Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power
I’m just starting it but wanted to share a couple of observations.
The nature of war in (well, ‘by’) America–and the nature of the military and government’s relationship to it–evolved over time from the days of the Founding Fathers to the end of the Viet Nam era, as described in Rachel Maddow’s new book, in very interesting ways. In particular, Maddow manages to parse the military and political events of the 1960s through the mid 1970s in a way that briefly and convincingly demonstrates that fundamental changes occurred at that time with major consequences. For instance, the role of the US Military Reserves and National Guard changed over this time. During Viet Nam, these two “Weekend Warrior” component’s of the military actually served as havens for privileged or otherwise lucky men (mostly) to avoid military service in or near combat in Southeast Asia. Remember the discussions a few years back about George Bush’s service, or lack there of, in the Texas Air National Guard? It suddenly occurred to me, reading Maddow’s book, that younger folk hearing about that would not have realized the significance of Bush’s Reservist status: Being in The Guard or The Reserves meant, in those days, being safe from combat, unlike more recent times, when the Guard and the Reserves have become so integrated into the US Military that it is essentially impossible for any reasonably sized military force to be launched from the US without Guard and Reserve involvement. Why is that? Maddow explains that in Chapter 1 of her book.
The other element of Viet Nam and post Viet Nam history that Maddow underscores is the War Powers Act. For some reason, I remember that fairly clearly from when it happened, but I think Maddow is correct to point out that at the time, other national events probably overshadowed it (Watergate, etc.). The fall of Saigon occurred at the time when the number of US “Troops” in that country was somewhere between zero and 300, depending on what you count as a “troop,” and the US Congress was rather tired, on both sides of the aisle, with Presidents more or less unilaterally doing stuff with our military that they happened to feel like doing. Maddow describes a remarkable and nearly unique event that occurred just at that time: A sort of Bi-Partisan march on the White House when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee actually visited President Ford and laid down the law, as it were, as to what they would accept in the way of expanded or renewed US involvement in Viet Nam as the North Vietnamese Army was stone-throwing distance from the soon to be former capital of South Viet Nam.
Needless to say, I am really enjoying this book.
By the way, Rachel sent me two copies of Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power
Meanwhile, here’s Rachel Maddow providing some context for Drift:
PS: The dedication, the little sentence you put at the front of the book, that Rachel penned is precious. It is reason alone for you to do whatever it takes, to do whatever I make you do, to jump through whatever hoop I design for you, to get a copy of this volume. Bwhahaha!
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Why was the book printed in reverse script?
And let’s not forget that war always was and always will be a way to kill other human beings, in most cases for money, and to the profit of small groups of interest. Please do not forget about that.
I know. That’s how my iMac takes pictures, apparently. My Linux box does not do that. But they are facing in two different directions, so maybe that is the explanation.
Adam: I’ll bet she gets to that somewhere in the book!
The nice thing is that Rachel looks the same both ways. She’s symmetrical!
There is a flip image check item at the bottom of the Edit menu in Photobooth. The default is to present you, the user, with a “looking in the mirror” paradigm since many are discomfited seeing themselves otherwise.
GrayGaffer: Thanks. I guess that makes sense since some of those photobooths (in meatspace) have mirrors facing the “user”.
Maddow is the most down-to-earth, common-sense, intelligent commentator out there these days. And not afraid to call “Bull-puckey!” Can’t wait to get a copy of this book! Glad you’re enjoying the read, Greg!
Continuing the stream of off-topic comments — we have just found out, Greg, that you are a “B” man when it comes to transcribing the initial letter of the Mad Scientist Laugh. Everyone knows that the entire world is divided into either the “B” camp, or the “M” camp (Mwhahaha!). I’m a “B” girl myself, so I applaud your good taste and insight, even if we B’s seem to be in the minority.
Oh, and as a 60-something, I remember with strongly mixed feelings both the War Powers Act and the change in purpose of the National Guard. Good observations, both, on a critically important issue — gotta get Rachel’s book.
Can you tell me where you purchased a signed copy? Thanks.
Spanish Inquisitor wrote (#4): “The nice thing is that Rachel looks the same both ways. She’s symmetrical!”
We could say with reason, I suppose, that she’s “fair and balanced.”
Rachel Maddow is awesome!