<div>A war the US was victorious in since the Department of Defense was created? This depends on how you define victory. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Saddam Hussein's rule was ended, his regime displaced, and he was executed. Attempts are under way to establish a better form of government in Iraq, however difficult. Some define this as "victory." But our "victory" in Iraq may only be realized in decades. Those who defend the US invasion of Iraq still insist history will show whether or not the US invasion and occupation was the best course of action. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Maybe in 50 (or ? years) years when the US/West in facing a massive energy crisis, our military and/or economic presence in the Middle East will be declared crucial, as this presence gains the US and/or its allies access to critical oil supplies, and ensures the oil is not hoarded or used as an economic weapon against the West, by whatever powers might try to rule the Middle East (Iran, et. al.). Isn't this the bottom line reason for the invasion, given the Middle East holds the most quantity of the world's most valuable high quality oil supplies, and overthrowing Saddam's regime offered a path to the West's control of the oil, including defending Israel, and encircling Iran? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Violations of international law, the Geneva Conventions, the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars, and the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents, might seem irrelevant at that point in time, just as we now dismiss the genocide against Native Americans in North America, as we dominate and exploit what was the homeland of native cultures and peoples. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I could be ridiculous and claim the war against Grenada a "victory."</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande07.html">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande07.html</a></div>
<div>---------<br>But my question was meant to address the often heard claim that the private sector does things best, that "highly centralized government programs do not work," when aiming this claim at the US military. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>If our government can run a military (and this is a highly centralized government program(s)) that can guarantee the freedom of the so called "free world," as we often hear from those of many political viewpoints, then why is it not possible for the government to run an effective national health care system? Which is a more difficult endeavor? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>No institution is perfect, whether private sector or government run. Private sector endeavors fail frequently, and can feature corruption, waste, deception, crime and greed. The evidence of these claims has been front page news the past year; and governments are often corrupt, inefficient and wasteful, and so forth, anyone of reason will agree. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course the military should remain under civilian control; but turning most of the operations of the military over to the private sector (including all VA hospitals and military personnel health care) would be the logical result of following the arguments of those who insist the private sector is superior in efficiency and effectiveness, to the government, therefore there should be no government run public option health care.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm not arguing to privatise the military, only pointing out what seems to be an inconsistency inherent (a private sector champion might have arguments why the US military, including VA hospitals, should be government run, but public health care should not) between the position that "highly centralized government programs do not work" and the position that the US military, as currently constituted, does work.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/16/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">Wayne Price</b> <<a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">Ted,
<div><br> </div>
<div>What I would say is that the "Department of Defense" doesn't work. All it did was add an extra layer of bureaucracy and has done nothing to increase efficiency or add to victory, what ever that is in this day and age.</div>
<div>Since the DoD was created, name a war the US was victorious in. While I believe in civilian control over the military, the DoD has gone too far and it tends to go too much into the sphere of responsibilities of the uniformed officer corps without using the established military chain of command. They have all the authority with none of the responsibility, and they are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice as they are not in the military.</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div>And the DoD, for the most part, has become a dumping pot for patronage positions, most filled by political hacks or incompetent former military officers that couldn't hack it in uniform so they then come back in a suit!</div>
<div>I worked for one Brigadier General that was passed over for promotion even though the General he worked for was the President of the Promotion Board - TWICE.</div>
<div>He then wiggled himself a position as a deputy assistant secretary of defense, and could then really (and did) screw things up! He was so "beloved" by not only his enlisted soldiers but also by the officers that worked under him that we were ordered, in writing to attend his retirement party! Otherwise no one would have been there! In the words of one of the older soldiers from Alabama, "That boy couldn't lead soldiers to free liquor and loose women"!</div>
<div>And yes, he was one of the strong advocates of using contractors/mercenaries, and you see how successful that has been!</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div><span class="e" id="q_123c58df0db30d97_1">
<div>On Sep 16, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:</div><br></span></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span class="e" id="q_123c58df0db30d97_3">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Kai Eiselein <span dir="ltr"><<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:editor@lataheagle.com" target="_blank">editor@lataheagle.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial">Highly centralized government programs do not work. </font></div></div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>This statement implies you think that the Pentagon, the US Marines, Army, Navy and Air force,<br>"do not work."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am amazed again and again that the critics of government run programs rarely attack the US military when they make their arguments against these programs, yet the arguments they use apply just as well to the government run US armed forces.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Perhaps the US armed forces should be completely privatized?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div></div></span></div><span class="q">=======================================================<br>List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a> <br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================</span></blockquote></div><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br>