'Stop saying "Support the troops"'

[Dick Whitman]

I want to be quite clear: I'm not celebrating draft dodgers. I'm not celebrating those who went. It was a complex war in a complex time, with another set of complexities overlaying every individual's decision. I'm just arguing that there was a decision. Someone earlier trotted out the saw about following orders, using it as a cudgel against all criticism. It's not.

 

[Boom_70]

I think Charlie Daniels said it best:

I could have gone to Canada
Or I could have stayed in school
But I was brought up differently
I couldn't break the rules

 

[User 11148]

I want to be quite clear: I'm not celebrating draft dodgers. I'm not celebrating those who went. It was a complex war in a complex time, with another set of complexities overlaying every individual's decision. I'm just arguing that there was a decision. Someone earlier trotted out the saw about following orders, using it as a cudgel against all criticism. It's not.

Following orders is not a defense against all criticism, but propping that up as a strawman doesn't get your argument off the hook. It's true that the soldiers in William Calley's charge are not exempt from scrutiny for their part in the My Lai massacre. But by any reasonable standard they (especially the draftees among them) are exempt from scrutiny for their acquiescing to being drafted in the first place.

If indeed your perspective holds, then the following positions are acceptable:

1) An accused child molester stands before a judge in a bail hearing. The judge follows standard procedures and grants bail. The accused then, while out on bail, harms another child. That judge is at least partially culpable. Never mind that standard procedures were followed. Never mind that, had our judge chosen to not follow procedures, another judge would have stepped in and done so. No. It is entirely valid to criticize the original judge's decision to follow procedures.

2) A man shows up in an emergency room with broken knuckles and a severe laceration on his neck. He is close to bleeding out. His wife is hovering in the background, and the attending physician observes signs of possible domestic abuse. The physician saves the man's life. Later he learns that the man had been injured in a bout of domestic violence. The physician learns this as he reads about the man having killed the wife. The physician, in treating the man and not letting him die, is therefore partially cuplable. Never mind that the physician couldn't be certain that this was a domestic violence situation. Never mind that, had the physician not acted, another physician would have stepped in. No. It is entirely valid to criticize the original physician's decision to follow procedures.

Sorry, those dogs -- and your take on the Vietnam era draftees and the scrutiny they deserve -- don't hunt.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I want to be quite clear: I'm not celebrating draft dodgers. I'm not celebrating those who went. It was a complex war in a complex time, with another set of complexities overlaying every individual's decision. I'm just arguing that there was a decision. Someone earlier trotted out the saw about following orders, using it as a cudgel against all criticism. It's not.

Following orders is not a defense against all criticism, but propping that up as a strawman doesn't get your argument off the hook. It's true that the soldiers in William Calley's charge are not exempt from scrutiny for their part in the My Lai massacre. But by any reasonable standard they (especially the draftees among them) are exempt from scrutiny for their acquiescing to being drafted in the first place.

If indeed your perspective holds, then the following positions are acceptable:

1) An accused child molester stands before a judge in a bail hearing. The judge follows standard procedures and grants bail. The accused then, while out on bail, harms another child. That judge is at least partially culpable. Never mind that standard procedures were followed. Never mind that, had our judge chosen to not follow procedures, another judge would have stepped in and done so. No. It is entirely valid to criticize the original judge's decision to follow procedures.

2) A man shows up in an emergency room with broken knuckles and a severe laceration on his neck. He is close to bleeding out. His wife is hovering in the background, and the attending physician observes signs of possible domestic abuse. The physician saves the man's life. Later he learns that the man had been injured in a bout of domestic violence. The physician learns this as he reads about the man having killed the wife. The physician, in treating the man and not letting him die, is therefore partially cuplable. Never mind that the physician couldn't be certain that this was a domestic violence situation. Never mind that, had the physician not acted, another physician would have stepped in. No. It is entirely valid to criticize the original physician's decision to follow procedures.

Yes, it is entirely valid to weigh the factors involved in determining their moral culpability.

 

[old_tony]

Whitman World is one strange ****ing place.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Be careful, Tony. You're liable to begin a civil discussion again that draws a thread lock.

 

[old_tony]

Be careful, Tony. You're liable to begin a civil discussion again that draws a thread lock.

 

[User 1019]

I've seen people at shopping malls thank recruiters for their service. For what?
Sitting in a plush air conditioned mall trying to sign up 18 yr olds to go to war.

Never judge your importance to the mission by your proximity to the target.

The current troops who signed up for this? They do not get a free pass.

You should Google the 2004 stop-loss order.

Anyone who went to Iraq volunteered. If there were against the war they should have
never signed up.

See above.

And who signs up for volunteer military service, war or not? It's the economically disadvantaged. They sign up for military service because it's that or a dead end minimum wage job or living off government assistance. I'm guessing the fact that we are at war or who we are at war with has very little impact on the decision to join.

You're way off base, here, and most likely don't know many people who serve. I was 25, in a management position at a 40K daily, and made about 45K a year (in 2005 dollars) when I decided to make a career of it. I could be trading bonds in Memphis, working a 9-5.

I wonder what Three Bags Full thinks of this.

I think a lot of people here really just like to hear themselves talk.

 

[britwrit]

So there's no link between financial incentives (combined with the recession) to joining the military?

My understanding is the current GI Bill will give you four years full tuition at a public university in exchange for three years active service. And (to base a complex, grayish argument over a single page I stumbled over on the internet a few months ago: http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/tanks-and-humvees-caps-and-gowns) aren't military officers with a degree compensated far more than their civilian counterparts?

 

[User 11148]

So there's no link between financial incentives (combined with the recession) to joining the military?

That's way the hell removed from "it's the economically disadvantaged who join an all-volunteer military."

 

[User 1019]

So there's no link between financial incentives (combined with the recession) to joining the military?

My understanding is the current GI Bill will give you four years full tuition at a public university in exchange for three years active service. And (to base a complex, grayish argument over a single page I stumbled over on the internet a few months ago: http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/tanks-and-humvees-caps-and-gowns) aren't military officers with a degree compensated far more than their civilian counterparts?

That's not at all what I said.

 

[Captain Obvious]

So there's no link between financial incentives (combined with the recession) to joining the military?

That's way the hell removed from "it's the economically disadvantaged who join an all-volunteer military."

I wonder if there is any research out there on the "Poverty Draft?" Someone should conduct a Google search, or better yet, a search in Google Scholar.

 

[Boom_70]

Three Bags, if I understand you correctly it seems like your decision to
join was one of career choice verses economics.

How do you feel about **** Whitman's conjecture that soldiers with a free
choice are not blame free for signing on to fight what some perceive to
be an immoral war?

 

[The Big Ragu]

I know this is taking the thread in a bit of a different direction. ... But one thing I have wondered about is what would happen if we did away with you having to essentially sign away your freedom to join the military. Why do we need minimum time-periods of enlistment? Before you reflexively respond to what I am about to post, think about this. ...

What if soldiers were treated the same way policemen, firemen, EMTs, etc. are. The way any of us agree to do a job. We're free to quit anytime we want. Nobody can enslave you to a job. ...

The minimum commitment -- under force of the law - can only exist because of the idea that soldiers would chicken out before they get shipped to a war zone, or right before a battle, right?

Is that really true, though? You have to figure that people who enlist in the military aren't cowards -- they know what the military is about when they sign up for it, and they know it comes with the potential to end up in dangerous situations.

That is why I'd bet that if it got treated like any other job -- you can quit anytime you like -- we'd have just as robust a military, and if you don't think that is true, why, for example, don't firefighters quite their jobs when they are faced with running into a burning building the first time? Or why don't policemen quit and walk away rather than take on an armed suspect.

If I am right about what I am suggesting, you'd have to figure it would make military recruiting much easier. How many potential recruits are scared away because of the enlistment terms -- which can be extended or changed without their consent?

As for poverty and the draft, I read an anecdotal piece (but can't remember where) a few years ago, where the writer talked to a bunch of young recruits and their reasons were largely economic. They couldn't afford college, so the military was their most viable opportunity to get some training, maybe earn some money toward education and not have to put themselves into crazy debt.

 

[User 11148]

So there's no link between financial incentives (combined with the recession) to joining the military?

That's way the hell removed from "it's the economically disadvantaged who join an all-volunteer military."

I wonder if there is any research out there on the "Poverty Draft?" Someone should conduct a Google search, or better yet, a search in Google Scholar.

Someone could do that ... but they'd have to filter out a lot of the ax-grinding that's employed there. Someone could also take a gander at more legitimate research regarding the socio-economic makeup of today's all-volunteer military.

 

[Boom_70]

So there's no link between financial incentives (combined with the recession) to joining the military?

That's way the hell removed from "it's the economically disadvantaged who join an all-volunteer military."

I wonder if there is any research out there on the "Poverty Draft?" Someone should conduct a Google search, or better yet, a search in Google Scholar.

Someone could do that ... but they'd have to filter out a lot of the ax-grinding that's employed there. Someone could also take a gander at more legitimate research regarding the socio-economic makeup of today's all-volunteer military.

Michael Moore should do one of his documentary movies on the topic.

 

[User 11148]

So there's no link between financial incentives (combined with the recession) to joining the military?

That's way the hell removed from "it's the economically disadvantaged who join an all-volunteer military."

I wonder if there is any research out there on the "Poverty Draft?" Someone should conduct a Google search, or better yet, a search in Google Scholar.

Someone could do that ... but they'd have to filter out a lot of the ax-grinding that's employed there. Someone could also take a gander at more legitimate research regarding the socio-economic makeup of today's all-volunteer military.

Michael Moore should do one of his documentary movies on the topic.

Yeah, I think it's time for some serious scholarship to be devoted to the matter.

 

[britwrit]

I don't know. Isn't it all a degree of how disadvantaged you are? You don't have to an orphan in Appalachia these days to be behind the eight-ball economically.

Ten years ago, a middle-class kid wouldn't run up so much debt in college to graduate into a job-strapped economy. If you were a contractor in the building industry, the housing boom was still going on. And we're living in a time of high blue-collar youth unemployment. For a lot of recruits (again, according to the one article I'm building this wonderful argument on: http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/15/news/economy/military-recruiting/index.html) you can get good pay and training in the army versus struggling on the outside.

No. It's not 1934 and either the mines or Johnny gone for a soldier. But rational economic self-interest can be a pretty powerful force here.

 

[User 1019]

And (to base a complex, grayish argument over a single page I stumbled over on the internet a few months ago: http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/tanks-and-humvees-caps-and-gowns) aren't military officers with a degree compensated far more than their civilian counterparts?

Since we're obviously overpaid, riddle me this. What would you pay this person?

Five years experience. Financial management undergraduate degree. Senior-vice president of a 110-person department responsible for all HR, logistics, communication, security, operations and management for the 580-person organization. Directly responsible for more than $5 million in equipment, including high-tech communications, imagery and computer systems. Helicopter captain (the guy in charge in the helicopter), who holds heavy, multi-engine rotary wing, instrument rating from the FAA. Spends about 1/3 of his time traveling both locally and internationally for work projects.

 

[TigerVols]

And (to base a complex, grayish argument over a single page I stumbled over on the internet a few months ago: http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/tanks-and-humvees-caps-and-gowns) aren't military officers with a degree compensated far more than their civilian counterparts?

Since we're obviously overpaid, riddle me this. What would you pay this person?

Five years experience. Financial management undergraduate degree. Senior-vice president of a 110-person department responsible for all HR, logistics, communication, security, operations and management for the 580-person organization. Directly responsible for more than $5 million in equipment, including high-tech communications, imagery and computer systems. Helicopter captain (the guy in charge in the helicopter), who holds heavy, multi-engine rotary wing, instrument rating from the FAA. Spends about 1/3 of his time traveling both locally and internationally for work projects.

I'll add what you left out: the "customers" of the executive above want to kill him.

That should tilt the pay scale even more.