Lt. Gen Douglas Lute, President Bush's new military adviser, said yesterday that because of frequent tours of duty for US soldiers in Iraq and Afghan, it is worth considering a return to the military draft.

I saw some stats within the week that stated that a majority of soldiers in Iraq have been there *since the beginning* of the war and occupation.

How do you feel a military draft would play with American citizens? How would it effect the election of 11-08 other than completely destroying the Republican Party? Would the White House, with Bush in it, be burned to the ground by disgusted citizens?

I don't think Bush would sign on for a return to the military draft which was discontinued in 1973.

I think the Republicans are hoping a Democrat takes over the White House in 1-2009 so Republicans can blame the Democrats for losing the Iraq War which Bush lost by mismanagement, thereby saving the Republican Party.

What do you think?

Of course the draft has always been an option to consider. I think he stated the obvious to an NPR "All Things Considered" question which is now being spun to sound like this is a change in policy.

I do not believe it is being "seriously " considered at this time. The Army met and exceeded it's July recruiting goals and their position has been for some time that they do not wish to go back to the days of the draft.

Here is the quote you ignored .


"Today, the current means of the all-volunteer force is serving us exceptionally well,"..."It would be a major policy shift, not actually a military but a political policy shift, to move to some other course."

Now I looked around the left bog sites and I see head-lines like 'War Czar Touts Draft'.But you and I both know that is a mischaracterization of his comments.

Yes, it is more of a smear campaign of Bush and those that report to him.
The idea of the draft has been considered many times, and Bush has always stated to be against it.

Perrsonally I would like to see a couple years of mandatory government service for those getting out of high school.

Lt. Gen Douglas Lute, President Bush's new military adviser, said yesterday that because of frequent tours of duty for US soldiers in Iraq and Afghan, it is worth considering a return to the military draft.

I saw some stats within the week that stated that a majority of soldiers in Iraq have been there *since the beginning* of the war and occupation.

How do you feel a military draft would play with American citizens? How would it effect the election of 11-08 other than completely destroying the Republican Party? Would the White House, with Bush in it, be burned to the ground by disgusted citizens?

I don't think Bush would sign on for a return to the military draft which was discontinued in 1973.

I think the Republicans are hoping a Democrat takes over the White House in 1-2009 so Republicans can blame the Democrats for losing the Iraq War which Bush lost by mismanagement, thereby saving the Republican Party.

What do you think??
It's a Non sequitur... The whole thing is back-door unofficial grunts

Yes, of course, I learned it from you and the RIGHT WING NOISE MACHINE PROPAGANSISTS represented here by... Tomder55, speachlessTex, kinji and Chuck.

But, you guys have to know that ENDLESS WAR requires ENDLESS SOLDIERS unless you are going to have the same old soldiers serve for five, ten, twenty years!!

THAT WAS THE POINT. :D

Yes, of course, I learned it from you and the RIGHT WING NOISE MACHINE PROPAGANSISTS represented here by ....Tomder55, speachlessTex, kinji and Chuck.

But, you guys have to know that ENDLESS WAR requires ENDLESS SOLDIERS unless you are going to have the same old soldiers serve for five, ten, twenty years!!!

THAT WAS THE POINT. :D
War is endless…surly you have realized before now sweet cheeks…and why are you lumping me into any category.

The interesting thing is that the British are leaving Iraq with the grand loss of 168 dead in almost 4 years of fighting…that confounds the whole concept of war…wonder what those boys were doing that was so safe.:mad:

THE SAME AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE BEEN FIGHTING **FOR THE MOST PART** SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE OCCUPATION!! YEARS! THE SAME MEN AND WOMEN.

You want endless war, you need an endless supply of soldiers to go to combat zones unless you think that these *exhausted soldiers* have to go on and on for five more years, ten years.

We lost the Iraq war at the beginning in part because Bush wouldn't sent the 450,000 men that the generals wanted.

Where to get soldiers for the ENDLESS WAR, sweetheart?

THE SAME AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE BEEN FIGHTING **FOR THE MOST PART** SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE OCCUPATION!!!!! YEARS!! THE SAME MEN AND WOMEN.

You want endless war, you need an endless supply of soldiers to go to combat zones unless you think that these *exhausted soldiers* have to go on and on for five more years, ten years.

We lost the Iraq war at the beginning in part because Bush wouldn't sent the 450,000 men that the generals wanted.

Where to get soldiers for the ENDLESS WAR, sweetheart?
As I understand it the Army has been making its quota, and it’s about time some of those slackers earned their pay. Besides, skin-heads are lining up for the training as the primary motive. Have you seen some of the bonuses that are being paid for reenlistment?:eek: :eek:

Lt. Gen Douglas Lute, President Bush's new military adviser, said yesterday that because of frequent tours of duty for US soldiers in Iraq and Afghan, it is worth considering a return to the military draft.

I saw some stats within the week that stated that a majority of soldiers in Iraq have been there *since the beginning* of the war and occupation.

What do you think??


Hi Choux-

My parents are up in age and they both have expressed disappointment in seeing my brother having to head back to Iraq three times under Jr. BTW my brother served in the previous Gulf War with one tour for Bush Sr.. In all he's tasted war four times counting his current trip. We want more than anything for my brother to be back home in the arms of his loving wife and his two darling young daughters. He has approximately three and half years until full retirement. I've thought from the start of Dubya's war campaign that we should had went in with more man power. I think, never mind that, I know he has mismanaged this war concerning some of the soldier rotations. Bush's recent decision for extensions was not a military personnel favorite either. On balance, I've heard it said that politics force presidents to operate in certain ways sometimes not to their own likings. So I'm not sure how much of this is to Bush's liking, but he's in the fray.

Draft? Personally I think we should have a mandatory military service of two years in our country. Not necessarily because of this war, but so that it would instill some discipline and character into our youth. As far as strictly speaking on politics and political parties... as you know I did not vote for Bush either election. Certainly the Republican party had others that I believe would had made better presidents. But it is what it is, to my displeasure.


I know you and a few others poke at each other, but I think this is a good post. I try and stay out of the tongue-in-cheek circus bantering that often happens here. There is some extremism on both sides and that scares me. Anyway, I do actually agree with you at times. I'm glad you post here.:)




Bobby

Personally, I think the concept of compulsory service to one's country is a good thing.

Many countries around the world require at least short terms in their service. It doesn't have to be long term... many have stints as short as two years.

And there's even talk here about as little as fifteen months. And that doesn't mean you will be the target for those fifteen months. There are many opportunities to learn transferable skills- skills that are on the demand in an safe and open society. OJT that's better than a cozy apprentiship...

Think about it... Do you have the real right to judge what goes on until you've been there? NO! What if you actually learned something? About yourself? About your fellow man? About some type of skill?

Is it easier to sit back with your Starbucks and say, "War is wrong. We shouldn't be here doing this." (Many times being unsure way we really are there... )

Hell, you, it's easier. But you sit there, knowing that people who care about their families and friends, their grandparents and their children, and their future care about being able to say whatever they want and so you'll be able to say whatever you want, still has to be protected. Protected from the kinds of people who would rather you say anything of value whould be spoken in their langauage, and if it isn't , you'll be summarily executed.

Many young soldiers, in all branches of our military, have seen war. Tasted war. Maybe even found out he was good at it. Could hold his own in combat. He may have chosen to remain, not to kill more. But to see that others are safe until they can defend themselves and defend the peace we cherish today. I'd love to go back, but I'm too old, they say. They tell me I'm better suited to stay in the rear and help others understand why. Why we want to keep the things our national history teaches us about. The misery, the sacrifice, the lonely distances between us and our loved ones. I guess it comes down to having a place, a safe , secure place, where we can assemble as American's and tell the oppressors around the world, "We're not happy. We don't feel safe. Stop what you're doing and let our battle-weary soldiers come home in peace."

I knew this posting would devolve into a typical rant with the predictable talking points . Whether I think compusory service is a good idea or not is irrelevant ,the military has repeatedly said they want no part of it.

It is clear from reading the left wing blogs that those in favor of a draft use the Charlie Rangel logic ;that a conscription would galvinize the opposition to the war and take it to the street ;just like what happened during Vietnam.You will note that the demonstations to the Vietnam war tailed off considerably after Nixon ended the draft . Allowing conscription against their will,just to increase opposition,is reprehensible under any standard of ethics.

Reagan had a standing volunteer Army of 16 combat divisions. Today our Army has about 10 combat divisions. Our population is much larger than during Reagan's admin, thus increasing our volunteer Army to the Reagan level should not be a problem with volunteers and would take care of the concerns of those who think the military is stressed.

Hello:

I don't like a volunteer army. I like a representative army. That way they'll never turn on us.

Most of the volunteers today are red necked young southerners who think George Bush is great. But, they're running out of them, so they're taking gang members, skin heads and white supremacists. Is it no wonder that Abhu Graib and the fragging of Tillman happened? Not to me.

Nope, I want an army, that if told to fire on the American people, would instead turn their guns around. THIS army wouldn't do that.

excon

A few months old news here. An addendum to the original issue...



Bush resists Democrats on military pay
White House says 3.5% hike is too costly
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | May 19, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The White House is trying to kill a Democratic plan to increase the size of a military pay raise next year, contending it would be too costly and that members of the armed forces are already sufficiently compensated.

In a letter from the White House Office of Management and Budget to congressional committees overseeing the military, OMB director Rob Portman said Wednesday that the administration "strongly opposes" a Democratic plan to bump up military salaries by 3.5 percent instead of Bush's request for a 3 percent jump.

"The cost of increasing the FY 2008 military pay raise by an additional 0.5 percent is $265 million in FY 2008 and $7.3 billion" if similar raises are enacted over the next five years, Portman's office said in a six-page memo outlining concerns about the defense spending bill that was approved by the House early Friday and will be taken up by the Senate this week.

The 3 percent raise proposed by Bush is equal to the increase in the Employment Cost Index estimated by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. New recruits currently make a base salary of $15,617 but are eligible for various bonuses and receive extensive benefits.

Top Democratic leaders vowed to continue their efforts to enact a larger raise, arguing that members of the armed forces and their families deserve annual pay raises higher than the private sector due to the dangers of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The plan to hike military salaries is part of a larger effort by the Democratic Party to demonstrate its support of troops as it moves to place restrictions on funding for the Iraq war.

House leaders are particularly anxious to dispel the notion that Democrats are unsupportive of the military.

Congress often adds money to the annual White House spending request for military programs. Yet the newly elected Congress, which is controlled by Democrats, has placed more emphasis on increasing funding for military personnel than for weapons programs such as missile defense systems, according to MacKenzie Eaglen , a national security specialist at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative-leaning public policy think tank.

"This bill [passed by the House] promotes the softer spending -- such as healthcare, compensation, and readiness -- rather than equipment and weapons," she said.

She said she worries, like the White House, that too much spending on compensation and other personnel costs could unduly drain funding from vital weapons systems.

Democrats, however, think the higher salaries are justified.

In a letter circulated to Senate colleagues yesterday urging their support for the higher pay raise, Senator John F. Kerry , Democrat of Massachusetts, chided the Bush administration for opposing the measure even as it lobbies Congress to extend tax cuts for some of the wealthiest Americans.

In a separate letter to Bush yesterday, Kerry said he was "extremely disappointed" by the White House position on the pay raise, saying it stands "in direct contrast to the will of the American people who support all the efforts to support our troops."

Kerry previously coauthored the Military Family Bill of Rights, which is now law, that increased the death benefit for surviving spouses and family members of troops killed in action to $250,000. The Kerry legislation also extended the amount of time survivors can remain in military housing after their loved one is killed to a full year.

Kerry's new call for greater military pay was echoed by a group of Iraq veterans yesterday.

"The pay raise in the bill is equivalent to approximately $6 a month in troop pay-raise increases," VoteVets.org, a Democrat-leaning military advocacy group said in a statement.

The group's spokesman, John Bruhns , an Iraq veteran, said that "for President Bush to begrudge our troops a pay raise of [one-half] percentage point is outrageous, appalling, and just unacceptable."

He said more financial compensation is especially needed at a time when Army deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have been extended from 12 months to 15 months.

The veterans group also urged the White House to support another provision in the House bill that would provide an additional $40 a month for family members of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The House defense bill authorized $644 billion for the Department of Defense for the year beginning Oct. 1, including $142 billion to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The bill provides our troops with more than the Bush administration requested, including a pay raise more in keeping with what they deserve," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement yesterday.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bobby

I am a petty officer third class of the US Navy. Most of you agree that there should be a draft or manditory military service after high school. I disagree because I can almost guarantee that most of you have never served. It would cause more problems then it is worth because they would just go AWOL or UA. Military service is not for everyone including me and its took over 4 yrs of seeing people killed and missing my kids grow up to relize that.

I am a petty officer third class of the US Navy. Most of you agree that there should be a draft or manditory military service after high school. I disagree because I can almost guarantee that most of you have never served. It would cause more problems then it is worth because they would just go AWOL or UA. Military service is not for everyone including me and its took over 4 yrs of seeing people killed and missing my kids grow up to relize that.




AWOL's? Many of them would never even show up to boot camp. The gang bangers and lazy useless dregs of society would go into hiding. I served in the military and I think you'll find others participating in this post that did as well. I'm also one that likes the idea of a two year (perhaps shorter) mandatory service... although my reasoning is separate from the original issue of the post. Those that choose could make a career out of it and by the end of two years they should have a good idea, one way or the other.

OK I don't think the military is for everyone either. For some it would take away from their precious gang activity. Then others would prefer sitting the fat arses on the couch eating potato chips and dreaming of a welfare check. And you know how some young people think they know it all and could never take orders from their superiors. Hell they didn't like their parents or their teachers and they darn sure are not going to like the drill instructors.

Listen some twenty odd years ago I decided not to make a career of the military. Looking back I still appreciate the discipline I experienced because it made me a better man. I got out and didn't re-up. Actually I went into college then Broadcasting School, which I never used. I ended up in Vegas and currently work the credit angle. But anyway, my brother chose to continue. He lacks about three and half years until full retirement.


I know what you mean about missing your kids. That is what hurts my brother the most. He misses his two darling young daughters. War sucks no matter how you look at it. In fact many of our politicians suck no matter how you vote. My family managed through Vietnam and that sucked. I have family that came back and was never the same. Now we are going through the Iraqi war praying for my brother daily. But in and through it all, I still love many aspects of American life.


Bobby

Sorry to break that bubble, but college ROTC and was in at the last years that covered VietNam but by then we were again only using advisors.
Did many years in the reserve and then went into the Justice Dept.

And manditory government service can also include peace corp, perhaps forest service and many other areas of public service.
But as noted the discipline of a boot camp could really change a lot of lives.

One of my older sons did a tour in Afgan, one in Iraq at the invasion, and one in desert storm.

So most likely the ones of us that think the draft is a good idea was in the old draft, or in the military.

But I also think that a government work program instead of welfare should be in place also.

White House says 3.5% hike is too costly

Of course with conscription there would be no compulsion or incentive at all to increase the pay or the bonuses of the military at all .

I'm sure there is a lot more to this story than was reported Bobby. For one thing ;the adm. Proposed a 3% hike with an increased benefits package as well ;so the dispute is really over a half a percentage point. Why doesn't Congress voluntarily suspend their own pay raises that they vote for themselves and transfer it to the military to cover the 0.5% difference ?

Sorry ,this sounds like a pr stunt to me by Reid et al .

Tom-

The story concerning a pay raise is what it is. Probably was some bargaining element involved that one side wanted and the other wouldn't give in. Albeit with disregard to our soldiers, which doesn't surprise me. To many political biased minded people that can't see past their own noses because of dedicated party affiliation. But it reads fairly clear who didn't want to give the extra. Also Fr_Chuck is right on. You missed his point which was so much more and I identified some of that in my previous reply. I'm on my way out the door for work so I can pay Uncle Sam some more taxes. Everyone have a great day.:)


Bobby

Hello:

I don't like a volunteer army. I like a representative army. That way they'll never turn on us.

Really? Like the "representative armies" that have overthrown just about every government in existence prior to the 20th century?

What are you talking about?


Most of the volunteers today are red necked young southerners who think George Bush is great. But, they're running out of them, so they're taking gang members, skin heads and white supremacists. Is it no wonder that Abhu Graib and the fragging of Tillman happened? Not to me.

#1: Tillman wasn't fragged. He was hit by friendly fire. Fragging is when a lower-ranking soldier DELIBERATELY kills an officer in revenge for some real or imagined offense. That does not fit the case of Tillman, who was hit by friendly fire during combat.

#2: Where are you getting your information about demographics of recruitment? Turns out that, when you look at the actual demographics of new recruits to the military, they almost exactly match the demographics of the general population in all aspects, including, race, faith, economic factors, state of origin, education level, political affiliation, etc. They are neither "mostly red necked young hicks" nor "southerners". They are, in fact, representative of the general population.


Nope, I want an army, that if told to fire on the American people, would instead turn their guns around. THIS army wouldn't do that.

Excon

Rather than attempting to create a military that "wouldn't fire on Americans" by making it "representative of the population", I instead support arming the American people to be able to resist an army that would fire against the people. The defense against the military being used as a tool of oppression by our government is the 2nd Amendment, not an attempt to make the military "representative of the people".

All that a "representative military" does is water down the effectiveness of the military and make the soldiers apathetic to the causes that they are fighting for. It ruins moral to have people there who don't really want to be there. That was one of the lessons we should have learned from Vietnam... but some of us clearly didn't.

Yes, of course, I learned it from you and the RIGHT WING NOISE MACHINE PROPAGANSISTS represented here by ....Tomder55, speachlessTex, kinji and Chuck.

But, you guys have to know that ENDLESS WAR requires ENDLESS SOLDIERS unless you are going to have the same old soldiers serve for five, ten, twenty years!!!

THAT WAS THE POINT. :D

NOISE? What exactly do you call this unwarranted personal attack, thoughtful discussion?

#1: Tillman wasn't fragged. He was hit by friendly fire. Fragging is when a lower-ranking soldier DELIBERATELY kills an officer in revenge for some real or imagined offense. Hello El:

We shall see about that, shant we?

excon

Here's my take on the idea of a draft or compulsory service.

I am against it.

There are places where it works. Israel is the most notable. Every kid in Israel must do copulaory government service from the ages of 18-21. Males are almost all in the military, and females can either do military service or some other form of government service. But compulsory service is required and the system works well there.

But there is a different mentality in Israel than in the USA. First of all, Israel is a much smaller country with a much smaller population. They need every single body they can get for military service. Every single soldier is vital, and they all know it. They know their own survival and the survival of their families is dependent on their individual service. And so, every young recruit knows that he is a necessary part of the whole machine. That makes him feel as if he is a part of the machine, rather than just some useless spare part.

In the USA, we have a military that is 1.4 million strong just with volunteers. If someone here were forced to do service, he really would see himself as just a spare part. As far as he is concerned, he has no real purpose in the military... he's just biding his time until he gets out. If he can just keep his head down and survive, he'll be able to get out in a couple of years and move on with his life. He will deliberately avoid any risks, and if possible, any serious work. The attitude becomes one of avoidance of as much responsibility as possible. He has no real stake in the system, since neither his personal survival, nor the survival of his family, have any real reliance on him doing his job. Thus, he grows to see his military service as an interruption of his life, possibly a danger that he never wanted or wished for, a disciplinary system that he never volunteered for and does not want to follow, and his moral falls. So does the moral of his peers.

The mindset between Israel and the USA in terms of compulsory military service is different because the countries face different situations in terms of size, military risk, economies, and general outlook. So what works well for Israel, in terms of compulsory service, would not work well in the USA. And even ISrael has problems with moral of its soldiers that have to be dealt with.

Let's put this another way: which would you prefer to have protecting you? A soldier who volunteered to be where he is, loves his country enough to give up a portion of his life to serve that country, and is politically or personally motivated to do his best on the job? Or the guy who is there because he's forced to be there, doesn't really want to be there, doesn't give a damn about doing his job, and wishes to avoid as much work and danger as possible until his compulsory service is complete, and whose moral is down the tubes?

I'd choose the first. But perhaps others would make a different choice.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

You make two assumptions. One I agree with. The other I don't. Let's start with the latter. You assume that conscripts don't fight. Our own revolutionary war was fought entirely with conscripts. I think we won.

You suggest that young Israeli's must do copulatory service. I wholeheartedly agree. They do. They surly do.

excon

Our own revolutionary war was fought entirely with conscripts. No it wasn't . There was a professional force led by Washington supplemented by militias .
Our history beyond WWII where there was universal acceptance to the need for conscription shows that the country generally opposes the draft. Lincoln as an example had to send troops into NYC in the middle of the civil war to quell a very violent anti-draft riot.

excon,

What are you talking about? Which part of our forces in the Revolutionary War were conscripts? Was it the Minutemen, who were all volunteers? Or was it the "professional" army led by Washington, which was made up of volunteers. Those who didn't wish to fight, didn't. And those who were British loyalists certainly didn't. What the heck are you talking about? Where did you get the idea that the Revolutionary war was fought by conscripts?

And you clearly didn't read my post about Israel's compulsory service and WHY IT WORKS THERE and WHY IT WOULD NOT WORK HERE.

Furthermore, do you think that Israel's system is really a "representative military"? Are all the Israeli Arabs serving in the military? Are all the Neturei Karta serving? Think again.

Elliot

I think the problem with conscription is that most people don't care about what's going on in Iraq or Afghanistan, they just want to get on with their lives, grow old and die happy!

The difference with the World Wars and places like Isreal is that the war is on your doorstep. There is a very real cause for you to fight for.

Plus, propaganda doesn't work as well as it used to... people know that there is a high chance they will die when they get shipped off to the far reaches of the world... and for what? Their country? Freedom? Speak to most 18 year olds about that choice and they'll express their views quite openly!

And the others, they'll join up and fight for what they believe in!

I've seen conscription forces in action, they're not great! The one's that want to be there work hard, the others that don't... well... don't!

Let me put it this way, if you were forced to do a job you hated but knew in 2 years you were going to be able to leave, how much effort would you put in?

God forbid the offspring of elected officials and intellectuals to have to fight a war

DC,

As a percentage, children of elected officials who serve in the military are approximately twice the national averages: 4% for elected officials' children as opposed to 2% of the rest of the population.

Something to think about.

Elliot

And as pointed out earlier, not everybody is just going to be "a guy with a gun." There is far too much happening behind the scenes to list here. Besides reluctantly paying taxes, is there nothing else to be done to support your country without thinking you're compelled to be part of a killing machine?

The USCG has oceanographic research vessles and buoy tenders, looking out for seaotters and errant boaters.

The American or International Red Cross is always looking for more hands to help. Don't think your contribution can't be of value to others.

Many tend to think of these things are a given, but people serve many ways. We need to open your eyes and your minds.

DC,

As a percentage, children of elected officials who serve in the military are approximately twice the national averages

Something to think about.

Elliot


True. But with only about 1/10 of a percent actually in Iraq.


Bobby

True. But with only about 1/10 of a percent actually in Iraq.

Surely you must have seen this coming, Babs; Would you care to support your assertion with a citation of fact?

Seriously, if you're going to make the assertion, then you should support it with facts.

Surely you must have seen this coming, Babs; Would you care to support your assertion with a citation of fact?

Seriously, if you're going to make the assertion, then you should support it with facts.
What can be asserted by ETWolverine with-out evidence is fine, but not by BABRAM; what’s the matter with this picture.

Nevertheless, his reply was unanswered by me because it is moot to my assertion.

What can be asserted by ETWolverine with-out evidence is fine, but not by BABRAM; what’s the matter with this picture.

Laziness, actually.

Who has time to wade through every post in the thread?

If Wolfy made an assertion and didn't back it up with a citation -- Then hammer him until he does.

Laziness, actually.

Who has time to wade through every post in the thread?

If Wolfy made an assertion and didn't back it up with a citation -- Then hammer him until he does.
OK, I can relate to that.:D

Let's see:

Rep. Marylyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R- SC)
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. Ed Schrock (R-VA)
Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA)

The above politicians per FoxNews.com and other publicly available information, currently have or had children in the military, mostly serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

That's 9 of 535 members of Congress, or roughly 2%, who have children in the military. Several of them have multiple children in the military. I believe that the total number of Congressional children in the military is 14, which brings the number to roughly 2.6%.

The US military is made up of approximately 1.4 million, per various DOD manpower records. There are roughly 300 million Americans per the national census bureau. Thus the percentage of people with children in the military is roughly 0.6%, rough guesstimate.

Thus the percentage of congressional kids serving in the military is more than twice the percentage of the general population.

I had said, off the top of my head, that the numbers were 4% and 2%. They are actually 2.6% and 0.6%. Sorry for the mixup in the numbers. I was working off memory rather than going back to the source information.

Is that sufficient citation? If not, let me know.

Elliot

Let's see:

Rep. Marylyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R- SC)
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. Ed Schrock (R-VA)
Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA)

The above politicians per FoxNews.com and other publicly available information, currently have or had children in the military, mostly serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

That's 9 of 535 members of Congress, or roughly 2%, who have children in the military. Several of them have multiple children in the military. I believe that the total number of Congressional children in the military is 14, which brings the number to roughly 2.6%.

The US military is made up of approximately 1.4 million, per various DOD manpower records. There are roughly 300 million Americans per the national census bureau. Thus the percentage of people with children in the military is roughly 0.6%, rough guesstimate.

Thus the percentage of congressional kids serving in the military is more than twice the percentage of the general population.

I had said, off the top of my head, that the numbers were 4% and 2%. They are actually 2.6% and 0.6%. Sorry for the mixup in the numbers. I was working off of memory rather than going back to the source information.

Is that sufficient citation? If not, let me know.

Elliot
Darn-it Elliot you just don’t get it…the offhanded remark, not a constructed argument, I made pertained to the elite in this country, not just elected offices of Congress.

DC,

I don't see what it is that is disturbing you.

You made the assertion that I had given data about politicians with children in the military without a citation. So I cited the information.

Now you are arguing that you meant "all elites", not just politicians. Sorry, that isn't true either.

The Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation released a report in November 2005 called "Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of the U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11". This report shows that the number of recruits that are from the richest quintile of the population are actually 22% of the total recruit population as of 2003. Here is the income demographic information:

-------------------1999 recruits-------------2003 recruits------General Pop
Poorest quintile------------18%--------------------15%------------20%
Quintile 2------------------21%--------------------20%------------20%
Quintile 3------------------21%--------------------21%------------20%
Quintile 4------------------21%--------------------23%------------20%
Richest quintile-------------19%--------------------22%------------20%

And in terms of actual family incomes:

$0-$29.375-----------------18%------------------15%--------------20%
$29,382-$35,462------------21%------------------20%--------------20%
$35,462-$41,685------------21%------------------21%--------------20%
$41,688-$52,068------------21%------------------23%--------------20%
$52,071-$200,000-----------19%------------------22%--------------20%

So, as you can see, the "elite" (defined by me as the "top 20% of the nation in annual earnings") of this country still represent military recruitment in excess of their actual percentage of the population.

So... the percentage children of national-level politicians in the military is higher than the general population, and the highest income families are also "overrepresented" in the military.

So where does the idea that the "elites" aren't represented in the military come from?

Elliot

DC,

I don't see what it is that is disturbing you.

You made the assertion that I had given data about politicians with children in the military without a citation. So I cited the information.

Now you are arguing that you meant "all elites", not just politicians. Sorry, that isn't true either.

The Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation released a report in November 2005 called "Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of the U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11". This report shows that the number of recruits that are from the richest quintile of the population are actually 22% of the total recruit population as of 2003. Here is the income demographic information:

-------------------1999 recruits-------------2003 recruits------General Pop
Poorest quintile------------18%--------------------15%------------20%
Quintile 2------------------21%--------------------20%------------20%
Quintile 3------------------21%--------------------21%------------20%
Quintile 4------------------21%--------------------23%------------20%
Richest quintile-------------19%--------------------22%------------20%

And in terms of actual family incomes:

$0-$29.375-----------------18%------------------15%--------------20%
$29,382-$35,462------------21%------------------20%--------------20%
$35,462-$41,685------------21%------------------21%--------------20%
$41,688-$52,068------------21%------------------23%--------------20%
$52,071-$200,000-----------19%------------------22%--------------20%

So, as you can see, the "elite" (defined by me as the "top 20% of the nation in annual earnings") of this country still represent military recruitment in excess of their actual percentage of the population.

So... the percentage children of national-level politicians in the military is higher than the general population, and the highest income families are also "overrepresented" in the military.

So where does the idea that the "elites" aren't represented in the military come from?

Elliot


$52,071-$200,000-----------19%------------------22%--------------20%

You miss the essence, with your statistics. You mistake the Entente for the elite, what a joke-they are who support the elite. And those figures do not represent the ones dying and fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq either. I can't help but wonder how many of those went to combat assignments and how mant to the Diplomatic Corp.

Surely you must have seen this coming, Babs; Would you care to support your assertion with a citation of fact?

Seriously, if you're going to make the assertion, then you should support it with facts.




You have a valid point. The last stats I read were in 2005 that there were 5 legislators... 4 being Republican and 1 being Democrat that had children at that time that were currently serving in Iraq. I don't know that the percentage is exactly 1/10 of a percent, but it has to be very low. Maybe 1/4 of a percent at best? Since then I recognize the possibility the number could be up. Elliot's original stats were based on percentages of those serving in the military in general. My post was an addendum to those specifically serving in Iraq. Another issue would be what exactly those few are permitted to do in their military occupations of service.



Bobby

$52,071-$200,000-----------19%------------------22%--------------20%

You miss the essence, with your statistics. You mistake the Entente for the elite, what a joke-they are who support the elite. And those figures do not represent the ones dying and fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq either. I can't help but wonder how many of those went to combat assignments and how mant to the Diplomatic Corp.

DC, This is a typical "the statistics don't really say what they say" argument. If you have evidence that the information is incorrect, please present it. So far, I have only your opinion that the "elites" are under-represented in the US military, which is contradicted by the statistics I have given you. If you have information that says otherwise, please present it.

Furthermore, of the politiians that I mentioned in my prior post, all of them had children who are active duty soldiers in combat or combat support units in Iraq or Afghanistan. None of them are in the "diplomatic corp". Most of them are NCOs, Lts. And Captains, which are the groups that, statistically speaking, take the heaviest casualties.

(The statistics from cobat units show that NCOs and low-level officers and brand-new personnel just out of boot-camp have the highest levels of combat casualties. The newbies because of their lack of experience, and the low-level officers and NCOs because of the leadership nature of their jobs that requires them to take risks in order to manage small-unit combat. I don't have the exact statistics in font of me, but the information can be found in any reasonably good military science/small unit combat tactical text.)

Elliot