Narcosis said:
Bill
Read the beginning of the post you just copied.
I actually agree with many of the things you say...Some of the $$ that goes to the generals pockets is mine and of my peers, so of course I'm pissed. That is one thing, but I think when a debate is to be done, let us keep it clean and without the exagerations and generalizations especially when you attack an institution like this one, that has historical importance and is a pillar of a nation as any armed forces of any country is.
OK, I see your point and I agree with your summation as to the necessity of keeping it clean.
Allow me to rumble on a little more in depth.
You mention the fact that DR Troops are in Iraq fulfilling the US call to the WORLD to provide troops to help that nation get back on it's feet. I agree that as far as I have been able to determine, they are fulfilling their mandate with honor.
Point in their favor.
You allude to their policeing this nation to keep out terrorists and druggies.
I wouldn't lump those mandates together, since they are two entirely seperate functions and require different training to be effective.
I will say that I'm not familiar with any anti-terrorists training the armed forces may be receiving or have received in the past, but (here is an arrogant statement for you) wold submit that the facilities DO NOT exist for such training and thus the ability of the armed forces to be a deterrent is moot.
In the recent conflict in Haiti, the Armed forces responded very well and aparently effectively sealed the border at the major crossing points(ie. where there were Haitian road termanus points with DR). I personally observed this in the Dajabon area, conferred with the Colonel in charge there and was well satisfied that they were doing a good job. I noticed, however, that there was only one soldier amoung the many who had a smattering of military discipline about him. And I'm not talking about spit and polish, but of bearing, attention to detail, and an awareness of what was going on around his post.
What I have based my opinions and observations on has it's background in almost 30 years of military service, both as an enlisted man and as an officer. I arrogantly submit those credentials as being one of an expert in ordinary military matters which the average civilian is never exposed to. We're speaking of bearing, self discipline, knowledge of maneuver, administration, conservance of material and manpower, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
I see a very top heavy military establishment, of very limited use (ie., no artillary support, no air support, sloppy roadmarch, highly undisciplined and poorly led in the upper over expanded echelons.
The Dominican Army would be better served by being mean and lean, led highly motivated NCO's and Officers and equipped and paid accordingly.
I don't mean to infer that the Armed Forces are peopled by buffoons. What I have observed is more like what we refer to as the "2nd Lt" syndrome wherein the individual is so new to the authority vested in him it goes to his head and he must impress the world with his importance. This seems to be the case in many observations and I'm not sure that it's not a national characteristic of the male of the species. Machismo seems to be very important here. Now that is just another observation, not denigration since we're all subject to the egotism of our sex.
Finally, can you cite to me examples of specialized training in the area of anti-terrorism interdiction, anti-drug interdiction, special investigation, deployment of platoon, company, battalion and regimental maneuvering to defend a specific military target, and counter attack from that defense aainst an armed enemy large or small? If you can't, then I rest my case as to the effectiveness of the forces as a national weapon against any agressor, large or small.
Texas Bill