Not funny, but then it's always been the way the armed forces have 
recruited their members, by emphasising the glory and patriotism and 
the benefits of joining up.  Remember, too, we haven't been at a 
prolonged war since Vietham, and I also think the military brass were 
a bit surprised at the resistance the Iraqis have put up. 

This  is an all-volunteer army who joined up for jobs and training, 
not war.  Those who would have been drafted -- if there were one now 
-- would be more realistic.  The armed forces wouldn't draft people 
unless they needed more people in battle.  And that brings up another 
interestng question:  if we were to establish the draft again, would 
we include women?  We have women fighting along with men out there on 
the battlefield, and I don't think it's fair to the men if women 
weren't drafted, too.  Obviously there would have to be exemptions 
based on family needs, etc. but it'd be interesting as an exercise in 
sociology/ anthropology how the question would be treated now. It 
would not be a easy issue, that's for sure.  Sorry, but I tend to 
think intellectually as a social scientist on such things, a holdover 
from my grad studies.

Kat

On Friday 04 April 2003 11:05 pm, you wrote:
> Yes, I think some do know. But the youngsters have been fed on
> glamorous aspects.  Too many today are now saying ... but I didn't
> know I'd have kill anybody. The military should do more to really
> prepare them psychologically for the grim realities of war. So that
> later when they get called up, they won't be shocked when they see
> people blown to bits on the field.  That may sound funny coming
> from me, but I think it's a disservice to send people to the field
> unprepared.
>
> Mag