No just wars, only futile or necessary wars

I wonder, is it ever "just" to put a terrorist bomb in your underpants?

Or will May West just think you're happy to see her?

"Anything having merely a human pedigree cannot be deemed infallible."

Like, say, the entire bible, and the whole concept of religion...

"Happy is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

The American Civil War was a just war. Both sides had God on their sides, the same God, in fact, and they both prayed in the same churchly settings to God in the name of their just war.

So, it is a little complicated, isn't it. Some people here have said that a war of self defense is a just war. Just call it "war of self defense." Don't drag the word "just" into it.

When the Russians in the East and the Americans in the West were bearing down on Germany, then the German War became a war of self defense, but was it just for them to wage it?

The teachings of Christ are fairly simple and direct; most of all, they are personal, applying to individual people and the way they lead their lives. There is really no room at all under any circumstances for the Christian justification of war; only the necesity of war in the violation of Christian principles.

This is a choice that Christians must sometimes make. But there is not sense in dragging Jesus into it.

Jesus did not kill anyone in self-defense.

What's most interesting about the concept of "just war" is that it springs solely from human theologians, not from Christ's teachings. One can actually make a valid argument that this doctrine fails to comport with Christ's own actions.

Anything having merely a human pedigree cannot be deemed infallible. Indeed, the more august and accepted the doctrine, the more it should probably be debated.

This is emphatically the case with "just war". Indeed, the very fact that our adversaries also tout this doctrine should be all the hint we need that we oughtn't simply accept it as gospel.

"Can we get a little less of Christianity/Catholocism?"

You win the 2009 On Faith Bigot Award.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

D12

tl;dr

Check out the definition(s) of just below. Warring sides violate the basic concept in countless ways - which is one reason the rules of the Geneva Convention were created.

Countless thousands of innocent mutilated and dead victims left behind by opposing forces defeats any concept of a just war. The meaning of justified is not synonymous.

As notable examples, justified war is an idea that might adhere to our paricipation in WWI & II, but is very hard to make in retrospect for the Vietnam War, the war in Iraq, and now the blossoming war/escalation in Afghanistan.

There are no just wars, because the universal brutality of human behavior throughout all the wars of history, completely nulllifies the very concept.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/just

Check out the definition(s) of just below. Warring sides violate the basic concept in countless ways - which is one reason the rules of the Geneva Convention were created.

Countless thousands of innocent mutilated and dead victims left behind by opposing forces defeats any concept of a just war. The meaning of justified is not synonymous.

As notable examples, justified war is an idea that might adhere to our paricipation in WWI & II, but is very hard to make in retrospect for the Vietnam War, the war in Iraq, and now the blossoming war/escalation in Afghanistan.

There are no just wars, because the universal brutality of human behavior throughout all the wars of history, completely nulllifies the very concept.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/just

so.........when someone like a Hitler comes along and has world domination as his goal,......its not just to fight him ????

Remember "just" is a derivative of justice.

Ms Jacoby fails to state that even if the military is made up of economic conscripts, it is still a vastly superior military to any nation. It is an even more superior military than it was when we had a conscript military during Vietnam. And most military commanders today say that a volunteer military is much better than forcing conscription.

There are no just wars, obviously. However, there are wars of defense that must be fought.

The current blood-letting in which we are indulging is not "just."

Really. Can we get a little less of Christianity/Catholocism?

WTF cares about it? Just get it T.H. out of the government.

SUSAN, I HOPE YOU ARE ENJOYING YOUR VACATION. ORAL HAS BEEN LAID TO REST, SO YOU CAN TAKE YOUR MIND OFF HIS PASSING. :

Susan is particularly insightful here, especially with regard to the oxymoron of the 'just wars' apologia by Aquinas - and with no more bearing on reality today than in the 13th century.

He also felt that heretics should first be given the opportunity to repent, and failing that, proceeding with haste to a necessary execution and everlasting damnation.

After all, this is the guy that gave metaphysical shape to the Church doctrine of the Trinity for all time. It all reeks of cultural relativity i.e. time, place, person(nation) and circumstance - a justified war is hardly a just war. And that's the best anyone will ever do with a rationale for war.

As for the contintuing incursion into Afghanistan - what this does is preserve proximity to Pakistan. I believe this has finally been identified as the axis mundi of imminent danger in the near term - a hotbed of fanatical Islam jihadists plus real nuclear capability.....the worst of all combinations.

I believe (I hope) the USA knows Afghanistan has no definable future due to the dominance of tribalism, the Taliban that won't go away, the heroin-based economy, inevitable government corruption, and so forth.

The Russians learned about Afghanistan the hard way.....and yet, we aren't paying a bit of attention to this very recent piece of military and socio-economic history that we helped engineer in a big way.

That being the demise of the Soviet Union through their stubborn insistance on a prolonged military march into the black hole that is Afghanistan. We helped to design that black hole......

And make no mistake, Afghanistan is an alien entity - a political and economic black hole for any outside government that would occupy this country for any reason. Hopefully Obama understands the need for short-term committment here, in spite of the spectre of Osama Bin Laden hanging over his head .... this is on Bush in the last analysis.

A “Just” war is when you have no other choice and must defend yourself or face slavery, oppression, and loss of freedom.

A “holy” war is waged by fanatics that use the term “holy” to justify their blood-lust and desire to be the oppressor of the simpleton.

No holy war can be just, and no just war can be holy.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

The theory of a just war amounts to navel-gazing, having nothing to do with the fact that ALL nations engage in war whenever they feel justified, and therefore that all wars, in this sense, are just wars.
The war you are in now is a just war. And the war someone else is in is an unjust war.

Discussing what constitutes a just war is a parlor game, like scrabble, having nothing to do with blinding, clashing battles raging, just outside the window, in the real world.

Part one

A just war? What does that mean today? And what does the just war envision as the end for which it is the means? What is this justice of the just war?

History demonstrates that wars have been considered just for millennia no matter whether one was the aggressor or defender in the war and that only fairly recently have we managed to arrive at notions such as war for nationalistic, religious, economic, ethnic, etc.--a type of group end--being unjust.

Part two

Today the just war is more often than not a war fought against attempts to fight wars under the banner of religion, nationalism, ethnicity, economics, etc.--but it seems we have not been able to make the war for the political/economic end of social democracy unjust. That seems the last of the just wars. It seems that is supposed to be the last and ultimate rationale for war.

But has the human race really arrived at a political/economic structure which is the visible end of war, the real end and not the mere rationalized end which we have met with in so many examples over history? Many would like to think so. But apparently the primary method by which we are able to become democratic and socialized economically is a method which seems to bring great harm at its best, and at its worst declare the human race essentially null and void and provide it with the means to decisively end itself. I mean science.

Part three

Without science the possibility of democracy, let alone economic socialism, would be nonexistent except for small groups of people--much less than even a small nation today holds--at particular times in history, which is to say temporarily. Science, theory decisively conjoined with the "ground up" inventions which have so often existed over history with no theory guiding invention, has brought about the possibility of all groups such as the religious, nationalistic, ethnic--even economic and political apart from social democracy--not continuing historically, not needing to continue, for a better way is at hand.

But again, at a price. First of course for so many years science held great promise, the capacity according to enlightenment thinkers of bringing about an economic and political utopia. Here we had something of the possibility of nationalism and ethnicity set aside and something of religion overcome in the very success of something it has spoken of for millennia,--again, utopia.

Part four

But as science proceeded even further it became apparent it would be used to advance the same old ends man has always tried to advance over history, his group understandings such as nationalism, etc. Essentially the struggle so far as Western--and to an appreciable degree Eastern--understanding has it, is to somehow make the world a social democracy before man uses science to destroy the world for nationalistic, religious, ethnic, etc. ends.

But even if man does succeed in this struggle, even if the world does become a giant social democracy, it seems man destroys himself because the world cannot sustain so many people having plenty. Science, ironically--ironically because it was supposed to increase the number of people capable of social democracy and make such a life more than just temporary--which is to say spread the ideal life to all humanity--still cannot make the ideal life a life for all rather than a select number and perhaps type of people.

Part five

Science and social democracy have risen to greatest success in the West of course--and the East seems to be not far behind at all--but such a life extended worldwide when even the West and East seem to be overloading the world? Essentially the situation is such that man has realized he is using science to improve life in an improvident manner, and he can neither improve science to make up for his rash, hasty and wasteful nature nor discipline himself to operate within his means.

So essentially just war today means the war fought by those with neither the capability to improve science to benefit the entire earth without the poisoning of the environment nor the discipline to curb their own waste and excess against Holy wars, wars for nationalistic ends, etc. Essentially those with their rationale of just war are painting black all other reasons than social democracy for war, and doing so even though they know they cannot bring social democratic utopia to the world--in fact they know if seven billion people rise to the success of Western and Eastern life such as the U.S. and Japan enjoy, the world is essentially trashed.

And what makes it all the more frightening is the negatives of science, such as of course the capacity to build and use WMD, but less obviously the naturalistic view of science which in its "hard' interpretation says that man will suffer entropy eventually, will go extinct as an evolutionary dead end, will watch the sun boil the earth in its expansion preliminary to its death throes, will...just fail eventually.

Part six

Even the naturalistic view in its softer aspects such as observing that perhaps society can indefinitely be improved by taking evolution in a positive sense--in fact taking it as Darwin himself first really began to see it, which is to say he learned of the terms "selection" and "natural selection" from breeder's treatises, which described the annoying tendency of an animal to depart from a breeder's wishes as "natural selection" rather than "selection"--and altering man into a better animal runs up against the notion of social democracy, just in a different way than man poisoning the earth by science toward trying to provide for seven billion people.

Essentially social democracy is spoken of as the rationale for just war today, but even if the West and East, presumably, being the leaders in intellectual life, manage to both improve science to provide for billions without trashing the earth and discipline man to operate within his means, we have evolutionary pressure asking us what we are to make as future man. We cannot provide a society in which all types of people are going to be happy--social democracy cannot do that--as if evolution does not exist and man can live in a utopia in which he does not even drift in an evolutionary direction,--no!--man is forced even if the just war for social democracy is won to pick a direction he wants man to evolve toward within social democracy. Justice in a very real sense can never exist.

Even today for all our social democratic pretensions we select these people over that. We can work on eliminating poverty but that just makes it all the more bitter that millions are essentially just considered "there" in a world in which the more intelligent, beautiful and athletic are elevated in the mind. War essentially is never over. There is no justice. The universe has no pity for man and man's pity for himself results in no utopia for all. In fact man must not pity himself--man must select what he is to become or be threatened with being obviously vulnerable, incapable of withstanding the universe.

Part seven

The only hope for man to achieve justice is first for social democracy to exist--have it stable and not resting on a base of science which destroys the environment--and then to somehow get all to agree that man must begin selecting himself in the evolutionary sense. Furthermore people must settle on a viable direction for this evolution. That is justice. That is people making their lives just. If such decisions cannot be made--that so many disagree with the direction suggested and want their kind (religious, ethnic, whatever--or even qualitatively such as fat, etc.) perpetuated--well, that is injustice. Only so much justice can be done FOR people. Eventually people have to realize that for all bettering of human life one day the human race will have to suggest an evolutionary direction for itself and this obviously means picking some humans over others. If man can do this, perhaps the problem of justice will no longer exist. All will agree. But if people cannot accept this then no justice is done, no matter how much we try to provide for all. People will just hate being left behind, considered humans not worth perpetuating.

But we are a long way from this of course--psychologically I mean, biology on the other hand is racing ahead--and still stuck thinking about just wars. Today's just war is just social democracy struggling to make itself the political/economy worldwide even as it knows science as it now exists cannot sustain billions upon billions without polluting hopelessly the earth and wiping out species left and right...Nor can social democracy and science guarantee that man himself will become disciplined in the absence of science providing answers for him. Hell, social democracy cannot even guarantee people will put religious, nationalistic, ethnic, etc. disputes behind them.

Hell, we cannot even agree on a just war.

Join the Army.
See the world.
Meet interesting people.
Kill them.

With Zyklon B?
Mr. Neo Nazi?

Wow Susan, the rantings of a sane and level-headed person. When will you stop?

hello all,
i've been busy with all the snow. my wife wanted angels or a jesus-in-the-manger scene, but, well, those are too religious. imagine her eyes rolling as i said that....

to me christmas is not about jesus' birthday. it's about santa and elves and "dashing through the snow" and all that. this was my secular homage to christmas.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/58171957@N00/

HOLIDAY GREETINGS FROM SUSAN JACOBY

As some of you have correctly inferred, I did not comment on the death of Oral Roberts, in spite of a longstanding tendency to enjoy speaking ill of the dead, because I do not consider this an earth-shaking news event. Or a heaven-shaking event. I think Farnaz said it all in her short poem.

I have read, quite carefully, some of the comments denying the strong class element in the maintenance of a volunteer military. All this shows is the distaste of Americans for recognizing the importance of class in many of our major social policies. That the vast majority of Americans consider themselves "middle class," in spite of economic evidence to the contrary, does not make it so. All you need to know about the military, from its own statistics, is that the overwhelming majority of recruits have no more than a high school education. Anyone with only a high school education--or less--and has no prospects of a decent economic future without more education. One hopes that many of these recruits will be able to obtain more education financed by the military--if they do not lose their lives first. But, I repeat, it is simply unconscionable for the governing class to use another class of Americans--a class with limited economic choices--to fight its wars. I hate to break it to people who cherish the label "middle class," but if their sons or daughters cannot get a job or go to college without joining the armed services, they are in fact severely disadvantaged. Social justice and ordinary fairness dictate that if a war is "worth" fighting, everyone should be willing to incur the same risks to fight it.

Have a wonderful holiday, whatever you do or don't celebrate, and I'll be back next week.

Hi Schaum,

What a wonderful guest list and menu! I expect all will enjoy one another and you! I envy you your many accomplishments, your knowledge of music, art, cooking, orchids, Buddhism, not to mention math and programing.

How is Sebastian holding up? He will get a lot of attention, I suspect. Did you take him with you when you went on your trip?

No, the snow is not brown although variously gray and tan in certain places. I like the snow.

How is the weather down your way?

I cannot understand how SUSAN JACOBY can simply abandon us without at least letting us know that she will be away.

I despair. Sad :0

Farnaz:

Who is coming here for Christmas? Who isn’t!

A couple who’ve been friends since my days in DC. They live in Falls Church; this is the first Christmas they’ve had without their children, so they are coming here Christmas Eve. Another couple I know from Charlottesville coming Christmas day. I played at their wedding four years ago. Four Hispanic guys from next door, who are new in this country (not certain about their legality) and two don’t speak any English. A woman from Wendy’s, who has always been very nice to me and who is alone for the holidays. A few singles from the University. Christian and me. 14 in all

I’m going to cook the ducks on Thursday, and cut the meat off them so I only have to reheat the meat on Christmas. Most of the other cooking I’ll do Wednesday. The butternut squash with rum and pistachios is a lot better after it’s a couple of days old. Bourbon pecan pie is better after it “rests” a few days too.

We’ve been to Charleston, SC for a couple of days. Friend of mine there, who is a lawyer and is being disbarred, is selling his orchid collection (about 8000 plants!) to raise money for his legal fees. Went down to help him, since I know something about orchids. Charleston is beautifully decorated! Came back to 15 inches of snow. I guess it will be around for Christmas too. Its cold out. Has the snow in NY turned brown yet?

Schaum,

Finally, Oral Roberts has been laid to rest.

Now, we have the non-question of whether climate change is EITHER a political OR a moral issue. (NB, Susan J.)

At all events, hopefully, Susan will post something soon.

BTW, SUSAN, a blogger recently wrote that "yesterday's philosophy is today's common sense." This insight could be productively used to revitalize discussions of atheism, which continually casts itself as negating rather than affirming, admitting the difficulty of its (self)positioning.
------------------
Well, Schaum, you are in possession of a lot of ducks. Do you have a large oven? Large apartment? Who are the folks you've invited for dinner?

As for us, we don't celebrate Christmas/Solstice chez nous. In the past, we visited friends, but for some reason, we, including Dottir, always felt uncomfortable. This had nothing to do with our hosts with whom we often socialize, more to do with cultural differences, I suspect.

But we had a lovely Hanukkah, yours truly does get to visit a friend in DC during the break.

Snowed here today, snowed and snowed and snowed! How is it down south?

Farnaz

Thanks for the post, Pam!

"The first draft lottery was held in 1969. The Accords were signed in 1973."

I'm talking about the end of the draft. The lottery was still a draft, and certainly didn't end the protests.

http://www.historyguy.com/issues_draft.html

Oral has gone.
We must carry on.

Benedict, one day,
Will go away.

His pointy hats
Prada shoes
Will be remembered
By those he eschews.

Even now, when he is alive,
On Pope Bennie jokes, many do thrive.

So, farewell to you, Oral,
Before not too long,
Bennie, the C, joins
Heavens throng.

Now, we of OnFaith, must say goodbye,
Since discussions of you are making us cry.

RIP

Benedict has signed a decree declaring Pius XII venerable, the first step toward sainthood.

THAT's interesting.

SUSAN JACOBY:

HELP, pleeezzz!

Help, please. Has not the late Oral Roberts dwelled in state here long enough? Shouldn't Roberts' faithful be entitled to grieve, each in his/her own way? Can't the snickerers snicker elsewhere?

Appeals to David Waters to get this gunk off this blog have gone nowhere.

I despair.

Farnaz

Never really understood the whole Martha Mitchell saga.

Would like to know more....

Re the late Oral Roberts:

I always thought Oral Roberts was full of crap. But I'll relate my favorite OR story, and this is true -- I saw it on TV myself.

He and various members of his family were seated on a dias, at some special program celebrating his many years in the faith healing industry. Wife, children, children-in-law...the whole bunch.

He was talking about his first faith healing, in a tent-revival setting. The recipient of the 'healing' was an old man in a wheel-chair. Roberts went on at great length about his prayers over the man, and the he laid his hands on him and commanded the devil to 'release' him from his affliction.

Roberts own words: "When I laid my hands on his head, that man just ejaculated right out of that chair!" He meant, of course, to say 'ejected'. It was hilarious! Everyone on the platform appeared to have turned to stone!

I was just pointing out the Martha Mitchel connection because it happened during the big antiwar demonstrations. I remember Martha Mitchell on "Sixty Minutes" being interviewed by Mike Wallace, commenting in fear, on the 500,000 people who demonstrated near the Pentagon:

"... it is like the Russian Revolution ..."

And she was afraid that she would be strung up for all the dirty things her husband and his boss had been doing.

WalterIFC:

"And when she got loose and blabbed what had happened, no one believed her. "Poor drunk Martha, again" everybody thought. But it was all true, we gradually came to realize."

I remember, vividly! Republicans are not to be trusted!

Remember President Nixon's Attorney General, John Mitchell?

... and his wife, Martha?

Remember how Martha, a little bit of a drinker, I think, got wind of all the shadey going's on in the Nixon Whitehouse, and she began to talk?

And so, her husband, the Attourny General had her drugged, injected with a hyperdermic needle, and she was whisked away, tied up and held in captivity, maybe in a mental institution, I forget the exact details.

And when she got loose and blabbed what had happened, no one believed her. "Poor drunk Martha, again" everybody thought. But it was all true, we gradually came to realize.

Of course, John went to jail, I think, and Martha filed for divorce.

Weisel = Wiesel

Farnaz:

"How are holiday preparations going?"

They keep expanding! Now up to 14 for Christmas Day. I'm allowing 1/2 duck per person, so thats 7 ducks... a lot of roasting time. But it will be fun. Christmas seems to be the only time that I can really 'get together' with friends. So many different schedule conflicts during the year that its impossible to give a decent dinner party any longer. I long for the days in DC, before life got so hectic and complex. I've always enjoyed entertaining, and did a lot of it then. Christian is meeting lots of Americans, and he's very impressed. But he's very into techno and IT and communications, so there is a lot here to hold his interest.

And you? What plans for the holidays?

Arminius is back for another farewell tour, I see. He's been here all along, of course, in one disguise or another.

Rereading Weisel's "Souls On Fire". While listening to Christmas music on cds. Odd sensation, that!

Schaum

Thanks for the summary! All of this squares with MOther's oft-repeated tales of the era. What upset her was the end of radicalization regarding many, many issues with the institutionalization of the lottery.

Yes, reforms had been implemented for minorities, women, et al. The War involvement was changing. The seventies would see more progress for minorities and women, true, but radicalization was over. The revolution had been televised. Levi's was making faded jeans, etc.

The seventies was the decade of MOI, Mother said, Farnaz read. Disco, etc.

Hi Schaum,

How are holiday preparations going?

Actually, both men and women are required to serve in the Israeli military, although there are different sorts of exceptions, provisions for limited service, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Israel

Your mother's recollection that the protests came to a screeching halt in 1969, because of the lottery, is not accurate, however.

"The antiwar movement became both more powerful and, at the same time, less cohesive between 1969 and 1973. Most Americans pragmatically opposed escalating the U.S. role in Vietnam, believing the economic cost too high; in November of 1969 a second march on Washington drew an estimated 500,000 participants. At the same time, most disapproved of the counterculture that had arisen alongside the antiwar movement. The clean-cut, well-dressed SDS members, who had tied their hopes to McCarthy in 1968, were being subordinated as movement leaders. Their replacements deservedly gained less public respect, were tagged with the label "hippie," and faced much mainstream opposition from middle-class Americans uncomfortable with the youth culture of the period-long hair, casual drug use, promiscuity. Protest music, typified by Joan Baez and Bob Dylan, contributed to the gulf between young and old. Cultural and political protest had become inextricably intertwined within the movement's vanguard. The new leaders became increasingly strident, greeting returning soldiers with jeers and taunts, spitting on troops in airports and on public streets. A unique situation arose in which most Americans supported the cause but opposed the leaders, methods, and culture of protest.

The movement regained solidarity following several disturbing incidents. In February 1970 news of the My Lai massacre became public and ignited widespread outrage. In April President Nixon, who had previously committed to a planned withdrawal, announced that U.S. forces had entered Cambodia. Within minutes of the televised statement, protesters took to the streets with renewed focus. Then, on 4 May, Ohio National Guardsmen fired on a group of student protesters at Kent State University, killing four and wounding sixteen. Death, previously distant, was now close at hand. New groups-Nobel science laureates, State Department officers, the American Civil Liberties Union-all openly called for withdrawal. Congress began threatening the Nixon administration with challenges to presidential authority. When the New York Times published the first installment of the Pentagon Papers on 13 June 1971, Americans became aware of the true nature of the war. Stories of drug trafficking, political assassinations, and indiscriminate bombings led many to believe that military and intelligence services had lost all accountability. Antiwar sentiment, previously tainted with an air of anti-Americanism, became instead a normal reaction against zealous excess. Dissent dominated America; the antiwar cause had become institutionalized. By January 1973, when Nixon announced the effective end of U.S. involvement, he did so in response to a mandate unequaled in modern times."

Farnaz:

I remember the lottery well. I had a very high number, which was a relief to me!

I think the Israeli requirement of every male, of 2-years service to the military, is a good one. It would be most equitable and would certainly obviate any rich/poor, majority/minority considerations in the US.

It is good, of course, that the military is an option for people who need jobs. It is, after all, a job/profession like any other and should be open to all. (Evidently it is open even to skinheads and white supremacists!) However, recruitment does appear to aim directly at people who are *desperate* for work, which means the poor and minorities.

The first draft lottery was held in 1969. The Accords were signed in 1973.

http://www.timelines.info/history/conflict_and_war/20th_century_conflicts/conflicts_since_world_war_two/vietnam_-_second_indochina_war/

"Btw., Mother has a lot to say on this. She was a student here when the draft changed to the lottery. At the same time, she says, protests against the Vietnam War came to a screeching halt."

That would be because the Paris Peace Accords were signed the same day that it was announced that the draft was over. No more war (for Amricans, anyway), no more draft - nothing to protest.

FH1231

Please remember our Commander-in-Chief, and President of the United States, Barak Obama, at this time of year. This is truly one of the most difficult times to have so many death threats and expressions of hatred against the President and his family. Our First Family deserves to at least be in our thoughts as we go on about our busy days.

Schaum wrote:
"Or is it Arminius? One never knows.
I thought you had ridden off into the sunset with nothing further to say. I think the information I posted says all that."

Nothing more to say about casualties.

I think the information "I" posted says it all. Seems we're at an impass unless you post some facts.

That some folks chose to stay in the army because of a recession is not proof of economic disparity with regards to recruits in our military.

"Your sloppy appeals to pseudo-sentiment are really as illogical as they are -- well, sloppy."

Your absurd populist sentiment is far more illogical and sloppy than anything I have said. Especially when combined with the contradictory opinions that the military is like any other job; while at the same time asserting that it's an example of the "man" getting the poor to do his dirty-work. Which is it...should we be glad that the army is employing folks that can't get a job elsewhere, or should we be angry at the wealthy taking advantage of the ignorant masses?

Schaum,

Remember, Susan's statement about the military concerned the volunteer army, historically.

Btw., Mother has a lot to say on this. She was a student here when the draft changed to the lottery. At the same time, she says, protests against the Vietnam War came to a screeching halt.

Does this sound familiar?

Schaum,

Here is the full CBO study:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/83xx/doc8313/07-19-MilitaryVol.pdf

-----------------------------------
Here is the CBO memo, which you may have seen.

https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/12962/wm_1561.pdf?sequence=1

-------------------
Major's last email. The South is heavily targeted. Again, poverty guidelines are misleading. A family may be well above the guidelines, but lacking the middle class know how that would suggest alternative career paths, educational options that would not require heavy loans, etc.

Some consider all the so-called "medical benefits," think of them as first rate, while they are, in fact, third or fourth rate in most cases, etc.

"FORT RILEY, Kan. (AP) - Sgt. Ryan Nyhus spent 14 months patrolling the deadly streets of Baghdad, where five members of his platoon were shot and one died. As bad as that was, he would rather go back there than take his chances in this brutal job market.

Nyhus re-enlisted last Wednesday, and in so doing joined the growing ranks of those choosing to stay in the U.S. military because of the bleak economy."

Oh, yeah, its a job, like any job is a job -- and evidently a lot of people are taking it because there are no other jobs. I'd say seasonal "remembrances" and "thoughts" should be extended to those who cannot find jobs, and for whom the military is not a job-option. Those in the military are doing just fine this time of year.

Oh...the facts....

I would have thought that would be obvious even to you. Military personnel don't get special considerations for doing their jobs. They get paid. Just like the rest of us, regardless of whether we work through Christmas or not, and whether we are home for the holidays or not.

Your sloppy appeals to pseudo-sentiment are really as illogical as they are -- well, sloppy.

FH1231:

Or is it Arminius? One never knows.

I thought you had ridden off into the sunset with nothing further to say. I think the information I posted says all that needs to be said.

Schaum:

From a Heritage Foundation study.

Household Income. Enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Low-income neighbor­hoods were underrepresented among enlisted troops, while middle-class and high-income neighborhoods were overrepresented."

I call your highly partisan quote, and raise you my highly partisan study...still waiting on those pesky facts.

FH1231:

""A lot of the high recruitment rates are in areas where there is not as much economic opportunity for young people," said Anita Dancs, research director for the NPP, based in Northampton, Mass. "

Sounds like economically desperate people looking for ANY kind of a job, to me. The rich declare wars, the poor fight them.

Join the Army.
See the world.
Meet interesting people.
Kill them.

"For once, you have said something accurate and to the point. Facts are annoying little things, aren't they."

Posted by: Schaum | December 17, 2009 1:38 PM

As I saw no facts in the post on which I commented...I'm not sure what your point is?

Facts are pesky little things...do you have any??? That large numbers of recruits come from the South is not surprising as, unlike you, our culture clearly sees serving in the military as more than a job.

Farnaz:

Per WAPO, Nov 2005 --

"As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war.

More than 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from rural areas, Pentagon figures show. In contrast, 14 percent come from major cities. Youths living in the most sparsely populated Zip codes are 22 percent more likely to join the Army, with an opposite trend in cities. Regionally, most enlistees come from the South (40 percent) and West (24 percent).

Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median.

Such patterns are pronounced in such counties as Martinsville, Va., that supply the greatest number of enlistees in proportion to their youth populations. All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were non-metropolitan, according to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan research group that analyzed 2004 recruiting data by Zip code.

"A lot of the high recruitment rates are in areas where there is not as much economic opportunity for young people," said Anita Dancs, research director for the NPP, based in Northampton, Mass. "

FH1231:

"As for Shaum, I think your words speak for themselves...not really any need for me to comment further."

For once, you have said something accurate and to the point. Facts are annoying little things, aren't they.

Daniel, I never said a thing about the military being "just a job." That was your buddy Shaum.

As for Shaum, I think your words speak for themselves...not really any need for me to comment further.

FH1231:

"Less of the condescending hearts and flowers, please."

AMEN!

Thank God somebody finally said it.

FH1231 just got through arguing about how the troops are just people doing a job, and then, the very next minute, lets all bow our heads for their sacrafices.

I find this sappy right-wing sentiment about the sanctity of the troops is usually a setup to trip-up and trap people who disagree with the war, or with war, in general, to call them left-wing, lefty looones, who are unpatriotic and treasonous.

Frankly, I am a little sick of it.

FH1231:

"Please remember the troops wherever they are serving at this time of year. This is truly one of the most difficult times to be away from home, and family. Those that serve our county deserve to at least be in our thoughts as we go on about our busy days."

Less of the condescending hearts and flowers, please. Employment in the military is a job, just like any other job, and is one for which the employee has knowingly applied and accepted. The military are no more or less deserving of "being in our thoughts" than any other businessmen/women who are away from home on the business they have chosen, at this or any other time of year.

Farnaz:

http://m.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/poor-and-uneducated-like-we-thought/Content?oid=933196

Schaum, we can play the stistics games all day with regards to race, income etc., and the fact is there is no way to come to a completely accurate conclusion.

What we do have is this; 74.7% of those KIA in Iraq as of Feb. 28 2009 were white. More telling is that 79.4% of those KIA in Afgahnistan were white. The combat arms MOS's in the military (that would be those that actually go out and do the fighting, as opposed to those in combat support units) are overwhelmingly white. The difference in the percentages from Iraq to Afgahn. is because the front lines were blurred with IED's targeting many support troops in convoys etc.

The myth that poor minorities are primarily doing the fighting for the rich white man is just that...a myth. This will be the last time I discuss this subject, and I was loath to even mention it here because these numbers obviously represent real people and their families and they should not be thought of as just a "number".

Please remember the troops wherever they are serving at this time of year. This is truly one of the most difficult times to be away from home, and family. Those that serve our county deserve to at least be in our thoughts as we go on about our busy days.

Schaum,

On second reading, I don't see that you are disputing the argument that the POOR are not over-represented.

Are you?

My email to friend concerned first, social class, then, race.

These two variables cannot be confounded as you know. The question for friend is how poverty is being defined, the economic motives for enlisting, etc.

Many African Americans who enlist have incomes well above the poverty guidelines.

Again, I'm not disputing racism, but there are two variables. But then there are also cultural factors within enlisting groups, possibly racialist motives in recruiting.

Gotta run.

Schaum,

Can you provide web sites?

I just received an email from my brother-in-law's friend, an army major, since I had very serious doubts about the statistics albeit provided by Dubner through the Heritage Foundation.

Two years ago I was embroiled in an effort to get recruiters, very aggressive, off our working class campus. I charged two student reporters with comparing/contrasting their tactics at our (largely white, working class) college with their methods at Columbia. LOL!

At all events, my brother-in-law's pal has serious doubts about the stats by the Heritage Foundation. He believes that "poor," however, is a misleading word, for one thing, more on which later, and that finances are a huge part of the problem.
Not that race isn't.

However, one does not wish to equate black with poor. (Not that you are.) The promise of an education is a huge selling point in the military, friend says.

""Allegations that recruiters are disproportionately targeting blacks also don't hold water," says the Heritage Foundation. "First, whites make up 77.4 percent of the nation's population and 75.8 percent of its military volunteers, according to our analysis of Department of Defense data."

Which is "true"—but not True.

The key word here is "volunteers," which here means "new recruits." A new CBO study released this July states: "Because black personnel have been a larger share of recruits in the past and because they have relatively high retention rates, however, they account for a larger share of the active enlisted force as a whole: 19 percent, compared with 14 percent of the civilian population of 17- to 49-year-olds. Black service members make up a smaller percentage of the active officer corps: 9 percent."

You're more than 35 percent more likely to be in the military if you're black than if you're white. But you're 35 percent less likely to become an officer. Ignore the propaganda—the military is a reflection of, rather than a cure for, racism.

"Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members," Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, told the Southern Poverty Law Center."

----- same source

"There are lies, damned lies and Republican statistics. The Heritage study relies on apples-to-oranges comparisons and factual omissions.

No one tracks how much soldiers earned the year before they enlist. The Department of Defense estimates that its employees take a $20,000-per-year pay-and-benefits hit relative to civilians the same age throughout their careers. There is, however, a nifty study by the nonpartisan National Priorities Project that compares home ZIP codes of new recruits to tax return data for those areas. "Neighborhoods with low- to middle-median household incomes are over-represented," finds the NPP. "Neighborhoods with high-median household incomes are under-represented."

A closer look shows that the socioeconomic distance between America at home and American troops abroad is a gaping chasm. Young men and women from affluent neighborhoods—those with average household incomes of $100,000 or more—are three to four times less likely as those from poor and lower middle class areas (under $50,000) to serve in the military. This ratio is increasing.

Heritage obtained different results by "comparing these wartime recruits (2003–2005) to the resident population ages 18–24" in each ZIP code (as opposed to the overall population, all ages included). Many recruits are college dropouts who list their last address—their college dorm—when they sign up. College ZIP codes are populated by disproportionately high numbers of 18 to 24-year-olds who are full-time students and/or work low-paying and part-time jobs. Though imperfect, NPP gets much closer to comparing apples to apples by looking at the overall income picture of recruits' hometowns or communities surrounding a college, not just college-aid kids who earn a pittance."

---Poor and Uneducated, Like We Thought
Debunking the military debunkers
by Ted Rall

Susan,

In fact, the poor are NOT over-represented in the military. Here is a link to Dubner's Freakonomics blog. He draws on data compiled by the Heritage Foundation.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/who-serves-in-the-military-today/

Conventional wisdom is simply incorrect in this case. There is much, much more data showing that the majority in the military qualify as middle class.

As one who always questions "conventional wisdom," I can only offer you the comfort of knowing that like you, I failed to inquire in the current instance.

There are no just wars; there is no just war.

Whatever war you are in, that is a just war.

Everyone thinks their cause is just and the enemy is evil. That is why we have war.

War is the squabble of little children, only there is no parental authority to call a time-out.

War is a slugfest between people of ill-will, like an unhappily married couple.

What do people want more than anything else in the world? They want two things that conflict: freedom and security;

... meaning, we each want to do anything we please, but we do not want other people to do as they please. We each want to tell other people what to do; but we do not want anybody to tell us what to do.

Morph that little concept to the anarchy of nations, and what do you have? War.

A just war? That is just plain silliness.

Situations arise, that we wish would not arise, and we get out of them with war. But it is not justice; it is selfishness and greed and narcisism all the way.

Christians, bragging about their military prowess? What hypocrisy!

"Blessed are the warriors, for they shall ..." I forget the rest. Jesus did say that, didn't he? Can someone look it up, and finish the thought?

Farnaz:

Evening. Just in from two days in Williamsburg. The decorations are outstanding! Finished my christmas shopping. How about you?

Hi Susan,

Staying out of the Oral Roberts to do, I see!

I've been trying to convince David Waters that the blog should switch back to its regularly scheduled programing, as it were, but to no avail.

Surely, Oral would want us to soldier on somehow...?

Ah, well. See you back on the main screen soon I hope!

Farnaz

Hi, FH1231,

True about the last 5 presidential elections. But consider this: the two best war presidents had no real military experience: Lincoln and FDR.

I agree that ratio is very important. The class and/or ethnesticity issue is also important, but less so. It should be noted, I suppose, that enlistments have gone up because of the serious unemployment.

Well Susan and especially Arminius, in the last 5 presidential elections, when given the chance to vote for the war veteran or the other guy...we have consistently chosen the "other guy". This must lead to the conclusion that military service is simply not much of a priority when it comes to what we value in our leaders.

While Susan wants to make the primary issue about "class", I submit that the primary issue is about ratio. Only a small percentage of the country is invested in this fight, while the rest of us go on about the business of livin' the dream.

Here's a list from 2007 of the kids of senators and representatives serving in the military:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/89071-politicians-sons-serving-afghanistan-iraq-wars.html
Not exactly a show-stopper, but better than expected.

And this, from Gen Sherman:
"I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.”

Once again, many of you are missing the point of why it is so wrong that the governing class (by which I mean America's entire upper middle income class) has exempted itself from having to fight wars. The point is not that the children of the poor don't make good soldiers; it is that the powerful should not expect the less powerful to do their fighting for them.

Now that someone has reminded me that John McCain (whose family, of course comes from a long line of naval officers) and Kit Bond of Missouri also have sons in the military, we have a grand total of four high elected officials. (There may indeed be others, both Republicans and Democrats, whom we've all forgotten.)This is pitiful. It's a scandal. I don't know how anyone who supports these wars--in either party-- can look at this situation and not see what it says about the ethics and morality of this nation.

Anyway, some peoples will be overrepresented in the armed forces. Mr C. is a Scot, not known for their pacifism: I mean if you were asked: Quick! name a pacifist people Scots wouldn't spring to mind. Anyway, they are justly (IMHO)proud of their famous regiments, many of them established centuries ago.

Over represented in the British armies for sure but MOD will not publish by how much. Rumour has it that Scots compose 30% of the armed forces against their (certified) 10% of the UK population. That seems too high to me, but the fact the MOD
won't publish leads me to believe the Scots' contribution to the military is substantial.

Arminius & Volkmare:

Finally trying to resolve a contention with numbers, not calumny. Thank you and congratulations. (Now let's see how long it lasts.) I understand demography and know how to use demographic sources, and this is the best source I found:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Racial+Composition+of+Army+Recruits+vs.+Population+2004

It's good because it compares the age-specific enlistment rates by racial groups, remember some groups will be younger than other. Also it is impeccable in naming its sources.

It simply does not support SJ's contention that the "ethnic poor" are "vastly overrepresented in the military:

for example blacks compose 14% of the 17-24 age group, and 16.4% of active duty army recruits. Hispanics:17% of the 17-24 cohort but only 13% active duty army recruits, so in this case poor ethnic group is under not overrepresented in the military (why?)

It's dated 2004, but since we are interested in ratios not absolutes, I would hold that the findings are coherent.

Incidentally the US military is expensive. NPP estimates that of:

$10,000 you paid in Federal Income Taxes:

$2,940 goes to Military
$2,130 goes to Health
$790 goes to Interest on Military Debt
$1,190 goes to Interest on Non-Military Debt
$720 goes to Income Security and Labor
$380 goes to Housing and Community
$380 goes to Veterans' Benefits
$360 goes to Food
$310 goes to Government
$300 goes to Education
$280 goes to Environment Energy and Science
$120 goes to International Affairs
$100 goes to Transportation

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxchart2009/10000

Someone already pointed out that McClain and Kit Bond have children serving in the military. How could Jacoby have overlooked Sarah Palin's son? Another Republican with a son in service is former Attorney General Ashcroft. So while Jacoby can think of only one politician, a Democrat, with a son or daughter in the military, it is easy to name four Republicans. I suspect there are quite a few more. Still, her main point is right: without a draft, it is hard to justify this war.

Mark

You ended by saying:

"I have no intention of leaving my country, and I'm sure that bothers you…"

You are snarky and mean, and that comment is just another example. I was merely turning your snarky mean-spirited jab at Susan back on yourself.

Keep telling us what a great Christian you are; otherwise, no one would know.

FH1231

Interesting that you were in the 82nd.

The son I was talking about in my last post is a master paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division. He is a Combat Engineer and a Sapper. He earned expert marksman in every weapon they handed him including shooting a happy face shape with a 249SAW at 200 meters. He sent me the target to prove he could do it.

I would not want to be his enemy when he has an open-fire order.

The Green Beret wanted him as a sniper, but he preferred to lead a squad in combat.
The GB sniper instructor even gave him his cover. I'm sure you know what that represents.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

FH1231,

And I thank you for your service, and I thank your brothers. My great nephew is soon headed for the Sandbox for his second tour. Am I scared? Hell, yes.

National service, a great idea. Sad, not in our lives, maybe never. It would bring our country together, certainly more than it is now. In a long life, I have never seen such bitter division here, not even in the 60s.

"Posted by: arminius3142

"BTW - I am a vet, 1968-1970, combat engineer, served in West Berlin."

Thank you so much for your service. Airborne infantry in the 82nd from 84-88 myself. My two brothers served in the Vietnam era also.

There is a disconnect between vets and non-vets that will probably never be resolved. The big question you raise is in regards to sacrifice by the few for the many, and that topic deserves more time than I have to devote to it here in a meaningful way. The short answer is mandatory govt service of some sort, which will never happen in our lifetime IMO.

DanielintheLionsDen

You obviously ran off on a tangent when reading my posting.

I love my country. I love it enough to volunteer to defend it during the Viet Nam era. Yes, that means I put my life on the line for my country. I didn’t have to join because my draft number was 353, which means my chance of being drafted was between slim and none. So I jumped in with both feet.

I am obnoxiously proud of my sons for doing the same thing on their own accord. One has been wounded multiple times and wouldn’t leave his men behind to go heal (he was a squad leader – staff sergeant). Now he is paying the price (PTSD) for that decision, but all of his squad made it home alive.

Sorry, but this brings tears to my eyes.

I am also a Patriot Guard ride captain to honor those who serve their country.

I have no intention of leaving my country, and I'm sure that bothers you…

Mark
Always seek the truth.

FH1231,

I ran across that link too, in my search. What I am trying to do is reach the ultimate source of the data, a government, or, better, a military source. For the life of me, I can't find one. I will not fully trust a source, either conservative or liberal, that has an axe to grind.

Early on, in the start of the volunteer army, I always heard that the education level was high. Now I see some data that indicates that it is somewhat below - not a whole lot below - the national average.

As for a higher percentage of minorities in the military than in the nation - that may be an indication of a lot of things. But what I believe, and this is important, that this makes NO difference in the ultimate quality of the soldier. But I do wonder about the low percent of soldiers re the total population - makes them a separate group, different. This could have consequences that we will not like.

BTW - I am a vet, 1968-1970, combat engineer, served in West Berlin.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/genjoin/a/asvabminimum.htm

This is one link I looked at, which I thought was very helpful. It seems the Army is clearly the branch that has dropped standards of late...although this site indicates an 83% graduation rate?

Strange that the information is not easier to come by.

FH1231,

My numbers were for those enlisting. Yours seem to be for those on active service, and the armed forces are very big on getting those without a high school degree to get a GED.

Do you have some links for your sources? I'd like to get to the bottom of this.

Arminius

Armenius:

The number that was quoted was a combo of a H.S. graduate "or" GED. The 71% graduate figure is about what my research indicated as well.

U.S. Military
Active Duty
by Race

(As of May 2008)

White 70.3% 958,732
Hispanic 10.5% 143,167
Black 17.2% 234,960
Asian (3.6%) 48,673

SOURCE: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Operation
Iraqi Freedom
Deaths by Race

(Through July 5, 2008)

White 74.7% 3,068
Hispanic 10.7% 439
Black 9.5% 391

Asian (1.9%) 77

FH1231,

Your data from the conservative Heritage Foundation, claiming only 1.7% of enlistees had a high school diploma or the equivalent, contradicts everything I have ever read on the subject.

Here is one source, listing only 71% of enlistees having a high school diploma in 2007:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/23/army_recruits_with_diplomas_hit_25_year_low/
It does not specify those who might have a GED. I cannot believe that very many had one.

Susan Wrote: "As for the Sixties, although I was opposed to the war in Vietnam, I was among a minority of my contemporaries who thought that the end of the draft would lead to exactly what it has led to--a society in which a lot of Americans can ignore war because they aren't compelled to fight it."

This from the Heritage Foundation:

"Education. Contrary to popular perceptions, America’s enlisted troops are not poorly educated. Previous Heritage Foundation studies found that enlisted troops were significantly more likely to have a high school education than their peers. This is still the case. Only 1.4 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 had not graduated from high school or completed a high school equivalency degree, com­pared to 20.8 percent of men ages 18 to 24. Amer­ica’s soldiers are less likely than civilians to be high school dropouts."

The fact is you really don't know what the numbers are, but you know what you want them to be to validate your view of the world. Armenius stats are right around what you would expect with a minority population of somewhere between 33 - 35% and rising. Take it from a middle-class white kid who served...you don't know what your talking about.

Thanks to Arminius for correcting one of the many distortions by a few people on this blog who are in such denial that they can't accept the fact that our volunteer army is disproportionately composed of poor people of all races who don't have other civilian opportunities.

Yes, young blacks and whites from some of the poorest areas of the country are vastly overrepresented in the military. In fiscal year 2008, fully 17 percent of new Army recruits did not even have a high school diploma. Take a look at the state-by-state breakdown of recruits, and you'll see how disproportionately they come from poor states, many in the Deep South and Appalachia.

My statements about the moral corrosion of unequal sacrifice have nothing to do with my position on the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. As I said, I would support the war if I thought it would provide a victory over Islamic jihadists. And those of you who do think that way have no moral standing if you aren't ready to enlist yourselves. But you aren't, are you--not if you have a decent job in civilian life? And you don't want your children to serve, either, do you--assuming they're not among those who lack not only a college but a high school degree?

As for the Sixties, although I was opposed to the war in Vietnam, I was among a minority of my contemporaries who thought that the end of the draft would lead to exactly what it has led to--a society in which a lot of Americans can ignore war because they aren't compelled to fight it.

ZZim wrote:
"Actually, no. This war is being fought disproportionately by white kids from rural areas and the suburbs. Ethnic minorities and big-city kids a under-represented in the combat arms."

According to figures released by the census bureau and the DoD in Dec 2006, minorities in the armed forces were 38.7%:
http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/1163049
Note that this does not break out combat arms, but I suspect it is not much different. When I was in the army in 1968-1970, minorities, while not the above figure, were still over the national average.

obama is doing the right thing. we should TOTALLY commit to afghanistan. that's what this was really all about. iraq was bush/rumsfeld/cheney/wolfowitz's little "let's get sadaam" war game. osama bin laden and 9/11 just got in the way. our efforts in afghanistan have been perfunctory at best.

in bush et. al.s world, the "osama bin laden thing" was a diversion before moving on to iraq. out here in the reality-based world iraq was/is the diversion. we must get out of iraq responsibly, like obama's doing, apologize a 1000 times for ever going into iraq and get back to "fighting terrorism". i know we're all tired of these TWO wars, and we may have tricked ourselves into thinking once we've "solved" iraq, we can go home and relax.

afghanistan is what this is all about. is anyone else appalled we haven't gotten osama bin laden!? that's unbelievable to me.

afghanistan is also a chance to "do right" by regular moderate muslims in afghanistan. we can't just abandon them to the taliban/al qaeda. it's a chance to show them and world it's not all muslims we're after, it's just the "militant lesser jihad" types.

furthermore, if we find militant lesser jihad training camps in other countries we should destroy them too - either ostentatiously with giant bombs, for show when needed, or discretely with special-ops raids. we have to be very careful about getting just the bad ones...

FH1231

You are right. We were attacked. President Bush retaliated against Afghanistan. Then he lost interest.

We defeated Germany, Japan, and Italy in less than 4 years. We are immensely more wealthy and powerful now, than we were then.

I think we have done about all we're going to do in Afgahnisan. We have been there long enough.

Osama bin Laden is the one trying to make this a holy war. For him, his followers and for many across the Middle East, it will be a holy war whether America says it is or not.

In case anyone forgot, we went to war in Afghanistan because of 9/11. We went to war because Afghanistan is where Al Qaeda trained its terrorists and because Afghanistan gave safe haven to Al Qaeda's leaders after the attacks.

The day after 9/11, people of all races and all economic levels were standing in line to enlist in the Army. A football player with a rich NFL contract said no to fame and enlisted. To say being a soldier in the United States military is all about the money is demeaning to every patriot who says 'I will'. These statements say more about the cynicism of the liberal rich than they do about the patriotism of the great American soldier.

The War in Afghanistan might have been fairly won by now except for a few things. First, we started a second war (in Iraq) and gave it priority. Second, we have treated the Pakistani border with much more respect than Al Qaeda has. Third, we did not pressure President Karzai to vigorously fight waste and corruption in his government the way we should have. And finally, President Bush failed to realize that the patience of the American public for war is not infinite - which brings us back to points one, two and three.

While there may be no 'just' war, Afghanistan is certainly the more just of the two wars we have been fighting. The consequence of not winning in Iraq was another petty religious dictatorship. The consequence of not winning in Afghanistan is another home for Al Qaeda leading to another 9/11.

Daniel Wrote: "The reason why we are in this war is because we are stuck there. George Bush lead us there with 8 years of a loosing strategy. And now, the new President finds it difficult to leave."

Well, actually we are there because the people who flew planes into skyscrapers in New York city and the Pentagon in D.C; were trained there; were supported by terrorists who lived there; were protected by the govt. that "was" there. And now we are forced to stay because those same people are making every effort to destabalize the region, including the "NUCLEAR" Pakistan.

Regarding this: "This war is being fought disproportionately by racial minorities"

Actually, no. This war is being fought disproportionately by white kids from rural areas and the suburbs. Ethnic minorities and big-city kids a under-represented in the combat arms.

The rest of your article was crap, too.

In Iran, a male student dressed in women's clothing, to avoid capture and arrest. When the authorities caught him, they paraded him on television in women's clothes to humiliate him. In reaction, male protestors are now wearing women's clothing to humiliate the government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNgN1rbXjLc&feature=player_embedded

Mark

The same applies to you:

"... if you don’t like your country you are welcome to leave."

The reason why we are in this war is because we are stuck there. George Bush lead us there with 8 years of a loosing strategy. And now, the new President finds it difficult to leave.

The President had this war presented to him, already in progress, with commitments, alliances, and promises,already made, that he does not want to go back on. And there is also the extreme pressure of the military and the conservatives who support the military, to stay.

There is the inertia of a great army in place, in a war that has not gone well, but maybe it will if we stick it out, all with the realization that it is hard to turn this ship around and steer it in a different direction.

That is the real justification for the war, that it is easier to keep going, than to stop.

Republican Sen. Kit Bond and John McCain both have sons that have served in Iraq or Afghan.

The notion that the military is made up of the poor is not based on any factual evidence, in fact the best information out there suggests that the military is made up of a good representation of the population. This is a myth propagated by people like Susan Jacoby because she has never recovered from the 60's. Not only that, having served in the 82nd myself, I would argue that those in Special Operations units and elite combat units are overwhelmingly white and middle-class.

"Is the cause in Afghanistan futile?"

This is the salient question and the answer seems obvious. We simply do not possess the patience necessary to drag a seventh century society into the modern world. When we do withdraw, Afghanistan will retreat into the collection of warring tribes that it always has been.

The irony is that Iraq is a much more salubrious place to try and reform the manifest dysfunction that Arab/Muslim societies and their threat to the West. Switching our foreign policy focus from Iraq to Afghanistan is a major blunder.

Mark,
Thank you and your sons for serving our country.

Susan implied that heroes like Pat Tillman (and you and your sons) may be the exception. The military recruits young adults with few choices - no or low-income males younger than 21. Americans don't seem to share the burden of war fairly amongst the classes.

Is it a just enough war that I would encourage my own children to serve in? Good thing they're too young for me to have to decide now.

Mark (volkmare),

I believe Susan acknowledged such young people as your sons with her statement, " I have no doubt that there are some young men and women, like the late Pat Tillman, who do enlist in the military because they believe the cause is just." Did you miss that bit?

Her statement that only Biden and Webb have children in the military has legs, in my opinion. If those making decisions know, even unconsciously, that their loved ones will be protected from the consequences of those decisions, it's pretty clear that may affect their decision-making. A draft may be the only way to involve the whole country in this war-effort. If you really feel this is necessary to defend the nation, I don't see why you would not welcome that.

And, how, exactly, did you see her as belittling your sons, or any serving member of the military? I read no such thing, and I'd be interested in your interpretation. Is it just that she disagrees with the war in general?

But please leave off the "love it or leave it" nonsense. I seem to recall you expressing displeasure at the last presidential election, at some supreme court decisions, and at many of your fellow citizens for their political beliefs. You can't claim "first amendment rights" when someone decries Roe vs. Wade or declares their unhappiness with Obama's victory, then say "love it or leave it" when someone questions a military decision. At least, you can't do that and be consistent.

Susan,

I take exception to some of your statements.

I am “middle class”. My sons joined the army not because it was economically advantageous, but to defend their country. They joined so that “never again could a terrorist group attack our country on our soil”, and “to take the fight to the enemy and not wait for it to come here again”. These are THEIR WORDS, not mine.

Although I am a volunteer navy veteran of the Vietnam War (not a draft dodger) and I came from a middle class family. I did not encourage them to join the military. They came to me out of the blue with a request for my approval signature, which I gave without question.

One of them now has 2 Purple Hearts and is being medical-boarded out due to PTSD. Otherwise he would stay in and continue the fight.

I am so proud of my sons that when I think about what they are doing, my feet don’t reach the ground.

Of course our military is “volunteer”. No one is forced into it. Anyone who says different is sadly out of touch with reality.

Of course the army recruits men and women right out of high school. They are the best stock and more likely to learn how to become what the military needs. Do you expect them to recruit middle aged people who are set in their ways and not long for being too old and stiff to do the job against an enemy half their age?

You are way over distorting the image of America’s finest. If it weren’t for them, you would not be able to spew your drivel about our national heroes.

You should thank them, not belittle them and your country.

On the other hand, if you don’t like your country you are welcome to leave.

Mark
Always seek the truth.