 |
|
|
War Privatization and the Left By Verv Tue May 27, 2008 - Verv, ConPunk's resident MilBlogger has some interesting thoughts on the “privatization” of war. The leftist movement has been moaning about the continued 'privatization' of the war, where jobs normally done by the military are given to private contractors at an ever increasing rate. The film greatly produced and acted by John Cusack, War, inc. tackles just this idea by portraying a war that is entirely waged by private enterprise. However, one thing that the Left is not asking themselves is why these wars are given to private companies at a greater rate. The answer is surprisingly simple: Liberals are voting against funding for the war as well as allowing recruiters access to schools. The $163 billion fund for the war was blocked by Democrats and now the issue is being forced to be re-hashed over and over again with increased efforts to essentially deny funds for the military. When these bills get through with last minute pushes the notion of being able to implement these directly in the military effort by our government becomes a far more difficult task to execute and thus the option of contracting these jobs to a company ready to deploy and fulfill the task immediately becomes so appealing. Since the private companies are often staffed by ex-military who have already receive extensive training, and since already we have a shortage of troops that we need over there and want to give more of our military personnel a rest, the idea is more than appealing to privatize aspects of the fight. What is also of note is the left's stance against military recruiters in their communities and war in the schools. Code Pink is proud of their campaign against the Berkeley recruiting station, and as they say for the tactic, "Counter-recruitment is the fastest growing and most hopeful strategy of resistance to war in Iraq." They have essentially incorporated counter-recruitment as a tactic in their effort against the Iraq war. In campaigns that are so hostile to recruitment it creates a greater anti-military culture across the board and really makes me chuckle about the efforts then to criticize decisions to use private companies. Code Pink and other organizations essentially campaign against recruiting itself and then act as if it is equally repugnant for the military to use other means to try to accomplish the mission. At every turn, the left opposes the war effort and then acts surprised when the government is forced to use new means to accomplish the mission. Basically, if you are against recruiting and against government spending on the war effort you are putting the military in a hard place; one where it becomes necessary for them to cut costs or meet deadlines and needs through private contracting. The general anti-war movement is affecting military readiness through their activism and the votes of anti-war congressmen (a type of voting that is also done by left wing darling Obama)... And then complaining about the alternatives. They act as if this is all an insidious act to remove accountability from the war effort or to really cater to the military-industrial complex yet do not even recognize their own efforts as undermining our military to such an extent that they are even increasing this type of privatization. Leftists in their own right are creating this beast yet they do not even want to take responsibility for it. Their shortsightedness in policies is second only to their shortsightedness in analysis. But even this gives them too much credit -- it implies they are actually even looking at what they are doing. Rather, one can chalk this all up to what it really is; the anti-war sentiment transforming itself into the general anti-military view. It is a feeling -- a feeling of being against war, against killing in the most general of senses, and even refusing to engage in cost-benefit analysis of removing the Taliban or Baathist regimes but simply opposing it on principle and feeling.
Comments : 0 Comments |
|
|
  |
del.icio.us
