<p>[America’s</a> upper classes have gone AWOL | csmonitor.com](<a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0108/p09s01-coop.html]America’s”>America's upper classes have gone AWOL - CSMonitor.com)</p>
<p>Interesting article. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>Here’s a similar opinion from a lecturer at Harvard KSG</p>
<p>[‘Fortunate</a> Sons’ Should Have to Serve - Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs](<a href=“http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1524/fortunate_sons_should_have_to_serve.html?breadcrumb=%252Fpublication%252F1524%252Ffortunate_sons_should_have_to_serve]'Fortunate”>http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1524/fortunate_sons_should_have_to_serve.html?breadcrumb=%252Fpublication%252F1524%252Ffortunate_sons_should_have_to_serve)</p>
<p>It seems to me than when individuals in the American upper class interact with our military in a personal way the outcomes are mostly beneficial.</p>
<p>Has anyone read AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from Military Service – and How It Hurts Our Country by Frank Schaffer? He wrote this a couple of years ago and it addresses the same issue. It’s interesting because his co-author was a Clinton staffer who married an active duty Marine officer.</p>
<p>Yes - the above linked article discusses the experiences of the authors of “AWOL” - Schaeffer and Roth-Douquet - and their changes of perspective on military service through relationships with a son and husband (respectively) who served.</p>
<p>Peter Gudmundsson states:</p>
<p>“In the middle of the 20th century, military service was near universal for American men. While some used their privileged status to escape arduous or risky duty, society as a whole came together in the common cause of national defense. As a result, America was full of veterans who could place “news from the front” in context for friends and neighbors.”</p>
<p>Mr. Gudmundsson fails to mention the fact that THE DRAFT made military service universal for able-bodied American men. Men who didn’t serve in WWII were either too old, disabled, or deranged. He goes on to say,</p>
<p>“What can we do to correct course? To begin, America must find a way to reengage the nation’s elites* with the satisfactions and sacrifices of military and national service. Leading colleges should reinstate ROTC programs. Corporations should emphasize postmilitary recruiting.”</p>
<p>Again, Mr. Gudmundsson makes no mention of community service or THE DRAFT for America’s youth. The truth is that war is profitable for many elites, so if their offspring were in uniform they’d be exploiting their own flesh and blood. Furthermore, if Biff or Muffin did happen to join the military then later run for public office, there is the risk of being ‘swiftboated,’ unless of course their military records were lost…</p>
<p>American military experts say the US Army is broken because of the overwhelming demands of the unpopular drawn out war, NOT because of the hard-working, skillful and dedicated American soldiers.</p>
<p>I thought marines were known for their integrity. Shame on Mr. Gudmundsson. </p>
<p>*Sex, money, and politics are themes of “A Vast Right-Wing Hypocrisy” in the current issue of Vanity Fair. I was surprised to read that Mrs. Ritchie Scaife (who receives interim support payments of $725,000 a month) has a Navy Lt. son who has twice been deployed to the Persian Gulf. So much for Mr. Gudmundsson’s hypothesis!
[A</a> Vast Right-Wing Hypocrisy: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com](<a href=“http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/02/scaife200802]A”>A Vast Right-Wing Hypocrisy | Vanity Fair)</p>
<p>Outside of a “Draft”, there’s really no way that you’re going to see a significant influx of the “Elite” coming into the military. And I personally don’t think that it “Hurts the country”. The fact of the matter is, the more wealth you have, the more options you have. Assuming mommy and daddy and the kids all get along, if they have the money, little Buffy or Chad are probably going to be able to go to an ivy league or similar college. Many who do join the military do it partially for economic reasons. There is a lot of rationalization that goes into it about patriotism and such; which is definitely viable reasons people join the military; (DON’T READ INTO THIS); just that the military is also an avenue to get an education; travel; learn skills; become independent while still having a pseudo mom or dad taking care of you; etc… These are all things that are easier to get and maintain if you have the money. For the average 18-22 year old, the military is a very good option.</p>
<p>I personally have served with some that I would consider quite well off. Or, I should say their family is/was. One of the guy’s reasons for joining was because he really wanted to get the hell away from the family. He graduated from Princeton, then came into the Air Force via OTS. The other one, even though wealthy, had a 200 year family history of military service. He didn’t get into West Point, so he graduated college and came in also OTS.</p>
<p>I personally don’t think it’s a problem that the “Rich” don’t normally join the military. It doesn’t hurt the country; except when the far left tries to play the “CLASS WARFARE” card. Trying to make people who aren’t as well off believe that all their problems are because of rich people; that the rich doesn’t pay their share of taxes; and that the rich politicians are so eager to go to war because their kids aren’t involved. That is what hurts our country. Especially when most of that is B.S.</p>
<p>Not everyone can be everything. Not everyone can be a doctor, fireman, policeman, lawyer, military, etc… Yet, each of these jobs is very important and someone needs to do them. The “Rich” are also the ones who owns companies, employs workers, keeps the economy moving, etc… Seems like a pretty important job to me. I don’t know any “POOR” people who higher workers and substantially impacts the economy. Unfortunately, that’s why the “Class Warfare” crowd tries to push a mandatory service (Draft). Because that’s the only way they can create their socialistic economic equality. The only other way is for them to declare that certain jobs AREN’T AS IMPORTANT. That they are beneath many citizens. That they need illegal immigrants and uneducated and unskilled workers. See, they won’t admit that. They admit that the cleaning lady, and the cafeteria worker, as well as the technicians, supervisors, managers, CEO, stock holders, etc… are ALL IMPORTANT JOBS and are all needed to make the company run and be successful. Yet, you don’t see too many wealthy people working as carpenters, policemen, firemen, or in this case; THE MILITARY. See, when you have wealth and education, you have freedom. When you have freedom, you don’t need the politicians through their social and welfare programs. Therefor, if you don’t need them, they can’t control you. They then have no power and are out.</p>
<p>No, the wealthier Americans not in the military in as large a number does not hurt the country. It’s the “Class Warfare” that some try to make the average person believe in that hurts the country. Forcing envy and jealousy as a prejudice against others. (Similar to racism). It’s the socialist mindset that ALL JOBS are equally as important from a financial point of view that hurts the country. This penalizes people from trying to achieve the American dream and achieve as much success and wealth as possible. All jobs are important in getting mission done. Just that not all of them are worth the same financially.</p>
<p>I grew up extremely poor. For the first 7 years to a single mother. (Pretty rough in the late 50’s early 60’s). I’ve worked my way up; which included a 20 year career in the Air Force. After 9 years back in the civilian world, I am now financially well off. I am not like John Kerry, but I can send my kids to just about any college in the country and afford it. I live in a very nice house and could probably stop working today, at age 46, and still survive quite nicely. </p>
<p>The problem with the attitude of those harping on “THE RICH”, is it’s not really their money. It’s the CHOICES AND OPTIONS that they have. Because of their choices and options, they don’t need to spend time in the military to obtain much of what many go into the military for. I am fortunate that both my daughter and son don’t HAVE TO join the military to satisfy any of their needs. My daughter remembers moving to different bases and making new friends. She preferred to go to the state university. My son; having been accepted to 5 colleges; 2 prestigious; 3 with a full ride; has chosen the military ANYWAY. He received his appointment to the Air Force Academy in November. That doesn’t make him a better person, nor does it make the kid who decides to go to Harvard or Yale any worse. </p>
<p>Our form of government (Republic) works because while there will always be an upper, middle, and lower class economically, each person has the ability to incite change. Change in themselves. Change in who is holding office. Change in their local environment. Change in their children. I have lived/worked/visited in 15 countries. Some of these countries have a rich and poor class. The poor have no say over the rich. Here, our country does. The average consumer or citizen can get a CEO fired; a politician impeached or NOT re-elected; a school board changed; become a member of a city council; etc… That’s why our country and government works. And thankfully for the military, it remains that way. No, not everyone can be a doctor, lawyer, policemen, firemen, scientist, etc… nor should everyone be in the military.</p>
<p>Biff and Muffin don’t run the risk of being “swiftboated” unless they are devoid of any charm and their gravitas is a euphemism for morose.</p>
<p>Even Teresa alluded so.</p>
<p>I think it is really sad that both the upper class and the lower class have lost the notion of Service to God and Country. It is fairly obvious why the rich do not serve, though certainly sad, for the reasons pointed out by Schaeffer, by Christcorp, and others. </p>
<p>My question is: why do the poor feel they have no duty to country (or to God) just because they are poor? As Americans, we should all feel a duty to serve others - no matter our income or level of education or opportunity.</p>
<p>I think the word you are looking for is “entitlement”. Works for both situation you posed.</p>
<p>Honestly, as a military wife and mother, I prefer we keep the system we have, I want someone who wants to serve. I don’t want someone who is doing this for political reasons or free education. I think these people don’t understand that when you join for those reasons, you just might be making a deal with the devil. When Gulf War I happened we were in the UK and my friend was an active duty reservist with 2 children (8 and 3), she got called up right after hubby left…she went and served, had to send the kids to live with her folks for 6 mos. As soon as she returned, she resigned her commission and said the price was too high to pay and that she felt like she made a deal with devil out of her greed for $5K a yr. I respect her for her decision because she realized that she was there for the wrong reasons. At least she fulfilled her service, but had she stayed for the $$$, I am sure she would have tried to work the system (she tried to work it prior, but they said nope, you’re going, but since DH is in a war zone you will be back fill and out of harms way)</p>
<p>I too think that it’s a shame that more people, rich and poor, don’t feel compelled to serve their country. However, I don’t think it’s a problem. Since we’ve gone to an all volunteer military, we have maintained the most professional and best trained and equiped military in the world. I also realize that not everyone can be a doctor, or lawyer, or scientist, or in the peace-corp, etc…; and thus not everyone is meant to serve in the military. I prefer the all volunteer force made up of motivated individuals than a bunch of conscripts who don’t want to be there.</p>
<p>On a side note; concerning the so called “poorer” individuals. Taking out the patriotism side of the military, the military service does provide a means for getting out of poverty and improving oneself. It provides a means for college educations and learning trades in hundreds of usuable skills. Between active duty, guard, and reserve, there are plenty of opportunities. Then again, there are a lot of people who prefer to complain and blame society and others instead of being responsible for their own future and destiny. But this is a college forum for those interested in furthering their education. Very few here are those who haven’t taken control of their future and destiny.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly understand the notion of service to one’s county - but in the context of this thread the Service to God ought to be left off the table. IMO</p>
<p>There are many who are very poor who feel a duty to their country. You by no means can make the statement that they collectively do not. If you are going to make collective statements “rich” would have been a better word, especially since we are talking about America’s Upper Class going AWOL.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the main distinction to consider is military service does not necessarily mean a career. Most people aren’t going to attend law school or med school, become a lawyer or a doctor for a couple of years and then move on. You can do just that with military service and take that experience with you to the career you may eventually stick with throughout the balance of your life. I really don’t see one precluding the other; in fact you may get your law degree or become an MD through your military service. The main issue limiting significant numbers from military service is the current population of the United States and the decline in the size of our armed forces it’s simply not possible for a large majority of our population to serve. I think that is unfortunate, but even with a substantial increase in our force levels the vast majority of citizens will never see military service. The demographics of those serving is another issue. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see any correlation between the function of our form of government and a class system. How and why would our government stop functioning if most everyone in the country was largely confined to one class? If anything the class system and rate at which the wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor, poorer is as great a threat to our political system as any. When you look at the history of many countries where the ratio of wealth between the “upper class” and the “lower class” reaches a “tipping” point, the political system is eventually threatened or even collapses. </p>
<p>One example; there is great deal of resentment and distrust of public companies where CEOs and upper management have been allowed to pay themselves hundreds of millions of dollars, for in many case, poor performance and a loss in shareholder value while they facilitated massive layoffs of personnel. Are those CEO’s removed? Yes, sometimes shareholders prevail and get to “kick the bums out”. But on what terms? Do those CEO’s leave disgraced and with nothing to show for their miserable efforts? Not likely. They leave with a golden parachute worth 10s or even 100s of millions of dollars. What lesson does this teach those watching this unfold; young and old? </p>
<p>Our system of government works because the vast majority of Americans gets up every morning and goes to work, they pays their taxes and try the make this country a better place than the country they grew up in, each in their own way, despite the fact that it is getting harder and harder to do. </p>
<p>How does all this relate to military service or public service in general? Given all that is going on, I think one of the greatest challenges facing parents raising children to become “good citizens” is helping them to understand the ease in which you can become cynical about our country and use that cynicism as an excuse to shift from “what can I do to help” to “what is in it for me”. At the end of the day, individuals of every “class” must feel they have a vested interest in this country and a notion of what service means. We don’t need a nation of veterans; we do need more people growing up with the understanding we all have some responsibility to serve in whatever capacity we are meant to.</p>
<p>In my opinion, which doesn’t mean much, I believe that ANY American who is a productive member of society is serving their country. It is the day to day existance to maintains our economy and our political system. Without those, our country would disolve and we wouldn’t be who we are. Mind you, I said “Productive”. I believe that as long as you aren’t a burden on society; where you are TAKING more than you have GIVEN, then you are serving your country. Whether it’s working at the grocery, a farmer, an electrician, telephone technician, salesman at Sears, congressman, military, doctor, etc… Every job is important to the success and the continued prospering of our country. </p>
<p>Those who are retired have GIVEN much more than they will take out. The disabled can give whatever they can; many have. It’s the ones who have generationally been on public assistance/welfare; criminals; drug users/dealers; and other ways of life that “TAKE” more from the country’s resources than they contribute who aren’t worth a damn.</p>
<p>Again, my opinion is that “Duty to one’s Country” and/or “God” if applicable isn’t limited to military service. There are a lot of other professions that keep our country as free and prosperous as it is. Some may believe that most people can do both. A period of time in the military and then a civilian career. That is fine, but I believe that it takes a “Special” person to be willing to spend time in the military. Not necessarily better or worse, just “Special”. Currently, we have plenty of these “Special” people volunteering. Unless we had a war that required a draft, I don’t think it’s a problem. Now, should a draft be required, which it currently isn’t, then just as in WWII and others, both the rich and poor were drafted. Yes, some found loopholes, but generally all eligible men were subject to being drafted. Economics didn’t play a part in it.</p>
<p>rjrzoom57,
I agree with your remarks about economic status and our political system. As always your comments are reasoned and insightful. Could you elaborate on something you wrote, </p>
<p>“The main issue limiting significant numbers from military service is the current population of the United States and the decline in the size of our armed forces it’s simply not possible for a large majority of our population to serve. I think that is unfortunate, but even with a substantial increase in our force levels the vast majority of citizens will never see military service.”</p>
<p>thanks,
usna09mom</p>
<p>usna09mom, </p>
<p>thank you, </p>
<p>As far as my comment goes about population and the limitations of opportunity; at the outset of WWII there were about 130 million people in the US. Today we have something over the 300 million mark. There are also about 82 million kids in the US under the age of 20, roughly 4 million kids at each age level. If our goal was to give just 10% of that population a chance to enter military service at their 20th birthday; that would drive an annual influx of ~400, 000 men and women into our armed services. Contrast that figure with the current size of our military. I believe the total number of men and women currently serving is about 1.4 million across all services with about the same number in reserve/guard positions. If you wanted a majority of young adults to serve, (even if they all left after just one tour) you’d be dealing with over 2 million. </p>
<p>While I do wish more young men and women had the chance to serve, I also recognize the mission of our armed forces is not helped in any way by a large turnover in personnel. Given the technical nature of more of the jobs in all of the service, it is costly and time consuming to develop skilled personnel, so we also have to focus on retention. </p>
<p>The one other point that has been raised and in many ways may relate to the topic of this thread; everyone is on “equal footing” in terms of their contribution to this country so long as they are a productive part of economy. It is important that everyone contributes, and as we have discussed, not even one can wear a uniform. It may be unfair in the minds of some, but I would not try and equate their contribution. </p>
<p>Some people referred to situations such as this under the heading of political correctness, I don’t know if there really is a best way of describing it; but we have become a nation in which we have to couch our observations about people in such as way as to offend no one in any way shape or form and in doing so we diminish the real contribution of those who we should recognize. Is it wrong to tell a young man or woman that is working in some job here a home, that their contribution is different and not equal to a young Marine on patrol in Iraq or anywhere else in the world? If you tell a person coming out of a wealthy household; don’t bother considering military service, working here as a commodities broker making 2 million a year is the same thing as the job of that Marine, what message have you sent, to that Marine and to that broker? </p>
<p>If military service isn’t something special, that we as a nation hold in high regard, I guarantee fewer and fewer young men and women will step up and serve, regardless of their economic status. If the only motivation is money and not a willingness to serve out of patriotism and desire to be a part of something special, then you will have an army of mercenaries, or as we call them today; security contractors.</p>
<p>Compulsary military service is the ONLY way we will have enough troops to do the things we are trying to do today. We couldn’t do without it in WW2 because even then there weren’t enough “volunteers”, what makes us think we can now?</p>
<p>Not to be disrespectful, Shogun, but does the analogy with WWII apply? While the country was much more unified after Pearl Harbor than it is currently, the numbers of deployed military personnel in the various theaters were more than 10-fold higher than our current deployments, weren’t they? Isn’t Desert Storm/Desert Shield a better point of comparison? I believe that was accomplished w/o a draft.</p>
<p>The current situation is a sustained operation, whereas Desert Shield/Desert Storm was a very fast moving, short campaign (which our military is VERY good at).</p>
<p>The US military is very good at winning wars quickly. What we were not prepared for, was a long-term presence with a large deployed force.</p>
<p>Approximately one percent of American families are directly affected by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by having a family member serving in the US military. Deployments in combat zones are long and frequent. Currently the US Army is finding it hard to retain young officers and also meet recruiting quotas despite hefty financial incentives. The war in Iraq is nearing its fifth anniversary, nearly 25 percent longer than American involvement in World War II, so why not reinstitute the military draft? Rjrzoom mentioned the large number of draft age youth, but what are other arguments for or against the draft?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> Military Draft and Slavery by Rep. Ron Paul](<a href=“http://www.counterpunch.org/pauldraft.html][color=blue][size=3][b]The”>http://www.counterpunch.org/pauldraft.html)</p>