Supporters of the war in Iraq have repeatedly argued that in order to “support our troops” we must send more of them to Iraq and keep them there indefinitely. This idea is reflected in articles like this one from Senator Joseph Lieberman, but there is certainly no shortage of such articles. Take your pick.
However, the Center for Responsive Politics has found some interesting data from presidential campaign donation records:
Republican Ron Paul, an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq, continues to draw the most contributions from uniformed service members, pulling far ahead of the rest of the presidential hopefuls by the end of 2007. Paul raised a total of $213,000… Democrat Barack Obama, who stresses his opposition to the Iraq war since its start, is still the number-two recipient with $94,000. Obama was also the favorite at the Department of Defense, collecting $14,000 from employees there.
I totaled up their data for all donations from members of the US Army. Assuming that Paul, Obama, and Clinton are seen as anti-war and all other candidates are pro-war, that means roughly 70% of donations from the US Army went to anti-war candidates. It would seem that our troops who are donating have a very different idea of what “support” entails.
I participated in an email thread with someone who had an interesting theory of his own:
Back when I served, we had a concept known as ROADS. When a Sr. Enlisted or Middle-Level Officer realized he/she was not destined for greatness in the service, they’d Retired while On Active Duty Service. They were waiting to fulfill their 20yr obligation to get their lifetime retirement. These folks were typically no-loads and worthless. They’d do enough to keep themselves out of trouble. Common trait among them is they’d be bitterly pissed when they had to do some work – like go make war, or play cop on foreign soil.
If I had the mindset – I’d donate to get myself out of the pickle I was in.
Now it all makes sense. Either 70% of the US Army is worthless, or the few worthless ones are the only ones willing to donate to presidential candidates. Either way, the implications are pretty sad. Personally, I prefer the theory that most troops just want to come home. But then, I’ve never been in the military.
1 response so far ↓
Josh // February 8, 2008 at 4:04 pm
If you are a uniformed service member in any branch of the military, you have volunteered for such service. Likewise, you have been trained to the highest standards of any military in the history of human civilization. Generally speaking, you are paid a wage and given compensation that far outstrips what you would make from comparable service in private enterprise for your level of formal education and experience. Lastly, your obligations to serve your country and the civilian leadership are ones that you swore an oath to uphold.
Regardless of what you are called upon to do (within the law of course), as someone who has taken an oath and been paid from the treasure of the citizens of this country you should have no choice but to preform that contract to your countrymen. When placed in a position where you are asked to wage a war you do not want to fight, I sympathize, but only as someone who must fulfill the burdens of employment and parenthood without unacceptable or unbearable consequences. I only wish to “support the troops” so far as I want them ready and able to do the job they are obligated by their voluntary commitment to me as a citizen to do: protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies.
So long as our interests are aligned in this respect they will have my undying support. I do not consider funding the political establishment’s ideological or economic thuggery as part of my interests. I support them coming home; not because of their interests, but because of mine.
Leave a Comment