Charles,
From one vagabond intellectual to another:
Right on, brother. Thomas Paine couldn't have said it any better.
" ... we will argue below that for any nation to most effectively deal with the future, ( and the future must be faced with the institutions we have,) it must eventually engage the majority of its population."
Early in this century, I was highly disturbed by the rationalization that SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld used to justify our deficiency of military readiness, in answering the question of a rank and file soldier:
"Army Spc. Thomas Wilson: Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don't we have those resources readily available to us?
Rumsfeld: It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, ah, you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.---You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up..."
Few non-officers who have ever actually been to war (I am a Vietnam veteran) look at this astounding statement as anything but stupefyingly uninformed, and opposed to sound tactical wisdom.
In the course of your essay, you expand and clarify the above statement, that we need to marshal our resources as well as the will of the people, before we try and take the hill.
Great essay, and best wishes in the competition.
Best,
Tom
