The Cold War Against Recruiters
Military — By Joe Carter on March 25, 2008 at 12:14 amFor the past few weeks Michelle Malkin has been documenting the attacks–in both word and deed–on America’s military recruiters:
Ideas have consequences. Inaction has consequences. For the past several years, I’ve chronicled the Left’s escalating war on military recruiters-and the apathetic, weak-kneed response to it. In Unhinged, I devoted a sub-section of my chapter “They Don’t Support Our Troops” to the organized campaign of harassment against recruitment offices on college campuses nationwide. The anti-recruiter thugs have thrived thanks to a combination of public indifference, law enforcement fecklessness, and left-wing ideological apologism.
While it’s encouraging to see Malkin and others take up this cause, there is a greater concern that is largely ignored. The biggest challenge for military recruiters is not the heated battles with Code Pink protesters but the cool indifference of mainstream Americans.
If you want to see the contrast between what people say they believe and how they live, spend a day with your local military recruiter. You’ll be amazed by the number of people you’ll encounter who go out of their way to tell you how much they “support our troops” and how they appreciate our service. Then you casually inquire about their son or daughter and when they will be stopping by the recruiting station to learn more about serving their country. The reaction is palpable: their spines stiffen, they smile blankly, and a coldness comes over them. If they are quick-witted they will find a way to jokingly dismiss the question. More often, though, they will simply blurt out honestly that there is no way they’d let their own child enlist.
Since I spent my years as a Marine Corps recruiter in Aberdeen, WA — the hometown of Kurt Cobain — I had hoped my experience was an isolated case. But then I talked to others who told the same tales about being brushed off by school counselors and dismissed by parents. Often times, when I would call a student’s house and tell the parents I was with the Marines they would hang up on me. Imagine how different the reaction would be if I told them I was a recruiter for Harvard.
If Americans valued and respected the institution and the troops as much as they claim the military would be more difficult to get into than any Ivy-league school. We wouldn’t be able to take everyone who wanted to enlist. The “elite” would be lined up around the block, letters of recommendation in hand, hoping to serve in the greatest military in the history of the world. Rather than having to bribe “scholarship mercenaries” with a generous college fund, recruiters would be forced to turn away highly qualified applicants.
But for all the talk, most Americans are willing to support the troops only insofar as they are not expected to add to their ranks. We are more than willing to leave our country’s defense to the “military types” and lower classes who need the employment. We have other priorities: advanced degrees to pursue, careers to build, money to be made. Besides, we pay our taxes. What else should we be expected to do?
Yes, Americans support our troops and respect their service. We just don’t want our own sons and daughters to be the ones to serve. And if, like the citizens of Kyrgyzstan, we have to pay out of our pockets to keep our children out of the military we’ll have just one question — “Who do we make the check out to?”
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
107 Comments
I disagree, the Soviets were well armed, but ultimately they were rational. They officially didn’t believe in an afterlife, so they were unlikely to throw their own lives away recklessly.
Out of a billion Muslims they’ve produced, maybe, less than a thousand, who were willing to go the suicide route. Even more secular enemies like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan produced small numbers of suicide troops. While getting the nuts to strap themselves with explosives will generate some mayham it has never been sufficient to result in a real impact on the battlefield. More relevant is that the top leadership doesn’t act to throw away their lives. Saddam was dug out of a hole (not quite like Hitler who killed himself in his hole rather than be captured). Bin Laden seems quite happy to go on living and plan accordingly. Iran’s foreign policies are rational enough to almost believe Henry Kissenger’s consulting company is working for them (and who knows since he declined to be ont he 9/11 Commission because he would have to make his client list public).
More to the point unlike the USSR they don’t have anything beyond the handful of nuts. Barring the aquisition of multiple nuclear weapons no terrorist organization has the ability to pose any existential threat to a superpower. If they were the old USSR could have saved billions on its army, navy and air force and simply allied itself with some radical Muslims.
That said, it is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Clinton used up the military because what uses up a military is being used, and operational tempo did not go down under Clinton, but procurement and O&M did, as did manpower strength. In other words, Clinton is like the friend who borrows your car and brings it back with the gas tank empty.
And Bush is like the schmuck who decides to embark on a cross country road trip the next day with no cash, the credit cards maxed out and not even bothering to check the gas guage.
Exactly, because procurement dollars went down. That means there was no money to buy the new stuff needed to replace the old Cold War stuff. I do, however find this criticism strange coming for you, because not too long ago, in this very post, you were extremely critical of the “Rumfeld Doctrine”.
If you recall I said the doctrine itself wasn’t necessarily a bad idea but it was pushed too far, in the wrong situation and by pushing aside those who knew better and tried to say so. But this point is wrong, if you are transitioning to a new paradign your procurement dollars will go down because many systems will be retired and not replaced. It’s your R&D dollars that should go up and later on your procurement dollars will start going up again as you ramp up procurement of new systems. Unfortunately we don’t have the breakdown here between different categories of spend but look at the year to year change in spend I posted in 59. The most dramatic cut in spending happened in 1991 with the slide slowing and then bottoming out in 1999.
The “Rumsfeld Doctrine” was a plan designed to move the military out of the Cold War mindset and into a smaller and nimbler force that was better able to deal with smaller conflicts and non-state actors, like Al Qaeda.
Unfortunately we are engaged in a massive mission creep where we are trying to be the middle man in an Iraqi Civil War. That is a role that fits neither the Cold War model of conventional and nuclear combat between super powers nor the ’small nimble’ role of taking out troublesome non-state actors like Al Qaeda. Perhaps the closest analogy might be the role the British played with their Empire…but their empire was built at a time when there was a bit of a monopoly on small arms force by the developed powers of the day. Nowadays even the poorest of countries have easy access to cheap guns and explosives. You can’t “keep the natives in line” anymore by simply marching some men with rifles into the area.
Matthew Goggins :
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. Thousands of Americans dead. Tens of thousands of Americans wounded, many of which are in hospitals with conditions you wouldn’t want to house animals in. Families separated. $8 billion dollars just – poof! – gone. Who knows how many troops stop-lossed.
All for a war in which major ethical and religious leaders have decried as morally indefensible, and in which military strategists have long decried as stupidity and insanity itself.
And…let me get this straight…about Mike Toreno’s incivility?
Yeah, he’s using bad words, OK?
But that’s like saying the ocean’s overflowed because somebody emptied a thimbleful of water into it.
Darius writes:
Mumon, at the risk of wasting my breath, I will respond to your “Bush broke the law” points.
1) The illegality of the NSA wiretaps is still heavily debated…
No, actually the FISA law is crystal clear, and his admitted violations of it were crystal clear as well.
2) You mention the Geneva Convention. It appears you’ve never read it though, since you seem to want to apply it to those to whom it doesn’t apply…
Believe it or not, it did apply to the folks at Abu Ghraib, who were not “terrorists.” And calling folks “terrorists” or “Islamofacists” or any other thing like that does not absolve anyone of the obligation to treat them decently, even if they’re the lowest form of criminal and murderer.
3) You blame Bush for others’ mistakes??? Do you think there were similar cases under Clinton? All governments, by their very nature, make mistakes. One or two examples hardly show a case of widespread excess.
Can you name any? Of course not; you know why?
And you know something? If Clinton had violated someone as the Bush regime did to Maher Arar, they’d be guilty too.
But there’s a reason that Clinton was impeached for what he did do and not extraordinary rendition.
4) A THEORY does not break laws… give us actual examples of ACTIONS that broke laws.
It’s the obstruction of justice.
5) HAHAHA. You would charge him with a crime for winning the Presidency? And you quote a screed in The Nation as proof??? You are hilarious.
It is a crime in and of itself. Read Bugliosi, who of course, before he analyzed the travesty of Bush v. Gore was known for going against somebody whose crimes today look relatively quaint next to Bushes. That person was Charles Manson.
6) Umm, here’s a hint: U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the… wait for it… PRESIDENT! Clinton fired all 93 attorneys and no one complained, Bush let go 7 and the liberals are going batty.
‘Fraid not. They’re not a political office, and they’re covered by laws to ensure that their office is not compromised politically, and to obstruct an investigation by another branch of government, legally, that’s a felony.
Mumon,
Ucfengr and I are not fighting a war against you and Mike Toreno. We’re discussing and debating public policy.
If you or Mike feel justified in name-calling and posting gratuitous ad hominem attacks, then you are not helping the anti-war cause. If anything, you are provoking people into dismissing your comments, including any valuable insights that you or Mike might have.
More importantly, how we treat each other is always the issue for a good person. Scoring points in a debate should always be secondary to that.
If you don’t agree with me, then where do you draw the line? Should you find out where we live and vandalize our homes? Should you track us down and assault us in person? All over a policy disagreement that we’re discussing in good faith?
Please explain to me what I’m missing. Your summary of why the war is so bad is not enough, because, of course, a pro-war person could easily make an angry list of why opposing the war is so shameful. Please explain to me why rudeness is justified, in your view.
Matthew Goggins :
Please explain to me what I’m missing.
Dude, there’s a country mired in chaos, sickness, murder, that, no matter how much we “surge” we have to be able to defy 5,000 years of history to honestly assert that the area at the epicenter of where warfare was invented can be brought to peace by further military involvement.
To me, the discussion about anyone’s rudeness or impatience in debating this issue ought to be triaged to “not worth paying attention to at the moment.”
There’s far, far, more important fish to fry.
Mumon,
If the war in Iraq is as misguided as you say it is, you should be able to say that without insulting people who disagree. If you are correct, then our foolishness will more than speak for itself.
I’m not arguing against impatience. I’m just as impatient with opposition to the war as you are towards support of it. I’m just saying that rudeness does not advance the discussion.
I agree 100% that our discussion is small potatoes compared to what it going on in Iraq. But if one is generating heat instead of light, one is not contributing to the solution. If anything, one is only making the problem worse.
You are correct to point out that anyone’s contribution, positive or negative, on this comment thread, is going to be quite marginal in the bigger picture. But we are supposed to be stewards of our own limited domains. If we can’t get that right, then what’s the point of setting our sights on solving all the world’s problems?
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. But you need to be pointed in the right direction, my friend.
thanks