Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Monday, January 14, 2019
Erect Wall for Military Training
President Trump can build a wall as a military training activity. In a combat area concrete walls may be needed as part of a bunker to protect personnel or supplies. A wall can protect buildings from a truck bomb on a nearby road. Thus military personnel need to know how to construct concrete walls The southwestern states provide a good location to train personnel to construct concrete walls in the Middle East because it has a relatively close match in terrain, climate and soil. Training benefits would include practice in moving personnel, equipment and supplies into an area and learning how to operate in that type physical environment.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Should American Military Employ "Comfort Women"?
"Make love not war" was a popular slogan in the late
sixties. Soldiers in many wars have found that
"making love" is a way to forget the realities of war.
Sex and war have been connected since the first time men from one village attacked another village to kidnap women. Invading armies often have a problem with soldiers sexually assaulting local women.
American military forces have an ongoing problem with male personnel sexually assaulting female personnel.
Although genes don't control human behavior the way genes control the behavior of other animals, genes do influence human behavior. It may be significant that in species in which males may fight each other to the death, the fighting is over acquisition of females.
During World War II Japan decided to try to prevent the rape problem by hiring women to serve as "comfort women" who would provide sexual services for Japanese soldiers. The size of the Japanese military hampered the effort to have an all volunteer unit. Japan dealt with this situation by conscripting women in the countries Japan conquered. The controversy over the practice continues to hamper relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.
Although I would not advocate the use of "comfort women", I recognize "comfort women" could provide an option for reducing rapes by male personnel.
Women providing sexual services would probably have a military job title like "personal therapist". The men they provide services to would be officially listed as "patients" and the "treatment" they receive would have the same privacy protection as other medical treatment. Patients would have to pass some basic physical exam to make sure they don't have contagious diseases or medical conditions that sexual activity might affect. Therapists would inform patients that a doctor or nurse might monitor their treatment by video. Any monitoring would be for quality control as well as to protect the therapists. There are rare cases in which even young seemingly healthy athletes have heart attacks during strenuous activity because of undetected heart conditions.
Therapists would receive training as counselors and be expected to watch for problems like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder so men could receive treatment as early as possible.
.
Outside the building where the services are provided therapists would wear the same uniforms as other female personnel during the time when they are expected to be in uniform. To guarantee personal privacy their living quarters would be separate from where the work area even if the living quarters are in the same building. Therapists would receive hazardous duty pay because of the disease risk. They would have a clothing allowance for their "work clothes".
I realize that some people will question having the military encourage what they consider an immoral practice. I would ask these people if they consider war a more moral activity than making love. What many ignore is that prostitution is a business relationship rather than a personal relationship. Although some prostitutes enjoy their work, they don't become involved with their clients. The "personal therapists" I'm proposing would be providing a therapeutic service to those who are asked to risk their lives for their fellow Americans. How can that be immoral?
Part of the rape problem is the failure of American culture to teach men that they should learn to control their sexual nature. Instead American culture encourages men to expect women to serve their sexual desires. Unfortunately it isn't practical for the military to change men's sexual attitudes. The most practical alternative is to employ women whose profession involves serving men's sexual needs.
Sex and war have been connected since the first time men from one village attacked another village to kidnap women. Invading armies often have a problem with soldiers sexually assaulting local women.
American military forces have an ongoing problem with male personnel sexually assaulting female personnel.
Although genes don't control human behavior the way genes control the behavior of other animals, genes do influence human behavior. It may be significant that in species in which males may fight each other to the death, the fighting is over acquisition of females.
During World War II Japan decided to try to prevent the rape problem by hiring women to serve as "comfort women" who would provide sexual services for Japanese soldiers. The size of the Japanese military hampered the effort to have an all volunteer unit. Japan dealt with this situation by conscripting women in the countries Japan conquered. The controversy over the practice continues to hamper relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.
Although I would not advocate the use of "comfort women", I recognize "comfort women" could provide an option for reducing rapes by male personnel.
Women providing sexual services would probably have a military job title like "personal therapist". The men they provide services to would be officially listed as "patients" and the "treatment" they receive would have the same privacy protection as other medical treatment. Patients would have to pass some basic physical exam to make sure they don't have contagious diseases or medical conditions that sexual activity might affect. Therapists would inform patients that a doctor or nurse might monitor their treatment by video. Any monitoring would be for quality control as well as to protect the therapists. There are rare cases in which even young seemingly healthy athletes have heart attacks during strenuous activity because of undetected heart conditions.
Therapists would receive training as counselors and be expected to watch for problems like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder so men could receive treatment as early as possible.
.
Outside the building where the services are provided therapists would wear the same uniforms as other female personnel during the time when they are expected to be in uniform. To guarantee personal privacy their living quarters would be separate from where the work area even if the living quarters are in the same building. Therapists would receive hazardous duty pay because of the disease risk. They would have a clothing allowance for their "work clothes".
I realize that some people will question having the military encourage what they consider an immoral practice. I would ask these people if they consider war a more moral activity than making love. What many ignore is that prostitution is a business relationship rather than a personal relationship. Although some prostitutes enjoy their work, they don't become involved with their clients. The "personal therapists" I'm proposing would be providing a therapeutic service to those who are asked to risk their lives for their fellow Americans. How can that be immoral?
Part of the rape problem is the failure of American culture to teach men that they should learn to control their sexual nature. Instead American culture encourages men to expect women to serve their sexual desires. Unfortunately it isn't practical for the military to change men's sexual attitudes. The most practical alternative is to employ women whose profession involves serving men's sexual needs.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Who Will Administer Libya?
Have the Allies decided who will be in charge of preserving order and providing government services between the time Muammar Qaddafi is overthrown and a new government can be established?
Democracies don't miraculously appear after the overthrow of tyrants. Working out differences about what type of government is desired takes time. Someone has to run the interim government until differences can be resolved like the U.S attempted to do in Iraq.
Iraq isn't the only country that has had trouble developing a democratic government to replace a tyrant. Examples from European history demonstrate that the difficulties of establishing democratic government to replace tyrants.
The overthrow of the French monarchy in the late 18th Century was followed by various governments until a new strongman named Napoleon was able to establish a stable government. He then decided to expand the size of his empire to include most of Europe into Russia.
The fall of the Russian monarchy late during World War I also eventually produced a tyrant with a desire for empire. An initial attempt at democracy failed and the country descended into chaos with the communist party led by Lenin eventually conquering the country. His successor Joseph Stalin used the situation after World War II to expand the country's boundaries into Eastern Europe.
The Allied attack on the Libyan military means it will not be available to reestablish order even if people would accept its leaders after their efforts to keep Qaddafi in office. The problems other governments in the area are having mean they cannot assist with reestablishing order in Libya. One or more of the Allies will have send in a caretaker force to run things.
Qaddafi has many loyal supporters, particularly among those who have benefited from his rule, who might use guerrilla tactics against the interim government as happened in Iraq. Al Qaeda will certainly be interested in attempting to take advantage of the situation and use terrorism to force the interim government out as happened in Iraq.
The lawlessness in Somalia demonstrates what can happen without a government capable of establishing order.
Democracies don't miraculously appear after the overthrow of tyrants. Working out differences about what type of government is desired takes time. Someone has to run the interim government until differences can be resolved like the U.S attempted to do in Iraq.
Iraq isn't the only country that has had trouble developing a democratic government to replace a tyrant. Examples from European history demonstrate that the difficulties of establishing democratic government to replace tyrants.
The overthrow of the French monarchy in the late 18th Century was followed by various governments until a new strongman named Napoleon was able to establish a stable government. He then decided to expand the size of his empire to include most of Europe into Russia.
The fall of the Russian monarchy late during World War I also eventually produced a tyrant with a desire for empire. An initial attempt at democracy failed and the country descended into chaos with the communist party led by Lenin eventually conquering the country. His successor Joseph Stalin used the situation after World War II to expand the country's boundaries into Eastern Europe.
The Allied attack on the Libyan military means it will not be available to reestablish order even if people would accept its leaders after their efforts to keep Qaddafi in office. The problems other governments in the area are having mean they cannot assist with reestablishing order in Libya. One or more of the Allies will have send in a caretaker force to run things.
Qaddafi has many loyal supporters, particularly among those who have benefited from his rule, who might use guerrilla tactics against the interim government as happened in Iraq. Al Qaeda will certainly be interested in attempting to take advantage of the situation and use terrorism to force the interim government out as happened in Iraq.
The lawlessness in Somalia demonstrates what can happen without a government capable of establishing order.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Homosexuals in Combat - Reality Check
Statements by military leaders that there would be no problems with allowing openly homosexual men to serve in combat zones would be more convincing if the military wasn't having a problem with its male personnel sexually assaulting its female personnel.
Female veterans on a recent PBS documentary said that women were afraid to go anywhere on their bases alone in Afghanistan and Iraq because of concerns about being sexually assaulted.
The main problem with allowing openly homosexual men to serve in combat zones won't be them attacking others, but others killing them because of concerns about being attacked. Some homosexuals claim that they look at other men the way men look at women. Many could interpret this claim as indicating homosexuals might attack other men the way some men attack women. .
A woman who is concerned about a sexual assault will take defensive measures such as finding someone to accompany her when she goes some place. Men are sexual predators and when predators are concerned about being attacked they may respond with a preemptive attack, particularly when they are in a combat zone where they have to be prepared to kill or be killed.
In Vietnam, the term "fragging" was coined to refer to one American killing another particularly by using a grenade. Sometimes the target was an officer who was considered overly aggressive in combat and thus a "threat" to the life of whoever decided to attack him.
I recall reading one news article about an enlisted man in a rear area who killed his first sergeant who he claimed was putting too much pressure on him.
In Vietnam I knew some infantrymen who smoked marijuana in the rear area who said they would kill someone for smoking it in the field. There was a case just before I left Vietnam of a man who was accused of killing other members of his unit for using drugs in the field.
Rape is often associated with warfare. Soldiers released from the moral controls that discourage killing may also lose the controls that discourage sexual assault.
There is the possibility that homosexuals in a combat situation might attempt rape. A more likely situation would be a false perception that a homosexual might attack. Such a perception could lead to action against the homosexual who seemed to pose a threat.
Women know that some men sometimes misinterpret an act of friendship as an indication of sexual interest. An act of friendship by a known homosexual could also be misinterpreted, with potentially fatal consequences.
Incidentally, Federal Judge Virginia A. Phillips violated the Constitution when she ruled against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The Constitution explicity assigns the powers to raise, regulate and direct the military to the legislative and executive branches. Congress and the President are free to exclude anyone from the military based on physical traits, personal characteristics or for engaging in behaviors that the Congress or President believe might interfere with military operations. The President even has the authority to deny freedom of expression to those who wish to serve in the military as President Barack Obama did when he fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal for making negative comments about Obama. The courts can only intervene if punishment for military infractions involves something like imprisonment or death.
Female veterans on a recent PBS documentary said that women were afraid to go anywhere on their bases alone in Afghanistan and Iraq because of concerns about being sexually assaulted.
The main problem with allowing openly homosexual men to serve in combat zones won't be them attacking others, but others killing them because of concerns about being attacked. Some homosexuals claim that they look at other men the way men look at women. Many could interpret this claim as indicating homosexuals might attack other men the way some men attack women. .
A woman who is concerned about a sexual assault will take defensive measures such as finding someone to accompany her when she goes some place. Men are sexual predators and when predators are concerned about being attacked they may respond with a preemptive attack, particularly when they are in a combat zone where they have to be prepared to kill or be killed.
In Vietnam, the term "fragging" was coined to refer to one American killing another particularly by using a grenade. Sometimes the target was an officer who was considered overly aggressive in combat and thus a "threat" to the life of whoever decided to attack him.
I recall reading one news article about an enlisted man in a rear area who killed his first sergeant who he claimed was putting too much pressure on him.
In Vietnam I knew some infantrymen who smoked marijuana in the rear area who said they would kill someone for smoking it in the field. There was a case just before I left Vietnam of a man who was accused of killing other members of his unit for using drugs in the field.
Rape is often associated with warfare. Soldiers released from the moral controls that discourage killing may also lose the controls that discourage sexual assault.
There is the possibility that homosexuals in a combat situation might attempt rape. A more likely situation would be a false perception that a homosexual might attack. Such a perception could lead to action against the homosexual who seemed to pose a threat.
Women know that some men sometimes misinterpret an act of friendship as an indication of sexual interest. An act of friendship by a known homosexual could also be misinterpreted, with potentially fatal consequences.
Incidentally, Federal Judge Virginia A. Phillips violated the Constitution when she ruled against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The Constitution explicity assigns the powers to raise, regulate and direct the military to the legislative and executive branches. Congress and the President are free to exclude anyone from the military based on physical traits, personal characteristics or for engaging in behaviors that the Congress or President believe might interfere with military operations. The President even has the authority to deny freedom of expression to those who wish to serve in the military as President Barack Obama did when he fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal for making negative comments about Obama. The courts can only intervene if punishment for military infractions involves something like imprisonment or death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
