U.S.: Conversations with Reggie

This is a feature that began with my letter in response to Reggie Rivers article in the Denver Post in which he described those serving int he military as slaves. Sadly, Reggie has lost sight of what slavery means. On the one hand, this is good because it shows how far America has come. On the other hand, this is bad because it means that history is ripe for repeat because some blacks have forgotten what slavery is. Worse yet, it means that there are blacks like Reggie who have no idea of the slavery and genocidal rape that is occurring in Sudan.

Reggie's responses are indented, and mine appear below.

UPDATE: I changed the order of the text in my post to Reggie and got a few things mixed up. When I replied to Reggie, my responses preceded his comments. The order is now straightened out. Sorry for the mix up.

Thanks for the message. I'm sure that some soldiers are happy to be in Iraq, and I'm sure that some feel a duty to serve their agreed terms. But I'd bet that most soldiers are like the rest of us. If they had the choice, they would quit a job the moment it became too dangerous. I'm not criticizing soldiers, because I believe they are brave, hard-working individuals who do the best they can in often impossible situations.

You're being snide and condescending. If you would take the time to read Iraqi and soldiers' blogs you'd realize that the troops who are there would prefer to be home. However, they know that they are serving to defend this nation by liberating Iraq and helping Iraqis achieve a better lifestyle. If you read what the soldiers had to say, you'd realize how many of them are re-signing to return to Iraq, not because they want to kill or fight, but because they know that their deeds can make a positive difference in the lives of many Iraqis.

Have you heard of Chief Wiggles? Lieutenant Smash? Of all these guys who have collected money and equipment for schools, to buy toys, to buy electronic equipment to start up tv stations in those out of the way places in Iraq where the only available media might be Al Jazeera or something equally pernicious? Those are the places where elections are being held and the Iraqis are learning about democracy and self-governance because American soldiers are teaching them. American soldiers are volunteering to return to Iraq because they know that an Iraq that embraces freedom is a country that will not harbor terrorists.

Many of the guys who have signed up to go back have returned knowing that anything is possible. These men don't quit when the going gets dangerous. Didn't you hear about the young man who threw his helmet and himself over a live grenade because he wanted to protect his fellow soldiers and civilians?

Yes, you are criticizing soldiers. You are saying that they are cowards who would cut and run if they could. Well, stop reading Democrat spin and realize that when these man get a chance to get out, they opt to return. Didn't 9/11 teach you anything about Americans? I'm a naturalized American and even I know that we don't cut and run because a job becomes too dangerous. What do you think all those cops, firemen, EMS workers heading in to the WTC was about? They were going in to danger, Reggie. They knew it.

The same way the soldiers know that if they cut and run when their tour of duty is up that they'll have to stand and fight in New York, Detroit, St. Louis, Washington, Los Angeles, Dallas, St. Louis, and all over.

My criticism is aimed at policies that make military service compulsory, no matter how unattractive it becomes.

This is simultaneously hypocritical and naive. There is nothing that makes military service compulsory. Every young man has to register when he reaches a certain age; however this country does not have compulsory military service.

What criticisms did you level at the NFL when you played? Did not the contract you signed require you to play no matter how you felt about playing on a given day? How many times did you shoot up on cortisone or some other pain killing remedy to go out on the field and play injured -- for the sake of the team, of the game? Is a football game more important than the defense of your own country?

If your boss (at whatever job you currently hold) asked you to relocate to the Iraq office, leave your family, possibly throw your personal finances into disarray and risk death or injury, would you do it? Or would you quit your job and find another one?

Reggie, this is simplistic thinking at its worst. The analogy is not between my job and Iraq but between your football career and Iraq. The commonality between the two is the contract. If I had signed a contract with an employer in which I agreed to serve at his pleasure for $X for Y-years, then should he choose to send me some place dangerous, I would not be able to quibble if the contract allows it. If I did not have a contract,then I could do as I well pleased. If I had a contract and violated it, then the employer is free to do as the law allows.

All I'm getting out of this exchange, Reggie, is that you believe that the NFL is a cut above the military, and you believe that your contract with the NFL is irreproachable whereas that which the soldier signs with the military is not. You do not say this; however, it is the subtext of what you write.

Most of us would put our families before our careers. Most of us wouldn't deliberately accept a job in a war zone. You may believe that soldiers have some gene that makes them different from the rest of us, but research shows that more than 80 percent of the people who join the military actively seek non-combat positions. That suggests they're like the rest of us. They have no desire to get shot at. TheyÝwant to come home to their families at night.

How many years did you play football? How many games did you miss to stay home with your wife and kids? You show me an athlete who genuinely puts family before career and I'll show you a unicorn. Athletes are free not to play games/matches in a war zone; the soldier (note the name by which he goes) in the military (note the name of the institution) understands that his true work place is a war zone. Soldiers have no gene that makes them different, but the military trains them to do that which they must, and, for the most part, that training holds.

You also seem to think that the military is some kind of welfare or employment agency to provide people with cushy desk jobs while they finish getting a college education. Your words indicate that your concept of the military is unrealistic. How many football players do you know who relish going out on the field and getting broken bones, torn ligaments, concussed, or paralyzed? None. Are football players so different from us that they seek that kind of job? Or, is it training that takes hold and keeps the athlete on the field, injured or not? When you get injured, do you run away and say I just want to be with my family, or do you itch to recover and rejoin the team? Well, when you suggest that the soldier's desire is to run for safety, your implication is that he is no warrior at all for he is less than that consummate pretend-warrior -- the footballer.

In articulating, implicitly, a double standard for football players and soldiers, you demonstrate your bias against the military and your contempt for the men who serve.

The argument that they're volunteers only works to a point. Suppose you were a volunteer at Children's Hospital. If the demands of being a volunteer became too great or if some other cause became more important to you, you could quit being a volunteer. The moment someone tells you that you can't quit, then you're no longer a volunteer.

This is absurd on its face. The proper analogy is the one you will not draw -- that between the contract of the soldier and the contract of the football player.

Sadly, people who join the U.S. Military become slaves, because they're not allowed to quit their jobs. Most serve bravely and try to make the best of a bad situation, but where they get sent, how long they stay there and whether they die is usually out of their control. They're not like the rest of us, because they can't exercise free choice about where they live and the work that they do. If they quit they face dishonorable discharge, lengthy investigations, accusations of cowardice, difficulty finding future employment, possibly court marshal and possible prison terms.

Your conclusion is unsubstantiated because you present no argument to support it. You make a number of statements that are ill-conceived and without merit; none of them are capable of supporting your proposition that those serving in the U.S. military are slaves. By the way, since you specify U.S. military, does that mean that those who serve in the French military are free men?

What happens to a football player when he violates the terms of his contract and stops playing for the team with which he has signed up? Please address issues such as employment, legal suits, possible prison terms. Please also provide some information on the life of the NFLer. I want to know more about the player's freedom of choice within the terms of his contract.

The military also has instituted stop-loss policies to keep people from getting out of the service after their terms are up. Men and women who have served more than 20 years and have firm release dates are being told that they can't get out. They have to stay for another year, or two, or three. So even when people have done everything they agreed to do and they're ready to move on with the next part of their lives, the military is reluctant to let them escape.

Yes, I agree that the military has done this in response to the war time situation; however, it is necessary because we are at war. I guess you think the U.S. should not defend itself at all.

You and I can quit our jobs. The President can quit. Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell can quit. Members of Congress can quit. But soldiers have many barriers that force them to stay in the face of bullets and bombs whether they want to or not.

C O N T R A C T. Get used to it.

If that's not slavery, I don't know what is.

Since you have lost sight of what slavery really is, Reggie, go to this website: iAbolish. Do us both a favor and stop insulting the U.S. military. I'd also suggest that if you're going to mount an argument you should make every effort to ensure that it is at least sensible.

This will be the last conversation with Reggie. It seems that he's overrun with people objecting to his slur against the military.