The moral of the military

"the military succeeds wonderfully"

As Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler may say "REALLY"

The army/Defense Dpt. intelligence SNAFU's regarding Camp Hood rival their intell SNAFU's in the run up to 9/11 and their military assessments of the last 3 wars ( Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) have been similarly  FU'd .  

You raise a number of good points, Reg.

Desultory commets of my own:

There aren't many dolts that get through the military academies.

Chess was derived from military strategy.

(Gen. Swartzkopf (sp?) was said to have a 180 IQ.)

But the best thing, imvho, is that after the full integration of the military (Truman era?), the military is as clsoe to a real color-blind meritocracy as exists in our society.

Now if we can only learn to pick the worthy fights....

First, to challenge what I think is a straw man argument:

I don't know of many people who hold the belief that the government has not produced any inspirational or effective leaders. Ronald Reagan was held by many, myself included, to be both. Kennedy was inspirational and may have proven to be effective given time. FDR was both. Theodore Roosevelt was quite a leader. Lincoln must have been the gold standard. Enough of that, I think that the statement "In some quarters, it is believed as a matter of holy writ that only private enterprise free of the dead hand of government can produce a managerial elite. According to this theory, bureaucracies cannot deliver inspirational leaders to motivate superior effort." is not true.

What people do question is the ability of the government to administer health care efficiently. The military has a goal to accomplish that is not encumbered by fiscal concerns, and indeed is accomplished with a very large budjet. The military does not concern itself with efficiency, those cruise missles don't come cheap. Nor should it. Is this, however, what our host is suggesting would support a single payer or even public option health care reform? The military is judged strictly on the accomplishment of it's goals, none of which ever includes an emphisis on cost containment. Health care reform emphisises cost containment as a priority. The argument that military success suggests that health care administration would also be successful is arguing that apples would make delicious oranges. The two have nothing to do with one another.

Gotta say, mugsy is absolutely right.

That said, never say never.  Mr. Henry is still correct that it’s always possible the government might, maybe, for once, not do too badly.

Anyway, it has to be done.  Now.

P.S. – mugsy, yes, cost containment is a priority; so is coverage.

Sorry Reg, but you'll get no "salute" from me on this final premise.  

The "military is a huge government-sponsored bureaucracy, quite socialistic in its makeup".  

For that very reason, I do not believe that government-sponsored health care can work.

G-day.

Mugsy - I would argue that only those presidents who were members of the military can even remotely be considered to have been "produced" by the government.  One would hope that voters would choose natural leaders to be president.  That would mean they were not, in fact, "produced" by the government - no matter how effective their leadership.  Kennedy & Teddy Roosevelt were military.  FDR, for obvious reason, was not.  Lincoln's experience as a Captain in the Illinois Militia was limited.  Reagan served during WW2 but I suspect few voters ever knew that.  His motion picture career was much more readily found.

Disclaimer:  I realize that's placing too much hope in the average voter.  I know many people vote for the first name they recognize or the candidate recommended by the bartender at their local watering hole.

I guess Reg must be a frequent visitor to Niagara Falls.  That would explain who talked to the 15 people who went over the falls, telling them it was OK, since only 5 died.