Posted on 06/25/2007 9:58:11 AM PDT by pissant
WASHINGTON – Though the next U.S. president will probably command soldiers in two separate wars, few of those hoping to win the job can say they've ever seen combat or even taken abuse from a drill sergeant. Of the 18 announced Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, only Republicans John McCain and Duncan Hunter have served on the front lines. Three others served in noncombat roles and another two served in the reserves.
AdvertisementVoters aren't likely to care very much, experts say. “I just don't think we expect that obligation, and that's because we don't expect it of ourselves either,” said Bruce Altschuler, a Vietnam veteran and political science professor at the State University of New York at Oswego.
That might allow voters and candidates to focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Ohio Wesleyan University history professor Michael Flamm.
“If no candidates in 2008 are running on or against their Vietnam records, perhaps we won't have to look at Iraq through the prism of Vietnam,” he said. “Perhaps we will be able to look at the Iraq war as a new situation.”
Between 1944 and 1992, military experience was seen as a must for presidents.
That ended when Democrat Bill Clinton, who never served in the military, defeated Republican President George H.W. Bush, a decorated World War II veteran. Four years later, Clinton defeated Bob Dole, another World War II combat veteran.
Republican George W. Bush, who spent the Vietnam years on U.S. soil as a member of the Air National Guard, defeated two Democratic candidates who served in Vietnam, Al Gore and John Kerry.
Experts say Americans' conflicted attitude toward the Vietnam War makes a military background less of an advantage.
That won't be a concern for many running in the November 2008 election.
DEFERMENTS, FLUNKED PHYSICALS
Republicans Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama had not yet turned 18 by the time the draft was discontinued in 1973.
Democrat John Edwards, who became eligible in the waning years of the war, drew a high lottery number that was not called when the lottery determined who would be inducted into military service.
College and missionary service kept Mitt Romney out of the draft until 1970, when he drew a high lottery number.
Rudy Giuliani also drew a high lottery number in 1970 after receiving deferments as a student and law clerk.
Democrats Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich failed their physical examinations, as did Republican Tom Tancredo.
Republican Fred Thompson, who is expected to formally enter the race soon, received a deferment because he had children.
As a woman, Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton was not subject to the draft.
McCain's biography as a Navy airman who endured years of torture in a Hanoi prison is a central part of his appeal. Hunter, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has made military issues central to his career in Congress.
Republican Jim Gilmore served in the Army in West Germany, while Ron Paul served as an Air Force surgeon. Democrat Mike Gravel served in the Army in the 1950s.
Democrat Chris Dodd joined the Army Reserve when he left the Peace Corps in 1968. Republican Tommy Thompson joined after law school in 1966.
The candidates' collective lack of military experience reflects the population as a whole.
Veterans accounted for 11 percent of the voting age population in 2000, according to the U.S. Census, down from 21 percent in 1970. By 2030, that figure will shrink to 6 percent, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
“Service in the military provides perspective on war, perspective on sacrifice,” said University of Denver political -science professor Tom Knecht. “To the extent that we're losing that, that might be kind of a problem.”
Nah, I'll take the universal militia approach that the Founders actually advocated, thanks.
Thank you! To be thought dumb by a dumb person is a complement. It's like being thought of as evil or heartless by a DUmmie.
Democrats Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich failed their physical examinations,
Most likely couldn’t find evidence of a brain.
Tell me why should someone be able to give orders but never followed them in the first place?
I think one that believes that the military is a necessary evil should rethink the reasons why this country came about. With the exception of Him, no one can accomplish anything on feelings alone. It requires sacrifice and hardship something the He to did for the sake of others.
Believing otherwise sends you down a path that leads to a poisoned mind where everything is free. That type of thought also causes wars to be fought because of those not realizing the enemy is upon them until it is to late.
Personally I think that only those that have served the military an honorable capacity should have a say in how their nation is run. Because in the end, if one is not willing to stand up for one’s self and be willing to sacrifice oneself for the sake of others why should one have a say in what others should do for you?
Hunter/ Tancredo 08 !
Dup thread. Noticed when the other scrolled by right next to this.
Not 21 year, but 26 years, Quinct. 26 years of gathering the rich patina necessary for all true statesmen. Now is the time for Duncan Hunter to rise from “the ashes”.
I could ask you, too, why General Eisenhower served as he did instead of running for president prior to 1952. Or why Ronald Reagan bothered to serve as Governor before running for president. Everything in it’s own time, Quinct. Everything in it’s own time.
Yeah but, so what?
Wait, let me guess...........
>> Nah, I’ll take the universal militia approach that the Founders actually advocated, thanks.
Are you just making this stuff up? I’d suggest you re-read the Founders, chief. The Constitution specifically authorizes the existence of the Army and Navy - and I certainly don’t remember the phrase “universal militia” anywhere in there.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; ...
On top of that - the 2nd Continental Congress ... made up primarly of “Founders” ... authorized the creation of the Continental Army out of the militias surrounding Boston on June 14, 1775.
The American Army began in 1775, predating the Constitution of 1787, and even the Declaration of Independence of 1776. Furthermore, the Army was actually CREATED by the Founders (whom you claim were in favor of a universal militia), by converging and liquidating existing militias and putting them under the command of a single American General who answered to the centralized Continental Congress.
H
Care to do a look-see and see what Thomas Jefferson and many of the other Founders thought about a standing army?
My bad, I apologise for short-changing Duncan's record as a career politician who never got past the House.
26 years of gathering the rich patina necessary for all true statesmen. Now is the time for Duncan Hunter to rise from “the ashes”.
"rich patina". That's, well, rich.
I could ask you, too, why General Eisenhower served as he did instead of running for president prior to 1952.
Because he was a career military-man and had a little thing called "World War II" to which he had to attend (i.e. 1941-1945 chronologically precedes 1952).
Or why Ronald Reagan bothered to serve as Governor before running for president. Everything in it’s own time, Quinct. Everything in it’s own time.
So he could get experience in statewide office, or at least at winning statewide elections before he tried for the Big House?
Have you even bothered to look at what the Founders actually wrote - works which give insight into their philosophies, and which serve as very important context for what they actually meant in the Constitution.
For instance, the Constitution does indeed authorise an army. But, as you also pointed out, the Continental Army was formed by conjoining the militias of the several States (not by "liquidating" them) for the common defence of the States. However, this does NOT mean that the Founders envisioned the maintenance of a standing army that would be kept on duty during peacetime (especially not a LARGE one). In fact, Jefferson and many of the other Founders felt that standing armies were anathema to liberty, since they could so easily be turned into a tool of oppression, especially in conjunction with other tools (such as restrictions on firearms) which a tyrant could use to make the people subject to a tyrannous government. It amazes that you would even ask the question about the universal militia, because if this were a 2nd amendment thread, every Freeper worth their salt would jump at the chance to (rightly) remind the board that the Founders envisioned the entire body of adult male freemen as comprising the militia of the people. Simply put, the Founders envisioned the land forces of the United States as comprising the several militias of the States, brought together for common defence during times of war, but otherwise, not on "active duty" during peacetime. It is this context which helps a person to rightly understand the original intent of the Constitution. The Founders viewed a standing army as being a potential tool for tyrants and a drain on the national wealth.
Now, the Navy, with its role in protecting the seaborne commerce of the nation, is a different matter, and the Founders were greatly in favour of a strong Navy.
Has Hunter gone above 1% in the national polls yet?
Why are you advocating a militia when you aren’t willing to join or form one and let someone else do the fighting for you.
“Few are willing to risk their lives to protect the pride and respect of other people. Most are content to live. Like livestock. For that they need neither pride, nor respect.” Hajime Saito “Rurouni Kenshin Season 2 “
Donkeys are fine livestock, the DNC symbol suits them perfectly.
I wonder what John Stuart Mill said about people like that...
How are those kinds of people suited to give orders when they aren’t willing to obey them themselves.
When did I say I wasn't "willing to join or form" a militia?
You're assuming an awful lot about me based solely on your knowledge that I don't slobber emotionally all over Duncan Hunter just because he served in the military, aren't you? But let me guess, I'm an unpatriotic RINO who doesn't believe in freedom since I don't support DH as my first choice in the primary, right?
BTW, one of my past firearms purchases was made specifically so that I could pick off UN blue helmets at 500 yards. Seriously.
Then excuse my careless words.
>> Simply put, the Founders envisioned the land forces of the United States as comprising the several militias of the States, brought together for common defence during times of war, but otherwise, not on “active duty” during peacetime.
Ridiculous. If that were the case, then the following statement (from the Constitution) would be redundant and not make any sense whatsoever ...
If your statement were accurate, there would be no need to distinguish between the “Army ... of the United States” and the “Militia of the several States”, as the Founders clearly do in Article 2, Sec. 2. I believe the Founders chose their words carefully when crafting the Constitution ... there would not be such an obvious redundancy.
The State Militias were always intended as a separate and distinct entity from the Army of the United States (which is why your 2nd Amendment argument doesn’t really carry any weight here either - yes, the Militia was intended to involve every able-bodied American man ... the Army was not).
H
>> It amazes that you would even ask the question about the universal militia, because if this were a 2nd amendment thread, every Freeper worth their salt would jump at the chance to (rightly) remind the board that the Founders envisioned the entire body of adult male freemen as comprising the militia of the people.
That is a completely different argument. The issue isn’t whether the militia was intended to include all freemen ... the issue is whether those State militias and the Army of the United States were synonymous ... they were not. As I noted above in Article 2, Sec 2 clearly intends for the Army and militia to be recognized as distinct and separate organizations.
H
I shall, Sir.
The State Militias were always intended as a separate and distinct entity from the Army of the United States (which is why your 2nd Amendment argument doesn’t really carry any weight here either - yes, the Militia was intended to involve every able-bodied American man ... the Army was not).
I was reviewing some source materials just now, and I think you are correct in letter, but my contention about standing armies is still what the Founders intended in spirit and substance.
The Founders DID institute a separate and distinct Army, subject to the Federal government - I stand corrected,
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government...." (Madison, Federalist No. 46, ppg 9)
In this point, I yield the point to you. However, I am still right in asserting that a LARGE standing army, especially that which the USA has maintained since the end of WWII, was definitely not what the Founders intended. Likewise, the militia IS what they intended to serve as the primary military land force for the several States, as we see from the rest of paragraph 9,
"....still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." (Madison, Federaist No. 46, ppg. 9)
Madison clearly intended that the militias to be the primary means of defending the nation, and Madison seems to have intended that the regular army be so small in comparison to the body of armed citizens as a whole, as to be ineffectual in overturning the liberties of the people (he obviously didn't foresee the tremendous strides in military technology that two centuries have brought). So, yes, the 2nd amendment argument DOES come into play when dealing with large vs. small standing army.
Hamilton likewise speaks approvingly of limiting the size of the standing army when he cites the example of Great Britain and the defensive setup it had at the time,
"The kingdom of Great Britain falls within the first description. An insular situation, and a powerful marine, guarding it in a great measure against the possibility of foreign invasion, supersede the necessity of a numerous army within the kingdom. A sufficient force to make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite. No motive of national policy has demanded, nor would public opinion have tolerated, a larger number of troops upon its domestic establishment. There has been, for a long time past, little room for the operation of the other causes, which have been enumerated as the consequences of internal war. This peculiar felicity of situation has, in a great degree, contributed to preserve the liberty which that country to this day enjoys, in spite of the prevalent venality and corruption. If, on the contrary, Britain had been situated on the continent, and had been compelled, as she would have been, by that situation, to make her military establishments at home coextensive with those of the other great powers of Europe, she, like them, would in all probability be, at this day, a victim to the absolute power of a single man. 'T is possible, though not easy, that the people of that island may be enslaved from other causes; but it cannot be by the prowess of an army so inconsiderable as that which has been usually kept up within the kingdom." (Hamilton, Federalist No. 8, ppg. 11)
He goes on to state that America was in a similar insular situation, due to the great distance between her and Europe, and that a similar system ought to prevail here, especially if the States were to remain united and not fall apart in numerous warring petty states. Elsewhere, we see the Founders warn of the danger of standing armies in general,
"The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader." (Anti-Federalist Papers, No. 10, ppg. 1)
"Brutus" continues later, noting that while an absolute prohibition on the raising of regular armies by the government is impracticable, the only purposes for which a small standing army ought to even be considered would be to guard arsenals and to man guard posts on the frontier.
All in all, it seems to me that the Founders, whether Federalist or Anti-Federaliast, were not to keen on the idea of large standing armies. While the Constitution does make provision for a Federal army, as you correctly noted, I do not think that we can find in it warrant for the present system of keeping a large, peacetime standing army. Even Hamilton seems to stump for the idea that the standing army would serve as a "breach force" to hold off an invader long enough for the general militia to be roused and readied. Hence, I don't see a Constitutional warrant, looking to the context of the men who wrote the Constitution, for the present military setup that we have, especially now that we are not facing off with the Soviet Union.
And finally, I note that my attitude towards the military which I expressed earlier is one which merely echoes Hamilton,
"The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people." (Hamilton, Federalist No. 8, ppg. 9)
Hence, I neither love nor fear the military, I merely view it as a necessary evil, and one which in our present circumstance is out of balance with the extent and power which the various militias of the States ought to exercise instead. I am no "habituated to look up to the military power for protection", which is why I do not hold the almost worshipful view of the military that many on FR seem to have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.