MOAA: Your Views

“Global Transaction Strategy” in the May 2003 issue of Military Officer was one of the most important articles in this magazine in more than 20 years. It should be required reading for all citizens.

The United States is uniquely positioned in world history to implement such a strategy. As a united country, we must transcend the shifting of domestic politics and become focused on long-term, external objectives with supporting plans, programs, and policies. To do otherwise is to ignore our many vital linkages to the “global village.” Are there any other pragmatic and viable alternative strategies for the next century?

Military Officer readers should understand that [authors] Thomas P.M. Barnett and Henry H. Gaffney Jr. are not independent analysts but rather apologists for the Bush administration’s “bully on the block” (Colin Powell’s words) way of relating to other nations and peoples.

I hope that in the interests of having [the magazine’s] readership fully informed on matters of great national and international importance, the editors of Military Officer will open its pages to knowledgeable and articulate people such as former President Jimmy Carter, former Attorney General Ramsay Clark, writers Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer, and many others who contend that President George W. Bush’s unilateralist approach to world affairs is a recipe for disaster.

Colonel Lacy’s warning (“this piece is not light reading”) masterfully understates what quickly becomes obvious after the fourth paragraph. The authors lost me with, “This is why public debate about the war has been so important.” What public debate?

I think I have a simpler, albeit more truthful, explanation for the war, and it truly has nothing to do with “the moment when Washington took real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.”

We went to war because: a) the president wanted Saddam’s head on a platter; b) the vice president was praying for anything that would distract from his Halliburton exploits; c) Congress (as usual) abrogated its war powers so it could blame the president if things went wrong; and d) all of the president’s men have ties to companies that stand to gain economically.

“Non-Integrating Gap,” my butt.

[The May issue of Military Officer] contained stories that were varied in subject matter and extremely well-written.

Of particular interest was the article titled “Global Transaction Strategy,” by Thomas P.M. Barnett and Henry H. Gaffney Jr. I found their observations intellectually stimulating. On balance, this is the type of article that provides the officer corps and retired officer corps vital insights into national strategic planning and the reasons for various policies.

With that said, I … take exception to two elements of their analysis.

[First,] in discussing the key events that marked our fundamental shift from “Cold War” containment to “Gap firewall management,” the authors either overlook or avoid mentioning the vital effect of the fall of the U.S.S.R. Although the four key events listed are important as they apply to the 1970s, the fall of our primary adversary realigned the world in a manner that the entire effect of the other four events could not compare.

Additionally, the very mention of the term “Cold War” reflects their failure to recognize that … the period of 1945–1990 was in fact World War III. During those 45 years, we fought the U.S.S.R. in every other way — to include client-state warfare, revolution, assassinations, sabotage, economic disruption, etcetera — except through [nuclear, biological, and chemical] and conventional warfare. We were able to do this because the Russians were conventionally logical. However, now we have transitioned into World War IV with an entirely different enemy, which in simplistic forms can be summarized as a conflict between the haves and have-nots.

Second, the map they included with their analysis did not note Somalia as being reflective of a U.S. military response to a combat situation. It is difficult, at best, not to justify combat in Somalia, where we lost 45 soldiers and Marines; the president presented posthumous medals of honor to the families of two soldiers killed there. ... The failure of the authors to recognize Somalia to have been a combat environment does not speak well of their analysis.

Other than that, they have an interesting hypothesis.

Crazy Like a Fox

While the story in the May issue, “Warfare Inc.,” was very good in its current context, the author obviously knows very little about mercenary operations in Africa in the 1960s. I find his comments about Mike Hoare particularly offensive, i.e.: “In this era, deranged, hard-drinking European guns-for-hire such as “Mad” Mike Hoare... .” I was stationed in Durban, South Africa, during the mid-1960s and knew Mike and his wife, Phyllis, very well. He was neither deranged nor a hard drinker....

There were certainly mercenary groups in the Congo in the 1960s that were ragtag and undisciplined and that probably shot a lot of people they should not have. This was not true of Mike’s Five Commando, which was well-disciplined in comparison to any of the others. Why then was he called “Mad” Mike? Because he was aggressive and a risk taker, an original proponent of “shock and awe.”

Cushmans Rolling Along

Thank you for the enlightening and very informative article [“Rev It Up,” May 2003] regarding the past role of motorcycles in our nation’s defense.

I was somewhat disappointed that there was no mention of the contribution made by the Cushman Military Airborne Motor Scooter. These scooters, air droppable and organic to the 101st and the 82nd Airborne divisions, played a vital role in the Normandy invasion.

As an avid Cushman collector, I am certain your readers would be interested in these hearty little machines and their contributions to the war effort. The Cushman Club of America, 5,200 strong and counting Gen. Tommy Franks among its membership, is a forceful advocate for the restoration and preservation of Cushman Motor Scooters.

Attention Must Be Paid

I hope the current military is paying close attention to [legislative action regarding] retired people; this is a taste of things to come. The lack of support on the [Survivor Benefit Plan] issue is disappointing and a disgrace. People were promised better coverage when they needed us; now all is forgotten.

The cover of your May issue stopped me cold. It shows a smiling, victorious warrior ... with a frightened, defeated 4-year-old in his arms. Didn’t you or your staff recognize the fear on that child’s face? Perhaps you thought it was only an expression of worry, but you certainly could not have mistaken it for joy of being liberated.

That cover will likely be shown all over the Arab world on Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi television again and again. And you’re going to hear about it from Americans in favor of—as well as those opposed to—our action in Iraq. My God, how could you be so insensitive?

— Lt. Col. William N. Edwards, USAF-Ret.
Daly City, Calif.

Editor’s note: A number of people in headquarters, including MOAA leadership, reviewed the photo. Without exception, everyone agreed the image conveyed compassion and feeling. The child’s expression appeared to be one of sadness, not fear. The cover is meant to signify the transition from war to rebuilding.

Global Transaction Debate

Crazy Like a Fox

Cushmans Rolling Along

Attention Must Be Paid