I have never served in the military. But I am old enough that my brother fought in Vietnam (sort of not drafted, it is complicated) and my father was drafted for WW II. I also have relatives serving in the armed forces. (Including, at the moment, 2 nephews.)
I have observed what I've seen commented on elsewhere. There is a certain type of person who managed to skip the draft for themselves, and then proceeded to become overly supportive of the military and military aggression. Possibly as a reaction to the guilt of having not served when given the chance. There is a certain cowboy element to their approach. Prominent examples include Dick Cheney and George Bush.
By contrast people who actually served often, like John McCain or Al Gore, are strongly supportive of the military. But they tend to treat military service and action as the serious matters that they are.
The phrase that sums this up best is "chickenhawk".
There was a democrat several years ago that wanted to put back the draft in place - e.g. mandatory military service. The idea was that since lots of republicans/democrats have kids and this would made them think again for going to war.
You are probably thinking of Rangel. But he is not the first to bring it up and hopefully he will not be the last. It really has nothing to do with democrats or republicans, the distinction is socio-economic. I think the idea is even better if you expand the definition of service to also include "civilian service" e.g. teacher, social worker, etc.
As far as the draft goes I think you nailed it with "it is complicated."
As far as the rest goes I think we should evaluate policy positions based on the merits of the arguments. My position on Iraq would not be based on whether the president more resembled Gene McCarthy or Curtis "Bombs Away" Lemay.
The "it is complicated" is a very specific situation.
My brother joined the Marines 3 days before his 18th birthday because at the time if you did that you only served 3 years and couldn't go to Vietnam. 2.5 years later he was in a horrible accident. The recruiting officer got him to re-enlist because that was the only way to pay the medical bills. The reup also would put him through college, and he couldn't go to Vietnam for 5 years - no chance it would still be going on!
The recruiting officer word was carried out perfectly. But the war was still going on and my brother earned a purple heart there.
Comments
I have never served in the military. But I am old enough that my brother fought in Vietnam (sort of not drafted, it is complicated) and my father was drafted for WW II. I also have relatives serving in the armed forces. (Including, at the moment, 2 nephews.)
I have observed what I've seen commented on elsewhere. There is a certain type of person who managed to skip the draft for themselves, and then proceeded to become overly supportive of the military and military aggression. Possibly as a reaction to the guilt of having not served when given the chance. There is a certain cowboy element to their approach. Prominent examples include Dick Cheney and George Bush.
By contrast people who actually served often, like John McCain or Al Gore, are strongly supportive of the military. But they tend to treat military service and action as the serious matters that they are.
The phrase that sums this up best is "chickenhawk".
There was a democrat several years ago that wanted to put back the draft in place - e.g. mandatory military service. The idea was that since lots of republicans/democrats have kids and this would made them think again for going to war.
You are probably thinking of Rangel. But he is not the first to bring it up and hopefully he will not be the last. It really has nothing to do with democrats or republicans, the distinction is socio-economic. I think the idea is even better if you expand the definition of service to also include "civilian service" e.g. teacher, social worker, etc.
As far as the draft goes I think you nailed it with "it is complicated."
As far as the rest goes I think we should evaluate policy positions based on the merits of the arguments. My position on Iraq would not be based on whether the president more resembled Gene McCarthy or Curtis "Bombs Away" Lemay.
The "it is complicated" is a very specific situation.
My brother joined the Marines 3 days before his 18th birthday because at the time if you did that you only served 3 years and couldn't go to Vietnam. 2.5 years later he was in a horrible accident. The recruiting officer got him to re-enlist because that was the only way to pay the medical bills. The reup also would put him through college, and he couldn't go to Vietnam for 5 years - no chance it would still be going on!
The recruiting officer word was carried out perfectly. But the war was still going on and my brother earned a purple heart there.
Lets agree to disagree about "complicated." I am glad that your brother came home.
Also: hypocrite.