I want to make it abundantly clear: if there's anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.Quote from RedState. Many people have commented on Rangel's statement as being anti-military, or at least re-stating the Kerry Democratic line "military members are stupid." But so far I have not seen anyone comment on the inherent conflict of Rangel's recent statement with his support of reinstituing the draft.
According to records and his bio, Rangel served four years in the Army, from 1948 to 1952, attaining the rank of Sergeant, which is not bad for a four year stint. Rangel also served in Korea, where he won a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star. But keep in mind that Rangel served in the Army at the time of the draft and I don't know if he was drafted or volunteered for the Army, but it is clear that Rangel considers himself a smart man and by his own statement, no smart man would volunteer for military service if it meant war time service.
Now if you follow Rangel's logic, no smart man or woman would join the military if there options for a "decent career" available to him or her. Thus, the only reason that Rangel can see for joining the military are either economic, i.e. there are no other options for a "decent career" or the individual lacks intelligence. While no doubt that a number of people join the military because there are no other viable options for them, more than just a few join for other reasons. Similarly, a lot of people in the military are no Nobel Prize physicists, but the same can be said of any profession.
Rangel has been outspoken about his desire to reinstitute the draft and therefore replace a professional all-volunteer force with a conscripted military whose effectiveness would be diminished by the inclusion of conscripts. How does Rangel personally reconcile these two positions? Rangel is not worried about smart people, but about rich people. If a person as "decent career" opportunities, then in Rangel's mind that means that person is probably white, rich, or at least middle class, and attends better schools than those available to poor, minority kids who can't possibly be smart enough to avoid joining the military. So in a subtle and roundabout way, Rangel is insulting his own constituents, whose lack of decent "career" options means that they have no choice but to join the military even if they are smart like him.
Rangle ignores some basic facts about the military. What the military offers smart men and women it one of the few true meritocracies around. No matter what you background is, a person can join the military and advance from lowly enlisted to the highest ranks. Take for example, Admiral Jeremy Boorda, who entered the Navy as an enlisted man and become the 25th Chief of Naval Operations before taking his own life in 1996.
So Rangel does not believe smart men would willingly join the military. Therefore, in order to get smart men (at least) into the military, we are going to conscript them. That is, compulsory service against the will, and at least according to Rangel, the better sense of such smart individuals. No matter what reason a person has to join the military, it was a voluntary choice. But a conscript has no desire to be in the military, will actively resent being in the military and will place their own personal survival and comfort above those around him. Esprit de corps will be almost impossible to achieve and maintain in such condidtions. Even the smartest person, in a place against their personal wishes, will not act in such a way as to achieve their full potential.
Rangel's efforts at making the military into the next battleground for class warfare will serve no purpose other than to diminish the effectiveness of the greatest fighting force ever to take the field of battle. National security is at stake and that is no place for class warfare.
No comments:
Post a Comment