First, I love the way that Miss De Pasquale refers to me as a "liberal" -- no doubt the dirtiest name in her vocabulary.  She doesn't know me and she has no idea what my politics are, but because I disagree with her, I must be a "liberal".  Such "arguments" do not advance the discussion and show both immaturity and a lack of substance.  If the best that she can do is call people names, then she is bereft to ideas.

For the record, I was an intelligence officer during the cold war & routinely refer to "those pinkos in the John Birch Society".  My biggest problem with George W. Bush is that he is much too left-wing for me.  (No one can pretend that he is anything other than a socialist.)  I am an old-school conservative.  I believe in the Constitution and I believe in the foreign policy of the founders.  And I am the sort of conservative that believes in duty.

But my politics are neither here nor there.  What is at issue is duty.  What is the duty of a citizen?  

It is my firm belief that if a citizen sees that the nation is in danger, then the citizen must defend the nation.  Can our nation last if citizens don't think it is worth defending when threatened?  How long will we maintain our freedom if people like Miss De Pasquale say, "Let others defend our liberty; I'll continue leading my comfortable my life"?

Sure, Miss De Pasquale dresses it up a bit.  She says that she isn't worthy to don a uniform and fight for her country.  In fact, she considers herself so unworthy that she refuses to even go down to the recruiter & let the military decide whether they can use her.  

Apparently, Miss De Pasquale can type.  The military needs clerk-typists.  Apparently, Miss De Pasquale can use a computer.  The military needs people with those skills.  There are probably any number of skills that Miss De Pasquale has that the military can use.  But she contends that it would be an insult to our service-members for her even to offer to enlist.

She says that the military has a certain special type of person & that it is insulting to the professionals in the military to suggest that just anyone off the street might be made into a soldier.  Horse-hockey!  

The draft in WWI, WWII, Korea & Vietnam brought all types into the service.  The result shows that the military is equipped to turn pretty much anyone into a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine.  (Unless Miss De Pasquale wishes to suggest that the draftees that hit the beaches on Tarawa or Normandy were unfit to wear their country's uniform, I think she'll have to agree that her position is untenable.)

And even if they can't turn Miss De Pasquale into a soldier, shouldn't Miss De Pasquale give them the chance?  Who is the better judge of who can be a soldier?  The Army?  Or Miss De Pasquale?  

As I pointed out in my previous post, during WWI & WWII, all sorts of people went down to the recruiters.  People in their 50's  went to the recruiter.  People with physical defects went to the recruiter.  People with lots of children went to the recruiter.  In most cases, the recruiter turned them down -- but they gave the recruiter the opportunity to do so.

These people were patriots who saw their nation in danger and knew their duty. If the nation is in peril, the citizen has a duty to take up arms in its defense.  Otherwise, the nation cannot stand.

Frankly, Miss De Pasquale, I'm not buying your excuses.  If you really think the country is in danger, then it's time for you to get off your duff and do something about it.  It's time to march down to the recruiter & volunteer to defend your country and your freedom.  If THEY decide they can't use you, that's one thing.  But for you to unilaterally decide that you couldn't be turned into a soldier smacks of cowardice and hypocrisy.  

Duty calls.  But in your case, I suspect it calls in vain.  

You wish to talk about the grave perils to our country and to our way of life, but you are unwilling to lift a finger in our nation's defense.  Instead, you write patronizing columns about how special the people who are risking their lives to pursue the policies you advocate are and how you would never insult them by presuming to risk your own life with them.

People who are willing to risk other people's lives while being unwilling to risk their own are beneath contempt.