Why Do They Always Send the Poor

So says the glorious System of a Down:

"Why do they always send the poor?
Why don't presidents fight the war?

Why do they always send the poor?
Why don't presidents fight the war?"

Whilst I greatly love System's BYOB from Mesmerize, I have always considered the refrain quoted above to be one of the most ignorant statements I've heard in song. (Ignorant statements in a song, that is, from one of the most intelligent bands.) Without fault I answer the question posited about the poor with, "because it's the poor who are in the armed forces." Simple, case closed...no shit, Sherlock. Yet the girl questioned that sentiment. ...so, considering her words generally mean most of everything to me, I want to explore my response to System's refrain. I'm going to ignore the prescribed inspiration for BYOB and focus, rather, on the general response that System of a Down gives to said (un-said) inspiration. The response is nothing new and has been around since the days of the Civil War draft when Lincoln ordered the Navy to fire on NYC because the City's citizens rioted against forced "incarceration." However, the response still rings true today. Why?

First, let's get rid of an argument that just came into my mind last night. Is there any need for the armed services? Perhaps the best answer would be, "Yes, dude, because people are fucked up." A more intelligent response would be strikingly like unto the previous statement. Even though we "appear" to be growing more and more towards a society of enlightened gals and fellows, progressivism in no way affects crime and aggression. To qualify: if there are any overt affectations, they result only from altered roles -- crime and aggression becoming what it was not before. For this reason, the existence of perversions of law demands the existence of the pigs...*coughs*...sorry, police. So, police govern or protect a society's provisions of law both for and despite its citizens. So likewise, it makes sense to draw a bridge connecting a society's police to its military. The military of any nation exists to either defend or extend the nation's sybolic or physical influence, replacing citizens with nations. It's therefore logical to support a nation's international sovereignty just as much as domestic sovereignty. But of course then you get into good, wrong and Axical uses of such sovereignty...which the UN can do nothing about. So such is for another time of discussion.

(Yet, for a sedgeway, let me declare that the one thing I hate Teddy R. for is his "big stick" metaphor. I fully support America exerting itself, in the "good" way, in its most significant realm of influence, ie the Americas. That's it. All else must be conducted within a conglomeration -- notice how deftly I avoided using the word coalition -- of concerned and affected parties.)

Then, should we accept the military, who makes up the armed forces? Obviously we're talking about U.S. forces - army, navy, marines, air force, and specifically the non-officers: the blue collar of the military world, if you will. So who are the men and women that don the uniforms of defense and green/blue/cammo? Anyone and everyone would be the simplest and most accurate answer. The military is fantastic for two reasons. The first is that it offers to pay your way through secondary schooling, something even most state schools are failing to offer now. The second is it offers specific job training within a realm of discipline and order, an amazing promise, though surely faulty, in such a world as this. Pretty decent setup for those who might not have many promises or much of a future without help. And I think this is the essential point when thinking of who is in the military -- those who have little opportunity otherwise. Such a description does not encapsulate all, to be sure, but I think it covers a grand majority of those in the military. Of course - I think, therefore I might be wrong.

Is this good? Is this right? That was, essentially, the prompting of the girl. Well, it certainly is the situation. I can really think of no other way to accomplish the existence of a substantial all-volunteer armed force, unless one wanted to suggest the use of conscription. And while I sometimes toy with the value of conscription for two years for youth (ala Israel and...maybe Sweden?), that ain't gonna happen. So how else do we create and maintain an all-volunteer force? We need the force, we won't conscript its members, so where are we left? It is an honest question which undoubtedly falls within the same realm of how in the hell do we entice more, better teachers into our schools. The military offers incentives and schools offer inadequacy. Hey, but at least you won't die in the classroom! Oh...wait.

Anyway, as the system is, the majority of our military is a certain type of person. That person is, in the most general of ways, referred to as "poor." Using this terminology, the poor make up our military and the poor fight our wars, fights, and bar scuffles. Thus to answer System of a Down's oft-repeated question, "'cause they are the military!"

If there were a draft filling up the depleted ranks of the service, then the question of the massive presence of the poor would be incredibly poignant. Just as it was during Vietnam. Yet this isn't Vietnam and the question isn't all that poignant.

While I love the song BYOB and I adore System of a Down, this specific refrain is a very sloppy anti-war statement. The lyrics are delightfully catchy and socially charged but, in this instance, with little purpose in reality. And for a band who told us civilization was dead, I expected a hell of a lot more.