So, noticed this on my Firefox's "pocket" page of various online articles.
Personally, I never really considered being in the military, as my personal temperament isn't very compatible with it. But I do have a history of service in my family. My paternal grandfather, Basil J. Garrett, crossed the Rhine in 1945. My maternal grandfather served in the Korean War after lying about his age to enlist early in the late 40s. My uncles on both sides served in the Army, as did my Dad, and an uncle who married my Dad's older sister was Navy. Cousins on both sides have enlisted in the Navy.
When I was a child (I mean like 8 or 9 years old) I once made a disparaging comment about why someone would join the military after seeing a commercial on TV, and my father bristled a little and then explained to me how he saw it, what honor and service are, and I was suitably chastened. While, again, I did not consider a military career for myself, I understand and respect those who do take that route.
My concern with the article (aside from the bleating from that California educator about the military "preying" on students from impoverished racial minorities) is that the military is healthiest when it represents a broad section of the American populace. If it's reduced to being mostly an institution of specific regions, it undermines us as a nation in the long run, I feel.
Granted, I'm not sure how to cure that. Sure, the federal government could step in (and step on) the hand-wringing weenies like the one I mentioned if they interfere in recruiting too heavily, but you can't force them to promote a military career to people (and many of them seem disinclined to do so). Parents and aunts and uncles and other adult family can similarly work to dissuade people from signing up. The only thing that can change this is shifting local culture.
So yeah, it's a problem that will get bigger in the future and beyond my power to fix. Might as well bitch about it online, eh?
Personally, I never really considered being in the military, as my personal temperament isn't very compatible with it. But I do have a history of service in my family. My paternal grandfather, Basil J. Garrett, crossed the Rhine in 1945. My maternal grandfather served in the Korean War after lying about his age to enlist early in the late 40s. My uncles on both sides served in the Army, as did my Dad, and an uncle who married my Dad's older sister was Navy. Cousins on both sides have enlisted in the Navy.
When I was a child (I mean like 8 or 9 years old) I once made a disparaging comment about why someone would join the military after seeing a commercial on TV, and my father bristled a little and then explained to me how he saw it, what honor and service are, and I was suitably chastened. While, again, I did not consider a military career for myself, I understand and respect those who do take that route.
My concern with the article (aside from the bleating from that California educator about the military "preying" on students from impoverished racial minorities) is that the military is healthiest when it represents a broad section of the American populace. If it's reduced to being mostly an institution of specific regions, it undermines us as a nation in the long run, I feel.
Granted, I'm not sure how to cure that. Sure, the federal government could step in (and step on) the hand-wringing weenies like the one I mentioned if they interfere in recruiting too heavily, but you can't force them to promote a military career to people (and many of them seem disinclined to do so). Parents and aunts and uncles and other adult family can similarly work to dissuade people from signing up. The only thing that can change this is shifting local culture.
So yeah, it's a problem that will get bigger in the future and beyond my power to fix. Might as well bitch about it online, eh?
