AM64
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2016
- Messages
- 28,553
- Likes
- 42,349
I think that's the point you're really trying to make here. Jmo.
Not speaking for them, but personally I'm tired of people who never served trying to make other people do so.
I can agree with your feeling about the unwilling directing others to do what they wouldn't; but since we believe in civilian control of policy and of the military, that's the way things are.
I remember the time when joining the military was almost considered a rite of passage. Then we had an "enlightened" generation that decided it (the generation ... actually a subset) was too important to fight a war for which it didn't approve, and a new mentality was born. You and a lot of other people owe your right to dissent to people who felt differently. Those from that enlightened generation are to a great extent the "leaders" and influencers of the other "leaders" who determine policy now. I won't argue with you whether any war since WW2 was actually fought to protect you because that would be a lost cause. I'll just say that sometimes a little patch of earth isn't worth nearly as much as the principle leading to the dispute and the willingness to defend it. Whether our "leaders" have the wisdom to determine which is which is definitely in doubt.
As to deferment and avoidance, most people I knew (including myself) looked at a deferment as just that ... the opportunity to direct the order in which we did things ... education first and then the military obligation. I'll probably agree with you that most people who went into politics from that generation thought they were above the fray and saw a deferment as a means to avoidance, so whether we agree on much else, perhaps we both see our politicians as unfit to decide policy and military involvement.