And in Comes the Hate Mail....

Typical liberal response, i.e. full of insults and little substance. Follow this link for a Heritage Foundation study on the service gaps claimed by the blame-America first anti-war crowd. http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm

Curious, who are the "two men who handily avoided the service when their country needed them"?

The article was by you, John, right? (One man, not two). And, aren't you an active military member? Isn't your blog buddy currently deployed? If so, how does that statement make any sense?

It is an excellent article, and covers the topic well. Brings back NROTC memories on a somewhat hostile campus. A daughter is in NROTC right now, so you know my thoughts on this matter. Keep up the good work. I'm proud of all you serving today.

See, that's what you get for being all "talented" and stuff... (seriously though, good article)

To Nicholas: I think the two men the weirdo emailer was referring to were Bush and Cheney

Ah yes, I see. The twisted logic didn't make any sense to me until you pointed it out.

It amazes me how many of these people, who i'm sure believe they are considerate and caring people, wish that those Iraqis were back under the yolk of oppression simply because it's costing them some money.

What cold, heartless bastards. Every time I see a picture of an Iraqi, who isn't actually shooting at some of our soldiers, I'm glad they're free now. I hope the violence will die down soon and they can truly enjoy the same freedoms we have. When will their "compatriots" stop shafting them I wonder?

he must be speaking in some kinda liberal code; he said alot of words, but they were void of any coherent meaning...

We don’t want the snotty little brats anyway. It’s a good article, John, but don’t forget to mention the military is a profession and sometimes a career. The elitist crowd used to look upon their military time as a rung on the social and political ladder. Those days are long gone, thank god, and we now have an all-volunteer military of professional warriors. I would rather have a good ‘ole boy from the farm in my turret than a silver spooned wimp. Having street smarts in a war zone is far more valuable than being able to weave a basket (even underwater). If the Ivy League wants to turn their collective heads’ and dismiss the military as a legitimate career choice then to heck with them, I say. Pat rambles on in some sort of word scramble game to redirect your perfectly sane argument. He/She obviously can’t do simple logic problems though. Follow me here: If rich kids prefer to go to expensive east coast colleges (Ivy League) and east coast colleges are anti-military then there will be less rich kids in the military. That was hard.

CPT B:

I'd have to disagree a bit there, I don't think it's a good idea to say "to heck with" the Ivies or other "elite" schools.

If you accept, and I think an honest assessment has to, that those attending such schools possess skills and talents that could be of use to the military, then it behooves the military to not even attempt to appeal to them.

Do they possess skills wholly unique? Of course not. But you don't just foreclose entirely on an entire class of potential recruits.

(I say this as one that went to one of these schools but did not do ROTC)

That being said, not every farm kid has "street smarts" and not every Ivy Leaguer is a "silver spooned wimp." To wholly discount one or the other is not a good idea.

John, I marvel endlessly at the liberal left who believe that Iraq would have been better under Saddam. I have watched the good and decent Iraqis over the past years of this struggle to bring forth a viable democracy under the mentorship and security provided by the US Military and I have had some of the most incredibly moving experiences of my life. Much of these had to with the elections and the courage of the people who risked death to vote while we are endlessly seeking ways to make voting almost an unnoticed event in our lives. But the other day over at Bandit.three.six I read the most moving of all. Bandit had been home, become a father and was now back and he came to the place he expected to find his Iraqi friend Ali, in the Iraqi Police, who was expecting to be a father for the third time at the same time as Bandit was becoming a father for the first time: http://bandit36.blogspot.com/2006/07/my-friend-ali.html Bandit will not be seeing his friend Ali again this side of the Great Divide. I sat and wept inconsolably for this man I would never know except by the name of Ali and I can tell you that what you in the military gave Ali was the chance to live and unfortunately, die free and with dignity. The far left do not see a nation of Ali's and Ali's wife and kids. We are doing the right thing. Forget the hate mongers. We have more humanity in our little fingers than they of the far left have in their entire bodies. The middle East is full of decent poeple like Ali and our own best interest is tied up with what is in their best interest as well and we are allies in this war on terror. In his speach to Congress the Iraqi PM said that iraq is but one battle in the War on Terror and he is right. He stressed the need for the USA to continue to support them. We can afford no lost battles though I long ago concluded that the left would prefer to lose in order to ruin the President, no matter it would destroy the nation and likely the world as well. It is not just hate mail, it hate filled hearts and souls in the senders.

Army Lawyer,
Great point. You are absolutely right to say that no social or economic class should be discounted and dismissed. Nor did I mean that those former and current Ivy Leaguers in uniform are all wimps. I did my undergrad at a state university and majored in econ and finished my MBA at a different state university just before being yanked back to active duty this year. I would put my knowledge of my specific military skill set against someone that went to an Ivy League school any day. He or she might have a diploma written in Latin but SAT scores and a 4.0 don’t mean much in Baghdad. I’m calling it like I see it and if those schools John refers to in his article are willing to make a left face then, while you may be right in that we are losing valuable people, who are we to blame for the “social imbalance” in our ranks?

Hilarious how the writers of the hate mail didn't actually challenge any of your arguements with facts or arguements of their own. They just fired off the usual clitches.

Perhaps instead of immediately shooting down anyone who doesn't agree with you, you could consider the possibility that maybe there are other reasons for the service gap.

For example, rich parents don't want their kids to get shot.

Or the ambigiuity of modern wars that don't conform to simple good vs. evil forumlas like WW2.

Dave:

I'd imagine no parent wants their kids to get shot. But as the decision to enlist or not enlist is not a parent's to make, that desire, by itself, doesn't explain the service gap.

Ridiculous.

So poor people want their kids to get shot? Or the middle class does -- the officer corps as almost uniformly middle class.

Not about good and evil? Let's see, our side uses precision-guided muniitions to limit innocent casualties; their side flies civilian airliners into office buildings. Sounds like good and evil to me.

There are numerous other institutional pressures limiting ROTC in the Ivys, and many have nothing to do with what Beardo-the-Weirdo is spouting on the college campuses. Click back and scroll on down to the other posting on this topic.

re Ivy - I just finished the excellent "One Bullet Away" by Nathanial Fick, Dartmouth grad who attended Marine OCS, served in Afgahanistan, then went to the elite Marine Recon Force and served in Iraq. We will always need officers of Frick's quality in our military.
Frick majored in Classics and his writing shows it.
-- Retired Lifer

For pete's sake, no parent wants their son to be shot, rich or poor.

Every parent wants their child to have the fortitude and strength to live a good life, and pursue what gives their lives meaning. We know that satisfaction in life springs from doing what you think is important and of lasting consequence - for your friends, family or country.

We try to impart that to our children, and if their chosen adult pursuit is the military, your role is to support, advise, respect, and cheer.

This was an very important and timely article, not just from a sociological standpoint, but from a national security standpoint. While we have a professional volunteer army, all levels of society should feel that pull to duty. The best army in the world couldn't defend a populace that doesn't have a strong sense of that across all classes.

Remember a few months ago when the Capt. at a job fair was forced out by violent protestors at U. of C., Santa Cruz? We need to return to a time when images like that were unthinkable -- not because it would be "nice" but because it's critical to the country's security.

I think one problem the military faces is a pervasive perception on the part of the public, particularly Baby Boomers and their children, that military service is a sort of last resort for people who didn't pay attention in high school or can't find a job when they get out of college. If this is truly the case, then it is to the military's credit that they're doing as well as they are.

The entire matter brings to mind an excerpt of Heinlein's self-commentary in Expanded Universe, essentially bemoaning the fact that military service no longer stood in the public mind as a right and honorable thing, even an obligation.
Frankly I'm too young to remember such a time. Perhaps we can thank Viet Nam for that.

Yes! That would make everything hunki-dori if the Bush twins went off to war!

As we all know, the only wars that are just and good and right for America are those that our leaders would send their own sons and daughters to fight!!

^^Is this supposed to be an argument?

John,
It was a very good piece, but don't waste your energy on these clowns. These are the same bunch who claim to support the troops but not the mission. Sorry folks, but that doesn't cut it with an "all volunteer force". You can't have it both ways. The big problem with this country is that the average joe on the street has known no real adversity for several generations now and I am affraid it is going to take a major event (9/11 will pale in comparison) to bring everyone to their senses. Check out Black Prisons and Tropical Retreats. Keep the faith.

For those of you who are baby boomers who have served in the military I laud you for your sacrifice and committment. However, this entire debate chalks up to one fact cold and true; the baby boomers are one of the worst generations in American history. It should be no secret that for the past sixty the United States has been living off the sacrifice of the generations that fought World War II. The generation born of the veterans of the second world war at the very least take the sacrifice of others for granted. And at the very most persecute those who have kept them safe. The baby boomers truly have adopted and exported the opinion that serving in the military is a means of last resort for those lacking the intelligence or wealth to go to college. The baby boomers have lived under the umbrella of security opened for them by those who have sacrificied, by doing what the majority of them revile and refuse to do. The current generations on the rise will bear the brunt of the Long War, whilst the baby boomers will do no more than reproach them for their supposed stupidity. All the while the baby boomers will claim the ideas of patriotism and sense of duty as perverted interpretations of the emblem of country championed by neo-conservatism.

For those of you who are baby boomers who have served in the military I laud you for your sacrifice and committment. However, this entire debate chalks up to one fact cold and true; the baby boomers are one of the worst generations in American history. It should be no secret that for the past sixty the United States has been living off the sacrifice of the generations that fought World War II. The generation born of the veterans of the second world war at the very least take the sacrifice of others for granted. And at the very most persecute those who have kept them safe. The baby boomers truly have adopted and exported the opinion that serving in the military is a means of last resort for those lacking the intelligence or wealth to go to college. The baby boomers have lived under the umbrella of security opened for them by those who have sacrificied, by doing what the majority of them revile and refuse to do. The current generations on the rise will bear the brunt of the Long War, whilst the baby boomers will do no more than reproach them for their supposed stupidity. All the while the baby boomers will claim the ideas of patriotism and sense of duty as perverted interpretations of the emblem of country championed by neo-conservatism.

Please, let the Blame-the-Boomers concept die the death it deserves.

Baby-Boomers -- born from 1946 through 1950. Which means one third of them were too young for the South-East Asis War Games, and none attained field-grade rank during the festivities, so don't hang that one on us.

The baby boomers provided the officers corps and the NCO corps during the Reagan re-building of the US military, and of course we won Grenada, Panama, and Iraq: Episode One (Gen X barely turning up for that one).

The Greatest Generation? There are plenty of untold stories. I just was reading a book about the USS Princeton during World War II. After repairing combat damage, it sortied out of Bremerhaven, Washington in the middle of a very popularly supported war -- and 5% of the ship's company missed movement! What would be the case today if a US carrier sortied to a combat zone with a 5% AWOL rate? Captain relieved for sure, and Lord knows how many others.

Hey Dark Horse,

Before you condemn a generation, was LBJ a boomer? The Democrat Congress that cut the aid for South Vietnam in the 70s - were they boomers?

Nope, the "Greatest Generation", with Uncle Walter wetting his pants blew it. MacNamara, LBJ, all the dilettantes who hung us out to dry - the guys who decided to half fight a war. They blew it. We just got the blame.

None of that matters. What would be a matter of concern is if West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs were failing because of dwindling enrolment.

They aren't -- they're over-subscribed, many times, which is why they can afford to be so picky about whom they let in.

All that's happening is that kids who want to pursue the military as a career have recognized, rightly, that the best path to success lies through a military academy, not through some effete Ivy League playground.

The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

Still I can find realy useful informations - isn`t it great?! Go on http://cfnm1.ifrance.com/

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

I have bookmarked you yet!!!! http://boy-gay.jimka-mmsa.com

[url="http://hometown.aol.com/girls983701780/stories-of-porn.htm"]stories of porn[/url]

The reason for the "service gap" is because Gen X and Gen Y were raised by self serving burn out hypocritical loser Boomers who do nothing if it is not in their best intrest, including starting a war that they themselves would never have participated in. As a Gen X'er I am not stupid enough to believe anything that comes out of the mouth of a Baby Boomer, including the "reasons" for the war. There were no weapons of mass destruction, but Saddam DID want to get paid in Euros for Iraq's oil. There is your reason for the war, and as usual it is nothing more than self serving Baby Boomer propoganda that spun it into WMD. The enemy we need to worry about destroying this country is from within- The Baby Boomer plague of locusts, which will go about stripping all future economic growth from the people of this country to salve their insatiable appetite for consumer goods because they are greedy pigs!