Washington File

I live in Detroit were unemployment is greater then 7% and manufacturing jobs are being outsourced by the tens of thousands. Everyday I read of another 2-3 thousands jobs being eliminated, the numbers are staggering and for the last three years I keep asking myself why anyone in D.C. doesn’t do something about it. Thousand of Americans, mostly young males with no degrees, are losing their jobs, homes and life styles. Why isn't anyone doing something about it? Then it dawned on me, I don't hear any more gripes from the military brass that their recruitments are down. So I guess we don't need to pass any legislation on reinstating the draft, we’ll just send American jobs overseas.

I am a retired professor who taught in the Loma Linda University schools of dentistry, medicine, and public health for 30 years. My son joined the marines and served in Iraq. As a result I have met many marines. They are not the poor and disadvantaged. Rather, they are bright and motivated. Today's military demands mental skills as well as physical ability. My son is also a dual US-Canadian citizen.

The funny thing about this is that this very assumed fact(?) was recently mentioned on an episode of Family Guy.

Stewie had commented upon the sort of people ( bottom 10 % of the graduating class ) who were being recruited by the military or who were actually doing the fighting in Iraq ( insert any war ).

Brian ( the dog ) said " The ONION had just published that in their paper".

So this is not any news at all.

Interesting to note that there are a few websites that refute the assertion that the majority of men & women who served in Vietnam were poor/uneducated or had few connections. I am sure you can find them if you so desire.

These are the same websites that refute the fact that there was an overabundance ( based upon their percentage in the US population ) of African-Americans in Vietnam.

The statistics only evened up a bit AFTER JJ made that fact public knowledge AND went to meet the higher-ups to make that claim as well.

The more things change....

Those who join the military probably fall into a few categories about why they join: a) those who just find military life appealing or for whom it's a kind of family tradition, b) those who are seeking better education, a way to find work, etc., c) those who join up seeking to fight a specific current threat. Those from "A" are just military by nature, and that has nothing to do with what part of society they come from. Those from B and C are the kind of people Champ's article is talking about when he means coming from those populations that have few prospects and are easily swayed by false appeals to patriotism. That people like would that join the military is not the problem - at least their intentions are genuine. The problem is that the "chickenhawk" leaders (who could never match the courage or honour of the very soldiers they send to fight) depend on the B and C people to be a willing and compliant audience every time they make some utterly false appeal to patriotism. It's not just about who fights, as much as the fact that you have cowardly and self-serving leaders who puff their chests up and smear others as disloyal, when really they are the biggest cowards of all. They play at being the supporters of soldiers, but they are really their biggest betrayers.

The current recruiting drive for the Canadian Forces is quite a new phenomena. Back in the mid '90s, there was the FRP, the Force Reduction Plan. Recruitment was limited to the most talented, highest educated people. It was not uncommon to see enlisted soldiers with undergraduate degrees coming into the military, and people with lesser aptidute / education being turned away.

I was an Infantry Master Corporal who was working on my MA at night. My Platoon Commander had completed his PhD. I had more men in my section who were students in university than not. We were not unique by any stretch of the imagination.

To imply that the Canadian Forces only recruits from the lowest social strata is inaccurate. Today, the CF is viewed as an employer of choice by many looking for a meaningful career. My best friend from university, a Doctor with multiple specializations, recently joined the Regular Force, abandoning his work in a well respected hospital, because he wants to do good deeds in the world; the same reason I joined.

Some soldiers do join for economic reasons, but they're by no means the majority.

Don't many people join the military in order to gain a free education?

I believe every human life deserves equal consideration. Even individuals who have harmed others deserve to live, though they do not deserve freedom until they prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the same measure used to determine their guilt, they will not harm again.

Of course it is an ideal, but aspiring to ideals brings about the best results.

That people who choose to join the military largely come from a certain category of society is not a problem. There are plenty of dangerous jobs in our society and the same judgment could apply to all of them. A society needs to recognize the potential harm some of its citizens are facing and ensure that everything practical is done to reduce the harm that could come to them.
Regardless of who is in the military, what is important is that they will do their best. Like all other risky jobs it is essential that they be given the best training, equipment, and circumstances to enable them to safely do their best.

When a war must be fought, there are times when aggressors must be defeated by battle, considering all people equal requires minimum total harm to be done. Again it’s an ideal but a good one to aim for. This may result in the victor suffering significant death and injury to minimize the total harm done, but, it will minimize the vengeful hate generated. The Canadian military’s actions in Afghanistan appear to be a good example of what it takes to minimize the total harm.

Attempted conquest, the thing that starts a war, is a horrible thing. The hate it generates fuels generations of vengeful conflict. Believing a successful victory is minimum loss of life or injury on “our side” is a problem. As has been mentioned by others, war involves more than “our side”. Minimizing the total harm should be the only measure of success. It won’t stop wars today but it may be the best way to minimize violent conflict in the long term.

The US protects us from whom? We do not have enemies in the world. We had a very good reputation through out the world as peace keepers, until we involved with the American wars. We became under the dander of terrorists! Why should we have a large army? The only danger we have is the danger of USA if they decide to grab part of our country. In that case; the entire weapons would not work!! Mr. Cretian took the right decision not to spend money on the enhancement of our military. When the US asked him for more troops; he said I do not have. They went to bully him with the lumber custom duty. Mr. Cretian refused to send our troops unprotected properly to the south of Afghanistan, Mr. Martin who did so and he was wrong.

At the risk of stating the obvious, this has been a subject that has provoked a great deal of heated debate.

Reading (and re-reading) the commentary suggests to a number of contributors "shooting from the lip" and not taking the time fully consider what it is they are trying to communicate. This in not suprising with a subject as emotional is this.

At the root, I think that everyone wants their country to act in a way thay they are proud of. Not everyone agrees on what that means. Fortunately, in a democracy we are allowed to air our view, however far they might wander from the "mainstream" (something which itself is notoriously difficult to agree upon)

The name-calling - veiled or otherwise - only detracts from the argument of the author.

This is a complex subject, and us/them arguments hold little value to me. Not all who support our military are eager to go support the current deployment to Afghanistan.

My own personal view is that most of the poor and under-educated in the military are there because it the best of a bunch of less-than-ideal choices, and one that gives them the best chance to better their lot in life. If we as a society are going to exploit that hope, then we owe it to them to be judicious in when choose to have them risk all. To that end, I do support a well-defined mission to Afghanistion. Iraq...not so much.

Thank you Major Farrell and Pete for your service.
Canada's Literate, I am surprised with your level of superiorority you should have recognized what you speak of about your teacher was the height of indoctrination. How dare he take advantage of a child's vulnerable mind.
joe,
If Liberals/Democrats and likemiders supported our troops they would'nt consistently vote to cut Military budgets,de-fund Military projects, etc. It's on the record. Voting to take away funds which is also used to supply troops with bullet proof vests, armoured vehicles, improved kit, etc. is a poor way of showing support.
It's amazing at how many people think they know what a soldier thinks. Your misinterpretations of a soldier and his mind are insulting. For some education some of you should actually speak to a few of these "poor, undereducated, uninformed, low class, victims" you speak of. You will likely find they are happier and smarter than you think, and yes more educated than you would suspect. You will also find that they don't need your pity or your condesending words.
Reality check for some posters. I noticed only Conservative or Republican names are bantered about when talking of politicians sending troops to war. How convienient to leave out all of the Liberal and Democrat names that have sent troops to war. The bias is shameful.
Saying you don't beleive in what your Country is doing to avoid the draft is a great substitution for not having the courage to stand with your fellow Countrymen and do your duty. It is true that the lives of duty dodgers were saved, but in turn they only cost someone else's in their place. The sugar coating is weak at best.

Well Mr. Pete, you will be surprised to learn that I have loudly supported improved funding for the Canadian Forces. The realistic need for a well-trained army does not escape me. What I am offended by is the exploitation of the most educationally, emotionally and economically vulnerable parts of society to build its ranks.

People like you, who make an informed decision to join, are better equipped to deal with the very real risks the job entails. Many people are not so well informed and their poor educations deprive them of the ability to formulate those questions. It serves nobody's purpose to have such people in our armed forces.

Thank you Henry for your truthful columns. During the Vietnam war I was privileged to both play in a band with and take in, many American "draft dodgers" who did not believe in what their country was doing. What wonderful people they were and the devastation from their families disowning them was heartbreaking to say the least. Many Americans are still grateful to Canadians for taking in their sons and daughters and perhaps being instrumental in saving a few lives. The stories we heard when some of their friends came back were absolutely obscene and horrid what the Military expected them to do over there. Especially regarding Children, Women, and Grandparents in Villages.
These kids were changed for life and they still communicate with me today. I will always be grateful to Jean Chretien for keeping us out of Iraq as the same thing is going on there as far as the undue and inhumane slaughter of civilians who had nothing to do with 9/11. I beleive America's Foreign Policies for the past 50 years has come back and bit them on the butt. They believe they are above International Law and any Country who does not beleive in what they preach, are labelled "Terrorists", whether they have done much good for their poor, like "Hamas" or not. The backlash from America when we did not support the bogus invasion of Iraq was met with "Haven for Terrorists" "Ungrateful for the Protection" even though all those bombers had American passports and were from Saudi Arabia. I do take offense at Americans saying we owe them for a free ride as far as protection, business, and trade goes, We do not need their protection, they need protection from themselves, and I will bash this George Bush Government and all his supporters as much as I can because they are wrong, they are opportunists making vulgar profits for their families and friends at the deaths of innocent people. "They are making the whole world unsafe".

Mr. Champ:

You point out a major issue which most citizens do not see. The military is staffed with people from the lowest economic layers (the poor), and run by people from high economic layers (the wealthy). It has become the prime welfare agency in the U.S.

After the draft, the military changed from a citizens' army to a professional army. A professional organization tends to want to expand its influence and to aggrandize its importance, and also wants to instill a unity of purpose on its members. The military forces (including the naval and air forces) have done so to the extent that anyone in the services who disagrees with any war is socially isolated.

Perhaps it is time to leaven the military forces with people having different sets of mores and beliefs relating to the use of military power. Perhaps it is time to widen the base of membership to include enlisted ranks including the middle and upper economic classes so that we have a military that reflects the economic and racial makeup of this country.

Perhaps if the Republican and Democratic congress members had their children being inducted into the military, it would have been more cautious before acceding to George Bush's demand to go to war. I certainly do not see the Bush twins going through basic training or being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan.

In summary, perhaps it is time to install a mandatory draft of all 19 year olds, with no deferments.

Well, Mr. Canada's Literate, I guess you're happy now that you have insulted everyone who has served. But by insulting, you are dehumanizing you have made it acceptable to commit further transgressions ("heathens, crusaders, baby-killers, robots" anyone).

And you have the right to do it, because of 20 generations of my family prepared to lay down our lives. I didn't feel insecure, or have to prove anything to Daddy. Sorry. And as an educated and literate person, I have moved on to be quite successful. Again, sorry.

What I am having a hard time with is the sacrifices made by myself and others don't seem to be for anything. It seems like WWII was fought to see who can continue imperialism, not defend rights (in hindsight). I was told when I enlisted that my job was to "take a bullet so a fat, rich, lazy SOB and his snotty nosed kids won't have to" - I think that was a jab at the literate?

You all enjoy things and take them for granted, yet get to feel elitist when condemning others for being prepared to sacrifice. They sign on for defence, but politicians have different ideas. And since you are all enjoying beers and being intellectually superior (prior posts) consider this - the blood of the noble is on your hands. You voted, you supported by inaction. If any service member dies for nothing, as you purport, you had a hand in their death.

Draft armies do not have the benefit of having the elite classes serve proportionately as rich parents with connections will find ways to keep their children in non-dangerous posts. Such was the case with George W Bush during the vietnam era.

The problem doesn't lie with who is serving, but with the integrity of the people making the decisions to place them in harm's way. As I see it, there is very little integrity within the Bush administration and and the same could be said about the majority politicians of all stripes today.

Chris:

Why is it that Conservatives/Republicans such as yourself always simplify the debate to liberals "not supporting the troops". The vast majority of liberals support the troops. What we don't support is the continuing lies and manipulation of "leaders" (Blair, Harper and most of all Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) who put those soldiers in situations they should not be in. The point of the article was to show how the lower and middle classes have an unfair share of the "workload" in war created out of thin air so those of influence and power can reap more and more of the "spoils of war".

Contrary to what Bush and the rest of the Republicans who back the war think, terrorists don't hate us because of "our freedom".
Those very terrorists you fear in the future will be the generations of children who watched their loved ones around them die so those of wealth in the west who control the military indutrial complex, and/or oil could get richer.

I noticed in amongst the comments that there were mentions made of the fact that Bin Laden and Hussein were erstwhile allies of the United States during a time when their cooperation was convenient. And sounding surprised at the notion. Any student of history, even one like me who reads in passing about history, would note that this is neither unusual or unique. Stalin was an ally of the United States at a time when Nazism was a major blight on Europe. They knew full well of his purge of the Soviet officier corp, and his own treatment of Jews. For all that, the US Gov't decided that, economically (most wars are about economics) it'd be cheaper to have Russians do most of the dying. That's how it turned out. The same with the British during the same conflict.
It's very easy to find injustice in the current war in Iraq. Soldiers who join up and want to fight for all the right reasons will find that in a country that has had nothing but war of a greater or lesser nature for the past thirty years.

One last thing. The Vietnam comparison is not quite a good comparison. One was all about politics, and the holding back of Communism. Cold war conflict. This is about religious rights for the Shia, and protection of a huge oil producter. Good war, eh? Economics AND religion.

For the sake of argument, I leave aside the question of whether anyone should serve or whether war is ever just. That horse is dead. Lets assume that a democratic country will have a military and that those people may have to fight. Who should serve?

On the one hand, volunteer armies have always conscripted by poverty. Tough jobs attract those who cannot find better, and military service is often rewarding and adventurous. It certainly beats unemployment. Blacks and Hispanics are over-represented in the US military, and it is no accident that Newfoundlanders and maritimers are over-represented in the Canadian Forces, although cultural factors also come into play here.

On the other hand, draft armies have (at least in theory) the advantage that the elite classes serve proportionately. They also bond the military tightly to the larger civil society, in that all soldiers are once-and-future civilians, and most civilians have been soldiers. This is the reason that conscription is defended by the left in Germany today.

To me the real question is leadership. I consider myself one of those 'Literate Canadians' for whom the un-named writer above boldly claims to speak. My father was a diplomat. I am multi-lingual and have many years of post-graduate education. I am also an officer in the Canadian Army and have been taught to believe that I must always share the risks and hardships of my soldiers. This is an idea so deeply assumed in the CF that it would not be too much to describe it as the core ethic. I was pleased, for example, to learn that Prince Harry will share the risks of war with his men. British society shares this same ethic.

Of course, there will always be officers sitting in relative comfort back in the rear, but headquarters and rear areas are as neccessary to modern war as weapons and warriors. There are exceptions, but most of the officers I know in the rear areas would rather be enduring the hard stuff at the front.

Dear Canada's Literate,
There is more to Canada's military than killing and maming other people during in war. And the commercial clearly shows this. There is peace-keeping, rescue, natural disaster relief, etc... I repeat again what I have already written in this discussion:
"We in Winnipeg are FOREVER grateful to the Canadian military for its huge efforts during the great flood of '97!"
And I believe too the Kosovars are forever grateful to the Canadian military, and the people of Cyprus, Bosnia-Herzagovina, and so many others!
Please be much more careful when criticizing the men and the women of the Canadian military next time! At the very least, please aknowledge their LIFE SAVING work as well!
Also, notice that I wrote "the men and the WOMEN of the Canadian military." Your criticizm falls short here too because good percentage of the Canadian military are women. Do they need to proove that they are bigger than their mommies?
As for "toys," what about civilian giant-crane opperators, jumbo-jet-pilots, fire engine drivers, bulldozer opperators, and all the many other people who opperate huge, hi-tech machinery? Were all these people attracted to their proffesions because they failed to grow up too? Really?
And, surely you know that it was Chretien who sent our military to Afganistan, with UN approval, under the command of our NATO, AND WITH A SPECIFIC, LONG TERM TASK TO FULFILL! And Martin continued. Are they too, therefore, "sleaze?" If so, then their names should have been mentioned. If not, I'd really like to know the difference!
Perhaps you are saying that Harper is sleaze because when the going got tough, he kept his promise to the UN, to NATO, and to the people of Afganistan, on our behalf, instead of abondoning the people of Afganistan before our promise was kept?
Also, are all the members of our parliament who voted to extend the mission also sleaze? If so, again, why no mention of them BY NAME!
Please be fair next time! Thank you.

I've always thought that the fact that the American education system is crumbling and prone to nonsense like creationism over evolution is no accident. If only a fraction of the war budget was spent on educating the working poor, enrolment in the military would plummet. It's not that a good education can't be had: you just have to belong to the upper class to get one.

I remember one of my high school teachers talking to us about avoiding the army. He showed us slides made of old photos that a friend of his took in Vietnam. He offered us proof that the "be all that you can be" slogan is hype designed to appeal to insecure boys. He told us stories that sickened us. He asked us direct questions about the kinds of things we would or wouldn't be willing to do to other human beings. The boys in the class went from embarrassed chuckles to pale disgust. He was the best teacher I ever had. I didn't want any of my brothers or sisters involved in those lies.

Today, Canada's military runs an ad on CTV that is the most embarrassing and blunt attempt to seduce young lives. The ads feature a lot of "equipment". Gritty, macho images that scream "tough-guy glamour" are overlayed with reductive slogans straight from Orwell's 1984: "Fight fear." "Fight despair." Are you lonely? A little awkward? Do you need to prove to Daddy that you're as big and strong as he is? We can help and we have lots of toys to play with. It turns the stomach of intelligent people and reaches straight into the limbic system of the undereducated. If they must run recruitment ads, they should be forced to follow truth in advertising laws and use slogans like "Fight Post-traumatic Stress Disorder." "Struggle with your own Conscience." "Video games are nothing compared to this."

If nobody enlisted, then sleaze like Bush and Harper would have to go out there and face their own rhetoric. That's something I'd tune in to watch.

The mighty propaganda machine that is the US entertainment and fashion industry has been quick to cache in on war as cool (though not, apparently, this particular war): incredibly detailed video games are tailored toward indoctrinating the young into the new paradigm that is endless war while fashionistas’ push "urban guerilla" complete with camouflage patterned shorts and tees. Propagandists such as Tom Clancy have never had it so good, and what he might miss, shows like 24 - Vile Arab terrorists detonating nukes in urban peace loving American communities, and Jericho - yes, our communities CAN survive a nuclear attack - will seep into the collective consciousness to provide solace and comfort. American values will prevail even when you, the individual, don't. Even the "ultimate sacrifice" martyrdom thing is considered way cool - "we must fight them on the streets over there otherwise we will end up fighting them on the streets over here!" Is both a ringing endorsement of that notion AND a complete absurdity at the same time - no mean feat but George ll managed to combine tactlessness with tastelessness in a single sentence without having drawn more than a single breath to do so.

If you've read George Orwell's 1984 then of course there's nothing new here; a totalitarian state wages an unceasing and unending war in order to control the populace at home - economically, politically, patriotically, theologically and intellectually. The arms industry is the only manufacturing sector still hiring and without competition. They have a vested interest in maintaining a state of perpetual war because it's good for business. Now everyone has to make sacrifices: the taxpayer must fund the war machine while young poor people, particularly those born without the privileges and advantages of the upper middle class elite (college deferment à la Dick Cheney anyone?), merely have to enlist and die (often called "the ultimate sacrifice") to keep the wheels moving. Moving wheels are good for business after all. Unused ordinance is a waste and makes patriotic Americans unhappy: ordinance is made to be used - Deus lo volt! God wills it - and fortunately there's no shortage of Godless heathens in the world to use it on and keep production lines moving. Ordinary Americans love war industries and military technology, especially, military fashion! Even those who now claim to oppose the invasion of Iraq were thrilled to see those mighty machines race through the desert on their way to Baghdad. Embedded journos made sure their reports to the homeland had just the right mix of faith, patriotism and pornography to enthrall their audience: TV network news ratings have never been so high, which proves the point wonderfully well.

AS for joining the military yes it's a way of getting out of the grinding sameness (poverty whatever) that you are faced with as a youth and once having accepted the King's money you go where your told and only with age do you realize that the ones telling you to fight and die are the ones that never will do either. That of course is the same in Canada and any other country, it leads to a certain bitterness, not about your service or comrades but about your cheesy leaders and that brings about questions of universal service ( no exceptions) if you want to be a citizen (ie vote, hold office) ala Robert Heinlein, don't know.

There you go people, no enlightenment just more questions.

Bill.

I guess it always true that poor folk without options seek careers in the military for advancement. And in contemporary United States is one of the few avenues for such. Their military is one of the largest vocational training providers, welfare programs and family health insurers. I think this reflects their weak federal system. In most modern countries there are accessible technical and other educational options, universal health services and liveable minimum wages. I guess their recruiting problems would be much more acute without such a social situation. It is not surprising that those with other options don’t enlist. I was bemused that Australia’s kriegsstimming Prime Minister sought preferment for his adult son not in the military, but as an intern in the White House.!

I think the reasons for enlisting are:
Economics – poorer kids need money to live on. The way up is via education or the army. Army is easier if they don’t like academic life.
The belief that America won the Second World War and saved the entire world. Britain and its colonies actually held off the Germans. Countries that the average American have not heard of (called third world countries by most people in North America) sent troops to fight deadly battles, while the Americans had years to develop and make tanks aircraft etc. If Britain and its colonies had not done this, the Germans, instead of accessing the New York harbor by submarine, might have been seated in Washington.
That American War Machine Technology is the best in the world and therefore Troops will have a great advantage over the enemy. They forgot that the British, under the
Reign of Queen Elizabeth I, had smaller ships than the Spanish Armada, and the English whipped the Spanish. They also forgot Vietnam, where people about half the size of an American, carrying one rifle, some bullets, a machete and a cup of rice stood their ground.
An attitude that going overseas to fight is like a 6 month hunt.
The poor are always the most patriotic and religious. They need something to cling on to for self-respect and an identity. The big guys capitalized on this.
The Christian World is afraid of the other world. There is reason for concern. Just look at how many Muslims pray 5 or 6 times a day and attend their mosques, Hindus the same i.e their temples are filled with people. Only the Christian Churches that arbitrarily take a percentage of congregation’s wages progress and of course the TV guys. Other Christian churches are poor because many young Christians plan to attend church 3 times: at christening time, wedding time and funeral. Some churches have to have newspaper drives to pay bills. By the way, I was born a Christian and still am.

I feel sorry for all those who died in Iraq. The leaders must feel the responsibility before taking their citizens into a war. Unfortunately some do not estimate the results and the suffering of their citizens. Like this decision differentiate between the success and the failed leaders. Now after 4 years every body recognise the result of what had happened. Remains the question: How and why President Bush took his country into this war? I cannot answer this question. The American people have to answer it.
For those young Americans, I do not thing they have the ability to take a decision on important judgement like this. They are the victims of the wrong doing of their leader. If it was real defence on their country, like what they told them; it would be an acceptable sacrifice. But if it was based on a lie; they are victims of fraud.
Finally, I would say I am sorry for the Iraqi casualties who died only because they were Iraqis. No body think of them as if they were not human being! Some estimates bring them to 650.000. Is that fair? Nobody asks himself the question: How the relatives of those victims feeling? It is shame on us, the democracies, for not trying to answer this question!!

As an aside, much of the drop in popular support for the war has more to do with the fact that many Americans have discovered they were lied to about the reasons for war in the first place: Iraq did not conspire with Osama bin Laden to attack the US on 9/11. Saddam Hussein nnever tried to "kill" George's daddy. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no labs, no projects, no nuclear material, etc. It was all a fiction, and that is why the majority of Americans have had enough of this war. It also explains why, after having given George high marks on his 2004 campaign - fuelled mostly by fear as well as by a certain coolness toward his opponent's muddled position - that the majority of voters turfed neo-cons in the mid-term elections. Americans simply do not believe their president and his regime: they know he's a liar and a shirker, that he misrepresented the facts and got a whole lot of young people killed for nothing. That's why support for the war has dropped off: why this sad-sack hasn't been impeached and sent to death row for his crimes is beyond understanding, but there it is, the most appalling president in history remains free and - so far - unconvicted, while the cream of a generation lies in graveyards around the nation.

Chris;

Reality buddy, reality, take a breath and calm down. If it makes you feel better to imagine yourself standing out alone on some wind swept promontory, binoculars in hand, yours a lonely and ceaseless vigil against the hordes threatening to overwhelm us, good for you: I'll be home snug in bed dreaming the night away secure in the knowledge that you're freezing half to death in the dark for a fallacy. Chris, buddy, there are no terrorist hordes massed to overwhelm us. We don't have to fight them there or else face fighting "them" (whoever "they" are) here. That's a nonsense as silly as believing in Santa Claus past age 10. I appreciate the fact that you served in the Canadian Forces, but the "troubles" over yonder are relatively easy to handle, niggling minor regional squabbles - yes, far from the Demonic evil they're made out to be, Iran remains a regional issue without a whole lot of brass capable of hurting us here in North America. George has been wrong before - in truth, he's yet to be right about anything - So stand on guard for, well, me I guess: I'll be at the bar ordering another beer, curling up with a good book in front of a fire, having an extra burger at the family picnic, enjoying my kids, my wife, my life, while your toes are going gangrenous as you wait for a terrorist invasion that will never, ever, happen. Oh yes, Thanks buddy, I appreciate your sacrifice on my behalf but if you'lll excuse me I have to go, I've guests coming over and I need to get things in order. It's a liberal fundraiser and I have a lot to do! Talk about serving your country! Don't talk to me of sacrifice: thank goodness I get a tax credit for this!

Chris,

It is about time to admit that this kind of macho tough talk would do nothing to bring peace and security. to the contraire, it will and has created conditions for more "terrorism, killing and sufferings" There are more reasons to be very worried now that it was before invading Iraq.

Back to May 2003, your hereo, Mr. Bush declared with a Cowboy style ( fresh from F 18 flight, instead of Horse's ride) that Mission accomplished!.

Wow, Have you been watching the news lately?Have you read about the Baker- Hamilton report? or the latest about UK, Denmark ands others are parting company with US?.

You could keep your eyes closed as long as you wish, but that doesn't mean nothing is happening.

BTW, I am a Muslim and never worked with ben Laden and his groups. BUT G.W.B Sr., B. Clinton, US adminstrations, many European Countries and yes CANADA were treating ben Laden and his " Mujaheedines" like shining stars when they were wheeling and dealing with them during the War against the Russians / Soviet Unions.

While you're all climbing mountains to see if your still alive admiring the landscape and enjoying your precious time-off. People like me will still be confidently watching out for the people you still refuse to admit exist. People like me will be ready to support attacks and defend against attacks from the people you so desperately defend.
So to all you peace-nics and de-funders of our troops, enjoy your nature trails and smart cars while you can. It's only a matter of time before your emboldening of the enemy will make them take advantage of your ignorance.
Keep supporting military cuts and then claim our troops don't have the proper gear and protection. It's because of people like you and no-one else that our military lacks the equipment they require. You're agenda is not as hidden as you think.
Maiku,
I have served my Country and made sacrifices during my time of enlistement and much to your surprise I would do it all over again. Military personel do not hold the discontent that much of you speak of. From my experience most of the Personel are more upset of the fact that only the bad news is credited to the Military and the good news seems to be suppressed. They work very hard and yes some do make the ultimate sacrifice, but they know that going in. Continually attempting to discredit the Military does'nt help anyone. It only emboldens the enemy. Which in turn puts troops at greater risk.
Diane,
You can't learn everything from a book. Open your eyes and ears.

Chris:

I wouldn't be too eager to highlight the United States' supposed "protection" from foreign threats. Since when has the US ever stepped up to defend an ally? Nowadays, alignment with the US is more likely to bring about an attack rather than defend against one. America cannot defend against the homegrown terrorism that will soon become the newest and greatest threat to everyone. Why does that terrorism exist? Well, usually due to the outrage felt in young, angry, and gullible Muslims at their nations' alignment to what in the right-wing American press is clearly labelled as a war to the finish with the Muslim world.

America doesn't make the world one iota safer. Where is Osama? No ones really seems to care. But now we have a new (and highly convenient) supervillian in Iran who the United States supposedly needs to defend us from, even though the real threat is, well, non-existent. Let's be real, the Iranian president is on thin ice with his own people and the Imams because of his own loudmouthed idiocy. Are we to seriously expect that this guy is just going to start launching missiles all willy-nilly? This is real life, not a James Bond or Rambo movie. As most conservatives would point out in economics, there is a self-motivated factor for survival that plays in there somewhere. Mutually assured destruction is a powerful disincentive.

Oh, and as a final note, why aren't you enlisted, Chris?

I wonder why the other western media have not jumped on this study, especially when a major policitian (John Kerry) was silly honest enough to suggest the same thing and it cost him his political career? As I recall it, what Kerry said was ..."when you have limited other options, you end up in the front lines of a stupid war." Spin media interpreted the remarks as offensive to the new "volunteer/professional" US Army force, but it appears that the same old facts are as true today as they were when the Vietnam draft was in place. Where is the indignation about this "volunteer" force.

It's the same all over the world.

The rank and file of the Taliban in Afganistan and of the insurgents in Iraq are the poor and under-educated of their people too!

I don't need fear to keep myself aware, alert, and impassive. Education and information does that. If you need to test yourself to know that you're alive, go climb a mountain.

Fear not, Henry Champ. Some of your detractors above have never lived through the carnage of a battlefield, nor have they been innocent victims of destruction of their homes and loved ones by an invading force. I have been both a victim during WW2(in a wagon train of refugees over the frozen steppes of Ukraine) and a witness, during my foreign service in Lebanon and Iraq, of mindless devastation. It's a long sad story.
I'm sure there were some Austrians, French, Swiss,Dutch and Danes bordering Germany who defended Hitler's invasion of Poland.

It's not surprising or unique. This observation was made in the US even as far back as back the US civil war. There is no draft this time, but desperation is on the side of the recruiters. I think a lot of recruits join up believing that military life will give them the opportunity to be someone of wealth and power later on (and that civilian life will give them no such chance). The more disturbing side of the issue is how the wars get supported by people who don't know the first thing about what really causes them. Time and time again they get suckered by the same cheap appeals, the same poorly cooked-up "evidence" of a threat. If only those more genuine patriots could see through the phony patriotism of the "chicken-hawk" elites who enthusistically send them to war, but would never go themselves. But, I guess cowardice and treachery keep winning out, and people keep ending up "shocked" to discover it and angry in the aftermath.

Chris from London: The only ones who expect the US ever has, or ever would, "come to save their sorry rear ends" are those like yourself. Keep to your myth, we'll defend ourselves.

There was a grisly report on CBC Radio One's "The Current" this morning about the American military using live pigs to train military medics. They would shoot the pig in the face, then stabilize it. Then the stabilized pig would be shot with an AK47. Then stabilized. Then the pig was burned (alive) and then treated medically again. I was driving my car at the time this report came on. I had to pull my car over because I was sick.

What the hell is wrong with America? Is there nothing these people won't do for oil?

War is a crime, now the worst crime, against humanity. It must be banned if anyone is to survive. President John Kennedy told the U.N. General Assembly, shortly before he was assasinated: "Mankind must get rid of War, or War will get rid of mankind."

War is the method of violence, only that. The psychology of war is to use the utmost violence. That spells the death of humanity.

About 6 months ago I finished a book about Ginger Goodwin who was a political activist and labour leader before and during W.W.1. Certain industrialists would form patriotic committees and forceably deduct money from their employees pay to "donate" to a "patriotic fund". Of course there were rallies and meetings that people had to attend or their loyality to King and Country would be questioned. Here on Vancouver Island those very loyal and brave patriotic business men would ship coal to San Francicso for $3.50 a ton and sell it to German war ships at $12.00 a ton. This went on until the Americans entered the war in 1917. The coal miner who mined the coal got 60 cents a ton. So much for war and patriotism, you can have.

Chris:

This is not about the poor not joining the military, it's about fat-cat politicians lying to the masses in order to convince them to support wars that will fill their pockets while paying no personal price of their own.

If you feel that Dick Cheney and George Bush getting rich while small town kid dies at 20 is moral, then not much I can say to you, but if you don't then step outside your right wing prism and try to be objective.

I wonder if "W" talked as tough when he was awol from his cushy stateside post secured by daddy back in the 70s???

And on the matter of American bashing, why not? Have you forgotten how the Americans jumped on the Canada-bashing bandwagon after 9-11. To this day they ignore that all those terrorists had US visas and still harp on our security measures. Let's not even go into all the bullying in trade and sovereignty issues etc. Oh I see, they can do as they please to us and others around the world, but don't criticise them, they may become offended.

Poor sensitive Americans, they carry a big stick, but are really quite sensitive on the inside.

Oh yes. Just like what you would expect. Bash the Americans in one sentence, then proclaim them as your saviour in the next. Just proves what I point out time and time again. All the people that continually spew hatred of the U.S. and say they should'nt meddle in other affairs, not surprisingly, are the first to expect them to come to save their sorry rear ends when their passivist attitude comes back to bite them.
What do you propose now? The all knowing ivory tower Liberals surely know how to take better care of the poor and the minorities than anyone. Will they propose to have a minimun family income in order to enlist? Will they say, oh no you minorities and poor people can't do that, it's too dangerous. We know what's best for you. Stay where you are. We need to keep you from bettering yourself so we can make you the same promises in the next election and you can vote for us. After all if you better yourself or find independence, we no longer have a cause, and you no longer have a reason to vote for us.
What do you suggest? What's the magic number? If your parents earn a minimum of $60,000 per year you can join the military. How ridiculous an argument.
Not only the anti-American crowd jumps on this one, it brings out all the vultures. The anti-wealthy,anti-successful,anti-war, the list goes on and on. What a great way of re-igniting the class war. Bravo! You have not fooled anyone.

Diane,
Fear is not a bad thing. Fear keeps us sharp, fear keeps us aware, fear keeps us from being passive, and most importantly, fear keeps YOU and ME ALIVE!

Mr. Champ's writings are very important not only regarding the information it provide, but also for opening opportunities for discussion and exchange of Ideas that was shut down to a great extend by major corporates media and their backers and masters.
War is the failure of humanity. yes, it will and has been waged for many reasons througout history, However, it is always been instigated and manipulated by the rich and paid for it by the poor ( by their lives and taxes).
Greed, lies and deceptions are powerful tools to pave the way for wars,what is so sad is majority of us fall to these tricks or became so numb and indifferent to the suffering of others. If we collectively take the moral stand and oppose wars, perhaps, we could save many young and poor people from daying for a " victory" that will never be theirs.

I think the next time any politician, Canadian or American, is in a position to vote for their citizens becoming involved in a war they should have to enlist one of their own children or grandchildren, for combat duty. Only when an issue really hits home can people in power learn to appreciate the impact of their decisions, when they are so far removed from the reality.

Sure, Cincinnatus called from the plow, and all that. But how did they VOTE? QUI BONO? Reaganite lectures about personal responsibility appear to be running their course. About time.

The ONLY problem with a volunteer army is when soldiers die for NOTHING! And when we do NOTHING about it! There is NOTHING wrong with a poor, under-educated, 18 year-old, looking at the options - 10 bucks an hour in a no-where job - and choosing the most selfless, of PROFESSIONS. One that has a huge amount of well earned pride in a selfless job well done! (We in Winnipeg are FOREVER grateful to the Canadian military for its huge efforts during the great flood of '97!) Clearly, therefore, it is the life-and-death responsibility of the democraticly elected leadership which controls the army (for it is ONLY democracies where we will find ALL volunteer armies) to ONLY send these most excellent of our fellow citizens to their death, for ONLY the best of reasons! That's the deal! When soldiers who have chosen to put their lives on the line to protect our democracy die not for us, but for NOTHING, it becomes encumbent upon us (who would not make the ultimate sacrifice because it pays less) to indeed start asking questions! We MUST exercise, on behalf of the fallen, the right of free speach, which they believed they died for, to demand answers! We OWE it to them! That's the deal! The MISTAKE was NOT theirs!! Whose was it? It is up to us to get the answer. AND TO ENSURE IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN! If we do not, then the deal falls apart! I do not think, however, that the question "Who makes up the rank and file of the army" is of much import when the reason why we are asking questions is because those who make up the rank and file of the army have been, are now, and will continue to, DIE NOT FOR US, BUT FOR NOTHING! Let's go RIGHT TO THE TOP!! That's the best way to show our appreciation for the rank and file, no matter where they come from!
One more thing to proove my piont: Ask a Vietnam Vet for whom he has more distain: his fellow Americans who avoided the draft, or: those who sent him to war and made him a killer, and sent his buddies to their deaths... for NOTHING!

On ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", in the final quarter of the hour show, they have a segment called "In Memorium" that starts with major figures deceased in the past week and then a list of US armed forces deaths released by the Pentagon. As the Financial Times put it, it seems that "small town white America" is bearing a huge brunt in casualties. Lots of Texas, Arizona and California casualties have Spanish names. South, Northeast and south Chicago region: African-American. In the Portland, Oregon local news it seems that for every casualty from the Portland area, there are five from places like Scapoose, Coos Bay, Klamath Falls, and Hood River.

On their own, the numbers about the income levels and hometown size do not tell us much.

When you say that three quarters of the dead come from towns with incomes below the national average, are you referring to mean income or median income? The difference could be significant.

What is the distribution of the population at large by size of town? What fraction of the general lives in towns smaller than 25,000? Smaller than 5,000?

Just some additional numbers that would help reinforce (or debunk) the message of this report.

don,

the poll was conducted by ipsos-reid for the associated press and was publicly released on february 20th at noon... the ipsos-reid site details the methodology used and i think answers the questions your asking..
it is a comparative poll, these questions have been asked before, i believe every year....h

Another really great column, Mr. Champ, and an antidote to an increasingly dumbed-down media. The elites always find a way to either avoid service or to receive superior service, depending upon what meets their interests. It is interesting that an 18-year-old is deemed bright enough to make the decision to enlist, but not bright enough to be able to handle alcohol (in some jurisdictions). I watched a program (PBS? Can't remember) on American recruitment and I was absolutely amazed at how aggressive and unrelenting it was. It gave new meaning to the phrase "hard sell".

Unrelated -- As a newcomer to these forums, I have noticed that the vast majority of posters are men, and I have also noticed how fearful so many are. You might think that women, the so-called weaker sex, would be posting in droves, fretting about terrorism and super-powers and an ineffective military, etc. Why do men so succumb to the politics of fear? And why are they all so quick to follow the call of the chickenhawks?

On one hand I feel sorry for these poorly educated lower class people or people of colour who join up to improve their lives. But on the other hand you have to wonder how many times do Americans have to be lied to before they wake up from their self appointed ignorant stupors. Crack open an atlas, watch a news program, read a history book learn to think for yourself...stop trusting and believeing everything your government tells you. In short, WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

A side note to david Holmes, it's not the USA's responsibility to protect us, it's ours.

Kudos to former Prime Minister Chretien for having the courage to keep Canada out of the U.S.'s Iraqi Adventure.

Just another example showing how much of a class-riddled society the U.S. is. What a sad and tired place it is becoming!

The young,poor and lowly educated have usually been in the front lines in most modern conflicts. In WW1 Newfoundland had many of this type of man go to his demise. An exception would be in the day's of the calvary where more men were of a higher economic group. America has made a tragic mistake attacking a third rate power and then losing the war. What confidence should Canada have in America protecting us should a major conflict with a first rate power erupt.