Saturday Morning Rant

        It is disturbing to me to almost continually see real issues hidden in the dust of partisan sniping and finger pointing. The incident which triggered this reaction, again this morning, was reading a Face book post in which some camo ball cap wearing 60 plus years old, perhaps a vet, perhaps not, was complaining because, "They won't hang Bergdahl." For the .05% of us who don't know what he was referring to, he was lamenting the fact that US Army deserter Bo Bergdahl was probably not going to be executed for "desertion."

        Why is this troubling? Let's start with the fact that the death penalty is only even possible in the case of desertion "in the face of the enemy in time of war." There is no "war" as defined in the Constitution, since Congress has never been asked to declare one relative to any place since World War II. The most famous  "deserter" from the US Army in Korea was court martialed and served a whopping 25 days in a military prison before his release.

          In WWII - a "declared" war, one man out of an estimated 420,000  deserters, Eddie Slovik, was executed, and that was by firing squad. In the Viet Nam (call it what you will, "war", "police action", "field trip") there were an estimated 40,000 deserters, none of whom was even considered for a death penalty, most of whom were not even prosecuted.

        A deeper examination would almost certainly reveal that the inbred who complained also somehow blames the current status of Bergdahl on the former POTUS. In truth, Bergdahl has already spent more time in custody than any Viet Nam Era deserter.

        It seems that in a lot of cases, the less real military experience some folks have had, the less they actually know but the more they pretend that they do. This is certainly true in the broad brush application of the term "treason," which is narrowly defined in the US Constitution to prevent just such random, anger inspired (and universally incorrect)  charges.

           It is equally true that far too many Americans seem to believe  that some military jobs magically convey some sort of savant status to the member. A classic example is the Far Right's love of quotes on foreign policy from retired officers who were never in any job remotely related to that field. Even worse are the camo wearing, high school dropout, duck call makers who pleasure themselves to film clips from American Sniper and  believe SEALs  are 1) Universally insightful and brilliant,  2) Intimately involved in US foreign policy making and 3) Great critical thinkers outside their area of expertise.

          All three positions are incorrect. SEALs are really good at what they've been trained to do - kill people. I appreciate their skill and dedication to that job. That's what BUDS and SEAL training prepare them to do. We need people like that, just not as makers of US world and national policy. If we wanted these guys to be expert in other areas we'd train them in those areas. I'm not a historian because I was a Submariner, but because of years of college training, three degrees and 20 years of teaching experience.   

        An analogy to the "SEALs as policy wonk" theory might  be believing that Andre the Giant would have made a great basketball player because he was 7 foot 4 inches tall, or that Linda Hunt might be a really good jockey. Another might be the assumption that Donald Trump would make a really good president because......sorry, can't think of an analogy here, and apparently neither can those of his staff who are leaving almost daily