« Trading Five for Three...A Good Deal? | Main | Events at the Hinckley Institute »
Utahns Okay with Iraq
By Bryan CathermanAs expected, most Utahns are okay with the handling of the Iraq war. The Salt Lake Tribune found that 58% of Utahns are in support while the opposite is true for the rest of the nation.
Matthew D. LaPlante’s article, “Most Utahns Stick to Their Guns on Iraq” (Jan. 11) outlines some of the reasons, but it mainly stems back to political ties to patriotism. His article outlines interviews from a small handful of people and their answers retell the normal responses. Some are unhappy, some are ecstatic, and some just really don’t know anymore.
Utah may always be in the approval category so long as a Republican (who is not having an affair or drinking) is president and the Republicans are in control of congress. One thing is for certain, if Utahns have a higher rate of support for the handling of the war, there is a good chance that Utahns have a very strong support for our troops.
Matt CanHam contributed to the article. Matthew D. LaPlante maintains a blog called “Dispatches.” It is about Utah soldiers currently serving in Iraq and located at http://blogs.sltrib.com/iraq/.
Posted by catherman on January 11, 2006 07:17 AM
Comments
It sticks in my craw that while Utah may lead the nation in red-blooded patriots who say they support President Bush and the war in Iraq, we rank 47th out of 52 (D.C and Puerto Rico are counted)in Recruitment Rate (per thousand 18-24 year-olds). Admittedly, this is FY2004 data and does not include the Marine Corps, but isn't that still too low for a state that professes to be so "patriotic"?
Source: National Priorities Project (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=175&Itemid=61)
Posted by: Ed at January 11, 2006 09:23 AM
How much is the recruitment rate affected by LDS Missions? Does Mormon practices discourage military service?
Posted by: Catherman at January 13, 2006 08:36 AM
I don't know. There was a lively debate going on about this over at the Daily Herald a few weeks ago, and I followed it closely until it broke down into a Mormon-bashing thing, a subject I'm not interested in (BTW, I'm not LDS). I just don't see how a two-year mission could affect a true patriot's decision to enlist. You don't have to enlist when you're 18...you can do it when you return, at age 20, or 21, or older. But if you support this war, and you are young enough and fit enough, you should serve. Period. If you don't, IMO that makes you a chickenhawk. A chickenhawk is all gung-ho for wars, but lacks the courage of their convictions to actually put themselves in harm's way.
Bryan, you're a veteran. What do you think?
Posted by: Ed at January 13, 2006 09:42 AM
If a person is willing to serve with honor and wants to be there, they should be. If a person is looking for a paycheck, than it's not worth it for them and it's not good for the people going into harm's way together. I've found that normally, if you don't join early, you will never join. ROTC, reserve status, or something. There are exceptions, but I don't see many return missionaries joining up. I did serve with a guy who came in, contracted to take a break for his mission, and then will be coming back to the unit. (He's on an LDS mission right now.) I'm not Mormon so I don't really know much about this. There might also be lower enlistment rates in Utah because there are fewer military posts here. I just think there is a Mormon tie. For the same reason, most of the countries linguists are return missionaries. They already have the language skills. Just an interesting point. Also, I agree with you about those who are so pro war and talk the big talk but never serve. I love the guys who know everything there is to know about the Special Forces, weapons, and anything else that's part of their favorite video game, but they themselves haven't served and never will. There are ton's of these guys in Utah.
Posted by: Catherman at January 14, 2006 08:47 AM
My brother signed up at 28. A mission didn't affect his decision at all. I think individual factors do. BUT I have to wonder if the early marriage age has something to do with anything.
Posted by: stoopit at January 14, 2006 01:39 PM
