Even A Vet Realizes Vets Are Unacceptable Rulers

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

A “former military intelligence officer” who “served in Iraq” lists ten reasons not to vote for vets, despite “the population’s newfound reverence for ‘our heroes.'” How shameful, that formerly free people now “revere” hired killers so much that the killers themselves protest the idolatry!

Among the reasons not to vote for vets: they’re “really bad at managing tax dollars” — I vote for that as Understatement of the Year — and “being a vet doesn’t make us a morally superior candidate.” OK, maybe that should be Understatement of the Year. Also, “Combat isn’t an accomplishment” (“it doesn’t take political acumen — or any kind of acumen, for that matter — to go to Iraq and get shot at”); “We really don’t understand the average American” (yeah, mistaking them for punching bags when a vet joins one of the standing armies here at home does tend to crimp the ol’ understanding); and “Our life experience is limited” (“[Vets] have never been in a job environment that routinely demanded them to build consensus, make compromises or negotiate plans. It’s an extremely hierarchal organization where everyone’s job and authority exist in a crystalline lattice, units rarely have to worry about budgets, and the preferred method of getting people to do your will is punitive coercion. In other words, it’s everything the government is not.” Au contraire: the military is precisely what government is, stripped of its euphemisms and we’re-here-to-help spin. If war is the health of the State, the military is merely the State denuded).

Thanks to David Mueller for sending the link.

8:32 am on April 29, 2014