I would agree that the wrong things are being addressed. While I fully respect those that have served, I also respect free speech. When one protests against the military, I strongly suggest the distinction made by COL Harry Summers in On Strategy be followed: is the disagreement with the civilian makers of policy, or the uniformed executors of policy? Under the US constitutional system, gripes with military orders aren't too rationally directed at those in uniform, or who have been in it.

When I read a Marine (there's no such thing as an ex-Marine, just former Marines) complaining about having been embarrassed in public about joining, my first reaction is to wonder how he avoided boot camp at either Parris Island or Camp Pendleton. The concept of getting through boot camp without a drill instructor wondering, in public, about recruits' motivation for joining is rather strange indeed. At Columbia, that Marine had none of the constraints of boot camp in speaking back.

Given the requirements to deal with veterans' benefits, universities certainly need administrators to deal with these issues. I fail to see, however, why there needs to be a faculty member overseeing veterans -- a group that tends unusually toward the self-reliant.

Academia and the military are not incompatible. I have a friend who teaches undergraduate history at a college, while he finishes his PhD in East Asian studies at a most respected university, at which point he plans to seek a position at a research university. He's a retired Air Force Senior Master Sergeant as a Parajumper/combat rescueman--part of Special Operations Command. To the surprise of many of his students, he is quite politically liberal.

He's perfectly willing to hear well-reasoned criticisms of the military in his classes, as long as the criticism has some relationship to the class. He is less willing to listen to undirected tirades during class--and he may well criticize aspects of the military as part of his lectures. Nevertheless, when certain students got literally in his face, he started radiating the nonverbal communications characteristic of someone who goes, alone, into enemy territory where pilots have already been shot down.

--

Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Signing up for the military under Bush especially after the push for war in Iraq began might have been foolish, but I wouldn't call it stupid.

A few years back, New York Governor George Pataki's boy, Teddy, decided to join the United States Marine Corps Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) at Yale University.

On June 25, 2005, Teddy Pataki, following graduation from Yale, was formally commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Like incoming Virginia Senator James Webb's son, Jimmy, a lance corporal in the U.S. Marines now serving in Iraq, Teddy Pataki headed right over to the rough stuff in Baghdad, right?

Uh, no.

Teddy Pataki is going to law school. He hopes to be a lawyer in the Judge Advocate General's Corps. After all, the military apparently only needs "grunts" like Jimmy Webb in Iraq. Yale-educated second lieutenants like Teddy Pataki really aren't necessary. Besides, there's probably plenty of young lieutenants and captains to meet the generals' various pressing needs for Cuban stogies and the finest scotch.

Funny, but George W. Bush never asked George Pataki about how his son, a former fraternity president at Mr. Bush's alma mater, is doing at law school. Doesn't Mr. Bush care about Yale?

And George Will, that old Conservative stalwart at the Washington Post, never wrote a single word - much less an entire column - about the governor's son and Marine Corps officer who was allowed to bypass Iraq and Afghanistan for law school.

Wonder if Teddy Pataki will be heading over to Iraq as part of the John McCain-Joe Lieberman plan to add 20,000 U.S. troops to the Civil War-torn theater.

Wonder, indeed.

Wow.

I came upon this discussion board after googling Matt Sanchez's name. I'd heard he had written an editorial in the Post talking about what it was like being a Marine at Columbia. As a recent graduate of another elite university who is currently a Marine lieutenant, I wanted to read what he had to say. The article was great and reflected a lot of the same attitudes I encountered where I went to school. I started to read some of the blogs and discussion boards where people were talking about the article.

That's when I noticed what Mr. Mark Raven said about Teddy Pataki. I was at TBS with Pataki and graduated a month after him in the following class. We know each other well through OCS buddies.

There are a number of egregious factual errors in what Mark Raven has written. Let me enumerate.

First, TEDDY PATAKI IS NOT AT LAW SCHOOL. He is an artillery officer and is about to deploy to OIF. In case you were wondering, these days arty battalions probably have it worse over there than the infantry does. They don't have very many fire missions and most arty guys end up working as provisional military policemen. Think long footborne patrols outside the wire.

Second, there is no Marine ROTC program at Yale, or anywhere else for that matter. Teddy went to Officer Candidates School (OCS) for 10 weeks before his senior year. This is known as the PLC program and has nothing to do with ROTC. If you want to go to the Marines through ROTC you have to start with Navy ROTC and then decide to be a "Marine Option" and then you still have to go to OCS.

Third, even if Teddy were going to be a lawyer, he would still see combat. I was enlisted prior to becoming an officer and deployed to OIF II in 2004-5. I can tell you that literally everyone in our entire battalion picked up a weapon and fired a couple of shots in anger at one point or another....even the cooks. The lawyers went out on many of the civil affairs patrols and got their fair share of trigger time. Mark, your suggestion that being a Marine lawyer is somehow a cop-out from combat belies a total ignorance of the Marine Corps and, indeed, the American military in general. As an aside, I would add that being a deployed lawyer is probably one of the most intellectually challenging jobs in the world. They have to make fun decisions like, How do I legally justify the fact that we're not going to give a reparation payment to the family of a kid who just died after his father pushed him under a Humvee because he wanted some reparation money? That actually happened...twice when I was there.

By the way, what the heck does "there's probably plenty of young lieutenants and captains to meet the generals' various pressing needs for Cuban stogies and the finest scotch" mean? I don't know what movies you've been watching, Mark, but here in the real world, Marine lieutenants [ie, me and Pataki] and captains generally serve as platoon commanders and company commanders, respectively. You know, the guys who, uh, what's the expression, oh yeah, LEAD FROM THE FRONT, in, um, what's it called, oh yeah, COMBAT. We don't really have time to be taking drink orders.

Mark, you "wonder if Teddy Pataki will be heading over to Iraq as part of the John McCain-Joe Lieberman plan to add 20,000 U.S. troops to the Civil War-torn theater." Yes, Mark, he will. Here's what I wonder: have you ever served in the military? Because based on the ignorance of the military displayed by your post, I'm going to guess that you haven't. And it's pretty sad that someone who never stood up to the plate [it may not be too late, Mark; the Army's taking guys up to 42 years old now] is criticizing others who have for shirking their duty.

As much as the blatant stupidity you displayed annoys me, Mark, I still have to thank you. I, Pataki, and 180,000 [soon to be 202,000] other hard-charging Marines couldn't do what we do without your tax dollars. Cheers.