next »

[22096427]

It is amazing how 2nd Lt. Renehan, in his article "Why I Serve", manages to omit mention of President Bush & Vice-President Cheney, those paragons of combat-avoidance.  The fish rots from the head down, & the ruling classes emulate their leaders.

[mindfulwhim]

The ruling classes' canons need fodder. It doesn't matter why the dutiful serve; it only matters who will care for the dead's families. They aren't considered as the soldiers march to their deaths for someone else's economic or ideological cause.

My favorite quote about this from The Godfather III:
"Economics is a gun. Politics is knowing when to pull the trigger".

[loonytunes]

Having served in the Air Force as a commissioned officer for five years, I am glad to find how smart our students are in their not wanting to join the war.  They finally got over the BS: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria morti," a vain-glory blind patriotic sologan that had slaughtered millions in the past.

Another interesting observation about the war can be found in Erich’s old book entitled The Sane Society (1955):

In the last one hundred years, we, in the Western world, have created a greater material wealth than any other society in the history of the human race.  Yet we have managed to kill off millions of our population in an arrangement which we call “war.”  Aside from smaller wars, we had larger ones in 1870, 1914, and 1939.  During these wars, every participant firmly believed that he was fighting in his self-defense, for his honor, or that he was backed up by God.  The groups with whom one is at war are, often from one day to the next, looked upon as cruel, irrational fiends, whom one must defeat to save the world from evil.  But a few years after the mutual slaughter is over, the enemies of yesterday are our friends, the friends of yesterday our enemies, and again in full seriousness we begin to paint them with appropriate colors of black and white. . . . Everybody is looking with a mixture of confidence and apprehension to the “statesmen” of the various peoples, ready to heap all praise on them if they “succeed in avoiding a war,” and ignoring the fact that it is only these very statesmen who ever cause a war, usually not even through their bad intentions, but by their unreasonable mismanagement of the affairs entrusted to them (4).

[drdirt55]

I'm proud to serve with 2LT Renehan.  I'm proud to serve with most of the soldiers I'm surrounded by on a daily basis.  I was proud to serve as a solider under a President who was impeached - not proud of him, but of the men and women who chose to serve their country.

It is not the man (or woman) who sits in the White House that we serve, we serve the President of the United States - the position.  I have served under the leadership of four Presidents.  I have not agreed with their policies one hundred percent of the time - and I suspect most of you have disagreed with a President's policies on occasion - yet I've continued to serve.  I get to agree or disagree with the President's policies once every four years, in the voting booth.

As an undergrad, most of my professors had some sort of military service, volunteer or conscript.  I suspect that the percentage of military veterans among faculty members on campuses today is quite low in comparison to even 25 years ago.  This is both good and bad.  I suspect many campus veterans are veterans of the Vietnam War.  Our military is vastly changed from the Vietnam era force that those Vietnam veterans on campus may recall.  The video clips that you see on television do not do justice to today's service man or woman - your fellow Americans do more good than the press will inform you of. 

Not all soldiers go into combat, even those who go into combat zones may not ever face the "enemy" in mortal combat.  So why don't more of the elite serve.  Perhaps it is because they cannot "see" themselves as soldiers, sailors, marines or airmen - doing the work of us "commoners"?  Perhaps it is because they can't fit it into they busy schedules - a four-year commitment without summers off!

2LT Renehan chose to serve out of a sense of duty or responsibility to our nation.  Soldiering is a calling - it is a way of life, and not a bad way of life.  Yeah, there are times when it really sucks to be a soldier, but then you look around and there are several other soldiers thinking the same thing.  That's when you realize that you aren't alone and make the best of it - along with some interesting stories - think Bill Murray in Stripes.

In an ideal sense, our military should reflect our society - good and bad, rich and poor.  It doesn't and that is both good and bad.  There are some elements of our society I don't want in "my Army".  I'm sure there are elements of society that you don't want at your institution.  On the other hand, there are people who I'd like to see in the military - more people like 2LT Renehan - people who have done other things and done them successfully and can bring those skills into the organization.

In the end, the military is really not much different than an educational institution - they both start with young people who are shaped to ultimately serve society.  The professional corps of officers and non-commissioned officers is much like the faculty and staff of a university and our troops/students pass through under our tutledge.  Some stay and become part of the faculty as their experience and knowledge grows, others move out the door and on to bigger and better things.  Both use people to accomplish their missions.

I've served in the Army for nearly 30 years, 23 of those years on active duty.  Until nine months ago, I had never been in a combat zone, and I have yet to engage or be engaged by the enemy (the Taliban in my case).  I am involved in reconstructing a nation - trying to bring a measure of security and stability to a country that has known little but war for 30 years (Afghanistan).  Most of the ten thousand or so troops here are engaged in similar activities - reconstruction, training security forces, and building hope.  Our military is more frequently deployed to keep the peace or provide disaster assistance than it is sent into combat.  Even while conducting combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, your United States military conducted operations in support of Hurricane Katrina relief, tsunami relief, and relief to the earthquake victims in Pakistan. 

We who wear our nation's uniforms are perhaps more ambassadors than warriors.  Privates may be more effective diplomats than our Generals at times, and especially on the personal level in the remote villages where the first American the people ever see is a soldier. I think diplomacy is noble work suitable for all classes of Americans. 

There is a lot more to being a soldier than fighting.  I respect your opinions to the contrary, but I hope when you see a young man or woman in uniform you'll greet them warmly and appreciate the sacrifices they have made.  If you see them in an airport, welcome them home or wish them well as they go to potentially dangerous situations.  Men and women like 2LT Renehan are charged with leading these young men and women through these dangerous situations and bringing them home safely.  I think they are in good hands.

2LT Renehan - I'm proud to serve with you.

[dept_geek]

I'm proud to serve with 2LT Renehan. 

DrDirt55: Thank you for your posting. Those who served (or are serving!) tend to be a small minority on college campuses and the message gets lost under the din of politics. We do what we do not of obligation to one person or one party, but rather to one nation and (almost more importantly) to one people. The people and the nation don't even have to be the same. Your message was well said.

dept_geek, USAF, Ret.

[dark_globe]

The ruling classes' canons need fodder. It doesn't matter why the dutiful serve; it only matters who will care for the dead's families. They aren't considered as the soldiers march to their deaths for someone else's economic or ideological cause.

My favorite quote about this from The Godfather III:
"Economics is a gun. Politics is knowing when to pull the trigger".

I like one, in the same spirit as yours:

"War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it." George Orwell

[diana_prince]

It is amazing how 2nd Lt. Renehan, in his article "Why I Serve", manages to omit mention of President Bush & Vice-President Cheney, those paragons of combat-avoidance.  The fish rots from the head down, & the ruling classes emulate their leaders.

According to 2LT Renehan, "What we have here is a bona fide national burden, and the privileged classes have largely excused themselves from it." He doesn't refer to anyone as part of a ruling class, as you did.

Notice he also wrote, "I respect them, but I mourn their mindset. In my experience that attitude is widespread among privileged youth, and even more so among those best able to influence them."

After parents, who is in a better position than tenured college professors to influence students toward service to their country in the military? If people find it unfair that members of the privileged classes  don't serve in the same numbers, would they prefer we have a draft? I don't think most people want that. Who would they like to see volunteer? How could the volunteer military in the U.S. become more diverse in the ranks to include what the author calls the privileged classes?

Thank you to 2LT Renehan for serving the U.S.

[diana_prince]

Having served in the Air Force as a commissioned officer for five years, I am glad to find how smart our students are in their not wanting to join the war.  They finally got over the BS: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria morti," a vain-glory blind patriotic sologan that had slaughtered millions in the past.

Another interesting observation about the war can be found in Erich’s old book entitled The Sane Society (1955):

In the last one hundred years, we, in the Western world, have created a greater material wealth than any other society in the history of the human race.  Yet we have managed to kill off millions of our population in an arrangement which we call “war.”  Aside from smaller wars, we had larger ones in 1870, 1914, and 1939.  During these wars, every participant firmly believed that he was fighting in his self-defense, for his honor, or that he was backed up by God.  The groups with whom one is at war are, often from one day to the next, looked upon as cruel, irrational fiends, whom one must defeat to save the world from evil.  But a few years after the mutual slaughter is over, the enemies of yesterday are our friends, the friends of yesterday our enemies, and again in full seriousness we begin to paint them with appropriate colors of black and white. . . . Everybody is looking with a mixture of confidence and apprehension to the “statesmen” of the various peoples, ready to heap all praise on them if they “succeed in avoiding a war,” and ignoring the fact that it is only these very statesmen who ever cause a war, usually not even through their bad intentions, but by their unreasonable mismanagement of the affairs entrusted to them (4).

Loonytunes: I appreciate your service to this country as a commissioned officer in the Air Force for five years. Did you graduate from the Air Force Academy? Your statement and the excerpt from the text seem rather naive.  There are many reasons for going to war.  We have and will continue to wage war when/if states are threatened.  We tend to avoid war.

Police officers also die in the line of duty. These are statistics copied and pasted from the web site of the  American Police Hall of Fame:

On average, a law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty every 57 hours in America.

Between 1976 and 1998, of the over 1,800 officers killed--

    * 16% were on disturbance calls
    * 14% were in robbery arrest situations
    * 14% were investigating suspicious persons/circumstances
    * 13% were making traffic pursuits/stops
    * 13% were attempting arrests for offenses other than robbery or burglary
    * 10% were in ambush situations
    * 7% were in an arrest situation involving drug-related matters
    * 5% were in a burglary arrest situation arrests
    * 6% were in other situations

Of the 901 assailants identified in the killing of law enforcement officers from 1989-98 --

    * almost half had a prior conviction
    * almost one-fifth were on probation or parole at the time

Most law enforcement officers are killed with firearms, particularly handguns.

SOURCE:  U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics
   
found online at the American Police Hall of Fame, Line of Duty Death Statistics at http://www.aphf.org/lodstats.html

Would you suggest that police officers and the communities they serve and protect would be better off putting down their weapons and shunning police work?

[loonytunes]

Diane:


No.




Your industrious analogy, comparing domestic order to that of international, though interesting, laborious, and at times apt, perhaps is not the best argument for the topic at hand—just as your question if I had graduated from the Air Force Academy.

Policing a country is one animal; fighting a war against another country is another beast.

Just like you, Diane, I too am capable of processing food at the end of each day, which often becomes my odious opinions, (so much so that my hairs seem to turn grayer each day) and thank you for recognizing my naiveté, which I would like to retain as long as I live (“For adult education, nothing beats children”). 

But I am in violent disagreement with you, Madam, about how Eric could have been as naïve as I am, though.

For example, you eloquently point out how, “On average, a law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty every 57 hours in America” and how “Most law enforcement officers are killed with firearms, particularly handguns.”  This is precisely Eric’s point.
These are fine examples of a *sick* society, pressing Eric’s line of argument (The Sane Society). 

Would you agree with me, then, that we have to cure our own society before we tell others what to do?  How could we ignore the blinding beam in our own eye while pointing fingers at the mote in others’?  This situation reminds me of a bumper sticker I happened to see a while back:  “Focus on your own @#$% family!”

“Would you,” you then ask, “suggest that police officers and the communities they serve and protect would be better off putting down their weapons and shunning police work?”

No.  I would like to see we ban all the privately-owned firearms, like in Japan, since you ask me.  But that topic is off this thread.

[diana_prince]

Loonytunes: The author of the article we're discussing pointed out that military service is often shunned by what he called the privileged class. He wasn't debating the merits of the Bush administration or current foreign policy, as you seem to be interested in debating in your post, which really is off topic. The central theme of his essay was whether U.S. military service should be shared equally by people in the U.S. from a diverse socio-economic background. You seemed to be debating the merits of war, referencing the text you provided and indicating society is sick by going to war, any war.

In reference to the bumper sticker quotation, most Americans do worry about their own families and their own country, and that's why they support a strong national defense.

[mindfulwhim]

The reason the priveledged classes don't participate in war is because they are smart enough to know that getting killed or crippled for life not in their interest, but rather, in someone elses. There's just no money in it. Why should they sacrifice their lives when there is a nation full of sheep willing to do it for them?

Oh there are a few adventurous souls who use it to seek future political gain or the status that might come from being a high profile officer that does a few good deeds (JFK) but they never do anything of significant valor over and above that of the common soldier in combat. Military service for the priviledged is more like community service in a national spotlight.

Truth be told, officers live a priviledged life, even within the context of military service. They eat better, they live in private or semi-private settings, they wear a uniform that commands respect and puts them in the spotlight, they receive better training, and they have doors open to them that the lower echilons do not. In short, they are a prividged class within the context of that society. They serve because of personal ambition, future political gain, glory, and maybe sense of duty (at least that's what they say). It's unclear exactly why they serve isn't it.

Enlisted serve for entirely different reasons. They live in a barracks of 80 men from the lowest socio-economic backgrounds, eat high protein "chow", are conditioned to throw themselves on a hand grenade for their fellow enlisted soldier, and obey orders blindly for the successful accomplishment for the mission. Enlisted serve because they are drafted, because they want to somehow better their lives after they serve, or maybe because they buy the patriotic "thing" from what they are taught by their church, or other societal influences in their lives. How do I know these things? 3 years enlisted in the USMC, and 7 years enlisted in the USN as a helicopter tactical crew chief.

So you can go ahead and talk about patriotism and wave your flags for the cause, and try to stir up everyone's emotions, but in the end, serving in the military is a contract, like any other: What do they get and what do I get?

When the battle is over, and the glory of adolescent adventure and comraderie has long since faded, all that's left are the emotional scars from battle, and mounds of paperwork for disability, multiple visits to the VA for strange diseases that nobody can identify (or doesn't want to admit to: e.g.: agent orange), countless fittings for your new prostheses, and the flooding of behavioral issues that keep you in marital strife for the rest of your life. In the end, Vietnam is still communist, and the rich and politicians made mounds of money during the war.

You? You're still the same old poor schmuck who works for a living, and exists from paycheck to paycheck trying to scape up enough money for prescription drugs that may or may not relieve the suffering from the wounds you cannot prove that the military caused.

The only naive ones are the ones that believe in patriotism. If you really love your family, go kiss your kids and hug your Mom, because war will take you away from them forever. Sleep on that point princess di.

[diana_prince]

The reason the priveledged classes don't participate in war is because they are smart enough to know that getting killed or crippled for life not in their interest, but rather, in someone elses. There's just no money in it. Why should they sacrifice their lives when there is a nation full of sheep willing to do it for them?

You're misrepresenting the analogy about the sheep. The entire nation might be full of sheep; it's the sheepdogs who protect the sheep from the wolf.

Truth be told, officers live a priviledged life, even within the context of military service. They eat better, they live in private or semi-private settings, they wear a uniform that commands respect and puts them in the spotlight, they receive better training, and they have doors open to them that the lower echilons do not. In short, they are a prividged class within the context of that society. They serve because of personal ambition, future political gain, glory, and maybe sense of duty (at least that's what they say). It's unclear exactly why they serve isn't it.

Given your background, you sound disgruntled and bitter and angry. The statements you make about our U.S. military officers are FALSE. Yes, the uniform commands respect, but just like any position, respect is something that is earned and most of the leaders in our military today practice servant leadership. They are there to serve the Soldier. The classism and elitism you're describing may have been evident in a small number of cases, but it's not prevalent throughout the military today the way you're describing. There are more enlisted than officers; however, officers have been killed or injured on active duty as well. Get your facts straight.

You? You're still the same old poor schmuck who works for a living, and exists from paycheck to paycheck trying to scape up enough money for prescription drugs that may or may not relieve the suffering from the wounds you cannot prove that the military caused.

This is only true if as a nation we don't support our vets when we come back. Ask the VFW members from past wars who proudly still play TAPS at the wakes of old veterans whether they consider themselves schmucks for having served their country.

The only naive ones are the ones that believe in patriotism. If you really love your family, go kiss your kids and hug your Mom, because war will take you away from them forever. Sleep on that point princess di.

I don't expect that you would have read all of the posts I've made here, but your personal attacks on me are way out of line and do nothing to support your argument, whatever your argument may be. Your argument was lost along time ago in your venting post. I don't have any kids, and my mother is dead. I don't have a princess mentality. I'm glad I had the kind of childhood where standing with my hand over my heart and saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag and being raised to be proud of the flag and my country and those who serve in the military is not naivete. I'm also glad I still live in a community where the VFW gets together every Saturday for a pancake breakfast, where the community raises funds for a veterans memorial, and where a local radio station plays a tape each morning of a local elementary school class saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

Your bitterness is misplaced.

[johnrenehan]

Thanks all for your gracious comments and especially, agree or disagree, for participating in the forum.  It's flattering to have started a discussion.
Best,
John Renehan