Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The military: Career of last choice?
Posted by: McQ on Monday, November 27, 2006

I guess for some Democrats, the military is the job of last choice for those who have no real prospects elsewhere:
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.
That's Charlie Rangel who just can't seem to shut up about this topic. Of course as I pointed out in a post about the draft, his contention that "most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment" doesn't track with the facts gathered about the force we now have.


While Charlie Rangel may be a veteran, he seems to not understand, or has forgotten, that people join the military for a wide variety of reasons. For some it is a rite of passage. A family tradition. My family has 4 generations straight who've served. I'd call them as bright as anyone and they didn't join and fight because of "a bonus and just because of educational benefits", they did it to serve (no one in my family was ever drafted although the draft was in place when my father and my two brothers and I served).

I have a nephew who went to Iraq yesterday. He's a volunteer. He didn't join for "a bonus" or because of "educational benefits". He wants to make a career of the service because he loves it, loves what he does, and can't imagine a better or more satisfying job. He loves the adventure. He loves the camaraderie. He loves the fact that he's serving with as fine an institution as the US Army. He's proud of what he does.

Find that sort of pride and love in most "decent careers."

Oh, and about the "wanting to fight" bit ... simply review the re-enlistment rates for combat units (those who re-enlist know precisely what they'll be doing if they re-enlist).

It is this continual characterization of members of the military as 'victims' which irks me beyond rational response sometimes. Yes, the military may be the best choice among few for some, but for most it is much, much more than that. Look at that chart above. They come from all income quintiles.

Look at the enlistment rates post 9/11 and post Iraq invasion. Anyone who enlisted after the Iraq invasion knew, without a doubt, where they'd end up. You don't do that if not willing (or want) to fight.

If you spend 15 minutes with today's military members, you'd be awed by them. They are, without a doubt, the sharpest, smartest, most dedicated, most professional group of people, top to bottom, that you'll find anywhere, in any industry or profession. And they're there because they choose to be and because, as re-enlistment rates constantly demonstrate, they prefer the service over anything else.

Charlie Rangel and his ilk can continue to disparage them and their choice in an effort persuade the public the draft is necessary. But the fact remains that no matter how hard he tries to play the radical egalitarian card, the draft isn't going to happen. The brightest and best continue to freely choose the "military option" despite the best efforts of those like Rangel to characterize them as losers and victims of an unfair system with no other real choices.

UPDATE: More on the makeup of the services:
A study by the Heritage Foundation in October instead shows that the percentage of low-income recruits in all four branches of the military has decreased steadily. In 1999, 18 percent of all military recruits came from the poorest one-fifth of America's communities - in other words, a less than proportional share.

(The study looked at income levels of recruits' home zip-code areas, because the Pentagon does not track the income of individual enlistees. For most recruits, military service is their first job. It is possible, perhaps, that recruits tend to come from lower income levels inside every zip code.)

By 2005, the percentage of recruits who came from the poorest one-fifth of neighborhoods had dropped to 13.7 percent. In the war years of 2003 to 2005, the percentage of all military recruits from the country's wealthiest zip codes actually increased slightly, from 22.17 percent to 22.85 percent.

Nor does the military appear to be over-relying on minority recruits, or treating them as "cannon fodder," according to the data. African Americans joined the military in 2005 in very close proportion to their overall percentage of the U.S. population.

[...]

There is evidence that Hispanics are over-represented in the military, especially in the Marine Corps, and that they have a slightly higher "death risk" than non-Hispanic personnel. About 75 percent of the United States is white; 73 percent of military personnel are white.

The South continues to be overrepresented in the volunteer Army. About 43 percent of all enlistees come from southern states, which have only 38 percent of the total U.S. population.

Bottom line: The volunteer military is largely representative of America in race, income level and education. Young men and women volunteer for a variety of reasons, including patriotism, the lure of college aid, and the desire to become leaders, not just lack of jobs and opportunities in their hometowns. The military doesn't need a draft to inject some mythical social "fairness" into its makeup.
Now, would someone be kind enough to tell Rangel to STFU?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Now, would someone be kind enough to tell Rangel to STFU?
Good luck with that. As you know, it isn’t about the truth. Never was. It is about who has control of the narrative. What for the usual suspects show up to defend the indefensible.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Rangel’s my Congressman, and I also would like him to shush on this topic. I think it’s silly and a distraction from the real issues about the war and the military.

-Mithras
p.s. My dad went to the Naval academy, as did three generations before him.

 
Written By: Mithras
URL: http://mithrastheprophet.blogspot.com
no McQ, but perhaps you should STFU. I mean, look....

1. You use The Heritage Foundation as your only cite. This is the same group that advocated policy that lead to Iran-Contra, for Christ’s sakes. They aren’t exactly un-biased. They love war and the profits it generates for its board members.

2. You use their chart, carefully picked by you, made up of carefully selected three year old GOVERNMENT data, with 1999 possibly cherry picked as the best manipulation of the data that, just coincidently, disputes the Democrats position. Amazing. THEY DO NOT INCLUDE NATIONAL GUARD. Nor do they break down by branch of service. Not many sailors are ’boots on the ground’.

3. You utilize a chart that ignores several factors of economic reality, and demonstrates only how high unemployment cuts across all income demographics these days. You ignore loss of buying power. In short, the chart fails to show just how tough it is out there for the youngsters. yeah, you got a few GI Joes that buy the Gung-Ho propaganda marketing, let them enlist, I say. But I’d be willing to bet a dollar most of that 20% average enlistment are not as described above.

And then you use all this diatribe, not to educate, but to partisan b*tch-slap the party that handed YOUR party a major defeat. Sour grapes, eh?

Here is the kicker, McQ: there is no way I support a draft, unless it discourages fat-cat chickenhawks from shieding their boys and girls from the horrors of war, and assures the biggest threat they encounter to their psyche or body from age 19-29 is an over-indulgence of beer bongs.

So please, keep singing that shrill harpies song.. The more US citizens become disgusted with spittle accented tiraeds, the faster libertarians can take control of the Republican Party.

This is one of your worse posts because even a moron like me can pick it apart. Tha is how sad it is. Almost...desperate...

Heritage Foundation. Indeed. I LOL @ your cite!

And yes, I’m a veteran, blah blah....
 
Written By: Rick Day
URL: http://goplobby.org
My uncle wasn’t drafted, and he has a PhD from Duke and has written a couple of books, including one which is generally considered the definitive study on the origins and establishment of the US special forces. I assure you he was and is not a man without career options.

My younger brother enlisted the day before his 36th birthday, after the invasion of Iraq, to serve. He had always wanted to and with the fighting already begun it seemed a better time to him than during peacetime. No questions about why were really necessary, the answer being obvious.

Nor was he some over enthusiastic, macho, belligerent "buying the gung ho mareting" that I sometimes here such enlistees stereotyped as by people such as Rick Day. He wanted to serve. In many ways it was a surprise, he had to lose twenty pounds in only two weeks for them even to accept him, they then sent him to fat camp to lose a bunch more or wash out. He went home and ran himself silly for two weeks, dieted, and lost twenty pounds in two weeks. He then lost whatever it was they wanted him to after enlistment and was off to boot camp. The physical transformation has been astonishing. He was an art student in college, majoring in pottery. He had just had his first child and would soon have a second on the way. Does any of that fit Rangel’s or many others stereotype?

Rick,

I am not sure I have ever considered you a moron, but here I guess I can say your comment is moronic. The Heritage foundation is not the only source contradicting the assessment, but even if it was, saying the data is to be ignored because they wrote it is poor reasoning. Is the data wrong? You provide no evidence it is.

Your point about unemployment may have some validity, but it isn’t Rangel’s point, and you have nothing but a spittle marred outburst to support it.

If you are willing to bet your dollar I will take that bet. Come up with some actual evidence that "most of that 20% average enlistment are not as described above." I just wish you were willing to bet more.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
You use The Heritage Foundation as your only cite.
Uh, huh. And you don’t present anything which refutes the numbers, you simply nibble around the edges and try to mischaracterize them. Show me where the chart is wrong, Rick. Put up or shut up.
THEY DO NOT INCLUDE NATIONAL GUARD.
Nor should they.

They don’t draft into the National Guard, so what is your point?

Rangel is talking about the active duty military Rick. Wake up. Have a cup of coffee. Or go away. Your choice.
Nor do they break down by branch of service. Not many sailors are ’boots on the ground’.
Yet all services have met and exceeded their recruitment goals for the year. We’re talking about the total military, Rick. Or did you miss that? We’re not talking about a "selective draft" only for the Army. Rather than making unsupported claims, show me where breaking them down by service would paint a different picture, given the 100%+ recruiting success of all services.

I await your proof.
You utilize a chart that ignores several factors of economic reality, and demonstrates only how high unemployment cuts across all income demographics these days.
The chart demonstrates no such thing. It points to the income levels of incoming recruits by quintile. For your benefit, since you obviously are unaware of it, the unemployment rate for the country is 4.4%, which in economic terms is considered to be full employment.

Again, rather than baseless assertions, show me how what you claim is true.
This is one of your worse posts because even a moron like me can pick it apart. Tha is how sad it is. Almost...desperate...
Maybe someone will take pity on you Rick and explain that what you just did doesn’t constitute an argument (and it doesn’t come close to a refutation) but is instead a sad demonstration of blatant ignorance (and a case study of a collection of logical fallacies). Your assertions are rubbish which one can only honestly characterize as vituperative, baseless and ill-informed comment which, in the end, makes the commenter look foolish (uh, that would be you, Rick, you know, the self-identified "moron" in case you missed that as well).

Maybe it is you who should follow my advice to Rangel as well.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
My son will join your nephew tomorrow in Iraq. He is an enlisted man even though he graduated from college with honors; wouldn’t wait for an OCS opening. He gave up a second tour in South Korea with a promise of a promotion (more pay too Charlie) and his army girl friend remains in SoKo after her tour in Iraq. He knew what might be in store for him. He simply said, "It was his turn." We are not poor and my son had no need to find a job via the military. Charlie Rangel is an old kook who should retire and stop embarrassing himself.
 
Written By: amr
URL: http://
Not really related, but it seems that Rangel has some other preconceived notions that lead to foot-in-mouth syndrome.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
You made me curious as to how many generations of mine have served in a voluntary capacity and to my surprise, it is five dating back to my immigrant ancestors. Only one was drafted and that was into the 21st TN Infantry during the Civil War. Patrick Shea and three of this four brothers served in the same company and they all managed to survive the war (another ancestor, Enoch Jones, volunteered for an Ohio regiment.) Both my brother and I volunteered during VN, although I have to admit that I would have been drafted if I had not volunteered. He served in the Army while I went into the Navy.

Rangel’s point is a "Modest Proposal" (look it up) in which he tries to point out that a draft would make the political class think twice about committing us to a war. I happen to disagree with that analysis, I think the Goldwater-Nichols Act already accomplished that goal, but it is the reason he proposed this last year and then voted against it.

It’s just politics as usual, don’t sweat it so much.
 
Written By: mikeyes
URL: http://
It’s actually a shame that Charlie’s wrong. Although I have serious issues with the orders our civilian leadership has given the military in the past few years, the military is an excellent choice for those in that lowest quintile (and every other quintile) for innumerable reasons, not the least of which is to escape from where they are and to create the foundation for a successful future.

The civilian leadership needs to be separated rhetorically from the military, they are not one in the same. Sadly, Charlie is falling into this trap, while he would also be among the first to point out that disagreement with the policies of our civilian government is not a disagreement with the troops.

Maybe the Republicans have been too successful with this strawman?

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Maybe the Republicans have been too successful with this strawman?
And proof this is a Republican strawman can be seen where?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
the military is an excellent choice for those in that lowest quintile (and every other quintile) for innumerable reasons, not the least of which is to escape from where they are and to create the foundation for a successful future.
That’s a very good — and under-attended — point. The military is not a term in San Quentin. It is a legitimate job/career opportunity, and those who choose it can do very well for themselves. Instead of painting it as a rube’s choice, we ought to be explaining to people — at all quintiles — that it’s a good career option, or just a good way to break into the "real world".
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
The military is not a term in San Quentin. It is a legitimate job/career opportunity, and those who choose it can do very well for themselves. Instead of painting it as a rube’s choice, we ought to be explaining to people — at all quintiles — that it’s a good career option, or just a good way to break into the "real world".
Except in San Francisco of course!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Cap and Jon,

You make a good point that applies to my brother. Not only can the military itself be a good career, but with the now certified skills (as opposed to just claiming he can do certain things) he is salivating at the bucks he can command in a number of fields (he is part of the tail in the tooth to tail ratio and does things that back here commands six figures.) That wasn’t why he joined, and he didn’t know exactly what he would end up doing, but there it is.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
And proof this is a Republican strawman can be seen where?
Everytime a Republican asserted that dissention on policy equated to not supporting the troops.

Surely you have read or heard this once or twice?

But thanks for finding an area of disagreement in otherwise agreeable post.

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
He said, "and fight in Iraq". If it weren’t for that phrase, the criticisms offered on this thread of Rangel’s remarks would be valid. But he didn’t diss the military as a career. He said that young people aren’t rushing out right now to sign up for war. He’s right about that—recruitment is diffcult right now, so difficult that recruiters are lowering their standards to get people who would have been rejected three years ago.
Also you imply that Rangel was speaking for all Democrats or many Democrats but you suppy nothing in the way of evidence. Perhaps your assumption that Democrats are anti-military is a prejudice that you need to examine. After all something like fifty vets , including eleven Iraq vets, ran in the election this year, as compared to only four or five Republicans.
I suspect that Charlie is old school—formed his attitudes back in the day when the military really was the career option for juvenile delinnquents. When the military went volunteeer huge institutional changes were made which are probably less apparent to Rangel’s generation than to mine. His point about the military right this minute, however, is valid. The war is a deterent to joining up. It’s also a deterent to staying in.
There’s another point which is worth making: those who scream the loudest about having the will to win are almost invariably chickhenhawks who have no intention of getting anywhere near a war. The Bush administration is full of draftdodgers. The right wing Noise Machine is the voice of draftdodgers and those who want someone slse to serve. I’m not in favor of a draft, nor am I opposed to people choosing the military as a career. But I am sick to death of the hypocritical cowards who equate the "war on terror" with World War Two, but want someone else to fight it. (this last rant isn’t aimed at this site, BTW>)
 
Written By: laura
URL: http://
Also you imply that Rangel was speaking for all Democrats or many Democrats but you suppy nothing in the way of evidence.
Excuse us for thinking that the presumptive head of the powerful Ways and Means Committee holds views that are mainstream among the Dem. rank and file.

OOOOPS! :)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Ricky D.
a moron like me
I completely agree with this part of your statement. The rest .. not so much.

Cap Sar:
the military is an excellent choice for those in that lowest quintile
Well no, not unless they have the aptitude for it. No more than saying the same thing about any other career than has high standards.

You really want to give life to this pathetic strawman. Might I suggest that we all agree that Rangel is just plain wrong period.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Kipling said it best:

It’s "Tommy this" an’ "Tommy that"
An’ anything you please,
And Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool —
You bet that Tommy sees.

 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
"This is one of your worse posts because even a moron like me"

Just when I thought this was one of the dumbest posts I have ever seen, he comes up with this brilliant insight.

****************************

"the military is an excellent choice for those in that lowest quintile"

Actually it isn’t. Promotion is very competitive, and the "up or out" policy pretty much guarantees that the lowest quintile won’t get their 20 years. Then of course there is the fact that most technical jobs require a bit more than a lowest quintile score on the tests. Combat arms? That is the popular perception, but dumb soldiers are dead soldiers, and the ones that aren’t dead are not popular.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The war is a deterent to joining up. It’s also a deterent to staying in.
Not according to the recruiting and retention numbers Laura.

The Bush administration is full of draftdodgers.
Unlike the previous Clinton Administration, which sustained one of the highest operational tempos of the military, right? I mean THAT Administration was FULL of former service personnel..OH wait. Or do you mean that famous wartime leader, FDR, who was once ASSISTANT Secretary of the Navy?
The right wing Noise Machine is the voice of draftdodgers and those who want someone slse to serve.
Again unlike the folks that demanded something be done in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans, and now DARFUR. Yes all THOSE people have served honourably..OH WAIT.
But I am sick to death of the hypocritical cowards who equate the "war on terror" with World War Two, but want someone else to fight it.
Are you saying that the War on Islamism ISN’T like WII or that we need to mobilize 10% of the US populace and muster 50% of the US GNP to fight it? Just flesh this out for me willya?

(this last rant isn’t aimed at this site, BTW>)
That’s big of you.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Hey Bruce you have one factual error in your post. I did receive my draft notice but then joined the Navy because they wore bell bottoms (it was the 60’s) and they had the best chow. (by the way Navy had boots on the ground, not many, corpsman {as brave as any tunnel rat} and they were with the Marines.
 
Written By: McQ2
URL: http://
Everytime a Republican asserted that dissention on policy equated to not supporting the troops.
Which has what to do with Rangel and the draft?

I mean I don’t want to get in front of a good red herring, but just wondering?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
That’s a very good — and under-attended — point.
Yes, but one that was covered in the post:
Yes, the military may be the best choice among few for some ...
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Also you imply that Rangel was speaking for all Democrats or many Democrats but you suppy nothing in the way of evidence.
I’m not at all implying he’s speaking for all Democrats. I said "Charlie Rangel and his ilk". That would refer to those who believe a draft is a good thing and that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re limited to being Democrats.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Yes, but one that was covered in the post:
Just wanted to offer reinforcement on the point. Over the years, I’ve heard that from people who served over and over again — the military is not a job of last resort...it’s one of the best choices they ever made, and led to enormous personal and career development.

Incidentally, to Rangel and Rahm Emanduel, add Jim Webb. He’s been a long-time proponent of the draft for various social engineering reasons. In the recent campaign, Tim Russert asked him if he was still in favor of bringing it back and Webb answered that he didn’t think it was the right time to bring back the draft "right now". Considering the reasons he’s supported it in the past, though, it’s hard to see him actually opposing it. "Right now" = "during a campaign".

A purely military draft is unlikely to happen again outside of a major world war. The Democrats will try to sell it, though, and they’ll use the language of egalitarianism and "the national good" or "national identity".
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
If a draftee military is such a great way to do nation building, then why not use on in Iraq? I mean the Iraqi military that is...with high unemployment, it sort of makes sense.

Hell, couldn’t they draft the heck out of the Sunni and Shia militia and then have them digging ditches on the Jordan to Saudi border section?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Well no, not unless they have the aptitude for it. No more than saying the same thing about any other career than has high standards.

You really want to give life to this pathetic strawman. Might I suggest that we all agree that Rangel is just plain wrong period.
Wow, talk about digging for anything to disagree with and then overreaching in that disagreement.

Here is what I said...

the military is an excellent choice for those in that lowest quintile (and every other quintile) for innumerable reasons,
The operative word here "AN", notice is not "THE", making it one but not the only good choice a person could make, and most importantly, making it a CHOICE to be considered, wherein the aptitudes required would be weighed.

I know people who have made a career of the military (my father for example who retired a CWO4 from the Air Force and refused a commission because he didn’t want the pay cut), and people who have washed out after 2 years.

Even the washout had a valuable learning experience that he credits with laying the foundation for his later success.

It is NOT the right choice for everyone, but for those with some of the necessary attributes with many OR few prospects AND ambition and a good work ethic, it is AN excellent choice, and more importantly, I believe it SHOULD be considered by more disadvanted people than appear to consider it currently.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Wow, talk about digging for anything to disagree with and then overreaching in that disagreement.
LOL! Me?
Here is what I said...
Uh, here’s what I reacted too:
Maybe the Republicans have been too successful with this strawman?
You’ve yet to explain how what you ’said’ had anything to do with Rangel or the draft. The so-called "strawman" had zip to do with it (which is why I called it red herring).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The comments are already going in that direction, but I want to add my 2 cents that I disagree with the either/or framing that oftens rears up in this discussion.

Military service is both, and that’s a good thing. Personally, I didn’t join the Army out of idealism, patriotic or otherwise. Military service and patriotism were not goals that were encouraged in my childhood environment. I joined the Army for personal benefit and as a second chance because, basically, I was a 20 year old screw-up. A lot of guys in Basic with me, and later during my service, joined the Army for many reasons with the shared theme that the Army represented a second chance at getting it (life, adulthood) right. Most took advantage of the Army and became better people for it; unfortunately, some continued to fail, even with all the training and support with which the Army surrounded us.

Congressman Rangel isn’t entirely wrong, he just isn’t entirely right. In the quoted statement, he cherry-picks one part of the picture of the enlisted life. What I didn’t know before I joined, and what I learned *after* I joined and during my service, is the intrinsic value of military service that doesn’t translate into dollars and cents. You can’t explain it easily to the average life-long civilian, because framed in words to the uninitiated, it just sounds like a bunch of cliches. You have to live it - Mission First, Soldiers Always, Duty, Honor Country, the Seven Army Values, and all that. From my 4 years as an enlisted soldier, I think of soldiering as all of a good economic choice for the lesser privileged (or a second chance for screw-ups like me), a special life experience, a life-changing decision, and a higher calling. Like any soldier, I can and do complain about the Army, which is a soldier’s timeless right, but it was a formative and instructive experience. My time as a soldier is the proudest part of my personal history, and if I could do it over, I’d join again, except I would have joined immediately out of HS, instead of at age 20.

These days, I’m in my last semester as a student at Columbia University in NYC and I’m a member of the US Military Veterans of Columbia University (www.columbia.edu/cu/usmilvetscu), which mostly is made up of former enlisted. I wouldn’t be a successful Columbia student if I hadn’t been a soldier first. That’s not to say that I consider attending Columbia as better than soldiering, just that the Army for me was a successful second chance at a better way of life (knock on wood), whether as a soldier, a student or otherwise.


 
Written By: Eric
URL: http://www.learning-curve.blogspot.com
LOL! Me?
Unless you said this....
Well no, not unless they have the aptitude for it. No more than saying the same thing about any other career than has high standards.

You really want to give life to this pathetic strawman. Might I suggest that we all agree that Rangel is just plain wrong period.
Then no, not you

My point to you, about my supposed red herring, was that Republicans have for years been equating opposition to the President’s policies with a failure to support the troops. Every time you heard that something "emboldens our enemies" and puts our troops in greater danger, the Republicans were propping up this strawman. Feign disagreement all you want, you know it was a tactic to try and make opposition to the President appear to be opposition to the troops.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
My point to you, about my supposed red herring, was that Republicans have for years been equating opposition to the President’s policies with a failure to support the troops. Every time you heard that something "emboldens our enemies" and puts our troops in greater danger, the Republicans were propping up this strawman. Feign disagreement all you want, you know it was a tactic to try and make opposition to the President appear to be opposition to the troops.
Supposed "red herring"?

For the third time, what has that to do with Rangel and the draft?!
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
For the third time, what has that to do with Rangel and the draft?!
Rangel’s purpose for proposing the draft is to put the blood of the policy makers (or their children) on the line by drafting them. My point is that Rangel is confusing the military with the policy and trying to punish the policmakers for their policy choices and in doing so would be punishing the military and it’s effectiveness.

This is related only rhetorically to the Republican habit of intentionally obfuscating the difference between the supporting the President and supporting the troops.

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Off-topic and it’s reacting to a red herring, but I just came across this quote and couldn’t resist ...

Iraqi army not ready to defend Fallujah
By WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press Writer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112701276.html

...

Soldiers in the mostly Shiite army also have reached out to
militias for protection, fearing civil war if American
forces begin withdrawing, he said.

"They watch the news on U.S. satellite and they
realize that everybody back home is talking about a
drawing down of U.S. forces and they start looking at
their future and wonder what’s going to happen to
their family once U.S. forces leave," Teeples said.
"So you get a lot of them who, when they’re home on
leave, they start talking to militias who they think
can protect them."

...

When talking about what’s a "straw man" and what’s not, it’s probably easier to compartmentalize over here than it is over there.
 
Written By: Eric
URL: http://
Then no, not you
Actually me. The pathetic strawman that I refer to is that "soldiers are stupid dull brutes who if not for the opportunity to kill little brown people would be incapable of anything else". All we are doing is saying that over the top characterizations like this are dishonest.
Rangel’s purpose for proposing the draft is to put the blood of the policy makers (or their children) on the line by drafting them.
That statement flies in the face of what he actually said.

When someone starts argument like this:
If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army
So either Rangel has an incomprehensible policy or you are reading what you want (not what he said) into it in order to make him sound reasonable. I know you are partisan in this issue, but don’t expect us to swallow such utter dross.





 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
This is related only rhetorically to the Republican habit of intentionally obfuscating the difference between the supporting the President and supporting the troops.
Heh ... if you say so, Cap, but it seems a rather tortured stretch to me.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I know you are partisan in this issue...
Uh, you want to share your opinion which party I am siding with on this issue?

Near as I can tell, I have agreed that Rangel is wrong and there should be no draft, and the military is not a career of last resort.

So which party is that opinion partisan to?
you are reading what you want (not what he said) into it in order to make him sound reasonable
I have not made any assertions that what Rangel has said is reasonable, and here is what he said that supports my point...
"There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.
So I said, "Rangel’s purpose for proposing the draft is to put the blood of the policy makers (or their children) on the line by drafting them".

So which one of us is inaccurately portraying Rangel’s position?

The funny thing is, I think we agree on the issue itself, and perhaps that is frightening you out of the ability of rational thought?

Cap



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
As long as a military force of volunteers suffices, the draft will not be reinstated, so agonizing over what Rangel said/meant is peripheral.

To me the more interesting question is: why do volunteers volunteer?
There is, of course, patriotism or a sense of duty. There is, also, Eric’s ’second chance’ post.

Beyond that -
It may be a good career choice, but it’s a choice involving risks to life and limb not present in other fields. Is a certain risk-loving personality type attracted? For others, what is it that drives them to accept the risks?
Is there a correlation between rising college costs and volunteering to pay for college?

Why the overrepresentation of the South? Is it due to a state of mind, coinciding wtih NRA membership, or a state of economics?

Any ideas?
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
"why do volunteers volunteer?"

FTA, as an old Army recruiting poster used to say; Fun, Travel, Adventure.(There is another, less favourable interpretation well known to those who experienced the alledged fun, travel, and adventure). How else can a young person of modest means get to live in exotic places like Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. and get paid to do it? There is also the fact that playing soldier is fun. That is why kids play soldier, fireman, policeman, and it is still fun for some adults. There are also those who enjoy the outdoor life and the physical and mental challenges.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider