thedrifter
01-22-03, 07:30 AM
This was sent to me by Our Cas.......
During a recent press briefing at the Pentagon, a reporter asked
my views on the old military draft system. Although not
eloquently stated, I responded to the question in part as
follows:
"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 [of people] were exempted-people that were in
college, people that were teaching, people that were married . .
. And what was left [those who were not exempted] were 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 (of)
the churning that took place - it took an enormous amount of
effort in terms of training and then they were gone."
Again, my statement was not eloquent. A few columnists and
others, though, have suggested that those words were intended to
mean that draftees added no value to the military. That is not
true. I did not say they added no value while they were
serving. They added great value. I was commenting on the loss
of that value when they left the service. I certainly had no
intention of saying what has been reported, or of leaving that
impression. Hundreds of thousands of military draftees served
over years with great distinction and valor - many being wounded
and still others killed.
The last thing I would want to do would be to disparage the
service of those draftees. I always have had the highest
respect for their service, and I offer my full apology to any
veteran who misinterpreted my remarks when I said them, or who
may have read any of the articles or columns that have attempted
to take my words and suggest they were disparaging.
The intent of my comments was to reflect a view I have held for
some time: that we should lengthen tours of duty and careers
for our all-volunteer forces, so that these highly trained men
and women in uniform can serve in specific assignments longer,
and also not be forced to leave the service when they are at the
peak of their skills and knowledge.
It is painful for anyone, and certainly a public servant whose
words are carried far and wide, to have a comment so
unfortunately misinterpreted.
It is particularly troubling for me that there are truly
outstanding men and women in uniform or their families -- past
and present -- who may believe that the Secretary of Defense
would say or mean what some have written. I did not. I would
not.
I hope this deeply felt statement reaches those who have served
those who are serving, and their families
Sempers,
Roger
During a recent press briefing at the Pentagon, a reporter asked
my views on the old military draft system. Although not
eloquently stated, I responded to the question in part as
follows:
"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 [of people] were exempted-people that were in
college, people that were teaching, people that were married . .
. And what was left [those who were not exempted] were 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 (of)
the churning that took place - it took an enormous amount of
effort in terms of training and then they were gone."
Again, my statement was not eloquent. A few columnists and
others, though, have suggested that those words were intended to
mean that draftees added no value to the military. That is not
true. I did not say they added no value while they were
serving. They added great value. I was commenting on the loss
of that value when they left the service. I certainly had no
intention of saying what has been reported, or of leaving that
impression. Hundreds of thousands of military draftees served
over years with great distinction and valor - many being wounded
and still others killed.
The last thing I would want to do would be to disparage the
service of those draftees. I always have had the highest
respect for their service, and I offer my full apology to any
veteran who misinterpreted my remarks when I said them, or who
may have read any of the articles or columns that have attempted
to take my words and suggest they were disparaging.
The intent of my comments was to reflect a view I have held for
some time: that we should lengthen tours of duty and careers
for our all-volunteer forces, so that these highly trained men
and women in uniform can serve in specific assignments longer,
and also not be forced to leave the service when they are at the
peak of their skills and knowledge.
It is painful for anyone, and certainly a public servant whose
words are carried far and wide, to have a comment so
unfortunately misinterpreted.
It is particularly troubling for me that there are truly
outstanding men and women in uniform or their families -- past
and present -- who may believe that the Secretary of Defense
would say or mean what some have written. I did not. I would
not.
I hope this deeply felt statement reaches those who have served
those who are serving, and their families
Sempers,
Roger