June 30, 2005
NO HIGHER CALLING
Did anyone happen to catch the President's nationally televised speech Tuesday evening? If not, you may be interested to know where the so-called leader of the free world ranks military service among the many options our citizens have in terms of which career they choose to pursue. From Tuesday evening's speech:
I thank those of you who have re-enlisted in an hour when your country needs you. And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces.
Really? There's no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces? Wow; I for one am shocked. Just off the top of my head, I can think of around a dozen or so jobs/posts that I'd say easily rank above military service in the 'higher calling' category, including (in no particular order):
- Foster Parent
- Social Worker
- Health Educator
- Hospice Worker
- Registered Nurse
- Career Counselor
- Members of Clergy
- EMT and Paramedic
- Public School Teacher
- Rape/Crisis Counselor
- Child Welfare Advocate
- Home Health Care Aide
Don't get me wrong, I do support our men and women in uniform, but not because of this supposed 'war' we're engaged in; I support them as individuals; individuals who--for the most part--have been led astray by greed and the current administration's need to be right at all costs (even if it means putting our service men and women in harms way for reasons which to this blogger and millions of other US citizens make very little sense).
But putting that pesky issue aside for just a moment, I have to say that the President's ranking of armed service would ring a little less hollow for me--and perhaps for you too?--if our country's ruling class (the President's own family included, of course) were better represented in the military. The fact is that military/armed service is a lower/middle-class and working-class occupation, which US elites avoid like the plague, as they do almost every other worthwhile career, including those listed above (along with tons of others, I'm sure [sorry, that list is the best I can come up with at 5:45 a.m.]). Military service, at least as far as I'm concerned, is no higher a calling than is volunteering with the Peace Corp in any number of regions across the world.
Posted by Mikal at June 30, 2005 5:45 AM
| TrackBack
Agreed. While I completely support our troops, I too have to agree with the "higher calling" aspect of military service. To me, there is no "higher calling" than a job that you both like and benefits society. If there's one thing that my parents taught me, it's to pick something that you like doing, regardless of how much money you make: You'll be better at it, and you'll have a happier life.
The rhetoric that is being spewed from the White House these days borders on being absolutely sickening. I was appalled when 9/11 references were used in a speech about the Iraq "war." Are we back to using that terrible tragedy and the fear of a repeat even to winning votes?
If there's anything consoling about the speech in general, it's the nearly-silent response from the press. You could almost hear the crickets chirping in the country's newsrooms.
Or at least a duck quacking.
It kills me that a self-proclaimed "born again christian" says that there is no higher calling than serving as cannon fodder for the armed forces.
Hello Mcfly????
Minister?
Priest?
Rabbi?
Aren't those the traditional higher callings?
He's probably talking about higher callings for non-white people though, cos lord knows that college republicans are not registering for the services in droves.
This blog brought to you by "The Dick Derbin School of Complimenting Our Armed Forces".
There's a long history of military men in my family. Those that are living today, namely my father and grandfather, both vehemently opposed the war in Iraq before we invaded. The three of us all supported, whole heartedly, the retaliation against Afghanistan. All of us felt that the President strayed from his mission there, namely the capture or death of Osama, in order to involve us in a war that has long been document as "unwinnable." A great many military scholars have written for years that Iraq is not the type of place you just waltz into. One essentially has to bring down all power available for an extended period of time. The insurgency in Iraq is, in my opinion, fueled by the President's "Mission Accomplished" speech. That brazen statement served as a torch under the asses of those that had other plans for Iraq. That message was delivered far too early.
OOops...higher calling. Again, my father, grandfather and I all believe that military service is a wonderful deed, but none of us would ever suggest, especially during an unjust war, that it was the highest calling.
We have the 'best' military in the world. I support the men and women in the armed forces. I feel if/when they are called, they should be trained, equipped, and supported to the fullest extent possible. Most importantly, the 'grateful nation' should ensure that when they get back they recieve the benefits they deserve. I think the greatest shame of this administration is sending our men and women into battles, then trying to cut their pay and benefits.
I read an article in the past couple of days where some military recruiting expert was asked which would make a bigger difference to recruitment: a $40,000 signing bonus or Jenna Bush enlisting. He said it was Jenna Bush, hands down. If one of the Bush twins enlisted, that might be a boon for recruitment, especially if she were sent to Iraq or Afghanistan instead of a 'Champagne Unit'.
Hmmm - well, until Foster Parents, EMT's, Health Educators, and Public School Teachers will actually lay down their life for you, I don't think you can equalize them. None of this country would exist without our military - absolutely none of it.
These soldiers will die for you so you can live in this country with the amenities you have. It is a very high calling, much higher than comfortably sitting at home each night after you've taught a class or helped a rape victim. Maybe a doctor in the emergency room has an equal calling - but there is no comparison with the rest.
You have your freedoms over here because of the men and women who for the last 200 years have fought for this country, whether right or wrong cause, and have layed down their lives.
It always cracks me up to read those who have never volunteered to do such a thing judge and comment on those who have - Bush included.
Get real! Do you really think that the 18yr kids that enlist are doing so for altruistic motives? That they think they really might die in the service? Most enlist for much more pragmatic reasons: b/c their job prospects are low and they aren't ready or don't want to go to college. As stated in an earlier comment, enlistees are overwhelmingly from the lower economic class. Military service is a JOB for them. Every person I know who has enlisted, including my father and 2 of my sibs, never gave a thought beforehand to the possibility of wartime service. They were enticed by the slick talk of a recruiter, world travel, and the gi bill. On the other hand, people like foster parents - who invite a child neglected by our society into their home without pay, ARE the true heroes. You don't have to die for someone to give them life and, more importantly, love. That is the real high calling. Giving love - not bullets or bombs.
Oscarina, good points, but never forget that those who can sit in this country comfortably writing in this blog can only do so because of the soldiers who protect them. Nobody said they do it because they are altruistic - they are heroes regardless of their motives. Most heroes are dubbed after the fact and most never set out to be heroes in the first place.
Never forget the end to the Nazi occupation and the rudimentary militia who fought off the Brits. Who knows where this country and other countries would be if not for our soldiers.
There are way too many foster parents in the system who do it for the money anyway so that is such a moot point it's not even realistic.
Honor the soldier, if not the cause. The soldiers are heroes whether or not they even know it. They are our nation's poor and misguided, but they will die for you so you can sit here every day writing in this blog.
I don't believe that I can sit here comfortably writing on this blog b/c of soldiers, esp. b/c of soldiers dying in Iraq. How is their death in Iraq protecting me?
You are right when you say that we will never know where we would be without those wars. That is a wonderful point. Perhaps we would be somewhere better. Maybe that strikes you as ridiculous, but to use the outcome of a war as justification for the war without knowing what the outcome would be without it is not valid. Right now we are spending billions of dollars in Iraq. Yet the US will not commit a fraction of that money to a true humanitarian cause: helping the poor in Africa. I am a true believer that what we send out in the world comes back to us threefold. If we send out death and destruction, that is what we get back. If we would send out love and hope - that would be our reward.
And, to clarify what you describe as a moot point, foster parents are NOT paid. Some receive a stipend for expenses related to the added costs of an extra person in the household. As a child of the foster care system and an advocate for foster children, trust me when I say it is never enough to cover the extra expenses. The idea that people become foster parents for money is a myth perpetrated by Hollywood movies.
It sounds like you believe that the end result of an action, esp. if it involves death, validates it's worth. So a person with the purest motives who tries to convince someone else not to jump off a roof but fails is not answering a higher calling than the person who believes they are going to meet their lover in a sordid affair at a hotel and ends up blocking a bicycle coming at dangerous speeds towards a small child on the sidewalk. Which one is answering the higher calling? Which one is making the active choice to spend their life in a meaningful way?
Actually Oscarina, I am simply stating - soldiers deserve better than Belicove's post. He never volunteered, neither did most of the people writing in this blog. There is absolutely NO comparison with a Infantry grunt in the bunkers during World War II to a Peace Corp volunteer. It's absurd to compare.
And yes, we would be in a worse place had our military not succeeded during World War II. We would be in a worse place if we didn't have a strong military. We would be in a worse place if we hadn't won many of the wars we've won. I didn't vote for Bush or the Iraq war - but don't ever compare our soliders to foster parents, emt's, and Peace Corp volunteers. There is no comparison.
There is so much corruption within the foster care system and your point was moot. The reason we have foster care is because this country did away with orphanages. The life of an orphan or foster care child is typically not easy and run by adults with many different motives, some good, some bad. There is some heroes in the system and some jerks.
You are in this country with these freedoms because of those who fought for them. You are safe from invading countries because of people like my husband. I'm a military brat and wife. The sacrifice we all make with this military is unbelievable and to dismiss it so is such a disgrace. Our militia and military fought hard to get what we have.
I didn't vote for Bush or the Iraq war but our soldiers deserve nothing but utmost respect.
... and if I may make a quick point, many of our soldiers are called up to help during hurricanes, floods, and victim relief. They are not only wartime soldiers. They perform as EMT's, disaster support, and community rebuiding. So - next time you see the Mississippi flood, please remember my husband who was standing in those waters up to his elbows with his unit hauling in thousands of coffins from cemetaries that had flooded. Please remember his unit for assisting the tornado victims in Indiana when they rip through this state. Please remember his unit for helping the refugees in Kosovo - those many orphans that now exist. And PLEASE remember my husband for being a soldier who tests all vaccines before they are released to the civilian population. Our soldiers get to experience the new ones before you do so when you finally get the shots, you're safe.
Please don't dismiss my soldier and the sacrifices he makes for you and this country. The list can go on and on if need be.
Christina,
Thanks for the compelling thoughts. It's good to have you back posting again. I hope you'll continue to do so in the future.
Point of clarification though... you wrote:
"Actually Oscarina, I am simply stating - soldiers deserve better than Belicove's post. He never volunteered, neither did most of the people writing in this blog."
Look, I don't mean to get us too caught in word usage here, but when you that I never "volunteered", are you, in the same breath, saying that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are "volunteers"? If that's the case, I'm not sure that that's factually correct. Are soldiers (including those in the National Guard) not paid money and benefits (albeit miniscule, I'm sure) for their service? If so, theyíre no more a volunteer than I am for 'volunteering' to work for the company I work for. Sure, itís my choice, but Iím not volunteering.
Using language like "volunteer" makes it sound, to me at least, like U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq are doing so solely out of the goodness of their hearts. I mention this because I don't see invading Iraq as a ëgoodness of oneís heartí sort-of deed, which was the whole point of my original post regarding the 'higher calling' nature of military service.
I do not question whether military service is good or not (you yourself pointed out many valuable services our men and women in uniform provide), but to call them volunteers, I believe, is a little bit misleading--at least for the purposes of this thread.
Finally, I'm going to take a leap and say that saying "...soldiers deserve better than Belicove's [sic: my] post" seems to suggest, to me at least, that you believe that U.S. military personnel automatically deserve my respect, regardless of their actions (directed or otherwise). If that's what you're suggesting, I wholeheartedly disagree. Life is too situational for me to respect all soldiers. I do not know what is in any of their hearts anymore than you know what is in mine or I know what is in yours. Giving them 'better', as you say, seems to suggest to me that you believe that each and every one of them is over there for some 'higher calling' sort of reason, and I just can't buy into that. I believe many U.S. soldiers are serving in Iraq for all the wrong reasons, and that most of the others are caught up in a conflict that they do not agree is worthy of their lives in the first place, but have no alternative at this point.
To wrap this up, Iíll state openly that I'm not looking for a fight. I think the dialogue is valuable, and I hope that you'll continue to post your thoughts on this thread, as well as on others. I miss having your voice as a part of the blog, so thanks for choosing to share your thoughts.
By the way... I too volunteerd my time and energy to help out when the tornado came thru Indiana a few years ago... right along side people wearing the uniform. It was good stuff what we all did!
You know I feel about Iraq. I don't like it either.
But, you know how I feel about the soldiers too. They protect me unconditionally so I will defend them unconditionally as well.
It is referred to as a "volunteer army" because we currently have no draft - so those who don't want to do it don't have to.
Post a Comment:
|
