It looks like anti-war candidates Ron Paul and Barack Obama are getting the most campaign contributions from members of the military. I'm not sure exactly what that proves at the end of the day, but certainly it's a reminder that "the troops" are hardly marching in lockstep behind the Bush/McCain perpetual war agenda.
« Show Us The Districts! | Main | The Wrap Up »
Military Donations
05 Feb 2008 11:42 pm
Comments (41)
It seems to me that the age differences would explain a large part of that. RP and Obama's supporters are disproportionately young. It still makes a good talking point...but I don't think it's much more than that.
I don't think it can be total coincidence that Paul and Obama are seen as the most anti-war. The soldiers want to get the fuck out of Iraq. Can you blame them?
I liked one of the comments at the referenced site:
-------------
"Why do the troops hate the troops?"
Comment by McWars — February 5, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
As someone in the Air Force who discusses and follows politics, here is what I see.
Support for Ron Paul and Obama have more to do with age than anti-war sentiments.
The average age of the typical military member is quite young, and because of selection bias, we also tend to be relatively internet savvy.
Ron Paul and Obama are attractive to both of these demographics.
Anti-war sentiment isn't a significant part of the decision. We pretty much assume that the war will wind down after Bush leaves office.
In a McCain vs Clinton race, the military will overwhelmingly support McCain for obvious reasons.
For the record, hostility towards Hillary is concentrated among officers and senior NCO's. The younger folk I talk to are much more open minded.
As someone in the Air Force who discusses and follows politics, here is what I see.
Support for Ron Paul and Obama have more to do with age than anti-war sentiments.
The average age of the typical military member is quite young, and because of selection bias, we also tend to be relatively internet savvy.
Ron Paul and Obama are attractive to both of these demographics.
Anti-war sentiment isn't a significant part of the decision. We pretty much assume that the war will wind down after Bush leaves office.
In a McCain vs Clinton race, the military will overwhelmingly support McCain for obvious reasons.
For the record, hostility towards Hillary is concentrated among officers and senior NCO's. The younger folk I talk to are much more open minded.
Yes, but the important question is to whom the Kagan extended family is contributing, since soon they will likely outpopulate the actual military itself?
Beware the Kaganites- should they ever sport klingon-like beards, it is over for the USA as we know it.
Yes, because the war couldn't possibly have anything to do with the voting decisions of the soldiers who have to fight it. That's just absurd.
Isn't this just a the continued trend of Obama and Ron Paul doing well with young people?
One might understand Obama doing well with young people in general, but one has to ask what is the specific attraction of Ron Paul to young military types if it isn't his war opposition?
It seems facile to dismiss military Paul supporters as being "young and stupid" (even if they are by definition by being in the military.)
Could it be that Paul is considered by such types as more "revolutionary" (in some sense - by being more out of the "mainstream" if nothing else) than the other candidates? Obama, although not out of the mainstream in the same sense as Paul is, nonetheless is promoting a "change mandate" which presumably would also be welcomed by the younger voters.
I don't think just being young and Internet savvy translates directly to support for any particular candidate. You have to explain that by other factors that overlap youth and tech savvy. There are certainly overlapping demographics between libertarians, tech people, and the like and those groups tend to be younger than more mainstream groups.
But libertarians and tech people don't tend to end up in the military. So it would seem that would leave a certain degree of war opposition as the only explanation for Paul's military support.
And since officers and senior NCOs tend not to bear the brunt of modern war, I'd say that pretty clearly explains some of the support by those who do bear that brunt for Paul and Obama.
Look, not only did Ron Paul top support, he got a lot more money than anyone else. 212,000 to Obama's (our second place) 92,000. I am sure this isn't the best measure of support, but we can work with it, especially when the difference is that stark. Think about what that means. Ron Paul isn't that popular even with young people. Why would he be so popular with the military? Because he is: A. Republican (the military isn't totally conservative by any means, but it draws more conservatives than liberals for sure) and B.... What could B be? Maybe it's because he was the most outspoken opponent of the war?
Come on guys, this isn't that hard. Of course there are people in Iraq that believe in the mission and want to stay. There are people in Iraq that don't believe in the mission and want to leave. And then there are guys in Iraq that believe in the mission and want to leave anyway. If you've been redeployed to a fucking desert hell hole for a couple years straight, you're probably not even that connected to domestic politics. You don't give a shit about universal health care because the government's got that covered for you. You are only going to care about one fucking issue, namely, getting your ass back stateside. You might even support a nut case if you thought he'd let you home in time for Christmas. It's really that simple. Don't kid yourselves-Ron Paul's support in particular is coming from people who want out of the war-that's the reason they gave him money, not because they were young and smitten by his revolutionary rhetoric, or whatever.
"You are only going to care about one fucking issue, namely, getting your ass back stateside."
It's 2008. We have an all-volunteer military. As far as I know, no initial enlistment term is longer than 4 years active duty. That means everyone currently enlisted in the military enlisted (or reenlisted) when it was clear that we'd be at war in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time.
Someone other than me ought to run a regression of campaign contributions by military and non-military people controlling for gender, race, age, income, etc, which would settle this matters.
At any rate, though, it certainly shows that pro-peace candidates aren't regarded as bêtes noires in the military.
As a navy guy that discusses and follows politics I largely agree with Rory. The exception is that I see the hostility much more among the NCO's than the officers. But that's mainly because NCO's tend to be more southern, more christian, and more non college graduates (or more precisely did not go to college right out of high school) - so in other words Rush's core demographic.
and this:
And since officers and senior NCOs tend not to bear the brunt of modern war,
is the most asinine thing I've ever seen Hack post.
a quick google has:
Lieutenants have the highest mortality of any rank in the Army, 19 percent higher than all Army troops combined. Marine Corps lieutenants have 11 percent higher mortality than all Marines.
(the same article does say a lance corporal Marine has a casualty rate 3.3 times all troops)
But libertarians and tech people don't tend to end up in the military.
And this, ok you may have a point with libertarians, but the military is the biggest educator of 'tech people' who are smart enough but couldn't go to college on Mommy and Daddy's dime.
Mr. Fred. Allow me, as a veteran who served quite recently in the US Army, to correct you on a number of points. First off, there are compulsory terms of up to 5 (maybe six) years depending on your enlistment contract. Secondly, all contracts have an additional number of years that add up to eight in which a soldier is considered a part of the inactive ready reserve. So this means, if you sign up for three years, after you have been discharged, you have five years where you can be called up again, involuntarily, to serve the needs of this great nation. Since the Army has been strained to the breaking point thanks to this glorious war, if you are honorably discharged, there is a significant chance that you will be called up again, especially if you were trained in a critical MOS. I know quite a few people (arabic linguists) who were pulled out of the wonderful civilian world quite against their will. And, finally, if you become a commissioned officer, the military can call you up basically any time after you leave the service, although they do take age into account, or so I'm told.
Let me also remind you that the only "voluntary" part of military service is when a recruit signs the dotted line. Few people know what they are getting into in advance-the military is just an idea, a montage of half-remembered movie clips, to a person until they actually experience it. So quite a few "volunteers" end up in Iraq, quite unhappy with their circumstances, and can do nothing about it, because they cannot "voluntarily" quit.
And finally, even the fresh-faced patriot can grow tired of carrying the burden of America's hegemonic destiny on his shoulders when it involves getting deployed for a year in Afghanistan, then a year in Iraq, then a year in Afghanistan, and so on. This is what the Army has done to thousands of soldiers. However enthusiastic one might be at the prospect of rubbing out a few towel heads, one's enthusiasm is destined to wane over the course of many months duking it out in terrain that often depends on the location of camel carcasses to provide useful landmarks.
In short, the mere fact that we have an "all-volunteer" Army does not somehow negate the simple undeniable truth that there are legions of young men and women in the Middle East right now who just want to go home.
A few of those APO donations came from my home. FWIW, not all APO/FPO addresses are active duty. Lots of civilian US gov employees have them too. But Obama is definitely the favorite among Americans abroad. I was shocked at his support last night in London, the land of Clinton administration exiles.
At the London global primary (caucus) last night a steady stream of Obama voters walked past the ballot boxes, stuffing their blue ballot in his box, while only about 1/5 or 6 was for Hillary.
Gerontion,
I'm an Army Reserve veteran, so I'm quite familiar with the IRR; that's why I qualified the enlistment term with the adjective "active". Although it's true you can get called to duty out of the IRR, only a relative handful have been, and the odds of that happening are exceedingly remote. My point remains that everyone currently on active duty joined, or re-joined, during a time of war.
gerontion, don't bother engaging fred. as a hard core patriotic Republican he knows nothing about the military. No hard core patriotic Repub would dream of serving his country by enlisting.
Merlallen,
Perhaps you missed the first sentence of my last comment and are reading it now, and feeling stupid. Surely that feeling is a familiar one for you.
Then who the hell are you kidding, Fred? If you've spent any time in you should know better than to think that the Army is filled with a half a million bright-eyed flag-waving Bush-loving jingoists. And you should know that there's never been a deployment in recent history that hasn't inspired more than it's fair share of grumbling from the ranks-I knew die-hard Republicans who couldn't stand the fact that we interrupted Milosevic's campaign of genocide in Kosovo (probably just because they hated Clinton), and that was a cake walk compared to Iraq. And you should know that it sucks in the desert, and that most soldiers, however much they care for their mission, have families at home they care a hell of a lot more about, and if you gave any one of them a real choice, between staying and going home, the odds are good they'd be racing to see how fast they could pack their bags. It would absurd to think that this would have no affect whatsoever on their political outlook.
When I talk about "officers", I generally am not really specifying lieutenants - I'm talking higher than company level - meaning Majors and up.
Not a whole hell of a lot of them getting killed in direct combat in any military action since WWII or Korea the US has been in. Certainly not in Vietnam:
Number of U.S. officers killed in combat...5,741
Number of enlisted men killed in combat...41,331
Guarantee you almost all of those officers were Lieutenants.
Senior NCOs tend to be "behind the lines" as well, although obviously less so in many cases.
So there was nothing "asinine" about it. Lieutenants are expendable - everybody who was ever in the US Army knows that. They're treated like dirt by long-time NCOs and the grunts alike.
That's also WHY they have higher mortality rates - they're dumber than most of the other troops while still required to "lead" those troops. The grunts and NCOs know enough to keep their heads down.
I never knew a lieutenant in the US Army during my service that I respected (and few other officers.)
As for "tech people", I'm talking about "real" tech people - people who went to college not on the military dime and without a long-term enlistment who always had an eye on working in tech. Those people don't go in the military for the most part. For one thing, they're smarter than that - especially during war time.
Why do you think the recruiters are lowering the bar for new recruits since the wars started? Because nobody with a brain would join the military now, even if those with half a brain did before.
As for Fred, I'm quite sure that he looks around, he'll find that many of the troops who enlisted in the last four years will NOT be re-enlisting. Although re-enlistment rates have held steady so far, things have been really bad in 2006 and 2007.
Also, the military is losing mid-rank enlisted soldiers - NCOs. Those are the critical trained guys you want to retain for institutional memory and training reasons, and their re-enlistment rates have been dropping.
Of course, there's no shortage of immigrants wanting a green card who will enlist to help make up the short fall. What was the figure in 2003? Something like 20% or more of the enlisted men in Iraq were actually "green card warriors"? Which is why most of the casualties had Latino names because they were disproportionately assigned to the infantry.
As a Dallas News article put it in 2006:
"About 69,300 foreign-born men and women serve in the U.S. armed forces, roughly 5 percent of the total active-duty force, according to the most recent data. Of those, 43 percent – 29,800 – are not U.S. citizens. The Pentagon says more than 100 immigrant soldiers have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush and Congress, citing long-established wartime powers, streamlined the process by which immigrants in the armed forces could become naturalized citizens.
As of October, more than 25,000 immigrant soldiers had become U.S. citizens as a result. Another 40,000 are believed eligible to apply. And roughly a third of noncitizens in the all-volunteer military come from Mexico and Central America.
"Latinos are very patriotic and see military service as a way to show their appreciation to America and to prove they can be 'real Americans,' " said Dr. Jorge Mariscal, director of Chicano Studies at the University of California at San Diego. [In other words, they're morons. - RSH]
But he questions the attention that military recruiters give Latino immigrant neighborhoods.
"The efforts of recruiters tends to undermine community efforts to get these kids better civilian educational opportunities and pushes them into low-echelon enlisted positions with a higher risk of seeing combat," he said. "Until the playing field is level, we're only going to create a class of combat soldiers drawn from immigrants and the working class."
Exactly.
Another article from 2003 said this:
"More than 36,000 service members are non-citizens, making up about 5 percent of active duty service members. About a third come from Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries and the rest are from China, Vietnam, Canada, Korea, India and other countries.
In New York City alone, 40 percent of Navy recruits were immigrants, 36 percent in the Marines and 27 percent in the Army."
That was, of course, before how badly this war was going to go became apparent.
Sorry, while people dumb enough to enter the military are obviously going to continue to do so, at least some are going to smarten up enough to get out once they see they are being used for political interests unrelated to the defense of the United States.
And presumably those smart enough to smarten up become smart enough not to vote for McCain or some other war monger.
"If you've spent any time in you should know better than to think that the Army is filled with a half a million bright-eyed flag-waving Bush-loving jingoists."
Where did I say it was, Gerontion? Why do you have such a need to wrestle straw men? The fact remains that just about everyone in the military today joined or re-joined during a time of war. No one had any illusions four years ago that the war in Iraq would be over anytime soon.
No one had any illusions four years ago that the war in Iraq would be over anytime soon.
Except the ones who were writing and reading asinine articles called things like "We're Winning!"
I have to side with gerontion and against Fred. I know a guy who signed up (I can't recall if it was before Iraq invasion or just after ) who served his tour, got out, got a job and just got called back into the Army. There was nothing "voluntary" about his recall.
Plus there have been tens of thousands of long time National Guard reservists who signed up with the idea of being a reserve --i.e., called up only if the Homeland was under serious threat.
Instead they are being used like the Roman legions -- to grab and hold foreign investments for our superrich elite. A news report two years ago mentioned a National Guard truck in Iraq with a sign on the windshield "One Weekend a Month My Ass".
Re Fred's comment "No one had any illusions four years ago that the war in Iraq would be over anytime soon. "
-------------
Well, other than the Commander in Chief:
"Mission Accomplished"
1) Remember, Fred?
http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/photos-george-bush-mission-accomplished-codpiece.jpg
2) Of course, if you always wear the uniform only within the safe confines of the continental US, then you have a different perspective on war.
Remember that studly pilot's suit-- and the use of a long range Navy plane to fly across San Diego Bay and land on the carrier shown above??
War is hell.
As a navy guy that discusses and follows politics I largely agree with Rory. The exception is that I see the hostility much more among the NCO's than the officers. But that's mainly because NCO's tend to be more southern, more christian, and more non college graduates (or more precisely did not go to college right out of high school) - so in other words Rush's core demographic.
You do have a point. Perhaps its just that officers by nature come across as more conservative. My morning flight meeting of Senior NCO's often turns into a Hillary bashing session. Me and one other guy are secret Democrats who just shut up and laugh about it after the meeting. Everyonce and a while we will throw in a subversive question just to get them going.
...
"It seems facile to dismiss military Paul supporters as being "young and stupid" (even if they are by definition by being in the military.)"
Thats a pretty screwed up thing to say... just saying.
I can absolutely promise you that support for Ron Paul (in the military) has very very little to do with the war. The Ron Paulites I know are much more interested in things like a "gold standard", taxes, and monetary policy. The type of people who really care about the war would be way more likely to vote for Obama since he actually has a chance to win. People vote for Ron Paul based on "principle".
Fred, the others are right - between the 5 to 6 year enlistments for certain jobs, stop-loss, and the deployment of reserve and National Guard troops, plenty of people who joined shortly after 9/11 are still in Iraq today.
I'm going to agree with some of the guys above - other issues besides the war dominate the political discussion, and it's probably just a function of our youth and our maleness.
I went to caucus for Obama last night, dragged 3 fellow soldiers along (Alaska is awesome in that it allows on-site voter registration), and I'm the only one among us who is solidly against the war. To them, they want to vote for Obama despite his position on the war, not because.
And finally, Richard Steven Hack's post was shockingly offensive. Maybe it's the line of work I do for the Army, but over half my platoon had degrees when they enlisted, and some of us are working towards our Masters' through correspondence courses, hoping to transfer credits when we go back to school. We must automatically be imbeciles because of our decisions to join? Screw that. I'm probably not reenlisting but I certainly don't regret my decision.
Re Shane
I wouldn't worry too much about Mr. Hacks' comments. In case Mr. Shane was unaware, Mr. Hack is a convicted bank robber who spent 9 years in the federal birdcage in Leavenworth, Ka. I'm sure that the bank teller in whose face Mr. Hack shoved a handgun was at least as offended as Mr. Shane was.
Re Shane's comment "Maybe it's the line of work I do for the Army, but over half my platoon had degrees when they enlisted "
---------
Yes, the guy I know has a college degree. He wanted technical computer work that he could parley into a civilian job after a few years tour--instead of making the Army a career.
My impression is that the Army recruits a lot more technical specialists and makes them "warrant officers" --instead of enlisted, NCO, officer -- than in decades past.
The thing that struck me when I worked on Army Corps-level C3I systems is how Complex the Army is -- many different types of units ( Signals, Mil Police, Arty, Air Defense, Air Assault (Helicopter), Armor, logistical units, intel, etc. ) Plus the various types of command relationships -- OPCON control over a temporarily attached unit versus an organic unit. All of which have to work in unison and under tight geographical and time controls. Like a ballet performance (no insult intended.)
By comparison, the Air Force seemed to be merely a simpleminded, unreliable and extremely expensive form of artillery.
Compared to the Army, the Navy's idea of "maneuver" is that the small boats follow the big Aircraft Carrier -- kinda like baby ducks following their mother.
Some of the CINCs are Air Force or Navy but our battlefield commanders are Army Generals.
(Schwartzkopf, Petraeus,etc).
Re SLC's comment "I'm sure that the bank teller in whose face Mr. Hack shoved a handgun was at least as offended as Mr. Shane was "
--------
Clarify, SLC. Are you criticizing Richard's moral values -- or his combat tactics?
I'm not sure that someone who, by my reading, supports the death of 4000 US soldiers in Iraq for the sake of Israel is qualified to have an opinion on either area.
Re Don Williams
1. I really wish Mr. Williams sould get his shit together. On this thread, he accuses the State of Israel of being responsible for the deaths of 4000 US troops in Iraq, this despite the fact that the government of that state advised the US Government that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea before hand. On other threads, he blames the deaths of 4000 US troops on the US governments' desire to steal Middle East oil.
2. Apparently, Mr. Williams doesn't think that Mr. Hacks' bank robbing activities are of much moment. I suspect that the bank teller who observed the wrong end of Mr. Hacks' pistol had a different take on it.
3. By the way, what makes Mr. Williams think that I support the current US military activities in Iraq? I have never made such a statement and, in fact, do not. I think that the entire operation is a disaster of the first order which has been mismanaged from the get go, starting with the invasion force being too small by a factor of at least 2 and probably 3. That initial error doomed any chance of success before the operation even got underway. It is hard to tell who is more incompetent, President Bush or Prime Minister Olmert, both of whom would merit a court martial if they were in their respective militaries.
For those you gave the info on Hack's bkgd, thx, I was not aware of that
But one last thing on And since officers and senior NCOs tend not to bear the brunt of modern war
If you define 'modern war' as since the invention of firearms, you might have a point.
But since you mean post korea it's asinine. Every single conflict in American history has had higher causualties overall from the ranks than from the officer due to 1) their larger numbers and 2) the fact that they are in fact in front -
with the exception of the green JO's who I would hypothesize have had the highest casualy rate in every war in american history.
Your own vietnam numbers have an 8-1 ratio; I could be wrong about this but that's probaly the ratio of officers to enlisted in combat ranks. (9:1 - 10:1 is the current ratio on warships 250 personnel and smaller).
Re Kolohe
Actually, during the Civil War, the casualty rate among high ranking officers was quite high. As examples consider the following.
1. Albert Sidney Johnston was killed commanding the Confederate troops at Shiloh
2. Joseph E. Johnston was badly wounded at the battle of Seven Pines (Fair Oaks) while commanding the Confederate troops defending Richmond in 1862.
3. Stonewall Jackson was killed while commanding the left wing of the Confederate army at Chancellorsville.
4. Winfield Scott Hancock was badly wounded while commanding a corps of the Union army at Gettysburg.
There were a number of other high ranking officers killed or wounded whose names I can't recall at the moment.
Continuing my litany of casualties of high ranking officers in the Civil War here are some more.
5. Pat Cleburne was killed during the battle of Nashville in 1864 while commanding a division in the Confederate army.
6. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was badly wounded while commanding a division in the Union army at the battle of Gettysburg.
7. A. P. Hill was killed during the retreat from Richmond in 1865 while commanding one wing of the Confederate army.
8. James B. McPherson was killed while commanding the Army of the Tennessee at the battle of Peach Tree Creek during Shermans march on Atlanta.
9. JEB Stuart was killed while commanding the Calvery brigade of the Confederate army of Northern Virginia at the battle of Yellow Tavern.
Re SLC's comment "I really wish Mr. Williams sould get his shit together. On this thread, he accuses the State of Israel of being responsible for the deaths of 4000 US troops in Iraq, this despite the fact that the government of that state advised the US Government that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea before hand."
---------------
SLC, what's with you? I showed you repeatedly on this site that in 2002 Sharon's government was pushing the US voters into supporting war on Iraq. Remember?
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654345
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654354
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654366
So tell me, SLC. Has Mossad found Saddam's nukes yet?
As far as I know, no initial enlistment term is longer than 4 years active duty.
My service commitment is 10 years, which actually turns into about 12.5 years when the Air Force does the math. Granted, I'm commissioned, not enlisted, but I'm certain that people sign up for more than 4 years. Because I did.
"Maybe it's the line of work I do for the Army, but over half my platoon had degrees when they enlisted, and some of us are working towards our Masters' through correspondence courses, hoping to transfer credits when we go back to school."
In other words - you're not infantry.
Right?
That's my point. And I know full well that in the US military, there's like a 8 or 10 to 1 ratio between support and infantry.
The problem is: if you go into the military thinking you're not going to be infantry, in a lot of conflicts, such as Iraq, you might turn out to be wrong.
That means anybody going into the military needs to realize that you could be put in harm's way by somebody else whose competence you don't know based on intelligence - military and brain - you can't estimate for reasons you don't comprehend or even know (i.e., the neocons and Zionists and military-industrial complex REAL reasons for the Iraq war.)
Any sentient entity who does that is stupid.
I know. I did it from 1967 to 1970.
I learned.
Most of the people in Iraq today STILL think they're over there to "protect the US" from "Al Qaeda".
Which is fucking stupid.
And I don't care who is offended by that. I spent three years in the military and I know stupid when I see it.
Kolohe: Break down the casualties by RANK. I don't count expendable lieutenants, as I said. Show me the massive number of colonels and generals who bear the brunt of war. They don't. They never did, perhaps, but they damn sure don't know - unless you're talking about nuclear war, and that hasn't happened.
Generals send the grunts to die.
Grunts who accept that arrangement are stupid.
It's that simple.
Comments closed February 19, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I wonder if demographics have anything to do with it.
Posted by Andrew | February 5, 2008 11:49 PM