What the Sec. of Defense thinks of Veterans

"If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in; they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market because they were without choices. Big categories were exempted - people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married. It varied from time to time, but there were all kinds of exemptions. And what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."

Dismissing the memory of the last draft and the fifty-eight thousand men, most of whom were forced to fight that stupid, ugly war, not because they couldn't get a job in the "civilian manpower market," but because to refuse would have landed them in jail, is a bit foul, no?

www.defenselink.mil...

Not really, seems like a practical way to speak out against the Draft. It's not like he's putting down veterans as you "imply" he's putting down the draft, by saying that draftees are not an asset, in fact they are a burden to the Military.

Which isn't really the case but it's only his opinion.

Still if a Draftee came up with no legs, I think He'd still respect the "minimal effort" he put forth in his little 1 year experience.

Sincerely,
no signature

5 out of 5 Nam vets I sent that to took great issue with that statement.
I was a wee kid, so I take their word for it - he spoke unthankfully & disrespectfully of their service.

5 out of 5 veterans were knee-jerk and didn't understand what was said, almost as if they had been led in a direction, huh?
I started the article at the top, and then read it, not looking for any pre-explained meaning but getting lost in the story. After reading it, it was extremely evident to me what was said.
It was mandatory that the individuals drafted leave their jobs and go into service, at service pay. Had they wanted to join the military, they'd have done so, so it can be assumed they weren't especially happy about the chosing. They were trained for a period of weeks, or months, depending on their specialty, and then sent to their duty stations. After their service, they left. These people, forced against their will, paid below the civilian standards by a sizable margin, many with attitudes that matched the crappy circumstance, were not career soldiers and departed the military with the training. This is not the best return for the military, and that should be easily understood.

It seems to me that no matter how carefully a speaker chooses his words, there are always going to be people who miss what they say. If you open your yap in front of a microphone, you shall surely be punished for it.

Hmm......
A cut & paste from my favorite Uncle's email response after reading the web page. He brought me back one of those black satin flight jackets with the dragon embroidery ( I loved that more than my paratrooper GI Joe!) from his tour over there:

".... my value was the performance of unwavering duty in the face of hardship, loss and incompetent officers."
".... I guess he's under the impression we were drafted to make the Army some ideal utopia."
"...We were drafted to fight and die, nothing more."


Another blind defense, right or wrong, for anything Bush Co., huh? You've mentioned you were in the military as well; I don't think it a rarity or phenomenon of an elitist attitude, to put it kindly, among the officer ranks against the enlisted, do you? Could you consider for a moment that he's that type?
To quote Uncle Dan, what do you think a draft is for besides getting numbers up in order to fight & die?