I presume that you would like me to expand further of what constitutes “common security”. I could also send you the Pack of cards dedicated to US contribution to Global insecurity.

True security is not human security or a so-called “responsibility to protect” which has been used to support substantial increases in the military budget and to legitimize past, present and future military expeditions wrapped in the guise of humanitarian interventions

True security is common security – a concept initiated by Olaf Palme, a former president of Sweden, and has been extended to embody the following objectives:

• to achieve a state of peace, and disarmament; through reallocation of military expenses

• to promote and fully guarantee respect for human rights including civil and political rights, and the right to be free from discrimination on any grounds

• to enable socially equitable and environmentally sound employment, and ensure the right to development and social justice; labour rights, social and cultural rights- right to food, right to housing, right to universally accessible not for profit health care system, right to education

• to ensure the preservation and protection of the environment, respect the inherent worth of nature beyond human purpose reduce the ecological footprint and move away from the current model of overconsumptive development.

• to create a global structure that respects the rule of law and the International Court of Justice;

To further Common security, the member states of the United Nations have incurred obligations through conventions, treaties and covenants, made commitments through Conference Action plans, and created expectations through UN General Assembly resolutions, and declarations member states of the United Nations have incurred obligations, made commitments and created expectations

The blue print is there; the issue is compliance and implementation.

Once upon a time, the lower numbers could reasonably be attributed to the type that joined for the college bennies, never really expecting that they’d get called up.

It’s been 3 years now, going on 4. Most of those “in-it-just-for-the money” are being attritioned out.

Anyone joining in the last couple had to have gone in with their eyes wide open. Semantics aside over the brass’s execution of the war. Their support is extremely high for doing something, anything, to protect America, as opposed to wailing and knashing teeth and ranting silly pseudo-pacifist slogans like “Bush lied, People Died”… So the numbers only steadily get better — kinda funny when you think of the leftist ‘chickenhawk’ challenge. Um yeah, 97% of the troops put their money where their mouth were and continue to re-up and serve.

On the flip side, if, big IF, Kerry were to win it in 08, watch the scramble for the exits and sinking morale for those stuck in some stop-loss trap or another. I’m willing to bet on 60/40, or worse.

82nd airborne has a 97% reenlistment rate.

Best source, that I have seen,of troop sentiment is robert(?) kagan. Very hard to reconcile low US opinion, with the actually beliefs of the people who are risking their lives.

But then the dems did try to have all military votes lacking post stamps invalidated in Florida 2000.

It seems very clear that the libs hate the military. They clearly have no wish to give their voice any forum, if it does not coincide with theirs.

From Jay Nordlinger’s
Impromtus:

Donald Rumsfeld received a rare and prized endorsement on Wednesday when Jimmy Carter said, “I think he’s one of the worst secretaries of defense we’ve ever had.” That must be a relief to Rumsfeld. For, as they say, “consider the source.”

And for my recent interview with Rumsfeld — on a variety of topics, including, of course, the most pressing ones — please . . .

As they say, “Match. Set. Game.” Or was that, “The fat lady has sung”?

There are 2, 3 major factions within the military and when the boss takes a position on one of the factions, the others get upset. Generally not to the point of insubordination, but they will vent once they’ve been put to pasture. Doesn’t matter if POTUS is dem or gop, it always happens.

One of my colleagues ‘hates’ Rummy. Why? The guy came out of Armored/Artillery and Rummy had the ‘gall’ to cut a lot of their toys. Me, I’m more of a tactical combat guy and was ‘pissed’ that thru the 90s, the brass didn’t think much of, hence, underfunded up-armored vehicles, urban/asymetrical tactics and UAVs.

Given our disparate viewpoints, we both agreed that Shinseki was out of his mind with the vapid eye-candy such as the beret, “Army of One” etc.

In a nutshell, if military life was a big game of chess, you’ll have some who ‘live and die’ by the Rooks, Bishops, Knights, Queen or even Pawns. And you’ll find many others who like a well rounded campaign. So generally, if you hear retired generals bitching, it’s because their POV was considered and discarded.

That’s just the way it is. We pay and train our soldiers to think critically, not in lockstep. So it is inevitable that when there are opposing viewpoints, someone is going to be ‘invalidated’ or even fired. Just ask Hap Arnold, Jimmy Doolittle, Patton, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Wesley ‘Weasly‘ Clark, Powell, to name a few. Then again, history has proven some, not all to be correct or even ahead of their time.

As for your canards about troop morale, they are just that. I’d rather go with MTL’s metrics of 80% / 20%. Although in my experience, it’s probably better than 90/10 (good morale vs bad morale).

Where did you ever come up with “US soldiers are being forbidden from even wearing the best armor they can get, even if they pay for it out of their own pocket“? Truth is, some would rather not wear armor than be told they have to from some nanny JAG/Safety Officer.

If you’re concerned about troop morale, think about that. This guy is so bad that retired generals, life-long Republican voters all, are begging the President to fire him.

Oh, and you might consider the effect that it has on troop morale when contractors are paid several times as much *taxpayer* money to do the exact same job as the soldiers.

Oh, and the fact that US soldiers are being forbidden from even wearing the best armor they can get, even if they pay for it out of their own pocket.

How’s all that for morale?

Find a dem discussing troop morale in the news. It is the most important guage of our success and the obligation of every representative to consider in every decision.

Why is it still high? What brings it down? If you take time to actually talk to a soldier, you might be in for a surprise. You could counter that there is a slew of anti-war soldiers running for office as democrats, but they represent the minority of actual troop sentiment.

I doubt you know anyone there, which suggests that you really have no insight to base your opinions on.

How would you present their interview?

Would it be fair to have one who favors our effort and one who does not? or would it be more fair to have 4 soldiers who favor the conflict and one who does not to reflect the actual demographics?

The single greatest source of information should be our soldiers and yet they have zero representationin the media. I get a lot of discussion about Rumsfeld’s ‘low’ approval rating in the US. When is the last time you saw a poll about his approval rating among active soldiers? Which is more important? Take a guess what bush’s approval rating is among the people who are putting their lives on the line.

Should these soldiers bear the same resentment the left heaps on those who support Bush because of our Iraq policy?
the implication that the left is skirting is that the troops are greedy and stupid.