Soldiers are Not Idiots
When I first read this article, I though "You have got to be kidding me." The idea of banning military recruiters from campus is absolutely ridiculous, since the military is a branch of the government, not to mention the largest branch of the government. Recruitment is part of its job. Imagine banning the EPA from schools. How would that come. But as I sat back and thought about it, this is not real surprise. It is the extension of the prejudice that the socialists in this country make a determined attempt to force down students throats about the military. Contrary to popular believe, soldiers are not mentally challenged animals, who merely follow orders, and join the military because it is the only opportunity available to them.
I will admit, that as the child of teachers, and growing up in Southern California, that enlisting in the military was very difficult for me. I had the prejudice that the the military was something that only the losers did. That prejudice was helped along by the fact that most of the people I knew who enlisted I did not like. I had to swallow my pride as a college graduate, and be willing to listen to the counsel, and orders, of people who were in many cases much less educated than I was. However, they were not idiots.
I have since gone on to get my commission, and I have learned many things. One of them is that education comes in many forms. I am still a champion of the University education, but only getting an education in the University is unidimensional. It creates an ivory tower mentality, that causes many to roundly criticize today's universities. Also, there are many life skills that can only be learned by practical experience. Every soldier I know of, even the ones that are for all intents and purposes illiterate, have a far greater understanding of ideas such as honor, integrity, and just plain work than the average American.
That doesn't fit well with people who oppose Democracy, the Free Market, and other things that America, for good or for ill, has come to stand for in the minds of 'the chattering classes.' Soldiers are willing to die for America, and by proxy those causes, that they cannot benefit from if dead. If that cause is not good then either they are morally depraved, insane, or stupid. The chattering classes tried to depict soliders as morally depraved in Viet-nam, but that backfired. The tremendous charachter of the soldier made that impossible to stick. Insane would be convinient, and to a degree that has worked by painting Viet-Nam vets with the homeless/insane brush, and it is being attempted now with a large number of articles on PTSD.
But in the end, stupid works well, because it is so subjective. Who is to say, if someone is stupid. The only thing you can do is point to a degree in your defense. But apparently degrees from Harvard and Yale aren't what they used to be for refuting claims of stupidity. Just ask George W. Bush about that. So now by claiming college not combat the military is the antithesis of education.
Never mind that the military is a gateway to greater opportunities of higher learning than could be found anywhere. Nevermind that all officers have college degrees. Nevermind that a successfull career in the military will almost always include at least one graduate degree. But then again evidence was never really a problem for the socialists and anti-americans. After all objectivity, and evidence are the realm of the "dead white men" and not of the oppressed masses. Nevermind that the military itself is an education in accountability, sociology, linguistics, politics, and leadership the likes of which are unequaled anywhere.
I have resisted the temptation to drift into annecdotal evidence here, because that is not really evidence at all. Unfortunately, I don't have actual statistical evidence to support this. However, look around at the veterans that you know. If you know a lot them then you have a better frame of reference. I would be willing to bet, though that you would count many of them among the better people you know.
In the end, I would ask those people in Seattle, and everyone who opposes the military, "What are you afraid of." It can't be death, because the majority of soldiers lead productive lives, and death stalks everyone everywhere. If can't be that they fear the current war. It too will end, and some day there will be another one, and so on. It can't be that they are afraid these kids won't go to college, because if they stay in it is almost mandatory, and if they get out they have tremendous advantages in admissions and tuition provided by the VA and the military itself. Maybe they are afraid that they will learn that responsibility, accountablity and hard work are the key to success, and not complaining, protesting, and government aid. Maybe that is what makes our soldiers smart, after all.
I will admit, that as the child of teachers, and growing up in Southern California, that enlisting in the military was very difficult for me. I had the prejudice that the the military was something that only the losers did. That prejudice was helped along by the fact that most of the people I knew who enlisted I did not like. I had to swallow my pride as a college graduate, and be willing to listen to the counsel, and orders, of people who were in many cases much less educated than I was. However, they were not idiots.
I have since gone on to get my commission, and I have learned many things. One of them is that education comes in many forms. I am still a champion of the University education, but only getting an education in the University is unidimensional. It creates an ivory tower mentality, that causes many to roundly criticize today's universities. Also, there are many life skills that can only be learned by practical experience. Every soldier I know of, even the ones that are for all intents and purposes illiterate, have a far greater understanding of ideas such as honor, integrity, and just plain work than the average American.
That doesn't fit well with people who oppose Democracy, the Free Market, and other things that America, for good or for ill, has come to stand for in the minds of 'the chattering classes.' Soldiers are willing to die for America, and by proxy those causes, that they cannot benefit from if dead. If that cause is not good then either they are morally depraved, insane, or stupid. The chattering classes tried to depict soliders as morally depraved in Viet-nam, but that backfired. The tremendous charachter of the soldier made that impossible to stick. Insane would be convinient, and to a degree that has worked by painting Viet-Nam vets with the homeless/insane brush, and it is being attempted now with a large number of articles on PTSD.
But in the end, stupid works well, because it is so subjective. Who is to say, if someone is stupid. The only thing you can do is point to a degree in your defense. But apparently degrees from Harvard and Yale aren't what they used to be for refuting claims of stupidity. Just ask George W. Bush about that. So now by claiming college not combat the military is the antithesis of education.
Never mind that the military is a gateway to greater opportunities of higher learning than could be found anywhere. Nevermind that all officers have college degrees. Nevermind that a successfull career in the military will almost always include at least one graduate degree. But then again evidence was never really a problem for the socialists and anti-americans. After all objectivity, and evidence are the realm of the "dead white men" and not of the oppressed masses. Nevermind that the military itself is an education in accountability, sociology, linguistics, politics, and leadership the likes of which are unequaled anywhere.
I have resisted the temptation to drift into annecdotal evidence here, because that is not really evidence at all. Unfortunately, I don't have actual statistical evidence to support this. However, look around at the veterans that you know. If you know a lot them then you have a better frame of reference. I would be willing to bet, though that you would count many of them among the better people you know.
In the end, I would ask those people in Seattle, and everyone who opposes the military, "What are you afraid of." It can't be death, because the majority of soldiers lead productive lives, and death stalks everyone everywhere. If can't be that they fear the current war. It too will end, and some day there will be another one, and so on. It can't be that they are afraid these kids won't go to college, because if they stay in it is almost mandatory, and if they get out they have tremendous advantages in admissions and tuition provided by the VA and the military itself. Maybe they are afraid that they will learn that responsibility, accountablity and hard work are the key to success, and not complaining, protesting, and government aid. Maybe that is what makes our soldiers smart, after all.
posted by David Benson | 3:29 AM
2 Comments:
Why do you assume people in Seattle are afraid?
A comment came in, noting that I assumed that the people in Seattle are afraid. Hopefully it is the one above. I did make an overly broad generalization, however in my defense it is almost linguistic convention is such a case. Perhaps there is no fear at all motivating the people in Seattle. However, then I would ask what is motivating them to prohibit Military Recruiters from entering Schools. They may say conviction, but the prescence of recruiters does not waylay that conviction. Instead I would posit that there is some end that they do not want those recruiters to achieve. Whether that desire is motivated by fear or not is possibly an unfair characterization. However, the question could be rephrased and not lose much of its potency, by merely starting, "What do the people in Seattle wish to prevent...." I think 'fear' is more parsimonious, and linguistically tolerable, but I do not wish to cast aspersions on the characters of these people without foundation.
As a note, I strongly desire this sort of commentary. Please feel free and encouraged to correct my overstepping. Good writing is the key to decreasing the acrimony in political discourse.
Post a Comment
<< Home