Military service: choice or only option?

Re “Patriotic guilt,” Opinion, Nov. 3

Oren Rawls’ assertion that “a fair number of those in the military enlisted out of a lack of other options” strikes a negative chord. Those of us who wear the cloth of our country come from widely divergent backgrounds. While many enlistees do find the military an attractive option, it is seldom the only one available to them. We all joined because we chose to.

I enlisted at the age of 18, largely to pay for college. I also yearned for an opportunity to be a part of something larger than myself. I am not always happy to go to Third World countries and do the dirty work associated with war. That said, I am an American who happens to love his occupation. I have traveled to 42 nations, have a bachelor’s degree courtesy of U.S. taxpayers and made some of the closest friends (more akin to brothers) that a man could ever hope for.

Mr. Rawls, do not feel guilty that you are not [a soldier] at this critical point in our nation’s history. Exercise your rights and freedoms just as you did when you wrote your Op-Ed article. Actions such as those reassure us that our work is for a noble cause.

MARINE MAJ. TOM WOOD

Jalalabad Airfield, Afghanistan

*

While I believe Eric Alterman (Opinion, Nov. 3) is correct in pointing out the parallel between the reason President Johnson gave us for the war in Vietnam and that offered by President Bush for our war in Iraq, there’s another, more cogent, parallel. Among the major corporate beneficiaries of both these wars just happens to be Halliburton, the company that in 1962 merged with Brown & Root, a major contributor to Johnson’s political career.

For that support, the company landed contracts to build the airstrips and prisons in Vietnam. Is it coincidence that the same company whose ex-CEO is our vice president is “winning” no-bid contracts for running the oil fields in Iraq and renovating the prisons in Guantanamo?

TADEK KORN

Laguna Beach