Warriors vs. the War

Fresh assessment of which candidates active military service seem to prefer: the candidates on either side who opposed the Iraq war in the beginning, Ron Paul and Barack Obama. Via ABC News's political blog:

In the 4th quarter of 2007, individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services the No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, contributing industries, respectively. War opponent Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, received the most from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Another war opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was second with about $94,000.

The Center for Responsive Politics analysis that ABC relied on.

Comments

[Ayn_Randian]

For anyone who ever wants to make a crack about how all Soldiers and Sailors are ignorant, warmongering big-gubmint-loving miltaristic conservatives, recommend you bookmark this post and shut your mouth.

That's what we call a "preemptive strike".

[gorak]

Support the troops!

[Chris Potter]

Ayn_Randian,

I would expect people who've actually had to fight in wars would be the ones most opposed to unnecessary ones; for them the price paid must seem very real, as opposed to the video-game view of war that all too many of us here at home have.

[Bingo]

Chris:

I stumbled across a video of Call of Duty 4's (a realistic modern warfare game) hidden "Arcade Mode". In the normal version of the game, the goal is to survive and complete objectives. In "Arcade Mode" the goal is to get points and bonus multipliers by shooting people. Shoot them in the head and its worth more points! Kill enough people and you might even get an extra life!

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV8vVmtmVxU

I thought it was some pretty biting social commentary coming from a videogame, intentional or not.

[lunchstealer]

Why does the American Military hate America's Troops?

[Brandybuck]

Only a few days ago when Dondero was venting his spleen and turning the air blue over someone casually reporting the Ron Paul's military fundraising totals. The guy is seriously unstable.

[J sub D]

The troops are well aware of who supports the troops. Nobody hates war like the sane people who fight it.

[Shannon Love]

Just a note that the survey measures just absolute money contributed and not the number of individuals contributing. A small number of committed individuals who donate a disproportional amount will skew the results.

[John Thacker]

Besides the obvious point that fundraising is not the same as voting support (though I'm very open to arguments that it means more about depth of support and that votes are cheap and don't always mean that the voter has really weighed all the costs and issues), I also wonder if all the support was because of the war? Presumably much of it, but surprising as it may seem, someone may support Ron Paul for other reasons. (Though at times it seems like his supporters don't want such support.)

[Roger Maltz]

Brandybuck: Thanks for the link. What a psychopath! Delicious.

[John]

Most military officers do not contribute to candidates at all because they do not want to be considered partisian. Look at the dollar numbers here and then consider that there are 500+ thousand people in the Army alone. All this statistic says is that few people in the military contribute but of those who do they tend to contribute to anti-war candidates. It doesn't say anything one way or another about the overall committment to the war. It is really pretty meaningless.

[LT Nixon]

"Warriors vs. the War" is a bit too simplistic a moniker. I think a lot of us would like to see a responsible end to the war, which differs greatly from both the John McCain "100 years" plan and the Ron Paul "Let's get them out by the end of the week" plan.

[R C Dean]

What John said, which is reinforced by the high re-enlistment rate among units that have pulled Iraq postings.

[LarryA]

Just a note that the survey measures just absolute money contributed and not the number of individuals contributing. A small number of committed individuals who donate a disproportional amount will skew the results.
and
Most military officers do not contribute to candidates at all because they do not want to be considered partisan. Look at the dollar numbers here and then consider that there are 500+ thousand people in the Army alone. All this statistic says is that few people in the military contribute but of those who do they tend to contribute to anti-war candidates.

Excuse me. We're talking over $300,000 in contributions from 500,000 soldiers. Many of these folks live below the poverty level, and few of them are noticeably above average wage. I would almost guarantee that this represents a large number of small contributions, not a few wealthy soldiers "donating a disproportional amount."

It doesn't say anything one way or another about the overall commitment to the war.

Sort of true. Soldiers remain committed to winning because it's their mission. They'll reenlist because they're loyal to their service. But most warriors are quite capable of separating "This is our duty and we're going to do our best" from "The damn politicians got us into another stupid war." That has remained true at least since the Caesars sent legions to Gaul.

[sv]

I agree w/ LarryA