Of course they don't always complain. But if you look back on it, complaining about the food during quiet times has always been an honored passtime.
Perhaps I should explain something...I don't have ANY problem with having soldiers as cooks. Far from it. I think it's a good idea, especially when the cooks are linked to specific units. There used to be a time-honored tradition (or at least a good myth that had more than a small shade of truth to it) about the field kitchens looking after "their boys." Good for morale. Always has been. Problems usually started when the cooking duties were rotated or (as happened in some cases) when they were neglected or contracted out by default (as in local businessmen and women filling in with "pies and delicacies" that they sold for a nice profit when the rationing systems broke down).
Sam, the debate about soldiers being soldiers or laborers has been around in this country for some time. I have to admit I'm mixed on it in some ways. There are certainly functions that SHOULD be performed by soldiers (base guards, critical projects, bunker construction), but there are others that may be better contracted out. Have we gone too far with the contracting? Yes. I really think we have. Vietnam and the standard of living that was considered necessary in the rear areas (although not always in the field...or in all areas of Vietnam) accelerated this trend, along with other organizational changes.
You're quite right to bring up the festering backlash this could all cause. Especially when you have people working 2-3 jobs just to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. The last thing they want to hear are stories about lobster and steak (that they feel they're paying for) in a combat zone. I actually think that the lack of understanding on the part of many about the actual military has kept a lid on some of this, along with the things you mentioned. How long that lid will stay on is anyone's guess.
Bookmarks