Instead, it sought to treat second-order symptoms. Army Europe did not seek to resolve institutional racism or to repair the structural contributions to drug use. Army Europe was unsuccessful in significantly reducing the rate of illegal drug use, but Vazansky contends that Davison's approach increased trust, improving the command climate between leaders and soldiers at multiple echelons.
The command encouraged soldiers to acknowledge drug problems and seek treatment, generally without penalty, decreasing the soldiers' inclination to conceal addiction to avoid punishment. Army Europe soldiers, he sought every opportunity to implement amnesty and rehabilitation, instead of punishment, for drug users. Recognizing the pervasive nature of illegal drug use by U.S. He pressured subordinate commanders to hear and acknowledge the issues of Black soldiers and to ameliorate problems wherever they were found.ĭavison took a similarly progressive approach toward drug use among soldiers. Davison, on the other hand, saw intra-unit racial strife as a command problem. In Vazansky's telling, Polk's approach was to avoid addressing problems of race directly, seeking to avoid recognizing the problems confronted by Black soldiers. Polk, who avoided publicizing any of the Army's problems and took a zero-sum, zero-tolerance approach to misconduct. These activities were in stark contrast to the approach of his predecessor, General James H. Army Europe in 1971, Davison immediately began implementing policies that publicly acknowledged the extent of the Army's social issues and sought dialogue with soldiers to provide an outlet for grievances within his command. The third examines the problem of drug abuse by American soldiers in Germany.Īn Army in Crisis is, at its core, a story about the leadership of General Michael S. The second examines the contribution of antiwar and political opposition movements toward strife within the ranks of U.S. The first addresses racial strife between the large population of Black soldiers and their overwhelmingly White leaders. To argue his case, the author organizes An Army in Crisis into three sections. Army forces stationed there, and social unrest in the United States at that time. Army formations in Germany stemmed from the diminished importance of the Army in Germany due to an increased focus on Vietnam, a transition in the relationships between the people of West Germany and the U.S. Vazansky's thesis is that the social crises among U.S. Army Europe crisis during this period in three interrelated sections: racial strife, political struggle, and drug problems. In An Army in Crisis, Alexander Vazansky, a history professor at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, examines the U.S. The effects of this unrest were particularly pronounced within Germany and the American soldiers under the command of U.S. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the United States was beset by a convergence of social unrest stemming from the civil rights movement and popular opposition to the Vietnam War. These times of turmoil are not without precedent. Debate raged among civilian leadership on whether it was appropriate to have most of the Army's largest installations named for military leaders of the Confederate States of America, a pro-slavery rebellion. Army, in particular, confronted racist components of its legacy. military did not escape this wider societal trend, and the individual Services found themselves confronting accounts of systemic racism and misogyny from Service members of almost every rank.
The year 2020 was one of racial, social, and political upheaval in the United States.
0 kommentar(er)
