Join our editorial board by applying here or become a columnist at the Spectator by clicking here.
The Truth About the Academies
By Idris Leppla
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 7, 2007
The following is the first part of a four-part series. The author wishes to express that this article in no way reflects the feelings and thoughts of her brother. It is written from a family member’s perspective and is meant to be understood in that way.
I know why I chose Columbia: the campus is magnificent, the education is top-tier, and my peers are intelligent. I could look at a stranger, tell him or her that I went to Columbia, and hear the predictable, “Wow, you must be smart.”
When my brother was getting ready to go to the Naval Academy, everyone ooohed and awed about how brave he was. Aunts and uncles would say, “John, you must be one of thousands of kids who wanted to go—you must be so smart!” When he appeared unsure about whether he wanted to choose Navy or University of California, Berkeley, one uncle who works on Wall Street said, “John, businessmen love hiring people from the academies. You will be set for life.” With that kind of promised prestige, my brother found it tough to give up a spot at Navy. So in June, my family dropped him off in Annapolis.
Before he left, my family had countless talks about what it might mean to be at an academy. While we knew that someday he would be required to serve, we also were drawn to the top-tier education he was promised to receive. We were told that the Naval Academy was first and foremost an elite college. He would be able to learn history, economics, political science, and even engineering. He would play lacrosse on a nationally ranked team and play the bugle in the marching band. He would have seminars about leadership and selflessness. He would even go to school for free.
When I talked to my brother about why he wanted to go, he admitted that it was because he was drawn to the structure of the place—as a kid who did not want to sit around and drink beer during college, he liked the fact that he would be busy and have a purpose. I soon became comfortable with the idea of the academy, as if it would be a haven for my brother’s undergraduate career. And when people would congratulate me on my brother’s decision, it made me feel reassured.
Soon that pride turned to anger and fear: after my mom dropped him off at Annapolis, she came home with an acute sense of grief. The only thing she could talk about was how to get him out. In addition to missing his presence at home, she was scared by the extent to which her son had suddenly become the property of the U.S. Navy.
She begged me to call a naval lieutenant Monday morning to start the out-processing forms for my brother. After leaving countless messages for the lieutenant, he finally called me back, at which point he informed me that my brother would have to go through 13 exit-interviews to be dismissed, including an interview with the head of the Navy. When I asked him whether this might intimidate him out of leaving, the lieutenant reminded me that my brother had signed an oath legally binding him to the Navy. When I reminded the lieutenant that he had signed that oath after he had been yelled at all day and that his hair had just been shaven off during his first day there, he comforted me that John was not at all forced to sign the oath.
When I looked at the course catalogue, which boasted seminars about leadership and selflessness, they were in fact seminars about weaponry and leading troops into combat. The reality of sending my brother to the Naval Academy began to set in: this was not a school; this was the military. While they boast a first class education, the main goal of this institution was to get my brother “combat ready.” During the first two “induction days,” the head of the Navy openly admitted that their goal was to transform these boys into men who would willingly die defending our country. They said to my parents, “We will manage to do in 18 minutes what you could not do in 18 years—we will discipline your boys and have them calling you Sir and Ma’am.” When they talked of courage and bravery, they showed a video of a Navy marine rounding off an unlimited supply of ammunition. During my brother’s plebe summer (his first summer), he could not talk to us for more than a few minutes once a week for fear that we might unduly influence him.
My brother ended up liking Annapolis and he has decided to stay. While it has been difficult for me to accept that I have a brother in the military, I must allow him to pursue whatever path he is drawn toward, and he has admitted to me that he feels called to being there. However, for anyone else out there considering a career in the academy, let it be known: the U.S. Naval Academy is not an elite college; it is first and foremost a branch of the U.S. military and the prestige comes at a big price—it taxes parents, siblings, and participants if they do not understand what they were signing up for.
The author a Barnard College senior majoring in political science.
Personally....
I couldn't afford Columbia.
Sincerely,
MIDN. Hulsey ('12)
Class of 2012 reports on July 2nd! GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY.
I know I'm coming to this months after the thread petered out, but something has to be cleared up.
So much of what you assume is just that. An assumption, based on nothing more than false preconceptions.
I was a plebe once, and I graduated 11 years ago. Your brother was limited to a few minutes on the phone a week because Sunday morning (at least when I was there) is the only spare moment anyone has, first of all, and secondly, there are over a thousand people trying to use a small number of phones in the span of a couple of hours or so. There's a time limit so everyone waiting in line has a chance to call home. It has nothing to do with the Academy worrying about some supposedly insidious influence you'll have on your brother. The Academy encourages contact with and support from families, from recognizing the importance of written correspondence,to setting aside time for phone calls in a schedule that is otherwise full 7 days a week from before dawn until the late evening. And they have developed a number of programs that make it easy to send a note of encouragement, or a package of goodies from home.
Months have passed since you wrote your article. Perhaps by now, you realize the value the Navy places on family support, both to the servicemember and to the member's family. If not, it won't take long once your brother is out in the fleet.
I was an enlisted grunt in the USMC in the late 70's but I have the utmost respect for anyone who graduated from one of our fine military academies. My wife graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1989 and I KNOW that I would not have been do what she did. The hard core technical academics would have killed me (I'm a criminal justice major) during my freshman year even if I did have sufficent time to study without all of the military training and harassment by upperclassmen.
In addition she went through SERE (made some of the male cadets cry) during one summer and water survival and taught aerobics as well. This was during the time when the environment for females at the AFA was very challenging and some of things she went through went beyond hazing.
You can't get this type of experience at any ciivilian college. I would hire a military academy grad before an Ivy Leaguer anyday.
So where were we.......oh yeah, idris is still an idiot. Nice spam, trying to make idris look good huh?
Dear Idris
I have known you since you emerged from the womb, and always admired your accomplishments, determination, and success, in spite of complications.
My feeling is that you did your brother, and yourself, a disservice.
We all make mistakes, and we sometimes even learn from them
"The following the the first part of a four-part series." Please. America has been waiting for three months. Let the fun continue.
I guess parts two-four have been cancelled. Pity.
As a military member I could care less whether people thank me or not (although many do). I could care less if someone criticizes the military, or if they don't think highly of the Academies and even if they write about their dislikes.
However, as a college graduate, I am offended if a given criticism is blatantly fallacious, because there is no place in academic discourse for arguments based on shoddy (or no) research and outright wrong assumptions, as Ms. Idris' article is an example of. It demeans us all. A liberal arts education is supposed to prevent that. What is happening at Barnard?
Still standing by you Idris.
You. Have. To. Be. Joking. Standing by what? Her blatant lies? Her embellishments? Her ignorance? Her stupidity? Her intolerance of the military? Her imagined importance? Her assinine assumptions?
I stand by her brother. CONGRATULATIONS to him for being half-way through plebe year!
I concur and also stand by her brother (and all midshipmen). They turn their backs on a much easier road: four, probably aimless, years of college, binge-drinking, promiscuity, frivolity, etc. They choose not to suffer fools for four years - the avalanche of lies from arrogant, liberal professors. Instead they opt for four years of hardship, challenge, & adversity, which if they make it, they'll probably have the further burden of serving on some ship for several more years, to be always-ready on some patrol, in some remote ocean, protecting us while we sleep or chase our dollars. They are courageous, gallant, & chivalrous. If he and his classmates make it though, and I hope they do, they'll have the peace of mind of knowing they're living good and honorable lives.
When do we get to see Part 2? Part 1 was terrific. Don't disappoint!
Dear Idris,
The naivety and ignorance of your family is simply stunning, but I think it is typical of most Ivy-League bound children and their families. Be immensely proud of your brother - he is serving his nation in a way that few of his beer-drunken peers ever will. Be immensely supportive of him right now also - the first year at ANY service academy - be it West Point, Annapolis, Coast Guard, or the Air Force Academy - is the most difficult trial he will ever face. He does NOT need your doubts or your mother's doubts right now - he needs your absolute support and encouragement. Whether he stays or leaves the academy has to be his choice - don't influence it, because it is a really tough decision and he needs to make it on his own, as a man.
You are right in realizing the the US Naval Academy is not just an elite college. It is so much more than that. It is a stepping stone to an amazing career in public service, and it is an opportunity that very few people have. Yes, the US Navy does have a hold on your brother - if he completes his first two years. But remember that if he really does not want to be there, he can leave. I can guarantee you that no amount of exit interviews and paperwork will stop someone who wants to go. West Point and Annapolis don't want people who don't want to be there. There are plenty of other hardworking Americans who will be proud to step up and fill the void that your brother will leave, if he chooses to quit.
Your uncle is right, attending a service academy is a great way to ensure a future career with plenty of great opportunities on Wall Street. I should know - I'm working for Wall Street in a top law firm right now, after 4 years of active duty service in the United States Army. But there are plenty of MUCH easier ways to find a career on Wall Street. If that is your brother's sole motivation for attending Annapolis, he probably won't last. The Armed Forces of the United States are about public service and personal sacrifice - not about personal gain. That's why serving in uniform is the toughest job in the nation.
Last but not least, I think the question you should be asking yourself is why you have had such a hard time accepting that you have a brother in the military. I can easily understand if your reaction is based on a dislike of the war in Iraq. I served in Iraq, and was deeply disturbed by the conflict - to the point that I left active duty and went to law school. But that disenchantment does NOT carry over to the military itself. Just remember - the opportunities you have right now to attend a fancy Ivy League school like Barnard, write for the school newspaper, and party on the weekend would NEVER be present if it weren't for men and women like your brother, who are willing to lay down their lives to protect our great nation. I encourage you and your mother to take the time to participate in service programs for veterans. You may start learning some of the values that your brother is drawn to at Annapolis - courage, self-sacrifice, and public service.
Idris,
I am personally offended by your article. As a Class of 2012 hopeful to the Naval Academy, and as a participant of the Naval Academy Summer Seminar program, I must say that you cannot judge this academy before experiencing what it's like first hand. In addition to that, I also disapprove of you and your mother's actions concerning your brother's discharge from the Navy. You know what you sign up for when you enter an Academy, and your brother has his own freel will to make that choice. You need to be less judgemental and realize some people would do anything for their country, and for you, whether you agree with it or not. Next time, please be aware of the effects of undeducated assumptions. Just because you attend Colombia, doesn't mean you're intelligent.
she attends COLUMBIA not COLOMBIA. wow.
"Columbia", alright. That's an absurdly irrelevant detail. It has nothing to do with the topic.
As for the "wow" part, Colombia is a real place, a country, so it's possible for the poster to get the spelling of the other place confused. It's not as if Columbia is that important to most of us. There's no legitimate "wow" to it.
She doesn't attend ColUmbia, she attends Barnard. Not the same thing.
So where's part two? :D
Idris,
Due to your brother, you are very fortunate to have the opportunity to learn about the military and the military community, which has the deepest tradition and heritage in American society, and pre-dates the nation itself. Right now, your prejudices are getting in your way. I suggest you open your mind and take advantage of the opportunity. Embrace the military that is now part of your family.
The Academies are simultaneously top-notch educational institutions and military leadership training programs. It's not one or the other. Rather, one boosts the other.
Entering into an Academy isn't a draft. It's not even entirely like joining the real military. If you're entering an Academy as a civilian, you can leave quite easily as a civilian as long as you don't wait too long to drop out.
I should know. I dropped out of West Point in 1999 when I was a member of the West Point Class of 2003. Others did, too. More than a few left on the first day (R or Reception Day) when they were chased away by the purposely abrasive welcoming treatment or simply acted on the doubts they had all along. One cadet in my company was accepted to his 1st choice of Dartmouth off their wait list in late August (we had been at the Academy since late June) and literally was on his way home from West Point the next day.
There is a fairly careful multi-step exit process, but it's not like they chain you to your bunk. If you truly want out, they won't keep you there. In fact, at that point, they don't want you there.
Of course, maybe they do things differently at Annapolis.
Oh ... and Happy Veterans Day! If you want the inside scoop about the military life, there are many enlisted and commissioned military veterans attending Columbia right now as your classmates, including Academy graduates. Look up the campus group, US Military Veterans of Columbia University.
First of all, there are so many comments on this already, I haven't read them all, and I don't know if someone has already commented on this.
"However, for anyone else out there considering a career in the academy, let it be known: the U.S. Naval Academy is not an elite college; it is first and foremost a branch of the U.S. military"
"Considering a career in the academy?" Let me ask you this: when you applied to Barnard were you considering a career in Barnard? The academies aren't careers in and of themselves, they are the foundations for careers in national service. They also provide outstanding preparation for civilian careers - something I guess Barnard doesn't do.
"let it be known: the U.S. Naval Academy is not an elite college; it is first and foremost a branch of the U.S. military"
Ever considered the possibility that USNA is both an elite college and, as you put it, a "branch of the U.S. Military?" The academies are considered the some of the nation's best institutions for higher learning - or equal or greater caliber than the Ivies.
As for the latter half of your statement... I would have never guessed that it is "first and foremost a branch of the U.S. Military," after reading it's mission statement:
The mission of the United States Naval Academy is to develop midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically and to imbue them with the highest ideals of duty, honor, and loyalty IN ORDER TO PROVIDE GRADUATES DEDICATED TO A CAREER OF NAVAL SERVICE and have potential for future development in mind and character to assume the highest responsibilities of command, citizenship, and government.
Let's just hope that the USNA lives up to its mission and DOES provide graduates who will assume the highest responsibilities of command, citizenship, and government so we will not have to rely on Barnard graduates to assume those responsibilities.
When you say people "ooohed and awed," do you mean that they put so many vowels in the former that they inspired the latter?
Just out of curiosity what does your brother think? I bet he isn't sharing your masterpiece with his roommates at Bancroft.
Interesting. Though a West Point cadet, I'll try to be as non-polar as I can be. I can't be sure if you're being a stereotypical anti-military liberal, or a genuinely concerned family member.
Nonetheless, the facts remain. The Naval Academy, whose main purpose is to train future officers of the US Navy, is indeed one of America's top colleges. In fact, in the 2007 World News & Report college rankings, USNA ranked 20th out of all the colleges in America in liberal arts. Your family and brother were never "conned", "deceived", or "tricked". In fact, if he got accepted into the USNA, it means he wrote a superb college essay on the topic of becoming a future officer in the armed forces.
So bascially: Chill, yo.
I’m glad I didn’t receive my degree from Colombia if you’re the product of their educational system. You’re a complete idiot who doesn’t have clue or your degree, and your opinion, while guaranteed by the constitution does not mean you should share it; as it makes the rest of us with degree’s look like idiots too.
Randall
Randall,
I am glad too that you did not get your degree here because you cannot even spell right.
Columbia. For the love of god, please just get it right.
Idris:
You're an idiot.
Anonymously,
Anonymous
Way to blow national security secrets. Now our enemies know the Naval Academy is part of the Navy. Just try to keep quiet about the folks up in West Point and their questionable affiliation with the Army.
If everyone who goes to Columbia "must be smart", then clearly everyone who goes to Barnard and majors in political science "must be retarded."
Ha ha ha!
Really... no idea that the US Naval Academy was connected with the US Navy? Really... no clue huh? Really..?
You are insane. How old are you? The poly sci program at your school must suck. HOW IN THE NAME OF GOD DID YOU NOT KNOW THAT THE USNA STANDS FOR THE UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY!!! GET IT? NAVAL......NAVY. SWEET JESUS! I HOPE THAT IN MY LIFETIME THAT YOU NEVER GET IN A POSITION TO TEACH ANYONE BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT YOUR TOO SWIFT UPSTAIRS.
I have a PhD from Columbia and I teach at the Military Academy at West Point. I completely understand the author's feelings concerning her brother but I also don't think she is in a position to present "The Truth about the Academies." I know that I am not. She writes about her attempts to get her brother out of the Naval Academy. She really needs to consider whether it is fair to try to make that decision for him when she offers no indication that he would like to leave the academy (to the contrary, she says he chose to stay). Also, at least at West Point, if a cadet chooses to leave in the first two years, he/she is under no obligation to the military and I have known cadets who chose to leave.
Most of us agree we need a military. We just don't want our brothers/sisters/sons/daughters to be in it. I think that as a country we need to think more seriously about the men and women who put themselves at great risk (no matter how we feel about the given war). Ms. Leppla's brother is making a sacrifice and I hope not an uninformed one and I thank him for that.
"Most of us agree we need a military."
"Most of us"? Do you actually know people that think that we don't need a military? Are there people in this country - or anywhere, for that matter - that are this naive/utterly clueless? If so, they are perfect candidates for the Barnard College Political Science program.....
Just a quick point here: the author is probably not responsible for the "The Truth About The Academies" headline. Op-Ed writers usually don't get to write their own headlines, since they don't know how their article is going to be arranged on the page. Headlines are usually written by layout editors. I really doubt that Idris would've called her piece "The Truth About The Academies."
Sounds like you should have known that USNA wasn't just a college...it's in the name for cryin' out loud, the UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY. And during plebe summer, the reason that he wasn't allowed to talk to you for more than a few minutes was not because of you persuading him to leave...it was because he was being transformed from a civilian to a person of the military and all things such as talking on the phone, watching tv, etc. were forbidden. The same goes for military boot camp. It sounds like you and your mother were very unprepared. Also, if he can't think straight after getting his hair cut and getting yelled at, then he probably chose the wrong profession, let's try his friend next to him getting shot and more bullets flying his way, which is a definite possible being that we are at war. I realize that these views are yours, and I can imagine that your brother's are very different, as he is actually at the Academy and understands what it's all about, but you sound like you are against the ways in which the Academy has treated your brother. Well, know this, he can leave at any time and has chosen not to, which has absolutely nothing to do with you.
As a graduate of the AIr Force Academy, with more than 18 years service and currently commanding a unit in Europe (after serving under fire in Iraq), I proudly defend her right to express her opinion, even as she lives in ignorance of the larger system of politics and what it means. I also proudly know that I am free to ignore her opinion and continue serving with the thousands--a small portion of our population--who defend our nation and its interests.
First of all, you chose Columbia because people would look at you and the first words out of their mouth would be "Wow, you must be smart?" The fact that you chose this quote to open up an article which criticizes your brother's decision to serve his country, shows how self centered and shallow you truly are. The measure of your character lies completely in that first paragraph. You are the perfect example of what is wrong with our country today.
That being said, I consider myself a fairly liberal and open minded person. I enjoy a good political debate or a social argument. Debating the morality and purpose of the military is a healthy thing and I respect a person's concern for a family member who may be put in harms way.
Unfortunately, for a young woman at an Ivy League who is supposed to be "smart", the author failed miserably and produced an incredibly unfounded and unintelligible argument. As a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, I can honestly say that her account of what happened is 95 percent fabrication (which isn't surprising since she seems to consider herself an expert yet she has never spent one day inside the halls of one of the Academies). I am not only very familiar with the college recruiting techniques of USMA, but I am also familiar with the techniques of USNA, USAFA, and USCGA, all of which I applied and received appointments to. There is zero deception and they tell you point blank what to expect and what you owe the government at the end of your schooling. YES. They are extremely fantastic tier one institutions of higher learning. They are top notch and are honestly the number one leadership labs in the United States. There are a plethora of majors to choose from and contrary to popular belief, the majority of your classes have nothing to do with war and would probably mirror the course catalog of a tier one civilian university any day. I had friends who studied art, philosophy, and literature. Others found their niche in comparative politics. Some chose to study French while others found mechanical engineering to be a bit more fascinating. Yes, we are diverse intellectuals just like you "smart" Ivy Leaguers. Fortunately for us, we also athletes and in far better shape...Which leads me into my next point...
YES. There is training in preparation for leadership in combat which is a primary goal. But any family who honestly believes their son/daughter/brother/sister is going to attend a service academy and never see combat must be mentally delusional. There are no smoke and mirrors in their recruiting techniques. What you see is what you get. AND YES. Civilian companies love to hire service academy graduates because of their education, intelligence, leadership, and critical thinking skills.
Ms. Leppla, this is an article I would expect to see from a high school sophomore. It lacks research and is completely inaccurate (I would bet a million dollars that the separation process does not involve 13 interviews with one from what you call "the head of the navy"..aka the Chief of Naval Operations), and remarkably (or perhaps unremarkably) naive. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But opinions are one thing; an actual well founded argument is another.
Let's hear what a 60 folk rock troubador has to say:
He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.
He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.
And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.
And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.
But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.
He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.
Dear Idris,
Please know that I still stand by you and you make me proud for daring to take a stand that is not easily understood by the hot-headed people today. Rest assured that your article will be seen in a very different light in the future.
Let me guess................another 'you're so smart' Columbia student? Please just stop before you embarrass yourself any further. You just do not understand the difference between opinion and fact. Sad, sad, sad, generation.
This sad generation will dictate the future better.
How so? I do hope someone can. I am genuinely interested in your ideas. That isn't my comment above, I am simply intrigued by your response. Thank you.
The current college generation, speaking from my observations around Columbia, are politically active and most care more about unifying people under common causes rather than dividing them. That is not to say that there aren't exceptions. But generally, people respect each other's views here. Most of the comments you see in this section are not from current Columbia students, they are from alums or offended parents of military officials. (Others that are critical of Idris are insecure first year Columbia College first-year students who come here without being fully aware of the colleges that are of vital importance to the university; we get that were all the time. Most are females who suffer from social competition with Barnard women, but they grow up soon enough. These students are not aware of the history of Columbia University, they do not know that Barnard has been the female branch of Columbia from 1889, whereas Columbia College for women opened up in 1982!)
I believe this future generation can dictate the future because it is generally more liberal and open to other people's opinions. If they keep on being open, they will make better decisions in the future. They, as government officials, will not jump into a war in Iraq without sufficient evidence, they will not push for a war in Iran when it is economically stupid or refuse the Iranian President (no matter how radical) an audience when he repeatedly tries to talk to them, they will not lead an unsuccessful war in Afghanistan, they will only act in defense against the specific person who hurts them. They will not hurt innocent civilians in another country and expect to be safe and secure themselves. It is my hope as a member this younger generation, you may call it naivety, I call it faith. Faith in a better, less-selfish future. If no one else, I will trying to make a little contribution to this world by promoting ideals of kindness and fairness.
Sorry about my grammatical errors, it is 2 in the morning. I am just pointing it out because my views have often been attacked on the basis on my poor English.
Do you just not get it or did you not read the plethora or previous posts? Folks don't have an issue with her "taking a stand" (against what, I'm not sure) or having an unpopular point of view. Everything she said is wrong and has been proven so a hundred times already. You are defending someone who did zero recearch and has an uninformed opinion. If she said the USNA sucked and provided actual facts, she may get lit up by folks but would at least have a leg to stand on. The article was not "easily understood" because it contained about as many facts as MAD magazine. There will be no "different light" in the future. Ignorance will always be ignorance. You two should join each other at the library and learn how to conduct a research project.
Don't worry, I get it. Are are both political science students who did their share of research. There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion out of concern for one's brother. It is her feelings that she is reporting, she is not presenting wrong facts, she claims that she did not know somethings about the Navy. How people have attacked her with baseless personal attacks sound more uninformed to me than her article. As for reading the comments, I have read all 854 and I am writing number 855.
I think you should re-read her article and look for how she presents her "opinions" and "feelings." She states them as absolute facts, and given how demonstrably inaccurate they are, it's not surpising that she's been called on it.
No, you're still lost here. No research was done. As I mentioned earlier, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion but backing it up with inaccurate informaiton makes you look foolish. So are you saying that someone can make any claim they want as long as they preface it with the caveat that they don't know everything? That's exactly the point, she didn't bother to get any information and being a political science major has nothing to with it. Is that supposed to buy some sort of free pass or get people to say, "Oh, she's a poli sci major, she MUST have done her homework on this one?" She's an undergrad and is therefore capable of mistakes. I have a doctorate in economics and still screw up from time to time. I agree that the personal attacks are out line but you need to agree that this article has no factual basis. It wasn't presented as an editorial or a random rant. It was presented as fact and is now open to public scrutiny. She can write about her concern for her brother or her emotional distress without telling blatant lies about the Naval Academy.
I think her more extreme opinions are being taken as lies. We are all capable of mistakes. The reason I am defending her today is because people have been very unfair to her, they have attacked her in every possible level just because she wrote something controversial in a college newspaper's OP ed. section. It is an OP ed. article and that is precisely why her opinions are on this article. It is very unfair to attack her personally and call her a fool for her opinions. I don't deny that she could have made mistakes, but I think everything in this article has more to do with her opinions than facts she wanted to present. She wanted to warn people based on how she felt about the Academy, people are really exaggerating this. My reason so mentioning her political science concentration was because I think this field gives the opinionated person more of a voice to say that he/she feels is right/wrong. I think, Idris is most likely this stance for that reason.
Additionally, the political science student can bring up their share of sources to defend their position, this is my belief. But after the brutal attacks on her, I don't think she will attempt to.
Your comments and 'insight' of the U.S. Naval Academy are extremely uninformed and ignorant; bordering the lines of conspiracy theory. I can appreciate your concern for your brother, and your mother's separation anxiety, but please don't pass judgment on an institution of which you really have no clue. I am a graduate of the Naval Academy and would never criticize or pretend to understand the complex viscera of Columbia. Please redeem yourself in the next segment of this series; stop being an expert and admit you have no idea. The truth is, the Naval Academy builds brave men and women who courageously handle the most stressful situations whether they occur on the battlefield or in the conference room, without making them into mindless war mongers. That kind of character is not built sipping a latte while quietly reading at the corner Starbucks...
Dear Idris:
Your brother is very lucky to have a sister who loves him enough to care about his choices. I am a Marine Corps veteran. I graduated from Harvard Extension Division (Harvard's version of General Studies). I attended it on the GI Bill. Now I am a lawyer. I am proud of my service. But it is not for everyone. Vets need neither brag nor feel unloved. We chose to do what we did, for whatever reasons. But I am as close to certain as I can be that if no one else understood what your brother was siging on for, he did.
Ms. Leppla, you may have chosen Columbia, but Columbia sure as hell didn't choose you. I am still waiting for Part Deux, s'il vous plait.
not sure why it's so horrifying that the author is concerned for her brother. Maybe some of the people commenting here should take an extended vacation to Baghdad instead of wasting their time with these childish and pointless insults
Since you obviously have not actually read any of the comments, I'll fill you in. Many of the commenters are service members who graduated from the Academies and who HAVE been on "extended vacation" in Iraq. Like Ms. Leppla, you have failed to do proper research; therefore, your comments must be intended merely to slander and discredit without having any fact based merit.
Most of the negative commenters are Navy folks and the vast majority of them would never make it anywhere near a battlefield (or any combat whatsoever). Medics and Naval Aviators are the small exception.
Actually, being a graduate of that fine institution, I know for a fact that my friends who I graduated with: Marines, SEALs, Aviators, and even surface warfare officers have been on the ground. Several officers who were company officers from the academy were sent over on individual augmentation to coordinate supply convoys who were pilots and other warfare specialty officers. Also, there's something called a boarding party. Yes, we still board other ships in the Navy. These men and women are trained in close-combat and are the ones who go on board a ship and search for smuggled arms and other contraband. They do not know whether or not somebody is waiting on board to do them harm. SO yeah their definitely far from the line of fire...
So to summarize your post: The vast majority of Navy folks never see any combat whatsoever. The small exception is aviators (who I mentioned), Marines (who aren't in the Navy, just ask them), SEALs (a very small fraction of the Navy, some are Marines), and sailors involved in individual augmentation (no more than 4% of the Navy). Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt with your boarding parties, that would still leave about 90%+ of Navy servicemen out of harm's way. You can pretty much invert that number when it comes to the Army or Marines.
I understand that sailors would love to bask in the reflected glory of those servicemen bearing the lion's share of the responsibility when it comes to actual fighting, but there are some of us out there who actually see right through the bs (and I'm not talking about just the Marine Corps either).
Anyway, thanks for your reply.
1. A severed 3-wire will kill you just as fast as a 3-round burst.
2. SEALS ARE NOT MARINES, AND MARINES ARE NOT SEALS. Good grief.
My fault, I also forgot to mention:
3. As of 2007, over 46,000 SAILORS had served in IA billets. Obviously, the lion's share of ground-pounding billets belong to the ground-pounders, but don't minimize the contribution that ANY service provides for a JOINT effort. (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/l...)
There are plenty of people in all branches of the armed forces who, because of the luck of the draw or the nature of their jobs, never hear a shot fired in anger. Others face a certain amount of danger, but the odds against their being killed or wounded are long. Some few in the most dangerous jobs (e.g. infantry, special ops) assume most of the risk.
It's always been this way, of course. Behind every infantryman there are half a dozen other soldiers whose mission is to keep the former supplied with ammunition, food and water; to maintain his personnel and pay records, to treat his wounds and illnesses, etc., etc. Most civilians have no idea whatsoever of the enormous logistical effort required to maintain a sizeable fighting force in the field. Such work may be unglamorous and compared with the mission of the infantry it isn't particularly dangerous, but it is essential. Mocking or belittling such service betrays a certain lack of class.
Incidentally, if you think that serving at sea is a nice, safe, easy gig, you should talk to my brother. He served in the Navy as an engine mechanic on a carrier back in the Eighties, with one deployment in particular lasting well over 100 days at sea with no port call.
I wouldn't call the Air Force a ground combat branch either, but all of the people I've spoken with in support jobs commented that they got used to the daily mortar attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. They may never see the enemy in combat, but to say that those who work in support roles never face danger is not an accurate statement.
And if I were to have said that, you'd be right.
Navy folks never see combat, huh? Tell that to the sailors of the USS Cole. Tell that to the 17 grieving family of the sailors who died on that ship in October 2000. Ask the survivors of the USS Princeton, a carrier in the battle of Leyte Gulf in WWII where 200 sailors died under attack froim Japanese forces. Or the 80 on the cruiser USS Birmingham which had pulled up alongside to the Princeton to pull sailors off and help with the firefighting. Or why don't you contact the families of the 34 navymen who lost their lives when the Israeli's attacked the USS Liberty in 1967. There are countless other examples but then I do not want to do the research you should have done before you embarrassed yourself with your idiotic and ignorant statements about the US Navy.
Have you ever served your country? Have you ever sacrificed anything except a weekend lost to a hangover? These brave men and women in uniform are out there EVERYDAY protecting your right to remain comfortable in your armchair spewing forth your sanctimonious tripe. How about honoring their decision to sacrifice for the benefit of others? All uniformed personnel deserved to be treated with respect REGARDLESS of thier function in the military or even the branch of service.
I am a retired Naval Aviator who saw a lot of combat. To disrespect a Navy (or military) person is to disrespect all of us. We are a team and we don't need losers like you who do not understand what it means to operate as a team or even to sacrifice something that is sacred to you. Grow up!
If you read to the top of this specific of comments, you'll see that all of this is set in the context of serving in Iraq, today. My point stands: In the contemporary Navy, the vast majority will never see combat.
It's attitudes like the one found in your second paragraph that motivate me to write the antagonistic things I do. You feel entitled to a sense of surperiority over citizens because you chose to serve. You weren't drafted. You weren't conscripted. You chose to serve because it was the right choice for you. Maybe because it gave you brotherhood, maybe because it gave a sense of honor, maybe because it gave you character to serve the country...what it didn't give you was the right to claim that you're the guarantor of my American freedoms.
Guess what Mav? If our rights were ever really in danger, I'd do exactly what normal American citizens like me have done for the past 200 years, I'd join the service and fight. And then I actually would be protecting the rights of the citizens. But it does not follow that I can just join the Navy and lay claim to all the glory of the veterans that came before me.
Well, SEALs are all Navy (although some Marines will go on missions with the SEALs). The Marines are technically a part of the Navy. I will concede that if I told a lance corporal he was part of the Navy I may have a fist flying at my head. But nonetheless they are under the Department of the Navy. However, I think you don't understand the military at all. A true service member doesn't "bask in the reflected glory" of those who have a much more dangerous job than themselves. You don't have ground mechanics for the Marine Corps aircrews talking about how daring they are to fix airplanes. They do their job to the best of their abilities. This goes for anyone on board ship within the Navy. This goes for anyone within the military or in the civilian sector. You are essentially belittling the sacrifices these men and women have made being away from their families for up to 10-12 months at a time. I concede they may not all be under fire. However they are making a sacrifice for their nation. Who deserves more respect, the Marine or Soldier who is going door to door in Iraq with a rifle or the lowly Third Class Petty officer on board a ship in the Persian Gulf away from his wife and child ensuring that the gas turbine is running properly? Both are making a sacrifice. I agree that one has more danger than the other but both had the moral conviction to become a part of something greater than themselves. And I say again, any service member who has seen action will not brag, will not boast, for the most part they will be proud they did their job well and ask for nothing in return but a thank you from the American citizenry.
I pretty much agree with everything you said.
Please note that I never questioned the fact that serving in the military is a sacrifice. However, for some it's much more of a sacrifice than for others. For some it's a salvation from a dead-end path. For others it's an opportunity for training they could otherwise never afford or obtain.
My caustic line of argument is mainly aimed at those who want to tell me that I owe them thanks for my freedoms because they signed up to sail the Indian Ocean for a few years.
Then basically what you're saying is that these individuals, who are few and far between, who demand respect for protecting your freedoms being on board ship are in the wrong? However, you acknowledge the fact that they are making a sacrifice for the nation? That protection and sacrifice is one in the same. You agree that they are making a sacrifice. These sailors will not demand your respect for putting their neck in the line of fire but for making a sacrifice to support and defend the Constitution. If it wasn't so much of a sacrifice, and such a great opportunity I'm sure many more people in the U.S. would volunteer for naval service. These individuals, as I said before, have the moral conviction to become a part of something greater than themselves. We do acknowledge the fact that most of our sailors won't be in direct contact, but they are supporting the overall operation in Iraq. I could try to argue with you for weeks and still your view of military service would not change. Every military member has an internal understanding of the dangers they actually face and will never "demand thanks" for their protection of American freedoms, but when you belittle one branch of the military you insult the entire military. Between the services there will always be rivalry; it’s a friendly kind of competition that people outside view as a bitter rivalry between services where one is sacrificing more than the other. The military is like a family. We can pick on each other, but when somebody outside our family decides to pick on one of us, you are insulting all of us, hence the term brothers-in-arms. Each service member will shoulder their load and do their duty. There will always be competition between the services, but in the end we’re all on the same team, for the same reason and when a person insults the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and even the Coast Guard, that person is insulting the entire military whether they like it or not.
1) I never said I don't respect them (my caustic comments notwithstanding). However many folks are asking me to concede that they allow me my rights and freedoms. Folks making this claim throughout the 800+ comments here are not few and far between. It is this holier-than-thou attitude among some servicemen (and their ilk) that is irritating to me and I want to point out that it is underserved (especially by those who, comparatively speaking, are not truly in peril [i.e. most of the Navy]).
2) Your assertion that no one is demanding respect / thanks / recognition is severely contradicted by about 400 or so of the comments here. Anyone else who has read through them all would have to agree with me.
3) Why do you include your point about being insulted? Go back through this thread and you'll see that I have posted only facts. I can't help it if you find those facts insulting.
Well these people do give you your freedom do whether you admit to it or not. If the U.S. Navy were to withdraw all combat forces (carrier battle groups, Amphibious Ready groups, Expeditionary Ready groups and the like) there would be constant strife throughout the World. I know this sounds like a “what if” scenario but if you were to truly think about it the World is not a safe place where peace and harmony reign. We would all, military members included, love for their to be an end to war, but as long as humans are human someone is always going to want something another has, it's called envy. This base behavior is exhibited by all individuals. America being the wealthiest nation in the World is blessed to have the freedoms we have and the sacrifices that have been made to put our country head and shoulders above many other countries in the world. This could not have occurred had it not been for the Armed Forces. I know you acknowledge this fact and propose that the World situation has shifted. Indeed it has shifted. However there is still a need for each part of the military to serve its purpose in protecting the freedoms we enjoy. The Armed Forces as a whole are a team. Without the Air Force some of our troops would be left under strength and out gunned from time to time. Without the Navy, we would not have a means of power projection throughout the World. The Army is not a highly mobile force designed to be light and nimble and be easily deployable. The Navy/Marine Corps team is one that is a force rapidly forward deployable from the sea and has experience in expeditionary type warfare. The Carrier battle group is a very intimidating thought to enemies of the United States. This is why we have deployed them off the coast of Korea and near Taiwan in the past if some other country is being threatened. It is indeed an effective deterrent. If we did not have a Navy you can observe the large powers in the past that have fallen for lack of a maritime force. Also, you clearly don't understand what I'm getting at when I say "insulted." Facts may be facts, however someone who is not in the military making light of these facts is not going to be well received by anyone, and this includes Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. We are all one big team. Each man or woman does their part and even if it is a small part it contributes to the whole, which is what being part of a team constitutes. I have read some of these posts that you claim to be service members who are "demanding" respect. Why shouldn't you respect them? I know that respect is earned and not instantly rewarded for putting on a uniform; however it's a little hard to judge the quality of someone's character from an online forum. I don't know these people, and you don't either. For most service members, respect and thanks go hand in hand. People who are reluctant to thank someone for sacrificing for themselves is just kind of mean spirited in general military or not. With regards to the "Holier-than-thou" attitude, most people who are outside the military don't understand the type of commitment it is and the hardships a person endures. I agree there is a problem with anyone who has an entitlement complex. However, the entire root of this thread and many others through the near 900 comments is the fact that some people in America treat the military with disdain. You may not be one of those individuals and you might be, I don't know you. This firestorm of comments was set off by an uninformed individual who takes offense to even the thought of a member of her family being part of the Armed Forces. I specifically said Armed Forces and not Navy because you seem to distinguish between the two. Military personnel will distinguish between the two when it comes to who is really in the shite. However, for a civilian or make light of the fact that one member of the Armed Forces is making less of a sacrifice for their country that tends to set people off, as you have witnessed.
I won't belabor the point any more. You make some strong points and you clearly aren't the intended target of my disdain even if you picked up the bait.
I recognize that unless we somehow achieve a global utopia, there will always be a need to guard our freedoms and rights. This means that sometimes Americans will have to kill people and sometimes Americans will end up being killed. That is the unfortunate reality. Thankfully I have won the birthplace lottery and I ended up in this country at a time when it has the strongest military force ever known to man. Historically speaking, however, this was not always the case (see US military forces circa 1941...less men in service than Romania) yet normal civilians who were otherwise uninclined to join the military answered the bell and Western civilization was saved.
Ok, my axe is fully ground...sorry if you were insulted.
I would just like to extend some courtesy that you deserve, valid points were made and this kind of healthy debate is what really engages a person's intellect. You are correct that I picked up the bait, but I'm not really a person who defines myself by my military service, it is only a part of who I am, and that is different from person to person. The debate was appreciated.
1. Service members nonetheless. And if you truly believe that the military does not operate as a unified team than you are uninformed indeed. Google "individual augmentation" and educate yourself.
2. Over 250 graduates from every class at the Naval Academy become US Marine Corps officers.
3. Many are West Point and Air Force grads as well.
Again I find myself responding to statements with little or no merit or intelligent research behind them.
The individual augmentation program will affect no more than 4% of sailors. Maybe you should Google it and educate yourself before replying with suggestions that actually weaken your point.
1) That's super, but notice that you didn't disagree with my claim.
2) Notice that I didn't say anything about the Marines.
3) Most are Navy folks.
Thanks for your reply.
You are retarded. You have not the slightest clue what it means to serve for your country or have the desire to do so. You have no clue what this place represents or the history behind it. You have offended over 15o years of honorable men and women who have graduated from this institution, served their country selflessly, and gone on to become presidents, senators, congressmans, and productive citizens in American society. You hav the right to your opinion, but your opinion sucks. Do some research. I'd like ot hear back from you.
Barnard girls REALLY need to stop telling everyone they go to Columbia.
WORD
BTW Ms. Leppla, where's part 2? My bf (a USNA '04 grad) and I have been looking forward to it for quite some time now.
-Georgia CC '06
I have been hoping to be entertained by a "part II" for a month now. Perhaps Ms. Leppla has declined to write it because she has gained a new perspective by reading all the comments.
Be grateful that your brother is learning to save lives while you sit in your ivory tower and write shitty articles.
As the mother of a cadet at West Point, what surpised me most was how little research you and your mother had done in advance. When my son mentioned in high school that he was interested in the academies, after my initial bout of laughter and a few weeks trying to figure out if this was just a passing phase, I made him do some homework, and did some of my own. I read everything I could find about the West Point experience, including watching a 12-part National Geographic video about "student life" and training at West Point. He visited, talked to students, and did some of his own soul searching. By the day we dropped him off, even though I hadn't originally been thrilled about the prospect, I figured what he needed was support from his family, and I had come around to support his decision. Most important, I was painfully aware of the "culling process" and the fact that students who drop out are not replaced at the academies. Most classes start with 1300 or more cadets and graduate well under 1,000. I didn't want him to show up on day 1, unless he was totally committed to the prospect. Admittedly, there are reasons why students may not last for 4 years, but given the need for officers in our current conflicts (whether you support the war in Iraq or not), I consider it irresponsible to go off to a service academy to see if you like it, with an expectation of dropping out. There are too many students who would die for a chance to be trained at one of the academies, who would stick it out and graduate, and too much need for officers. It sounds like your brother had done his homework, but you and your mother had not.
I spent 30 yrs in the USN, joining as a 'boot' recruit...enlisted. When I joined I was a emotional and social misfit, probably gained from not having had a father for most of my upbringing, as well as a overly religious mother. I spent 30 yrs in the USN rising to Warrant status then a commission and retiring as a Commander. I got not only an education but a sense of purpose in my life learing what I should have as a kid. While stationed at Annapolis as Security and Communications Officer in the 70s I really learned what hypocrites most politicians are. My #1 son decided on his own he wanted to attend, and we found anl appointment for him. The Academies provide what most civilian schools do not....a sense of personal discipline....a challenge and it sure as hell does build character. Most socialists/liberals in the country HATE the idea of individual achievement and in-depth education. I think the lady's foregoing letter regarding her brother to be the product of total self centered liberalism.
As long as you're trumpeting "individual achievement," please consider individual opinions as well. There's no need to turn this into a "socialists/liberals" vs... what? conservatives, I assume? dogfight. Frankly, the assertion that "socialists/liberals... HATE the idea of individual achievement and in-depth education" is making my brain break just a little.
The author of this article is an ill-informed idiot, and I say that as a vaguely-socialist-leaning liberal with huge respect for anyone in the armed forces (not to be confused with, say, support for the war in Iraq, because that's a totally different issue). I personally would never join the armed forces. I'm not cut out for it, I recognize that, and I kind of envy people who are and do. But that's not what I'm meant to do with my life, and I'm just glad there are people-- such as this person's brother-- who feel differently about their own lives.
This young woman is self-centered, definitely. A liberal? It's quite likely. That doesn't mean her sheltered, ignorant point of view is in any way representative of liberals as a whole. Unfortunately, sheltered and ignorant people span the entire political spectrum.
So.
How's that Part II working out for you?
Dear Idris
Your realization that the Naval Academy is first and foremost a branch of the Military is quite telling.
To get this far into your life and only then realize that the purpose of MILITARY Academies is
to produce MILITARY leaders belies your statement that Columbia produces smart people. Grow up.
You go to Columbia? “Wow, you must be smart.”
I went to a third-tier state univeristy in the Midwest...I must be a drooling idiot!
In all likelihood... yes
maybe
maybe
... maybe
You begin by saying,
I know why I chose Columbia: the campus is magnificent, the education is top-tier, and my peers are intelligent. I could look at a stranger, tell him or her that I went to Columbia, and hear the predictable, “Wow, you must be smart.”
Idris, your own ego and self importance aside, I suggest you rethink what your definition of "smart" may be. Intelligence is about encompassing all information, all sides, all viewpoints and keeping an open mind to things you may disagree with, or, as in this case, know nothing about. Enjoy your self importance and artificial sense of superiority to others who may not be as "enlightened" as you apparently think you are. It comes to you courtesy of the very people you seem to disparage in your article and by your attitude. The following puts it best;
It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer,
Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the Soldier, not the lawyer,
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the Soldier, who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protestor to burn the flag
Father Dennis Edward O'Brien United States Marine Corps
This is asinine for two reasons:
1) You are about the 200th person to repeat this in some form on this thread.
2) It's not accurate. Our founding documents acknowledge that our rights are given to us by God. They may have been defended by soldiers but not in the current war or any war since WWII. In WWII, virtually all able citizens signed up to do their part (or were drafted). Before that it was the Civil War (where our God given rights were fought FOR by some soldiers against other soldiers who fought to restrict them) and before that it was the Revolutionary War.
In other words, please shut up with this crap. You can't enlist in the service and then suddenly claim the right to say you've given me my freedoms. I promise you that if my freedoms were ever truly in jeopardy, I and others like me would line up for miles to defend them...and you'd salute us because we'd be officers.
Not to be the one to jump on the bandwagon, but are you serious? You really think that your freedoms have only been threatened since World War II? What do you call the post-WWII period? Oh, that's right, the Cold War. The US military served a pretty effective deterrent to the Soviet Union. The threat of nuclear war kept both powers at a stand still and preserved the overall picture albeit with the occurrence of a few "police-actions." I would admit that Vietnam and Korea didn't necessarily directly threaten the rights of US citizens directly; however the spread of communism within Asia could have served to destabilize the region which could have led to a scenario we cannot predict. Furthermore, the threat of boots on the ground truly serves as a deterrent for our enemies. If you don't believe me, just look up how Libya has backed down in recent years from its stance of supporting terrorism. Terrorism which could infringe on your right to, oh that's right, live and breathe the free air of our country. Your response just shows your disdain for the military. Additionally, if there was a mandatory service commitment the entire US citizenry would have a greater appreciation for their freedoms, which some people have, seem to take for granted.
Not to be the one to jump on the bandwagon, but are you serious? You really think that your freedoms have only been threatened since World War II? What do you call the post-WWII period? Oh, that's right, the Cold War. The US military served a pretty effective deterrent to the Soviet Union. The threat of nuclear war kept both powers at a stand still and preserved the overall picture albeit with the occurrence of a few "police-actions." I would admit that Vietnam and Korea didn't necessarily directly threaten the rights of US citizens directly; however the spread of communism within Asia could have served to destabilize the region which could have led to a scenario we cannot predict. Furthermore, the threat of boots on the ground truly serves as a deterrent for our enemies. If you don't believe me, just look up how Libya has backed down in recent years from its stance of supporting terrorism. Terrorism which could infringe on your right to, oh that's right, live and breathe the free air of our country. Your response just shows your disdain for the military. Additionally, if there was a mandatory service commitment the entire US citizenry would have a greater appreciation for their freedoms, which some people have, seem to take for granted.
Hmmm...you tell the author of the previous post to "shut up with this crap". I can only assume you wish to restrict that persons rights in some fashion to better your own opinion. This is typical of a person with a weak argument or position, just as changing the topic of a discussion is, as you seem to want to do. So, apparently your rights supercede all others rights? Interesting...
I am REALLY curious about what you meant when you wrote:
"the Civil War.. where our God given rights were fought FOR by some soldiers against other soldiers who fought to restrict them...
Honestly, the only thing I can get from this is that you think that owning slaves was a "God given right" - and that the Union soldiers were the ones restricting them. I've tried reversing it, and it doesn't work
Wow. You don't see this often when you combine pro-slavery, states' rights, racism with anti-military peacenik philosophy.
Clearly, you fail to consider either that slaves could have God given rights or that they are Americans.
Happy to enlighten you:
"where our God given rights were fought FOR by some soldiers " <--- Union soldiers fighting for the rights of slaves.
"against other soldiers who fought to restrict them" <--- Confederate soldiers fighting to preserve the institution of slavery.
Sorry you had so much difficulty with that...didn't seem that hard.
To further rain on all of your civil war parades, you should all study your history. The war was not in least about slavery until Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address. The address' sole purpose was to make the war about slavery to ensure that Great Britain would not recognise the Confederacy as a sovereign nation.
In truth, both sides were right. The south fought FOR the constitutionally gauranteed rights being infringed upon by a growing central government (Lincold suspended Habeas Corpus, ignored states rights, enacted amendments to the constitution without ratification, illegally occupied states of the union, etc). The north fought FOR the unity that they interpreted the constitution to gaurantee. To say that the war was about slavery is a gross simplification of the issues leading up to and encompassing the American Civil War, and typically a fairy tail that history books (written by the victor) tell to justify having permanantly decimated the southern agricultural economy (still hasn't recovered from sherman's march to the sea).
Food for thought: Slave owners made up only the super rich in southern society, a vast minority, and did not typically fight in the war. The confederate army was made up of normal everyday farmers and middle to lower class people, ie NOT SLAVE OWNERS. So, if they weren't fighting for the slaves that they don't own, ask yourself what ten million Americans would fight for. If you want to use history for your arguements, become better informed.
All your sophistry and wishful thinking aside, the war was about slavery.
And in reply to your comment that the southern agricultural economy was "permanently decimated" during the war, there are two points to be made:
1) War is hell.
2) The sociological explanation for the South remaining underdeveloped and backwards for decades after the war was the fact that the use of slave labor diminished the need to develop technological advancements in agriculture and industry. The diminished need for technological advancements made for a diminished need for higher education as well.
All your sophistry and wishful thinking aside, the war was about slavery.
And in reply to your comment that the southern agricultural economy was "permanently decimated" during the war, there are two points to be made:
1) War is hell.
2) The sociological explanation for the South remaining underdeveloped and backwards for decades after the war was the fact that the use of slave labor diminished the need to develop technological advancements in agriculture and industry. The diminished need for technological advancements made for a diminished need for higher education as well.
1) If 199 people already called you out on this, imagine how stupid the article must have been for the 200th person to reiterate what they said, even if it is beating a dead horse. It doesn't make the 200th person asinine for repeating it, rather it further proves how the article is asinine.
2) The thought of the American fighting man is a powerful deterrence. If this deterrence weren't there, your freedoms would be in grave danger. God may have given you your freedoms, but His will is manifested through earthly means. These fighting men don't usually need to fight a war to protect your freedoms--the knowledge that they are ready to often suffices. As George Orwell said: "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
In other words, please shut up with this crap. You're on the butt end of a joke.
During my brother’s plebe summer (his first summer), he could not talk to us for more than a few minutes once a week for fear that we might unduly influence him.
"Unduly influence him"..makes my blood boil! As the wife of a Naval Academy graduate and the mother of a West Point graduate, the bottom line is my husband and son have given this "educated woman,,no girl