Millennials are fine with you going to Iraq
…but not them, according to National Public Radio reporting on a Harvard Institute of Politics poll.
In this most recent survey, 60 percent of the 18- to 29-year-olds polled say they support committing U.S. combat troops to fight ISIS. But an almost equal number (62 percent) say they wouldn’t want to personally join the fight, even if the U.S. needed additional troops.
The disconnect in joining the fight comes down to how millennials feel about the government writ large, according to Harvard IOP Polling Director John Della Volpe.
“I’m reminded of the significant degree of distrust that this generation has about all things related to government,” said Della Volpe. “And I believe if young people had a better relationship with government … they’d be more open to serving.”
Yeah, no, it has nothing to do with the “relationship” youngsters have with their government and everything to do with how they expect government to do everything for them with no commitment. Politicians have told them that a free college education is a “right”. They expect that college should be a zone that is safe from judgement and criticism. They want to be “protected” from images and opinions that differ from those they’ve been spoon-fed by their teachers. This generation is comfortable with the idea of sending someone else to fight and die for them while they vegetate on the couch with their video games.
Category: I hate hippies
Hmm. Wonder how those numbers would look if we still had a draft – like we did until 1973?
Now John, you’re giving video games a bad name. What did they ever do to you? 😉
Sounds about right. I recently read about a college near the other side of PA where some students were whining about the name of the campus’s “Lynch Hall” because…well, you can guess. If this gets much worse, I’ll be insisting on sending the little one to trade school when she is of age. That way she’ll be able to contribute something more to society than the entitled drivel that seems to be a large portion of our GDP these days. And, judging by the money that welders, plumbers, etc. make today vs. your typical English/Basketweaving Major, she’ll be a lot better off financially (and morally) for it.
I have 2 sons, age 13 and 9. I am thinking along the same lines. I just hope the government hasn’t screwed up Junior College and Trade Schools by the time our kids are of age. Skepticism has always served me well.
Or become a Machinist and/or Millwright, there are dump truck loads of money waiting to be made in that field and there is a high demand for them as well.
Yep! The company I work for starts machinists apprentices at $28/hr. Journeymen are almost $40.
Last year I was talking to a guy who was 24, had been a certified welder since he was 21, traveled the US to various jobs in a $150k motorhome that was paid for, and had zero debt from his trade school. He said straight-time his crew made about $45/hr, and most jobs they worked 6-12hr shifts. Ohh, and he had most summers off too.
Don’t forget electrician, great pay, whole business in a truck! How can you beat that, oh yeh, CLEAN WORK TOO!
I disagree on your opinion of the youth. I’m currently in community college and generally I find they’ve been turned bitter by a system that lied to them. The false promises of the participation trophy, anti-bullying, standardized tests… I do believe they distrust government more than X’ers. Regarding fighting this nation’s wars, after Iraq and that mismanagement can you really blame them about opting out?
Shit. Comment-ninja’d by literally a minute.
Wait a moment. Lets break those numbers down.
60% want to commit troops and 60% (rounding) don’t want to go themselves. That means that 40% do not want to commit troops. If we assume that the virtually all of those who do not want to commit troops ALSO don’t don’t want to go themselves (A safe assumption we can agree), that means that only about 20% of millenials want to send troops, just not themselves. That isn’t a huge number. one can safely assume that 20% of any population will be idiots.
So. I think we need to look at poll data critically before we get all bent out of shape.
I have a different take on it. To me, the data says that 20% of the population surveyed are hypocrites.
Sounds about right to me – if not a bit low.
Or that 20% of the population is willing to fight… to the last drop of your blood.
hate to throw a monkey wrench in everyone’s ran… but if all the kids suck so badly now – where are all those great folks serving now coming from?
All us old farts need to back off a little – I suspect someone once said ‘now when we faced Xerxes, THAT was fighting – you punks now don’t know squat – you’re pampered and weak’ etc.
Holding that opinion while being unwilling to fight yourself would seem to me to meet the dictionary definition of hypocrisy. To wit:
hypocrisy:
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
Yeah, I’d say 20% is low. However it only covers the hypocrites in the 60% who wanted to go–not the hypocrites that just happened to be in the other 40% from the start.
Tbh, regretting joining if only because if I thought I didn’t trust the government to manage anything worth a damn before, I sure as HELL don’t trust them to manage anything worth a damn now. Only reason I’m still trucking along is so I can go to college without incurring an arm and a leg in debt like some of my friends did directly after high school.
Iraq doesn’t have any safe spaces for the perpetually offended.
I myself don’t place a drop of trust in polls. The U.S. Military is an all volunteer force of which plenty are doing their part to earn college money versus the snowflakes in colleges going neck deep in debt to earn that precious degree in say, Gender Studies or Chinese Politics.
Speaking of video games, it’s time for me to “veg” out on some
“Get a college education, or get stuck in Iraq.”
Apparently someone listened to the asshole.
Photoshop is the preferred solution for me. That way, I can include the fake photos in my speaker bios.
sincerely
John “Faker 6” Giduck
Glad I’m retired, but if I were still working, I’d go after the practical application stuff, like STEM curricula and the trades.
Speaking of video games, the people who are behind the creation of those games as well as the CGI effects in movies make tons of money for the work they do. They are computer programmers, CGI artists, computer engineers, and electronics engineers.
You know how cheap 1TB backup drives are now? They used to cost $350 or more, right? Now, about $95, and 8TB drives cost about $325. Thank the microchip engineers who are responsible for that.
And your 36MP pocket point-and-shoot camera that you paid barely $200 for? Your smartphone video camera? Your 16GB jumpdrive that costs $8 at the checkout at Staples? Well, thank the computer science engineers and programmers for all that stuff.
Truck drivers average $270,000 per year.
I don’t think any slacker milinery stupident is going to come even vaguely close to that, but being slackers, they have to expand their consciousness to embrace the universe… Oh, sorry – I thought I was back in the 1970s again for just a moment.
uh… about that $270K a year – if their wages have tripled in the last few years to $1.00/mile, that would be 270,000 miles a year or 5000+ miles a week. May be an owner hauling hazardous cargo makes that kind of money but the drivers I know aren’t making a third of that.
What trucker makes $270K a year? Perhaps an owner operator and that would be gross pay before any expenses. I was a driver many years ago and the average miles was about 3000-3500 miles per week and about 125,000-150,000 a year. I know pay has increased but I doubt by that much.
Less than 1% of the populations serves anyway…it’s no surprise to find that most people don’t want to serve, and that they don’t care if troops are committed because they aren’t going.
Also if any of the 99% stumble across this site or others like it and read about some of what pisses us off, those outsiders won’t be much impressed with their government or its treatment of those who serve providing even less motivation to join.
When you can be deployed to a third world shit hole 3-5 times while enduring ROEs that would make Mr. Rogers go berserk and some of your senior officers are sitting comfortably making drunken spectacles of themselves while committing adultery but you on the line can’t get another tattoo without approval because some dickwad barracks SMAJ thinks they don’t look good….well, I’m not certain these are great recruiting tools.
Say what you want about the millennials, some (not all by any stretch) are indeed a bit soft and require some special considerations, but they aren’t fucking idiots and there’s nothing wrong with expecting both sides to honor agreements made in good faith.
Isn’t the military comprised primarily of millenials now anyways? I am not a millennial myself, but all my Marines underneath me are millenials, and they will be doing the majority of the fighting if we do go.
They have every reason to distrust this government. Remember, the last eight year period is most of their conscious lives.
The hard truth is, it was a disastrous mistake to pull out of the SOFA negotiations and leave Iraq, one that had the predicted results. Those of us with some experience knew this was coming. Winning a war, and then failing to secure the country as it transitions to genuine peace, is a recipe for failure that we have tried, before.
I do not favor any military action under this administration, because it is careless with the lives of people who are not their explicit political or religious allies. Intervening in Iraq under this President would be worse than staying out.
Now, me, I’m glad that a war effort can be supported by people who don’t think they’re cut out for military service. I don’t doubt that many of them are right about that.
I would hate to say that everyone who doesn’t himself serve (or want to serve) in a war effort has to vote against it. That would throw every issue to the pacifists…until we learn the hard way that the issue isn’t always “war or peace,” but sometimes “war now or war later.”
I think it’s more a matter of “aren’t willing to personally go” than “not cut out for service”, Alberich. At least, that’s what the original article says.
I see that due more to an “I don’t want to get my own hands dirty” attitude than due to any kind of self-knowledge. Sort of like the “Jobs are good, but don’t build the factory here – I don’t want to put up with traffic and pollution” attitude (NIMBY). Maybe I’m wrong.
They weren’t given enough choices for us to make that nuanced a determination…just are-you-or-aren’t-you? (Della Volpe’s opinion on what it means is exactly that.) I’ll bet that you, like me, have met plenty of men and women who’ve got no business taking the oath…including a few who did.
As I have sometimes commented on threads involving “thanks for your service!” — I think we should always avoid an attitude that cuts us off from lifelong civilians, or disqualifies them from talking; so I won’t impute bad traits to these responders without better evidence.
Yes, I’ve known a number of folks that were wearing the uniform who shouldn’t have been. A few were even relatively senior.
Still, I’d disagree. Taking the two questions (“Are you in favor of . . . ” along with “Are you willing to . . “) together does allow categorization of responders into groups, as well as what I hold making what are generally valid inferences concerning the attitudes of the large majority of those in each group. Those inferences will not necessarily hold for all members of each group, but should hold for the large majority.
The group “In favor but unwilling” apparently constitutes roughly 20% of the total (I’m assuming those not in favor were overwhelmingly not willing to go personally, and vice versa). Assuming that most in the demographic are of good health (a very good bet for the college-age demographic) and are not committed pacifists who reject violence under all circumstances, that means that group likely does feel they are qualified to serve if necessary. Yet, in spite of that fact we have a group constituting 20% of the total who are willing to send others to fight for a cause they believe is “righteous”, but who are also unwilling to go themselves.
I suppose it’s possible that the overwhelming majority of that 20% have conducted extensive self-examination and know that they are committed pacifists, or are psychologically or otherwise unsuited for military service. I suppose it’s also possible the earth might reverse its direction of rotation, causing the sun to rise in the west tomorrow. But given what I’ve observed of the college-age crowd and my knowledge of physics, I wouldn’t exactly bet on either being the case.
As I said above: IMO this simply means 20% of those surveyed are hypocrites. From what I’ve seen, that seems either about right (or maybe low) for any survey population drawn from the American public.
No surprise here.
My 17-year old son was not polled, but I expect that when he turns 18 next June, he would answer that he supports ground troops to combat ISIS. I also expect that since he will start Basic Training around that time, he would be OK with going.
Main reasoning behind why 62% of the millennials say they would not personally join the fight in Iraq:
Spotty/limited Smart-Phone coverage.
Gotta have those Twitter updates.
I sit at home on the couch vegetating while playing video games, but I earned that privilege with 7 and a half years in the Infantry and 2 deployments to Iraq…
This poll was conducted after the Paris and San Bernardino attacks so it captures the short term reactive emotional sentiment.
Also, millennials make up the overwhelming majority of the veterans of both Afghanistan and Iraq, and if we go into Syria in the next 2 years, they will make up the majority of troops going into Syria.
This “millennials are entitled takers” narrative is completely false. This generation is getting less from the government than any generation since the great depression.
If any generation is a taker generation it is the baby boomers that took the most over their lifetimes, ran up huge debts, and now are systematically dismantling the ladder they climbed because “we can’t afford it” though they pay less in taxes than any generation since WWII.
They will die leaving the country trillions in debt. Debt the millennials, bad boomers, and the next two generations will have to pay off over their lifetime.
How dare anyone over 40 call millennials “entitled” or “demanding government do everything for them”.
They will be paying off your entitlements for their entire lives. Long after you all are gone.
“bad boomers” is supposed to read “generation Xers”
Stuff it, carp. I’m out of corn and succotash. And you’re full of shit.
You are vile.
And you are a crashing bore.
Provably false. The “baby boom” generation is generally considered to be those born between 1946 and 1964, inclusive. That means the first “baby boomer” turned 21 in 1965; turned 30 in 1976; reached the minimum Social Security retirement age of 62 in 2008; and didn’t hit the normal retirement age of 65 until 2011. The last Baby Boomer won’t reach age 62 until 2028. Government spending on medical care and Social Security are the two largest categories of today’s Federal expenditures. The Baby Boomer generation has hardly received a penny from those two programs to date. And retirement is when people who’ve worked all their life receive the majority of any Federal entitlements they get – specifically, from Social Security and Medicare. The people “running things” in this country are typically those between about 40 and 60. That means the Baby Boomers weren’t really running things until about the time of the Clintoon Administration. The system was hosed far before then. If you want to blame anyone, blame those who jammed LBJ’s “Great Society” program through Congress in the mid-1960s – along with Carter’s ill-advised changes in social programs about a decade later. Those were the main causes of the US entitlement apparatus spinning out of control and becoming financially unsustainable – though FDR’s Social Security Ponzi scheme certainly didn’t help. News flash for ya: precious few policymakers or members of Congress during those years (1964-1980) were “Baby Boomers”. The oldest “Baby Boomer” was not even old enough to vote in any Federal election (or, in most states, to drink) when LBJ announced his “Great Society”. And precious few were in positions of influence during Carter’s asinine administration (1977-1981), either. The oldest Baby Boomers were 31 when Carter took office; the youngest were still not old enough to vote. By the way: since 2011, persons retiring are getting less in inflation-adjusted value from Social Security than the inflation-adjusted value of their contributions. Virtually all of them are Baby Boomers. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/07/new-retirees-receiving-less-in-social-security-than-paid-in-marking-historic.html Where I will fault the Boomer generation is in not standing up, en masse, in the 1980s when changes to… Read more »
You completely missed the point. The percentage of current spending is a reflection of changes that benefit the baby boomers.
In the past we spent much more on investing in our future generations, when the baby boomers were young, now we do not, but we shifted spending, as a percentage of budget to elderly care, while the baby boomers are older.
You took your whole lives and shifted the political economy to your advantage at every step.
Hey, carp, here’s a little something you should know: any time YOU get a government loan for school, you have to pay it back. But if you defer repayment too long, it will come out of YOUR retirement funds WITH interest compounded annually.
It’s already happening to a LOT of people who decided to hold off paying it back. Now, they’ll be paying on it right up to the day they die, and THEN it will continue to be paid back when their estates are settled.
Suck it up, buttercup. Ain’t no free ride nowhere.
No, I’m not “missing the point”. You’re trying to blame the Baby Boom generation for something they did not do. I’m simply calling you out for spouting horsecrap. The above is about what I’d have expected from someone who apparently thinks anyone “over 40” is a “Baby Boomer”. The youngest “Boomer” is today in their 50s. Those aged between 40 and 51 today are not “Boomers”; they from “Gen X”. The increasing percentage of Federal spending on Medicare and Social Security today is nothing more than a reflection of changing US demographics – changes that were predicted as far back as the late 1970s/early 1980s, if not earlier. The fraction spent on elder care today is larger because people are living longer; healthcare has also become relatively more expensive over the years. That means there are proportionally more elderly than 30 years ago, and it costs more to treat each. That’s all there is to it. That’s pretty simple math. I’d expect a Berkeley grad (or grad student) to “get it”. Further, those elders today receiving Social Security and Medicare are by and large NOT “Boomers”. Rather, they’re members of earlier generations. Most of the Baby Boom generation – specifically, those “Boomers” born between 1953 and 1964 – still haven’t reached age 62, much less 65. The oldest “Boomers” only started reaching retirement age a few years ago. So far, “Boomers” as a group have hardly begun to tap those Federal entitlements. The vast majority of Social Security and Medicare spending today is still going to support generations preceding the Baby Boomers. The “Baby Boom” generation was exactly that – a much larger than average cohort born over a roughly 20-year period (19 years, to be precise, 1946-1964 inclusive). It was preceded by a smaller than average 20-year cohort due to the combined effects of the Great Depression and World War II. The succeeding cohorts have also been smaller. Anyone who had a clue could look at those facts, along with declining average family sizes over time, and tell you a priori that Social Security (and, later, Medicare) was going… Read more »
Aren’t you supposed to play nice while Jonn is AWOL?
I am “playing nice”, DH. There’s not a single use of the words “idiot”, “imbecile”, “dumbass”, or “damn fool” in any of my replies to Taylor above.
At least you are not Vile, some people around here apparently are.
I blame all the debt on Tip O’Neal. He promised to cut spending once and for all.
I got to ride in a coup d’vile once…in a parade of assholes, with the mayor of Bungholio.
Pics or it didn’t happen. (smile)
Oh, I thought he said ‘veal’, or maybe misspelled ‘virile’.
Nope, I checked. It was ‘vile’.
I looked it up, cause I don’t remember that one on the GED.
vile
adjective
extremely unpleasant.
“he has a vile temper”
synonyms: foul, nasty, unpleasant, bad, disagreeable, horrid, horrible, dreadful, abominable, atrocious, offensive, obnoxious, odious, unsavory, repulsive, disgusting, distasteful, loathsome, hateful, nauseating, sickening,morally bad, wicked.
“as vile a rogue as ever lived”
and lastly it said:
of little worth or value.
And “POOF”, with a keystroke from L. Taylor’s keyboard, my 45 consecutive year work history goes up in smoke.
Should have stayed down on the farm and never saw Gay Paree.
Who the fuck are you to talk? Are you one of them that got participation trophies and was treated as a special snowflake when in elementary and high school? How many of the millennial generation have you met that haven’t acted like a spoiled child… remember Occupy Wall Street and the Free Shit Army? Go look at your precious university and others across this country where they are screaming over “microaggressions” and needing “safe spaces” because their fucking little feelings are hurt. Look at you whenever religion and the military are brought up, you’re the biggest pussy about it.
Commissar, fuck you and your fucked up world view… your head is so far up your ass that all you see is the back of your tonsils and adenoids.
Shut up, Taylor. Come back when you actually have a clue about what you’re discussing.
I think that if I would have designed the question, it might have been answered differently: “do you want America’s military to involve itself in a long term, 3-way (or more) clusterfuck where we’d be supporting the very smallest dots on the Syrian map–coincidentally dots that the Russian side would like to rub out perhaps even more than the isis side does?”
I’m certainly willing to accept corrections on my limited knowledge of the Syrian situation. Hopefully, I’m missing something.
[…] Obama Will Act On Gun Control, But No Change To Fiance Visa Program This Ain’t Hell: Millennials Are Fine With You Going To Iraq… Weasel Zippers: Terrific Ad Hitting Clinton, Obama – Leading From Behind Mark Steyn: Markey […]
That is pretty crazy. This basically says they want troops to needlessly die under the worst commander in chief the nation has ever had.
Just…..wow……
Luckily for me I don’t give a fuck what other people think.