Maybe a little too early to teach this fact to the young men and women considering joining our nation's military, and do not yet have a full understanding of what that service entails, but I will mention it:
The US military has been, and always will be, subservient to the people they protect. One of our Nation's greatest strengths, and perhaps one of our military's greatest strategic weaknesses. We WANT a military that does not get involved in politics, that does not influence the national debate on where this country is heading and how we should get there. These ARE great things.
But this also means that as one who serves, you serve at the whim and the will of people who may or may not have the military's best interests in heart, but either their own personal interests, or the interests of their constituents. The military is USED to concrete goals and getting the mission accomplished. Having to live with someone else controlling their budget, their strategy, their mission objectives..., all of these are out of the military's hands, and in the hands of the people we as a nation have elected to lead us.
Hard fact of life for the military and those who serve: you're destiny is NOT in your hands alone, and usually well out of your decision authority. You live to SERVE.
And that IS a good thing, IMO.
as to THIS situation? Simply a case of politicians being politicians; grasping at straws when a vote doesn't go their way, willing to accuse anyone but themselves at foul play in order to keep their pet projects alove.
I wonder if the voting public, which has become VERY critical of the standard Congressional act of supporting what is not best for the country but what is best for staying in power through re-election, will remember these actions come Nov 2012. Then again, they'll probably just vote for the guy who "kept jobs in their backyard". (And which will once again play "politics" with the military and its budget)
