American soldiers

I’ve had it up to my eyeballs with the whole “American soldiers are uneducated rubes escaping poverty by joining the military” meme. Usually these remarks are directed at soldiers who are serving in Iraq because this is the controversial war. No one seems to mention Afghanistan and this alleged mass of poor idiots who are serving there. I suppose soldiers in Afghanistan are somehow immune to this disease because they are fighting on the popular front in response to the Sept. 11 attack.

Let’s be clear: American soldiers are us. They are the policemen who patrols our streets, they are the accountants who do our taxes, they are the mechanics who fix our cars, the neighbors across the street, and, yes, they are even high school graduates who may have never held jobs before. They are from every walk of life, every ethnicity, every religion, every economic background and every educational level. They are a cross-section of America.

To portray them as uneducated and poor victims because they are currently serving on a front that people see as unpopular is, well, ignorant.

Kathleen Henry
Kansas City

Comments

[jack]

I do enjoy seeing the people who claimed everything they proposed desrved an "up or down vote" now doing everything they can to prevent those very votes.

[Engineer]

KarenKC
As President Bush will complete his second term in 2008, just how does he have a "political backside" to protect? The ones who are busy protecting their political backsides are the time servers who are working on "non-binding resolutions' rather than at least trying to do something of actual significance.

[Engineer]

jack
Is it at all possible that Ray was having a little fun with his Post? Oh well, T.A.T.B.O.(U.T.A.D.)

[Kate]

“military demographics skew toward the poorest and least educated”

Sorry, Jack & KarenKC, you’re both wrong.

In addition to Engineer’s statistics, according to a Heritage Foundation report, “We found that recruits tend to come from middle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas. Overall, the income distribution of military enlistees is more similar to than different from the income distribution of the general population.”

And “We find that, on average, recruits tend to be much more highly educated than the general public and that this education disparity increased after the war on terrorism began.” http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm

According to the Army’s FY 05 (the latest information available on their website) 95.4% of enlisted have a high school diploma or higher. 58.4% of officers have a BS or BA. http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics.asp (see Army Profiles FY 05).

In December James Taranto’s ran a series of columns featuring messages sent in by readers who were refuting Rep. Charles Rangel’s remarks about the military – which were similar to yours. Here is a link to the 10th column, which has links to the other 9 at the bottom. Granted, they are all anecdotal, but they make for some pretty inspiring reading. http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009442

[karennkc]

No one talks about Afghanistan because the American people had already forgotten about it before they started in Iraq. Recent news articles reported that they were undermanned and at times lacked air support. And Jack is right about the poorest and least educated - having a high school diploma today doesn't ammount to much.

I have spoken before about the all-volunteer army creating an “entitlement mentality,” whereby the people who started this war are hysterical over talk of a draft, as if they are somehow above it all and should never be called to serve. No matter how bad the news out of Iraq gets, instead of screaming bloody murder, as I have done since before the war started about the inadequate troop levels, lack of armor and equipment, the massive and complete failure of the Bush administration to secure the population, train the security forces, purge the sectarian militias and build the institutions that form a civilized society from the ground up, the so-called war supporters only scream, “Cut and Run! Cut and Run!”

It is clear that nationalism, patriotic pride and, no doubt, the increased threat to their own skins due to the implosion of Iraq is the driving force behind their position – never mind if the additional 20,000 troops can realistically be expected to make a difference, never mind if the troops have never been in a position to win – starting with a 4-star general’s assertion that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to occupy a country the size of Iraq. That was four years ago, when the “war supporters” were feverishly calling for the U.S. to actually start this war, putting the troops in harm’s way, while they heroically sacrificed French fries for Freedom Fries. President Bush expected a civilization to spontaneously materialize from the desert sands, while the cowardly “war supporters” look the other way while he chips away at ours.

Yes, it is true that the troops signed up – a measure of their courage. However, it is a measure of the cowardice of the “war supporters” that they seem to think this makes the troops expendable. The troops are there to sacrifice their lives to protect the “war supporter’s” hides. Their lives and well being do not rate the same consideration. If the “war supporters” want to start a war without a plan, so be it. And the wealthiest nation in the world and the “war supporters” can go about their business while the troops make do.

As a military family member, I do not appreciate the “war supporters” using the troops’ bravery, dedication, and perseverance as justification for their cowardly accusations and criminal negligence.

Note: President Bush is sending additional troops to Iraq in an effort to save his own political backside knowing that troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are not getting the gear they need, including key protective equipment such as armored vehicles, crew-served weapons, roadside-bomb countermeasures and communications gear. (The Associated Press, 1-31-07).
The latest National Intelligence Estimate (2-02-07) says that “deep historical and political differences and attacks by extremist groups have created a ‘self-sustaining’ conflict between majority Shiites and minority Sunnis…There are also clashes between rival Shiite militias; attacks on U.S. forces, mainly by Sunni insurgents and al-Qaida terrorists; terrorism by al-Qaida and other Islamic extremist groups; and violent crime. ‘Iraqi society’s growing polarization, the persistent weakness of the security forces and the state in general, and all sides’ ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremism.’ There currently are no Shiite or Sunni leaders who can unify the sects, whose schism dates back 1,400 years, limiting prospects of reconciliation.” (Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy Newspapers).

[Engineer]

jack
Your statement "The sad fact is the military demographics skew toward the poorest and least educated" is simply incorrect. Do you have a reference? I do. "U. S. Middle Class Mans Militay", Human Events, The Week Of December 4, 2006. In 2003, 96.78% of the recruits were High School Graduates, in 2004, 96.78% and in 2005, 96.72% were High School Graduates. In 2004 only 79.80% of the US population were High School Graduates. Actually, the rate of enlistment from neighborhoods in the five income quintiles are pretty even, except fron the lowest quintile. In 2005 only 13.7% of enlistments came from the lowest quintle, 19.2% from the next lowest, 21.5% from the middle, 22.8% from the second highest, and 22.8% from the highest.

[NavyMan]

I served on active duty in the Navy during the transition between the end of the VietNam era and the all voluntary military (the end of the draft). I was fortunate to serve with the smartest, sharpest, best-educated, most dedicated group of people I've known in my life.

Most of them probably would not have served if it weren't for the draft. We all voluntarily joined the Navy.

I don't know if the current all-volunteer force contains such people as those with which I served. I can only hope they do. But I doubt it.

I am bothered by the lowering of standards in order to fill recruiting quotas. The standards were pretty low to start with. It's pretty obvious that some extremely unstable people have slipped through the screening process.

I support the uniformed military. I don't support the appointed suits who sit on top of the military, nor do I support a commander-in-chief who does not act in the best interest of the people who unfortunately re-elected him.

As for Gates and the drumbeat for war on Iran, this administration has no credibility. They will have to present absolute proof; "pretty good" is no longer good enough for this bunch.

Iranian manufactured weapons is not even "pretty good" proof. And the argument that the IEDs are too sophisticated for Iraqi or al-qaeda is beyond laughable.

So we are left with the central question, who but Bush supporting, Iran-hating, war-mongers are stupid enough to buy this "proof"?

And how about the deal the Russians are making with the Iranians for missile systems. It just gets better and better.

[GCYL]

“1) Where are all those screaming "liberal bias" when something printed in the newspaper is if anything slanted toward the right on this story? Are you going to scream "bias" against this too?” – jack

I just think it’s another botched edit job by the paper. Botched so badly that I can see how those on the right would say “Their liberal bias forced them to print a false headline to smear Sec. Def. Gates.” Yes, reaching for straws but that’s the type of game you wanted to play here.

[GCYL]

“I notice that the headline reads that Sec Def Gates says he has "proof" of Iranian invovement in Iraq.” – jack

Ah, did Sec Def Gates wright this headline you’re referring to?

“2) Having "pretty good" intelligence and calling it "proof" seems to be deja vue all over again.”

Deja vue as in another poor editing job by the newspaper? I’m with you then. You would have thought the headline would have read something like “Claims to have proof”.

[jack]

Don't see a place this seem to fit better today.

I notice that the headline reads that Sec Def Gates says he has "proof" of Iranian invovement in Iraq. Then in the body he only says the evidence is "pretty good".

Two things come to mind: 1) Where are all those screaming "liberal bias" when something printed in the newspaper is if anything slanted toward the right on this story? Are you going to scream "bias" against this too?

2) Having "pretty good" intelligence and calling it "proof" seems to be deja vue all over again.

[jack]

Sorry, Kathleen. Yours is a nice thought. The sad fact is the military demographics skew toward the poorest and least educated. This does not make them rubes. I believe it tends to be the most motivated to raise there standing that join. The military always has been a solid means of improving one's lot in life.

At the same time, the higher the income bracket, the less likely the person is to serve. Then there are those little added binuses, like (if you are from a rich and powerful family) being able to sign up but not show up.