AllServe

STARBUCKS RANGERS

2012-02-12T12:32:00.000-08:00

Recently I was hanging out at Starbucks and watching the herd of kids coming in from the various offices around. They are laughing and talking, dozens of them. Most are doing some sort of social networking: tweeting, Facebook, talking to each other. Planning their social activities. All these kids are bright, well educated, probably come from upper middle class homes or higher. I informally surveyed a few and easdropped on others They don't have much interest in politics or overall what is going on in the world, surely not Afghanistan. I am possibly a little harsh as I don't really know but while in line, I showed several this article I'm reading and asked about the war, military, government, deficit--for those who didn't escape, not that much on their minds. Contrast this with the profile of a group of Marines in Afghanistan. These guys are going on patrol. Fighting the Taliban, developing strategies. They are tough, tattooed, proud, doing their job. At war. The contrast is absolutely stark.

This is the same kind of article I've read over the last several years. Profiling what it means to be a modern day soldier in combat. It is hard, tough, life threatening. And to the NYT's credit, there have been several of these in depth articles of our fighting troops and I always asked the same question, who is reading these articles? Who really gives a flying f..k, whatever? Not these kids at Starbucks. They are untouched, probably unconcerned. It isn't judgment or their fault. It really doesn't effect them. They, like 99% of Americans, have no "skin" in the game. We have a professional and volunteer military, mostly kids who are unrepresentative of our American culture. I don't know this for sure, just mu guess. We can engage in wars or at least have been able in the past and merely pay the bill.

Without running the risk of sounding too philosophical, the issues now and what we ought to be concentrating on, are the unintended consequences of a "no draft" military. Iraq and now Afghanistan goes on and on because we have no overall American investment. Had we had a draft and Americans as a whole were paying the price, it might be entirely different. I am sure that the motives of Milt Friedman and then SecDef Melvin Laird, as they led the charge of abolishing the draft in 1973 was, relatively, what they considered in the best interests of the country. To me, based on where we are in the world, our future, abolishing the draft was historically one of our all time biggest mistakes and an unintended consequence which is enormous.

West Point, University or For Training of Military

2011-12-31T07:17:00.000-08:00

Talk about a spirited contest, the Army/ Navy football game. Both sides’ stadiums full. Even the Prez showed up. For American style football, this isn’t much. No powerhouses with the Academies. The military academies and most everybody who cogitates their navels about sports gets why. Really big football prospects aren’t going to the academies, mainly because they have a military commitment of mostly five years waiting for them. Thus ending any desires for a professional sports career.

There was a time that the Academies were competitive. When? We had the draft. Young men figured they were going to serve anyway, why not get a good education? For free no less. Do we think that Milt Friedman and the then SecDef, Melvin Laird, who sold us a bill of goods on ending the draft, thought of those unintended consequences?

I always look at the academies a little differently than most. First of all, this worshipful attitude toward them needs to be put in perspective. These kids’ education is no small thing—a million bucks a pop. And, there’s other stuff, they do get a stipend, maybe a few other bennies. The flip side of the coin is that going to one of the Academies is no cake walk. It is hard: field problems, restrictions, other things that some non academy types like myself don’t even know. I can tell you this though. We don’t need all these separate academies. One is sufficient and certain curriculum could be tailored to individual services. Consolidating the Academies, like so many things in government, could save billions of dollars. Think any congressman would have the “balls” to even suggest such a thing? Don’t hold your breath. We are talking WWlll. The military lobby would be in “hell raising” political posture before you could say, “at ease.”

Inception of Community Service

2011-12-14T17:06:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr. Edwards:
As a fellow North Carolinian, (Dunn) I applaud your entry into the Presidential sweepstakes. I am often amazed why anyone would be in politics unless it is a "calling" and I think yours is. Unfortunately, for many, it morphs into a career and politics as usual. I hope and pray that your commitment is different.

My basic purpose for writing, doubting you will ever see this but you might, based on a recent Newsweek article. Your desire for the voters to see the real you. "Untucked." I like it. And, the idea of putting your campaign on "youtube" is right on--very creative from my point of view and I sent the link to dozens. I think that the transparency is truly the only way for a democracy and what you're doing is part of it. You have my support, I assure you.

My feeling is that you are saying some good things. I saw you in New Orleans. Right on. However, many are going to say those same sorts of things and what you need is something to get you out ahead of the crowd. Here's your issue in my opinion: UNIVERSAL SERVICE. Congressman Rangel has proposed a draft but it simply won't fly. Too much opposition even if I think it is a good idea. Unfortunately, in my estimation, those who are in opposition to the draft or may even oppose Universal Service, are in NC parlance, "cutting off their nose to spite their face." What "peace" groups or even others in opposition don't get is that If we had a draft/Universal Service, a President would think twice before he sent us to war.

However, all that aside, Universal Service would be good for the country. For the last 12 years or so, I have been promoting the idea that we need Universal Service-- something unifying and what better to do it than requiring those 18-26 to give 18 months to 2 years in service to this great country. My basic theme has been simply that it is immoral to ask such an infinitesimally small number of Americans to fight our wars. Columnist Ben Stein says it this way, "In the old days, the rich, the famous, they all put it aside to fight. Now who fights for us: "Southerners, Hispanics from New Mexico, rural men and women from upstate NY. Small town boys and girls from the Midwest. No children of the powers on Wall Street go off and fight? They 've left the burden of defending an affluent nation to those who enjoy less of its affluence. They don't want to fight for a system that made them rich or a way of life that made them princes of finance."

I would add, and not original with me, "the kids who are in the military today are those whose economic prospects are less than stellar. They are high-school graduates who're not going to college because of costs, many young parents who need a regular paycheck and health care for their families." According to DOD statistics, soldiers come from households earning between $32,000 and $33,500. " (The median American income is $43,300.) It is not that the Volunteer Army is not working. We have a military that is as good as we've ever had. Simply, they are not representative of our country and this is not right nor good for us.

The difficulty, in my opinion, with selling the draft is simply too much opposition to the military, war, etc. Few can argue with universal service. From various reports, we've got lots of activism: students are getting involved in Teach America and there's been a resurgence in the Peace Corp. And, your comments in New Orleans, who came? Many students showed up to help.

Without a draft or any sort of Universal Service, kids by in large don't have any incentive to serve. I talk to parents of kids who are draft eligible with great regularity and simply unless there is an unusual circumstances, they don't think about it. Thinking has changed and more and more parents of eligible kids see the advantage of a Universal Service. Having a choice is the selling point. I have a blog called AllServe and constantly get comments about what a great idea this is.

What would a Universal Service do for America's kids? Lots of things, something like a common interest and experience, something that is nonexistent in our culture. Universal service would make a difference in changing our fractured America--a youth culture built around service. What I am discovering is that many Americans will go for Universal Service if youth is given an option. If they didn't want to choose from a list, let them define their own. American kids are smart and creative, we might be surprised at what they come up with and how willing they are to serve.

This is an issue that is begging for someone like yourself to take up--it is the JFK "ask not what your country can do for you" theme. Universal Service could be phased in over ten years and promoted among our youngsters now. A success story and the way AllServe could work is an organization I've read about: Teach America. I only know what I've read. They are getting top graduates who could be in medical school or Wharton business or wherever--yet choose to do something meaningful before they start their careers. Teach America sends graduates into poor rural and urban schools for two years. For many, it has become a next step after graduation. These kids want to contribute to improving society while keeping their options open. At Yale for instance, Teach America, drew applications from 12% of the graduates, 11% at Dartmouth, and 8% at Harvard. All told a record 17,350 applied in one year.

Are our present kids a post 9-11 generation ready to opt more aggressively for public service? I think so. Many of those volunteering for Teach America don't know what they want to do. The thought is that not knowing what to do, why not take some time to do something meaningful for a couple of years and think about the future. The military is as I've said only one of the options. Universal Service will work.

There's probably some opposition to Universal Service or anything related but what the hell: us North Carolinian know a cause when we see it. Universal Service will fly and I think you are just the one to make it happen.

I'm enclosing my memoirs, just off the press. I know you have more than you can do but in addition to recording my Vietnam experiences, I have included observations that I think would be helpful to a candidate: mini position papers on Iraq. Plus, the subtle thing of the book is for those who have not had military service to "get it" through Gun Totin Chaplain.

God bless you.

Jerry Autry
Chaplain (COL), USA Ret

airbornepress@gmail.com Sign out

©2009 Google

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

2011-07-07T07:27:00.000-07:00

In the mail in 1972, young Americans were still getting draft notices amidst the knowledge that tens of thousands of Americans had been killed. Anti-war protests were rampant. Draft notices were being publically burned and returning soldiers were treated as part of the problem. The military was at a low ebb.

I was drafted the day I got marroed. I was pretty taken aback that the return address was the White House. Jokingly, I was impressed that President Richard Nixon would write to me.

I opened it up and I think it said, "Greetings from the president of the United States." It was a form letter that said my friends and neighbors had selected me to represent them in the Armed Forces and I was hereby ordered to report for active duty. Say What!

With all the views about the draft, an unintended consequence, is that we have a somewhat mercenary military and a total lack of investment in our three wars--only 1% of Americans are making any sacrifice in any way for our involvement.

MEMORIAL DAY PONDERINGS

2011-05-29T06:05:00.000-07:00

Memorial Day is about honoring those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. I see 5 seconds on the national news of Boy Scouts putting flags on graves at National Cemeteries. There's even a big controversy because some National Cemetery's Director didn't want the chaplain ending his prayer in the traditional Christian way, "In Jesus name".

But, really what does Memorial Day mean to people? How do you honor someone who has given his/her life in your name. IT CAN'T BE DONE. We can put out flags, have ceremonies, build monuments but that won't do it. Most of the "so called" honoring
is idle chatter or simply out of some half-assed sense of duty. And, of course, the sorry politicians want to have their asses in the limelight but they haven't ever given spit to what it might mean to serve or for their children to serve. And, here they are out there pontificating about honoring sacrifice. I will give the president slack because in our system, he is the Commander-in- Chief but not the other MFers.

Here's the way to really honor those who've given the ultimate. Excluding WWll when the "greatest generation" saved the world, we the people need to rise up and say to our elected leaders, no more Vietnams, Afghanistans, Iraqs. And here is a novel idea but more a pipedream: reinstitude the draft or some form of community service. Politicians and even our president know there is no political repercussion if he commits us to war. With only 1% of Americans traveling back and forth to war, no one, other than these young Americans are sacrificing.

And, these sacrificing young soldiers are where they are mainly because life's circumances have given them few options. This is not to take away from their sacrifices--simply with only 1% actually doing the sacrificing, what do we call the others? Draft dodgers. I don't think so. Who can blame a youngster. If there is no draft and he or she has no compelling reason to serve, why do it? Good question. Let some other kid join up who has less or no options. Memorial Day is a good time to ponder such issues.

TESTING THE METAL OF THE MILITARY CHAPLAIN'S ASSOCIATION

2011-04-28T10:23:00.000-07:00

DIALOGUE ON MILITARY CHAPLAIN'S ASSOCIATION

Dave and all, in my view, the MCA is worthless. Even though Dave, you hold
the titular title of VP, it is as useless as tits on a boar hog (get Clyde
to explain that). I've been a member I think at least two or three times. If
you want to greet and eat, fine but these organizations never live up to
their stated goals or to what their potential is. Chaplains have a chance to
add their voice to maybe a cause but orgs like MCA end up doing mostly
nothing toward any sort of potential good.

We all, I think, are doing good pastoral work since retiring. I've become
involved with the UCSF Cancer Center and in writing, mainly blogs. And, I
know of your good work through 10 chaps. And, all of us, relatively
speaking, enjoyed the chaplaincy and did good work there too. The chaplaincy
was and is unique and is far superior in my view to civilian ministry. The
fact that chaplains have gotten little or no recognition or appreciation for
their hard work then and now is beside the point. We all in our waning years
have to do our own thing.

Because of my nature, I have two crusading causes. Getting out of
Afghanistan and Iraq and the restoration of the draft. Briefly my view of
our wars are they basically have been for nothing. We are not even going to
get cheap oil from Iraq. You can put any spin you want on it but like
Vietnam, wasn't worth a single life. Afghanistan is a "fast train to no
where." If we stay there a hundred years, we can do little. The generals in
particular bear blame for the idiocy of Afghanistan since we have a
president and congress who literally have no military experience and the
generals have way too much sway over decisions. And the SecDef is from Texas
A and M of all things. Here's reality: when Nixon was elected to his first
term on the promise of getting us out of Nam, there were around 17,000 young
American soldiers dead. Nixon lied. By the time he left, there were 58,000
or so who had paid the ultimate price.

On the draft. Until it is restored, presidents can keep sending us to war in
places like Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya because Americans are
uninvolved. Only 1% of Americans have any "skin in the game" in making any
kind of sacrifice and the vast majority of our soldiers come from
environments where they have limited options. They are good soldiers but we
don't have any children from families of doctors, lawyers or Indian Chiefs
in the military, at least as I have observed, read about or those who have
been profiled in various ways. On NBC the other night, a young fearless,
"Hurt Locker" soldier was profiled. By his own admission, he was rudderless,
an alcoholic father, drug addict brother and then he found the Army and was
rescued. Good for him and for us. The larger story, however, is that the
"hurt locker" soldier's background has bece more the rule than the exception
and this simply can't be a good thing overall.

Americans have become comfortable with other peoples' children fighting our
wars. My personal goal is to impact that and here's how I'm attempting to do
it. (I know your eyes are glazing over but this is the important part of
this "running off at the mouth," I'm doing).

And, I didn't come up with this idea but got it from one of the old guys I
hang out with. For the last couple of years, I have regularly been emailing
to the White House website with no response or at best, a "thank you for
your comments." My buddy who is bigtime Democratic donor, (owns pretty much
entire block called 52 Bush in San Fran, I think that is what it's called).
Good guy but erasable as all get out. I have to kick his ass with
regularity; he said, "want a response?" Send money. I sent a sizeable check
to the Democratic National Committee. (Not rich of course but have at this
stage of my life ended up with a fair amount of disposable income).
Immediate response. Sent another nice check. Has it made any difference?
The only thing I know is that I get replies with a promise literally that my
ideas are going to get a hearing. I plan to keep it up until or unless, I
think it doesn't make any difference. What I've rediscovered is that in
addition to money, there's a sense of fulfillment if you don't have anything
personally to gain from your causes. My observation has been that most
people who are financially involved in the political process have some
agenda, i. e., anti-abortion/gay marriage, etc. I don't, not even concerned
if 10 chaps like or not (don't want to come across as arrogant but I'm sure
this does. Is an RET concept if you guys remember. Don Davis and I took a
class at Albert Ellis Institute when we were in Career Course on RET
[Rational Emotive Therapy-now called by other names]. Whatever happened to
Don? Super guy, Presby if I remember correctly); but, for me, have to be
resolute in my convictions. But, come the presidential campaign, if I don't
hear some of my ideas, I'll head off in another direction. Amen and power in
the blood. {{{{{Jerry}}}}}

Jerry's comments are [presently] true, that is why the whole
organization needs some new blood; someone like Jerry and the 10 chaps who
will, for the most part, tell it like it is. One or two people can't do it,
however, several could make an impact. I believe that MCA has potential, but
as is, it simply slides along, not doing a whole lot, ---showing up at
formal occasions, glad handing, giving an invocation, etc. MCA has a chair
with the committee/group (Forget what they call it) that meets with
congressional people (big rollers), however, my sense is that their
participation is very limited. If there were an aggressive visionary type
person that represented MCA at that meeting; waved the Corps flag,
represented the troops,spoke to the issues, etc., MCA would have a positive
impact. MCA also has the potential of serving as an advisor to the Chiefs.
It would take some work but the potential is there.Chiefs could learn a
whole lot from retirees.For Example, (ref. para. 3 & 4) MCA should/could
pass a resolution concerning the draft. (I can already hear it on the
"News", MCA, retired Chaplains recommend the reinstitution of the
Draft.:):). Leadership (congress/Generals, Chiefs, etc. should hear a
statement like para. 5. Another reason I believe MCA's [reality] Voice is
needed is because most active duty & Reserve Component are locked into
saying what is politically correct...The prophetic voice is rarely heard.
That is not a criticism, but I think it is reality...SOOOOOO HERE IS THE
PLAN.....WE ARE GOING TO THE MCA CONFERENCE NEXT YR...FOR A 10 CHAPS
REUNION, AND TO MAKE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON MCA. :):)..Bottom Line: As is,
Jerry is right, however, there is potential

10 chaps.: This is a draft of what I am going to send to the Executive Director of MCA. They will be meeting next Monday prior to the conference which begins on Tuesday. My goal is to get it discussed by the Board and then to put in on the floor during the General Membership meeting which will be conducted on Thursday.

I move that MCA recommend through a resolution the reinstitution of the draft.

Discussion:

1) Americans, for the most part are uninvolved in the activities of the Military, to include our “wars”. Only 1% of Americans have any "skin in the game" in making any kind of sacrifice. The vast majority of our soldiers come from environments where they have limited options. They are good “troops”, in fact, excellent. However, as I have observed and read about those who have been profiled in various ways, we have very few children from families of doctors, lawyers, congressmen/women, mayors, professors, Indian Chiefs, and on-and-on. In fact, on a recent NBC profile, a young and fearless, "Hurt Locker" soldier was profiled. By his own admission, he was rudderless, an alcoholic father, drug addict brother. He found the Army and was rescued. That is great!. Good for him and for us. The larger story, however, is that the "hurt locker" soldier's background has become more the rule than the exception and this simply can't be a good thing overall. It is not good for the services, or society. Clauswitz has a lot to say about the importance of getting society and the majority of the population involved in the nations wars. In fact, as I recall from War College Days, he said, don’t go to war unless you have the nation’s support. We are fighting 3 wars, and they hardly get noticed by most people in our nation. In fact, the largest percentage of Americans have become comfortable with other peoples' children fighting our wars….with only 1% of our country involved in the sacrifices of three (3) wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya), plus US “Troops” assisting in keeping the peace throughout the world, most US citizens have very limited understanding and awareness of the service members mission, needs, and sacrifice. Consequently, support is limited at best. We have an “all volunteer military” which is successful in terms of keeping the ranks filled but a dismal failure in terms of shared sacrifice. When Nobel prize winner, Mort Friedman, and then, Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, teamed up to get rid of the draft and initiate the All Volunteer Force, I am confident that they could not possibly have conceived the eventual impact..no shared national sacrifice, lack of support for service members and their families, the significant increase in the breakdown of military families due to an inordinate number of “hardship” tours, the increased suicide rate among service members—--to name a few. In summary, the impact of the All Volunteer Force has been no real shared national sacrifice while service member commitments consistently increase.

2) Serving in the military, or serving the nation, has many positive returns.

a. Patriotism

b. Sense of pride in the nation.

c. Sense of appreciation for the nation. (It is mighty rare that you meet a former service member who isn’t thankful for the privilege he/she had to serve, and for the nation. )

d. Leadership abilities are immeasurably enhanced and refined.

e. Positive Personality traits among military members are enhanced.

f. Sense of ownership toward and for the nation comes about as a result of making a small , sometimes large, sacrifice.

3) Negative aspects of the All Volunteer Force.

a. Over commitment. The commitment and demands exceed the ability of a small military force

b. Increase in breakdown of military families

c. Increase in the number of suicides among military personnel

d. Increase in the number of military personnel suffering from Post-War Traumatic Stress

e. Very little shared national sacrifice, and support.

4) This is a great opportunity for MCA to be on the cutting edge of national policy, a policy that is so very much needed.

Dave, this is terrific. I would not change a thing. There are a couple of repeats but I would leave them in as reinforcement. If MCA had any insight, they could see how this might make a real difference. And, for those who are savvy to the media, the possibilities are endless and could really pull MCA out from being mostly useless to a prominent player on the national scene. Chaplains need a venue. We don't need a theological one but a nation building one because of our value system. The opposition will be enormous but better for all to fight. Politicians for one thing have done nothing along this line, even if they wanted too because they have feared a backlash. To me, it is stupid as those who would be effected don't vote. Regardless of what happened, MCA could be out ahead. I doubt there's much chance now but for the future who knows. As a last thing, the 10 chaps need to come on board. Great job.

I am skeptical that MCA will have the will to agressively pursue such an agenda. That said, what you have proposed, Dave, gives them an opportunity to show their metal. I am afraid Jerry is right. We will see. Bernie.

NO SHARED SACRIFICE

2011-04-26T09:53:00.000-07:00

Recently, a nightly news program profiled a young " hurt locker" type soldier serving in Afghanistan. (Hurt Locker was an Academy Award winner as "best picture" and featured a fearless soldier disarming bombs and blowing up IEDs (Imbedded Explosive Devices). And, here was a real soldier doing his job and saving lives in a real war, not a movie.

What was compelling about this young soldier was the fact that he is somewhat typical of many of our present day soldiers. Not that all of them are "Hurt Locker" types but that they are soldiers who come from backgrounds with limited options. In the case of the one profiled, his Dad was an alcoholic, a drug addict brother, and by his own admission, he was headed for trouble and found an escape into the Army. Good for the Army and good for us. And, he is exactly the type that the military can rescue and use; a kid from a hardscrabble life who has found a home doing the most difficult job in war.

Philosophically, however, there's a deeper story: with only 1% of our country involved in the sacrifices of our two wars, we don't have a clue as to the soldiers fighting our wars. We have an "all volunteer military" which is successful in terms of keeping the ranks filled but a dismal failure in terms of shared sacrifice. When Nobel Prize winner Mort Friedman and then Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, teamed up to get rid of the draft and into the All Volunteer Force, I can't believe that they could possibly have conceived what the eventual impact would be.

The impact has been no real shared sacrifice but it has also produced our two present wars. The President can send us to war without fear of condemnation or political fallout. After all these years at war, we have no national outcry, no marching in the streets, Vietnam style. And why? Americans have no investment, we're content to let the "Hurt Locker" soldiers fight our wars. I am so tired of hearing the politicians talk about the American people. Bullshit. Most people in this country don't really care. We would be lucky if we had half of our people with any real interest in who is fighting our wars. As a nation, we should be ashamed!

IF WE HAD A DRAFT

2011-03-14T07:57:00.000-07:00

To the editor; the contention of Nathaniel Fink and John Nagl that the long war in Afghanistan is getting shorter (Op-ed, Feb. 21) is not convincing. After sacrificing so much blood and treasure there for almost 10 years, is it not obvious that our mission there has failed and that to remain until 2014 is scandalous? Our mission was to find Osama bin Laden, and we failed. Our mission was to defeat the Taliban, and we failed. Our mission was to curtail the growth and distribution of opium, which strengthens the Taliban, and we failed. The only now, as Mr. Fink and Mr. Nagl indicate, a task force is being appointed "to investigate and expose corruption" in the Afghan government is ludicrous. This corruption has been for many years and has been widely known, while we were assisting it with billions of dollars, better spent on the many pressing needs here at home.

My heart breaks every time I see the names of our valiant troops killed in Afghanistan. Our presence there is not worth the life of one more. If we had had a draft, millions of us would be marching in Washington demanding that we get out now. HDT, Redwood City, CA,

2010-11-25T12:34:00.000-08:00

The GED (General Education Diploma). What a amazing effect, for good, giving people a "second chance" after screwing up, i. e., foregoing a high school diploma. And, the military, has, over the last several years, based on their needs, aided many would be soldiers. (with rare exceptions, a recruit must have a high school diploma or the GED to get into the military). Reading the profiles of those passing the GED and then enlisting was pretty inspiring.
GED, got the third chance of the military.

A good program. Now, it is going "bye bye."
And, as we know, the decision makers (bureaucracy) of the Army could screw up a two car funeral possession. The GED has always been a good program and now, with plenty of bodies, obviously they can get rid of the help provided to potential GIs. But, as often happens, stories like this open up other questions, i.e. Who is fighting America's wars? Without disparaging the fine young soldier, is it the poor? And, to me that is the greater question, not to mention the morality of it. All of those profiled had no prospects and the military offered them a shot. More power to these youngsters but shame on us for expecting them to live or die for us.

Sent from my iPhone
=

WHAT ABOUT THE MILITARY DRAFT

2009-12-13T07:09:00.000-08:00

DRAFT DODGER

I must say I took offense at your animated use of the term 'draft dodger' when looking directly at me in order to undermine any argument I put forth that differed from yours re: Obama's decision to send troops to Viet Nam. Here is a passage from Wikipedia

'Of the nearly 16 million men not engaged in active military service, 96% were exempted (typically because of jobs including other military service), deferred (usually for educational reasons), or disqualified (usually for physical and mental deficiencies but also for criminal records to include draft violations).[4] Draft offenders in the last category numbered nearly 500,000 but less than 10,000 were convicted or imprisoned for draft violations.[8] Finally, as many as 100,000 draft eligible males fled the country.[31] [32

I guess the other 96% of the eligible male population were draft dodgers also -- The population of the US at the time, was over 200 million and a total of 2.1 million served in Viet Nam -- I'm shocked that they only listed 16 million as eligible. But accepting that number, it remains that the overwhelming majority of American males did not serve. Thanks for the cheap shot.

Ed, I absolutely apologize. I will have to be honest, I don't know from shit what I am saying half the time. In fact, you and I have discussed before; I actually have never felt badly toward anyone who could get out of the draft. In fact, so many did during the Vietnam era, more power to them is my view.

And, I am sure it is no comfort to you but you actually are in a long line of guys that I have ticked off by running my mouth. There are times that I think I'm getting better but things like this happen and I don't think so and I assure you, I don't take the asking of forgiveness lightly or in offering an apology. It was thoughtless of me. Sorry. My only excuse and this is a poor one: I think that one of the things is that it is so nice for me to be in a group where you don't have to be concerned what you say, that, on occasion, I go over the top. Most of my life, I've had to be around people that I didn't particular like and had to watch my words (still have too, lots) and so I just don't think. Sorry. God bless. And, thanks for calling me on it. jda

SUMS UP THE DRAFT

I'm sorry I missed the conversation regarding the draft. It was such a screwy system, a holdover from WWII/Korea. I guess if I stayed in the Merchant Marine, I probably would never have served in the USMC. But, I did what I did, no regrets. If I had made it into the airwing as I had hoped, I would have ended up in the Hanoi Hilton w/ McCain, or worse:Hank's wingman over North Viet! I don't know about Ed's service; perhaps he had a deferment or 4F:
The Italian Captain

2009-12-04T08:19:00.000-08:00

I've always thought that a volunteer army is a bad idea (aside from the officers corps that largely arise through our military academies). It sets apart a segment of our society ("the Military") that is regarded quite differently from the rest of us. Whether you see that as a good thging or a bad thing, the worst factor is, I think, that it (i.e., no conscription) absolves huge numbers of able bodied men and women of having to make an obligatory contribution to our country. I know this is an unpopular view, but I think national service should be mandatory (as in Israel?), and even those who cannot serve in the military (for health reasons, for example) can surely serve in something like a domestic Peace Corps. Sometimes it seems we have have become a nation of self-indulgent evaders with no sense of Community. So, Jerry, we arrive back where we started, with arrogant politicians and an errant electorate. Seems that Ambrose Bierce was right again. He defines VOTE as "The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country."

i am amazed there isnt a national movement for mandatory community service since there are more poor and middle class who would support same than those enfranchised and rich to thwart such a move. Congress is the culprit in this scenario and that is why I believe they are all despicable!

the ADM

BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO ME

2009-04-02T08:54:00.000-07:00

My wife often fills me in on the titillating conversations she has with her gym partners. For me, I like quiet while I'm working out but apparently there are a couple of guys who keep a running conversation going when my wife is around. And, she says she always learns things. Today's topic had to do with the military. I think they were probably leading off the discussion with talking about the president's new proposal on Community Service. I haven't read it yet but it looks like at least a start. But, my wife's two buds today mainly were reminising about their military experience. One served in the Air Force and the other the Army. The Air Force one said that his wife constantly said that he had so many war stories about his time serving, how could he have been in only four years? At the time, he said, he hated it but as he looks back on the four years, the best experiences of his life. What he mirrors are the comments of vets over and over. And, the other talkative bud said that it was the best thing that ever happened to him. Why? I was so stupid and the military shaped me up. Quite a testimony and one that could be repeated thousands and thousands of time. His further comments supported a draft. "I think everybody should have to serve in the military. At that age, teenagers are stupid, making decisions that affect them the rest of their lives, often very negative ones. The military gives them time to mature." Good comments.

So why did the Volunteer Army become a part of our national landscape. Listening to the wrong voices, a naive concept that the end of war meant the need for a standing Army was less, honest and sincere people who weren't thinking--my view. The troubling issue to me is that what we have today is essentially a mercenary military. We pay other peoples' kids to fight our wars. In a Democracy, this is simply not right, better still, this is morally wrong in my opinion.

Email dialogue on SERVING

2009-01-09T07:55:00.000-08:00

Hey Sir,
It's kind of interesting that this subject has come up several different ways over the last few days.
* Dad and I were discussing the woes of the Army football program recently. To me it's indicative of the times - higher academic standards for their atheletes; the Army's "mission" is less attractive to the majority of potential recruits than that of the other service academies; the "call to service" is nowhere near as strong as it was just a few generations ago...
* A recent story in the Army Times about the shift in the states where the majority of enlistees are coming from. The end result being a potentially frightening trend away from the military being a microcosm of our society.
* Another recent story about the recession driving the interest in Military Service up. The pessimist in me says this is bad, people think so lowly of "Service to Country" that it is a last ditch effort in hard times. The optimist in me says it's good, it could perhaps expand the representation from other states and push us back towards our military being a microcosm of our society. This is far more important than most people realize.
I am truely grateful that our country is making up for it's past mistakes in it's treatment of veterans. I am grateful for those that served before me to include you and my father, who in my opinion sacrificed far more than me and my generation. But as I get ready to head out the door for my 3rd deployment in 5yrs I can't help but wonder what the average American today considers a sacrifice on their part.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and your family. mr, CW4

A FUTURE MILITARY THAT WORKS

2008-11-18T07:57:00.000-08:00

The editorial, A Military for a Dangerous New World, in Sunday's NY Times was "right on." I see one gigantic caveat, we simply cannot afford a Volunteer Army with the size and mobility to fight present and future wars. Adding troops? From where? We are paying huge bonuses to retain soldiers with critical skills with no end in sight. And, while the economy is probably going to help recruiting, building up and retaining Forces to the neccesary levels is going to be difficult, if not impossible.

We have yet to face the fact that we have to return to some system of the draft. My suggestion is in the form of community service. Youngsters between the ages of 18-26 would have a choice of a myriad of possibilities such as Teach America or Habitat for Humanity or they could design their own.

If we had some sort of conscription into Community Service where all would serve, enough I believe would be challenged by military service that the size of the armed forces could be maintained. We would always need a military cadre and specialized soldiers but intially, foot soldiers would fill the ranks as their community service. Modeled on a combination of some form of Israel, South Korea, and even Germany'S approach, we could make this work. We are smart people and our plan should be long range.

JOINING UP

2008-11-15T11:12:00.000-08:00

Read the article on "My Marine"...good article. Reminds me of when I joined the Navy at 17 in my senior year of high school...had no idea what I wanted to do. A friend of mine from Dunn joined with me. I remember telling mama and daddy that I wanted to join...basically they said.."are you sure you want to do this'? ...they had to sign for me since I was only seventeen at the time....I signed in December of 1976 and went to bootcamp July 18th of 1977. Also..did not know that November 10th was 233rd birthday of Marine Corps...November 10th was our 24 year wedding anniversary. wa

Do you ever wish you had stayed in the Navy? Your Dad use to tell me all the time that he wished he had stayed.

I think lots about where we are in our country, as relates to the military. I heard this guy with the VFW interviewed on NPR the other day and the interviewer said something that I have thought for some time: she said something like, "With all our financial difficulties, in the future, are we going to be able to afford this very expensive military?" His reply I thought was very good. He said, "We have a Volunteer Army and we simply have to pay them for their sacrifices. And, we are not talking a hand out but a hand up, meaning that we owe them and their families for what they do.

We do owe them but essentially we have a mercenary force and they are expensive. Would we be better off to institute some sort of Community Service where all had to serve, not necessarily in the military but other stuff. And, hope, of course, that enough young Americans would want to be challenged with the military. I have surely been thinking this obviously. Politically, we don't have the moral will to institute the draft but something similar might work. da

CONNECTED

2008-09-07T08:25:00.000-07:00

Recently, I got together with three Vietnam vet buddies to tell war stories, talk politics and kind of “Be” to use a movie line from my favorite baseball picture, Bull Durham. Kevin Costner says to his love interest, “I don’t want to talk baseball, I just want to be.” I understand. With fellow vets, we often simply want to be.

I like to think of vets as a fraternity, especially Vietnam vets. Our usual line is that we fought a war in Vietnam and then we fought one at home. For at least ten years or so, we were virtually silent, reluctant to admit we were Vietnam vets as for some insane view, immediately after Vietnam, vets were identified with the ills of our involvement in Vietnam. For Iraqi vets, they don't have to face this insult as Americans who pay any attention don't want to make the same mistake again. A soldier we understand is just doing his job.

Being a vet doesn’t mean that we all think alike but there is the idea of the shared experience and trust me on this: there is nothing like combat that creates comraderie. Although the other night, we didn’t see eye to eye on politics or most related subjects, however, we did all agree on one subject; the military is in a mess and we fear for its future. It is an institution that we all loved dearly. And, although most Americans who care today talk about supporting the troops, it is somewhat hollow since so few serve. Most don’t even know anyone who is in the military.

During Vietnam, we had the military draft and the country was more connected to the war and to the soldiers. Helped along by the protest movement, most saw Vietnam as something we were all a part of, right or wrong. I, for one, think the protest movement got too much credit for ending the war, still, they were connected. Not so today. We have a Volunteer Army and most people simply see us paying them to fight for us and so it is "next case." A mercenary force? Close. I am a little reluctant to call it mercenary as mercenary denotes a lack of emotion or commitment, at least in my mind's eye. The Voluntary Force is anything but uncommitteed. From where I stand, they are a superb military, well trained and by in large, well equipped. But and a big BUT: unrepresentative of America--a downer in terms of our democracy.

At the very least, we ought to have some sort of National Service. This is truly something in which us old vets totally agree. It doesn’t have to be the military, it could be Teach America, Habitat for Humanity, any nonprofit or the person could choose their own service. This is no novel idea, it is on the drawing board by a few folks but where it has no attention is on the National Stage. And, I think that either of the presidential candidates could make alot of money figuratively speaking if they were to choose this path. As a country, we have not been asked to sacrifice at all for a war that is draining us. We believe it is going to catch up to us. And, for four old vet, we see it sooner than later and by not giving America’s youth an option to serve hurts them and America. Shame on us.

ATTRACTING SOLDIERS

2008-08-01T10:33:00.001-07:00

One of the fallacies of the Volunteer Army is that it is successful as an American Institution. Let's face it, few Americans know much about the Institution and participation very minuscule. It is only successful in terms of a mercenary force paid to fight our wars. I have all kind of examples of how most are out of touch. Here's a recent one. A good buddy, a vet, had not even heard of Stop-Loss, an egregious program fostered upon active army soldiers who have done their duty and are ready to depart the scene. They can't; a voluntary Army suddenly is no longer voluntary. Why Stop-Loss? Cannon fodder so to speak; filling the ranks because of shortfalls and the desire to keep experienced soldiers, even against their will. If my friend had never hear of this, those so much uninterested as most Americans, surely haven't.

The active Army, fighting two wars is pushed to the limits, repetitive tours are more the rule than the exception, trouble is everywhere; if not broken, it is close, in my view. The Army is desperate and one of the programs they are experimenting with to attract soldiers is one called The Advantage Fund. On the surface, this sounds like a good idea and I'm for it: giving deserving youngsters who have joined up, a helping hand to buy their first home or start a business. This is a latest wrinkle of throwing money at the problem. Just as an innocuous and idealistic aside, whatever happened to the incentive of patriotism, serving my country, giving back. Forget it. Those ideals have militarily gone the way of brown boots in the Army.

The Advantage Fund is traded for five years in the Army. It is a bonus.
Although this is a pilot program, it underscores the severity of desperation in today's military: try anything to get in bodies. The Advantage Fund has to be attractive but why it and other incentives have their limitations is that when they become the sole reason for someone joining up, then it is somewhat tainted, not from the soldiers' standpoint but from those who dreamed up the idea. Part of the military is emotion: to fight, to put oneself in harm's way. These soldier emotions will hardly be surfaced by incentives like seed money to buy a house , etc.

We only have to look at the Marines to realize how to make recruiting work. They appeal to "being the best, the elite, the few, the proud while the Army throws money at enticing the hesitant.

This is not to disparage those youngsters who choose the Army way. It is taking a chance but obviously they deem it worth it. And, who can blame them, based on their prospects. WHY THEY JOIN is the subject of a a terrific article in the NY Review of Books that I commend to everyone. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21201

Why do they join? Health care, educational benefits, nothing else to do, run out of options--a multitude of reasons with occasionally some voicing patriotism or invoking 9-11. They are youngsters that at least have to be affirmed for joining. The flip side of the coin is that it is pretty pathetic that we have come to this; offering money for blood and life. God bless our troops.

VOLUNTEER ARMY-Boon or Bust

2008-07-24T10:33:00.000-07:00

This is the anniversary of the Volunteer Army: 35 years. I would not have known it had not the Chief of staff of the Army, General George Casey, called our attention to it. Instead of touting the success of the Volunteer Army, he should have been apologizing for leading us down the primrose path.

What the military is charged with at the higher levels is making sure that we are prepared for any military contingency. The generals have failed miserably. During the cold war, they went for a smaller Army and were literally seduced by high tech. They said we were prepared by producing a gaggle of slogans even as Casey has: sustain, prepare, reset, transform--what the hell does that mean? Some civilians have spent days coming up with it. Every new Chief needs some gimmick. How about this, admitting that a Volunteer Military, even though good, cannot sustain us when we are in a prolonged war.

What we now know is that Casey and other generals have been willing to claim success of the Volunteer Army and by doing so have put us in an incredibly precarious situation. They accepted plans for a war in Iraq with an inadequate force, creating untenable choices for our soldiers.

Multiple tours of duty have become the rule rather than the exception. Problems abound, i. e., suicide, divorce, PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) in varying forms. If our Army isn't broken, it is close. Policies like Stop Loss and forcing Guard and Reserve troops to perform missions for which they are not trained or ill equipped is tantamount to unforgiven--think Abu Grabib. Almost every single difficulty we face with our military today can be placed at the feet of the top Generals , plain and simple.

Although I understand the generals retiring from The Forces and writing books telling their true view: what went wrong, adinfinitum--any way served up, however, comes out somewhat disingenuous. For once, I'd like to see just one general say with clarity and no military speak the real truth is: the Volunteer Army simple is not working, in our present war footing nor will it likely work in the future.

NO SWEET SORRY (From the concept that parting is such sweet sorry)

2008-06-05T07:59:00.000-07:00

My 16 year old recently visited China w/ a group of high school students from her High School. She had a great experience and they were given the dog & pony show by the Chinese. Her school has a sister school in China and we will host some Chinese students this Fall. The kids spent time in central China as well as Beijing. They also went to the Great Wall. I was glad for her to go and glad for her to come home. When we took her to the airport, I could not help but think of the thousands of parents taking their son or daughter to the airport for a "trip" to Iraq or Afghanistan. I had the comfort of knowing that my child (just a couple of years younger than many of our combat troops) was going to be safe and under the watchful eye of others. I knew she would be back in a week. How must parents today feel not knowing if their son/daughter will return or if they do, whether they'll be whole in body and/or mind ? May God Bless them all. BRG, Jr.

THE BIG PICTURE

2008-05-04T08:32:00.000-07:00

Recently, I saw a group of young California National Guard soldiers coming home from Iraq. They were interviewed: great to be home, they did lots of good, helped the people, think they did the right thing. Hope we won't cut and run. As much as I respect the soldiers and their sacrifices and even understand them, it sounded like an official denial news conference. Drives me crazy.

I always realize that soldiers have to believe in what they are doing, regardless of the facts. Even in Vietnam, I can remember feeling that we are really helping these people. It was only after the war and I began to read and understand that I came to know what a farce it was. It does not mean that we didn't do our duty and many Vietnam vets will see it entirely different. And, these soldiers will see their war from a different perspective in several months or years than they do now. I always think that, like Vietnam, we have to get past the very subjective feelings of young soldiers returning from a traumatic experience--simply, they must believe in that experience. It is human nature. However, those of us who care must see the big picture. It is our job.

This is not easy. The soldier has sacrificed in various ways and cannot be told that his/her sacrifices are in vain. For older military types, especially the officers, they will see it more as their job and many even in advancing their careers; but, the young returning veteran will see it more visceral, more present, he has done this noble thing. And, with so few having had military experience, they don't know how to identify with the returning vet or what to say. "I've just returned from Iraq." The response: "Oh."

Maybe a grandmother, I think, who welcomed her grandson home, expressed it best. When asked about her grandson she said something like, "He served his country and I'm proud of him." Absolutely true. He served his country. Our country sent him to war. Regardless of how we feel about the war, we have to affirm what these young troopers are doing. God bless them.

FELONS IN THE MILITARY

2008-04-23T15:38:00.000-07:00

According to an article in Tuesday's local paper, the Marines and the Army are taking into their ranks more felons than ever in their history. As a "second chance" guy, I think it is not a bad thing; many of these guys committed crimes in their youth; much of it was sexual, underage kids having sex with other consenting underage kids. After intense screening, why not give these kids a shot.

Unfortunately, it appears that the motivation is not "another chance" rather meeting recruiting goals. Recruiting is becoming more difficult based on the war in Iraq and especially a lack of encouragement from parents to join up, i. e., thus felons who under normal circumstances wouldn't get a chance, now do.

I really get concerned on where the military is heading and is this "more felons" symptomatic of larger problems? The Volunteer Army has been sold to the public to such a degree that there seems to be no question as to simply accepting that it is here to stay. There are at least larger questions, i. e., is our mercenary Army in a position to sustain two wars and be ready for whatever might come. I don't think so.

In the wonderful movie, Young At Heart, a documentary about a bunch of older folks who are developed into a first class musical ensemble--there's one scene that speaks to second chances. They go to a prison to sing. The prison is peopled with all these young adults, whose lives have gone to hell in a hand basket. Why not give them another chance in the military? In this case, we must trust the military to be on top of this potentially explosive issue. We want soldiers who often have the sorts of personalities that don't seem to fit the normal population, i.e., war is no day at the beach. It is about killing, it is war.

YOU HAVE BEEN CHOSEN--Comments on the military draft

2008-04-17T06:58:00.000-07:00

It's hopeless to think that there's some way to persuade, wrangle, or force the implementation of the draft to help relieve our Bush-ed all volunteer but now "Stop Loss-ed" military; that's been spread out over 80 countries and fighting 2 wars simultaneously for years with no end in sight. I'm afraid that it's just not attainable by any conventional political means either. In fact, history shows that the draft is instituted only as a last resort and ONLY AFTER we or one of our allies is attacked and suffer grievous enough losses. Then the public outrage leads to the patriotic response of enlisting and the justification for the draft.

Apparently, 9/11 with nearly 3,000 innocent American men, women and children killed on our very own homeland soil and now over 4,000 U.S. Soldiers also killed and 30,000injured in Iraq, still no longer meets the definition of enough grievous losses and suffering. Not to mention the nearly 100,000 VA claims for PTSD and 12,000 deserters and AWOL soldiers who refused to do 3, 4, or 5 combat tours.

Why has our level of tolerance been extended to such an extreme level of cautiousness? Is it just political correctness in order to win the next party elections? Is it our society's desensitization to violence since we've become so accustomed to seeing so much media reporting that focuses on nothing but all the daily ongoing negatives in our country? What will it take to happen for us to act to re-institute the draft?

I say it won't happen until our homeland is once again attacked and not just suffering some losses but very huge losses. To me this is so tragic that it makes me sick to even think of it happening all over again before the military draft is finally implemented. Also, I even have a teenage son and I still think that the draft should have been implemented a long time ago.

Enlisted Sgt. G. P., Class of '67-'69 Vietnam Tet, 101st Airborne Paratrooper

George, a terrific piece of writing. I agree with you: to be perfectly honest, I don't know where we are heading. The lack of realism about Iraq is simply overwhelming to me. I watch lots of news and it is like scores of people are living in parallel universes. Gen Petraeus and Crocker spoke like they simply were delivering prerecorded comments. I thought Petraeus was fairly realistic but simply the "what ifs" were very negating. And, as you know, it is one thing for the generals to talk strategy from a high and lofty perch but another for grunts to have to live it out on the ground. For instance, we had five GIs killed one of the days that Petraeus was speaking. The constant theme of his talk and Crockers and the Congressman who agreed with him was that violence is down. Yes, according to who? Not the five dead GIs or the hundreds of innocent Iraqis killed. I am amazed. I feel like those of us who are trying to face reality are like the apostle Paul, we are kicking against the "pricks."

WHY DO THEY JOIN?

2008-04-09T11:36:00.000-07:00

WHY DO THEY JOIN
Why are they joining? I think it's because they have nothing better
in their lives. They're mostly from mid-America where there are no
more jobs for them. No factories or mines and very few small farms
anymore. And most schools don't inspire young people to go on to
higher ed. Comment in a letter to AP

AP REPLIES

I think it's a little more complicated than your comments. First of all, the military has spent and are spending millions of dollars in Madison avenue type advertising, enticing these kids. And, it is true, that most come from socioeconomic categories that as much as we hate to say, are, lower middle class or lower in terms of opportunity. (Wow, we hate to admit that we have a class system in America--I do anyway). And, let's face it, we have developed a caste system in that our military officers are college educated, often from the Academies, paid for by the taxpayer, of course--they come from middle class or upper middle class families, while the enlisted come from the lower socio economic classes.

And, in many ways, the military is a good deal: good pay, perceived benefits, and often just the discipline that kids need. Ask many parents? So, why do they join? I think that some of it is the feeling of their invulnerability. They don't think in terms of war but in terms of adventure. If I were a youngster with maybe not stellar prospects, not knowing what I wanted to do, then the military would definitely be a possibility. All I could see would be, "I want to be an airborne ranger."

There are many other questions that have to be answered for the military--the biggest one is that the Volunteer Army has been so sold as successful, that it is hard for the American public that cares to think in any other terms. And, we don't have the moral or political will to do what we ought; institute some sort of National Service. Until we have a crisis truly and another course has to be considered, we will continue on in what we're doing. And, the fact that we have almost no leaders, John McCain, an exception, even if he is somewhat tainted in my opinion, (We surely respect his POW time) not just because he is a Republican but has always been in an elite kind of category, i. e., his Dad/Grandfather were Admirals. I would be more impressed if his Dad/Grandfather were Sergeants.

Maybe one scenario is that if we were to get to the point of overwhelming crisis, repetitive tours that are intolerable, not enough enlistees, cannot afford the Volunteer Army, etc., then we might see another course of action, i. e., the draft.

And, let's don't forget patriotism and tradition for some of these kids: although maybe a small number but they're there: and, these kids who are serving are good soldiers from what I see. And, I for one, appreciate their sacrifice. In the long run, most of the kids who've chosen the military are going to feel that there service to the country, even in a sorry war, was worth it. They did something that many of their peers did not.

WAR DODGERS

2008-04-09T07:53:00.001-07:00

When I was draft eligible, meaning 18-26, contending with the draft was simply a way of life. You couldn't do anything unless you figured it out. And, "draft dodging" could be a part of it. Most anybody who had the means and was smart could escape the draft: (at least for awhile) school deferment, married with children and naturally the classification of 4F which was a physical thing. And, the stories of how guys got 4F status are legion. It is hard to know how serious most of us took those who dodged the draft. In many ways, at the time, it was more power to them. From a philosophical standpoint, 40 years past Vietnam: we saw our duty and did it--at least it's what we tell our grand kids.

A new term has arrived on the scene; WAR DODGERS. What this means is soldiers who for whatever reason have come to believe the war in Iraq is not worth it. Or as one put it, when he was halfway into his second deployment, "This is what my buddies are dying for." Noway, he deserts. During Vietnam, Canada and Sweden were havens for draft dodgers and deserters. I had a little personal experience with Sweden.

When I was in Europe during the early seventies, I was in missile battalion and one of our officers was this fine, young West Point graduate. He had "orders" for Vietnam and since I was just back, wanted to talk about how I saw Vietnam and what was going on over there. We had a great talk. He asks probing questions and I tried to answer honestly, not supporting all we were doing but discussing the various party line at the time which I believed. We had a moral obligation to keep the North from taking over the South, had to stop communism, the domino theory. (at that time I didn't know enough or had not read enough to know about the corruptness of the South Vietnamese government or Hoi's determination to unite the country which was little related to communism and had to do mostly about nationalism. I only got this years later). The young Lieutenant stood up. Saluted, did an about face and promptly drove his MGB to Sweden where he asked for political asylum. From then on, it became a joke, "unless you want a guy to desert, don't send him to see the Chaplain."

Something is vastly wrong when you have the equivalent of an entire Division of soldiers deserting--since the war began, over 20,000. This may mean from being gone for 31 days which the military categorizes as desertion or forever. This is awful. And, another example of how everything about this war has been mismanaged.

AFFORDING THE VOLUNTEER ARMY

2008-04-05T16:05:00.000-07:00

WHAT'S HAPPENING THESE DAYS WITH THE VOLUNTEER ARMY? For one thing, even the casual observer can tell you that they are to the wall: fighting two wars and political leadership that couldn't find their posterior in a snow storm.

A few things we know: the standards of education have been lowered and we have kids who have been given a pass as to felony arrests. This isn't to put these soldiers down--most perform well and who can be against giving some youngster another chance. However, the fact exists that most volunteers probably come from homes across America who are strugglng; kids who don't have lots of other options. I constantly read where a youngster will say about his reasoning for joining the military, "My parents couldn't afford to send me to college." I know several who are in this category. The very insightful book, AWOL spells this out.

We have an educated officer's corp by in large, to include graduates of the Service Academies (West Point, Annapolis, etc)for which we foot the bill. And, many of them immediately leave once thier obligation is up.

And, for those of us who care and have some knowledge, we applaud our Volunteer Army and the job they're doing which is fantastic. But, the elephant in the room always is the fact that so few Americans are truly invested in our fine young men and women soldiers. So, what can we say about American investment as a whole--yes, really great to support the troops but it is easier when we don't have "skin in the game." Hypocritical? We can't blame those who don't serve as we have a Volunteer Army that we have touted for years as being incredibly successful. Two wars have shown us that there are gigantic holes in the Voluntary Army philosophy, in addition to the fact that our kids who have the fewest options choose the military.

Over the years, I've writen hundreds of letters to politicians, various Captains of Industry with my idea of AllServe. Rarely have any of them responded. It is not politically feasible and they surely don't have the moral backbone. There's really nothing to be gained in what one of my friends called, "forced volunteerism."

We have 1.4 million active duty soldiers and another 1.26 million in the Reserves, including 456,000 in the National Guard. We have 47,000 American troops stationed in Japan, 37,500 in South Korea, and 116,400 on bases all across Europe. A more practical course is coming, I fear: we will be simply unable to financially afford a volunteer military.

UNIFORMS FOR ALL

2008-03-31T14:33:00.000-07:00

I love San Francisco. I originally came out here in the Army in 83 and immediately fell head over hills in love with it. And, the love affair has never ended. However, like a marriage, I have to work on my love and keep it fresh. What invariably happens in marriages is that they become the OMC (old married couple) and the first thing you know, the marriage is headed South. It really is nobody's fault--in some ways, it is the culture. And, the thing that keeps a marriage from being repaired often is the denial process. Well, my love for San Fran does not overshadow the reality of the City. It is the epitome of the left coast and most here are proud of it. Over the years, the City (this is what San Franciscans like to call their town)has been politically wrestled from the Irish and Italians and mostly governed by a contingent of ultra left wingers.

This is a bit of an aside: how did San Francisco become San Francisco? First of all, every weird-do, whatever one's definition might be, in the world has showed up out here. I'm mainly talking about the so called homeless, those who more or less live on the streets, the mentally ill of various degrees, and an assortment of others like teenage run aways and left over hippies. Mind you, I don't view this as all negative. They've got to be somewhere. In some ways, it is what makes San Francisco what it is. And, there are some terrific social programs for those who will take advantage of them.

Here's a relevant question. Why do these marginalized types come to San Francisco? Well, it is a friendly and open and accepting place. And, the climate is tolerable for being outside--never really cold and never hot. And, in this town, part of the charm is that you can be just about anything you want to be. So, why not? And, those who govern the City are by in large, extreme, as compared to the rest of the country. This translates to "way out" only in San Francisco terms. Only Berzerkley exceeds the zaniness of San Francisco.

The flip side of the coin, however, is that it is the most beautiful place in the world. Surrounded on three sides by water. A sun, when it is out, that creates an ambiance of "God is in His heaven and all is right with the world." I have often said that if I ever cross the Golden Gate Bridge and am not awed by the beauty, I am leaving. Thus far, I am not even close.

Sorry to have gotten on this harangue. Sometimes I think that I'm the only moderate human in San Fran and then something happens and I discover there is at least one other following the Biblical admonition of the Apostle Paul of the New Testament and is "kicking against the pricks." The following letter is maybe the best comment that I've ever read on one of my favorite subjects, Community service (The Draft). God bless San Francisco and God bless America.

EDITOR, FAIRNESS WOULD INSIST THAT WE RELIEVE THE MISERY OF THE TROOPS SENT FOR MULTIPLE TOURS IN IRAQ BY CREATING A SOURCE OF FRESH TROOPS. RED MEAT CONSERVATIVES, WHO LIKE TO MAKE SUCH PATRIOTIC NOISE, NEED TO BE COMPELLED TO PUT THEIR BOOTS WHERE THEIR MOUTHS ARE. LIBERAL KIDS NEED TO SEE THAT VALUES ARE NOTHING WITHOUT SACRIFICE; IF THEY OPPOSE THE WAR, THEY NEED TO DO WHAT IT TAKES TO AVOID THE DRAFT AND FACE THE CONSEQUENCES. AND, WHILE THEY'D BE OF LITTLE REAL USE, FAIRNESS WOULD DICTATE THAT THE BUSH AND PELOSI CHILDREN SUIT UP. ONCE THEY'RE IN UNIFORM AND THEORETICALLY IN HARM'S WAY, IT'D BE A LOT HARDER FOR BUSH TO LIE AND PELOSI TO EQUIVOCATE ABOUT THIS WAR. ONCE THE HANDS OF THE MILITARY HAVE FINGERED ALL OF AMERICA'S YOUTH, ATTITUDES WOULD CERTAINLY BEGIN TO CHANGE. WITHOUT THE DRAFT, IT'S TOO EASY TO BE DISTRACTED.

Paul Tominac, San Francisco

BERZERKLY

2008-02-02T09:35:00.000-08:00

WE DON'T CALL IT BERZERKLY FOR NOTHING
I was slightly fascinated in reading the news account of Berzerkly ordering the Marines out of town. What was equally interesting is one of the Code Pink protesters is 90. I was impressed, at least she is doing something.

I doubt if anybody with any real smarts or discernment is staying up nights worried about what Berzerkly does or does not do. They are only slightly ahead of San Fran who may eventually catch up. Aferall, Frisco has banned Junior ROTC from the schools. And, from all reports, it is without a doubt the most successful educational program the City has going. The schools are losing population constantly because of an insane school enrollment system (I only know what I've read).

However, we are chatting about Berzerkly here. Blaming the poor young Marines for the quagmire in Iraq is like calling your credit card company and blamng one of the lowly India types in Calcutta because your card was declined. Give me a break.

These young Marines, most probably Iraqi vets, are simply making it: some may even oppose the war, how it is prosecuted, whatever but more than likely, they're young kids who haven't given it much thought even while putting their lives on the line. This is a hell of a lot more than Berzerkelites have ever done.

And, they love being a Marine and want to convey the challenge to others and based on a few of the things that have happened in Berzerkly and neighboring Oakland, the murder capital of the U. S., a tour in the Marines might not be a bad thing. I guess the Berzerkly types had rather them smoke dope and bad mouth their country. If I were the Marines, I'd be happy to be away from the crazies. Sempi Fi.

SOLDIER TESTIMONY

2007-12-15T08:12:00.000-08:00

Getting to know Christ in Vietnam is the greatest thing to ever happen in my life. I volunteered out of pure love for my country. Where else can an orphaned kid and High School drop out, end up working for the richest company in the world, serve with dedicated and decorated fellow paratroopers, have 4 Grand-kids, 2 daughters and one son, survive the Tet Offensive with 2 bullet holes in my steel pot and even have our own Arty dropped on me, fall into an uncapped well at Chu Chi, get shot at nearly every day and still live to tell about it all and then to still be able to thank God and still increasingly love God with all my heart, spirit, soul, feelings, emotions, subconscious, mind, will power, strength and intensity.

Only in America !!! Even with all our hangups, we are a blessed by God nation with limitless opportunity for even the poorest of the poor to succeed--I know as I used to have to sleep on other people's couches and even on the floor at foster homes. GOD BLESS ALL AND GOD BLESS AMERICA gp

Lions For Lambs

2007-12-01T10:30:00.000-08:00

The movie, Lions and Lambs, spoke to me. Good ethereal movie! It had various stereotypes which were probably necessary to tell a story or to have a point or points of view. The usual implied stuff is there: bad intell that led us into Iraq; basically doing what the Preident wanted anyway, along with Rumsfelt, Pearl, Wofowitz; and, of course, no real consideration to what could happen and surely not an exit strategy. But, we know all this.

The movie is basically three stories and a little or a lot implausible--could this happen? There were no real heroes in Lions and Lambs other than the soldiers. Robert Redford, a college professor, (political science, I think) uses one of his disillusioned students to make his point. The disilusioned student is the prototype for the ipod or X generation.

Much of this seems contrived but for the purpose of the story is irrelevant to me. In the course of this amazing dialogue about all the issues of the war, we discover that Redford is himself a Vietnam vet and yet became a "John Kerry" type after the war, i. e. antiwar.

Two minority students from his class decide that they can make a difference but only in being directly involved; by serving--in this case, the military. Redford's character is taken aback because this is not what he intended. What makes it a little, "come on" is the idea that two minority students would opt once they are already in college, some place like UC, Berzerkerly, to go into Special Forces and suffer all that just to make a point. I don't think so. But, this was the movies and they can make anything happen they want too. The movie is done in many flashbacks, one being where the two minority students are making a presentation in the class. The class has to be about making a difference in society. They actually present my idea of National Service.

The politician, played by Tom Cruise, was really a stereotype of someone like, choose any: bombastic, a world view that is meddling in other countries, the cliches, etc.; didn't give one much confidence in politicians or politics, even if we needed any encouragement to think they were self serving.

The soldiers were part of a small A Team of Special Forces soldiers which represented a supposely new strategy in Afghanistan, fight and operate in small groups and be a force. This was a strategy that the Senator, a West Point graduate, finished 1st in his class, helped develop. A concept, which, by the way, we used in Vietnam. And, I believe would have worked there had we not introduced conventional forces into the mix--might work in Afghanistan or Iraq if we were willing to stay there for years and years, which we aren't.

The soldiers died, ran out of ammo as they were fighting the Taliban, we assume. It didn't seem that they had much ammo, no grenades, anything like that. Actually, they had fallen out of the back of a hook, close to the ground when it took fire and turned around, thus leaving them on the ground.

The critics panned it and I can understand but I don't think they saw the larger picture. One critic called the movie a "talkathon" and it is mostly. However, I think critics are jaded themselves mostly and have lost their sense of seeing soemting for its greater good. (I saw August Rush and loved it. Now, this is an implausible movie but you shoudl take your grandchildren).

I think the most striking thing to me had to do with the concept of those whom this country has given the least are in fact those most willing to serve, i. e, at least as this movie portrayed it. But, too, I think that it is much of the Volunteer Army concept even if soldiers are serving for different reasons.

Also, what is equally interesting to me is why the war movies aren't doing any better at the box-office and not just the Iraq ones: even Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, didn't do well. Americans or those who ordinarily give a whit, maybe tired of war, uninterested, uninvested, adinfinitum.

I think that what we are seeing or beginning to see are the early stages of the same things that Vietnam vets saw. There is already an apathy out there. I see it with comments from soldiers. Let's face it, people in America have little interest in hearing soldiers experiences. And, the few Iraqi vets that I've talked too seem to feel that since there is little sacrifice in America, this adds to the lack of interest. I think so but the soldies don't really objectively know this, simply they think it which is equally important. And, now, of course, the poor attendance at the war movies bear this out.

There's only so much to be said. But, still, these guys, like us, have participated in the event of their lives and they'd like folks to be interested. Even to see the movies. With the exception of one I haven't seen, Redacted, which is the first movie that is critical of soldiers, at least I hear it is. Bill O'Reilley, supposedly railed against it.

To be honest, I don't know: when I've tried to engage people about Iraq, not much traction. What most don't get either for us or for Iraqi vets, the war doesn't end when someone comes home. God bless them.

HYPOCRISY

2007-11-22T07:33:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving morning, I was following my yearly tradition of watching the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade and as an introduction there were several stories about the troops, to include greetings from them to their families back home. I was moved. In watching those youngsters say how they missed home, my first thought: amazing the sacrifices of these kids. One white soldier reached over and put his arm around an African American and said, "This is my family now."

This war has divided our nation and surfaced what I view as a kind of benign hypocrisy. It is easy to support the troops when we are so little involved. As I watched those kids, it was obvious to me that they are from struggling families across America, many single parents and lots of female soldiers. To confirm my view, I goggled the demographics of the Army and came up with all sorts of stuff. There were a couple of articles by some guy who is in the politician mode. If asked a question a politico doesn't want, he/she will choose to answer the question he wished they'd asked. For this guy, he used statistics to bolster his claim of how well the Volunteer Army has worked to include why the draft was so awful.

And, as all of us know, you can do anything with statistics you want. My counter to the argument is very simple and illustrated by a guy I don't even like (nothing personal) all that much but his last movie, Sicko, illustrates a point: Regardless of what you think about him or our health care system, we cannot deny that there are 45-50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. The same with the Volunteer Army--it works, relatively speaking. (We don't truly know if Iraq lasts for ten years) Like, Sicko, however, we can say we support the troops until the cows come home, but the fact exists that only a small portion of Americans make the sacrifices of war by serving in the military.

WHAT WAR?

2007-09-20T11:59:00.000-07:00

When the Iraq war was in its infancy and we were thinking we'd be out of there as soon as the parade was over, a few of us thought naively that based on the good we'd done, we could put aside our earlier misgivings. Forget it.

Now, we find ourselves heading toward five years with no end in sight and here come the movies. This is really amazing. The war is still going on and we have all sorts of ink which is a little more acceptable than movies, yet baffling to those of us who tried to publish Vietnam stories for years to no avail. It was years before the writing market opened up and Vietnam didn't find any real movie audience before 78 or 79; first came Deer Hunter and the satire, Apocalypse Now.

SPATE OF NEW MOVIES

I guess it's a sign of the times. There's already been a slew of documentaries and I just saw one on HBO hosted by Tony Soprano--heart rendering about wounded Iraqi vets. Later on this year comes a movie about the rape of a 14 year old by American soldiers. Who's going to want to see this movie? Muslims?

I doubt the new movies will look favorably at our involvement in Iraq. Robert Redford, both writer and actor in one of the coming attractions, Lions For Lambs, hardly will. From what I've read, his movie wants to give movie goers a chance to engage in dialogue. OK!

Another one has to do with FBI counter terrorism unit called The Kingdom and then there is one starring John Cusack as a stay at home spouse whose wife goes to war and doesn't come back. Now, that is going to drive you to the movies.

SHOW ME THE MONEY

Hollywood has to do with money, always and I think there's something else, actors who have a name like Redford, often like to make movies with a message.

I'm still a little in doubt about it all. My real feeling is that these movies are not going to do very well overall. I'm not sure that people want to engage viscerally on Iraq--it is not like it is ended and the movies can paint a picture of what happened or can be. We don't know yet.

ENTERTAINMENT VS REALITY

Movie goers want to be entertained not beat up with reality. Going to the movies for entertainment and getting political statements, I don't know. We have some past evidence: I saw Flight 93, which I thought was super but it was not very popular. Clint's Letters from Iwo and Flags of Our Fathers didn't knock anybody's financial socks off. And, even now, Ken Burns is getting beaucoup face time for his upcoming, The War. Maybe, enough already.

I think most of Hollywood is pretty much anti the president and will probably try to convey the war as Bush's war. And, using such a movie as a way to protest or as Redford claims, maybe to educate, might be over reaching. Whether or not movie goers will go for it, we'll have to wait and see. Watching the Iraqi war as a movie seems a little unseemly. Out of every war comes thousands and thousands of stories, most untold. But, to try to tell even a few of them while the real thing is happening seems somewhat misplaced. We don't have to see a movie about Iraq. The tragedy of it is right in front of us.

OUTSOURCED THE WAR

2007-08-26T16:40:00.000-07:00

It took Doonesbury to help me grasp a concept. With most Americans having no "skin" in the game in terms of the war in Iraq and what I believe to be feigned interest, Doonesbury came up with this statement, "emotionally, we outsourced this war--to a professional class that mainstream America has almost no contact with!"

The comic strip is a takeoff on one of the characters who happens to be in Iraq and is questioning the support at home. The players in the Doonesbury strip are dialoging over how to say yes, you are supported when they don't understand or believe.

One comes up with a way to at least let the soldier know they're thinking about him; give him some medals. This is the cruel joke: soldiers get medals for achievement, bravery, for serving. These characters in Doonesbury know nothing about the military as they are the mainstream who have outsourced the war.

From a comic strip comes this great and sad truism.

THE BEST WAY FOR US TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS IS FOR ALL TO SERVE

2007-08-14T19:16:00.000-07:00

Recently, I met with a book club to dialogue about my book, Gun Totin' Chaplain. This is the first book club I've done face to face. I had done a few on speaker phone. Lots of fun but nothing like this one. Absolutely delightful.

Most writers who have penned something they feel noteworthy and with a message, are thrilled beyond means when it is actually read. It was read totally with this group. They asked penetrating questions about some of the things I'd said in the book; they wanted to understand what motivated me to go to war when I didn't have too. Did I achieve my goals? Did I think that the church condoned war.

The questions went on and on--we all determined that war is awful and yet while admitting that fact, accepted the premise that most Americans are untouched by our present conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And, then we started on my favorite subject: AllServe. Would these mothers be willing for their children to serve our great country for 18-24 months if their children had a choice in what and how they would serve, i. e. Peace Corp, Teach America, Habitat for Humanity, Americorps, military or designed their own. Since they had read about the idea in Gun Totin' Chaplain, they understood the concept. Absolutely they were willing for their children to serve.

The session ended with them giving me a cake they had made with AllServe on it. This has spurred me renew my letter and email writing campaign. I'm going to start with Paul Soris and Warren Buffet. These two guys are naturals to me. They've got more money than God and they are willing to give it away (Everybody and his brother's writing them a letter asking for money I'm sure). Plus, it appears that they want to leave some sort of legacy. What greater one than something like a national policy of AllServe.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that we don't have the political will to make choices for the greater good which AllServe is. However, the will to make AllServe a reality sparks a "hope springs eternal" commitment in me. The time is now.

WHAT ABOUT A REAL CHALLENGE?

2007-07-21T07:56:00.000-07:00

The Military. No, this is not a recruiting comment but a reaction to a book I recently read: The Trap. The thesis is that educated young people have practically no choice but to go into the corporate world and become everything they hate. What about an alternate, some kind of National Service. Why couldn't they do it. Well, according to this book, they could but won't: they want a lifestyle that working in corporate America would afford them while inwardly wishing they could pursue some altruistic course.

The book to me is almost beside the point but a realization that there are scores of young people out there who don't even consider they have a choice. WHY? The reasons are many. My personal favorite is that most of us need a push to do the right thing. National Service would need a push. Lamentably, based on the performance of our Congress in the last several years of both parties, this a far fetched hoped.

Some of these upper middle class kids do obviously choose a different course based on the statistics that come from nonprofits like Teach America. But, there's not enough of them. If National Service was a requirement, it would be a kind of forced volunteerism and why not? For all the benefits of being an American, why not have to give back from 18 months to two years in some kind of National Service: Peace Corps, Teach America, Habitat for Humanity, anything they might design and God forbid, even the military could be a choice.

One fascinating thing about The Trap is the fact that it is written by a twenty something. He's a good writer and has good ideas but imagine what a different book he might have written, had he served a tour in the Marines.

The King is Dead

2007-07-18T07:37:00.001-07:00

One problem in our culture today is that Americans don't have a shared experience. There was a time when you could go into any bar or Church and say, "When I was in the Army (Navy, whatever) and there would be instant rapport. Most of it was positive and vets love to tell about their experiences/war stories. However, few Americans have military experience today and this is sad.

Here's a posting of exactly what I mean: 30 years ago today was my first day of Navy boot camp...time flies. I remember in August of 1977 while in boot camp my company commander (Freed was his name...never smiled-he was gung-ho), walked into our barrack and the only thing he said was "the King is dead" and walked out. We all kind of looked at each other dumbfounded...found out later it was Elvis Presley....we got a big laugh out of it!!!!

CITIZEN SOLDIERS

2007-07-01T17:47:00.000-07:00

This is a term I'm not hearing much these days. It envisions the "draft" too much. Over the last 10-12 years, I'd like to know how many letters I've written with an idea of the draft or of late, National Service with the draft as only one among many choices. It is like, "nobody is home."

All the present presidential candidates have good things to say about the troops and the vets. Senator Barack Obama has picked up on the idea that already we have homeless Iraqi veterans and he wants to do something.

Let's face the hard truth here; the vast majority of Americans are apathetic about the military. As a rule, they don't even know anyone in the military. And, stories of kids who had what would considered to be much better options and yet choose the military would be looked down upon. Those of us who believe that a military should reflect its democracy have to feel like someone cryng in the wilderness. What is incredibly obvious to those of us who care and think about it is how unrepresentive we are.

I miss the old days of the draft when soldiers were griping and disagreeing with government, leaders and others about why we were fighting. And, the more telling reason for sure: if we had "citizen soldiers" on a wholesale basis, the President and Congress would be reluctant to send us off to war and that is reason enough to change our system.

MILITARY IS MOST TRUSTED INSTITUTION

2007-06-27T08:44:00.000-07:00

A new poll says the American public ranks the U. S. Armed Forces first in terms of trust among American institutions. So ironic to me, in light of a couple of things. The institution that is ranked last is Congress who in essence, can send the military to war or at least collude in it.

Gallup polled Americans on 15 government, business, and cultural institutions asking, "Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one." The military scored 69 percent of those answering a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence. It is also amazing to me that the military's high standing with the public comes despite generally negative news media coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I can't help but wonder and call me skeptical, if it isn't pretty easy to have confidence in the military since there is, by in large, no real sacrifice on the part of the vast majority of Americans. Some evidence lies in the fact that in another survey parents said they were less likely to recommend the military to their sons and daughters than if there was no war going on.

As much as I think the government's management of the war in Iraq, in particular, in every aspect, has been dismal, the fact exists that the military exists for one purpose: to fight and win wars. When a youngster joins the military, he or she is not joining a college fraternity or sorority. Consequently, I'm not all that high on the survey. Excellent books like AWOL(absent without leave) which persuasively puts forth the argument and fact that the more privileged Americans simply choose not to be part of the military.

Here's a good indication: recently on a News Hour on PBS, at the end of the program as they usually do, they profiled with a picture young Americans who had lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan: out of the 13, there were 8 Southerners, 4 from California, two others from across the country. This is pretty typical of the lack of national representation.

It is good that Americans are supporting the military but let us not break our arms patting ourselves on the back either.

THE MILITARY IS OK BUT WAIT TILL AFTER THE WAR

2007-06-11T06:49:00.000-07:00

This is the thought of Carmela Soprano to her son AJ who thinks he might want to go in the Army. Her words were something like, "the military might be good for AJ, some discipline, but there's a war on and so we have to rule it out."

Where did the Sopranos' writers come up with this idea? I'll tell you: it is the prevailing view of Americans. Military recruiting is way down because parents don't encourage their kids to go in the military because of Iraq. And, can they be blamed? A war that is devisive against an enemy that doesn't play by the rules.

And, of course, the writers had AJ, immature, as he has been on the show. He definitely could use a tour in the Marines. He has the unrealistic view of a kid--become a helicopter pilot, learn Arabic, get out and become Donald Trump's personal pilot. Where did he get those views, as we pretend this is the real world. Better still, how do the writers get such ideas? Well, simply, what they have mouthed through AJ are the prevailing views of the public.

Even though Tony is a mobster, in mobster terms, he is upper class. The military is not made up of upper class kids or anywhere close. Here's a slight example; on a recent Newshour on PBS, as they do weekly, they offer up in silence the names and pictures of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. On this particular broadcast, there were fifteen young Americans who had lost their lives over the last several days. 9 of them were from the South, 4 from California and two from other places. An example of how unrepresentative the Volunteer Army is of America. It is shameful as my Mom would say.

The fact that we do not have a plan in place to tap into the enormous youth resources in our country is unbelievable. AJ Soprano is young and willing and although the military might not be the place, there are other opportunities which he might choose if offered. Suppose we had a National Service obligation for American kids. If we had one in place, Tony could have said to AJ, "No way, you can choose something else for your service but not the military." Teach America, Peace Corp, Habitat for Humanity, scores of other nonprofits would be choices. The military would be only one among many.

The fallout from a National Service obligation would work for everybody. The military would benefit themselves. My suspicion is that many Americans would choose the military under almost any circumstances. We don't have enough faith in our kids to believe this but many kids want it tougher, to meet challenges, to be the best. Look at the Marines and the Airborne. They have always been volunteer. In the 82d Airborne Division, there is usually a waiting list. The pool of young Americans is large, between the ages of 18-26, the time is NOW for National Service.

AMERICANS SHOULD BE ASHAMED

2007-05-26T10:34:00.000-07:00

On this Memorial Day, Americans need to look closely into their hearts. For most Americans, Memorial Day is pretty much a holiday, some time off, a barbecue, traveling: that's about it. But, for Americans who care, it should be a time of reflection. We find ourselves at war--in a very divisive war where there seems to be no way out. Constantly, there is some revelation that we should have known better but acted blindly. All that aside, however, the issue and what should cause us pause on this Memorial Day is honoring those who have paid the ultimate price--those brave men and women who have given their lives for our country.

The why as to most Americans lack of sacrifice and interest is not my purpose here. Good books like AWOL have been written which seek to call us to answering the question of "why." In fact, it's subtitle has been one that I've used often: the unexcused absence of America's Upper classes from military service. The answer is pretty simple really--America's upper class or any class for that matter don't need to serve as we have a volunteer Army.

And, here is the contribution of the Volunteer Army during our present misadventure in Iraq: 3,443 who will never get to live out their lives.

The Voluntary Army and cyberspace

2007-05-15T16:03:00.000-07:00

The military recently decided that they didn't want their soldiers at war emailing and blogging and hanging out at MySpace.com on government computers. They say the issue revolves around too much bandwidth and some security issues. Who believes this?

The real truth is that the military has needed to reign in the commo of the troops and what they are doing when not fighting or prosecuting the war. All along, I have had my doubts in what all this instant communication is doing to their focus.

I can surely understand the other side. The loneliness, opportunity to talk to loved ones. A seemingly wonderful morale issue. But, what about a platoon leader whose wife has found interests elsewhere or families who need the dad at home for soccer matches or to fix the washer or to take a firm hand with a daughter on her curfew. In the old days of Vietnam, for instance, the soldier would think about all of this and may have gotten the word through letters but it was nowhere close to daily and instantaneous as it is now.

In an emergency, a soldier could possibly use what in the old days was called MARS. (Military Affiliate Radio System). The soldier would have to plan ahead or someone do it for him and then when he finally made connection, he would have to end the portion of his comments with "over." Think M*A*S*H, on TV--Radar with the ancient instrument to his ear, trying to accomplish some task. This now would be a neanderthal communication system. However, in Iraq, the soldier can be off patrolling the means streets of Baghdad, concerned for his life and his friends and in a few hours, be back somewhere on the "net" emailing or text messaging his wife or girlfriend or buds on MySpace. No way to run a war.

Having to deal with family issues while at war can be incredibly distracting and interfere with the mission. War is no day at the beach and allowing troops to be distracted from it is lethal for them among other issues.

In war, there is always inequity. We faced it in Vietnam with nine support troops for every ground pounder (combat arms soldiers). There were soldiers who were suffering the daily travails of war off in the jungles with nary a hot meal while others were living a good life. I'm not sure it is the same in Iraq but surely there are scores of soldiers who never go out on the road, who don't have to worry about insurgents, IEDs or suicide bombers. Those who are inside the relative safety of the Green Zone and those at bases spread throughout Iraq and are mechanics, mess hall personnel; those who operate the radios, and a thousand and one more supportive and necessary jobs. These soldiers may have time for MySpace but by in large, not a good thing.

WHO IS AT FAULT/and/or responsible for where we are? By in large, Commanders at all levels are at fault. Well meaning morale issues are always important but commanders have to know the overall picture and make decisions accordingly. It is very easy for us armchair quarterbacks to sit around and cogitate our navels about the war. But, commanders, especially young captains and their battalion commanders--they are on the ground and have to make hard decisions. We are at war and being focused on that task is the only paramount.

COLLEGE KIDS AND THE WAR

2007-05-06T09:14:00.000-07:00

A telling comment by a University writing professor, in talking to his students about Iraq, he railed with something like, "How can you let us get away with it (meaning the older Vietnam generation)? We are spending your inheritance and leaving you holding the bag." All nodded but what the Professor knew and was concerned about was the fact that for 3 years in his writing classes as the students were asked to write about the troubles of the time, not one had written about the war, other than the students in the National Guard who had been called up. They had written about deep perosnal wounds that plague our culture--absent or abusive parents, bulimia, anorexia, date rape, too much drinking and drug use--but not about the war.

SUCK IT UP

2007-05-04T18:51:00.000-07:00

For us old soldiers, I am absolutely amazed at the continuous coverage of the war. As someone has said, it is a "victims" war. What we are seeing is not the war fighter who is doing what soldiers are paid to do: fight. What we see are overall depictions of problems that soldiers have because of the war. Overall, I don't think it's healthy for us as a nation and surely not for our soldiers to constantly be a "woe is me." The constant use of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) language is almost a self fulfiling prohesy. Does this mean it does not exist. Of course not but there are all kinds of other questions.

Here's a for instance, the news media says that as much as one third of American soldiers (this means Marines, all servicemen and women) suffer from psychological differnces when they return. Of course, they do. They have been in combat. We are not talking a "day at the beach." What do we expect? And, the media is aiding and abetting it, constantly making the soldier out to be a victim. And, they do it in the light of "supporting the soldier." It is the media, not liberal or Fox news type, simply the media.

You cannot watch a news show on TV that they do not deal with the war and mainly its aftermath. Understand always that the news media is not interested overall in the truth rather a story. It is just a fact of life. All along, I was somewhat against the embedding of journalists with the military for lots of reason. Mainly that war is not something to be fawned over but a serious dying business.

We are in a difficult time as a nation. We want the news, to know what is going on but there is a price to be paid.

ONE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE--what a great country!!!!

2007-04-22T08:28:00.000-07:00

One of the wonderful realizations about being American is that we have these enormous freedoms to do all sorts of "off the wall" things, regardless of one's status in life. Here's a good example and very positive in light of so much negative stuff that happens, i.e., Virginia Tech. Here is this 60s (age 64)type from Berkeley, California--she travels to Iraq on her own; gets some small newspaper (Lonestar Iconoclast--Crawford, Texas no less) to issue her a press pass and blogs back and forth. We have to admire the sixty four year old. Gutsy for sure, she is a participant in life, not an observer. An interesting note had to do with her living in the Green Zone with the troops--she had never eaten so good: steak, lobster, and salmon steak choices every night. At least the troops are eating well. Don't think we saw any of that in the Nam.

Her reference to how great the food was highlighted her comments of subsiding on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for a month. She lives in Section 8 housing which is government subsidized. Obviously, she has limited funds and came to Kuwait with her own money. See what I mean. God bless America.

Her comments about Iraq mirror thinking Americans--confusion. At first for her, it was pull out and then she said she spent time with the troops in a military transport plane from Kuwait to Baghdad, she grew quite fond of them and their idealism. (soldiers at war have to believe in their cause. It is part of their sense of sacrifice). She embraced their optimism, Maybe the military should stay to finish the job and help rebuild Iraq in a Marshal Plan sort of way. However, her position changed toward the end of her time in Iraq--the U. S. must withdraw all its troops. Not only is life in Baghdad unsafe for everybody, it's like the people of Iraq don't want the occupation. In her last blog from Iraq she wrote, "to hell with Iraq. Let God/Allah sort it out. It's high time for Americans to start watching out for America instead. (Sounds a little right wing). We can't afford to let a whole generation of fresh faced boys be forced to turn into gangsta wannabes in some foreign country just to benefit the Bush/Cheney deAmericanization fund. We need our troops at home. Here. Now." She calls Iraq an invasion/war/occupation/police action/Operation Iraqi Freedom/Bush blunder.

OK, THE WOMAN IS FROM BERKELEY.

NATIONAL SERVICE--Mother's comments

2007-04-22T07:35:00.000-07:00

I totally agree with National Service. It sounds fantastic. Tthis war is only costly to the men/women/families who serve and doesn't affect anyone else too much. So true. But then it's hard to get an entire country on board with a war that was based on such garbage and then heads off in 12 different directions when the head honchos try to justify it.

I really like the National Service versus Universal Service. Somehow it sounds more American, more patriotic. Does that make sense? National Service -- yep, that is a good change. I was telling my son about your ideas and he was all over it -- it's one of his big themes. Everyone should serve at least a year doing something with people from other backgrounds in this country, As he says, you'll meet some duds occasionally and some wackos, but by and large, you'll encounter lots of different, good people from all walks of life and from every socio-economic level. I remember him coming home from Basic Training at Fort Sill with a photo of his training class, and the guys had all signed it on the back (kind of like signing annuals in school), and one of the black recruits wrote: To the coolest white guy ever. He was pretty proud of that, and so was I. God bless the Army for all it taught him.

HARDSHIPS AND A SHARED ETHOS

2007-04-14T09:12:00.000-07:00

When I think of the war in Iraq, my immediate thought is: what a mess. It goes really beyond a mess--a travesty. There are times I think that I'm the only one in America who gets it. I heard some general on TV the other day by the name of Lovelace--I remember the name as I had an archeology teacher in seminary by the same name. I thought "this guy's brain has been bottled in formaldehyde." This isn't personal rather, philosophical. It was as though he was talking about another country and a different war. He was saying things about our great soldiers which they are in Iraq, the wonderful volunteer army, what a privilege to fight such a glorious war. These were not his exact words but close. Unfortunately, he is more typical of the leadership than we like to believe.

The volunteer military is a good one, maybe the best in the world. However, it has one very real drawback: it is not representative of our great country. And, this is a moral as well as a practical dilemma. When only a very small fraction of our populace are making the major sacrifice in war, it is immoral. The practical implication is that as a country with a volunteer force we are denying young men and women in America the opportunity to serve. There's a bond of trust that comes from shared hardships, shared experience and a common set of values when sacrifices are made. Most Americans will never know this and the common ethos which comes with it.

INSPIRING STORY

2007-03-30T08:14:00.000-07:00

I read the Weddings/Celebrations in the Style section of the NY Times every week. I think it is probably some of the best stuff of The Times. And, I always wonder how they choose the couples they highlight who are getting married. When I opened the page one week, I was blown away. There was a guy in uniform. I had seen military depicted before in the section but usually they were West Point graduates. However, this was different: A Specialist 4 (Corporal)Ranger (Rangers are the most elite single unit in the military. Their training is extreme. At the end of training, they are awarded a Ranger Tab, the most highly prized designation in the Army).

I almost fell over when I began to read--if not a marriage made in heaven, close. Marriages always start out with such promise. And, military marriages are very special. Sacrifices of unusual nature will be the order of the day for this young couple.

What impressed me, however, among many things, is the soldier Ranger's approach to his life. And, equally as much as how he came to be in the military is part of the thing that brought him to the day of his wedding. Older than most soldiers of his rank, 37, a Princeton graduate who after 9-11 and in his own words, "lots of soul searching" joined up. "I'd always wanted to do national service of some kind," the Army Ranger said.

Here is an example of what we are missing out on by not instituting some sort of universal service, community service, AllServe. If we gave youngsters a chance, a slight nudge, they would do it. Granted, this Ranger is a stand out by anybody's standards but still, there are more like him out there I know. If we had the political and moral will as a nation, we would be providing a chance for them to serve.

WHO IS SACRIFICING?

2007-03-29T06:41:00.000-07:00

Recently, on a trip back to my hometown, I had occasion to talk to lots of folks about Iraq. Most simply give the "nobody is home" look. Not because they're not interested but mainly out of not knowing what to say. And, those who have been such ardent supporters of the present regime, simply are nonplussed.

I don't know what to say myself. Honestly, I get so incredibly frustrated. We live in a country of such enormous inequities. On the one hand, Iraq has not really forced changes in anybody's life. The only ones affected are the soldiers serving and their families.

In our country, narcissism runs rampant. It is nothing to watch a newscast with some scant news about Iraq and then go to commercials which show such blatant narcissism that it is sickening. For instance, there's collagen treatments, luxury home sales, Farrari automobiles that don't have to advertise their 200,000 pricetags because there's a line out the door. And, this doesn't even smack at the realization of the actual money that a Wall street scion gets, i. e., Mario Gabelli, something like 435 million. And, this in a land where as MLK said, "if America is to remain a first class nation, it cannot have second class citizens." Well, guess what? Third and fourth class citizens. The inequities in our culture are staggering and the greatest example are our brave and sacrificing soldiers and families. God bless them.

GAYS AND THE MILITARY

2007-03-17T06:32:00.000-07:00

Wow, will this never go away. I don't think so. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs recently got himself in trouble by talking about the immorality of gays. In some ways, not to put words in his mouth, but he might have been OK, at least in terms of his comments, had he had kept away from the morality comment. Had he said being gay is not compatible with some aspects of military life, he might have escaped, at least sounded better. For this reason: Marines, hardcore infantry, macho type soldiers are homophobic, let's face it. The idea that at least philosophically they are not male chauvinists, beer swilling, gung ho, kill, kill, kill is an anathema to them. And being "gay" with all the stereotypical views of who a gay is will not hack it. Regardless of one's view, it is simply the way it is. And, who are these soldiers with all these homophobic views. They are the guys who are out there dying in Iraq. They are the "front line" troops. They are macho to the max. These are the ones probably that the good General Pace, Marine extraordinaire, is talking about.

Is this right, good, etc. Not the most appropriate question to ask? The better question, "is being gay in the military compatible with military life?" Yes, in many instances it is. The idea that in this day and time, we are discharging scores of qualified soldiers even though we have the "don't ask, don't tell" policy--from what I read, the equivalent of at least half a division (division is usually with support troops, twenty thousand men and women. This is ridiculous. Many are skilled technicians, many we've spent a great deal of money training them, i. e., language school. Statistics reveal that many are medical types, to include some doctors. This is an issue that is not going away and cannot be solved.

General Pace is right and wrong. "Outed" gay Marines are not going to fare well. It is reality. What I equate it to in some degree is women in the military. Introducing one woman into a classroom of Marines studying and the dynamics are changed. It is not the woman's fault. It is nobody's fault, simply the human element of men and women. Is this going to change? No. And, the reason we can't force it or push it is that the homophobic Marines are at war and they're dying. Kind of puts social issues on the back burner. In a perfect world, not a problem but guess what!

PARTYING AND GETTING LAID

2007-03-16T07:26:00.000-07:00

Recently at a book signing for the memoir, Gun Totin' Chaplain, I got a chance to test out the idea of National Service. The small independent bookstore owner hatched the idea that we'd give away a certain number of books to draw in a crowd. If the idea of the book was to get the message out: National Service--what a great chance to do it in what was possibly an unfriendly college environment. It was successful, the sun was out and students were everywhere. We took it outside and I began to buttonhole students.

I talked to at least a couple of dozen about National Service, now these are Berkeley students--so funny in a sense--here I am a Vietnam vet, the book is about Vietnam and during Vietnam, Berkeley or as we use to say, Berzerkerly, was the epicenter of the anti Vietnam war protest. These kids weren't even born during Vietnam.

The conversations went something like: "What is your thought about National Service, meaning where you'd have to give a year or say 18 months to some sort of Service to your country or a nonprofit organization. It could be the military but wouldn't have to be, could be Teach America or Peace Corp or literally anything like that or you could design your own. A couple of the students gave me the "nobody is home look." By in large, in this brief encounter, the vast majority of the students said, "I'd think about it." For Berkeley, believe me, this is ground breaking. One kid cracked me up! "What are college students interested in?" Answer. "Well, I think having a good time." Then, he grew more thoughtful, "I think my fraternity brothers are mostly interested in partying and getting laid." We laughed.

Upon reflection, the idea of National Service came out looking pretty good in an environment that could be construed traditionally as pretty hostile. I am encouraged more than discouraged when I talk to kids about National Service. For those who oppose the idea and yet could help with it, i. e., Congress, I think they don't give American youngsters enough credit. What I've discovered over the last twelve years or so is that kids want to serve and would with a slight nudge.

What About The Draft

2007-03-07T12:05:00.000-08:00

CADENCE

Martin Sheen directs his son Charlie in a military war of wills. It is a story about a rebellious white recruit befriended by African American prisoners in a West German Army stockade. Lawrence Fishburne is the cell block boss.

This is a movie that works on all kinds of levels. First of all, Vietnam is just heating up. It is 1965. Charlie Sheen is a youngster, emotionally lost, struggling to somehow put things right in his life and with his Dad who dies before he can. Somehow, the Army is all part of the plan. After the death of his Dad, he spirals down even further, goes back to Germany and gets worst. He's thrown into the stockade (jail) for 90 days. He's stubborn, unyielding and the jailhouse boss, Martin Sheen, is determined to break him. In the course of his attempts at breaking this upstart young soldier, Martin, a senior non commissioned officer, comes emotionally apart.

This is the "draft" Army. The movie doesn't deal with issues like, what am I doing here, how did I make this choice, it just was. In this draft Army, there's all kinds, sharing the collective experience.

On another level, it's a movie about race relations. The military has always been way above society in general in living with each other. And, the draft military had all the racial issues but was beginning to confront institutional racism. Cadence is a good example. Here is Charlie, the lost, stubborn young soldier who just wants to get by, live and let live. He faces the challenges, wins over the black charges with whom he lives and in the course of events, the implication is that he found himself. A good movie to watch with Iraq in mind. At least three parachutes

UNIVERSAL SERVICE COULD BE JOHN EDWARDS TICKET

2007-01-01T07:24:00.000-08:00

OPEN LETTER TO JOHN EDWARDS
Dear Mr. Edwards, as a fellow North Carolinian, I applaud your entry into the Presidential sweepstakes. I am often amazed why anyone would be in politics unless it is a "calling" and I think yours is. Unfortunately, for many, it morphs into a career and politics as usual. I hope and pray that your commitment is different.

My basic purpose for writing, doubting you will ever see this but you might, based on a recent Newsweek article. Your desire for the voters to see the real you. "Untucked." I like it. And, the idea of putting your campaign on "youtube" is right on--very creative from my point of view and I sent the link to dozens. I think that the transparency is truly the only way for a democracy and what you're doing is part of it. You have my support, I assure you.

My feeling is that you are saying some good things. I saw you in New Orleans. Right on. However, many are going to say those same sorts of things and what you need is something to get you out ahead of the crowd. Here's your issue in my opinion: UNIVERSAL SERVICE. Congressman Rangel has proposed a draft but it simply won't fly. Too much opposition even if I think it is a good idea. Unfortunately, in my estimation, those who are in opposition to the draft or may even oppose Universal Service, are in NC parlance, "cutting off their nose to spite their face." What "peace" groups or even others in opposition don't get is that If we had a draft/Universal Service, a President would think twice before he sent us to war.

However, all that aside, Universal Service would be good for the country. For the last 12 years or so, I have been promoting the idea that we need Universal Service-- something unifying and what better to do it than requiring those 18-26 to give 18 months to 2 years in service to this great country. My basic theme has been simply that it is immoral to ask such an infinitesimally small number of Americans to fight our wars. Columnist Ben Stein says it this way, "In the old days, the rich, the famous, they all put it aside to fight. Now who fights for us: "Southerners, Hispanics from New Mexico, rural men and women from upstate NY. Small town boys and girls from the Midwest. No children of the powers on Wall Street go off and fight? They 've left the burden of defending an affluent nation to those who enjoy less of its affluence. They don't want to fight for a system that made them rich or a way of life that made them princes of finance."

I would add, and not original with me, "the kids who are in the military today are those whose economic prospects are less than stellar. They are high-school graduates who're not going to college because of costs, many young parents who need a regular paycheck and health care for their families." According to DOD statistics, soldiers come from households earning between $32,000 and $33,500. " (The median American income is $43,300.) It is not that the Volunteer Army is not working. We have a military that is as good as we've ever had. Simply, they are not representative of our country and this is not right nor good for us.

The difficulty, in my opinion, with selling the draft is simply too much opposition to the military, war, etc. Few can argue with universal service. From various reports, we've got lots of activism: students are getting involved in Teach America and there's been a resurgence in the Peace Corp. And, your comments in New Orleans, who came? Many students showed up to help.

Without a draft or any sort of Universal Service, kids by in large don't have any incentive to serve. I talk to parents of kids who are draft eligible with great regularity and simply unless there is an unusual circumstances, they don't think about it. Thinking has changed and more and more parents of eligible kids see the advantage of a Universal Service. Having a choice is the selling point. I have a blog called AllServe and constantly get comments about what a great idea this is.

What would a Universal Service do for America's kids? Lots of things, something like a common interest and experience, something that is nonexistent in our culture. Universal service would make a difference in changing our fractured America--a youth culture built around service. What I am discovering is that many Americans will go for Universal Service if youth is given an option. If they didn't want to choose from a list, let them define their own. American kids are smart and creative, we might be surprised at what they come up with and how willing they are to serve.

This is an issue that is begging for someone like yourself to take up--it is the JFK "ask not what your country can do for you" theme. Universal Service could be phased in over ten years and promoted among our youngsters now. A success story and the way AllServe could work is an organization I've read about: Teach America. I only know what I've read. They are getting top graduates who could be in medical school or Wharton business or wherever--yet choose to do something meaningful before they start their careers. Teach America sends graduates into poor rural and urban schools for two years. For many, it has become a next step after graduation. These kids want to contribute to improving society while keeping their options open. At Yale for instance, Teach America, drew applications from 12% of the graduates, 11% at Dartmouth, and 8% at Harvard. All told a record 17,350 applied in one year.

Are our present kids a post 9-11 generation ready to opt more aggressively for public service? I think so. Many of those volunteering for Teach America don't know what they want to do. The thought is that not knowing what to do, why not take some time to do something meaningful for a couple of years and think about the future. The military is as I've said only one of the options. Universal Service will work.

There's probably some opposition to Universal Service or anything related but what the hell: us North Carolianians know a cause when we see it. Universal Service will fly and I think you are just the one to make it happen.

DOONESBURY

2006-12-17T11:02:00.000-08:00

Wouldn't you love to get inside the head of Garry Trudeau? Honestly, I always smile, especially when he fillets the obvious. He's had two cartoon strips recently that jangled my chimes. One was some Vietnam vet sitting in a VA group probably. He tells his story: night sweats, can't hang onto relationships, scared of the dark (these are all my problems). The leader of the group goes around the room and says to this one guy, OK, what do you want to talk about today. He says, "I just want to say I'm thankful that I am not like him"--meaning the Vietnam vet. I guess you would have had to be there but to a vet, it is funny, really funny. As my Dad use to say, might as well laugh as cry.

The other cartoon panel had to do with Iraq; the General says "the military might be broken." The interviewer, Trudeau's character, says something like, "well, maybe we ought to think about the draft?" Then a resounding NO, like Bremer said when he was screwing up Iraq, "don't mention Vietnam to me." NO, no, the characters says, look at what the draft did to our generation. Then he says, "who is here that served back in the day? (The draft). No one and then, we are assuming the prez says, "well, you guys were lucky. I was stuck in the National Guard for five years. A voice says, "four." And then the last panel, "Oh, thank you Dick. At least I didn't have "other priorities." Dick, we assume says,

I had to think about the next war. So we would get it right. That's why we're winning. You have to smile.

SMART MEN CAN BE WRONG

2006-11-23T07:21:00.000-08:00

Even the most harsh critic of the neocons: Chaney, Pearl, Wofowich, Rumsfelt would not say these men are dumb. But, obviously, based on history and fact, they were wrong. Deposing Saddam didnot bring even a relative peace to Iraq nor the Middle East. We pursued a failed policy and all but the zealots agree that we are in a mess. So, it is surely possible to be smart but dumb and wrong at the same time.

One of my semi heroes and, it pains me to say this, as us Southerners have a view, "do not speak ill of the dead"-- Milton Friedman, already mentioned at another time but based on an article in Newsweek, warrants additional comments. It is his philosophy about the Volunteer Army that is wrong. Nothing personal, Milt. He said, "a military draft is undesirable and unnecessary. We should man our armed forces with volunteers." What is often left out of Milt's saying about the draft, however, is an "add on", "a military draft is undesirable and unnecessary. We can and should man our armed forces with volunteers as the United States has traditionally done except in major wars." ARE WE IN A MAJOR WAR? Yes, the war on terrorism.

I would love to have talked to Mr. Friedman because I agree with Newsweek, he is definitely one of the most influential men of the last hundred years. Often, I am not so sure that someone like Friedman, God bless his soul, is wrong, rather he is not right. Or, maybe we need to approach the same issue in light of new data or in our case, a new time, i. e., the war on terrorism.

What about our Volunteer Army. 2 questions? Is it successful and is it a good Army. Absolutely, it is successful in terms of fielding a military and a good one. On the surface, the present military is probably as good as any we have ever had. The first question, is it successful? From that point, it is a matter of perspective. The Volunteer Army simply is not representative of our American free society and this is what makes the Volunteer Army morally indefensible.

A very relative factor is always left out of the equation and it is somewhat definitional: when I say the Voluteer Army, I mean, all the "forces." However, much of the volunteer military has always been voluntary: the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force, and all of the elite forces such as Green Berets, Navy Seals--an entire Division, the 82d Airborne Division has always from its inception been voluntary.

Milt railed against the draft from a position of his time that really didn't make sense but also, because of the inequity of the draft. Who can interpret this Friedman statement: "the draft is wasteful because determent of students, fathers and married men jams colleges, raises the birth rate and fuels divorce courts." What in the hell does he mean? And, I love this one, "universal national service would compound the evil--regimenting all youth to camouflage the regimentation of some."

To give Mr. Friedman his due, I think one big point is that the draft was inequitable because it was not administered fairly. Where I think he is off the mark is that Universal Service simply provides an opportunity to serve. The fact that it is compulsory is simply an update on the times. Youth, if forced to serve, no exceptions, will do it and when it is over, my prediction is they will say, "I did it, I gave back and I'm the better for it." Friedman didn't like the draft, universal service, price controls, minimum wage standards. He's consistent.

Well, in life, I think there have to be some controls and restrictions. To me, youth serving their country is not so much a control as a freedom to serve.

Military Draft or Universal Service

2006-11-19T12:51:00.000-08:00

Congressman Rangel, I applaud your commitment to reviving the draft and certainly agree with it. However, I don't think it will fly. For the last 12 years or so, I have been promoting the idea that we need Universal Service. We need something unifying and what better to do it than requiring those 18-26 to give 18 months to 2 years in service to this great country. As you can imagine from your own experiences, mostly I have been a voice "crying in the wilderness."

My basic theme has been simply that it is immoral to ask such an infinitesimally small number of Americans to fight our wars. Columnist Ben Stein put the perfect idea on it, "In the old days, the rich, the famous, they all put it aside to fight. Now who fights for us: "Southerners, Hispanics from New Mexico, rural men and women from upstate NY. Small town boys and girls from the Midwest. No children of the powers on Wall Street go off and fight? They 've left the burden of defending an affluent nation to those who enjoy less of its affluence. They don't want to fight for a system that made them rich or a way of life that made them princes of finance."

I would add, and not original with me, "the kids who are in the military today are those whose economic prospects are less than stellar. They are high-school graduates who're not going to college because of costs, many young parents who need a regular paycheck and health care for their families."

According to DOD statistics, soldiers come from households earning between $32,000 and $33,500. " (The median American income is $43,300.)

The difficulty, in my opinion, with selling the draft is simply too much opposition to the military, war, etc. Few can argue with universal service. From various reports, we've got lots of activism: students are getting involved in Teach America and there's been a resurgence in the Peace Corp. And, many students went to help in Katrina.

Without a draft or any sort of Universal Service, kids by in large don't have any incentive to serve. I talk to parents of kids who are draft eligible with great regularity and simply unless there is an unusual circumstances, they don't think about it. Thinking has changed and more and more parents of eligible kids see the advantage of a Universal Service. Having a choice is the selling point. I started a blog called AllServe and constantly get comments about what a great idea this is.

What would a Universal Service do for America's kids? Lots of things, something like a common interest and experience, something that is nonexistent in our culture. Universal service would make a difference in changing our fractured America--a youth culture built around service. What I am discovering is that many Americans will go for Universal Service if youth is given an option. If they didn't want to choose from a list, let them define their own. American kids are smart and creative, we might be surprised at what they come up with and how willing they are to serve.

Universal Service could be phased in over ten years and promoted among our youngsters now. A success story and the way AllServe could work is an organization I've read about: Teach America. I only know what I've read. They are getting top graduates who could be in medical school or Wharton business or wherever--yet choose to do something meaningful before they start their careers. Teach America sends graduates into poor rural and urban schools for two years. For many, it has become a next step after graduation. These kids want to contribute to improving society while keeping their options open. At Yale for instance, Teach America, drew applications from 12% of the graduates, 11% at Dartmouth, and 8% at Harvard. All told a record 17,350 applied in one year.

Are our present kids a post 9-11 generation ready to opt more aggressively for public service? I think so. Many of those volunteering for Teach America don't know what they want to do. The thought is that not knowing what to do, why not take some time to do something meaningful for a couple of years and think about the future. The military is only one of the options. Universal Service will work.

Congressman Rangel, I applaud your efforts now as I did when you offered the bill on the draft once before. We missed our greatest opportunity for our kids after 9-11. Now, as I see it, we have another chance. With our "changed" Congress, Universal Service will fly and I hope and pray it will and think you are just the one to make it happen.

JUST NOT PROVEN OUT

2006-11-18T07:12:00.000-08:00

Milton Friedman just died. Who is he? Wake up and smell the roses, he was a famous economist and bigtime promoter of free trade. But, his big claim to fame is that he was the first to suggest to Richard Nixon that we have an All Volunteer Army. Mainly his reasons were that if it were voluntary, those who chose it would stay longer. They would be better trained and have more esprit. Well, Milt, Dicky took your suggestion and the voluntary army has been successful only in numbers. There is no evidence that it is better trained or has higher esprit or that people stay longer.

The present day military is as good as probably any we have ever fielded. However, there's no real way to measure the Voluntary Army. What we have discovered and it doesn't take a Harvard scholar to know this, based on present leadership, the military is woefully undermanned with much of the expert knowledge and experience residing in the active military, leaving the Reserves and National Guard woefully inadequate for its fighting role. Granted the Guard and Reserves have done a good job catching up but when the history of the Iraqi war is written, I think that most of the issues of lack of experience and training will be at the feet of the Reserves and Guard. Think about it, by in large, the Guard and Reserve soldiers join up to play army, show up once a month, deal with a six pack or two, escape the wives/husbands. Suddenly, a war shows up and because we have reduced the size of the military to scandalous levels, we must deploy the Guard and Reserves. What did we expect? That being said, the Guard and the Reserves are to be commended for doing their duty and coming around.

So, Milt, although your idea was good, it overall has been a dismal failure, especially in terms of representing our democracy. We have chosen to let a small portion of Americans fight our wars and this just ain't right. SHAME ON US.

WHERE ARE THE PRIVILEGED

2006-09-06T08:36:00.000-07:00

Do you ever read Ben Stein? The reason Ben's done TV and now writes fairly regularly for the NY Times. A patriotic and always "supporting the troops" sort of guy. His latest article deals with how things have changed in what the military means to people. In the old days, it was something that everybody did: regardless of position in life: rich or poor. Of course, it was WW II but in this latest article he laments what has happened.

The old days, the rich, the famous, they all put it aside to fight. Now who fights for us: "Southerners, Hispanics from New Mexico, rural men and women from upstate NY. Small town boys and girls from the Midwest." No children of the powers on Wall Street go off and fight? They don't fight for the system that made them rich or won't fight for the way of life that made them princes of finance. So says Ben and I agree.

Ben says that Israel possibly should try on this theory: the reason that Hisbollah has bested Israel is that Israel has gotten soft. Israel, the shining light of military might beaten to a standoff by a very motivated and better led thousand or so fighters.

Ben says and I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth. "These people (hezbollah) see it as a privilege to fight and die for their beliefs, even if we think they're insane. And, the rest of them line up to blow themselves up for their vision of heaven. And all the while we are saying "let the other poor sap to it..I've got to make money."

This sounds like a tangent but it dovetails with The Unexcused Absence of the Upper Classes from Military Service. Stein is relentless, "how can we fight this fight with the brightest and best educated rushing off and working night and day to make money. How can we fight this fight with the upper class absent. If Israel cannot muster the will to fight in a big way, then the fat, faraway, USA will never be able to do it."

He was talking about how much we're in a bind, what about Iraq?Everybody hates us, etc.; then he said the ones that enable us to live such a good life in America are those who fight for us, whether we agree or not. And, this is what worries him most of all, we keep going about our stuff, collecting our goodies without any realization that it could end, that there are those like soldiers who make all the sacrifices.

He's right, we're in a war with people who are evangelized to kill us. I mean, nobody seems to want to admit that the Middle East is a strange, timeless place where nothing has changed for thousands of years. Hatreds that have existed for generations are not going away. These people can't be reasoned with. We will never understand it.

All that said, there are, as someone recently reminded me, as I was railing against our mismanagement of Iraq--there is some encouragement in the world: what? Europe is getting involved in Lebanon in keeping the peace. Finding a nugget here and there is a good thing.

DON'T BOTHER US

2006-03-25T08:29:00.000-08:00

The third anniversary of the war in Iraq came and went without much fanfare. Not the old Vietnam style protests whether they did any good or not. And, the few that were held didn't get much attention and few young people showed up or had any interest it seems. Why? Simply, kids, like most adults don't have any vested interest in the war. It really is not affecting them. Life goes on and for youngsters, there's no draft, they don't have to think in those terms so why get excited--you have a war, you have someone else doing the fighting. What is the big deal!

In some ways, it is not that activism has gone the way of nothing. From various reports, students are getting involved in Teach America, there's been a resurgence in the Peace Corp. And, many students went to help in Katrina. Maybe it's just the idea of an abstract war going on somewhere else, not really affecting anybody other than those fighting or their families--the political spin of the government surely can't be discounted.

DEPRIVING YOUNGSTERS OF A CHANCE TO SERVE

Without a draft or any sort of Universal Service, kids by in large don't have any incentive to serve. I talk to parents of kids who are draft eligible with great regularity and simply unless there is an unusual circumstances, they don't think about it.In a bitterly divided country involved in a very divisive war that rational people see no end too, the vast majority agree our troops should not be held accountable for the politics that led to Iraq becoming IRAQNAM.

And, for most of us Vietnam vets who think about it, our great legacy is the fact that most Americans who care and not all do, realize that soldiers who fought in Vietnam were blamed for a very sorry war--even for the lies on what we were doing in Vietnam and the mismanagement of battle plans we could not salvage. And, it is true that for most, we're determined not to make that mistake again. This time around, most of us salute our soldiers.

That being said, the vast majority of Americans are still willing for other people's kids to fight their wars. Three long years ago, when the invasion of Iraq was widely supported as an extension of the war on terror, the prospect of a military draft was occasional mentioned but more with rancor than anything else. Simply stated, across party lines, especially among the affluent classes, the draft was a word uttered in disdain if at all--noway, do we want our sons and daughters to serve the nation's military. Nothing has changed.

POLITICS

The politics of the draft reflected the vast majority of Americans thoughts. The volunteer Army was touted as all sufficient. Let's face it, all those hawks who supported the war and still do, don't have any "skin" in the game--doesn't affect them or their families? I'm not much of a Michael Moore fan as he's taken his antigovernment to an absurd level, not to mention making a sack full of money from his movies. But, there is a priceless scene in Fahrenheit 9-11, when he approaches Congressman wanting them to give the paperwork to their sons and daughters on joining the military. Got to love it. Congressional hypocrisy at its height: sending other Moms and Dad's kids off to war.

WHO ARE THESE KIDS WHO FIGHT FOR AMERICANS

They are, by in large, from America's working class. Why do they join up? Let's subscribe to them the best of motives, patriotism. And, it is relatively true. When the parents or wives or friends are interviewed at their funerals, it sounds so much better to talk about their patriotism. In reality, however, they are kids where economic prospects are less than stellar. They are high-school graduates who're not going to college because of costs, many young parents who need a regular paycheck and health care for their families. According to DOD statistics, soldiers come from households earning between $32,000 and $33,500. (The median American income is $43,300.)

There is a sense of denial in the people I talk too who are willing to admit that we've left the burden of defending an affluent nation to those who enjoy less of its affluence. It isn't so much classic denial as they simply don't want to fess up. Occasionally, I'll have some of my buddies say, "well, they volunteered." True and we have to affirm kids for this but it does not alter the fact of who they are--many relate their service to 9-11 and duty, honor, country--who can kick that: however, it does mean that the wealthier surely didn't get overwhelmed with patriotism.

WHERE ARE THE VIETNAM VETS

Vietnam vets are rare these days in government but there are a few. Vice President Dick Cheney has said he had "other priorities" during the war in Vietnam. And President Bush ... think missing meetings of the Air Guard. At some point, there may be some shame but it is not evident. I understand Cheney, the guy shot a buddy hunting, no telling what he might have done in Vietnam but what about men like Sen. John Kerry, John McCain, Chuck Hegel and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vietnam veterans who have seen young men die in combat. Don't they "get it," this fighting a war on the backs of working class Americans. They know better and AllServe was a factor in Vietnam, even if it was somewhat a pretext. At least all were duty bound because of the draft. It is unjust and immoral for a small segment of Americans to fight such a war in Iraq. There is no other argument in my mind that has credibility.

HOW ABOUT A TOUR IN THE MARINES

2006-02-18T08:56:00.000-08:00

I first read this in a newspaper column: teenagers concerned over their rights--roughly meaning that teenagers and parents are locked into a battle over teenager rights. What rights are those? According to the article, the teenagers get to choose whatever those rights might be.

What is this? Well, for one thing a cultural issue where by in large, kids from affluent homes need to "get a life." They are spending way too much time on the internet, text messageing their friends and cogitating their navels. And, parents are allowing it to happen. Who are the parents here?

Kids in control? Give me a break! Of course, when parents cede control to teenagers, they are going to take it. The flip side of the coin is that when kids don't have to face responsibilities, old fashioned things like a job for instance, what can we expect. Or, what about this for a radical emphasis: facing the military draft or even joining the military upon graduation, or at least some sort of Universal Service like the Peace Corps or Americorp. Their angst might just be a good thing, as opposed to how to get over on their parents and where is the next big party! JUST SOME THOUGHTS...

DEATH OR THE ARMY

2006-01-29T09:05:00.000-08:00

I am constantly reading where some mother is communicating with her son in college, whether he has the right socks or maybe is eating properly; and, of course, the usual tenor of the article is that if there's any negative, must be the Mom's fault. On a related but more serious vein is a recent article I read with a title of "When we let them down, kids get high"--bored kids doing drugs. The article is written by a therapist who basically is lifting the responsibilty of taking drugs from the kids to being our fault--we're not listening to them. They are bored with life with a mantra that life sucks and consequently a way to make it not suck is to do drugs. OK!

According to the story, many of these kids know how to score Oxycontin, a pain medication derived from opium, along with the designer drug, methamphetamines with the ease of opening a coke can. Her statement, "It's happening here at beautiful Lake Tahoe, where people come to enjoy a nice vacation, where people drive SUVs the size of tanks and people are unwilling to face the reality that the local ski areas would probably have very few employees at all if they tested for drugs and enforced a clean and sober policy at work." Wow! What ever happened to kids doing homework, having an afterschool job, playing sports, hanging out with girl friends or boyfriends. And, more important where are the parents? Are they scared of their kids--no confrontation less they alienate! Give me a break.

I have a solution for the therapist who feels so strongly the plight of the teenagers she's counseling. What about the Army or Marines. What about kids knowing that at some point, bored or not, they are going to have to face the military draft or best case, some alternative. Why not? What do we think is going to happen to these kids who at eleven know how to get drugs and get high. They are going to be a burden at some point on society. Even with baby boomers today, many are facing health problems from their "summers of love' and these kids are going to be so much worse even if they make it.
If we at least get these kids in the military they might have a chance. There should be an AllServe and we need a system where those drugged out will do best in the militry where there is a possibility that they can get straighten out. Sound far fetched. Well, not any more than doing nothing.

AN OPEN LETTER TO GEORGE SOROS

2005-10-30T08:55:00.000-08:00

AN OPEN LETTER TO George Soros

I have followed your contributions for a better American over the last several years. Thank you. You have stated that you want to make a difference in changing our fractured America. I see only one way--a youth culture built around service.

ARE WE A FRACTURED SOCIETY

For some time, I too have been concerned about our fractured culture. Recently, Readers Digest had an article about whether we are truly a "fractured America." It said "not as much as we think" but unfortunately, we let the left and right wings drive us according to the article. To be perfectly honest, I'm not so sure. I would like to think that most of us congregate in the middle but have my doubts.

The last presidential election is credited to the right wing fundamentalists of the Republican party for tipping the scales. However, they were only able to do this because a large contingency of who Democrats were counting on--the young people, simply didn't vote. To me, there's a great lesson in this. We have to have something other than politics to unite us. The benefits to an AllServe Universal Service are legion. One, above all, however, is the unifying factor. In our extremely polarized country, we need something to unify us. What better than youth, 18-26, with a common experience. An AllServe would provide such an experience.

UNIVERSAL SERVICE WILL SELL

What I am discovering is that many Americans will go for Universal Service if youth is given an option. When I first began my campaign ten years ago, it was just about the military draft. I could count on one hand those who mildly agreed, especially those with children. Thinking has changed and more and more parents of eligible kids see the advantage. Having a choice is the selling point. AllServe needs to be promoted, a formal organization created, and a build up of support in the country. Once this happens, the Congress will follow.

There are so many positives to this approach. First of all, it could be phased in over ten years and promoted among our youngsters now. A success story and the way AllServe could work is Teach America. They are getting top graduates who could be in medical school or Wharton business or wherever--yet choose to do something meaningful before they start their careers. Teach America sends graduates into poor rural and urban schools for two years. For many, it has become a next step after graduation. These kids want to contribute to improving society while keeping their options open. At Yale for instance, Teach America, drew applications from 12% of the graduates, 11% at Dartmarth, and 8% at Harvard. All told a record 17,350 applied in one year.

Are our present kids a post 9-11 generation ready to opt more aggressively for public service? I think so. Many of those volunteering for Teach America don't know what they want to do. The thought is that not knowing what to do, why not take some time to do something meaningful for a couple of years and think about the future. The military is only one of the options. Universal Service will work.

To be able to make something like this successful, we know that it is about marketing as much as anything. Consequently, a blitz of goals and an organized campaign over a five or ten year period is the secret. What think?

ARMY RECRUITING IN THE TOILET

2005-10-02T09:47:00.000-07:00

Why? Many reasons: a war, economy good, resistance to the military by parents and zealots growing. Congress at leasts wants the Army to expand by 50,000 more while the military can hardly maintain the status quo. Where are they going to get these fifty thousand? In other words, the Army is in a hurt. Afghanistan and Iraq are long term commitments and there seems to be no let up in either war. The Generals give these rosy pictures but who believes them anymore. Not anybody I know. So, what to do!

UNIVERSAL SERVICE IS THE ANSWER

In a perfect world, we would not need an Army but unless horses start to fly and the Democrats and the Republicans lay down together in the Biblical concept of Lions and Sheep, forget it. There's a real lesson for us here. I've been pushing the idea of AllServe for years and feel mostly like a voice crying in the wilderness. However, I am beginning to see a crack in the intransigent views. Congress, gutless as they are, will not even consider a draft. And, when the draft issue was raised, it was merely symbolic. However, all of this is missing the boat, big time. If we had an AllServe approach to Universal service, the draft, for instance, would be only one small aspect of the total picture. We would be limited only by our own imagination. We could have teachers corps, peace Corp, domestic service, minic many of the programs that the States or Cities already have in place. Military service would only be a small portion of it.

This idea doesn't even sound radical, merely practical. Would young Americans join the military in great numbers? Sure. We've already seen the evidence in crisis: in fact, many of our volunteer Army now were recruited after 9-11. The most famous recruit, of course, is the now deceased, killed in battle, Pat Tillman. A million dollar NFL contract would not deter him. And, despite many obstacles, it was his choice. Even though now, there is a question on how he died, this does not take away from his sacrifices. And, it would not deter many other Americans. All the AllServe would do for many is nudge them toward what they want to do anyway. There would be no deferments.

This idea is exceedingly more feasible than initiating a military draft which may become a possibility. And, we are at the point where we can give no credence to those like Rumsfelt or the Generals who run the recruiting program. They have failed and all their pronouncements are not going to make it any different. Our present military is woefully undersized for the commitments we have undertaken. We are incredibly lucky that we have not had to deal with a truly major conflict.

What if by some stretch of the imagination, we had to take on a major power like China with its unlimited manpower. They could easily overwhelm us, creating unthinkable options like nuclear. Without getting into strategy, an AllServe needs merely to think in terms of numbers. The benefits to an AllServe Universal Service are legion. One, above all, however, is the unifying factor. In our extremely divisive country, we need something to unify us. What better than youth, 18-26, with a common experience. An AllServe would provide such an experience.

NOBODY WENT TO VIETNAM WHO DIDN'T WANT TOO

2005-09-30T07:16:00.000-07:00

THE SIXTIES

I watched this program about the Sixties the other night on public TV. It had been on before but I saw it totally through for the first time. Very interesting. I was in Vietnam during the pivotal time, according to the show. And, like all documentaries, it tells the story from a particular perspective. The perspective being that the entire country was into the summer of love, San Francico and Berkeley being the place to be--the student movement, the black panthers, etc.. And, of course for the discerning person that was not true. The events that they think were turning points, I don't see at all and was mostly in their imagination. Someone said that "a person's perception is their reality" and so true. The documentarian of the program, The Sixties, has a perception and for him and the writers, it is their reality. But, for many of us, so entirely different.

One of those interviewed on the draft said something like, "anybody with intelligence, sophistication and didn't want to go to Vietnam, could get out of it. Relatively true and was one of the things wrong with the draft.

And, some of the facts in the program were wrong. An event in 67, before I went to Vietnam, I was with the 503d Military Police Battalion. We went to Washington for the March on the Pentagon. The 503d was shown in lots of pictures and the documentary called them the 82d Airborne. Not. The 82d was not even there. Now, does that make any difference? No. But, I think what it means is simply that TV, movies, etc. have a story to tell and sometimes the facts, even very relevant ones, get lost in the process.

The facts are that Vietnam was a sorry war. The draft was incredibly inequitable and consequently there was no sense of shared sacrifice. The Sixties were an important time in reflection but the perception of the TV documentary did not fit the rest of the country. But, surely cannot be minimized either in terms of the events and the significance even if not universal. As far as the "draft" is concern, what we are shown that we do not want a draft in the Sixties context. The draft to be successful must be only one avenue for an AllServe approach to service. For that fact alone, thanks for the good documentary.

THE POWER OF GRIEF

2005-09-28T06:22:00.000-07:00

One of my Vietnam buddies told me once that when his brother was killed in Vietnam, his Mom went into the house and did not come out for seven years. Amazing but I am not surprised. Grief is a powerful force and affects all of us in different ways. For some, we move right on or appear too. For others, we never move on. The Mother of Pat Tillman is having trouble. I've been following her story and understand. She is after truth. How was he killed? Why was she lied too? What is the Army trying to conceal? The questions are endless and when her answers come, will they satisfied her?

I doubt it. Pat Tillman's loss is huge. Every loss in war is huge but his strikes a blow most unusual. An American success story: NFL star football player with a gigantic financial future. Enlists in the military after the attack on the World Trade Center. Becomes an elite Army Ranger. Is killed at war by friendly fire.

FRIENDLY FIRE HAPPENS ALL THE TIME

It happens all the time in war. I was amazed in Vietnam that we did not have more of it. Everybody had a weapon or several. We did not have the sophisticated communication systems we have now. And, for Vietnam or presently at war, under the best of circumstances, friendly fire happens!

I am not about to speak for the military or to justify any approach they have taken and surely understand Pat Tillman's mother's grief. Her grief appears to be vastly different than the grief of now celebrity protestor, Cindy Sheehan, who also lost a son. Whereas Pat Tillman's Mom shuns the limelight, Ms. Sheehan seeks it. Her motives to me are somewhat suspect as she appears to have morphed into a sound bite. Ms. Sheehan's picture smiling while being arrested appears to indicate that she definitely has moved on in her grief. Not so for Pat Tillman's Mom.

There will be no final answers is all that I can assure Pat Tillman's Mom, even when the Army has laid itself bare, if it ever does. As sad as it is, at the base level, we have to accept that Pat Tillman made a choice to "join up." And, unfortunately, the decision casts him forever facing the possibilities that at war anything and everything can and does happen. Even horrible mistakes! What makes the loss of life so hard to take, Tillman's life or any life in war, is the finality of it. And, these sacrifices aren't shared sacrifices, as only a miniscule number of our democracy owns the sacrifice. It is the peril of a Volunteer Army and it is simply a travesty.

Didn't Do The Math On English

2005-09-28T06:06:00.000-07:00

Monday, Lynndie England was found guilty of Iraqi prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. She was sentenced to 3 years in prison. Please! Give me a break! Is there something wrong with this picture? You take a National Guard type who is as emotionally sophisticated as a tree, put her in a position to screw up, along with others without training and supervision; and, when she messes up, you zap her. Talk about making the military look bad-The black eye is on the military at the highest levels.

One of the reasons that the military is usually so effective is the chain of command. In this case, the first question that should be asked is where was the chain of command? Private England had a squad leader, a platoon sergeant, a first sergeant, a platoon leader, a company commander, a battalion commander, and on up the chain. Where were these people? I can tell you. They were asleep at the wheel. In one sense, she is hardly responsible. In another sense, she is not smart enough to be responsible! And, to convict her and send her to prison is a gross injustice and it ought to make military people ashamed. The entire chain of command is at fault and yet they are unscathed.

Further still, England should never have been in Iraq. The National Guard should not have been in Iraq but that aside, a youngster like England is there because the volunteer is not working. We do not have enough forces to be in a war like Iraq which is going to go on endlessly. Therefore, we have to use the National Guard which traditionally has always been available for Governors. It is indeed a sorry situation when we have to use youngsters like England and all those involved in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Untrained, unsophisticated, unsupervised and we send her to prison. Sad and scandalous.

2005-09-23T15:39:00.000-07:00

MILITARY RECRUITING AT SCHOOLS UNDER FIRE

With Katrina and now hurricane Rita, somehow much of this loses its urgency but talking about things military shouldn't. We still have soldiers at war and soldiers who are dying. The count is nudging on toward 2000. I see this as a more than difficult time in the entire scenario. Right now, things domestic are on people's minds: the news clips have to do with hurricanes and things right here at home--Americans at all levels are suffering. And, to the average man on the street, fighting a war in Iraq, for whatever reasons the President and his die-hard supporters come up with, it does not resonate as it did before the Hurricanes!

TROOPS ON THE FOREFRONT

With Katrina, it did seem to suddenly take a different turn when the troops showed up. One guy said, "I thought my country had abandoned me and then I saw the 82d Airborne." Now, that is an indorsement and rightly so. American soldiers like the 82d are the best trained in the world and could have alleviated much suffering in the first 72 hours of Katrina.

However, with all the Fauntleroy of supporting the troops, it is a sham; I want to say "what sort of show are people putting on?" Support the troops while at the same time headlines like "schools opt out" What this means is that schools are opting out of recruiters being allowed to talk to students. Does this speak volumes or what! NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). One mother said, "I don't want the military recruiters contacting her teenage daughters but she wants the teens to hear about college scholarships and job opportunities from other organizations." NIMBY! What she is all shook up about is the federal law, No Child Left Behind Act which requires that military recruiters have the same access to student information as educational recruiters. Schools that do not let the recruiters have at the students risk access to federal funds.

TOO GOOD FOR THE MIILITARY

After Vietnam, vets got no sympathy mainly because the prevailing attitude was that if we weren't so stupid, we could have avoided Vietnam like most everybody else. What is the attitude now? Iraqnam? Maybe or maybe those hollow concepts of "support the troops" are really a mask for "my kids are too good for the military." I don't know and doubt anybody would admit it if they felt that way. And, until we have some sort of equitable AllServe, those troops who show up in New Orleans or Houston or wherever will come from a small segment of our culture. It ain't fair.

THE CINDY SHEEHAN SAGA

2005-08-21T16:44:00.000-07:00

SON WANTED TO BE A CHAPLAIN'S ASSISTANT

As I understand it, Cindy Sheehan actually met with the president at some point and heard his "noble" cause speech. Since then, her grief has somewhat overwhelmed her I believe and regardless of what camp we are in, she has a dead son killed in war. She now says since all those "noble cause" issues are gone, No weapons of mass destruction, etc., "Then what, Mr. President, what is the noble cause?" But, her question has morphed into politics and so to me, there's some question now of disrespecting her son and the sons of other grieving parents: very confusing.

Although it is a free country and people can demonstrate or do whatever they want about the war, I admit that as much as I detest the mismanagement of the war, there is something disconcerting about protesting while we are fighting. When I was in Vietnam, along with most vets, I think, the demonstrating seemed at best disingenuous. We weren't sophisticated enough then to sort it out. It seemed so personal then, while the protests now seem so hollow.

I don't see any grand numbers of people getting on board the "movement" Sheehan has started. She has lost a son but for those who are there to show support, unless they are willing for their sons and daughters to be a part of the process, i. e., meaning some real investment like a son or daughter in the military, I don't want to hear it.--not much empathy from these quarters--there's little shared sacrifice because of the war, not effecting most of these people's lives. For example, they had a big vigil in San Francisco and someone said, "We'd like to be with Cindy but just can't work it out right now." Hell, they can't work it out because it's inconvenient.

Her crusade definitely became a "media circus" and now her grief has morphed into a "cause." Those who hate Bush and the war mostly are zeolots and like to think that Ms. Sheehan's cause is gaining momentum. Conversely, the Bush ideologues aren't going to change.

And, just yesterday, I read where Casey Sheehan had been promised he could be a Chaplain's Assistant. The Army reneged she said. Casey was a very religious kid and there is some thought that he was even thinking about the Priesthood. Cindy was a lay Minster in the Catholic Church. Her husband is divorcing her--the son's death simply destroyed the marriage. I can understand. There are no winners in the Cindy Sheehan saga. kt

A VOLUNTARY ARMY THAT WORKS

2005-07-10T15:44:00.000-07:00

WAR WITHOUT END

In the cowboy movie, Silverado, Kevin Kline is talking to the part owner of a saloon. He adores her as an honest, kind, and special person: a mother/sister figure. It has been established that Kline is one of those moral cowboys who is somewhat of a renaissance man. And, those he cares about, he really cares about. Not to mention he is a person to be feared in a gunfight. The bad guy who was once his riding partner has threatened to do harm to Kline's friend. A battle is raging over right and wrong: cattle barons versus the little guys. Kline's friend realizes the reason that he has not taken sides is because he fears for his friend. She says to him, "If," and she names the bad guy, "Cobb, is dead, he can't hurt anybody," thus giving Kline permission to do what he has to do.

WORLD HAS CHANGED SINCE SEPTEMBER 11

No one needs me to tell them that things have changed for all of us since that fateful day in September, 2001. We see it in everything and the recent tragic bombings in London show us anew. Terrorism is a way of life! And, we have a choice on how we are going to deal with it.

We have chosen to take the war to the terrorists. An unpopular war to many Americans but one that undeniably is the right approach to me. It is a strategy and whether it is a somewhat selfish philosophy or not, terrorism has not come back to our shores since 9-11. So, is it working? I think so with a price.

SADDAM HAD TO GO

My complaint about the Iraqi War all along is not the fact we are waging it--at some point Saddam would have had to be taken out. He was insane surrounded by lunatics. To me, our timing was off, and we mismanaged the aftermath in such a way as it is almost embarrassing when you think of the smart people we have in our country. To ignore the obvious: securing the borders, the storehouse of weapons, the national treasuries, disbanding the Army and totally not understanding the mind of the Muslim, just to name a few. It was almost as though the planners sat around some table and said: "How can we screw this up?"

THE RIGHT MIX OF TROOPS

We still do not have the right mix of soldiers in Iraq and there appears to be nobody listening to the many voices dealing with this. I am constantly reading articles by this very smart guy, John Arquila, a Professor of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Always, his articles have a disclaimer: "Views do not reflect official defense department policy." Obviously not because they make too much sense. He advocates among many things: small teams of Special Forces troops who can hunt down the terrorists.

VIETNAM TAUGHT US NOTHING

I echo his philosophy from our experience in Vietnam with some expansion. "Uncle HO" realized that he could wait us out as long as we fought the Vietnam War with conventional soldiers. The American Army in Vietnam was a good one that fought bravely but they were conventional soldiers. Simply stated, the American public would not stand for the war to go on forever. If Vietnam had WW ll front lines or even like Korea, conventional soldiers could have done the job posthaste. However, Vietnam and now Iraq are not conventional. The VC operated among the populace: we couldn't tell foe from friend.

Sound familiar? In Iraq, the complaint of our soldiers is that they know that often when the insurgents strike, they then hide among the populace. Very frustrating. What we need in Iraq as we did in Vietnam are unconventional soldiers: those who will fight the terrorists at their own game: hit and run, chase them down, equip the populace to help, train the police and mostly be unrelenting both in the fight and our resolve to stay till the job is done.

SPECIAL OPERATIONS SOLDIERS

Special Operations troops are volunteers, they are experts in explosives, living off the land, weapons, and they know how to endure. They are the elite of the elite. And, they know how to train indigenous forces. Older and more experienced, these soldiers love this sort of stuff; they are Rangers, Navy Seals, Green berets--they are what are affectionately called, snake eaters. This is what we need in Iraq. And, it is what Professor Arquilla is suggesting but like so much in this war, nobody is listening. God bless us. kt

MILITARY RECRUITMENT

2005-06-12T06:07:00.000-07:00

By all accounts, military recruiters are facing untold hostility just in trying to do their jobs. It is Vietnam revisited: Iraqnam!!! I can surely understand the resistance of parents; afterall, 1700 dead Americans and 6000 wounded in Iraq is no small thing. And, parental resistance is a problem. Recruiters are telling stories of kids signing on the dotted line, getting them all the way to the starting line and whamo, the resistance of the parents is so strong, they back out.

Recruiting is tougher in urban centers obviously but supposedly not in the South and rural areas, where military service is more often considered a duty and a rite of passage. Why is a good question? I would not want to attribute too much to the South in terms of patriotism but facts are facts. From a 2002 Pentagon study of troops on active duty, something like 43% are Southerners. One would be hard pressed to go through a household in Dixie and not find some "connection" to the military. The two states, according to the Study, with the highest percentage of military, is Louisiana and South Carolina. The state with the lowest number serving is MA. Now there is a surprise!

I can still remember walking through my house growing up, there were all my brothers pictures in uniform scattered throughout. The day I went in, I had my picture taken and immediately sent it to my Mom. It could be in our genes.

The recruiters are like anybody, they are working the phones, cold calling--they approach kids at bus stops. They go to high schools. And, they are not very well received! A lot of teachers, counselors and administrators don't want them on campus. This seems a little unseemly to me as they are just doing their jobs. Many of the schools have a kind of subtle benign resistance, they throw their pamphlets away.

The Marines, in many cases, just looking those few good men, can't take everybody; a kid is overweight, another busted for smoking pot, a no go. In my way of thinking, the military is exactly where they ought to be. Shape the fat kid up and pound some sense into a possible drug user. This would happen in an AllServe mandatory community service environment.

To simply oppose kids from going into the military is one thing but there are groups who actively make the recruiters jobs almost impossible. One group called Peace People distributes pamphlets on military life, the draft and how to get out of a commitment once you've enlisted. Recruiters say they face all sorts of insults and screaming on campus. "I don't' think it's like this in Texas," one says, rolling his eyes.

According to one article, at some schools there are "counter recruiters." Another group is called, Raging Grannies. Sometimes, they are not grannies but dressed up like them. Some have on buttons or have signs that make fun of the Army. One sign read, "Travel to exotic foreign lands, meet interesting people and kill them." The Grannies say they just want to tell the full truth about the military.

What is fascinating is that you would think that the military is like some negative institution dedicated to America's destruction as opposed to defense. The Grannies say the recruiters stretch the truth, i. e, once you've signed the enlistment papers, you cannot change your mind. Untrue say the Grannies--a fact that the recruiters forget to mention. The Grannies believe that the military is targeting the disadvantaged and those with few opportunities. I think so. Yes, those with little prospects and why not? What is wrong with this?

Let's face it. The military is no "day at the beach." It is not a democracy. You don't get to choose but then again, it is what discipline is all about. America's youth could use a little of that I would think. Another group called Vets For Peace is very active. One says "When I talk to students, I try to make it very clear to them: the purpose of the military is to kill and in the process, you might be killed." Potential enlistees get a lot of talk from recruiters about travel and money for a college education say the military detractors. But the truth is, most people in the military don't get to travel and only a small percentage ever use their educational benefits. I'm not so sure that is true.

What it boils down to in many ways is respecting the right of kids to make adult decisions. They are not stupid and can be discerning enough to know the smoke and mirrors from real facts. Afterall, they've weaned themselves in buying cars and as consumers. I don't think we have to tell them that being in the Marines, for instance, is a twenty-four hour job nor is it a piece of cake.Once you're in the military, you're under its control 24 hours a day, every day. You can be ordered to do any task, work any hours. It is what's called dedication by Marine standards, it is called the military. And, for most American kids, it would be a good thing.

We're not going to sort out situations like Iraq any time soon but military recruiters are not the problem. They are just doing their jobs and ought to be left alone and certainly not denigrated. Let's respect the rights of kids to choose and in the privacy of their own homes, if they parents want to object, so be it. My thoughts.

RECRUITMENT WOES

2005-06-09T06:44:00.000-07:00

Military Recruitment has gone South based on everything we read. The NY Times recently did an editorial called, The Death Spiral of the Volunteer Army. Pretty good title and I hope they are right! What I have been lobbying for is the return of the draft as part of a Universal Service option. The Volunteer Army worked when there was no war. Kids could go in with the idea of money for college, learn a skill, maybe even see a foreign port or two. Plus, most of them had little prospects for the outside anyway or if they did, couldn't figure out what the prospects were. Parents liked the idea of the military: get the kid out of the house, instill some discipline, teach independence. It was win win.

For years, military recruitment has been a "piece of cake." With the arrival of Iraq, in particular, the cake has turned to stone. We could cogitate our navels for lots of reasons but the idea of maybe chasing some educational money while dodging bullets in Iraq has caused a little loss of appeal. Thank you very much! For years, the Army has had its pick of the numbers of available males, by all accounts, to be around 60 million with the military quota as something like 80,000. What has gotten the old "pucker factor" up is that the Marines, who have great looking uniforms, can't even get their few good men.

American youngsters are no dummies! They read or listen to the news, check out the net, talk to their friends, and although the brass constantly says we are winning, they are looking at the numbers: over 800 Iraqis killed last month and the death toll of Americans creeping up and up. And, recruitment has lost maybe their key ally--parents who are no longer seeing the military as an option for their youngsters. Even if Mary Lou and Johnny could stand a little discipline, they prefer them alive.

The Guard and Reserves have even greater woes in recruitment. For years, the Guard has been called out in Stateside emergencies while allowing plenty of time for a little "grab ass" and swigging a few brews. Suddenly, they are in Iraq, expected to soldier full time. What is this? They didn't sign up for war. And, they have taken a hit for being involved in most of the black eyes in Iraqnam mismanagement.

The Volunteer Army is not working. It is time to figure out another course and the time is NOW!

2005-05-27T07:02:00.000-07:00

WE ARE JUST BSING YOU

On a recent Sixty Minutes episode, an emeritus professor from Princeton talked about his runaway best seller (every book seems to be a best seller even if you haven't heard of it), called ON BS. He talked about BS in our lives. "Nobody really tells the unadulterated truth," he says.

Few of us take the time to delineate BS from lies--its worth the effort and Professor Frankfurt has spelled it out. The interesting little "read" got its biggest boost from Jon Stewart's, The Daily Show, which fits perfectly with this book as the show is a perfect metaphor for the term BS--A fake-news show that walks the line between social commentary and yes, BS on one hand and comic hyperbole and "over the top exaggeration" on the other? And, what makes The Daily Show so good is that they don't care what the truth really is. Consequently, what they have to say is more truth than fiction as it pokes fun at BS, especially government BS.

Jon Stewart was interviewed on his view and said, simply, "BS is a way of life." The biggest purveyor, of course, and the most important is the government. The most egregious incident of government BS is Iraqnam. It started out as weapons of mass destruction. They weren't found, then it became Iraqi Freedom, and now it is the war on terrorism. According to the good professor, "in there somewhere is some shade of the truth."

The little book is a quick read and worth the time. It will not change your life but just might make you more aware of your own BS and that of others.

BLUE COLLARS IN OLIVE DRAB

2005-05-26T06:41:00.000-07:00

This was the title of a NY Times piece which dove tailed into their series on Class in America. Very good and the series has surfaced many of those things that we don't talk about in this country. However, I thought the piece on the National Guard as blue collar workers who peopled the Guard was especially poignant for now that we are war.

In the Volunteer Army, there is nothing more apparent than "class." Officers are mostly taken from the upper middle class, either college graduates and more likely West Point or another of the Service Academies. And, the enlisted ranks are filled from the working class, whatever that comprises. Where the Times got it a little skewed is that it isn't just the Guard but the Army at large. I don't have any hardcore statistics but believe it to be true. The Navy and Air Force are peopled with a higher "class" of soldier. If by "class" we mean education, family background and the "priviledged" in various ways. For opening up this, we thank the Times.

If there is anything that makes the case for the failure of the All Volunteer Army, it is the fact that the working class of Americans are fighting America's wars and nothing is more representative of this fact than the National Guard.

To take the tact of the Times and tackle the hard subjects, think of the most egregious national embarrassment, among many, that we have dealt with in Iraqnam--prison scandal and who was at the center of it? The National Guard. A group of rogue Guardsman whose claim to fame was stupidity but mostly emotionally unsophisticated men and women who were without supervision and proper training. It was and is an abomination and an indictment of the shortcomings of leadership and of the Volunteer Army they have promoted.

According to the article which I think is true. The Guard is almost entirely made up of those from the working class and is a far cry from a cross section of America. And, in my opinion, these patriotic Americans are to be lauded not condemned. During Vietnam days, the Guard was used as a harbinger for those dodging the draft and Vietnam. Think of the President.

The Guard doesn't view its role in class terms but by in large as patriotic duty. Who can complaint about that great attitude! And, let's face it, there's some consolation that in most circles, rising from poverty to the White House is a plus. And, we cannot imagine any politician who doesn't want to tout his common roots.

There's lots to be said for how the Guardsmen see themselves. I especially like the comments from one Sergeant who had served three years on active duty and then joined the Guard. He said, "there are rich people, who are the thinkers. There are blue collar people like us, who are the doers. And there are the poor people, who don't do anything but will follow." This sergeant favors a draft. Good for him. Yes, these are the working class, the salt of the earth: a crane operator, Walmart worker, a fireman, and a prison guard. GOD BLESS AMERICA

HOW TO HONOR HIS SON

2005-05-23T06:04:00.000-07:00

TRICKY

The grieving father, Fernando Suarez del Solar, lost his Marine son, Marine Lance Corporal Jesus Suarez, in Iraq in March of 2003. Devastating! This is the second time I've read about this sad Father. The first time was when he literally went to Baghdad with Global Exchange, an antiwar group. I understand and grief does something to people. He is presently making a campaign out of attempting to talk Latinos out of joining the military. He appears to be relatively successful. Less Latinos are joining up. This is not good news for the recruiting woes of the military.

That having been said, still, this is not just about a grieving father. You have a father who, in his grief, has a need to blame someone for the death of his son. I can understand but war by its very nature means loss. The military is about war and fighting wars. It is not about gaining citizenship, educational opportunities, or career possibilities. It is about war and in war, people are killed. It is a choice Lance Corporal Suarez made.

I think that quite possibly the father of Lance Corporal Suarez might be desecrating more the memory of his son than promoting his cause. It is a "tricky" emotional difficulty. He cannot bring back his son who willingly joined the Marines and bought into their philosophy. He died in service to his country. Taking it a step further, what would it have been had Lance Corporal Suarez lived: he would have easily become a citizen and made a different and better life for himself. Thousands and thousands who have gone on before him have done exactly that.

Peace groups like Global Exchange and the Quaker antiwar group, American Friends Service Committee, are missing the boat in my opinion. They are not achieving their goals with individuals like a grieving father when they would do better to promote something like a Universal Service for America's youth--an AllServe. By so doing, if America's youth were required to AllServe, an American president would be much less likely to send those like Lance Corporal Suarez to war.

RECRUITING INFLUENCERS

2005-05-21T08:36:00.000-07:00

For the past three months the Army has failed to meet its recruiting quotas, and some recruiters have been accused of signing up young men and women they knew were not qualified. The head of the army recruiting command says that recruiting these days is the toughest he's ever seen.

One of my oft repeated mantras used to be that every young man and woman in America could benefit from a time in the military. In fact, with great regularity I use to recommend it to kids at my Church, those I saw on the bus, wherever: "Have you ever considered the military?" I thought that the youngsters who mostly would benefit were the ones who didn't have a clue what they wanted to do with their lives. Little or no resources and for sure were not going to college. They could go in the military and get some discipline, build up some bucks for college and come out with some relative direction. A few actually followed my advice.

And, then something happened to me: I quit recommending the military. Why? In a word, Iraqnam. And, I suddenly discovered that I am, like many Americans who care, are part of the reasons that the Volunteer Military is in a world of hurts. We have cease to be the influencers to our children, our neighbors, our friends. And, according to the head knocker of the Recruiting Command, General Michael D. Rochelle, recognizes this is why it has become so difficult for recruitment. Recruiters have lost the support of parents, grandparents, and friends to influence America's youth to sign up.

And, in a sense, maybe this is a good thing. When we realize that the All Volunteer Military is not working, then we are in a position to consider what we should have had all along, an AllServe military. The All Volunteer force is workable when we are at peace and it has been sold on that basis. It's a job. Now, that we are war, these parents are reluctant to put their children in harms way. For most, they probably haven't thought much about putting other peoples' children at war but now that they do, noway are they going to encourage it.

RECRUITING WOES

2005-05-19T07:26:00.000-07:00

No one denies that our country is facing all kinds of crisis. Maintaining an armed forces at the level to protect and defend is suddenly surfacing as a number one problem. The Army is way behind in recruiting as well as the venerable Marines who have missed their goals for the last three months--unheard of! The head general of the recruiting command, Major General Michael Rochelle, is getting more TV time than Britney Spears. And, the General has been to all the schools: calling Lou Dobbs, "Lou." Lou, of course, is on a break from bashing illegal aliens, to talk to the good general. And, according to the General, the Army is going to hold a conference, a "stand down," as they are calling it and as we did in Vietnam, to figure out the problem. Good luck!

I've got a few suggestions. An AllServe military. A universal service, choices for America's young people, ages 18: they can choose different avenues to be named, i. e., Teach America, etc. But, enough would choose the military to fill the ranks. However, something larger is at stake here rather than just filling the ranks--a chance to restore a sense of community to the country. Think about it. A hundred years ago, a national consensus existed and today, no way--the country is fractured and is in despeate need of repair. What better way than through national service, an AllServe.

The military holds the greatest possibility in restoring a sense of unity to our country. The AllServe military could easily restore a sense of balance and tradition not to mention some sense of discipline. Americans today disagree on fundamentals, ethics, a thousand and one things and this is not going to change. But, we have no unifying institution--an AllServe universal service could do that for us.

The schools have failed miserably in doing what they should be doing, the least of which is to introduce a shared Amcrican culture. A concept of universal service--youngsters being required to give back to America a little something in service. I'm convinced that youngsters, given this opportunity, will respond.

It is unseemly for Generals like Rochelle and these poor young recruiters going out hat in hand begging young men and women to serve their country. AllServe is the answer.

A SHAM

2005-05-15T06:15:00.000-07:00

Base Closings. Every few years, there's a big exercise where the American public, those of us who care, are put through this experience. There's a Commission: they look at all the military facilities. They have staffs, they go for visits, they intimidate the people at these bases. The people at the bases put on a good show, taking them away from what they are suppose to be doing. The Commission goes back to the funny farm, Washington DC, and they make a recommendation to a gutless Congress who lamely accepts the recommendations.

All the while, it is a sham. Basically, all that happens is that we transfer tax payer dollars from one pot to the other. In the long run, nothing is saved for the taxpayer and an exercise in futility takes place. And, there's the psychological effect which is incalculable. A local military presence disappears from the American conscience: a sham.

And, worse of all, the person making the recommendations is the Secretary of Defense, who has been the architect for the worst debacle in modern military history, IRAQNAM. And, we are to trust his guidance. Give me a break!

ALL NEWS IS SLANTED

2005-05-14T07:21:00.000-07:00

The below comments were in response to an email that someone sent regarding a female chaplain at the Air Force Academy who bad mouthed too much religion at the Academy. The full article can be found at the Thursday, May 12, NY Times. The article was sent to me by a chaplain buddy of mine.

Thanks for sharing this article, Lamar. My basic feeling is that probably much has been taken out of context by the news media. All news media slant; whether it is the NY Times, Newsweek, Time or some of the various patron saints of Conservatives: O'Reilly, Fox, etc.; all slant, even us "bloggers." My suspicion is that this is true of the comments of this female chaplain. I started to say, gal, but then decided to be PC. I think the account of her comments were probably slanted.

My basic reaction is "to hell" with the crowd wanting us to be other than what we are. Fight their asses tooth and nail. I know you guys won't remember this but at the big Reserve Chaplain Conference when I was at the Presidio (of San Francisco when it was a full scale military installation), the Chief (of Chaplains) was suppose to show up for the morning talk and cancelled. The 6th Army Chaplain made the mistake of asking me to fill in at the last moment. I developed a talk about an outfit in San Francisco called, "Class Act." They would do anything for you in the way of organizing a party, gathering, etc. and their concept was that it should always show "class." I did a take off on this idea that chaplains should always be who they were: if they were Mormons, Baptists, Catholic, Jewish, whatever--just because they were in the chaplaincy should not change who they were. I thought the speech was fairly benign, nobody reacted to it as I remember. Later in the day, I almost got in a fistfight with the Rabbi that the Chief, (of Chaplains) had hired to waste money fighting the unconstitutionaly (two law students back during the 80s filed a law suit attemtping to get the chaplincy decared unconstitutional. They did it as a school assignment and the Chief of Chaplains overreacted) suit against the chaplaincy. The Rabbi who happened to be a lawyer and a Reserve Chaplain later wrote a book. Anyway, this Rabbi goes back to the Chief's Office and distorts everything. I don't know what happened but as I remember, nobody stood up for me. The moral of this war story is "Let's give this gal the benefit of the doubt" and if the story is accurate, "to hell with 'em, chaplains need to be a "class act" and who they are. Airborne. Power in the blood.

I am much more concerned with spending all this money on sending us these lapel pins, etc. (see previously published blog article). We need an AllServe conscription plan in America and it ain't going to happen with stupid stuff like spending money on us "over the hill" types to help them recruit--how many people have you talked into joining the Army lately? God bless America. What a great country!

SUPPORT THE TROOPS

2005-05-13T06:09:00.000-07:00

Most Americans support the troops to do their fighting for them for sure. Uncle Sam desperately needs new soldiers. How is the best way for him to find them? This was the lead sentence in a story in the NY Times on the critical nature of the recruiting problems for the military. The Army has missed their goals for enlisting America's youth for several months. And, the forever successful and stalwart Marines, have missed their goals for three months in a row. What portends are dire scenarios if shortages reach a stage where truly national security is in peril. In my view, "the powers that be" have only themselves to blame anyway. The military is treated somewhat like the "play thing" of the President and the "illegitimate son of Buffalo Bill" by most Americans who give any thought to the military anyway. They do support as long as it is not their sons and daughters.

The article in the Times tried to help the military with a few ideas, none of which were useful in my opinion. Appealing to the "jobs and training mentality" is definitely not working. For almost the entire life of the Volunteer Army, this has worked. No longer. Once on a planeload of soldiers heading to AIT (advanced individual training), I casually asked about why they had joined the military. To a person, it was training and job skills, educational expenses after the military, and their best offer at the time. Patriotism was never even mentioned.

Idea number (1) Basically, use all sorts of measures now to appeal to young men, especially peer pressure, the opposite sex--smart TV ads, etc. Dumb! Wasting money on advertising with Nascar and in popular magazines are not going to get America's young men to enlist. Give me a break. Already, our voluntary military has reached out to the lower socio category of our populace. We don't have lawyers, doctors, chemists, Indian Chiefs sons and daughters now serving. While the Volunteer Army, up till now, has worked in terms of numbers, it no longer is, given the shortages faced.

The dumbest idea, however, appears to have come from some author of a book called, The Kinder, Gentler Military: How political Correctness Affects Our Ability to Win Wars. (2) She wants to privatize nearly everything outside of the infantry. In other words, let's outsource everything except those who die. If the NY Times article has conveyed her ideas correctly, what she doesn't have a clue about are the workings of the military in combat. You can't take some military contractor and give him/her the dedication to support the troops doing the fighting. There's aspects to the military that defy logic and esprit de corps is one of them. Esprit can't be outsourced. Sure, it might sound good to some civilian sitting in an armchair at the Pentagon but it won't work and will actually hinder. Stupid, stupid.

Almost equally as dumb is an idea of letting illegal immigrants fill the ranks of the military. Now, wait till Lou Dobbs hears this. (Lou is an anchorman on CNN who appears to have made his entire mission in life ridding the borders of illegal aliens). It is bad enough for us to have a volunteer Army where only a small portion of the people incur the risks. What about taking people from another country and letting them fight America's wars. This takes the Volunteer Army to a new level of mercenaries. Now there's some real patriotism, put people in harm's way simply because they are poor and want a better way of life. Why don't we go to the projects in Baltimore and offer the drug dealers the same amount of money they're making to get their troops to enlist. (Idea of Baltimore comes from the TV show, The Wire, which shows the Baltimore drug scene--could be any large city).

All of these silly ideas are surfaced simply because we don't want to face the problem that in order for our Armed forces to solve this problem, we have to admit that what is happening to us now is the result of a lack of foresight and designing a fair and objective system for all of America's young people to serve their country. AllServe. Some may choose the military. Others can choose a variety of things: the Peace Corps, Teach America, other possibilities of which we haven't even thought. In the final analysis, AllServe, problem solved.

THE ARMY WANTS ME

2005-05-11T19:03:00.000-07:00

I am absolutely astounded. Today, in the mail I received a letter, telling me how great I am and thanks for continuing to be an enlistee in the war on terrorism. Signed by no less than the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army. Plus, I got a nice certificate that I can hang on my wall and an army pen to wear in my lapel. And, then I have a couple of decals to put on my car. Wow, what is this! I've got to email my retiree buddies to see that they got the same thing. We are talking beaucoup bucks here. What is this all about? My suspicion is it is an attempt to enlist the retirees in recruitment efforts. If so, I doubt it will be successful but I'm just as concerned over the expense. What would be the motive to do something like this? It is beyond me.

What seems to totally escape the mentality of the "powers that be" is that the very Voluntary Army is the creation of the problem. The Army, for instance, is about to have a "day" when they sit around and try to brainstorm the problem. Why are not America's young people joining up? They didn't invite me to the conference but I could tell them. We have created a mentality in our country which simply put says, "let other people's children fight our wars." And, it is OK when recruiters can talk to kids about educational opportunities, learning skills, adventure but dodging bullets in Iraq and Alfganistan, now that is another story.

We are approaching the problem entirely from a "no win" possibility. It is time to be realistic and float the "AllServe" possibility, at least start the debate.

Abu Ghraib As Reality TV

2005-05-11T06:30:00.000-07:00

Noway could Fox have come up with a better reality show than the Abu Ghraib ongoing embarrassment. Here it is: you have a somewhat older guy and a less than "bright bulb" in the Maryland Guard. They join up to wear the uniform and yuck it up at a meeting once a month. Iraq was not in their plans. He's a cave man type who admitted dragging his former wife around the house by the hair.

This unpromising couple ends up in Iraq in the sensitive job of guarding and interrogating prisoners. For amusement, they take some pictures flashed to a weary world. Older soldier meets another girl, beds her while impregnating the other, eventually court martialed because of abuse of prisoners, goes to jail, ends up rescuing his former girlfriend and Mother of his child from prison herself, meanwhile getting married by proxy to another girl that he met while he was abusing prisoners. And, Elvis does the wedding. No, that's another reality show. The parents accompany the daughter to the proxy wedding as they want to be part of the reality show. Now, tell me, could Fox come up with a better reality show? I don't think so.

And, all the while, all those Officers and NCOs (Non Commission Officers) choose not to be in the reality show as they, like the infamous Enron crowd, claim to know nothing about the abuse. And, yes, Kenneth Lay was not a great buddy of George W. and didn't meet with VP Chaney on energy policy. Thank you very much.

TAINTED EXPERIENCE

2005-05-09T17:34:00.000-07:00

I met this really fascinating guy the other morning, a retired attorney, Korean war veteran and very much opposed to Iraq. I was sharing with him that one of my big dilemmas was the fact that I did indeed support the troops as they are merely doing their jobs. But, I was troubled by the idea that on a wholesale basis, without fail, they are totally in support of their mission. And, that I understand: soldiers have to support what they are doing. His comment took me aback--he said something like "I don't disagree with you but when something is based on a "lie" then everything associated with it is tainted." What he was referring too, of course, was the non existent weapons of mass destruction. THINK ABOUT VIETNAM and what we now know about the Bay of Tonkin incident which propelled us into a wholesale involvement in that sorry war.

Also, my new acquaintance went on to say that what he believes is that we have a civil war in Iraq. And, I will have to admit that there surely appears to be truth here. Think about it: almost daily, Iraqis killed by Sunni Muslims it appears. Today, sixty eight killed. In one incident, this car was turned away from a checkpoint, goes down to a place where Iraqis are trying to get day work. The Iraqis gather around the car which then blows up. This sort of thing has become the rule rather than the exception.

JOINING UP

2005-04-16T16:47:00.000-07:00

Read an interesting article in Reader's Digest about the expensive gadgets and toys parents and grandparents buy their children. It was saying something like "even if one is affluent, still not a good thing." It was indicating that children truly expect to get everything they ask for and that most parents (even if they can't afford it) will still buy. It went on to say that this kind of thinking has even spilled over to older adult children in that they still go to their parents for handouts - that they can't learn to live within their means.

This is not new news but some times I think that maybe, just maybe, what most Americans kids need is to learn sacrifice, team work, being on their on. How about the military?

I see kids, sloppily dressed appearing to be aimless--those kids need to be in the Army. What a chance for youngsters if we could only get them interested. Simply we can't. They don't have too and consequently, they won't (join up).

Think about this: inner city kids in Baltimore as depicted on the HBO program, The Wire. It is a segment of society lost to America in a sense. Kids with no hope, no chance, no future. Many will be dead before they reach adulthood. They live in the "projects" where drugs are a way of life. How to reach those kids! We can't under present circumstances; if we had a draft, an AllServe, they might have a chance. Do you think they will sign up of their own volition? Forget it!

I saw this Marine sign on the window of a recruiting station that said, "We'd promise you (if you joined up): sleep deprivation, mental torture and muscles so sore you'll puke. But we don't like to sugar coat things."

How many American kids would benefit from joining up? MOST!

BREAKING PROMISES

2005-04-12T12:04:00.000-07:00

BREAKING PROMISES

Breaking promises is a way of life for the soldier. Over the years, they have endured, RIFs (reductions in force), downsizing (fired), and SERBs, (selective early retirement boards). Most young soldiers don't think in these terms but any of us old soldiers know that promises made at one point are hollow at another one. It is the nature of the beast. Even as we speak, benefits are being eroded for retirees and some VA hospitals are struggling to provide basic services for returning wounded from Iraq. And, these are just two issues among many. Frances Quarles in the 1500s penned this very appropriate poem which applies so aptly to today's soldier,

"Our God and soldier we alike adore.
When at the break of ruin, not before.
After deliverance both alike requieted.
Our God forgotten, and our soldier's slighted."

CAN WE AFFORD THE VOLUNTEER ARMY? moneywise or emotionally?

Based on the costs in Alfganistan and Iraq, we may quickly be closing in on what I call the Iraqnam quagmire. Congress wants to add more troops, by some estimates, at least 40,000. We can't recruit for the 500, 000 authorized even. How are we going to get these? And, how can we afford them. John Kerry says for instance, that to add 40 thousand to the regular military would cost 4.5 billion to attract and retain troops. And, where are we going to get these troops short of a draft? What would be the incentive to join up?

STRETCHED UNBELIEVABLY THIN

2005-04-08T11:27:00.000-07:00

No soldier starts a war-they only give their lives to it. Wars are started
by you and me, by bankers and politicians, excitable women, newspaper editors, clergymen who are ex-pacifists, and congressmen with vertebra of putty. The youngsters yelling in the streets, poor kids, are the ones who pay the price. Father Francis Duffy

Our military is stretched unbelievably thin. We have 310, 000 military serving in 120 countries. For example, in an NPR (National Public Radio) program recently, I heard a young Marine interviewed who served in the African country of Darfor. I didn't even know we had troops there. And, in Iraq, with 40% of the Guard and Reserves making up the force, we are in deep kimchee (kimchee, a type of vegetable in Korea which literally is fermented and to be in deep kimchee, means that you are where it is buried in the process and literally walking on it deep in the ground while it is marinating; a little like the crushing of the grapes in wine country. Deep kinchee is not a good experience). How can we sustain this number of troops, many are already serving repetitive tours.

Where would we be if we truly had to fight another conflict?--philosophy is out the door. The draft would be our only possibility. Now is the time to plan and act! Obviously, there is scant support for the draft in Congress or with those in power.

I'm convinced that the part of the public that cares would accept a draft if it were part of a bigger plan. A National service plan in which young people could still volunteer for the military but have options of other types of service.

WE CAN'T MEET OUR QUOTAS

2005-04-08T11:13:00.000-07:00

CAN WE LAST ANOTHER YEAR? I hope not.

The All Volunteer Army is strained to the max bigtime. When I first started talking about restoring the draft or mainly to have some kind of AllServe, I didn't think we stood a chance for really seeing the return of it. Now, I'm not so sure. The non genius Secretary of Defense's plan of transforming the military into a high tech mobile force simply has lost so much credibility that we are close to crisis. Rumsfeld, if anything, is stubborn; failed policies in Iraq, a tenure marked by one misstep after another. He's invulnerable, however, it appears, so living with him is a given. However, forces beyond his control seem to be shaping up. The Volunteer Army keeps dwindling.

Early on, I said that to bring back a semblance of the draft, American kids had to quit volunteering and it appears they are. Attempts by the military to offer greater incentives and appeals to patriotism don't seem to be hacking it.

The draft ended in 1973 and seemed to be assigned to the trashpile of history. Maybe not! The Marines have missed their recruiting goals for the last two months and the Army can't fill it's ranks of 500,000 and the National Guard and Army Reserve is way down. They are trying to buck up but the goals keep going south. For the first time of recent note, the military bureaucrats are admitting they have a problem

THE GALLEY SLAVES NEED TO ROW HARDER

A friend of mine calls what the military is doing now is something business often does. In a sales organization, a style of management that doesn't work usually is to bring in some manager with a whip and tell the galley slaves to row harder: sell more, do more cold calling. Whip. Whip--the movie, Glengarry, Glenross approach. These guys in the movie are selling swampland in Florida with a motto of lie, cheat, steal...all in a day's work. Translated to the military, it shakes out to be more recruiters, get your quota, pull them in at any cost.

How this translates is for the military to lower standards or in one ploy: uping the age to join up. If you are 39, you can still join the Reserves or Guards. Please! The military at the fighting level is a young man's game. It would be like putting some aged football type into the backfiedof the Greenbay Packers and expecting him to perform like a 22 year old. Galley Slave approach: bring in a new advertising agency.

But, at the bottom line, parents and potential soldiers are realizing, "this ain't no game." I can be told anything by a recruiter but my next step may be Iraq. I think not.

MISSING THE POINT

2005-04-08T11:01:00.000-07:00

When I talk to people which I do constantly about some sort of Universal service, what I call AllServe, those who think about it can give arguments out the gazoo: I understant. Reps Charles Rangel and Pete Stark gave the draft a symbolic try in Congress which got "lost at the train station." The draft is political machinations and hot air say some. All the "talking heads" have some general view and scenario of how the Volunteer Force is working. The simple fact exists that if Iraq drags on, how are we going to play the role we have set for ourselves without some sort of draft: what if North Korea or Iran truly erupts.

Most who do any thinking about our Forces tout the success of a Volunteer Army. The success resides in numbers only--the volunteers are good but in pure terms are mercenaries--they are being paid to fight. My retort constantly is that I don't have any real arguments for these views that the Volunteer Force is working. The only unrefutable argument I have is that the Volunteer Army simply is not representative of our country. And, it is not fair to have only one portion of our society bear the burdens of military service.

Presently, we are like teetering on a needle. If certain things happen, then we'll be OK but if the direction goes toward more conflict/terrorism, our stuff is in the streets--we are not ready or able to counter. We simply don't have the troops. Sure, if the Iraqis begin to police their own country and we can begin to bring home our troops, assuming the present "powers that be" would do that, the All Volunteer Force is what worked.

During the "cold war" when there really were no bullets flying, the All Volunteer force worked like a gem. However, we doubt the "powers" will disengage from Iraq or the Middle East since we are already there. Ever hear of the NeoCons who are driving our foreign policy--way too much influence from those who got us into Iraq with faulty thinking in the first place.

We would be much better off to bite the bullet NOW and come up with a plan for an AllServe conscription plan. Even if it is years out, to put it on the table, to prepare, to be ready. We need to do this now and not "hope that all things are going to work out." They're not.

The Vounteer Army Is A Subculture of American Society

2005-03-28T13:40:00.000-08:00

SMOKE AND MIRRORS. The Pentagon is at it again. Base closings. Talk about a sham. What happens is one pot of money is taken from one taxpayer's coffers and put in another. Nothing is truly saved. The false savings create a breakdown in a basic American values of AllServing.

The Presidio of San Francisco is a typical example. It was a thriving military post with a long history. Over the years, it was a beacon in an ocean of the Left Coast. It was closed in a long and arduous procedure, turned over to the National Park Service which in turn made it into the most expensive park in America . And, probably the least visited by mainstream Americans.

The Presidio of San Francisco is a fabulous place for San Francisco in particular. But, it's a long shot from "savings." And, there's a psychological thing with the Presidio and with most military installations that are closed. The military presence goes and the surrounding communities are deprived of a basic symbol of American democracy. The institution of the military disappears and they don't see anyin in Uniform. The civilian populace has no interactions with men and women serving their country. Consequently, the military becomes more of a subculture of the American society. Nobody thinks of this sad fact. Congress will close bases on the pretense of saving money. A SHAM!

AllServe Volunteer

2005-03-18T16:37:00.000-08:00

I'm so excited about the possibility of you helping in the AllServe project. I want to tell you my ideas and see where we can go from there. Overall, what I think we have to do is identify if there's anyone else who is doing what we want to do. What I liked about your ideas was that they sounded exactly what I think: some sort of universal service would (1) unite the country (2) provide a sense of pride in what it means to be an American (3) give America's youth a sense of the shared experience (4) and most importantly, it would make our leaders more reluctant to send our sons and daughters to war.

I don't want to answer questions nobody is asking but basically feel that we need some sort of national organization. We might need to form a nonprofit for donations. Regardless, let's begin the dialogue. My thinking is that we have 300 million people in this country and there's got to be some of the Americans that care who would like to see this happen. There might be all kinds of groups to get united. I've thought that at some point, if we could enlist various groups, we have to apply political pressure. Right now, there is none. And, there's many philosophical reasons why not: the selling of the volunteer Army, so few Americans invested in any sort of national service, and lack of true vision and then the hassle of politics itself.

There might be many groups interested, hard sell as it might be: churches, Vets, peace groups, a monumental task. Let me know your thoughts or some ideas on how for us to proceed.

GAYS AND THE VOLUNTEER ARMY

2005-03-12T11:31:00.000-08:00

GAY WARRIORS. And, I don't mean "happy." This is an issue that continues to surface and now is brought even more to the forefront with the critical shortage of troops. This is one of those almost unique American ideas; most armies don't even consider such an issue. However, the American style democracy is a pretty unique thing. Bill Clinton tried to deal with something like an "open" sexuality which didn't work. (And, I'm not talking Monica). We ended up with the "Don't Asked, Don't Tell" policy which didn't' please anybody.

It's estimated that at least 10,000 gay troops have been discharged. Among those are some with highly critical skills: percentage wise, this may sound small since we have well over 2 mil in uniform. The Economist, a mag I don't read very often had one of the best overall views of the problem that I've read. They said something like, "The reasons that we have such a Neanderthal policy toward gays is a mentality rooted in three tiers: (1) gay soldiers would hurt teamwork and morale. On the battlefield, soldiers do not fight for King and Country; they fight for each other--for love of their "band of bothers", as Shakespeare put it or Easy Company of TV fame. (2) Gays serving openly could actually be bad for recruitment. (3) An army reflects the mores of the societies from which they are drawn and America, it is said, is unwilling to allow its heroes to be gay."

This is all pretty iffy in a sense. I persoanlly have to come down on the side of gays serving. Afterall, there is a concept of pluralism that the military has always honored: the rights of the minority are not dwarfed by the majority. But, that having been said, it is tricky. Because of the Volunteer Army, we have a very conservative Officer and NCO (Non Commissioned Officer) core; any spin can be put on it but there's a reason that most of the military votes for the President and supports strongly our efforts at war. They have to believe in what they are doing. It is in their psyche. And, you can take this to the bank: Officers and senior NCOs are a bunch of conservatives, often ultra conservatives. End of discussion.

Although The Economist claims that attitudes are changing and discharges are actually down, my belief is that this may be true moreso because of the shortages that exists and the "stretched thin" mentality than attitudes softening. The war fighters are a bunch of macho, kill types that must exist to have a competent military. War is No Day At The Beach even if the media often acts like it is. Combat soldiers are trained to kill and there's no dressing that concept up with PC type pronouncements. If we had an AllServe military, I have no doubt that the idea of gays serving would be no issue. And, this is probably true with support units but not so with elite Special Operations troops who are just a millisecond shy of being militiamen.

I personally think that there are many minefields in this social issue. In the present military, we all are better off with a "closet" mentality as relates to gay soldiers. Soldiers aren't stupid and they know who their gay breathren are and most don't give it a thought but don't want to talk about it.

WHERE ARE THE PROTESTERS

2005-02-17T11:05:00.000-08:00

You are definitely not the only one who hates this war but what I can't figure is why we aren't hearing more protests and questioning. I read this morning that the President is asking for an addt'l $81.9 billion which will bring the total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan to $300 billion. More than the entire Vietnam war. I think this is unconscionable and I truly fear for what our children and grandchildren will have to deal with in the future. sf

ANSWER. My basic belief is that we don't hear more protests because most Americans are relatively uninvolved in the war--their lives are not effected, they don't have one single investment--no kids, nothing is changing how they live, etc. It is pathetic and morally reprehensivle that Americans are willing to let other parent's children fight their war.

NOT MY CHILDREN

2005-02-12T17:31:00.000-08:00

What about Iraq? I'm already seeing the news coverage shift; now not on page one or even two but eight. Not sure what this means. And, I'm not so sure that we have this much support for troops other than mouthing although Congress is doing some good things like raising the death benefits, long overdue. But, not sure that there's not a false support: more of a detachment, not my children. If you think that serving your country is so great, then why would you not want your children to serve.

In a sense, I have been totally off base in my thinking that many would think that a form of the draft would be good. Especially vets. Not so. One of my best buddies, a real hero, was a Marine platoon leader in Nam, wounded badly; but, when I questioned him about draft, thinking he would be all over it as great. He was vehemently against it! Why? Didn't want his two boys to serve? Interesting.

Military recruitment

2005-02-03T17:13:00.000-08:00

Once I sat in a parking lot outside a big mall. Two military recruiters walked by: one a Marine, dressed to the nines. I love those Marine uniforms and the other in Army greens, both spiffy! What attracted my attentiion was not so much them but their actions. It was kind of like they were stalking this kid. Later on they walked up to him and began talking. I was reminded of Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. I don't know what was said but hey gave him some literature and off he went. For a moment, I felt incredibly sorry for the Recruiters.

First of all, they are under enormous pressure. Most of them are "detailed" to it for a certain period of time. They have to produce. They are under pressure--most are career soldiers and if they don't do the job, will find themselves at a career dead end. They shouldn't have to do this: stalk youngsters, spend time talking them into the military. It is demeaning. It should be a privileged to serve.

There's a big hullabaloo in recruiters telemarketing High School seniors. How did they get the numbers? How dare they do this? There's a kind fo beliegerance: how dare a military recruiter try to talk to my kid. Disdain!

And, the military falls further behind especailly in the National Guard; they are as much as 30 percent behind what they should have. The military has doubled its advertising spending, to recruits. Standards have been lowered with benefits while signup bonuses have been increased. The Army is bombaring MTV with ads, suggesting a visit to Goarmy.com to play a video game. It has sponsored a NASCAR entry and even has a dragster.

What does all this mean. Plain and simple it means that the American public is distancing itself from the military. It is what having a Volunteer Army does. As long as the public can keep the military isolated to only those kids who want to serve, then the vast majority of kids can be free to pursue their lives at college or whatever it might be sans military. Most parents don't want to take the chance of having their eighteen year old talk to some salesman's pitch on the military.

I also wonder something else. Is all this hype and glory in honoring the soldier truly sincere on the part of the public. With the fervor of "honoring the military," I've begun to wonder. Is this a kind of projection: we really don't want to feel guilty or bad

THE SO CALLED ELITE DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY

2005-01-30T11:06:00.000-08:00

In a very interesting article, Military service can open the eyes of country's ‘elite' http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050118/opcom18.art.htm, Kathryn Roth-Douquet, an attorney, had some really idealistic thoughts. The article was inspired by a dinner party she attended and the subject of the draft surfaced: “Without one,” a woman asserted, “they'll never get my educated and talented boys.” I'm sure she's right. Rich people simply don't "do" the military. Ms. Roth-Douquet went on to say that 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. Ms. Roth-Douquet laments that the real losers are the young and privileged adults themselves.

Ms. Roth-Douquet married a Marine Corps officer and obviously her attitude changed. She says, "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.' "

RIGHT ON! In the movie, Fahrenheit 9-11 (I must confess that I'm not big on Michael Moore), however, there's a telling point where he confronts several congressmen, Democrats and Republics, about whether they would have their kids serve in the military. To me, it is the best part of the movie, handing them paperwork to give to their kids to join up. Talk about stammering and stuttering! What I would suggest to Ms. Ross-Duquet is to get involved in a movement to start a military draft or something on that order.

Kids are not going to join the military overall, not in the environment we're in. What we have in the Volunteer Army, especially with the Marines and those organizations that have always been volunteer, are a patriotic subculture. The rest of the kids in the military are there mainly because they had few options: they didn't want to go to college or couldn't. Minorities, for instance. We're in a situation where the poor, relatively speaking, fight our wars and the affluent stay home. Advocates of the Volunteer Army claim it's middle class; we really don't have a clue who the middle class is. It's all definition. I'm more inclined to think that many of those in military come from more the "working poor." This is all speculation but what we absolutely know is that there are few sons and daughters of bankers and lawyers and doctors in the military.

The bottom line to me is that we need the draft for other than manpower. We need it as a nation to have a unifying experience for all young Americans. Ms. Roth-Douquet, like any of us who see the big picture of what a draft or some sort of universal AllServe would mean, are facing a tall order. She's abosolutely right though: 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. True, oh so true.

VOLUNTEER ARMY ISN'T WORKING

2005-01-29T07:13:00.000-08:00

Recently, Open Forum, in the San Francisco Chronicle, the featured article dealt with my favorite subject: Draft Talk Premature-An All Volunteer Military Can Still Work. My initial reaction: It has never worked. Or, it all depends on what one’s definition of "work" is. Sure a Volunteer Army can work if we continue to allow other people's children to fight our wars and we have no qualms about other people's children dying for us.

A Volunteer Army may seem to work if all we talk about are quotas and numbers. As one who has served in the military for 29 years and has been drafted and even scammed the draft board with various deferments, I see that we are at a point when the country needs a semblance of a draft more than the draft needs the country. Financially, if we continue to drain our resources in impossible situations like Iraq, a military draft may be our only course. However, there really is a much bigger issue. I can assure you, as can scores of drill sergeants. retired military, and even draftees of the Vietnam era: a two or three year hitch in the military could be the best thing that could happen to America's young men and women. We have to quit being deceived by the spin masters and those who don't "get it" about the draft.

The article touted an idea that the military is a "skills" based military and must be taught within the Army is simply false. Most of the jobs are comparable to those in civilian life, especially the ones that require science and math skills. Driving tanks and operating the complex computer systems in them are not much more sophisticated than many of the computer games these kids are playing now anyway. The article went on to say that because the military is all volunteer, there are far fewer discipline problems. I doubt it. If the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and soldiers refusing to go on missions is any indication, All Volunteer Army discipline has a ways to go.

Volunteering is nothing new in the military. The Navy, Marines, and Air Force have always been volunteer. In the Army, elite units like the 82d Airborne and Special Forces are volunteer and proud of it. Another bad idea in this article, in my opinion, is that military leaders are thoroughly convinced that a return to the draft could "only weaken the armed forces," is naive." What would we expect the generals to say? For years, when I was in the Army, I was amazed to hear the top leaders tout the success of the Volunteer Army. I was living with the volunteer Army and I wanted to say, Give Me a Break.

At the top levels of the Army, the brass is permeated with a "can do" attitude. You want a job done, you’ve got it. Rarely does someone stand up and say, "Whoa, we don’t have the resources." Rather it is an idea that we will make it succeed, regardless. And, more often than not they do by throwing money at it--taxpayers money, I might add. And, let’s face it, the top military leadership has become so politicized that we need to listen to them with a jaundice ear at best. Any general above the rank of one star is suspect. Either they become cheerleaders for various policies or simply "roll over" and say nothing. For most general officers above the rank of one star, you can rest assured that they didn't get to where they are on merit. It doesn't mean they are not good leaders, it merely means that they may or may not be the best we have.

Another false principle in this particular article was that the draft violates the hiring of people; i. e., doesn't give them a choice. Sure it does. The right to be an American ought to come with some price. It doesn’t have to be the draft, but some sort of universal service--AllServe: teaching, peace corps, a host of possibilities. We are a smart people and could figure this out. It ought to cost every American something to be a member of this great country. We squandered a noble chance after 9-11 when young Americans were lining up in droves to sign up, almost a WW ll experience. Think Pat Tillman, the NFL football star who gave up millions and lost his life in Afghanistan. Tillman's story is inspiring to the max. We have scores of youngsters out there who would be today's heroes if they were nudged a little. But, they are not going to "step up" in a Volunteer Army because they don't have too.

The Volunteer Army is an abysmal failure in terms of being representative of the American society. The spin masters in the military and in politics proclaim endlessly its success. It just ain’t so. Our Army comes from mostly a pool of kids that joined up with the idea of earning money for college or couldn't figure out what else to do and rarely with an idea of "service to country." They are a group of great kids who simply didn't have many options.

I think it was quite significant that both presidential candidates made a big point that they didn’t want the draft. Shame on them! They are denying young Americans the very best chance to truly be American and it is our loss. In the movie, Buloxi Blues, the last scene you see is this young Neil Simon, riding on a train, returning home to New Jersey and commenting on his Army life. Drafted, Simon was suddenly thrown with all these strange people. Simon's story could be told a thousand times over in a draft Army. He says, "as I look back, a lot of years later, my time in the Army was the happiest time of my life. Not because I liked the Army, but I liked it for the best reasons, I was young. I didn’t like most of those guys then but today I love every damn one of them."

WHAT WAR?

2005-01-28T13:56:00.000-08:00

In an article in the NY Times, entitled, Iraqi War Veterans Turn Critics, one of the vets mentioned in the story is Robert Acosta who has joined an outfit called, Operation Truth. In Baghdad, a grednade was tossed into Acosta's humvee shattering his legs plus he lost his right hand. Once back in the states and viewing the carnage from afar, while recuperating and watching and reading, his doubts over the war surfaced. He is already facing the difficulties of dealing with the VA. I hate to tell him but it's going to get worse. At one point he had to duct tape his prosthesis. Awful!

Sometimes, when people asked about his war injury and he tells them it happened in the war. More likely than not, they say "What war?" Such a comment is but one example of how little most Americans even know about the sacrifices of our brave young men and women. They don't know because they are are not involved and have no investment. We have no draft, they have no obligation. Their lives have not changed! WHAT WAR INDEED?

NATIONAL GUARD IS HURTING

2005-01-27T06:28:00.000-08:00

The National Guard is hurting so much in terms of recruiting that they want to increase their token $50 bonus to $15,000--is that a jump or what! To me, this is downright scandalous and something that we have come to accept without blinking an eye: paying young people for serving their country. We are not talking about a fair wage here for services rendered. We are talking enticements to join the military and to fight.

What sort of message does that send! There are many problems with it, not the least that that it is immoral. Paying other people's children to fight our wars is simply not right any way you cut it. It debases patriotism. It is not a matter of begrudging a bonus to those who join up. We could make the argument that we do it in business all the time. But, this is the military where a soldier might ultimately be asked to lay down his life for his country.

Will the military get any takers? Of course. Take a young eighteen year old with little or no prospects and offer him fifteen grand and see what he does. He doesn't think past that new car or buying his sweetheart a ring. He has hit the jackpot, grabbed the brass ring! Give me a break! The last thing on his mind is patriotism and dying for his country. What is equally just as bad is the fact that we think this is perfectly fine.

ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corp) as an option for military service

2005-01-27T05:33:00.000-08:00

This is a tricky question. Recently, my nephew sent me an email from a friend giving his son views on an Air Force ROTC scholarship. I thought the views were objective but it did get me to thinking about this question. His comments: "I can think of a few things you ought to consider before taking the dive:- Military isn't for everyone ... you have to be able to accept the authority structure and sometimes rigid way of life (the latter mostly applies to training, not your time on active duty)- We are now an 'Expeditionary Air Force' ... every Airmen is a candidate to deploy in support of operations around the world -- this is both exciting and perhaps a bit frightening and it shouldn't be taken lightly- You'll have additional requirements on top of your academic load- Military training -- Air Force ROTC training is no Paris Island(Marines) but it's not a cakewalk either- Your time & choices aren't completely your own (reference first bullet)- It won't always be fun or easy -- have to want to stick to it"

What I liked about his comments was the positive but realistic view of advice to a High School senior looking for a way to pay for college. And, without commenting in general, what about this for an entry into military service? It is a good one but again has significance since we do not have any sort of manditory military service. Those who mightchoose the ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corp) go with a motive of financing their education. Whereas if we had an AllServe environment, the motive might be more altruistic. Just a thought.

All Volunteer Army is UnAmerican

2005-01-25T06:58:00.000-08:00

About twice a week, I get together with about six or eight of my buds. One is a dentist, another a retired hiway patrolman, one a precious jewel dealer, an architect, a retired fireman, a businessman. We are a bunch of old white guys. What makes us a little different in my opinion is that we are Americans who are involved and invested in what’s going on in our country. We care. All but one has served in the military. Recently, our discussion centered around the military draft. I presented my idea of Universal Service or AllServe. Our dentist didn’t have much to say since he was fairly new to the group. Most of these guys had heard everything I had to say anyway. So, I asked the dentist, “Doc, what do you think about the military draft?” I’m for it he shot back. Wow, my one buddy said, “I think I need to make you guys a pair of matching earrings.” Then came the big question. “OK, that’s good but are you for it for your own children serving.” HESITATION.

I had been this route before and knew the questions to asked. Many people are for military service especially if it does not involve their own children. The Draft as a philosophical issue is one thing but involving their own family is another. Upon further prodding, my doc buddy said, “Yes, he did believe in it for his own children.” This is not totally pure as it is not in real time but I do understand. But, for now, this is good enough.

The doc’s main thing is that the draft would be great for all the disenfranchised kids in America. Those with no prospects, hanging out on street corners. Nothing to do. The Military Draft would be their ticket to a future. I agree, it surely is one element of the importance of the Draft. My good buddy, the retired hiway patrolman, a former Marine, related a military war story about something he called the Motivation Platoon in boot camp. When a young Marine in boot camp wants to quit or is messing up, anything that the drill sergeant deems that would mean he is not conforming to what a Marine should be, he is put into the motivation platoon. In the Motivation Platoon, he is given a gigantic hammer and literally sent all over Camp Pendleton breaking big gigantic boulders into little boulders. A few days of this and these guys are motivated. They move back to regular training and complete it and are truly proud of themselves. Does this happen? I thinks so. And, guess what! The unmotivated suddenly become motivated. I can’t remember the book but it came out a few years ago on the mentality of the Marines in turning youngsters with no purpose into Marines: Sempi Fi!

Recently, in Congress, several Congressman called for a return to the draft. It really wasn’t a serious effort. Relatively, politically motivated with no idea that the proposed legislation would pass. It didn’t and was mostly a sham. The President says the Draft is not needed. These generals keep parading on TV talking about how successful the Volunteer Army is; and some DOD (Department of Defense) weenie consultant volunteered how infeasible the Draft is because it would take years to get geared up. What they don't “get” is that there's more to the reinstatement of the Draft than” bodies.” How about service to country, sacrifice and of course, AllServing--the rich and the poor. All would serve, 18-40.

What we have in the Volunteer Army is incredibly unrepresentative of our democracy. Downright unpatriotic. We have a small segment of our society bearing the burden of war. The best examples are minorities: 25-35% of active duty are minorities while in the population, minorities represent 12%. Why? Many reasons, probably but for years, the military has been a gateway for minorities to get equal chances, escape the dregs of segregation and poverty and advance on an equal playing field. When I was in Korea in the eighties, at my Camp, we had five African American Sergeants Major. Three of them were female. Each had inspiring g tales about how they had overcome and how the military had given them a chance. This is great. And, while wonderful, illustrates the lack of representation in our military. AllServe is now.

UNIVERSAL SERVICE

2005-01-23T05:53:00.000-08:00

UNIVERSAL SERVICE is an idea that has been batted around for awhile. My idea is that it is somewhat like the idea of Americorps which is not a bad idea and is an opportunity for America’s youngsters. I don't know where Americorps is in terms of what is going on now. I surely support the concept. Americorps is a program that allows 18-24 year olds to spend a year or two in community service, doing everything from teaching kids to read to shoveling snow for seniors.

Since September 11, especially for awhile we saw a wave of increased interest from young Americans looking for ways to give back and fulfill their roles as citizens. The one who immediately comes to mind is Pat Tillman, the professional football player who gave up millions to serve in the military. He was killed by "friendly fire" in Afghanistan.

At one time, Congress was thinking of expanding Americorp from 5O,OOO to 25O,OOO. The article I read said the Americorps volunteers earn about $93OO a year with about an equal amount as an education benefit. This is not going to make anybody rich but we are talking of service to one's country.

The military could be the same sort of idea and grouped under the Universal Service idea--a year of mandatory community service for all 18 year olds--about 25 million a year, to be inducted into two years minimum compulsory national service. Drafted into a Universal Service with no ands, ifs or buts--AllServe. Not like the old days of the draft when the only ones who ended up in the military were those who couldn't get a deferment, didn't know any influential people or simply couldn't come up with any excuse.

As a country, we would need some innovative minds to figure out how to create and implement a situation where AllServe. We are smart people and can do it. The opposition would be enormous. We have fallen into the trap of thinking that we don't need to have a compulsory service for America's young people. We have the Volunteer Army. Wrong thinking. The Volunteer Army is a far cry from representative Americans.

A major benefit of AllServing is a chance for all young Americans to experience a shared existence. This has not happened since Vietnam and then was a long way from being equitable. Simply, those of privilege often dodged the draft in one form or another. If AllServed, kids from all socio economic backgrounds would have a chance to know each other--doctor's kids would serve right along side carpenter's kids. WE NEED A UNIVERSAL SERVICE.

Restoring The Draft

2005-01-22T08:34:00.000-08:00

When I talk to people about restoring the draft, immediatly, I get the nobody is home look. They don't take the idea seriously as they don't expect anything to happen. Most don't think about it and if forced too, are simply against the draft. The reasons are many but I think it is a lack of understanding of what the draft would do.

First of all, we are not going to have a draft! During the election campaign both candidates said, NO. It was even in the Republican platform. The Congress even had a vote on a bill sponsored by Congressman Rangel and a few other Democrats. Overwhelmingly defeated! The good Congressman's motivation in introducing the bill was like all politicians, in my opinion, political but trying to make a statement. He has said, which I agree with: it is totally unfair to have a small segment of society bearing the burden for war: i. e., the Volunteer Army. He is primarily talking about minorities. I would take it several steps further. It is morally reprehensible to have the most vulnerable of our society act as our surrogates in war. An example of the ambiguity of the subject, a guy like Don Hewitt who created the TV newsmagazine, 60 minutes, went so far as to say that we should hire mercenaries to fight our wars: an almost direct quote, "we don't want our young boys and girls fighting our wars." I could hardly believe it.

The scare tactic of fighting the return of the draft became one of the causes of the "anybody but Bush/hate Bush stances during the election. But, in my opinion, the groups against the draft totally missed the point. I remember reading this "hit" email about the draft. What those who developed the email, especially the peace groups, or any of those who oppose the war, don't "get" is that a form of the draft would accomplish their goals much better than any possibly thing they can do. The draft or better still, a type of Universal Service would be a good thing. If AllServed, it would be about or should be about serving the country. Giving back for all the great benefits that the country has given us. And, if we AllServed, we would have a president who would be incredibly reluctant to commit us to war because he or she would know they had to pay a price for that decision. This includes the Congress that might support him.

George W. did not have to pay a price when he made the decision to invade Iraq because only a small segment of the society has any personal involvement. It only become a national issue because of the election. If it had not been for the election, we would, as most are doing anyway, going about our business. Through the voluntary Army, which is terribly unsuccessful other than numbers, only those youngsters who have little or no options end up in the military. This is not a putdown of the American soldier. It is an indictment of us as a nation. For those who care, letting someone else's children fight our wars is morally reprehensible.

Inequities of war

2005-01-22T08:00:00.000-08:00

In a sense, the inequities of war are nobody's fault. But, here is a good example: on NPR recently, a kid in Iraq, in a support unit, is a bigtime bird watcher. He has chronicled all his bird watching in Iraq and put it on a blog. Interesting! This is an example of the incredible ingenuity of soldiers. He has been doing this since he was fourteen and so this isn't something new. He is in the National Guard and does have a job but most of it is based on where he is in the country: a safe environment by in large, not involved in life and death struggles. In many ways, able to take his year and do something useful. He is a support soldier and in a sense has not heard a shot fired in anger. Based on his great love of birding, his year in Iraq has been great. He has made good money, comes home a hero, life is good.

Contrast this with a combat soldier in Iraq. On patrol, life on the line everyday. Seeing his buddies killed, wounded. The "birder" and the combat soldier is hardly equitable in the big picture. This isn't a putdown of the "birder" soldier. More power to him for using his year productively. But, an examble of the inequities of war.

Same in Vietnam. We had nine support soldiers for every single combat soldier. Many lived the "life of Riley" so to speak. After I came back, I met this Sergeant Major who was in Vietnam for five years. Know what his job was? Ferrying USO show girls or the local entertainers to various NCO (non commissioned officer) clubs in and around Saigon. He told me that he made so much money that when he went to his next assignment he paid cash for his house.

Why is this important? It is only in terms of understanding. All war time soldiering is not equal.