A "Get Out of Army Free" Card
You know, for all the adulation politicians and certain segments of the population like to shower on the military, there have been quite a few controversies surrounding military service in our history. Usually these sticky issues revolve around the draft. During the Civil War, those who wanted to avoid serving in the Union forces could hire a substitute. "Commutation fees" were paid, to the tune of $300. Using the Consumer Price Index, the rough equivalent today would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $5,000. Confederate forces fared no better, as the age limits widened over time, until just about anyone who was fit to serve was requested to do so. Of course, the planters and their workers were deemed "essential" to the wartime economy. Complaints on both sides of having to fight a "rich man's war" fueled resentment, and in the case of the North, draft riots-- notably in New York City in 1863. The draft and the issue of substitutes reared its ugly head in the post-war political climate when charges were hurled against Grover Cleveland for having hired a substitute in the Civil War.
The Vietnam era still resonates today, although the bitterness over "draft-dodgers" is not quite as intense as it was in the years immediately preceding the war itself. Still, a similar controversy erupted during Clinton's campaign in 1992, when he was tagged a "draft-dodger," after decades of presidents who had served in one form or another in WWII. Again, in 2000 and 2004, we had Smirk's questionable service in the National Guard, accompanied by mysteriously vanishing and re-appearing forms. I think he missed his calling as a magician...
These examples lead me to predict that sometime in the future, when I am much older, sadder, and wiser, we're going to see something like this happen again. Here's why. I'm not sure in today's press climate that this will become any kind of story at all, but it certainly merits examination. Why on earth when they are having such difficulty drafting soldiers would the Army be stupid enough to create different classes of soldiers? Why should someone who is atheletically gifted be permitted to circumvent the rules? I would think the average military enlistee or National Guard member would resent this. It's bad enough a lot of these athletes are going to earn tons more than the average worker today, but they get a "get out of the army" pass. This ain't Monopoly, boys and girls. It's a double standard, and I don't much care for it.
In the article, one fine specimen went to West Point. He knows, and admits in the article, that he has a five-year commitment to serve following his graduation. Yet he's chomping at the bit to get out early. To me, that's not acceptable. You get a fine education, you go in to the military academies with your eyes open, and you *know* you owe time afterwards. That's part of the whole deal. You can't have it both ways. The American taxpayer is subsidizing your education (the five military schools receive the lion's share of their budget in federal money) in exchange for your serving the nation. Trying to cut out early is not only stiffing taxpayers, it's also an affront to your classmates, the majority of whom don't have the same athletic talent you have. They followed through; why can't you? (Pat Tillman notwithstanding; and given the fact that he was killed by friendly fire probably isn't the best advertising for signing up, when you think about it)
If you truly believe you belong on the gridiron or the court or the diamond or *whatever*, then go there. Or go to a regular four-year school, play on the school team, and then get yourself drafted into the majors if you can. But trying to have it both ways is insulting.
That doesn't mean I'm encouraging everyone to stay in the army, go to Iraq, and get themselves killed. It doesn't mean I don't accept an occasional exception to the rule. But I've always felt fair play should be part of the equation in anything and everything, and military service is no exception. If you truly believe in military service, and you believe it's for you, then go ahead. But once you're there, follow through.
The army and our gummint think it's cool to be able to have soldier-athletes released early. They see it as a PR gimmick. I see it as a horribly mixed message. If you're an athlete, we'll be like everybody else and elevate you above mere mortals. We'll keep National Guardsmen and women beyond their contractual obligations because we're shorthanded by fighting on two fronts, but hey, if you have a wicked fastball or you have a record number of TDs, sure, go ahead and leave us. Just do a little PR for us, wink wink.
If you really want some equity, then Barbara and Jenna Bush should enlist. For that matter, all the children of our Representatives and Senators who voted for this debacle should volunteer for service. You supported the war? Put your body where your mouth is. You want a political career? Sign on the dotted line, son.
I doubt there'll be a serious issue with a soldier-athlete in some future political contest; but I certainly do foresee some history repeating itself should a draft re-appear.
[on a side note to my rants and raves concerning unemployment, the disabled and poor, etc. the other day, this article just popped up, bolstering my point: cuts in Medicaid that will ultimately lower the bar for all of us in terms of standards of health care. Look to even more bursting-at-the-seams emergency rooms in the near future.]
The Vietnam era still resonates today, although the bitterness over "draft-dodgers" is not quite as intense as it was in the years immediately preceding the war itself. Still, a similar controversy erupted during Clinton's campaign in 1992, when he was tagged a "draft-dodger," after decades of presidents who had served in one form or another in WWII. Again, in 2000 and 2004, we had Smirk's questionable service in the National Guard, accompanied by mysteriously vanishing and re-appearing forms. I think he missed his calling as a magician...
These examples lead me to predict that sometime in the future, when I am much older, sadder, and wiser, we're going to see something like this happen again. Here's why. I'm not sure in today's press climate that this will become any kind of story at all, but it certainly merits examination. Why on earth when they are having such difficulty drafting soldiers would the Army be stupid enough to create different classes of soldiers? Why should someone who is atheletically gifted be permitted to circumvent the rules? I would think the average military enlistee or National Guard member would resent this. It's bad enough a lot of these athletes are going to earn tons more than the average worker today, but they get a "get out of the army" pass. This ain't Monopoly, boys and girls. It's a double standard, and I don't much care for it.
In the article, one fine specimen went to West Point. He knows, and admits in the article, that he has a five-year commitment to serve following his graduation. Yet he's chomping at the bit to get out early. To me, that's not acceptable. You get a fine education, you go in to the military academies with your eyes open, and you *know* you owe time afterwards. That's part of the whole deal. You can't have it both ways. The American taxpayer is subsidizing your education (the five military schools receive the lion's share of their budget in federal money) in exchange for your serving the nation. Trying to cut out early is not only stiffing taxpayers, it's also an affront to your classmates, the majority of whom don't have the same athletic talent you have. They followed through; why can't you? (Pat Tillman notwithstanding; and given the fact that he was killed by friendly fire probably isn't the best advertising for signing up, when you think about it)
If you truly believe you belong on the gridiron or the court or the diamond or *whatever*, then go there. Or go to a regular four-year school, play on the school team, and then get yourself drafted into the majors if you can. But trying to have it both ways is insulting.
That doesn't mean I'm encouraging everyone to stay in the army, go to Iraq, and get themselves killed. It doesn't mean I don't accept an occasional exception to the rule. But I've always felt fair play should be part of the equation in anything and everything, and military service is no exception. If you truly believe in military service, and you believe it's for you, then go ahead. But once you're there, follow through.
The army and our gummint think it's cool to be able to have soldier-athletes released early. They see it as a PR gimmick. I see it as a horribly mixed message. If you're an athlete, we'll be like everybody else and elevate you above mere mortals. We'll keep National Guardsmen and women beyond their contractual obligations because we're shorthanded by fighting on two fronts, but hey, if you have a wicked fastball or you have a record number of TDs, sure, go ahead and leave us. Just do a little PR for us, wink wink.
If you really want some equity, then Barbara and Jenna Bush should enlist. For that matter, all the children of our Representatives and Senators who voted for this debacle should volunteer for service. You supported the war? Put your body where your mouth is. You want a political career? Sign on the dotted line, son.
I doubt there'll be a serious issue with a soldier-athlete in some future political contest; but I certainly do foresee some history repeating itself should a draft re-appear.
[on a side note to my rants and raves concerning unemployment, the disabled and poor, etc. the other day, this article just popped up, bolstering my point: cuts in Medicaid that will ultimately lower the bar for all of us in terms of standards of health care. Look to even more bursting-at-the-seams emergency rooms in the near future.]
posted by Mr. Sandman | 11:16 PM
<< Home