On the one hand, the general’s wife has no power to tell other military wives what they can or can’t say to the press or anyone else. Although there does exist a certain social strata amongst dependents which relates to the rank of the soldier (my spouse’s father was a Lt. Colonel, and her mother had a subtle but definite position of superiority amonst the other Army wives (and despite living on a military base full of horny soldiers, nobody messed with the Colonel’s daughter)), there is a limit to what that entails, and ordering the other women around ain’t it.
On the other hand, the women do need to consider that what they say in public can affect their spouses’ positions, if not in the battlefield, then at least within the military culture. It’s a bad idea to badmouth the military when you’re part of it, even if only by association.
On the other foot, if the Army tells the soldiers that they’ll be home at X date, and then changes its mind when it gets close to that date due to circumstances that should have evident to even reasonably trained military analysts long before, it’s no wonder that both the soldiers and their families are going to be a tad disgruntled.
On the other tentacle, it is the nature of military service in times of conflict that when you (the soldier) get sent off to the combat zone, you’re there as long as you’re needed there, and your personal feelings about it are pretty much irrelevant. That’s the job.
On the other pseudopod, the JCOS and White House do seem to be basing their long-term planning, including personnel requirements, on wishful thinking rather than actual evidence.
On the other cilia…erm, if you’ll excuse me for a moment, I seem to be mutating rapidly…
GySgt. Strand has often said in our sixteen years together, “If the Marine Corps wanted me to have a spouse they would have issued me one.”
NPR was interviewing military wives the other day. The wives were having a standard bitch session, and mentioned how they written their congress men, and had complained to superiors about the deployment. It all seemed pretty tame by American standards of griping. Then they interviewed a military “counselor” who said that she discouraged all public forms of dissent as it wasn’t “supporting the troops”.
To her I say Fuck you lady! GySgt. Strand has been gone sine Febru-fucking-ary! I’m sick of being alone! He’s a reservist, his company is sick of him being gone. We are losing two hundred dollars in salary for every week he’s active. And keep in mind, like Robyn, I didn’t give any kind of oath when we started dating. He can’t say anything, but I can. My way of supporting him is vocalizing his displeasure without dragging him, or his military career down. I am his only mouthpiece.
I have so far been told that he would be home in July. It was then moved to September then October. As of yesterday it is November 1st at the soonest. This is the kind of crap I’ve been dealing with. Oh and this is after I had to decide where to bury my 35 yr old mate, should something happen.
I was patient for a while, but remember when mister Bush landed on a fucking aircraft carrier in a big-ass photo-op declaring that the war was over? Well if the goddamn war is over, than I want my husband home mowing my fucking lawn in the 100 fucking plus degree TX summer. My fence needs to be fixed, my screen is off the track, and I need to get laid. I want him home ASAP!
There have been a lot of good points made on this thread, but nobody had addressed the literal statement in the OP: Is it a fact that public criticism helps the Iraqis? Or, more precisely, *does public criticism encourage the remaining Baath Party loyalists to keep fighting? * One could speculate that public criticism encourages them to believe that their guerrilla.
war will might lead the US to pull its troops out. Then they could regain power.
Of course, this is just a guess. It’s equally likely that these people would keep on attacking regardless of public criticism.
While that may be true the benefits of public criticism of political and military leaders far outweigh any potential costs.
The very notion of the United States is founded on public criticism and feedback. Without this feedback mechanism it would be very simple for short-term jingoism to dominate both arenas to the detriment of the whole.
In short, saying ‘public criticism damages our cause’ typically translates to, “I can’t be bothered to defend my actions because either 1) my actions cannot be adequately defended or 2) I don’t wish my actions to receive more than cursory inspection.”
So, does criticism of Bush lead to more attacks on Americans? Hell, I don’t know. But what I do know is that the last thing I’m going to do is shut up because some dumbass on the opinion page says it’s the American thing to do.
What do you mean no-one has addressed that question? I know it’s rather unseemly to quote oneself, but as you seem to have ignored the point i was making, i’ll do it anyway:
If the Baath loyalists know about these women’s criticisms, they also know about Bush and co’s resolve to stay the distance in Iraq.
In the absence of testimony from the loyalists themselves we can not know exactly what is in their mind, but if they have even a modicum of intelligence the preponderance of the evidence must surely suggest to them that the President and his administration are unlikely to withdraw due to a few disgruntled army wives.
One thing that the military does not seem to understand is that military spouses are different today than they were a generation ago. (For the purposes of this discussion, that’ll be the Vietnam era. I know that’s about 30 years between that war and this, but I’m working with actual generations, not the 20 year period between initial enlistment to retirement.)
First, women work outside the home, which means they no longer stay home full-time. They have work commitments, daycare commitments, social commitments, all the things that most people do. They no longer choose to rely entirely on the benificence of the military. The military never quite caught up to that change. And since there are more women in the military, there are more male spouses.
Second, and perhaps most important to El Presidente, these women vote. If anyone managed to organize military wives, they’d have one powerful voting bloc. I think that if the election were tomorrow, it’d be a pretty safe bet that few of these women would be voting for Bush. It’s hard to respect someone who’s not respecting you back.
If what you say is true, MsRobyn the lack of organization is probably irrelevant, GeeDubya is toast.
America is enormously sentimental about its military, oddly mixed with negligent. But as word gets out from the wives to her sister in Tacoma and her mom in Bakersfield expect a precipitous drop in his fortunes and poll numbers. For my money, thats precisely whats happening now. Word of mouth like that doesnt depend on CNN.
And, allow me to cynically say, if you actually managed to form a politically powerful voting bloc from military spouses I’d have to say that Airman Doors military career would be assured of success.
I know one guy I’d be thrilled to have this visited upon. Theres the wing-nut radio creep name of Mike Gallagher, who blathers and bloviates relentlessly upon maudlin themes of “supporting our troops”. (His latest involves fifty pound sacks of potatoes, oh happy day!..and some toothpaste.)
Now theres a guy who deserves an earful.
But as much as I approve, I must urge caution. The Powers That Be can make the life of a dependent miserable in a thousand tiny ways, the death of ten thousand paper cuts. Don’t stick your neck out. Tell your friends, your relatives, etc. and let them bitch.
And John, only “lifers” have careers. Careful what you wish for.
