The poor remain economic military conscripts

* Noel Pearson

* From: The Australian

* May 22, 2010 12:00AM

THE travails of Democrat candidate for the US Senate Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's attorney general, over the fabulation of his military service in Vietnam is a commonplace if typically US political controversy. Blumenthal concedes he "misspoke", having implied that he had undertaken combat duties when in fact he had served in a National Guards reserve unit that never left the US.

Blumenthal merely would be yet another in a long line of luminaries who have been less than candid about their military service: not least Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Except Blumenthal's tale prompted a devastating analysis in The New York Times this week by Larry Pressler, a former Republican senator from South Dakota who served in the army in Vietnam from 1966 to 1968.

In a piece titled "The Technicality Generation" Pressler's says Blumenthal's behaviour is "indicative of a broader disease in our society" and that the distrust of elites in US business and politics is "rooted in the dishonesty that surrounded the Vietnam-era draft".

Pressler writes: "The Vietnam War drove members of my generation in different directions. Some served because they believed in the war, others didn't believe in the war and protested but when drafted felt an obligation to go. Others were simply drafted. Some refused service out of principle, others out of fear, and still others because they felt taking the time to go to Vietnam would slow their careers.

"Many of those who didn't serve were helped by an inherently unfair draft. I don't fault anyone for taking advantage of the law. Where I do find fault is among those who say they were avoiding the draft because they were idealistically opposed to the war when, in fact, they mostly didn't want to make the sacrifice. The problem is that for every person who won a deferment or a spot in a special National Guard unit, someone poorer or less educated, and usually African-American, had to serve.

"Thus, many . . . knew they were using a broken (but legal) system to shirk their duty. They cloaked themselves in idealism but . . . were engaging in a charade."

Pressler's point is this: "This intellectual justification continues to this day, only now these men are among our country's leaders.

"I [observed] the best and brightest of my generation, first as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford in 1964 and then when I attended Harvard Law School after . . . Vietnam.

"In private conversations with my classmates, I was told over and over that they didn't want to serve in the military because it would hold up their careers. To the outside world, though, many would proclaim . . . they were opposed to the war and we should end all wars. Eventually they began to believe their idealism was superior to that of those who did serve. They said it was courageous to resist the draft, something that would have been true if they had actually become conscientious objectors and gone to prison.

"Too many in my generation did a deeply insidious thing. And they got away with it. Big time. Poorer people went to war. The men who didn't were able to get their head start to power.

"Many of these men who evaded service but claimed idealism lead our elite institutions. The concept of using legal technicalities to evade responsibility has been carried over to playing with derivatives, or to short-changing shareholders. Once my generation got in the habit of saying one thing and believing another, it couldn't stop.

"Bizarre outcomes abound. Many of those who avoided the war became advocates of a muscular foreign policy [overcompensating] for their unease by sending others into harm's way.

"In the coming days, I imagine we will learn more details of Mr Blumenthal's sad story. What we know, though, more generally, is much more troubling. Too many members of my generation learned to believe they could work within the law to evade basic responsibilities, cloaking their actions in idealism. It's a way of thinking that scars us to this day."

This story got me thinking about Milton Friedman, the leading liberal economist and nemesis of the Left, and his role in overturning conscription in the US.

Friedman opposed conscription as contrary to liberal principles in a series of lectures in 1956 and published his analysis in his book Capitalism and Freedom. His argument was in terms of freedom as well as economics; a volunteer army was said to involve greater apparent costs, but he constructed an argument about implicit taxes involved in conscription that countered the long-standing argument that the cost of a volunteer army was prohibitive.

Friedman wrote: "The appropriate free-market arrangement is volunteer military forces . . . Present arrangements are inequitable and arbitrary, seriously interfere with the freedom of young men to shape their lives, and probably are even more costly than the market alternative."

At the time of his advocacy, from the late 1950s to the abolition of the draft under Richard Nixon in the 70s, both Democrats and Republicans supported conscription. Friedman served in the commission that advised Nixon to drop the draft, later citing this as his most satisfying achievement.

While the Left's anti-war movement moved against conscription, the Right did the same: Ayn Rand and Friedman attacked it according to their take on liberal principles. While Democrats such as Ted Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy were advocating a fair draft, George McGovern was calling for its abolition.

I was struck by this passage from Friedman's book: "The argument that a voluntary army would cost more simply involves a confusion of apparent with real cost. When [a person] is forced to serve, we are in effect imposing on him a tax in kind equal in value to the difference between what it would take to attract him and the military pay he actually receives. The implicit tax in kind should be added to the explicit taxes imposed on the rest of us to get the real cost of our armed forces . . . It will be seen that abandoning the draft would almost surely reduce the real cost because the armed forces would then be manned by men for whom soldiering was the best available career, and hence would require the lowest sums of money to induce them to serve. Abandoning the draft might raise the apparent money cost to the government but only because it would substitute taxes in money for taxes in kind."

So the Left found common ground with the Right to move from an armed force that was (although riddled with unfair loopholes) class-blind in conscripting servicemen to one that has moved decisively towards the lower classes. African-Americans and the great tribe of lower-class whites are now disproportionately coming home in the body bags because for them "soldiering was the best available career".

Whereas back when there was a draft, even Bush could be conscripted, today the privileged classes are exempt.

One need not oppose the idea of lowest class people joining the armed services as the best available opportunity to put some structure and direction into lives, to see clearly the class dynamics at play here.

It is a telling example of how deceptive ideological struggles can be. By fighting the draft those concerned about inequality and injustice ended up assisting the upper classes to be exempted from military service, thus turning military service from a matter of national duty to one of liberal economics.

The real progressive position was that taken by Kennedy: advocating a fairer draft rather than its abolition.

Rink

"Blumenthal merely would be yet another in a long line of luminaries who have been less than candid about their military service: not least Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. "

What's this guy talking about? Clinton and Bush never claimed to be in Vietnam. However, John Kerry had a lot of questions about his 2-month, 3-Purple Heart tour.

Poor people always make up a large part of those fighting. They also make up a larger percentage of the population. I find it interesting that many of the same people who say that more poor are sent to fight, are also against having military recruiters on college campuses (the current Supreme Court nominee for one).

Here is the statistical breakdown of US casualties in the Vietnam War:

http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-w...stics.html#race

Of the 58k deaths, 38k were KIA. Almost 10k died from non-combat related reasons.

50k were white, 7.2k were black.

6.6k were officers

Cause of Casualty? 1,326 by "Misadventure".

12 Muslims, 269 Jewish

97 were in the National Guard.

"By fighting the draft those concerned about inequality and injustice ended up assisting the upper classes to be exempted from military service, thus turning military service from a matter of national duty to one of liberal economics.

It's a myth that only the poor & uneducated join the military and only because they are financially desperate. But that's the only "logical" conclusion the anti-military establishment can come up with.

"But that's the only "logical" conclusion the anti-military establishment can come up with".

Larry Pressler

Pressler was awarded the following medals and citations for his two tours of duty as a U.S. Army Lieutenant (1967–68) in Vietnam: (which are included on his DD Form 214) Bronze Star Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Meritorious Unit Commendation with one Oak Leaf Cluster, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with four Bronze Service Stars, Vietnam Campaign Ribbon with Device, Overseas Service Bars, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation Badge.

Here is Mr. Presslar's entire op-ed piece. Nowhere in it does he mention either Bill Clinton or George Bush by name. The author of the Australian, Noel Pearson, took it upon himself to include names.

___________________________________________________________________________

The Technicality Generation

By LARRY PRESSLER

Published: May 18, 2010

THE problems faced by Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s attorney general, over his depiction of his military service are indicative of a broader disease in our society. The issues of integrity in business and politics that plague us today — the way elites are no longer trusted — are rooted in the dishonesty that surrounded the Vietnam-era draft.

The Vietnam War drove members of my generation in different directions. Some served because they believed in the war, others didn’t believe in the war and protested, but when drafted felt an obligation to go. Others were simply drafted. Some refused service out of principle, others out of fear, and still others because they felt that taking the time to go to Vietnam would slow their careers.

Many of those who didn’t serve were helped by an inherently unfair draft. I don’t fault anyone for taking advantage of the law. Where I do find fault is among those who say they were avoiding the draft because they were idealistically opposed to the war — when, in fact, they mostly didn’t want to make the sacrifice. The problem is that for every person who won a deferment or a spot in a special National Guard unit, someone poorer or less educated, and usually African-American, had to serve.

Thus, many in my generation knew they were using a broken (but legal) system to shirk their duty. They cloaked themselves in idealism but deep down had to know they were engaging in a charade. (I, too, was against the Vietnam war and felt that people should protest, but not dodge their draft responsibility.)

This intellectual justification continues to this day, only now these men are among our country’s leaders.

I had a unique opportunity to observe the best and brightest of my generation — first as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford in 1964 and then when I attended Harvard Law School after serving in Vietnam. Among both sets of my classmates were some who used elaborate steps to avoid the draft. (At school, I recall articles circulating that explained how to fail Army physicals.)

In private conversations with my classmates, I was told over and over that they didn’t want to serve in the military because it would hold up their careers. To the outside world, though, many would proclaim they weren’t going because they were opposed to the war and we should end all wars. Eventually they began to believe their “idealism” was superior to that of those who did serve. They said that it was courageous to resist the draft — something that would have been true if they had actually become conscientious objectors and gone to prison.

Too many in my generation did a deeply insidious thing. And they got away with it. Big time. Poorer people went to war. The men who didn’t were able to get their head start to power.

Now that flawed thinking has been carried forward. Many of these men who evaded service but claimed idealism lead our elite institutions. The concept of using legal technicalities to evade responsibility has been carried over to playing with derivatives, or to short-changing shareholders. Once my generation got in the habit of saying one thing and believing another, it couldn’t stop.

Bizarre outcomes abound. Many of those who avoided the war became advocates of a muscular foreign policy. When I was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I would be invited to meetings in the Pentagon or the White House to discuss troop deployments. In those meetings, I encountered far too many Democrats and Republicans who did not serve in the war when they had a chance, and who overcompensated for their unease by sending others into harm’s way.

In the coming days, I imagine we will learn more details of Mr. Blumenthal’s sad story. What we know, though, more generally, is much more troubling. Too many members of my generation learned to believe that they could work within the law to evade basic responsibilities, cloaking their actions in idealism. It’s a way of thinking that scars us to this day.

Larry Pressler, a former Republican senator from South Dakota, served in the Army in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/opinion/19pressler.html

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Now why don't we take a look at the author of the article in the Australian, Mr. Noel Pearson.

____________________________________________________________

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noel Pearson (born June 25, 1965) is an influential Aboriginal Australian lawyer, land rights activist and founder of the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership, an organisation promoting the economic and social development of Cape York.

In the early part of his career Pearson was an advocate for land rights, but at the end of the 1990s he substantially shifted focus. Pearson has since then strongly argued that Indigenous policy needs to change direction, notably in relation to welfare, substance abuse, child protection, and economic development. Pearson criticises approaches to these problems which, while claiming to be "progressive," in his opinion merely keep Indigenous people dependent on welfare and out of the "real economy." He outlined this position in 2000 in his speech, The light on the hill."

____________________________________________________________

His entire page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Pearson_...tralian_lawyer)

Guess what? He has never served in the military, never been subject to a military draft, never served in Vietnam and very likely has never been to the US.

The Military Draft in the US ended in 1973. What is Pearson talking about since the draft ended 37 years ago?

This article of Pearson's is a joke, right?

His other job is writing for newspapers. It probably pays better.

I'm trying to get a comment on Pressler's article, which, with the benefit of hindsight, I'll admit I should have posted instead of Pearson's.

So can we start again and look at this as a former Republican Senator and war hero's take on conscription.

But then I suppose you heard he voted for Obama which makes everything else he did in his life garbage eh?

His other job is writing for newspapers. It probably pays better.

I'm trying to get a comment on Pressler's article, which, with the benefit of hindsight, I'll admit I should have posted instead of Pearson's.

So can we start again and look at this as a former Republican Senator and war hero's take on conscription.

But then I suppose you heard he voted for Obama which makes everything else he did in his life garbage eh?

I had no idea who he voted for, but as a genuine Bronze Star holder, he certainly has my respect and gratitude.

OK, since you have now explained why you started this thread to begin with, let's look at his take on conscription.

Mr. Pressler's article really has to do with Mr. Richard Blumenthal who is running for the US Senate from the State of Connecticut.

Mr. Blumenthal enlisted in the US Marine Reserves prior to being drafted during the Vietnam war. This enlistment meant he had to serve six months active duty and five and one half years on active reserves. He spent his six months at basic training and then was likely assigned to a menial task stateside. They were not sending six monthers to Vietnam. Mr. Blumenthal then served out his remaining time in the US since his unit was not called up to serve in Vietnam. During the time of the war in Vietnam, Mr. Blumenthal remained in the US, went to college, obtained his law degree and began his climb up the ladders of success.

Since he entered politics Mr. Blumenthal has claimed he served in Vietnam, returned from Vietnam and did his part in the war. None of this was true.

Perhaps Pressler is correct in saying Mr. Blumenthal got a leg up on his career by not having to spend two years of conscripted service in the military and was able to advance his career and education over those that were serving.

Pressler seems to believe Mr. Blumenthal's exaggerations of his war service are also somehow derived from the free ride he got during the Vietnam War war. I tend to disagree with his position on this.

I believe Mr. Blumenthal simply decided to rewrite his resume a number of years ago for political purposes. He is merely a liar and a politician, which are one and the same.

Edit in: I have a number of friends that voted for Obama. They are still my friends. The vast majority of them regret their votes, however.

There seems to be a fair bit of resentment by some Vietnam vets. As an Australian I registered for a lottery type draft and my number never came up, something I admit I occasionally regret. My father and both grandfathers had many years of service, going back as far as the Boer War, so I was never exposed to any sort of anti-military establishment.

I was interested in Pearson's take on conscription, the economic argument was new to me. Using old wars or events is a perfectly acceptable tool to make a point in debate and I've sure you've heard people who have never served in any army expound learnedly on military subjects.

The difference is, most people will pretend to listen to an old soldier, regardless whether he's right or not.

I believe Mr. Blumenthal simply decided to rewrite his resume a number of years ago for political purposes. He is merely a liar and a politician, which are one and the same.

Edit in: I have a number of friends that voted for Obama. They are still my friends. The vast majority of them regret their votes, however.

I agree with both statements and feel that Obama misrepresented himself as a moderate. Mr. Blumenthal is not the only liar.

George and I used to date the same girl in college. George and I were both on the college sailing team. George’s dad owned the factory and my father managed it.

George and I both went to SEA. George went to Hong Kong to buy a Choy Lee yacht and sailed it back to the states in about two years doing various yachting events along the way. I went to Vietnam for two tours.

I served two tours in Vietnam because it was better than the stateside army.

I am very much in favor of the draft. I have a fear of people who enlist in the army and make it a career based on my service in Vietnam.

I was also a member of the VFW in Pattaya.

Unlike John Kerry I burned my own medals but I didn’t throw them over a fence at the White House. I threw them at my commanding general at his club in Vietnam. I don’t know if he saw me or not. If he did he didn’t come out.

My commanding general tried to kill me on a number of occasions and there was no lost love between us.

When men left Vietnam there was usually a farewell party. The only person I said goodbye to was my Vietnamese girlfriend Diep.

I went through a number of different feelings when I returned. Some men gained invaluable experiences of command at a very young age which may have helped them in their careers. Some picked up a nasty drug habit.

I dropped out for 5 years becoming a ski bum and turquoise prospector in Colorado. It took 5 years wandering around in the San Louis Valley to get my head back together.

As a result of my time in Vietnam and SEA in general I came back to Thailand to grow old and die. Kind of like the elephants graveyard. I would have gone back to Vietnam except I don’t like red mud and the Thai women are more fun.

I have no real emotions one way or the other about people making up stories about service in Vietnam. Sure you can spot a phony a mile away but it is funny how about such a short period of time, in my case a little less than two years can effect your life forever.

"But that's the only "logical" conclusion the anti-military establishment can come up with".

Larry Pressler

Pressler was awarded the following medals and citations for his two tours of duty as a U.S. Army Lieutenant (1967–68) in Vietnam: (which are included on his DD Form 214) Bronze Star Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Meritorious Unit Commendation with one Oak Leaf Cluster, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with four Bronze Service Stars, Vietnam Campaign Ribbon with Device, Overseas Service Bars, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation Badge.

Impressive credentials. But it wasn't his comment I was refering to, it was the other guy.

but as a genuine Bronze Star holder,

Who is a genuine Bronze Star Holder?

"But that's the only "logical" conclusion the anti-military establishment can come up with".

Larry Pressler

Pressler was awarded the following medals and citations for his two tours of duty as a U.S. Army Lieutenant (1967–68) in Vietnam: (which are included on his DD Form 214) Bronze Star Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Meritorious Unit Commendation with one Oak Leaf Cluster, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with four Bronze Service Stars, Vietnam Campaign Ribbon with Device, Overseas Service Bars, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation Badge.

Impressive credentials. But it wasn't his comment I was refering to, it was the other guy.

That's ok, for a minute there I thought you hadn't understood the article.

I must admit I'm starting to tire of the "if you haven't been there personally don't talk about it" attack. If this held true you'd think people would shut up about the birth of Christ and the causes of the First World War.

Maybe it's more of a "I don't want to hear what you have to say unless I agree with it" thing.

I must admit I'm starting to tire of the "if you haven't been there personally don't talk about it" attack. If this held true you'd think people would shut up about the birth of Christ and the causes of the First World War.

How do you know you can't breathe on the Moon? Have you been there? NO? Then you don't know what you're talking about so <deleted>!

but as a genuine Bronze Star holder,

Who is a genuine Bronze Star Holder?

Larry Pressler, assuming his DD-214 shows it, as was posted in an earlier post.

"Pressler was awarded the following medals and citations for his two tours of duty as a U.S. Army Lieutenant (1967–68) in Vietnam: (which are included on his DD Form 214) Bronze Star Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Meritorious Unit Commendation with one Oak Leaf Cluster, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with four Bronze Service Stars, Vietnam Campaign Ribbon with Device, Overseas Service Bars, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation Badge."

I must admit I'm starting to tire of the "if you haven't been there personally don't talk about it" attack. If this held true you'd think people would shut up about the birth of Christ and the causes of the First World War.

How do you know you can't breathe on the Moon? Have you been there? NO? Then you don't know what you're talking about so <deleted>!

People in authority here do a good enough job of shutting me up without amateurs trying to join in.

Some things have to be taken as a given, or dialogue can get excessively pedantic... as it often does here.

I was stationed in Saigon for a while and then 18 miles outside of Saigon. I might as well have been on two different planets.

I was in Thailand in 68 and 69 and never heard of Pattaya but I learned on another thread that there was some American presence there at that time.

I can see both sides of the, been there done that argument.

If you give it a current Thailand twist do you think people who live in Thailand and have lived here for some time know more than people who don’t live here or who have been here for a two week bar binge?

About what?

I must admit I'm starting to tire of the "if you haven't been there personally don't talk about it" attack. If this held true you'd think people would shut up about the birth of Christ and the causes of the First World War.

How do you know you can't breathe on the Moon? Have you been there? NO? Then you don't know what you're talking about so <deleted>!

People in authority here do a good enough job of shutting me up without amateurs trying to join in.

Some things have to be taken as a given, or dialogue can get excessively pedantic... as it often does here.

I think koheesti was agreeing with you and being sarcastic, albeit with rather harsh language for a dialogue between mere web aquaintances......I'm sure you see that and were just making a side comment about other subjects.

But the comment was nicely softened with a smiley. I took it in the spirit it was offered.

About what?

Do Thai women prefer spaghetti or linguine?

Why not just do an internet poll, save yourself an airfare?

Why not just do an internet poll, save yourself an airfare?

I live here and I already know. You asked, about what?

Why not just do an internet poll, save yourself an airfare?

I live here and I already know. You asked, about what?

Mark:

I don't know, so what's the answer. Spaghetti or linguine?

Why not just do an internet poll, save yourself an airfare?

I live here and I already know. You asked, about what?

Mark:

I don't know, so what's the answer. Spaghetti or linguine?

Spaghetti but you figure out why.

I must admit I'm starting to tire of the "if you haven't been there personally don't talk about it" attack. If this held true you'd think people would shut up about the birth of Christ and the causes of the First World War.

How do you know you can't breathe on the Moon? Have you been there? NO? Then you don't know what you're talking about so <deleted>!

People in authority here do a good enough job of shutting me up without amateurs trying to join in.

I don't think you understood what I meant. I wasn't telling you to shut up. I was agreeing with you.

I certainly don't have a problem with being agreed with as long as you don't make a habit of it.

Interestingly, in the OP, Pearson takes the moral high ground about the poor being cannon fodder for the wars of the rich, his particular ethnic group have been exempt from conscription in Australia's conflicts. Even at the time of Vietnam which coincided with aboriginals being granted full citizenship they were exempt. However quite a few served their country as volunteers, as they did in earlier wars.

I certainly don't have a problem with being agreed with as long as you don't make a habit of it.

I think we both know that it was probably a one-off.

Interestingly, in the OP, Pearson takes the moral high ground about the poor being cannon fodder for the wars of the rich,

Of course they are. Poor people can't start wars. They may be led to THINK they are behind the revolution but it's really some other individuals pulling the strings and stoking the fire (who become rich as a result). Of course poorer people do most of the fighting and dying - there are more of them. This doesn't mean that the poor don't benefit from wars sometimes more than the rich. While rich people may gain more money that they don't really need, wars can save the lives of the poor and improve their lives in the long run - except of course for those who die in the process. But the children of the dead often lead better lives because of their sacrifice and most parents would make that sacrifice for their children.

You guys are lucky. Gotta end this rant early and get ready for work.

but as a genuine Bronze Star holder,

Who is a genuine Bronze Star Holder?

Larry Pressler, assuming his DD-214 shows it, as was posted in an earlier post.

"Pressler was awarded the following medals and citations for his two tours of duty as a U.S. Army Lieutenant (1967–68) in Vietnam: (which are included on his DD Form 214) Bronze Star Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Meritorious Unit Commendation with one Oak Leaf Cluster, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with four Bronze Service Stars, Vietnam Campaign Ribbon with Device, Overseas Service Bars, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation Badge."

Thanks, I didn't see it first time round