Rep. James Clyburn defended an earmark by saying,
We know who is fighting this war. Rural, low-income families are carrying the burden of this war.
If that’s what he “knows” then he doesn’t know much. It’s so aggravating I’m reposting A Mandatory Opportunity from last May. Why are people so invested in pretending that our troops are victims? And what does it say about the people who perpetuate these lies? Nothing good…
_____________________________________________
“One of the things we ought to be thinking about is some level of mandatory service to our country, so that everybody in America — not just the poor kids who get sent to war — are serving this country,” he said.
“We have people from all walks of life in America who are serving, including Reservists and National Guard,” he said. “What we want to do is to have all Americans to have a chance to serve their country.”
This is from John Edwards, who evidently has some kind of degree in Orwell Studies. After all, he’s the guy that just charged $55,000 for a lecture on poverty.
Here’s a bit of a newsflash for folks who subscribe to this brand of lunacy: All Americans (who meet the criteria) already do have a chance to serve their country. I added the phrase, “who meet the criteria” because the military doesn’t just let anybody in who wants to join. For example, they won’t take me for various health reasons, even though back in the day I scored so high on the ASVAB that I was eligible for any MOS I wanted. I didn’t join back in the 80s when I could have and they won’t take me now even for a desk job of some sort. (Whether I could have gotten my husband to agree to my enlistment is another story, but since I’m ineligible that discussion never took place.)
And here’s another newsflash: no poor kids have been sent to war. Not. One. Adults who voluntarily enlisted have been sent to war. Adults who are old enough to marry, sign contracts, vote, go to prison and not the juvenile justice system if they break the law, voluntarily joined the military knowing that they might have to fight in a war even before 9/11, and those who joined afterward certainly knew it. These are not children. These are not kids. They are adults. The fact that they are not legally permitted to drink alcohol is just stupid nanny statism, given the other rights and responsibilities that they have. As to their household income levels, thanks to the invaluable Heritage Foundation, we now know that in spite of all the factless assertions by people who would like to create a special victim class for our troops, fewer troops from poor households, and more from middle class and rich households, are joining the military:
Update: I hadn’t even thought of these points, but Henry Neufeld is spot-on:
On this one I agree with you 100%. I would also note that even if the argument about the social class of the folks joining the military were true (which it is not), there would be two other facts.
1) What precisely is wrong with providing an extra opportunity to folks who want to do so to improve their economic status?
2) This whole business of opportunities and the social structure of the military is beside the point. One wants an effective military to defend one’s country, not as a place to provide “opportunities.” That the military does provide opportunities is a nice extra benefit, but the question for military planners always has to be how you get the best quality troops possible to do the job where they’re needed.
Comments