Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by DarthG8RV3, Sep 10, 2013.
America Says ‘No!’ to a Beltway War
Probably the best line in the article was about the policymakers not having any skin in the game. And that is one of our dilemmas. When we had a draft, there was at least a cadre of middle/upper middle class people whose families were directly impacted by war efforts. Now we have mostly the lower class who are looking for a state-paid college education.
It is a lot easier to order people into the foray when it isn't any of yours.
Well it is nice that he is not bashing free mkts again.
Excellent link/post Darth. Rep on back order my friend. It seems that the war hawks are wrong about who they should be supporting. If Assad is killing these people and their offspring... I have no problem with it.
I disagree with Buchanan on a long laundry list of issues. But he has been consistent in his opposition to our getting involved in wars. And that I can respect.
I think you'd be surprised at the numbers of middle to upper middle class families who have loved ones in the military, particularly among the officer ranks.
What you posted here is a little more accurate if one is looking at people in the infantry, but that's a fraction of the people in the military. Even in the enlisted ranks, there are large numbers of people who grew up middle class.
Not really the case regarding the economic demographics of the military. Although the data is over five years old the findings of the Heritage Foundation study probably still hold true.
Buchanan has indeed been consistent, even opposing US involvement in the first Gulf War. If Buchanan had his way, Saddam Hussein would be alive and well and would still be occupying Kuwait giving him the power to set the world price of oil.
Exactly the case. The "rich man's war, poor man's fight" was much, much more so the case during the draft. Members of the richest families don't tend to volunteer but neither were too many of them drafted back in the day. When you had the resources and will it wasn't too hard to find a doctor to assert you were unfit for service or a business magnate willing to certify that you were in a critical civilian trade.
Alright, I may not have all the facts about who is enlisting into the armed forces today. I didn't mean to imply that the elites were drafted and served before, just that when I see the military today, many more of the people shown are more inclined to be from the lower economic levels than at the middle and upper middle ones. Yes, I am talking about the foot soldiers and not necessarily the technical/professional/officer corps.
And my point was, if those who don't mind going in and teaching foreign sovereigns some lessons aren't emotionally attached to the people who are directly in harm's way, then they aren't really understanding the implications of armed conflict.
And I agree with the posts that recognize that we want wars to be mechanical and button-pushing. But even during the war in Kuwait, the generals implicitly knew that in order to achieve any real results you couldn't just achieve air superiority. Boots had to be on the ground. And I am afraid that we are forgetting that in Syria. We just want to lob some bombs and then go home. What are we achieving by that, except buying more weapons to replace the ones we just used?