>Daniel Davies wrote:
>
>>Doug wrote:
>>
>>>And he agrees that the notion of a poverty draft is bullshit. The
>>>military is made up of the "better" echelons of the working
>>>class.<<
>>
>>Not sure that one follows from the other; the reductio ad absurdum
>>of this would be that the Royal Regiment of Gurkhas is
>>predominantly made up of the "better" echelons of Nepalese hill
>>farmers, but I don't think anyone would claim that Gurkha
>>recruitment doesn't have anything to do with poverty. Don't have
>>much of an opinion on the US Army but based on the lads I knew who
>>joined the Welsh Guards, recruitment is more driven by a lack of
>>alternative prospects for doing something interesting - it's not so
>>much that people are forced to join the army because the
>>alternative is physical starvation, but there is a strong class
>>element to it.
>
>I agree with Daniel. Poverty is, after all, a relative concept.
>I'm not starving, but I feel very poor, because my expectations are
>high.
>
>Besides, people who are on the verge of physical starvation are too
>sick to serve in any army anyway (not even in a guerrilla army of
>Reds, let alone an army of an empire).
But I'm not talking about on-the-verge-of-starvation poverty. I'm talking about subliteracy, poor health, and the like. Of course not many people with a full scholarship to Yale are going to join the army, but most people who sign up are not "forced" to by their life circs. Most view their decision to join as freely made, and are loyal to the military and their comrades. I don't see the point of denying this unless you need to believe in the innocent virtue of the working class.
Doug