U.S. Military Recruiters and Military Composition

E.J. Dionne, Jr. argues that the recent ruling by an appeals court that allows colleges to bar military recruiters from campus without fear of losing federal funds is bad for liberalism. His point is that authentic liberalism should encourage close ties between the military and civilian sectors of society. He has a persuasive point. I've long believed that the lower classes of U.S. society bear an unfair portion of the burden of defending our country. This is why I would support the implementation of a fair draft, one that gives "equal opportunity" to members from all economic classes to be drafted into military service. More importantly, the growing gap between the military and civilian sectors of society is dangerous to our democratic republic. Our society as we know it depends on civilian rule over the military. This is possible only when the military is aligned with civilians, indeed, is made up of civilians. When the military sector becomes a separate and distinct entity from the civilian sector, and interests and concerns from the two sectors are not aligned with one another, the practice of civilian rule over the military is in grave danger. This scenario is what gives rise to military coups, such as the one that brought Pervez Musharaff to power in Pakistan several years ago. I completely support the U.S. military and its mission of defending the country. I would readily, if not happily, serve in the military if called upon, and often wish that I would have volunteered for service. This is because I view the military as an extension of my identity as a United States citizen. Dionne is right to argue that the military needs to consist of a broad representation of U.S. society, and that barring military recruiters from liberal campuses to make a political statement is not in the best interest of an authentically liberal society.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The agony of victory....a.k.a. picking my jaw up off the floor

Allright. I've now had nearly 24 hours (although its taken me a couple of days to complete this post) to calm down, reflect upon and digest the improbable gut wrenching game yesterday in which the heavily favored Colts lost to the Steelers 21-18. I wrote last year of not being as emotionally attached to the Steelers as I have been in the past. I wrote last week of how I thought that I might be spending too much valuable time following the Steelers, especially since I have absolutely no control over the outcome of their games. Let me just say this: yesterday's game was probably in the top five emotionally draining, and ultimately gratifying, experiences of my life. Ouside of my wedding and the birth of my two sons, I can't remember being as nervous, deflated, joyful, stunned and exhilirated as I was yesterday----all withing about a ten minute stretch of seemingly neverending time! What could have been a devestating loss to live with in the offseason (and, forever, for Jerome...
Read more

"The Axis of Evil and the Doctrine of Preemption Three Years On"

Jerod and I attended a lecture by Brookings Institution fellow Michael O'Hanlon last night at Park University in Parkville, MO. The lecture was part of the Jerzy Hauptmann Distinguished Guest Lecture series. As a Park University M.B.A. alum, I received an invitation to the 13th annual lecture in the series. I like going to events like this, especially since I was interested in the content of this particular lecture, of which the title was the title of this post. Dr. O'Hanlon described himself as a Sam Nunn Democrat at the beginning of the lecture. It's always difficult to prevent political feeling from entering into objective analysis, and I don't know how you measure the "objectiveness" of analysis, but I feel that most Brookings scholars are at least "fair", and Dr. O'Hanlon was no exception. His analysis of the doctrine of preemption was focused on the effectiveness of the doctrine, as opposed to any moral righteousness or implications of the...
Read more

Removing a password that was created in a previous version from an Access 2007 database

Earlier this week I was banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to remove a password from an Access 2007 database (file extension .accdb). The database was created in a previous version of access and subsequently "upgraded" to the Access 2007 format. I believe some type of a wizard was used to perform the "upgrade." The security model is evidently different in Access 2007 than in previous versions. It doesn't appear that you can set/unset database passwords. Instead, in Access 2007, there is an option to Encrypt with Password. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be logically similar to the earlier version password architecture, but there was no way that I could find to easily remove the password that had been created in the earlier version when using the Access 2007 interface. Access security has always been confusing to me, and I need to take the time someday to understand how the security model is supposed to work in Access 2007. An...
Read more