UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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?

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.