The Pentagon vs. America五角大樓與美國
By通過 Scott Ritter 斯科特里特 | I recently heard from an anti-war student I met while I was speaking at a college in northern Vermont. |我最近聽到一個反戰學生我見到了，而我是在一個學院在北部佛蒙特州。 The e-mail included the following query: “I told you about how I wanted to build a career around social activism and making a difference.電子郵件包括以下查詢： “我告訴你如何我想建立一個職業生涯周圍社會的積極性和決策有差別。 You told me that one of the most important things was to make myself reputable and give people a reason to listen to you.你告訴我，其中一個最重要的事情是讓自己有信譽，並給予人民一個理由，聽你說。 I think this is some of the best advice I’ve received.我覺得這是最好的一些意見，我已經收到。 My issue however is that you mentioned joining the military as a way to do this and mentioned how that is how you fell into it.我的問題不過是你所提到的加入軍隊的一種方式這樣做，並提到如何，就是你如何落入它。 … We talked extensively about all of our criticisms of the military currently and our foreign policy. … …我們談了廣泛約我們所有的批評，軍方目前和我們的外交政策。 … What I don’t understand is, how can you [advise] someone who wants to make a difference with the flawed system, to join that flawed system?” … …什麼，我不明白的是，你如何能[提醒]有人要誰作出的差異與缺陷的制度，加入這個有缺陷的制度“ ？
The question is a valid one.問題是一個有效的1 。 Throughout my travels in the United States, where I interact with people from progressive anti-war groups, I am often confronted with the seeming contradiction of my position.在我整個旅行，在美國，在那裡我與他人互動，從漸進式的反戰團體，我常常面對表面的矛盾，我的立場。 I rail against the war in Iraq (and the potential of war with Iran) and yet embrace, at times enthusiastically, the notion of military service. i鐵路反對伊拉克戰爭（和潛在的戰爭與伊朗） ，但擁抱，有時熱烈，概念兵役。 It gets even more difficult to absorb, at least on the surface, when I simultaneously advocate counter-recruitment as well as support for those who seek to join the armed services.它更是難以吸收，至少在表面上，當我同時主張反招聘，以及支持這些誰尋求加入軍種。
The notion that the military and citizens of conscience should be at odds is a critical problem for our nation.概念，即軍事和公民的良知，應在賠率是一個關鍵的問題，為我們的民族。 That confrontation only exacerbates the problems of the soldier and the citizen, and must be properly understood if it is to be defeated.對抗只能加劇的問題，該名士兵和公民，必須正確理解，如果它是被否決。 Let us start by constructing a framework in which my positions can be better assessed.讓我們開始構建一個框架，在我國的立場可以得到更好的評估。
First and foremost, I do not view military service as an obligation of citizenship.首要的，我並不認為軍事服務作為一項義務的公民身份。 I do view military service as an act of good citizenship, but it can under no circumstance be used as a litmus test for patriotism.我的看法兵役作為行為良好公民，但它可以在任何情況下被用來作為試金石的愛國精神。 There are many ways in which one can serve his or her nation; the military is but one.有很多方法，在其中可以服務他或她的國家;軍事只是其中一個。 I am a big believer in the all-volunteer military.我是一個大的信奉者在所有義工的軍事。 For one thing, the professional fighting force is far more effective and efficient than any conscript force could ever be.為一件事，專業作戰力量是遠遠更有效和更高效，比任何應徵者的力量都不能。
There are those who argue that a draft would level the playing field, spreading the burdens and responsibilities associated with a standing military force more evenly among the population. Those citizens whose lives would be impacted through war (namely those of draft age and their immediate relatives) would presumably be less inclined to support war.有那些誰爭辯說，草案將一級公平競爭的環境，傳播負擔和責任，與相關的一個常設的軍事力量，更均勻地之間的人口，這些公民的生活將受到影響，通過戰爭（即那些草案的年齡及他們的直系親屬）大概會少傾向於支持戰爭。
Conversely, the argument goes, with an all-volunteer professional force, the burden of sacrifice is limited to that segment of society which is engaged in the fighting, real or potential.反過來說，論據有雲，與所有義工的專業部隊，犧牲的負擔是有限的，以這部分人的社會，所從事的在戰鬥中，實際或潛在。 Two points emerge: First, the majority of society not immediately impacted by the sacrifices of conflict will remain distant from the reality of war.兩點出現：第一，大部分的社會沒有立即的影響，犧牲的衝突將繼續從遙遠的現實戰爭。 Second, even when the costs of conflict become discernable to the withdrawn population, the fact that the sacrifice is being absorbed by those who willingly volunteered somehow lessens any moral outcry.其次，即使當成本的衝突成為分辨向撤回人口，事實，即犧牲是被吸收那些誰願意自告奮勇在某種程度上削弱任何道德嘩然。
I will submit that these are valid observations, and indeed have been borne out in America’s response to the Iraq war tragedy.我會提交這些都是有效的意見，並確實已證明了在美國的回應伊拉克戰爭的悲劇。 However, simply because something exists doesn’t make it right.然而，僅僅因為存在一些不正確的。 The collective response to the Iraq war on the part of the American people is not a result of there not being a draft, but rather poor citizenship.集體回應伊拉克戰爭對部分美國人民的不是一個結果，有沒有一個草案，而是窮人的公民權。 An engaged citizenry would not only find sufficient qualified volunteers to fill the ranks of our military, but would also personally identify with all those who served so that the loss of one was felt by all.一從事的公民，不僅會找到足夠合格的志願者，以填補該職級的我軍，而且也將親自找出與所有那些誰服務，使損失一有人認為，由所有。 The fact that many Americans today view the all-volunteer force not so much as an extension of themselves, but more along the lines of a “legion” of professionals removed from society, illustrates the yawning gap that exists between we the people and those we ask to defend us.事實上，許多美國人今天，檢視所有志願人員力量沒有這麼多，作為擴展自己的，但更多的大致相同的“軍團”的專業人士從社會，說明了巨大之間存在的差距，我們人民和我們的那些請問，以捍衛我們。
Narrowing this gap is not something that can be accomplished simply through legislation.縮小這種差距是不是一件可以完成簡單地通過立法。 Reinstating the draft is illusory in this regard.恢復草案是虛幻的，在這方面的工作。 There is a more fundamental obstacle to the reunion of our society and those who take an oath in the military to uphold and defend the Constitution.有一個更根本的障礙，向團聚我們的社會和那些誰採取宣誓，在軍事上，以維護和捍衛憲法。 Void of this bond, the inherent differences of civilian and military life will serve to drive a wedge between the two, regardless of whether the military force is drafted or volunteer.無效的，這債券，內在的差異，民用和軍用的生活將竭力離間兩國之間，無論是軍事武力是草擬或義工。
Lacking a common understanding of the foundational principles upon which the nation was built, a citizenry will grow to view military service as an imposition, as opposed to an obligation.缺乏一個共同的認識基礎的原則，依據國家建立，公民將增長到鑑於軍事服務作為一種強加，作為反對一項義務。 Simply put, one cannot willingly defend that which one does not know and understand.簡言之，一不能心甘情願地捍衛這其中並不認識和了解。 The那個 fundamental ignorance 根本無知 that exists in America today about the Constitution creates the conditions which foster the divide between citizen and soldier that permeates society today.存在的在美國今日關於憲法創造了條件，其中培養之間的鴻溝公民和士兵貫穿於今天的社會。 America must take ownership of its military, not simply by footing the bill, but by assuming a moral responsibility for every aspect of military service.美國必須採取的所有權，其軍事，而不是僅僅由的基礎上，條例草案，而是由假設道義上的責任，每一個方面的軍事服務。 The vehicle for doing this has been well established through the Constitution: the legislative branch of government, the Congress, which serves to represent the will of the people.車輛這樣做，已確立通過憲法：立法部門，政府，國會，它代表人民的意志。
Congress, especially the House of Representatives, was never conceived of as separate and distinct from the people, but rather as one with the people, directly derived from their collective will via the electoral process.國會，尤其是眾議院的代表，從來沒有構想，作為獨立和獨特的從群眾中，而是作為一個與人民群眾直接來自他們的集體意志，通過選舉進程。 Unfortunately today, few Americans identify with Congress.可惜今天，只有少數美國人，找出與國會。 An “us versus them” mentality pervades. “我們銀兩他們”的心態瀰漫。 This mentality creates the crack in the moral and social contract which exists regarding a citizenry and its military.這種心態造成的裂紋，在道德和社會的合同存在的關於公民和其軍事。 Congress is responsible for maintaining the military.國會是負責維護軍事。 Congress is the branch of government mandated with the responsibility for declaring war.國會是政府部門的授權與責任宣戰。 When the bond is strained between the people and Congress, the bond between citizen and soldier is broken.當債券是緊張，兩國人民和國會，債券之間的公民和士兵是打破。 Congress, left to its own devices, will begin to view the military not as an extension of its constituents, but rather as a commodity to be traded and used in a highly politicized fashion.國會，留給自己的設備，將開始檢視軍事不是作為一個延長其選民，而是作為一種商品來買賣和使用在一個高度政治化的時裝。
This is the reality we find ourselves in today (and indeed which has existed for some time).這是現實，我們發現自己在今日（事實上，這已存在了一段時間） 。 The 2006 midterm elections highlight this reality, where a strong anti-war sentiment upon the part of the voters resulted in a Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. 2006年中期選舉突出了這一現實，那裡強烈的反戰情緒後，部分選民，導致在一個民主的多數都在美國國會眾議院和參議院組成。 Having assumed the mantle of legislative power, however, those who were elected on the coattails of anti-war sentiment were able to shun their anti-war constituents.擔任衣缽，立法權，但是，這些誰當選對coattails的反戰情緒能夠順其反戰的選民。 They did so by taking full advantage of the reality that the anti-war movement was in fact not a movement at all, but rather a concept pushed forward by他們這樣做，以充分利用現實的反戰運動，其實不是一個運動，在所有，而是一個概念，推動 a disparate mass 1不相干的群眾 without much political viability.沒有太多的政治可行性。
Where anti-war sentiment did in fact cross over from the ranks of the progressive left and into the mainstream of American society, it was quickly quashed through the dishonest logic that if one truly supported the troops (as most red-blooded Americans swear they do), then one must by extension support the mission.那裡的反戰情緒卻在事實上，兩岸關係從隊伍的逐步離開，並進入美國主流社會，這是迅速撤銷，通過不誠實的邏輯，如果一個真正支持部隊（由於大部分紅色冷血美國人發誓，他們這樣做） ，則必須由擴展支持的使命。 This flawed connectivity empowered Congress to sidestep the issue of withdrawing American forces from Iraq, and enabled it to continue rubber-stamping funding for a war which long ago lost any connection, perceived or otherwise, to the general security of the American people.這個有缺陷的連接授權國會迴避的問題，撤回美國軍隊從伊拉克撤出，並使得它能夠繼續橡皮圖章經費的戰爭早已失去了任何聯繫，自覺或以其他方式，向一般的安全是美國人民。
And so US service members continue to fight and die in Iraq, a conflict which grows more unpopular with the American people each passing day.因此，美國和服務委員繼續爭取及模具在伊拉克，一個衝突日益不得人心，與美國人民日新月異。 The question thus emerges: What is the appropriate response on the part of the American citizenry?這個問題，從而出現：什麼是適當的反應，對部分美國公民？ While we insulate ourselves from political duplicity, the soldiers ultimately pay the price for the cowardice of those whom we elect to represent us in higher office.雖然我們絕緣自己從政治的兩面性，戰士們最終付出代價，為膽小的那些人，我們選出代表我們在更高的辦公室。 This seems to be the path taken by most Americans, who have grown numbly indifferent to the incessant stream of disappointment over the continued failure of Congress to truly represent the will of the people.這似乎是道路所採取的大多數美國人，誰的增長numbly漠不關心，不斷流的失望，繼續失敗，國會，以真正代表人民的意志。 We have therefore built a wall which separates we the people from the one aspect of republican governance which is, by design, supposed to give us voice.因此，我們已建立了一個牆隔開我們的人從一個方面，共和黨執政，就是按照設計，假定給我們的聲音。
In doing so, we likewise create a buffer between citizen and soldier, as those who are constitutionally mandated to fund the care, equipping and utilization of the military now operate in ambiguity created by the vacuum of citizen apathy.在我們這樣做，同樣創造一個緩衝區之間的公民和士兵，因為這些誰是憲法規定的，以基金的照顧，裝備和利用軍事，現在運作的模糊所產生的真空公民的冷漠。 Thus liberated from the moral compass provided by the people, Congress has lost its ability to defend its own role in governance, and over time has demeaned its constitutional mandate by transferring powers inherent to the legislative branch to an executive branch which has assumed the role of caretaker of the military.因此，解放，從道德羅盤所提供的人民，國會已失去了能力維護其本身的作用，在治理，隨著時間的推移，已demeaned其憲法的任務移交權力所固有的立法部門，以一個行政科已承擔的作用看守政府的軍隊。 By vesting absolute power in the hands of the executive, Congress has all but assured that America has become a nation no longer governed by the rule of law, but rather the rule of man.由歸屬絕對手中的權力，行政，國會已保證所有，但美國已成為一個民族不再受法治，而是人治。 This sort of tyranny is what Americans fought a revolution to free themselves from 233 years ago.這種暴政是什麼，美國人打了一場革命，以免費自己由234多年前。
An executive that operates in accordance with a unitary theory of governance is one that views the capacity to defend the state as being in fact the capacity to defend the realm.一個行政運作，在按照一個單一的理論，治理是一個意見的能力，維護國家作為在事實上能力保衛境界。 As such, one sees a gravitation of emphasis: Rather than focusing on external threats to the collective, the realm becomes obsessed with internal threats to its ability to retain power.這樣，一看到引力的重點：而不是把重點放在外部威脅的集體，成為痴迷的境界，與內部威脅的能力，保留的權力。 The Patriot Act is a clear-cut example of how a unitary executive has undermined and corrupted the legitimate law enforcement mechanisms of the land by vesting the executive with powers normally associated solely with the legislative branch. In this regard, we see the armed forces similarly abused, with the creation of military command structures (namely愛國者法案是一個鮮明的例子，說明一個單一的執行，破壞和損毀的合法的執法機制的土地歸屬行政權力通常只與立法部門在這方面，我們看到軍隊同樣濫用，與建立軍事指揮結構（即 US Northern Command 美國北方司令部 ) which exist not to protect the people, but rather protect the realm from the people. ）不存在，保護人民，而是保護的境界，來自於人民。 This is not a stated objective, but rather one inferred from the fact that, for the first time since the imposition of posse comitatus in 1876, the United States has positioned its armed forces so that they can participate in normal state law enforcement.這不是一個目標，而是一個推斷，從事實上，對於以來的第一次實行波塞comitatus在1876年，美國的地位，它的武裝部隊，使他們能夠參加正常的國家執法。 In short, instead of serving as a force of protection for the American people from external threats, the military views the American people as the threat, “targets” which need to be investigated as potential threats to the military.在短期內，而不是充當武力保護美國人民免受外部的威脅，軍事的意見，美國人民的威脅， “目標” ，需要加以調查，作為潛在威脅的軍事。
An example of just how far off track the executive branch, facilitated by an all too complicit legislative branch, has strayed when it comes to the common defense is the Pentagon’s controversial一個例子，剛才有多遠偏離軌道，行政科，促進了一所有太共犯立法部門，已strayed當談到共同防務是五角大樓的爭議 Counterintelligence Field Activity 反情報領域的活動 , ostensibly created in a post-9/11 world to “… protect the [Defense] department by supporting the detection and neutralization of foreign espionage.” The CFA operates under the umbrella of US Northern Command, created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to ostensibly safeguard the American homeland. ，表面上創造的1 9.11世界“ … …保護[防禦]署支持的檢測及中和外國間諜” 。終審法院運作的保護傘下，美國北方司令部，創造了在之後的9月11 ， 2001年，恐怖襲擊，以表面上維護美國的國土。 A major aspect of the CFA’s work is something known as the Joint Protection Enterprise Network, or JPEN.的一個重要方面，終審法院的工作是一些被稱為聯合保護企業網絡，或jpen 。
The JPEN network enables the Defense Department to share unverified information with civilian police departments, the FBI and other government agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA).該jpen網絡，使國防部分享未經核實的信息與民警部門，聯邦調查局和其他政府機構，如國家安全局（ NSA ） 。 Originally dubbed Project Protect America, the JPEN system came into being in July 2003 with the full support of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.原本被稱為項目的保護，美國， jpen系統應運而生，在2003年7月的全力支持，當時的國務卿，國防部長拉姆斯菲爾德。 The heart and soul of the JPEN system is the “Threat and Local Observation Notice,” or TALON report, the brainchild of then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.的核心和靈魂的jpen制度是“威脅和地方觀察通知” ，或鷹爪報告中，創意與當時的國防部副部長保羅沃爾福威茨。 In the conduct of its work, the CFA created and distributed thousands of TALON reports via the JPEN system on the activities of private US citizens, with a particular focus of those engaged in anti-war protests.在開展工作中，終審法院創建和分發數以千計的鷹爪報告通過jpen制度對私人活動的美國公民，尤其側重對那些從事反戰抗議活動。
The CFA is slated in the near future to be morphed into a larger Defense Intelligence Agency-run Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence activity.終審法院是預定在不久的將來將演變為較大的國防情報局-運行反間諜和人力情報活動。 Far from limiting the scope and scale of the activities currently undertaken by the CFA, this new organization will simply increase the level of illegal and unconstitutional activities currently undertaken by the CFA against the American “target.” The fact that the US military now views the American citizenry as its target, as opposed to the object of its defense, shows just how broken the circle of trust is between citizen and soldier.到目前為止，從限制的範圍和規模的活動，目前由終審法院，這個新組織結構將可以簡單地增加一級非法和違憲的活動，目前由終審法院對美國的“目標” 。事實上，美國軍方現在意見美國公民為目標，作為反對的對象，其防禦，表明只是如何打破循環之間的信任是公民和士兵。 Additional TALON reports are being assembled on anyone deemed to be a potential threat to the US military, including all who are involved in “counter-recruitment” activities designed to provide alternatives to military service for today’s youths.額外的鷹爪報告正在組裝對任何人被認為是潛在的威脅，美國軍方，包括所有涉及誰在“反招聘”活動，目的是提供替代兵役，為今天的青年。 This myopic approach toward installation and facility security undertaken by the Pentagon is not only intellectually weak but constitutionally prohibited.這短視的做法，對安裝和設施的安全承諾，由五角大樓不僅是智力弱，但憲法禁止的。 The legislative branch, operating amid constituent apathy, continues to fail in its mission of upholding the rule of law.立法部門，經營中，制憲的冷漠，仍然未能在其使命，維護法治。
In similarly deplorable fashion, the Pentagon has allowed itself to be hijacked by the radical right wing of the Republican Party.在同樣惡劣的時裝，五角大樓已獲准本身要劫持激進右翼的共和黨黨。 The fact that Fox News has become the channel of choice for the US military speaks volumes about the mind-set which has gripped those who lead it.事實上，福克斯新聞已經成為渠道選擇為美軍說，約卷心定已陷入那些誰帶頭。 The military has always been a conservative institution.軍隊一直是一個保守的機構。 Yet when wearing the uniform of the United States serves more as a front for defending a political ideology (a rabid one at that) rather than upholding and defending the Constitution, the military does itself a disservice.然而，當身穿制服美國提供更多的作為一個陣線，捍衛政治意識形態（一狂熱一在那個） ，而不是堅持和捍衛憲法，軍事是否本身就是一種損害。 The disconnect between those who serve in the military and those whom they are sworn to protect can be fatal when one realizes the recruiting pool no longer identifies with the military as a legitimate expression of patriotism and citizenship.斷開之間的那些誰服務，在軍事和那些人，他們宣誓要保護可致命，當一個人意識到招募池不再識別與軍事作為一個合法的表達愛國主義和公民身份。
The scope of this ideological hijacking is broad, yet barely recognized.的範圍，這條思想劫機是廣泛的，但勉強承認。 One can glimpse just how deep and nefarious this ideological shift is when one considers the extent to which evangelical Christians have infiltrated the US Air Force Academy, proselytizing their heavily politicized religion to the future officers and leaders of that service. 1 ，可以一窺剛才有多深和邪惡的這一思想轉變是當一個人認為，在何種程度上福音派基督徒已經滲透到美國的空軍學院，勸誘他們的大量政治宗教未來的人員和領導人的服務。 The past comments of過去的評論 Lt. Gen. William Boykin 中將威廉boykin , a decorated Army Special Operations veteran who described America’s post-9/11 “war on terror” as a conflict between “Christian” America and “radical Islam,” are widely embraced within the US military. ，裝飾陸軍特種作戰退伍軍人誰形容美國的9.11 “反恐戰爭”作為一個之間的衝突“基督教”美國和“激進伊斯蘭” ，是廣泛接受與美國的軍事。 President Bush has echoed Boykin in his speeches and statements, and the military’s favorite presidential candidate, Republican Sen. John McCain, has become the embodiment of Boykin’s philosophy.布什總統已表示贊同boykin在他的講話和聲明，和軍隊的最喜愛的總統候選人，共和黨參議員麥凱恩，已經成為體現boykin的哲學。 The Constitution prohibits the notion that America be defined as a Christian nation. To allow the military, sworn as it is to uphold and defend that document, to posture itself as Christian, becoming in effect the “sword of God,” is unthinkable and unforgivable.該憲法禁止的概念，美國界定為一個基督教國家。容許軍事，宣誓就職，因為這是維護和捍衛該文件，以本身的姿態，作為基督徒，成為有效的“上帝之劍” ，是不可想像的和不可原諒的。
The implications of such posturing are far-reaching, especially from the military recruitment standpoint.的影響，這種姿勢有深遠的影響，特別是從應徵入伍的立場。 The all-volunteer military succeeds when it attracts to its ranks those who have a sincere desire to serve their nation.所有義工的軍事成功時，它吸引了它的隊伍有那些誰的真誠願望，他們的國家服務。 It succeeds greatly when those it attracts come from the broadest possible cross section of the American demographic.它成功極大地當那些它吸引了來自盡可能廣泛的橫截面，美國的人口。 There has always been an economic aspect to the all-volunteer force; service is not slavery, and the military has always promised the security of a middle-class lifestyle to those who choose to enlist.一直存在的經濟方面的所有義工的力量;服務是不是奴役，和軍隊一直答應安全的一個中產階層的生活方式，那些選擇誰爭取。 But military service, properly motivated, has never been solely about the money.但兵役，妥善的動機，從來沒有純粹關於金錢。 It is about defending a greater good, the people of the United States of America and their values and ideals as defined by the Constitution.它是關於維護更大的好，人民的美利堅合眾國的和他們的價值觀和理想所界定的憲法。
It has become increasingly difficult to motivate enough of today’s youths to serve in the armed services based upon the call of duty alone.它已成為越來越難以激勵不夠今天的青少年服務，在軍隊服務的基礎上的號召，稅單。 One of the primary reasons for this shortfall is the unfortunate perception, not improperly derived, that military service is not in keeping with the concept of “doing the right thing.” This perception, born of an unpopular war and the dishonest foreign policies of successive administrations, is further exaggerated by the reality that the military not only operates as a separate and distinct part of American society (this has always been the case) but, due in large part to post-9/11 hysteria, has been positioned to view the American people as a threat.其中一個主要的原因，這個缺口是不幸的看法，而不是不當所得，兵役，不符合“的概念做正確的事” 。這種看法，出生一個不受歡迎的戰爭和不誠實的外交政策的連續行政部門，是進一步誇大了現實的軍事不僅運營作為一個獨立和獨特的一部分，美國社會（這一直是如此） ，但由於在大部份以9.11癔症，一直處於有利的位置，以期對美國人民看成是一種威脅。 The inherent problems of the military trying to recruit from a population base which is under attack from the military are self-evident.固有的問題，軍方試圖招募從人口基數是根據攻擊從軍事是不言而喻的。 Genuine patriotism was once a viable recruitment pitch.真正的愛國主義曾經是一個可行的招聘攤位。 Now, economic incentives, false promises and pseudo-patriotism are used as the bait to lure the youths of today into America’s legions.現在，經濟誘因，虛假的承諾和偽愛國主義是用來作為誘餌，引誘青少年今天到美國的軍團。 Like the legions of the past, these new warriors march not on behalf of the citizens they are sworn to protect, but rather the emperor who commands them.像軍團的過去，這些新戰士三月而不是代表公民，他們宣誓要保護，而是皇帝誰命令他們。 This may be viewed as an overly harsh statement, but there is no other way to describe the abuses of a unitary executive who positions himself above the Constitution and Congress in a time of war.這可能被視為過於苛刻的聲明，但有沒有其他辦法來形容濫用一個單一的執行誰的立場自己凌駕於憲法和國會在一個時間的戰爭。
Having described the current state of the military and military service in this manner, why would I ever encourage a citizen of military age to consider service in the armed forces?有描述現狀，軍事和軍事服務，以這種方式，為何我會不斷鼓勵公民服兵役年齡要考慮服務的軍隊？ First and foremost, one needs to understand that the entire military system has not been corrupted.首要的，人們需要了解，整個軍事系統並沒有被損壞。 There are still men and women of honor who serve with dedication and pride.仍然存在著男人和女人的榮譽，誰的服務與奉獻精神和自豪感。 They are, in fact, in the majority.他們是，事實上，在多數。 It takes only a few bad apples to spoil the lot, however, and our military today, thanks to a nebulous mission and lower recruiting standards, is full of bad apples.它只需幾個壞蘋果，破壞了很多，但是，我軍的今天，由於一個含糊不清的使命和降低招聘標準，充滿了壞蘋果。 Likewise, to quote a Russian general, “a fish stinks from its head,” and nothing smells worse today than the “head” of the United States.同樣，引述俄羅斯一般， “一條魚stinks從它的頭部， ”並沒有氣味，更糟的今天，比“頭”的美國。 Our commander in chief has disgraced the office he was entrusted with, and in doing so has severely damaged the foundation of American civil society as well as the institutions sworn to uphold and defend it.我們的指揮官在行政已蒙羞，他辦公室的委託，並在這樣做已嚴重受損的基礎，美國的民間社會，以及為機構宣誓要維護和捍衛它。
The solution, however, cannot be “cut and run.” Simply identifying the problem and pointing a finger at the perpetrators will do nothing to resolve these critical issues.該解決方案，不過，不能“切割和運行， ”簡單地找出問題，並指出，用手指在肇事者將什麼也不做，以解決這些關鍵問題。 Our military cannot change unless we the people re-establish the link between ourselves and the legislative branch of government and rebuild the bond of trust between citizen and soldier.我們的軍隊不能改變，除非我們人民的重新建立之間的聯繫，自己和立法部門，政府和重建債券之間的信任公民和士兵。 This cannot happen in stages, but rather must occur simultaneously.這不可能發生的階段，而是必須同時發生。 While the vast majority of America struggles to regain its moral and ethical compass through the re-establishment of the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution, we need to continue to maintain a military which is capable of defending us.而絕大多數美國的鬥爭，以恢復其道德和倫理的指南針，通過重新建立法治提出的憲法，我們需要繼續保持軍事是能夠捍衛我們。
This requires good people to serve, even if the conditions of their service are not ideal.這需要良好的人服務，即使條件，他們的服務是不理想。 Do I want to have an intelligent, morally grounded soldier on the front line in Iraq, making the decisions about the use of force in the framework of an illegal and unjust occupation, or do I want to relinquish that job to a former felon lacking even a high school diploma?我想有一個聰明的，在道義上的接地士兵的前線，在伊拉克，使決定使用武力的框架內，一個非法和不公正的佔領，或我要放棄這項工作，以一名前重犯缺乏，甚至一個高中文憑？ Do I want the troops of today led by Bible-wielding zealots or Constitution-wielding patriots?我想部隊今天率領聖經揮舞著痴迷者，或憲法執政的愛國者？ While we struggle to re-establish the bond between citizen and soldier, we have an absolute requirement to ensure we continue to field a military composed of citizen soldiers.雖然我們的鬥爭中重新建立債券之間的公民和軍人，我們有絕對的要求，以確保我們能繼續外地的軍事組成的公民士兵。 The only way to prevent our military from becoming the new Roman Legion is to staff it with citizens of principle who reject such an abominable label.唯一的出路，以防止我軍成為新的羅馬軍團是工作人員與公民的原則，誰反對這種令人憎惡的標籤。 We are a nation at war, not just abroad, but with ourselves.我們是一個民族在戰爭中，不只是在國外，但與自己。 Now, more than ever, we need citizens of standing to answer the call to service, not in the name of a criminal president or an illegal war, but rather in defense of the Constitution and all that it stands for, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.現在，比以往任何時候更需要我們的公民常委會接聽電話服務，而不是在名稱刑事主席或一個非法的戰爭，而是在防禦的憲法和所有它的立場，反對一切敵人，外國和國內。
See More: 看到更多的： USA News 美國新聞Have Your Say: The Pentagon vs. America 你說：五角大樓與美國
Please note, only selected comments will be published.請注意，只有選定的評論將出版。
Or discuss this report in our our new forums 或討論這個報告在我們的我們的新論壇
This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pm and is filed under 此項目被張貼在週三， 2008年5月7日在下午2時05分，並提交下 Activism News 積極參與新聞 , ， War & Terrorism News 戰爭和恐怖主義新聞 , ， General 一般 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the 您可以按照任何的反應，此項目通過 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. 餵養。 You can 您可以 leave a response 留下的回應 , or ，或 trackback Trackback跟踪 from your own site. 從你自己的網站。
Free Newsletter 免費通訊 
Related News 相關新聞
- Bush’s war adviser says a return to the military draft is worth considering布什的戰爭顧問說，返回到軍事草案是值得考慮的
- Bush signs 0 billion Iraq war funding bill布什簽署00.0億伊拉克戰爭撥款法案
- Chinese officials predicted 9/11 attacks中國官員預測， 9 / 11襲擊
- Guantanamo Prisoner Charged in Embassy Attack關塔那摩囚犯被控在大使館的攻擊
- US forces kill Iraq family美軍殺害伊拉克家庭
Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友
Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
- The Pentagon vs. America五角大樓與美國
- Data fear haunts ID card scheme數據恐懼不安身份證計劃
- Pentagon Targeted Iran for Regime Change after 9/11五角大樓針對伊朗進行政權更替後， 9 / 11
- Gov set to defy its own experts and upgrade cannabis政務一套無視自己的專家和升級大麻
- Nuns are turned away from Indiana polls修女是扭頭從印第安納調查
- FBI agents raid office protecting whistleblowers聯邦調查局特工搜查辦公室，保護舉報者
- ‘Torture memo’ author, former attorney general, to testify '酷刑備忘錄'的作者，前總檢察長，作證
- The Surveillance Society Does Not Work監察的社會，不會工作
- Government can’t be trusted with our personal information政府不能信任與我們的個人信息
- ID-cards are ‘theft’ of our civil liberties編號-卡'竊取'我們的公民自由
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞
Archive 存檔