Garrison Keillor: Fit to command

[Tab]

...
Whenever I meet military men and women, I'm struck by their bearing and temperament. I sit down to dinner with a Marine captain just back from Iraq and immediately feel a little childish in his presence, though he's 30 years younger. He is friendly, polite and tremendously focused. What might appear at a distance to be rigidity is really heightened attentiveness. Everything he says is appropriate and precise. When you ask about his experience in Iraq, he tells you, without spinning the story. He is no tin soldier, no flag waver. There's no bombast in him. Like dancers, or pilots, or violinists, or lion tamers, he is a man trained to operate consistently at a high level of attention.

As you see the price to be paid for flabbiness and immaturity and narcissism and bad manners and lousy grammar, you appreciate the military more and you ponder the consequences of its isolation in American life. Fewer and fewer of our leaders have military service in their résumés. They prefer to sweep blithely along from one comfy perch to the next, cushioned in self-regard, promoting, puffing, spinning, hitting their talking points, building their skill sets. They slip into public office without ever having been yelled at by a bullet-headed black man with sergeant's stripes and made to stand up straight in 95-degree weather and march back and forth across a dusty field and not ask why. This is a shame.

The way to put military service back in the picture is to pass a constitutional amendment requiring that a candidate for president have at least two years of full-time military service. It would be a boon to the country, to the military and to the young. It would confirm the importance of service. The 42-year-old governor who discovers that he wants to be president would need to go down to the recruiting office and enlist. It'd be a big moment, like when Elvis went off to basic training. Think of Newt Gingrich climbing on a bus and going off to have his head shaved and his individuality taken away and rebuilt.

The Constitution requires the president to be at least 35 and a native-born American. The current president certainly casts doubt on the worth of that native-born requirement, but never mind -- amend the Constitution and let the boys and girls of Harvard and Stanford and Yale ponder their future. You will see the Army become more representative of the country, more middle-class and educated, and when it is, it will not likely be sent so casually off to war as the blue-collar Army has been.

More: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/22/keillor/

[waiting for hope]

1. That would make a Kerry/Clark Ticket!

[wisteria]

4. That sounds good to me! n /t

[Peter Frank]

16. Gore's military also...

Soldier and journalist

Gore served as a field reporter in Vietnam for four months. Although opposed to the Vietnam War, on August 7, 1969, Gore enlisted in the army to participate in the Vietnam War effort. After completing training as a military journalist, Gore shipped to Vietnam in early 1971, serving for four months before being given an honorable discharge. The chronology of Gore's military service is as follows:

August 1969: Enlisted at the Newark, New Jersey recruiting office.
August to October 1969: 8 weeks of basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey
Late October 1969 to December 1970: Fort Rucker, Alabama, on-the-job occupational training at the Army Flier newspaper.
January 1971 to May 1971: field reporter in Vietnam, part of the 20th Engineer Brigade, stationed primarily at Bien Hoa Air Base near Saigon.
May 24, 1971: Given an honorable discharge...<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

Gore's service is 3 months shy of two years: but he did his bit in active duty.

At least Bush went into the military on an inactive basis. His puppeteers however, have records of deferments.

[mdmc]

2. kick

phc

[reality based]

3. I trust that Texas Air National Guard "service" would not count n/t

[Booster]

5. Amen, Brother Keillor. Kick.

[tulsakatz]

6. now that's supporting the troops!!!

The only way to truly appreciate the difficulties and horrors of war unless you have been in that position yourself!!

And this is coming from a person who has never been in the military but at least I recognize what, apparently, our leaders have never learned. They had other 'priorities' like attending Young Republicans meetings...........

[northofdenali]

7. Keillor is always worthy of a K & R -

Great read, Tab - thanks.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

8. K & R from a veteran, married to a veteran. Keillor is our current Will

Rogers/Mark Twain. MKJ

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. The old constitution...

...of the Roman Republic required a period of duty as a tribunus militum -- about the equivalent to a first lieutenant -- before any elective office. Some folks got soft staff jobs, some folks were in the thick of things, and most weren't probably in real charge of anything -- that's why God made sergeants -- but everyone went.

[KittyWampus]

20. interesting and thanks for sharing your historical knowledge

[bullimiami]

10. i think thats a load of crap.

so some man of peace who didnt believe in war or soldiering would be excluded? what the hell kind of country is this? are we based on hate and militarism?

fuck no. garrison you are way off base on this one.

what we DO need is to keep hypocritical lying bastards out of the white house.
lying needs to be an impeachable crime for all government employees right on up to the president.

[Hardrada]

11. Ditto from this old anarchist pacifist!

GK jumped the shark and the sharkettes with that one. Or was he hinting that a military coup would be better than the horror we have now?

[pansypoo53219]

12. how about OR the peace corp?

but REAL service.

[leeroysphitz]

21. Equating military service with hatred is uninformed.

Not all who choose this form of service to their nation and neighbors are flag waiving yahoos intent on flying overseas to kill. This generalization is as uniformed and misguided as any other but you are welcome to cling to it if you like. I won't presume to attempt to disabuse you of it but as for Keiler's point I'll say that it isn't as far off base as you say. It, or something like it, has certain merits IMO.

We call our politicians public "servants". A congress person or president is supposed to SERVE the nation. When one "serves" in higher office they can gain tremendous wealth, privilege and power both for themselves and their descendants. How is it unjust or wrong to ask that those who stand to reap the astounding benefits of higher office first serve in a purely SELFLESS way? Serve without expecting cushy positions as lobbyists or on boards of directors afterward. To serve just to serve because somebody needs to do it. To actually make a sacrifice for their nation and their neighbors.

If we want to keep "hypocritical lying bastards out of the white house" one way to do it might be to ask that person if they have ever SACRIFICED for their nation and neighbors. "Excuse me Sir/ Ma'am before I vote for you in a presidential election I'd like to know just what you have been willing to give up in the past in order to protect or better the other people living in this nation? You are applying for a Public SERVANT position, show me your qualifications to be a public SERVANT."

[TygrBright]

13. What if you want to serve but have a physical disability?

The military, so far as I know, still disqualifies people from service if they have any of a long list of physical conditions. That would eliminate the "anyone can grow up to be President" mythos pretty quick.

"Anyone EXCEPT YOU, Type 1 diabetic, can be President. Oh, and YOU, the one in the front with the deaf aids. Oh, yeah, and all you kids with heart murmurs, athsma, etc. You'll never pass your recruiting physical, so forget about ever being President."

Not to mention YOU, you little faggot/dyke, you're off the list for good and all, 'cause we don't allow your kind in the military, remember?

Sorry, just wouldn't work. I like the idea in theory, though. If there were some form of national service that was accessible, voluntary, and available to ALL young people, I'd buy the idea in a skinny minute.

regretfully,
Bright

[leeroysphitz]

22. Good points. Maybe there should be many ways to serve.

Everyone has something to offer. Although as far as I'm concerned military service shouldn't be off limits glbt folks. I was in the military and I reject the B.S. "unit cohesion" argument that the generals and pundits love to spout.

[progressoid]

14. Interesting but misguided.

[upi402]

15. Bush doesn't deserve to command these professionals

He doesn't deserve their loyalty.

Impeach that man now I say.

[eridani]

17. All I can see that leading to --

--is a further militarization of society. Recall that the Founding Fathers loathed the idea of a professional army on the grounds that it was a totalitarian institution, and therefore not an appropriate model for conducting public buisiness in a democratic republic. The 2nd amendment was explicitly intended to recommend an armed citizenry ('well-ordered militia') as a substitute for a standing army.

Although there is something to be said for sharing the burden of a large professional military if we are going to have one, let's not ignore the question of whether we need and can afford what is essentially an instrument of imperial power.

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/fathers.htm

http://en.thinkexist.com/keyword/standing_army/

Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:
"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

- James Madison, Fourth Annual Message, November 4, 1812-- large and permanent military establishments which are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.

-- "A Framer," in the Independent Gazetteer, 1791 Whenever people . . . entrust the defense of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.

Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826) "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army"

James Madison quotes (American 4th US president (1809-17), and one of the founding fathers of his country. 1751-1836) A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen"

[Tsiyu]

18. Just have to say I love your sig.

And I also was enlightened by your post :)

[eridani]

25. For more about Swami Beyondananda--

http://www.wakeuplaughing.com/precedent.html

[porkrind]

19. Huh?

Keillor turns a good phrase and has a likable homespun charisma and gravitas, but I don't think his underlying argument makes much sense. Sure, there are many great and wonderful people with military backgrounds, however there are also lots of not-so-great and downright nasty people with military backgrounds. Military service not a necessary ingredient to an ethical leader, history provides many examples.

I also think that a society that wants to remain a democracy needs to be careful to keep the military and government separate. The military is a dangerous, powerful, and necessary tool. It needs to be maintained, respected, and used very carefully.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. An incredibly dumb idea, but it seems he means it seriously

in which case Keillor has turned dumb too. Do people think that Donald Rumsfeld is better suited to be president than Bill Clinton? Or FDR? How about this guy:

I KNEW that my God was bigger than his," Lieutenant General William G. Boykin said of his Muslim opponent. "I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/10/21/warring_with_god/

Serving in the military, to whatever level, is no guarantee at all of being a decent human being. Neither is the experience of being under fire, or bravery. Hitler was awarded the Iron Cross.

[tomp]

24. agreed, incredibly dumb idea!

keillor is way off base on this. frankly, if i had to choose between someone with military experience and someone without, i'd go with without. thankfully, that's not a choice we have to make.

reminds me of the bumper sticker: military solutions are problems.