Speak up and protect democracy

[Lanya]

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/1992/dunlap.htm

[Michael Tee]

That's a very thoughtful and well-researched article.  Makes a lot of good points on the origins and dangers of militarism and also about military professionalism.  Very interesting.  Thanks, Lanya.

[Plane]

As a fantasy it is alright ,but it ignores the nature of the US military .

[Lanya]

: Plane: <<As a fantasy it is alright ,but it ignores the nature of the US military .>>

I guess that is why it was in the US Army War College Quarterly, Winter, 1992.

[BT]

I guess that is why it was in the US Army War College Quarterly, Winter, 1992.

So you are confirming that the US Army War College does not censor literary efforts?

[Michael Tee]

<<So you are confirming that the US Army War College does not censor literary efforts?>>

When was that ever an issue?

[BT]

Censorship wasn't the issue. As far as being published in the war college quarterly, i see no reason that is a stamp of approval. Just means they allow all kinds of writings.

[Plane]

: Plane: <<As a fantasy it is alright ,but it ignores the nature of the US military .>>

I guess that is why it was in the US Army War College Quarterly, Winter, 1992.

The nature of the Military Officer Corps of the USA is very loyal and rather intellectual.

What does this article being in a War Colledge publication really prove? That censorship is pretty loose there? That thought experiments are tolerated there?

[Plane]

It would appear, therefore, that training the Iraqi forces is one of our most important and pressing objectives, a key to victory. To that end, some of the world’s best instructors have trained over 277,000 Iraqi security forces.7 Courses have ranged from basic police officer training to special commando training. More than 40 countries have participated in this effort, with billions

71/72

of dollars spent.8 Other coalition forces have “mentored” the Iraqis through field exercises and supervision. Yet despite significant progress, there is nearly universal agreement that Iraqi forces will not be able to take over our security responsibilities any time soon. Why hasn’t all of this training solved the problem?

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/06winter/felicetti.htm
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


I really ought to read "Parameters" more often , some good well thought out,  stuff.

[Michael Tee]

<<As far as being published in the war college quarterly, i see no reason that is a stamp of approval. Just means they allow all kinds of writings. >>

I don't think Lanya meant that the War College Quarterly editors gave the piece their stamp of approval, but plane had said the piece "ignored the nature of the U.S. military."  I would think the significance of the fact the piece appeared in the War College Quarterly is that it can't be totally ignorant of the nature of the U.S. military because then it would then be totally irrelevant. 

It's not quite accurate to say that they "allow all kinds of writing," IMHO.  I'd be extremely surprised, for example, if they would publish any of my ranting and raving, or, for that matter, any of sirs' uninformed and ignorant defences of them.  They are a respected professional journal with certain standards and the fact that they consented to publish the piece DOES indicate something as to its relevance to the real life of the professionals who read it.

[BT]

They are a respected professional journal with certain standards and the fact that they consented to publish the piece DOES indicate something as to its relevance to the real life of the professionals who read it.

So they do censor submissions?

[Plane]

<<As far as being published in the war college quarterly, i see no reason that is a stamp of approval. Just means they allow all kinds of writings. >>

I don't think Lanya meant that the War College Quarterly editors gave the piece their stamp of approval, but plane had said the piece "ignored the nature of the U.S. military."  I would think the significance of the fact the piece appeared in the War College Quarterly is that it can't be totally ignorant of the nature of the U.S. military because then it would then be totally irrelevant. 

It's not quite accurate to say that they "allow all kinds of writing," IMHO.  I'd be extremely surprised, for example, if they would publish any of my ranting and raving, or, for that matter, any of sirs' uninformed and ignorant defences of them.  They are a respected professional journal with certain standards and the fact that they consented to publish the piece DOES indicate something as to its relevance to the real life of the professionals who read it.

I have been in the US military .

I have re-read that essay.

I might have been  wrong, the essay describes  a long process in which the US officer corps is lead through a  change to become an entity that could revolt.

So what it is , is not what is being described , but what it could become in a scenario that would horrify any US soldier as they are.

[Michael Tee]

<<So they do censor submissions?>>

If you want to call what I just described "censorship," can you name one magazine here or anywhere else, that doesn't "censor" submissions?

[Plane]

<<So they do censor submissions?>>

If you want to call what I just described "censorship," can you name one magazine here or anywhere else, that doesn't "censor" submissions?

Are articles for "Parimeters " chosen for political effect ?

[BT]

If you want to call what I just described "censorship," can you name one magazine here or anywhere else, that doesn't "censor" submissions?

Unless i misunderstood you , you said the magazine is discriminating in what it publishes and would not publish an article unless it was consistent with the viewpoint and standards of the editorial staff. Thus your claim that the article carries the stamp of approval from the publishers.

Are viewpoints and standards one and  the same?