On Thu, November 9, 2006 14:32, Craig Lalley wrote:
>
>
> I have many friends in the military, every single one has a college
> degree.

And no doubt every single one of these friends had their college education
completed before they enlisted?  I have served and I have one graduate
degree and am completing another.  This proves what?  That my or your
narrow circle of professional acquaintances is representative of our
respective nation's armed services?  Doubtful.

>
> The name Pat Tillman comes to mind, but then he probably wasn't educated.
>

Does the presence of a few marquee names obviate the statistical evidence
that worldwide, the armed services are overwhelmingly filled with people
who have few other choices to avoid poverty and privation and that the
U.S. is no exception?  Does it change the evidence that since 2004 the
U.S. military has steadily reduced the education and character standards
demanded of recruits to fill an army that is being hollowed out by the war
in Iraq?  I think that it is well to recall that Mr. Tillman was killed by
his own army whose members throughout the chain of command then conspired
to destroy evidence of their complicity in his death.

You wish to cast doubt on a general observation that is backed with
statistical analysis by reference to your private anecdotal experience. 
This is a very weak response. Consider how many of your friends in the
military with degrees are privates and corporals?  How many are in the
infantry or combat engineers?  How many are regulars or reserves?  How old
are they, 20 somethings or 40 somethings?  Time has a way of filtering out
those with little ambition, doubtful commitment or lack of formal
education.  To judge a military's social makeup upon the basis of its long
service cadre is a dubious undertaking.    There was a world of diffence
between a milites and an optio although the latter was always once the
former.

My point is that the U.S. military is not much different from any other
nation's with respect to its social and economic makeup.  This is neither
a good thing, nor a bad thing.  It is just the way things are and have
been for as long as anyone has bothered to consider.

The interesting thing here is that of those that take issue with what are
fairly unremarkable observations about military service social patterns
none seem to recognize that my fundamental complaint is not about the use
of force per se, but about the misapplication of force in ways that can
only engender greater and more violent resistance without offering any
hope of final resolution.  The successful application of coercion depends,
in the end, upon the subject's acceptance of its justice.  When a nation
tosses out justice and substitutes self-interest, petty revenge or
indiscriminate application then it cannot hope to successfully employ
coercion on another.  The nature of the tools employed, economic or
military, are actually secondary in effect.

The Iraqis and the rest of the world consider the U.S. invasion of Iraq to
be completely unjustified and without benefit to either country's
long-term prospects.  Without the Iraqi people accepting that the present
course of action is in their interest any hope of the United States
successfully concluding a long term occupation with a robust functioning
secular democracy in Iraq is dismal.  In that case it really makes little
difference if you have an army of post-graduate Puritans, it is still
going to end in a debacle.


--
James B. Byrne                mailto:[log in to unmask]
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *