Democrats and the Profession of Arms
November 26th, 2006 | by Curious Texan |This morning on Fox News Sunday, I heard Korean War veteran and profesional politician Charles Rangel articulate a position that is all too prevalent among Democrats:
“I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.”
Michelle Malkin has posted the video:
My son-in-law recently returned from Iraq to Germany, but not having spoken with him at length, it would be presumptuous of me to address his motivations or those of his comrades in arms. But as a former “young, bright individual,” I can tell you that after finishing my bachelor’s degree cum laude, I enlisted as a buck private in 1972 (no enlisted credit for college back then). My initial motivation was to learn another language (Russian) to complement my German major and French minor. Twenty years, one more language (Polish) and two masters degrees later, I hung up my uniform for the last time.
In the two decades I served, I never considered my options to be a choice between a “decent career” and service in the army. Far from merely being a “decent career,” my choice to stay in the military was fulfilling and totally without regrets. And as far as coming from a community with “very, very high unemployment,” I grew up in an upper-middle class family in upstate New York (my father was a dentist). As a recent college graduate at the time of my enlistment, I had many options. If the Heritage Foundation study Chris Wallace cited is to be believed, today’s enlistees have options, too. Yet they choose to serve, many out of a sense of duty and honor.
Compare the statements of Representative Rangel to the recent decision of the San Francisco city government to ban Junior ROTC from its high schools, ostensibly to keep poor, unsuspecting kids with limited options from being brainwashed into joining the military. Then revisit Senator Kerry’s “botched joke”:
“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
Isn’t this the same decent career/service in the army dichotomy that Rangel poses and the San Francisco decision alludes to?
5 Responses to “Democrats and the Profession of Arms”
By celtictexan on Nov 27, 2006 | Reply
At the same time he is pushing for a draft. I have to admit that the draft is a good idea IMHO. I think all young men would benefit from time in the military. Even the Havard/Yale elitist type’s. It’s amazing the appreciation for America people develop, when they get to tour third world countries.
By Curious Texan on Nov 27, 2006 | Reply
I tend to agree with you. There were a few draftees left in the Army during my first enlistment, as well as those who enlisted in the face of being drafted.
One such enlistee I had the pleasure of serving with later went on to become a professor of classical languages at a well-known university. By the time I met him, he had less than a year left on his enlistment, but others who served longer with him told me that his views on national security were definitely influenced by the time he served in Germany during the Cold War.
The mixing of young men of privilege with their counterparts from lower stations in life also exposes the latter to possibilities they never would have experienced had they stayed on the farm or in the ghetto or barrio.
Apparently Representative Rangel’s vision of a new draft includes service in other governmental agencies beside the armed forces (e.g. Americorps, the Peace Corps, etc.). Like most Democrat plans, the devil’s in the details.
Beside that, even if a strictly military draft could be reinstituted, I wonder whether the socialization of some of the less desirable types among our nation’s young people these days might be more trouble than their service would be worth.
By celtictexan on Nov 28, 2006 | Reply
Yeah Rangels plan is not about the betterment of the military. He seeks some kind of rancor in one way or anouther. I’m not sure what that.
The good thing about the draft would be the ability to pick and choose. Personally I would be hitting the more educated types the hardest and exclude those who would be problem’s. Primarily my purpose would be the “reeducation” of the educated types. I.E. the real world versus the liberal pipe dreams of the so called higher institutions of learning.
By Curious Texan on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
Here’s another recent example of the Left’s total misunderstanding of why we serve, this time from Hollywood star turned political pundit, Matt Damon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYcRuwOspjw&search=Matt%20Damon%20Bush%20Twins%20Iraq
By Bodacious on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
I think the idea that people who support the war should “send their own kids to Iraq” is hilarious for several reasons.
For one, only adults or 17 year olds with express parental permission volunteer for military service. It seems that talking point is passed on by people who think people can walk up to their adult or near adult children and say, “Put on your boots junior you’re going to Iraq!”
For two, Cindy Sheehan is a shining example of the fallacy of the above talking point. I seriously doubt she “sent her child to Iraq.”