Saturday.....War On Terror.....Looking For Diversity In All The Wrong Ways

There's an article in Thursday's Wall Street Journal where a little reading between the lines is necessary. Written by Gary Schmitt and Cheryl Miller, Schmitt being a "neocon" of note, it presents an odd opinion from someone on the "right." That being the need for "diversity" in the military, for soldiers come from a narrower segment of society-geographically and culturally-than ever before. they write, but that there is little constituency for bringing back the draft, in other words, they don't think they could swing it. They're worried about civil-military relationships(s). The R.O.T.C., they say, was originally meant to diversify the military and there are good reasons to believe that it (R.O.T.C.) isn't fulfilling its original purpose even though R.O.T.C. produces more graduates than the service academies. The authors say that the military has drawn down its programs in the Northeast and urban areas depriving the elites (Ivies )and the poor both of experiencing a military presence. A wider quality pool is needed to get the best minds in areas such as foreign languages and computer engineering. Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel has brought an amendment up, for a national draft, more than once. His stated reasoning is that it would be for diversity in economic status groups but his real intent is that if everyone's sons had to go to the military there would be a greater outcry against Iraqs and Afghanistans. The authors, Schmitt and Miller, want diversity, supposedly for another reason as the article states Americans hold this service in high regard-but they do so increasingly from a distance. This is a threat to our country's civic ethic of equal sacrifice. They are inferring that Americans need to know someone in the military to have a proper regard. This past week, there has been a few articles written on just who makes up the tea parties and why they have come to exist. My take on this is that it is in no small part due to the way both sides of our government often present their arguments. Rangel has a scheme and the authors of this article condescend. Elites make their plans and then plan on how to make them palatable to the public, changing the essence of the true intent in the process and the American public is fed up with this. Schmitt and Miller want a larger military (so do I) but I see "diversity" here as a ploy. America is divided on the definition of patriotism and the legitimacy of American exceptionalism. That chasm may be widening but the numbers are shifting dramatically towards defending our country from enemies without and within. If this trend continues that sought after diversity will come about by natural means. There might be more computer engineers that enter the military under Schmitt's plan but there is something to be said for a military comprised of young men and women who love this country as opposed to the government conscripting for diversity, a philosophy (diversity) that fails much more often than it succeds. A blurb of the back of this book recommendation, by Peter L. Berger, says it best, "This is a thorough, magisterial dissection of a fashioable cultural icon. The book is erudite, witty, with an undertone of passion. It should be read widely."