Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Seven Questions for the Next Commander-in-Chief
I just came across this item in the Huffington Post, suggesting that the target audience is left-leaning, but I think these questions should be asked — and asked often — of anyone running for the office of Commander-in-Chief. I don’t think I’ve heard any of the candidates offer any kind of specific response to these questions, alone or together, so I thought I’d reproduce them here. Maybe a Ricochet member will get a chance to ask them at a campaign event.
If you do, please share what you learn, because I genuinely don’t know how any of the candidates would answer. The seriousness and sobriety of a candidate’s answers to these questions would be very important to me in deciding for whom to vote:
1. After the war in Iraq, we have seen the problems associated with deploying our forces without a specific endgame and exit strategy. If you believe we should deploy more of our military forces to Syria and Iraq now, under what circumstances would you envision bringing them home?
2. After seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan less than one percent of our population fighting our nation’s battles, which often resulted in multiple tours of duty, what do you think about imposing a draft like we have done in the past?
3. Many military servicemembers state that the current services provided to them as they transition from the military to the private sector are not helpful and do not prepare them for their new lives. How would you improve this process?
4. Studies show that the financial costs alone of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will reach at least $5 trillion dollars. There were also approximately 7,000 lives lost, 50,000 wounded in action and hundreds of thousands with post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injuries. How does that affect your decision to send American troops back into the Middle East?
5. Many senior officers argue that our military cannot solve all of our problems, and that Congress should give the State Department and USAID larger budgets so that they can help countries be more stable on the front end. What is your opinion on that?
6. Our government has clearly not provided many of our veterans the care that they need and deserve. Appeals of their cases can take close to a decade to adjudicate, the veteran suicide rate is through the roof, and Post Traumatic Stress still has a huge stigma attached to it. What specific measures would you take to rectify these problems?
7. Recently 20 national security leaders including General Petraeus, General Casey, Michael Chertoff, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft authored a bipartisan letter opposing efforts to deny refugees from Iraq and Syria access to our refugee program in the United States. If you disagree, please explain why you think these experts are wrong.
These are good questions, and serious ones. If you’ve already heard any the most prominent candidates (of either party) answer these questions in a serious, specific way — in a written proposal or a speech — could you tell me where and post the link? If you think any aspect of a candidate’s voting record would be an answer in itself, could you explain which vote or votes make you think so?
Published in Elections, Foreign Policy, Military, Politics
I don’t doubt that she “does” feel this way. And I’m not in a position to opine whether it’s widespread.
But I say again: When lefties profess concern for the individuals in the military, it’s cover.
Because unless they pity them, they don’t give a rat’s ass.
So the question is: what are they covering for?
The sympathy masks pity, which masks disdain. This style of patronizing is what I call “matronizing”, and while it may have decent and honorable roots, it also contains no small degree of pooh-poohing and there-thereing to dismiss the adult decisions and valid worldview held by hawks and service members alike.
See we don’t mind a calculated risks approach as long as everything reasonable is done to minimize risks, and for the right goals.
My own furious opposition to lifting a finger against ISIS is simple: sacrifices were converted to mere waste for partisan political benefit by a treasonous domestic enemy administration. The Republicans will not call this what it is, and therefore it will be repeated.
And for what? People have pity and concern, but their voices are absent when Obama throws our lives away. So no. The answer is no. And then I get patronizing explanations about how serious it is.
As if I didn’t understand.
Anne’s fine sons are not dupes, and you have to see them that way in order to sustain the “unfairness” pity party that masks leftist agendas. It’s virtue signaling for those who assume that the military is a bunch of tubes. There, there.
I don’t doubt that depending who you’re talking to, all of those ingredients could be present in varying degrees. But some people have genuinely well-informed opinions about region X and mission Y, and oppose US military intervention on the grounds that they believe it won’t achieve the stated goals and will therefore be a waste of life and treasure. I presume that you would support the use of the military under a different Commander-in-Chief, wouldn’t you? Or do you think that the election of Obama was such an act of treason that all Americans deserve henceforth to roll over and die were the country to be invaded? (I assume the answer is “no.”)
It’s true that some people are precisely as you describe: “matronizing” (great neologism), basically dovish by disposition, grew up hearing a few too many rounds of “Where have all the flowers gone,” and have no clue what they’re talking about. Only problem with the word “matronizing” is that it sounds like it applies only to women — I think there’s an equally large category of men who fall under that banner.
But back to my original point: there’s a large group of people who fall somewhere on the matronizing side of the spectrum. My response to Annefy’s question — what are they hiding — is that I suspect what a good proportion are hiding isn’t disdain, but shame. Do you recall Dr. Johnson’s words, “Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea?” That’s eternally true, whatever the political fashion. I reckon many people who haven’t served think less of themselves for it, but aren’t able to articulate what they’re feeling. If they were more self-aware, it would come out as, “I feel ashamed that I don’t or didn’t or couldn’t serve,” but since that term and sentiment sound archaic, it becomes transmogrified: “I feel guilty that others have borne the sacrifice disproportionately.”
And yes, of course it’s a sacrifice. It’s not patronizing at all to point out that men and women in the armed forces often sacrifice in ways other citizens don’t: limbs, lives, and much besides. The only way pointing this out could be patronizing would be if the observation were coupled with the voiced or unvoiced thought, “The poor, unwitting dupes, there is no such thing as a just war, ever.”
That latter sentiment really is confined to a minority, even on the left. I’ve never seen a normal American walk through a military cemetery with an expression on his or her face suggesting smug pity. Normal people — even callow teenagers who’ve been dragged there by their parents — take one look the graves at Omaha beach and tremble. It speaks for itself. No one visits Arlington and matronizes.
Which leads back to my original thought: If we had some form of universal national service, it would reduce the distance between servicemen and women and the rest of the public, and it would reduce the unhealthy sense felt by those who haven’t served that they should oppose the use of the military altogether because the sacrifices are disproportionately borne by o.4 percent of the citizenry.
The problem with that idea — beyond the basic, libertarian objection to a draft — is that most people would be a burden, not an asset, to a professional military. So basically it’s not a good idea.
But …
I found this article in a lefty magazine the other day, and thought, “You know, that’s not wholly stupid.” Read it and think, maybe, of two years service instead of one. (I doubt one year’s enough to meaningfully serve, given the amount of training people need for jobs that are genuinely worth that amount of money, as opposed to symbolic.) Replace their lefty dog-whistle ideas of “national service” with ways of serving that make sense to normal people, including, but not limited, to some kinds of military service. People unfit for the military could be useful to the country as first responders, EMT techs, firefighters; they could work in hospice care, disaster relief, assisting the elderly or infirm — even child care. (Imagine how much it would help teenagers and women who are coping with unplanned pregnancies if we had a cadre of people who devoted their national service years to child care. It would be a fantastic resource: It would help women to continue their education or job training and break out of the poverty trap.)
It makes sense economically: You have to do a year (or two) of service of equivalent value to get at the savings account.
There’s no libertarian objection: If you don’t want to serve, fine; you just don’t get the money.
And so long as these were real jobs, performing genuinely needed services (that’s the key — no one gets to go on a swim with turtles in Costa Rica to “raise turtle awareness”), I think the authors are basically right: People who do it would have a sense that like people in the military, they’ve served their country. That would diminish the sense of guilty/ashamed distance they feel from those who’ve served and all the pathologies to which that gives rise.
What do you think?
I agree that “matronizing” has issues, but as patronizing can be male or female, so can ~. Meanwhile, we are still stuck with the problem from the English language that male nouns mean everybody, while female nouns mean females.
Shall I call out the fallacies and assumptions in this paragraph alone? While I appreciate the presumption given, it’s only necessary to let me off of a hook of your own concoction. You are now talking about something not only unconnected, but imaginary.
Work with me, not against me.
Sure. Such as me.
I don’t have a blanket issue with “the use of the military”. I cited my “furious opposition to lifting a finger against ISIS”, not to the use of the military in general. There’s more, but I think this is sufficient to cleave your flawed equivalence.
To put this delicately, this is answered in the same fashion as the snippet above.
I’ll cop to being stubborn and a knothead at times, but I’m not stupid, and you seem to be reacting to the statements of a stupid person. I know that’s not your intent; I know you’re not being unpleasant.
You’ve bypassed my position having tilted at a few strawmills, and go on to suggest one of the most anti-conservative things ever to grace these pages — baby-sitting on federal wages to qualify as a veteran for most purposes. That makes “It Takes a Village” look like a manifesto for limited government.
Greetings! Am working with you. My response in #67 was in draft while you posted this. Also, it has been a busy weekend, so don’t think I am reticent — no shrinking violet I.
You are somewhat more friendly to some precepts that I am pretty hostile toward. But that’s things, not people, and I’m not “down on Claire”.
Obviously, my #67 was not available when you wrote this, so I presume that all is well.
I bow to anyone who is more informed on international affairs. Both BDB and Claire qualify.
BUT I can’t reiterate how frustrated I am by people claiming the burden of military service is shared unequally; therefore … what? How narcissistic is it to think foreign policy should be based upon whether or not I feel bad?
BTW, I shared the highlights of this discussion with my daughter today, and told her how sick I was of the faux concern I get from so many about the boys.
You know what she replied? Yeah, they say that to your face. Behind your back they think your sons are idiots who had no other options.
So, to any of you who claim the burden is being “shared unequally” and therefore temper your foreign policy decisions based upon that assumption, the door’s open on Sundays. Everyone welcome.
I know no member of the military who appreciates being pitied – but if you want to pick up their tab at the barber shop, it’s appreciated.
On the issue of national service. I think it’s a great idea and should be encouraged.
Encouraged. By parents and by society.
And not in a month of Tuesdays would I have left my young ones with anyone who was punching a “service” ticket.
It does not make sense economically. There is a reason that the Army has a basic enlistment requirement for almost all enlistees as 4 years, along with an additional 4 years as an Individual Ready Reservist (IRR). The service requirements listed in the article (teachers aide, community organizer) are just foot soldiers in the pro(re)gressive cause. No Thank You.
I would have done a longer discourse, because JoE and I really hashed out how much it costs to make a single soldier as few months ago – but the Ricosearch being what it is I was unable to dredge up the numbers.
The Ricosearch is getting tiresome.
That’s why I said, “Change the requirements to common-sense service requirements.” There are many jobs that need to be done but don’t require as many skills and as much training as professional soldiering. Instead of having taxpayers foot the whole bill for garbage collection, staffing the DMV, government building and grounds maintenance — why not have young citizens do some of this in exchange for the money they want the federal government to give them for, e.g., their college tuition? Much more selective than taxing everyone equally and dispersing these funds to everyone; makes much more sense from a budget perspective. The idea that they’d then get to claim veterans’ benefits is absurd, but I didn’t suggest that. I suggested that they’d then be able to claim they’d served the country usefully. Depending on the aptitudes of the young people in question, the jobs could range from low-skilled ones to ones that are much more challenging.
I realize this is far off topic, but is there anything remotely conservative about this constellation of Good Ideas? I’m not just being contrary, but I am contrary to it. Isn’t this what we as conservatives are pretty united in opposing?
I don’t care if they get to claim that they served their country usefully. Their poor self-esteem is not my fault, not my problem, and not on my list of things to fix — especially through government’s attempt to mimic the job market. MOST especially, when the purported jumping-off point here was something like removing a certain guilt from the psyches of non-veterans. Heck, the guy who stocks shelves at the Kroger’s does more to serve his country usefully than any number of midnight basketball program administrators and gear managers, not least of all through actually participating in the economy, and not being a literal tax upon it.
Look, I’m just kind of flabbergasted at this point. What are we doing here? I am not associating the OP questions with lefty positions because they came from HuffPo or Slate or wherever, but because it’s in their DNA — it’s apparent. I likewise find this national service boondoggle a gob-smackingly statist proposition. That’s not about you or the source, whatever that is. It is what it is. I’ll go through more of the comments this evening.
Right this very second, Americans are taking budget-breaking sums of money from the government postsecondary education, job training, and business grants. Wouldn’t it be better idea to require that people who take this money do something in return? Wouldn’t it be better to finance future demand for this in a rational way that connects people to how much it actually costs, and asks them, individually, to choose whether it’s really worth it to them? Would not this plan reduce federal spending on labor?
In a libertarian model, none of this would be justified because of the role government plays. But in reality, we’re not going to elect a libertarian government. Why isn’t this idea more conservative than what we’re doing now?
Fair enough, but what do you think of the economics of the proposal?
Yes, but you’re envisioning “midnight basketball program administrators.” Think beyond lefty ways of doing this. Think of useful jobs that people might do, and which for sure the government will pay someone to do, because we’re not, in our lifetimes, going to see the role of government reduced to nothing more than providing for the common defense. This idea sounds, to me, like a way of reducing burden on taxpayers and connecting young people to the idea that you can’t just get “free” stuff from the government: If you want things paid for, you’ve got to work for it.
I don’t find it more conservative to become ever more complicit in statist schemes. You say that this wouldn’t fly under libertarianism, but what you’re talking about is good old fashioned conservatism. What are we supposed to tell people who say that libertarians want to shrink government but conservatives want to expand it? Because this is what one of the founding (?) editors of an influential conservative site is saying!
I know what I say. I say somebody has a very different definition of conservatism than I do.
Claire, is this the principled conservatism that the FuryCons are supposed to sign up for? “Not in your lifetime, so get on the spending bus”?
I’m not being testy. I’m just kind of stunned. How is this not the exact reason that people have abandoned this bankrupt party full of promises and Good Ideas, and no conservatism? Why Trump?
This is why Trump.
I think this would shrink it. Quite a bit. Why don’t you think it would?
Because there is no force in government that causes things to go in a conservative direction. This would be as poorly run as every other Good Idea instituted by the government in competition with decent folk. For one, in government, the more poorly run a program is, the more effort it takes to run it. Well need to hire some more people. Hey, I know! Let’s hire the people whose stuff were administering!
More seriously, anytime the GOP comes in to rescue a bankrupting lefty spending scheme, it just seals the thing as a permanent, bipartisan fact of life. It becomes “the settled law of the land”, and the next time a conservative goes to pull the plug, the two-party good times club defends its offspring.
Labor hours would be removed from the market, presumably displacing the private accomplishment of those same tasks. If the government needs certain things done, then are they not being done now?
Etc
Sure there is — if people don’t want to work, they don’t get the money. Things people expect to get “for free” suddenly come with a price tag. I’m not suggesting this in addition to giving people all these handouts. I’m suggesting it instead of.
That’s not government. That’s the recipient. I mean that there is no reason to think that the program would be run effectively. Even if it were, there’s no reason to support it as opposed to real jobs in the real economy. And one way or another, this must displace jobs somewhere. Shouldn’t conservatives worth electing he able to make the case for getting government out of the front side of education? Well they can’t if the rest of the GOP is out pushing solutions like this.
Claire, I went and read the article in DJ that you linked in your #63. Good Heavens! You need a conservative intervention. JOHN WALKER, Claire adores you and desperately needs a port wine cheese ball, a box of Triscuits, and Henry Hazlitt or Thomas Sowell airlifted to her position. Heck, the libertarians around here should hate that idea as well.
I’ll write a post about that thoroughly bad economic proposal when I get home.
Amen. Please!
Taxpayers would still be footing the entire bill. Directly. From the article – $5k is given directly to them from the taxpayers.
Do you not think they would be paid a wage while working these jobs? That such a wage would have to be a “living wage” for the area they worked in? That such wages would come directly from the taxpayers and at the expense of the people already employed doing the work of the DMV, garbage collection and grounds keeping?
In short, it is a ridiculous idea and has zero chance of ‘closing the rift’ between the military and civilian populations.
At birth, then allowed to collect interest, and then the only way you can claim it is by earning it — otherwise you forfeit it. And if you forfeit it, don’t come to the government asking it to pay for your education, give you a grant, or do anything else for you.
If you throw in Welfare (mostly given on behalf of children), Medicaid, Section 8 Housing, Food Stamps, then I am right there with you. Cheap at that price – particularly if they are required to become an Au Pair to people who would otherwise be on welfare, medicaid, section 8….