Don't fret Red, not that you would in the first place but my amigo friend is right. It's actually pretty simple. If you break down say a platoon? The majority of said platoon will be the doers, the privates and pfc's and specialist. These are "usually" the younger guys who are "normally" led by a squad leader who is "usually" a couple of years older than they are. The collective bunch is led by a platoon sergeant who is yet a few more years older than the rest of the lot. The point? More (forgive the politcal in-correctness) indians, less chiefs.
Here is another little factoid for you Osterich Lover. We as members of the U.S. Military are not allowed to endorse a candidate so I'm not sure where you are even getting these numbers. Sure we can vote for whoever we want to, but can't like campaign for them while in uniform or in anyway let on that the military is behind (insert name here). I for one can tell you this much. I'm on the high end of the enlisted pay scale and guess how much money I'm giving to the guy I'm gonna vote for? Yep, you guessed. Nada, zilch, $0.00. They have enough money, don't need mine.
In general, military folks have a quasi-libertarian outlook. Meritocracy sort of drives one to think like a libertarian - personal accountability, etc. Just an opinion, but based on 19 years of lookin' and listenin'. But I think Red is correct - most of the support for Paul comes from young folks who probably don't have a military "career" in mind and aren't thinking in terms of what Paul might do to the military if elected.
Paul would fully fund the military. He doesn't want to skimp there. He just wouldn't get us into ridiculous wars. Everyone wants to talk about, well we're in Iraq, there is no point in talking about what we should have done. But Paul was one of very few against the war from the outset, showing uncommonly good judgment when decisions need to be made, not after the fact. Just something to think about.
I disagree. I consider myself closely aligned with a lot of libertarian views. One of the reasons I wouldn't vote for Paul is precisely because, as a guy who'd set a course for isolationism, I think he'd certainly reduce the size, scope and capability of the military. You can say he'd fully fund it, but I think he'd fully fund a smaller, more defensively focused military. As for Iraq, I hear you. It's a very popular theme. But you assume going to Iraq was the wrong thing to do. I think you may find yourself in the minority in about 7 years. I think you may be surprised at how many folks are going to be "revising and extending" their remarks on Iraq. Once success in Iraq is no longer easy to ignore, I think the media will jump on the new bandwagon - they won't want to be on the denial side of that argument. I also find it amusing that you (sort of arrogantly) say Paul showed "uncommonly good judgement" by being against the war. I'd say that's far from being obvious, and instead is clearly just an opinion. Something else to think about.
Excellent post fly boy. (hope that doesn't piss you off). Especially that part about the success. It's still hard to call but it's got an outside shot of working. The good that we have done there that will never be reported is really a shame because it just may swing some people to at least being neutral. I will tell you that if, and it's a really BIG if, the corruption in the police force and the IA can be weeded out it's going to surprise a lot of folks.
