Brilliant article. I would add that Tom Ricks's book The Generals is an excellent complement to this piece (I wrote more about it here: http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/the-generals-tom-ri... ). Since Korea we have developed the habit of lauding generals who lose wars, instead of finding other duties to them.
A general or Secretary of Defense who screws up gets sweet six-figure "retirement" and widespread respect. He is at little if any risk of personal harm. A private who screws up, or just gets screwed by the system, dies.
It is worth contemplating what that asymmetry means.
When I went through infantry training at Ft Benning I learned that the term "infantry" referred to a nation's ability to field soldiers, which is dependent upon the birth rate.
More infants = more soldiers.
Thus, by extrapolation, soldiers, especially infantrymen, are considered to be expendable.
Sadly, bureaucracy has allowed the care given to our veterans to fall short of expectations, but for many of those with military experience such treatment is par for the course.
A general or Secretary of Defense who screws up gets sweet six-figure "retirement" and widespread respect. He is at little if any risk of personal harm. A private who screws up, or just gets screwed by the system, dies.
It is worth contemplating what that asymmetry means.