Our intelligent, racially representative military *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Oct 18 2010 at 3:31 pm | Filed under: Education, Military
In my liberal corner of the world, I periodically have people tell me, quite earnestly, that the military preys on the poor and ill-educated. I’ve countered these fact-free statements with the study from the Heritage Foundation study demonstrating the higher than average social-economic status one sees in the military. I can now add Mark Seavey’s debunking, too.
Let me throw one more thing into the mix: Even if one assumes solely for the sake of argument that these earnest liberals are correct and that the military does attract — nay, even prey upon — a disproportionate number of poor, ill-educated people, so what?
Our military is not a charnel house. I’m going to assume, and you can throw statistics back at me to tell me I’m wrong, that the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of military personnel do not die while on duty. Heck, I don’t even have to stop with assuming. I have facts! Active duty military right now is about 1.4 million men and women. The number who have died since the invasion in Iraq is, according to two websites I looked at, 5,555. My math is dreadful, but even I can figure out that the total number of casualties is a small percentage of those who serve (thank God).
Likewise, while there are many more battle injuries than deaths, I’m also comfortable assuming that the vast, vast, vast, vast number do not have their lives destroyed by those injuries. I might have magical thinking on this, because my Dad survived 5 years in North Africa and Southern Europe during WWII without a scratch (El Alamein, Crete, etc.), but I know for a fact that it’s possible to go to war and come back home again.
So what we’ve got is a whole bunch of people in the military who come home whole. Nope. That’s wrong. I’d argue that a significant number — maybe the vast majority — come home better than whole. They come home more disciplined, skilled and mature than they were when they left. In other words, the military didn’t just take, it gave. Accepting as true the liberal contention that the military took in a bunch of helpless rubes, it served them well by releasing them as more highly functioning members of society who, post-enlistment, are more, rather than less, likely to make it in America.
UPDATED: This Onion News report, which Sadie sent me, seems like a nice wrap-up to a post about the military’s virtues, since it looks at those who don’t care enough to enter the military (or do anything at all, for that matter). (Foul language warning.)
In The Know: Are Tests Biased Against Students Who Don’t Give A Shit?
Related posts:
- The media really hates the military *UPDATED*
- Intelligent minds think alike *UPDATED*
- The danger inherent in political/politically corrupt meddling in the military
Email This Post To A Friend
5 Responses to “Our intelligent, racially representative military *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s amazing that so many of the Vietnam-era myths of the military persist (stronger than ever?) to this day. A few years ago I wrote a DoD study on military demographics which destroy many of the myths that permeate our culture (that whole “military members are stupid” when in fact they are FAR more educated than the population as a whole, it’s only minorites and impoverished that serve, etc, just fall to pieces with actual numbers).
Par for the course with the liberal culture of victimization. People have completely lost historical perspective. In June 1944, we lost over 8,000 men during the first DAY of the Normandy invasion. Our casualty rates today are a tribute to the troops determination and skill in battle, and the advances made by our system. It bothers me that some of the very few young(er) people that have a sense of duty, responsibility, and commitment to country are a symbol that leftists and must destroy as part of their culture war.
“people tell me, quite earnestly, that the military preys on the poor and ill-educated.”
Stop talking about yourselves, you racist obsessed Democrat machine minion plant.
Would be my response.
On a recent visit to Mexico, a friend recounted a conversation he had with a Mexican colleague:
“Why do you refer to Afghanistan and Iraq as ‘wars’?” asked the Mexican. After almost 10 years of fighting, the U.S., with a population of 300 million, lost less-than 5,000 dead in Iraq and Afghanistan each and we are already losing heart.
“In Mexico (population 111 million), by contrast, we have been fighting the drug gangs for three years and lost over 28,000 dead,” continued the Mexican. “And nobody wants to call this a war”. Or give up, for that matter.
We refer to them as wars because Jacksonian Americans don’t like limiting US military power by having degrees of conflict.
[...] is entirely correct. In the military, he might get killed. While his chances of getting killed in today’s military are less than they would have been if he’d been in the Civil War, World II, WWI or [...]