Ground Pounders v. Flyboys

It is usually a good idea to stay away from generalizations like this, as there are always exceptions, but I can’t help but notice that it seems like the closer one is to ground combat operations, the more skeptical and reserved one becomes about war in general. For example, today Justin Raimondo makes the following distinction between John McCain and Chuck Hagel:

Both are Vietnam war veterans, much decorated, and are gruffly direct and unvarnished in their speech and mannerisms. . . Yet they seem to have taken away from their military experiences very different conceptions of America’s role in the world.

I believe, their different conceptions of America’s role in the world, derived from the extent that their respective military experiences are different. McCain was a Navy fighter pilot. Although he was involved in combat and ended up a POW, he did not witness the Vietnam War as an infantryman, a grunt. Hagel was such an infantryman in the Army, most likely witnessing, face to face, the extreme hardship and horribly nightmarish visions that are uniquely witnessed by ground combat operations. While we all know well that chickenhawks, that haven’t even worn a uniform, have an extreme propensity toward wars, it’s interesting to note that flyboys tend to have a similar propensity as well. McCain and Rumsfeld, the war party’s most prominent veterans were both Navy flyboys. Meanwhile, the some of the most prominent skeptics of the Iraq war (either prior to invasion or post invasion) include many prominent veteran ground pounders, like Hagel, John Murtha, and Scott Ritter.

It has been said here and in other forums, that there is nothing more threatening to wars, and the governments that lie their way into wars, than the ground troops. Which might go a long way to explaining why there are so few “close combat soldiers” in the entire US military apparatus (about 70k combat troops to the 1.2 million total). The war party can get better results in the electorate from the 99.05% of the support troops than from a large group of close combat warriors. There would be a massive problem on the war party’s hands if there were 500k angry ground pounders in the ranks. [Just ask Czar Nicholas II.]

So if you talk to a vet about the war, ask him how did he serve and compare that to his position on the war. You may find some not so surprising results, to which of course there are exceptions, of which I theorize are rare.

Update: I can’t believe I forgot that George W was a flyboy as well.

The Best of Casey Khan