David Baumann: Which is the safer party?
[David Baumann is an occasional Eagle contributor.]
What are my chances of being killed? This is not one of the frequently asked questions on any of the military recruiting Web sites. However, it is the preeminent question on young people's minds, and the mind's of their families, when they consider joining the military.
Military recruitment numbers for the first half of 2009 are 10 percent above 2008, a fact the military attributes to high civilian unemployment. With unemployment in the United States at 9.4 percent, and perhaps an additional 5 to 7 percent that have just quit looking or are working part time, the military option looks good to many young people.
Military officials also state that 2009 is so far the best recruiting year since before the Iraq war in 2003. This suggests that the rebound in recruitment numbers is as much or more about armed conflict than the economy.
There is little doubt that the 2009 began with the promise of getting the U.S. out of armed conflict. Polling numbers from last year's presidential election show nearly 90 percent of those who strongly disapproved of the war in Iraq voted for Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress. In addition, the age group that enters the military, 18-29, voted 65 percent for Obama.
Most of us view history in the time frame of our own lives and the 20-something year olds are no exception. The history of our two political parties in armed conflict gives a perspective that might cause those who are considering the military, not as a career, but as a potential employer, to think twice.
Beginning with the 20th century and World War I, the age of modern global warfare, the historic facts tell a story that might astound many young recruits. Under the command of Democratic commander in chiefs, 591,714 military men and women were killed and 1,147,866 wounded. Under Republican command, 73,601 were killed and 135,042 wounded.
Yes, we can go as far back as Lincoln, the Republicans love to claim him as one of theirs, but the line drawn between political parties and their ideologies gets very blurry going back that far. Even if we throw in Lincoln he can only be responsible for half of the Civil War deaths, which, would add 360,000. Of that about 110,000 were killed in battle as the rest died from disease...
... There is one more simplistic fact about deaths during military conflicts that cannot be denied. One person can stop U.S. military deaths in an instant if they so choose. That person is the commander in chief, our president.
For all those who really need that job and want to believe you're safer in the military now that the Democrats are back in charge you might be right. Simple historical facts just don't happen to agree with you.
Read entire article at Berkshire Eagle
What are my chances of being killed? This is not one of the frequently asked questions on any of the military recruiting Web sites. However, it is the preeminent question on young people's minds, and the mind's of their families, when they consider joining the military.
Military recruitment numbers for the first half of 2009 are 10 percent above 2008, a fact the military attributes to high civilian unemployment. With unemployment in the United States at 9.4 percent, and perhaps an additional 5 to 7 percent that have just quit looking or are working part time, the military option looks good to many young people.
Military officials also state that 2009 is so far the best recruiting year since before the Iraq war in 2003. This suggests that the rebound in recruitment numbers is as much or more about armed conflict than the economy.
There is little doubt that the 2009 began with the promise of getting the U.S. out of armed conflict. Polling numbers from last year's presidential election show nearly 90 percent of those who strongly disapproved of the war in Iraq voted for Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress. In addition, the age group that enters the military, 18-29, voted 65 percent for Obama.
Most of us view history in the time frame of our own lives and the 20-something year olds are no exception. The history of our two political parties in armed conflict gives a perspective that might cause those who are considering the military, not as a career, but as a potential employer, to think twice.
Beginning with the 20th century and World War I, the age of modern global warfare, the historic facts tell a story that might astound many young recruits. Under the command of Democratic commander in chiefs, 591,714 military men and women were killed and 1,147,866 wounded. Under Republican command, 73,601 were killed and 135,042 wounded.
Yes, we can go as far back as Lincoln, the Republicans love to claim him as one of theirs, but the line drawn between political parties and their ideologies gets very blurry going back that far. Even if we throw in Lincoln he can only be responsible for half of the Civil War deaths, which, would add 360,000. Of that about 110,000 were killed in battle as the rest died from disease...
... There is one more simplistic fact about deaths during military conflicts that cannot be denied. One person can stop U.S. military deaths in an instant if they so choose. That person is the commander in chief, our president.
For all those who really need that job and want to believe you're safer in the military now that the Democrats are back in charge you might be right. Simple historical facts just don't happen to agree with you.