned my stomach. They even had one token black guy on the American side, just to make it look like it wasn’t too racist, and the lead character giving a moving little speech about how he admired the locals. This was all, of course, before the American rampage that took a few thousand lives. But, a few thousand zeros still adds up to zero…

?? A history book!?? Pull the other one!

Again, the Vietnamese are presented as faceless, nameless cyphers trying to overrun the noble and brave Americans. The setting is completely de-contextualized, to the point where you have Gibson giving a moving speech about “defending” values to his daughter. Ahh yes, we are going to go over and defend Vietnam against …the Vietnamese.

There is nothing Spielberg likes so much as war, and he did his best to glorify it in “Ryan.” In this case, he got to glorify it by presenting the glorious Americans in battle with an enemy everybody hates. You have to admire him for his sheer cynicism and greed.

Obviously, I am not against fighting Nazis. Russia did the world a big favor by defeating the Nazis in WWII. What I have a problem with is the glorification of war, and the presentation of “our” side as noble and blameless, and “their” side as a bunch of animals fighting against right for no discernible reason.

Probably the best war movie ever made, in my opinion, is All Quiet on the Western Front. If you want to see a real anti-war movie, check it out.

I made the post to refute the statement that popular culture is hostile toward the military, and took movies as just one example. Other forms of pop culture are similar in their glorification of war.

36

Rules of Engagement gets my vote for Most Racist Hollywood Movie Since 1950.

The whole premise is totally ludicrous, but that just goes to show how bad the film is, and doesn’t say much about the racism. (If a U.S. official had a tape of Yemenis firing on U.S. troops, why in the HELL would he hide it?)

The racist part is presenting a crazed mob of Yemenis firing on American soldiers for no particular reason. You have young girls out in the street firing pistols at U.S. soldiers. Now, one might ask, why would they be firing at U.S. soldiers? That this question doesn’t arise, and indeed, that it is not necessary to explain shows how virulently racist the makers of the movie were. Only a deep-seated racism can depict a group firing on U.S. soldiers for no discernible reason. You see, since Arabs are sort of half-human creatures who know only violence, it is not necessary to explain why they would want to kill U.S. soldiers. It is just their nature.

37

This is hardly evidence of racism. It is evidence that the film takes a pro-US view of the events in Somalia. The depiction of the opposing forces is what it is because they are shooting at our boys in uniform, not because they are black.**

The film is based on a book written by a participant in that battle. It is the story of the experiences of the author and his men. Of course it focuses more on them and their motivations than that of the Vietnamese. Gibson’s character believed his was defending US values abroad because that what the real-life soldier believed. **

[quote]
There is nothing Spielberg likes so much as war, and he did his best to glorify it in “Ryan.” In this case, he got to glorify it by presenting the glorious Americans in battle with an enemy everybody hates. You have to admire him for his sheer cynicism and greed.**

[quote]
My God, have you seen Saving Private Ryan? There is nothing “glorious” about those battle scenes. **

And the western powers contribution meant nothing? **

How about WarGames? The Deer Hunter? Apocalypse Now? MAS*H? Spies Like Us? Three Kings? Dr. Strangelove? Casualties of War? The Big Red One? Good Morning Vietnam? And that’s just working off the top of my head. There are plenty of films that depict the military in a less than flattering light, showing them as evil or buffoons or both.

38

This is proof of a gaping plot hole and nothing more. Like I said, it’s not a great (or even a particularly good) film by any stretch.**

I assumed, as I suspect most reasonable viewers did, that the protestors were protesting US intervention in the region, and that some of the protestors elected to use violence as part of their protest. That’s hardly unique to Yemen or the Arab world; consider the WTO protests in various cities worldwide. I don’t think you can fairly make the racism charge stick here.

39

I still don’t see how this is racist. What if they WERE acting like crazed animals? Have you even read the book? Fourteen year old kids were taking potshots at American’s, for Chrissake. The Americans were there to do a favor. Aidid’s militia decided to negate that favor by calling out his militia.

And who the fuck said it was glorious? I think most people left the film thinking, “Why did that have to happen?” and “That was a horrible tragedy.” Chumpsky, you have an agenda, and it’s quite blatant. A war film that recreates war brutality is racist propaganda. The American chivalry that you see in that film is imaginary.

40

Chumpsky,

I have observed your posts in this thread and the one about military spending. My question to is:

Why the hell do you care so much about people that would love kill you if they had the chance? As an American, no matter what your purpose was, if you were caught in some of the foreign territories aforementioned, your head would find itself on a plate or you would find yourself being tortured. For instance, do you think the reporter in Pakistan that got beheaded earlier this year was a combatant or spy working for the US Government? No, he wasn’t. Yet you seem to think that these people are completely innocent. Why do you care about THEM so much? Are you one of them? If you are American, do you have ANY allegiance to your country? Or are you another Robert Hanssen?