Sunday, September 30, 2007
My connection to the Battle of Iwo Jima
I posted about my grandfather, Ensign C.A. Carpenter, last fall. I've not gotten anything new from my grandmother, but I did unearth my copy of a copy of my grandfather's WWII diary this evening. I'm in the process of making notes about when and where he was, and as things make me particularly curious, I'm doing a quick bit of research. I've learned my grandfather, while on the USS Essex, was part of VF-4 and flew in support of the invasion of Iwo Jima. However, they were grounded several days because of the weather or were not able to reach the target. The diary begins on January 1, 1945 and I'm only to February 22, but his diary goes until July 10, so I've got a ways to go yet. I've come across some things I don't understand/can't decipher right now, but I think I'll wait until I've got all my notes typed up before I do significant research.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Michael Medved: Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery
Once again, in doing some of my volunteer work for The Victory Caucus, I came across an interesting article unrelated to that cause. Being a bit of a history buff, Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery by Michael Medved [caught my eye]. I'd had a conversation a while back with my dad (now a high school history teacher) about slavery in The New World, and how many have distorted views of who were the worst offenders when it came to trafficking in African slaves. I recommend reading the whole thing, but here are Medved's bullet points:
- Slavery was an ancient and universal institution, not a distinctively American innovation.
- Slavery existed only briefly, and in limited locales, in the history of the republic – involveing only a tiny percentage of the ancestors of today's Americans.
- Though brutal, slavery wasn't genocidal: live slaves were valuable but dead captives brought no profit.
- It’s not true that the U.S. became a wealthy nation through the abuse of slave labor: the most prosperous states in the country were those that first freed their slaves.
- While America deserces no unique blame for the existence of slavery, the United States merits special credit for its rapid abolition.
- There is no reason to believe that today's African-Americans would be better off if their ancestors had remained behind in Africa.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Hillary's plan for universal health care
I haven't studied Hillary Clinton's just-announced plan for universal health care - I've just heard the short reports about it on cable news. I hear her requirement that EVERYONE have health insurance being equated to people being required to have car insurance. One problem with that analogy - the requirement for me (or any car owner) to have car insurance isn't designed to so much protect ME in the event I am in a car accident as to protect others, particularly if I am at fault. State minimum requirements (at least in Texas) only require I carry liability insurance - not coverage that protects me for injury to myself or damage to my vehicle. Currently, I am uninsured. I'm under employed, since I don't have a full-time teaching job after graduating with my M.Ed and earning my teaching certificate, and the group student health insurance I had (which I had paid for myself) recently lapsed, as I am no longer eligible to renew it. A couple of weeks ago, I had a sore throat that wasn't getting better. I didn't go to the emergency room to get it taken care of, so I am no drain on the American taxpayer - I went to a local walk-in clinic, paid for my clinic visit when I left, and told the doctor I preferred the generic version of the antibiotic. I took my prescription to the pharmacy at my neighborhood grocery store and had it filled, and paid for it myself. At this point, paying for that kind of thing out-of-pocket is cheaper than paying a monthly individual health insurance premium...
I don't want universal healthcare mandated by the government. When I went to the walk-in clinic, I was in and out in less than an hour. If we had a system like Canada or Britain, how long would I have had to wait to see a doctor? In that situation, I might not have been out the doctor's fee and the cost of the prescription, but I don't think I would have received the same level of care.
I also know that not every "uninsured" person is uninsured because they cannot afford it. Some make the decision, after weighing the pros and cons, to not carry health insurance. A few years ago, I got back in touch with an old friend from junior high school who happens to live in town. He explained to me that he and his wife (both self-employed) don't have health insurance. They take the money they would ordinarily pay for health insurance premiums and put that into a medical savings account. Not an unreasonable decision when you and your family are healthy, and your premium goes "wasted" because you have not had to go to the doctor.
So, for the 15% that are uninsured, and the smaller percentage that truly "can't afford" health insurance, if you need to go to the hospital, you aren't going to be turned away. But why screw the 85% who are insured to "fix" that problem, and in the process create a new, huge government bureacracy that will not be run as efficiently or as effectively as it would be if it were a private enterprise? And I also can't help but think how many of those "uninsured Americans" aren't actually American, and of those non-American "Americans", how many shouldn't even be in this country...
I don't want universal healthcare mandated by the government. When I went to the walk-in clinic, I was in and out in less than an hour. If we had a system like Canada or Britain, how long would I have had to wait to see a doctor? In that situation, I might not have been out the doctor's fee and the cost of the prescription, but I don't think I would have received the same level of care.
I also know that not every "uninsured" person is uninsured because they cannot afford it. Some make the decision, after weighing the pros and cons, to not carry health insurance. A few years ago, I got back in touch with an old friend from junior high school who happens to live in town. He explained to me that he and his wife (both self-employed) don't have health insurance. They take the money they would ordinarily pay for health insurance premiums and put that into a medical savings account. Not an unreasonable decision when you and your family are healthy, and your premium goes "wasted" because you have not had to go to the doctor.
So, for the 15% that are uninsured, and the smaller percentage that truly "can't afford" health insurance, if you need to go to the hospital, you aren't going to be turned away. But why screw the 85% who are insured to "fix" that problem, and in the process create a new, huge government bureacracy that will not be run as efficiently or as effectively as it would be if it were a private enterprise? And I also can't help but think how many of those "uninsured Americans" aren't actually American, and of those non-American "Americans", how many shouldn't even be in this country...
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The Longest Season: The Story of the Orioles' 1988 Losing Streak
If you've followed this blog, you've probably figured out that I enjoy going to baseball games. I'm not as fanatical about baseball as my sisters, but since being close to a nice minor league ballpark, I've become a fan. I wasn't always interested in baseball, but I knew some of the names. One of those names is Cal Ripken, Jr. I didn't really follow him, but I remember hearing the news reports when he broke the record for the number of consecutive-games-played (2,632). In baseball, that is quite a feat, since teams play practically every day from early April through at least September, except for a few days off for the All-Star break. He is a player I can respect for how he played the game. Unlike some sports stars today, Cal Ripken, Jr., is someone I would have no problem with children viewing as a role model.
So, one day this past summer, I was once again looking for new or interesting picture books at the local Barnes & Noble. What I found was The Longest Season by Cal Ripken, Jr., and illustrated by Ron Mazellan. Not having been a follower of baseball back then (I was a senior in high school living overseas when the season started, and I was a college freshman back in the States when the season ended), I was not familiar with the beginning of the Baltimore Orioles' season that year. I quickly read the book in the store and decided it was a keeper - I like the message it teaches to children.
I guess I never realized that Cal Ripken, Jr. comes from a family of baseball players. In 1988, Cal would begin the season with his father, Senior, as his manager and his brother, Bill, as a teammate. "1988 was supposed to be a fun year." However, it didn't turn out that way. They lost their season opener, at home, to the Milwaukee Brewers by a score of 12-0.
The next day, the team is still optimistic: there are still 161 games to be played. However, the Orioles lose to the Brewers again, 3-1. Next, the Orioles go on the road to play the Cleveland Indians. They lose again:
They drop the entire series to the Indians:
The Orioles record stands at 0-12:
The record is now 0-18:
Still more losses:
Then:
And the lesson I like so much from this book?
I would highly recommend The Longest Season for any children's library (although it is specifically recommended for ages 7 to 11). It's message of perseverance when faced with adversity is one every child should hear, as well as the lesson that sometimes, you are going to lose. I also like Mazellan's illustrations - the focus and detail is on the primary subject of his painting, with the rest of the background painted with a kind of soft-focus lens.
So, one day this past summer, I was once again looking for new or interesting picture books at the local Barnes & Noble. What I found was The Longest Season by Cal Ripken, Jr., and illustrated by Ron Mazellan. Not having been a follower of baseball back then (I was a senior in high school living overseas when the season started, and I was a college freshman back in the States when the season ended), I was not familiar with the beginning of the Baltimore Orioles' season that year. I quickly read the book in the store and decided it was a keeper - I like the message it teaches to children.
I guess I never realized that Cal Ripken, Jr. comes from a family of baseball players. In 1988, Cal would begin the season with his father, Senior, as his manager and his brother, Bill, as a teammate. "1988 was supposed to be a fun year." However, it didn't turn out that way. They lost their season opener, at home, to the Milwaukee Brewers by a score of 12-0.
The next day, the team is still optimistic: there are still 161 games to be played. However, the Orioles lose to the Brewers again, 3-1. Next, the Orioles go on the road to play the Cleveland Indians. They lose again:
We all hate losing, every one of us. Especially Senior, who as manager feels most responsible. I'm not about to let my father down.
They drop the entire series to the Indians:
0-6
The worst day of the season. The Orioles lose again to the Indians, 7-2, but this loss hurts more than the others. After the game, Senior is fired as manager despite the fact that not one of these losses was his fault.
I've let my father down. We all did.
Yet it's not as though we haven't been trying. No one likes to lose, especially not me. Especially not when my father is the one who pays the price.
Now I'm angry. It is the only time in my career when I consider not being an Oriole.
The Orioles record stands at 0-12:
The season is only two weeks old, and already the dream has turned into a nightmare. But still, we go out there every game and give it our best.
The record is now 0-18:
The losing continues. Three more losses against Milwaukee and then three more against Kansas City. The entire country is now following the Orioles for all the wrong reasons. Each new loss makes national news, and the once-proud Orioles are the laughingstock of baseball.
Still more losses:
0-21
Twenty-one consecutive losses. The team has been on the road for ten straight days and we can't wait to get home, see our families and forget about losing.
But not yet. We have one more series to play on the road, against the Chicago White Sox. In the meantime, the Orioles have become a family of our own. When it feels like everyone is against you, it's good to have teammates.
Then:
Game 22. I hit a home run and score three runs. Our pitching is on target today.
Could it be?...
The streak is over!
I can't remember a better feeling win.
And the lesson I like so much from this book?
There is a lot I will remember about playing for the Orioles. The world championship in '83. Two MVP awards and being voted to play in nineteen All-Star Games. Over 400 home runs and 3,000 hits. And of course, the consecutive-games-played streak.
Yet the 0-21 losing streak would be the one thing I wouldn't mind forgetting, were it not for what I learned. Winning is easy on a person, but you learn more from losing. You learn to keep trying, each day a little harder than the day before. You learn how to be a better teammate, and how much you need one another to play well as a team. You even learn how to win.
The Orioles may have finished in last place in 1988, but the following year we started fresh and played together as a team the whole season. Even though we had the same team that lost twenty-one straight games the season before, we fought our way back to become winners. The 1989 season came down to the final games against the Toronto Blue Jays, with the winner taking the division title. We didn't win that series, but we fought hard - and finishing second sure beats finishing last.
I would highly recommend The Longest Season for any children's library (although it is specifically recommended for ages 7 to 11). It's message of perseverance when faced with adversity is one every child should hear, as well as the lesson that sometimes, you are going to lose. I also like Mazellan's illustrations - the focus and detail is on the primary subject of his painting, with the rest of the background painted with a kind of soft-focus lens.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Six years later
I awoke today not really thinking about the day's date. Until I saw my father leaving for school. In his Class A uniform, with the jacket still on a hanger. I have only ever known him to wear his uniform to school (he's now a high school history teacher) for Veterans' Day observances. He had said nothing about what they might be doing to commemorate this date. I'll have to ask him about it when he gets home.
I had to get up for school, too. I was subbing again at the same school I was at yesterday. I got to thinking about it, and even the oldest students, the fifth graders, would have been but 4 years old when planes flew into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. With the sub assignment I had, I was not in the cafeteria this morning for the morning assembly, which normally includes the usual announcements, pep talk from the principal and the Pledge of Allegiance and the Texas Pledge, so I don't know what, if any, commemoration was made - most students would be too young to really have a grasp on the concept.
I, thankfully, was not directly affected by the attacks. No one I knew personally was in New York or at the Pentagon or flying that day. None of my family are still in the military. I've had pen pals since this all began, but for one person (now retired Navy), I've met none of them, and they have all come home safely (but shame on Major Pain for not informing his pen pals from his deployment to Afghanistan that he was shipping off to Iraq before he went - he just showed back up on AnySoldier.com). I don't live in a military town anymore, although I'm not unreasonably far from some. I was surprised this morning to see a man in the new digitized camo bringing his little one to school, especially given the neighborhood the school was located in (I confess I was very curious of his rank, but with the rank being in located in the middle of the chest instead of on the collar like they used to be, I couldn't see what with the child in the way; I did say "good morning",though).
Here's what I had to say about 9/11 in response to a post about that day a friend of mine wrote back in May 2006:
9/11/01 was the last morning I just listened to the radio in the morning while getting ready to go to work. That morning, I was going into work late because I had to take my car in to get payment for repairs arranged after I had been rear-ended in my new car. I always just had the radio on as part of my alarm clock, and it would turn off an hour after my alarm. The radio had turned off before I left for the insurance office.
When I arrived at the insurance office, the agent I was dealing with (the agent for the guy who rear-ended me) asked if I had been watching or listening to the news. I told him no, and he informed me that a jet had hit the World Trade Center. At first, I thought small jet, not commercial airliner. While he was looking at the damage on my car, the Pentagon had been hit. I immediately thought Bin Laden. I went home before going into the office. I called in to see if they knew yet - yes, they did. I had turned the TV on when I got home, and I watched as the first tower collapsed. I knew that about 50,000 people worked in the towers, and I anticipated a death toll far more horrifying than it was, although nearly 3000 dead is horrifying enough.
At the time, I was part of a small church group at my parish in Fayetteville, and we had our regular weekly meeting that night. Instead of what we originally had scheduled, we went into the church and prayed the Rosary.
Since that day, I am even more of a news-junkie than I was before. I kept the TV on all the time when I was home, even overnight, watching nothing but news for days on end. I kept hoping for survivors. To this day, I often sleep with the TV on FoxNews channel.
Sadly, the deaths resulting from that attack didn't all occur on that day, or as a result of physical injuries received that day. Another friend of mine has a boyfriend who had a brother who had recently moved to Virginia and worked at the Pentagon. Stephen was a helicopter pilot. He had been part off Dust-Off during the Vietnam War. I'm not sure what Dust-Off was - I'd have to do a bit of research [ed. - DUSTOFF is "Dedicated Unhesitating Service To Our Fighting Forces". They are the Army aeromedical evacuation people.]. Anyway, Stephen was at the Pentagon that day. Apparently, he was often in the part of the building that was hit and he lost people he knew. I'm not sure, but I think he was involved in either rescuing or dealing with the people who were pulled from the building that first day. Stephen later commited suicide. My friend and I surmised that what Stephen saw that day brought back the traumatic memories of the Vietnam War, and did not seek help in dealing with what he was going through. Stephen in buried at Arlington National Cemetry. My friend accompanied her boyfriend to the funeral. Stephen's wife moved away from there - I think she had been home when Stephen killed himself there. I happened to have a business trip to DC in May 2003, after Stephen's funeral over the winter. I was able to find Stephen's grave and photograph the headstone, since it was not in place yet at the time of the funeral. I'm sure Stephen's wife was still visiting - there were small stones placed on the top of the headstone. I don't remember the significance of that gesture.
We will never know the true toll of people whose lives will end as a direct result of the attacks. I'm sure Stephen's was not the only suicide of a survivor or a family member of those killed, and there are also those who are now getting sick and dying from illnesses connected to working at Ground Zero....
How I wish I could snap my fingers and make this all go away - to make al Qaeda not be a threat, to make it so our fighting men and women no longer have to risk life and limb in foreign lands, far from loved ones, in order to keep us safe. Alas, the world does not work that way, and I fear we will be fighting this war against those who wish our submission to their radical religious ideology or our complete and utter destruction. I may not be at the point end of the spear, but I try to do my own tiny part in this war from here at home. I will not submit.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Rick Rescorla and the Presidential Medal of Freedom
Found out about this from Blackfive.
If you don't know who Rick Rescorla is already, you need to go find out about him. Quite a while back, before I found milblogs, I read about him. He's the soldier on the cover of We Were Soldiers Once... And Young by General Hal Moore and Joseph Galloway. On 9/11, Rick was in charge of security for Morgan Stanley in the World Trade Center. When the north tower was struck, he ignored the "stay where you are" messages coming over the loudspeakers in the south tower. Morgan Stanley lost only six of their 2700 employees that day. Rick Rescorla is responsible for that miracle. After getting the people from Morgan Stanley out, he and three of his deputies when back up, looking for others that might need help getting out. He and his men were still in the tower when it collapsed. I know some news magazine did a story on him after he died - I wish I could recall which one. He is definitely someone you should know.
Anyhow, there is now a petition asking the President to award Rescorla the Presidential Medal of Freedom:
Go sign the petition. Let others know about it: link to it, email it. Rick Rescorla deserves this recognition for his lifetime of service and his ultimate sacrifice.
If you don't know who Rick Rescorla is already, you need to go find out about him. Quite a while back, before I found milblogs, I read about him. He's the soldier on the cover of We Were Soldiers Once... And Young by General Hal Moore and Joseph Galloway. On 9/11, Rick was in charge of security for Morgan Stanley in the World Trade Center. When the north tower was struck, he ignored the "stay where you are" messages coming over the loudspeakers in the south tower. Morgan Stanley lost only six of their 2700 employees that day. Rick Rescorla is responsible for that miracle. After getting the people from Morgan Stanley out, he and three of his deputies when back up, looking for others that might need help getting out. He and his men were still in the tower when it collapsed. I know some news magazine did a story on him after he died - I wish I could recall which one. He is definitely someone you should know.
Anyhow, there is now a petition asking the President to award Rescorla the Presidential Medal of Freedom:
To: United States
A PETITION TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH TO AWARD THE PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM TO C.R.”RICK” RESCORLA FOR HEROISM AND GALLANTRY BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY ON SEPTEMBER 11,2001.
MR. RESCORLA CAME TO THIS COUNTRY AS AN IMMIGRANT TO BECOME AN OFFICER IN THE ARMY. MR RESCORLA SERVED WITH SUCH DISTINCTION AS AN OFFICER IN VIET NAM THAT ALL WHO SERVED WITH HIM CONSIDER HIM THE BRAVEST MAN WE HAVE EVER KNOWN. HE WAS HIGHLY DECORATED FOR HIS BRAVERY AND LEADERSHIP IN COMBAT. HE BECAME A US CITIZEN AND SOUGHT A HIGHER EDUCATION OBTAINING A BACHELOR AND MASTERS DEGREE AT UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA AND FURTHER OBTAINING A LAW DEGREE BEFORE SERVING A AS TEACHER AT USC LAW SCHOOL BEFORE BEING LURED TO THE WORLD OF COMMERCIAL BANKING. MR. RESCORLA’S SPECIALTY WAS SECURITY AND SECURITY LAW. IN 1993 HE WAS THE LAST MAN OUT OF THE TRADE TOWERS AFTER EVACUATING EVERYONE. ON SEPT.11TH IN SPITE OF BEING TOLD HIS BUILDING WAS NOT IN DANGER, HE IMPLEMENTED THE EVACUATION PLAN HE HAD DEVELOPED FOR HIS FIRM, MORGAN STANLEY. AS A DIRECT RESULT OF HIS EFFORTS THAT DAY AND HIS QUICK ACTION, OVER 2600 EMPLOYEES WERE SAVED. MR RESCORLA WAS LAST SEEN GOING UP TO RESCUE PEOPLE WHO WERE UNABLE TO GET DOWN. HIS ACTIONS REFLECT THE VERY BEST ABOUT AMERICA, ITS CITIZENS AND ITS DREAMS.
THE UNDERSIGNED URGE YOU TO RECOGNIZE MR RESCORLA BY BESTOWING THIS HIGHEST HONOR TO THIS MOST DESERVING MAN.
Go sign the petition. Let others know about it: link to it, email it. Rick Rescorla deserves this recognition for his lifetime of service and his ultimate sacrifice.
Not sure what to think about this...
After logging out of my hotmail account a while ago, I saw a link titled Why We Need a Draft: A Marine’s Lament.
This opinion piece is written by one Marine Corporal Mark Finelli, who on 9/11 worked for Morgan Stanley at the World Trade Center. He thinks we need to have a draft like in WWII, not like the one during Vietnam. Not knowing my draft history, I don't know if he's accurate in stating that in WWII, the children of the elites couldn't avoid it as he perceives happened with the Vietnam draft. He thinks that if the children of the wealthy and the political elites were forced to serve, the military would be better funded.
He also seems to be saying the military is only getting the dregs of society, not the "best and brightest":
Who says "the brightest" can only come from America's wealthy and elite? I just don't buy that. Kind of sounds like Kerry's "you'll get stuck in Iraq" "joke"...
I don't think he's looking at this quite right. During WWII, the vast majority of the American public supported the war effort. It was a war between nation-states between large armies and navies with tanks, artillery, ships and uniforms. Today's war is not against any nation-state, but the ideology of a death cult called radical Islam who don't have the large armies and navies with the tanks, artillery, ships and uniforms we have traditionally faced on the battlefield.
Today, far too many people do not believe there is anything truly worth fighting and dying for, or who do not believe we are really engaged in a war with persons who wish nothing but either our submission to their will or our utter destruction. I never considered joining the military, although I grew up as an Army brat. I never thought I had what it would take to do well in the military - it was not because I thought I was too good for it. Not everyone belongs in the military, and I really don't think we want people in the military who do not want to be there and don't really believe in what it is our military is asked to fight for, regardless of wanting to make everyone, including the elites of this nation, have a "blood-or-money interest" in this fight.
I know our military has been taxed by current military operations around the world, most notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I also know I've heard that you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want. After the Cold War, some in power in the United States thought we would no longer need the military we had acquired during the conflict. Our military was cut drastically, and now we, or more accurately, our military and their families, are paying the price for that naïveté about future military needs and the nature of future military conflicts. Yes, we need to expand our military forces. Yes, we need to provide our military with the proper equipment and other resources. However, fixing these problems isn't going to happen overnight. It takes time to recruit and train new soldiers, sailors and Marines. I can only think we want those new recruits to actually want to be there - if they don't want to be there, are they going to do want needs to be done, or are they going to get their comrades in arms killed on the battlefield because they have been forced onto the battlefield instead of having arrived there willingly?
As for getting our military the funding that would be required to keep them properly outfitted, Washington has lots of competing interests for the tax dollars that are collected. How many say we already spend too much on the military? Look at the numbers, as a percentage of the federal budget. In 1956, we spent 57% of out federal budget on Defense. In 2006, it's just 19% of the budget, while Social Security and "other payments to individuals" (can we say "the welfare state"?) is now 59% of the budget. Just forcing the political elites' children into the military isn't going to have a drastic effect on the federal budget - politicians have too many constituencies to pay off with our tax dollars.
Bottom line, I can't agree with Cpl. Finelli's conclusion that a military draft will fix the problems with military funding, and I can't see that forcing someone who doesn't want to be in the military to do it anyway is going to get us "the brightest" in the service. Also, how big does he think our military needs to be? To have military service effect this nation's wealthy and elite and others who seem to be removed from any connection to the cost, in blood, of this war against radical Islam, I think we'd have a military far larger than what we truly need.
This opinion piece is written by one Marine Corporal Mark Finelli, who on 9/11 worked for Morgan Stanley at the World Trade Center. He thinks we need to have a draft like in WWII, not like the one during Vietnam. Not knowing my draft history, I don't know if he's accurate in stating that in WWII, the children of the elites couldn't avoid it as he perceives happened with the Vietnam draft. He thinks that if the children of the wealthy and the political elites were forced to serve, the military would be better funded.
According to the Pentagon, no service personnel have died in an MRAP. So why isn’t every Marine or soldier in Iraq riding in one? Simple economics. An MRAP costs five times more than even the most up-armored Humvee. People need a personal, vested, blood-or-money interest to maximize potential. That is why capitalism has trumped communism time and again, but it is also why private contractors in Iraq have MRAPs while Marines don’t. Because in actuality, America isn’t practicing the basic tenet of capitalism on the battlefield with an all-volunteer military, and won’t be until the reinstitution of the draft. Because until the wealthy have that vested interest, until it’s the sons of senators and the wealthy upper classes sitting in those trucks—it takes more than the McCain boy or the son of Sen. Jim Webb—the best gear won’t get paid for on an infantryman’s timetable. Eighteen months after the Marines first asked for the MRAP, it’s finally being delivered. Though not nearly at the rate that’s needed. By the end of the year, only 1,500 will have been delivered, less than half the 3,900 the Pentagon had initially promised.
He also seems to be saying the military is only getting the dregs of society, not the "best and brightest":
The real failure of this war, the mistake that has led to all the malaise of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was the failure to not reinstitute the draft on Sept. 12, 2001—something I certainly believed would happen after running down 61 flights of the South Tower, dodging the carnage as I made my way to the Hudson River [I worked at the World Trade Center as an investment adviser for Morgan Stanley at the time]. But President Bush was determined to keep the lives of nonuniformed America—the wealthiest Americans, like himself—uninterrupted by the war. Consequently, we have a severe talent deficiency in the military, which the draft would remedy immediately. While America’s bravest are in the military, America’s brightest are not. Allow me to build a squad of the five brightest students from MIT and Caltech and promise them patrols on the highways connecting Baghdad and Fallujah, and I’ll bet that in six months they could render IED’s about as effective as a “Just Say No” campaign at a Grateful Dead show.
Who says "the brightest" can only come from America's wealthy and elite? I just don't buy that. Kind of sounds like Kerry's "you'll get stuck in Iraq" "joke"...
I don't think he's looking at this quite right. During WWII, the vast majority of the American public supported the war effort. It was a war between nation-states between large armies and navies with tanks, artillery, ships and uniforms. Today's war is not against any nation-state, but the ideology of a death cult called radical Islam who don't have the large armies and navies with the tanks, artillery, ships and uniforms we have traditionally faced on the battlefield.
Today, far too many people do not believe there is anything truly worth fighting and dying for, or who do not believe we are really engaged in a war with persons who wish nothing but either our submission to their will or our utter destruction. I never considered joining the military, although I grew up as an Army brat. I never thought I had what it would take to do well in the military - it was not because I thought I was too good for it. Not everyone belongs in the military, and I really don't think we want people in the military who do not want to be there and don't really believe in what it is our military is asked to fight for, regardless of wanting to make everyone, including the elites of this nation, have a "blood-or-money interest" in this fight.
I know our military has been taxed by current military operations around the world, most notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I also know I've heard that you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want. After the Cold War, some in power in the United States thought we would no longer need the military we had acquired during the conflict. Our military was cut drastically, and now we, or more accurately, our military and their families, are paying the price for that naïveté about future military needs and the nature of future military conflicts. Yes, we need to expand our military forces. Yes, we need to provide our military with the proper equipment and other resources. However, fixing these problems isn't going to happen overnight. It takes time to recruit and train new soldiers, sailors and Marines. I can only think we want those new recruits to actually want to be there - if they don't want to be there, are they going to do want needs to be done, or are they going to get their comrades in arms killed on the battlefield because they have been forced onto the battlefield instead of having arrived there willingly?
As for getting our military the funding that would be required to keep them properly outfitted, Washington has lots of competing interests for the tax dollars that are collected. How many say we already spend too much on the military? Look at the numbers, as a percentage of the federal budget. In 1956, we spent 57% of out federal budget on Defense. In 2006, it's just 19% of the budget, while Social Security and "other payments to individuals" (can we say "the welfare state"?) is now 59% of the budget. Just forcing the political elites' children into the military isn't going to have a drastic effect on the federal budget - politicians have too many constituencies to pay off with our tax dollars.
Bottom line, I can't agree with Cpl. Finelli's conclusion that a military draft will fix the problems with military funding, and I can't see that forcing someone who doesn't want to be in the military to do it anyway is going to get us "the brightest" in the service. Also, how big does he think our military needs to be? To have military service effect this nation's wealthy and elite and others who seem to be removed from any connection to the cost, in blood, of this war against radical Islam, I think we'd have a military far larger than what we truly need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)