authority and respect

Something I've been wondering about for quite a while.To what degree does a soldier's training and conditioning permit him/her freedom of choice in voting for a President in a time of war?Were, in essence, the soldiers in Iraq captives of the GOP? Would they tend to consider it wrong to vote against their commander in chief?Moose

...did you? Or, like all the other conservatives, did you tell blowjob jokes to your buddies? And laugh when they told them to you? Be honest.

They are captive to the oath they choose , by their own free will, to take in reguards to their nation, and to the organization. Part of that is respecting the Commander in Chief. It is not so much the person, as the position. This is due to the job they are doing.

Ramoss, I accept and agree with all that. But that doesn't answer the question of the subtitle and in the message: Does this "respect of the Commander in Chief" tend to preclude their voting against him in a Presidental election? I don't know the answer, but my instincts lean towards "Military obedience = Vote Bush". Not to mention, that they would want to believe that the war is the right thing, which would also incline them to vote Bush.Moose

Yes.

quote:

---

Does this "respect of the Commander in Chief" tend to preclude their voting against him in a Presidental election?

---

No.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

While a respect for authority may well be part of the oath soldiers take, I have heard rumors, likely apocryphal, that at times soldiers hold their superiors in less than the highest regard. There are even rumors of soldiers bitching about those in higher command.While there might be lots of support in an all volunteer army for a task such as the Iraq war, in this particular instance there are also a large number of troops in the field that were from the Reserves and National Guard who may well have been watching their family business go down the tubes because they were called up.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would expect that the Reserves and National Guard people would tend to be anti-Bush and the "regular" soldiers would tend to be pro-Bush.Part of a proper election is the free debate of the issues. Being at war in Iraq sure does not seem to be an evironment for open debate on the leadership ability / competence of your commander in chief.I'm not at all suggesting that the soldiers should not be voting. But the war environment sure seems prime to me, for "getting out the vote for the pro-military incumbent".Moose

Ditto Purpledawn.... People don't join the Reserves/National Guard and EXPECT to not get deployed. Reservists and Guard members understand, especially since 911, that they will more than likely be called upon to deploy for 1 or more years. Take Major Coffman for example:Major Mike Coffman is a US Marine Officer, he served in the first Gulf War in the 2nd Light Armored Infantry Battalion of the 2nd Marine Division. He is presently in Iraq, set to return from a year long tour with the Marines Civil Affairs Office where he has assisted in the historic elections that recently took place.A year ago, Major Coffman received orders to report from his US Marine Reserves unit in Colorado. He didn't complain, he simply informed his boss that he would need a year off and requested his job back when he returned. Major Coffman will be returning in March and will return to his civilian job.Mike only has a few months left in his job, as his term is almost over. Mike Coffman will finish his term as Colorado State Treasurer and will resume his political career by running as the GOP candidate for Governor.

---

I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving across a bridge with Ted Kennedy.

Respect for the office doesn't mean that you have to support the person who holds the office to another term.The respect is given to the OFFICE as commander in chief of the armed forces.That being said.. there are psychological reasons for support.. but it is not demanded by their job per say.

It's a more progressive stance driven by the fact there are no male candidates to succeed the current Crown Prince when he becomes Emperor and eventually dies (other than his brothers who could be reasonably expected to die not long after him). There have no males born in the line of succession since 1965. This article from two weeks ago is the most recent I could find and says that the Prime Minister is postponing his plans to change the law because the wife of Emperor Akahito's youngest son has just become pregnant. He is waiting to see if she has a boy and solves the problem for him.Even if the law is changed the likely beneficiary is currently four years old (the daughter of the Crown Prince), so I'm not sure how much respect can be claimed for her. Media and public infactuation is a different matter however.Oh and Japan has had eight Empresses but none since the 18^th Century, so the ban is a relatively recent development compared to the span of their Imperial history.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

That was interesting information but I'm not sure why it changes whether the japanese "empress" is a good example of authority, power, respect, and obedience being something more than just motherhood issues. In fact, your information seems to confirm that it is more than that.While limited in some regards, they still wielded great power which effected lives. What you have shown is that what merits respect and is given power has changed over time. Thus the adage of authority deserving respect does not hold.Those that once were given respect were no longer given it, and now facing a new situation and in a new environment some may have been forced to accept a new authority... should they have given their respect?Regardless of whether there were empresses prior to the 1800s has little bearing on how the modern people might feel based on customs and culture over the last 200 years which included such a prohibition. My point was not that she had a lot of respect, but rather if it would have been considered if she had not been respected at all. Lets say she was a 16 yo kid who had been doing a lot of embarassing and juvenile things which made the public mad. Would they have bothered to even try changing the law? Doubtful.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I'm sorry but that's just not true. I agree they shouldn't join and not expect non-deployment, but that is different than what is going on. Maybe things have changed since 911 when some joined in the face of a tragedy and wanted to do something, and after all the press since the Iraq war letting everyone know that deployments are likely.HOWEVER, recruitment advertising for reserves has and continues to be based on one weekend a month and one week a year (or was that one month a year?). If deployment should be expected, especially the kinds we are seeing, then the advertisements should state that that is what the job is. I'm sorry, but where in that propaganda piece was there anything about what he expected he would face when he joined? Your story seems to be of what he has come to understand and accept since being in the military. I might add you used an example which specifically avoided PD's point. I mean where was this guy's family business that could go down the tubes? Or are you suggesting that most reservists are politicians?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

quote:

---

I agree they shouldn't join and not expect non-deployment, but that is different than what is going on. Maybe things have changed since 911 when some joined in the face of a tragedy and wanted to do something, and after all the press since the Iraq war letting everyone know that deployments are likely.

---

I'm not pleased with the way the govenment is using the military reservists.Those in the reserves (whether directly or after regular duty) were told (not sure what they are saying to them now) that should they be needed they would serve in the States to fill the jobs so that the regulars could go overseas.That said, once a regular has fulfilled his/her tour of duty, they are subject to a year or two (depends on the service) that they can still be called back to full duty. Once that time is up, they are not to be called back to full duty. Several people fought call backs beyond that point. The governments not keeping their end of the deal. I am beyond the call back point. (Hopefully)The recruiting methods do need to be clearer so that people know what they are getting into.This new use of the reservists I think also affects the workforce. Expecting an employer to hold a job for a year is rather unreasonable. Two weeks is one thing, but a year or more is unreasonable.My cousin had trouble finding a job when she returned from one year overseas because she was a reservist and still stubject for another tour overseas. I think it was a year and she was called up again. Even after that tour, it was more difficult for her to find a job. She finally did.They need to rethink their war logistics.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I have a friend who works with family support for an Air Force Guard unit. Some of those planes go out 30 days out of every 90. The guards are not deployed for a year, this 1/3 time can concievably go on indefinately. How do you maintain a civilian job or a family with that kind of schedule?

ExactlyI assume they only get paid when deployed or on call? Whereas regulars are paid, whether they are called out or not. Obviously they keep them busy training and such, but they are paid a consistent income with health coverage.To try and generate an income over short periods of time is very difficult. Not fair to the families.They really need to revamp the process.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz