Military Service Can Open The Eyes Of The Country's "Elite"

[NATO AIR]

a liberal writes a good op-ed that is worth our time. i'm glad she stepped up and wrote this, it is a good topic for discussion.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=308827
Military Service Can Open The Eyes Of Country's 'Elite'

by Kathryn Roth-Douquet
January 28, 2005

This article originally appeared in USA Today on January 18, 2005.

I recently went to a dinner party attended by Sen. Hillary Clinton. After the meal, an elegant Manhattanite seated beside me asked the senator about a military draft. "Without one," the woman asserted, "they'll never get my educated and talented boys." I'm sure she's right. These days, people of means routinely reject military service.

Until a generation ago, the children of presidents, oilmen and bankers regularly saw service. Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, Prescott Bush — all titans — had sons who served.

Today, 1 percent of those serving in Congress have a child in the armed forces — an institution that, according to military sociologist Charles Moskos, is bereft of "children of the privileged." That's too bad. The real losers here are the young and privileged adults themselves.

I was, by many measures, a child of privilege, too. I came from a manicured suburb, attended expensive schools — Bryn Mawr, Princeton — and served as an aide in the Clinton White House. I've worked for charitable foundations, a white-glove law firm, and I still raise money for the Democratic Party. From these perches, the military seemed another world.

Life with a Marine

Then I married a Marine Corps officer and came to see the narrowness of the "us-and-them" view of military service. During my husband's six-month deployments — airlifting aid to East Timor, sorting through the fog of war in Baghdad — and from living with military people, I've learned what military service is about. As one who was weaned on the ideologies of the American left, I've been forced to reconsider some assumptions. I've come to believe that, even for the "haves" of society, the military offers much to admire and emulate.

If I could address the country's fortunate young who imagine themselves one day making a difference, this is what I would say: You expect to do well in life. No one you know is in the military. There's a war going on that you think was a mistake or, perhaps, a good idea gone wrong. You think military service is for people without money or skills — not someone like you.

Now, consider this proposition: Joining the military may make you a better person and profoundly inform your entire life. Military service nurtures belief, without irony, in the tenets that founded this country, and a love of country distinct from jingoism. Its every action expresses awe for the noble experiment of liberal democracy.

Servicemembers provide the defense that is a precondition of our pursuit of individual happiness and common good. Service fosters a love of strangers and comrades you hope to keep safe. When this nation, through the voice of its elected leader, asks you to help protect our freedoms, your role has meaning. Answering the call is not a career move, but an act of the heart.

Now more than ever

As long as there is an impulse to evil in this intertwined world, an impulse to take advantage, enslave, seize power from the weak; as long as our enemies embrace their cult of death; as long as those passions hold sway in whole regions, we need to be vigilant of our security.

Moreover, our military has become an arm of democratic hopes around the world. In the wake of the catastrophic tsunami in South Asia, it is the U.S. military that is providing the most effective relief. America's armed forces build roads and dams in Africa. They conduct diplomacy around the world the way that the State Department, with its tiny budget, simply cannot.

I ask political leaders — few of whom served in the military, many of whom will stand in this week's inaugural salute to the troops — to join me in this plea. Enlisting in the military won't make you richer, fatten your résumé or bring the material gains that dazzle society. It may make you better, though. And it will bring you closer to the heart of this country. True, there are some who do wrong in that role. You can be one who does right.

For your service, you will not only develop values and perspective, you will make this country fairer and stronger. Then in your middle age, you can be part of a new elite: a civilian leader who understands the armed forces. No country can prosper when its leaders lack wisdom on national defense. The service you provide later, as a wise leader, may do our country the greatest good.

Kathryn Roth-Douquet is an attorney and a former aide in the Clinton White House who produced presidential events.

 

[Johnney]

the times are a changing!
it used to be a sense of duty, not its seems its more of a nuisense(SP?). kind of sickening to think about it like that.
i think, for the most part, back in the day there was a draft. now with nothing like that, its up to volunteers. but the volunteers are the ones putting it on the line so the others can sit back and look down their noses at everyone else

 

[wolvie20m]

Mrs. Clinton is probably more worried about what outfit she's going to wear today then our armed forces. What might you be suggesting randomly selecting college grads for service?

 

[Johnney]

im am, and always will be, an advocate of mandatory service of some sort. doesnt matter what you degree is in, whose family tree your from.

 

[MoltenLava]

good...bad...I'm the one with the gun

And statistics overwhemingly prove that someone bigger and meaner will take it away and kill you with it.

And as for the "elite" of this country not serving in the armed forces, I'm sure we can all be glad that Shrubbie wormed HIS way out of serving and stayed behind... to protect Texas and Arkansas, while great men like John Kerry and John McCain actually put their lives on the line, and were highly decorated for their pains.

But, of course, since Shrubbie had the audacity to call both of these men somehow "cowardly" and "not worthy of their medals", I guess it must be so. I mean, he did have a ringside seat. From 16,000 miles away.

 

[Avatar4321]

And statistics overwhemingly prove that someone bigger and meaner will take it away and kill you with it.

And as for the "elite" of this country not serving in the armed forces, I'm sure we can all be glad that Shrubbie wormed HIS way out of serving and stayed behind... to protect Texas and Arkansas, while great men like John Kerry and John McCain actually put their lives on the line, and were highly decorated for their pains.

But, of course, since Shrubbie had the audacity to call both of these men somehow "cowardly" and "not worthy of their medals", I guess it must be so. I mean, he did have a ringside seat. From 16,000 miles away.

President Bush did serve in the military. He served in the Air national guard. He volunteered to actually go to Vietnam. The fact that you libs are still focused on it is ridiculous. He served get over it. And stop trying to claim you support the troops and then pretend an entire branch of our military isnt really serving.

 

[Johnney]

And statistics overwhemingly prove that someone bigger and meaner will take it away and kill you with it.

And as for the "elite" of this country not serving in the armed forces, I'm sure we can all be glad that Shrubbie wormed HIS way out of serving and stayed behind... to protect Texas and Arkansas, while great men like John Kerry and John McCain actually put their lives on the line, and were highly decorated for their pains.

But, of course, since Shrubbie had the audacity to call both of these men somehow "cowardly" and "not worthy of their medals", I guess it must be so. I mean, he did have a ringside seat. From 16,000 miles away.

?? have you nothing else to say other than that? i think CSM put out something about gun fights to which that was one of the items. it also stated that they would be beating you to death with it because your out of ammo.

yeah someone may be big enough to take it, but its not going to be you. :firing:

 

[archangel]

the times are a changing!
it used to be a sense of duty, not its seems its more of a nuisense(SP?). kind of sickening to think about it like that.
i think, for the most part, back in the day there was a draft. now with nothing like that, its up to volunteers. but the volunteers are the ones putting it on the line so the others can sit back and look down their noses at everyone else

Very astute and profound,,,also many volunteered during the Vietnam era..not all were draftees..some just wanted to serve...a lost cocept today....sad but true!

 

[Johnney]

Very astute and profound,,,also many volunteered during the Vietnam era..not all were draftees..some just wanted to serve...a lost cocept today....sad but true!

well for anythiing but putting ones self into harms way anyway.

 

[CSM]

Very astute and profound,,,also many volunteered during the Vietnam era..not all were draftees..some just wanted to serve...a lost cocept today....sad but true!

There are some still who just want to serve...otherwise the all volunteer military we have today would not even exist. It gives me great hope that we still today have young people who go into military service willingly and serve with pride and honor.

 

[NATO AIR]

I'm heartened by those who aren't even American citizens, who fight with valor and great courage. China, Russia, France, no one has such fierce patriots that aren't even native-born. Its what makes us great, and it definitely makes our military a stronger, greater force.

 

[archangel]

And statistics overwhemingly prove that someone bigger and meaner will take it away and kill you with it.

And as for the "elite" of this country not serving in the armed forces, I'm sure we can all be glad that Shrubbie wormed HIS way out of serving and stayed behind... to protect Texas and Arkansas, while great men like John Kerry and John McCain actually put their lives on the line, and were highly decorated for their pains.

But, of course, since Shrubbie had the audacity to call both of these men somehow "cowardly" and "not worthy of their medals", I guess it must be so. I mean, he did have a ringside seat. From 16,000 miles away.

:teeth: Well being a Vietnam era vet I can say John McCain served well and was mistreated by the Republican Party...however as for Lt.Kerry..well this is another issue..he was not a hero just a self serving ass...in my opinion..who carries a camera into combat to film ones valour?..humm...maybe a future wannabee politician...not to mention his alligiance with the NVA...geez I am with ya on John McCain..but not the traitor Kerry...as for GW well I'd rather have a party guy as commander in chief...rather than a traitor and phoney!