How Good Must the Mirror Be?
An unrelated discussion in the comment thread of another article got me to thinking (yeah, I hear ya – “Oh crap, here he goes again . . . . “). But I do that sometimes, though it’s gotten me in trouble more times than I care to remember. And I guess maybe Zero’s question earlier today also played a role.
Anyway: Jonn lets me post here, so until he comes to his senses and kills my account, well, here I go again. (smile)
And this time, I’ll ask for help too. ‘Cause sometimes when I think I come up with a question or six for which I can’t find a good answer.
For most of its history, America has had an arm’s-length relationship with its Army (and the military in general). Before the Civil War – and indeed afterwards, up until World War I, basically – “out of sight, out of mind” was pretty much the norm when bullets weren’t flying. And even then, except for the Civil War the military only tangentially impacted most of America. The Army was mostly on the frontier, and the Navy was at sea or in a few ports. America and it’s military were only passing acquaintances.
World War I was scarcely different. Yes, we ramped up hugely for World War I – but we ramped down just as quickly. The military very nearly disappeared again until around 1940.
World War II and the Cold War afterwards changed things. Korea (the first real flare-up of the Cold War) rubbed our noses in the fact that we couldn’t assume we were safe and largely dismantle the military. And since then, we’ve retained a sizeable military in both war and peace.
However, society was somewhat – well – schizophrenic in what it wanted in its military. For years after World War II, the US had a peacetime draft. That led to a military that was relatively a mirror of the society from which it came. And the military experience was widely shared. This was generally considered a “good thing” for a democracy.
Then came Vietnam, and complaints about the draft arose. The inevitable casualties were dispersed across the nation and throughout all layers of society. The war itself was engineered stealthily and deceitfully by LBJ, and quickly became unpopular. “Rich people’s kids go to college, not war” became the cry, with perhaps some justification. So the draft became toxic, and was terminated “with extreme prejudice” at the tail end of Vietnam in favor of a volunteer, professional Army.
At the same time, military structure changed after Vietnam. LBJ had been able to engineer a stealthy entry into Vietnam because the existing force structure – active and reserve – didn’t require him to mobilize the reserve components to do so. The force structure in the Army was changed to force reserve involvement in future major conflicts.
In a relatively short time, that’s led to a divergence between the US military and the society it serves. Fewer in the civilian population have knowledge of, or a clue about, the military – because relatively few now serve. And through reduced turnover, the military has become somewhat of a society apart from the society it serves, with different norms, beliefs, and attitudes than its parent society. The only time many have a military experience is when there’s a relatively large conflict. And even then, that experience is largely confined to a self-selected group of professionals plus those considering the profession as a career. No draft means there just isn’t a large trained manpower pool to support rapid ramp-up in a crisis.
In short, we’re now back pretty much where we were before World War II – largely “out of sight, out of mind” when there’s not a shooting war going on.
This dichotomy has been addressed in the various “sheep and sheepdog” articles that have been written during the last few years, including a poetic version by our own Russ Vaughn (Poetrooper). All are good. My personal favorite is the version found here, but which version one prefers is largely a matter of taste. All express the same basic idea.
Now (finally!), the questions with which I’m struggling: is our current situation a good one? How closely should our military mirror the society from which it’s drawn? Can it do so and remain effective? If not, where is the limit beyond which divergence is counterproductive? Are we approaching that limit? Have we already passed it?
The sheepdog worries the sheep because he looks and acts different from the other sheep. But how much can the sheepdog look and act like a sheep and still remain a sheepdog capable of protecting the flock from wolves? And how far removed from the sheep can the sheepdog get before he turns on the flock?
Comments solicited, even those of the “WTF?” and “That’s absolute gibberish!” variety. (Well, maybe not really the latter kind – but Momma always told me to be polite anyway [smile]).
Seriously: what do all of you think?
Category: Military issues, Society
Here’s my thought, Hondo. Because of the complexity of modern society, we all specialize. To a large extent, every profession is “out of sight, out of mind” until you need them. Where the difference is, is that our military is supported by the rest of our society. That is why our military has a right to be concerned about what civilians know and what their attitudes are toward the military.
From what I’ve heard over the years from friends, co-workers, and acquaintances, this is what they think: despite ignorance of exactly what the military is like, civilians in general know two things: (a) that the military is necessary, and (b) they are members of our society, members of our families. They are valuable and vital.
There will never be a convergence of sheep and sheepdog. As the military specializes more and more, with more sophistication in weapons and technology, “common ground” with non-military individuals will decrease more and more. It’ll be just like talking with a geneticist or a physicist; almost impossible for a layperson. That doesn’t mean the layperson can’t see the value in the skills indicated by the specialist; that simply means that conversation will get awkward fairly quickly.
What you are talking about is the demise of the citizen soldier. during the draft the term of obligated service was two years, therefore the amount of training the soldier or sailor received was the minimum needed.
Now the norm for a first enlistment is 4 years with and most if not all members on their first enlistment receiving some type of advanced training.
What we have is a better trained military than any other time in history, however due to enlistment lengths and an increase in minimum ASVAB scores required for acceptance into the military and the increased minimum education needed this better trained service is now smarter than the average citizen as well as separated from the average member of the population by a more complete military indoctrination . Therefore the reflection in the mirror is distorted by design rather than happenstance.
This would be a problem if the military were a political power in its own right, however our current political structure does not allow for this to happen.
The population of the US has absolute power, we choose not to exercise that power most of the time, but at any given time there are enough citizens keeping an eye on or government and military that at the fist sign of the sheepdog turning on the sheep the usurpers would quickly be terminated.
1. The only way to ensure an accurate cross section within the military is to either A) have a draft or B) have compulsory service
2. Item A) is never a good idea as it forces people into a role for which they are not willing and/or made the conscious choice to accept. Which cheapens and weakens the ‘unlimited liability clause’ we all raised out rights hands and choose to accept. Not to mention degrades the over all performance of us willing sheepdogs. Unless there is an actual need for and society as a while actually accepts Item B) it will never work and will only compound the results of Item A) exponentially.
You can’t make sheep become sheep dogs it will never work, not in a free society and isn’t fair to either the sheepdog or the sheep.
Unless by your post, Hondo you really mean how can we change our political critters treatment of us sheep dogs and the only correct answer for that is for more Vets to run for office and become those political critters. Any other method and I agree with #2, any sheepdog who turns on the sheep has become a wolf.
-Ish
I’m going to thrown in my two cents here. The current structure we have is unique to our society and I think it provides just the mixture we need. At the higher (career) levels we have senior NCOs and officers who recognize the job as a life’s work, not simply a 4 yr stepping stone job. Those men (and women) form the backbone to guide and control the flood of low-time enlistment personnel. I’d argue that the values and norms of our society are reflected in the youngest generations of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and yes, even marines! That may not always be a good thing (ask any drill sergeant on the hill what he thinks) but the potential problem is countered by the professionals. The result is a mix of the smartest and most well trained military on earth, with a steady flood of new recruits that keep us grounded in our own culture. Some degree of seperation will occur, and I believe that’s a positive benefit. To borrow and twise the sheepdog analogy, if the sheepdogs have to look and sound just like the sheep, eventually they revert back to sheep themselves. Our current system may be flawed, but just like our government and electoral process, it still works for us.
Thought provoking questions Hondo. Well done.
*throw is what I meant to say. It’s early over here. Still haven’t had my coffee.
I personally feel that the currenty system we have does sort of work but at the same time the fact that the sheep dogs need to wait for permission from a commity of sheep as to whether or not he can bite the wolf is problematic. Look at the recent post about the switchblades. The whole argument is that the soldier would use this tool to kill when that is what we rely on them to do. Speak as a sheep, the fact that the other sheep are constantly stepping on the toes of the dogs is kinda scary.
I read a lot of military history, from all sorts of authors. From period texts like Pliny and Josephus up through SciFi folks like Niven, Drake, Heinlein and Pournelle. Drake was an officer in Vietnam, and Heinlein and Navy officer in WWII and the Cold War. One of the things that struck me, from both ancient sources, and modern was the theme of how the military is willing to go to extremes of sacrifice provided it has the support of those it is being sent to protect. Once that support turns, however, and the military is either taken for granted or treated as something less than acceptable for a career, then that attitude within the military changes. It turns to cynicism, disdain, and the potential for those in the ranks to consider a “why bother?” approach to any potential conflict. Why risk yourself to protect the sheep when they could care less about you? One of the best considerations of this which I’ve ever read comes from Jerry Pournelle’s own blog. It’s purported to be a real account, but whether it is or simply an apocryphal piece isn’t as important as what it implies. I’d say that right now, we are closer to this then we’ve ever been before. ————————- THE FURY OF THE LEGIONS “We had been told, on leaving our native soil, that we were going to defend the sacred rights conferred on us by so many of our citizens settled overseas, so many years of our presence, so many benefits brought by us to populations in need of our assistance and our civilization. “We were able to verify that all this was true, and because it was true, we did not hesitate to shed our quota of blood, to sacrifice our youth and our hopes. We regretted nothing, but whereas we over here are inspired by this frame of mind, I am told that in Rome factions and conspiracies are rife, that treachery flourishes, and that many people in their uncertainty and confusion lend a ready ear to the dire temptations of relinquishment and even to vilify… Read more »
True or not, that excerpt just became my new email signature and has been put over the door of the HQ office.
Outstanding
Bingo, AW1 Tim. Historically, republics have fallen from within, often to their own military. Caesar did that in Rome; Cromwell did that in England; Napoleon in France; Hitler in Germany (special case, as the German armed forces were essentially non-existent due to Versailles and the Nazi Brownshirts were a surrogate army). Hell, if I recall correctly even the Bolsheviks in Russia threw out the Kerensky government via first co-opting a disaffected Russian Army.
The “man on the white horse” image of a military dictator taking political power from within exists because it’s based on historical fact, and is real.
I don’t think we’re close to that in the US today. But some of the trends I perceive are a bit disconcerting. And history shows it COULD indeed happen here – because it has elsewhere, repeatedly.
To paraphrase some Marines at Ramadi:
America is not at war. Its military is at war;
America is at the mall.
A great deal of what is being discussed here reflect changes that we can see well enough in retrospect (the recognition that isolationism was no longer a viable policy, the fractures in our civil society that manifested themselves in the 1960s) which brought with them changes in our military policy.
It seems to me that the change most likely to occur over the next 20 years or so is that the sharp end will become increasingly technological with more and more of the dirty work being done by machines with very little risk to American soldiers (some SF will act as spotters or do some of the “scalpel” work). With that, military service will become more technocratic and probably be somewhat similar to the tasks that most Americans preform on a daily basis.
BTW-once upon a time we could have a civic discussion about the role of the military with some subtlety and nuance. In “Seven Days in May” Burt Lancaster’s character is not a monster (though villanous in a particular way) and Kirk Douglas’ character is opposed to the policy of the President, but sees what his clear duty is and acts appropriately. I’m not sure that Hollywood could make a similar movie today, the General would be a raving fascist and his aide would be a minority lesbian who is disillusioned with the service because of its authoritarian nature and homophobia (or some such). Whether that reflects a decreased public understanding of the military or Hollywood laziness is open to interpretation, but I can’t see a similar film being made today.
The BIG problem is that the military takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of these United States. They mean it, and live that oath, and are not relieved of it formally upon discharge from active duty.
Politicians take a similar oath, yet are not held nearly as accountable for any breach of it as are those in uniform.
The civilians who are protected by the Constitution, are, by and large, increasingly ignorant of what that document says, and what it means. Mostly, it is a willful failure of the public school system, and enabled by many ignorant and/or lazy parents, who fail to teach the Constitution and it’s importance to our youth.
Thus, the growing divide between those who are sworn to protect and defend that document, and our citizens, and the citizens themselves.
Why continue to risk life and limb protecting an ignorant mass of unwashed, self-centered plebians, a true hoi paloi who will support whichever politician(s) gives them the most fee stuff. They have no concept of our founding documents, no concept of how an economy works, how capitalism works, or even that we are a Republic, and NOT a democracy!
There exists a slowly growing friction between both sides, military & civilian, and friction creates heat. Whether that heat creates fire is yet to be determined. I am hoping it won’t, but that all depends on whether we can educate our populace about their own obligations, about our society and how it is SUPPOSED to function. That, of course, entails taking back our schools and reworking our curriculum. But that’s for another post.
V/R
Anonymous: true. However, that’s been true essentially since World War II. Even during Vietnam, the general US population was only modestly inconvenienced unless they knew personally someone killed or wounded there.
Some degree of divergence is expected. But I sense that there are two critical points: one where civilian-military divergence begins to be counterproductive, and a second where that divergence becomes outright dangerous to liberty. I saw Korea under de facto military rule. I have no desire to live in such a state.
I think – but am not certain – we may have already passed the first point. I pray we haven’t passed the second.
Great comments in this thread, particularly by AW1 Tim! As to the question of returning to the draft, I stand in opposition, except in times of great necessity. The Professional Army is far more effective, because it is a pack of sheepdogs that are honing their natural skills and talents, without the watering down of that body by those that do not wish to participate. With that said, it’s not the time to be cutting the Military (20,000 NG in 2009 and 49,000 in Active Army in current years, by the current Administration). If the politicians believe that we don’t need as many Troops as we have, then their plans should not include keeping 80,000 NG/Reservists on active duty into perpetuity. If the Administration is concerned that all those that wish to serve in the Military are not allowed in (or were not), then they should not be turning away recruits that qualify to make way for those thrown out. The respect given Our Veterans is not simply for having put on a uniform, but for the sacrifices, risks, and actions inferred by that uniform. Likewise, firefighters are not respected because they have a red hardhat, but because that hardhat indicates they run into burning houses to save the lives of those at risk of death. And while I do not discount the prophecy that wars will soon be fought between US Robots and Foreign militants, I do NOT see that as a positive development, in the effects that it will and already has had. When politicians can order the deaths of those in foreign lands, without the “political risk” of facing a son’s mother who sacrificed his life for his decision, he makes that decision more flippantly. I admit that it is appealing to fight wars with less risk of our own blood, but the Soldier is far better at making life and death decisions than is a robot, or the politician that controls it. And as we become more capable in that arena, our enemies will bring the arena to our citizens, where they will still be able… Read more »
And while I do not discount the prophecy that wars will soon be fought between US Robots and Foreign militants, I do NOT see that as a positive development, in the effects that it will and already has had. When politicians can order the deaths of those in foreign lands, without the “political risk” of facing a son’s mother who sacrificed his life for his decision, he makes that decision more flippantly.
WOTN-I don’t disagree with that, my only comment was with regard to the way that the emergence of technology will make the nature of the work that the military will do more similar to (though obviously not the same as) the work that civilians will do.
A couple of weeks ago my son (just graduated from HS) surprised me by telling me he was looking at going into the military. I asked him why and he said as a way to help pay for college and, essentially, for adventure. It turns out he has been thinking about this for one year.
Adventure has probably been the main reason that young men join the military for ages; college money since the WWII era GI bill. He didn’t mention patriotism or protecting our way of life; these concepts are not really taught in school nowadays (I should know, I am a HS science teacher), but as an Army vet I know that the military will imbue him with these important ideas.
As I write this he is completing his college orientation. He has signed up for Army ROTC on his campus. As a father I am swelling with pride as my son has taken the first step to serving; to doing something that is to benefit others before himself. Will he benefit? Sure he will! He will earn the satisfaction that one gets from selfless service. However, he is writing the proverbial blank check that all of us vets wrote at one time.
Unless we increase the size of the military to be a constant percentage of our population, the number of people who have a family member or friend in the service will shrink. What I am curious about is how many of those who join (either enlist or earn a commission) have no family connection to the military. If this number shrinks I find it problematic.
My apprehension of the effects of the robotization of war is not an indictment of your words on it, Doc. And I’m not against technological advances, but rather, the realization that we are already seeing those negative effects, and those are going to get worse. I believe, as a Nation, we really need to take a step back, and consider those effects, as well as how to prevent them. The genie is already out of the bottle. It would be dangerous to NOT use the current military edge we have, and to continue to develop the next generation, because others with even less scruples than our own politicians WILL develop it, because we paved the way. But it also goes to something Hondo originally mentioned. Until WWII, we had a very small standing Army, and the Constitution still prevents its use against our Citizens. The Founders sought to prevent the Federal Govt from having the power to force the compliance of the Citizenry to the will of politician/rulers in Washington. Politicians, being what they are, have sought the means around that ever since. With each passing decade, the dictates of Washington become more forceful, and their means to force them become more powerful. And Our People are becoming (willfully) subjects of the state, rather than Citizens over it. How does this tie in to the comments of Hondo on pre-WWII? In the days of Independence, Armies were the force by which rulers controlled their subjects, and still are in most of the world. In America, we have the IRS, TSA, Homeland Security, and a growing array of growing Federal Agencies, that ignore Congress and report only to the Executive Branch, with the Executive increasingly flaunting that he will not be constrained by laws or Congress or the Constitution. In this environment, this President has used flying robots to fight a war in Libya and stated through Panetta, that he would do so again in Syria, if he chooses to do so. Yeah, my thoughts have diverged somewhat from the intent of Hondo’s article and your response, but as I look… Read more »
Good questions. Good responses. I am hung up on comparing the potential devolution of a species to a changing interaction between different species. But that aside – a couple of not particularly well developed thoughts. There is and as nearly as we can determine has always been a warrior class. For the most part, even though every civilization has had a warrior class the civilians prefered to not know too much about the details of their work. Our founders, the brilliant guys that they were, knew their history. They put civilians in control of the military for some very good reasons one of which is simply so that each keeps the other informed of who they are and how they can utilize the latest and greatest effectively. Well, that and to keep military power in balance with the rest of the country. As much as I like the sheepdog/sheep/wolf image to explain how we see things, the reality is that we “sheepdogs” really are still humans who share more DNA and characteristics with the rest of the humans, be they “sheep” or “wolves,” than we differ from them. Somehow nurture vs nature keeps nipping at that sheepdog/sheep/wolf image. (In the interest of disclosure here, I believe that both significantly contribute to who we are, that it is the balance of the two which determine our individual mental health.) Can warriors be made? If they have the genetic make-up to learn skills to be one plus the instincts to implement those skills – sure. Can they be unmade? Take away the ability to BE a warrior, and you are no longer a warrior. You amy still think like a warrior, but if you are unable to follow-through physically, hope, you are no longer a warrior. (We who are too infirm now to DO may still have value in training, supporting, encouraging the next generation of warriors.) Can you make a sheepdog into either a wolf or a sheep? No. Not possible because they do not have the DNA for it. Can’t change one into another. Humans, can change. But they must… Read more »
I’d have to disagree with your last point, OWB. In nature, the sheepdog has much more in common – both in terms of behavior and genetics – with the wolf he fights than with the sheep he protects. He’s kept from doing them harm only by his training and by his loyalty to his shepherd.
But that’s not to be taken for granted. Dogs of all kinds who are abused often flee. But sometimes, they instead turn on their masters – and try to kill them, sometimes successfully. Or they savage innocents.
History teaches us that armies can sometimes become disaffected enough to do the same.
I’m going to add my comments before I read all of the others. I may edit later. I have been thinking alot about this issue lately because, as you know, 4 of my children have enlisted. 2 male, 2 female- (the rest are likely going to choose a similar route) and the issue of raising warriors has come up in relationship to the church. Where does to capability to commit violence fit into “turn the other cheek” doctrine? I don’t know. That’s not really the question Hondo is asking– but MY mulling it over has brought me to some conclusions.
1. Historically (I always try to think of how things were “over time.” 100 years ago, 1000 years ago. Bible times..etc) There has always been a warrior class. The Sheepdog. The adventure seekers. The patriots. Those who need it. We fit into society (even the church), even if we’re sometimes on the periphery.
2. A draft serves the purpose of numbers. Bodies. There are few situations where that is needed. Now is not then.
3. The inclusion of benefits like college money, housing support and just plain good pay attracts those who would not normally be of the warrior mindset. It works instead of a draft by attracting a broader range of society. Men and women who really have no desire to see conflict but will rise up if needed and provide much needed support.
Ok, I read some while typing. I agree with C.Q.– the country has been a quasi-democracy of public opinion. People sit in front of their TVs determining if this soldier should do this or that.
The separation of the people from what the military is doing was a good thing, to an extent. Since the televising of vietnam… people won’t ever be able to wrap their heads around the fact that sometimes soldiers shoot.
ha. owb and I started with the same point. He said it better.
re: sheepdog. I love the analogy. It’s my favorite. It has been my mainstay since I’ve had to explain my support of the military as a life choice…. But is just an analogy. sheep, dogs, wolves are all different. but People sheep, people wolves and people dogs are all people. they all are capable of good and evil. but the choices each make makes them different.
The main reason for America’s keeping the military at arms length comes directly from the experiences and memories of its legal immigrants.
In Europe, it was fashionable for armies to move across the landscape not unlike plagues of locusts – taking food and the capacity for making food – as well the usual sports of plunder, rapine, and casual destruction.
Armies were made out of professional soldiers, such as the condottiere, and kidnapped citizenry. During the French Revolution, the professional soldiers were either massacred, deserted, or became the cadre of huge numbers of draftees – the Levy en Masse.
Napoleon’s draftee Army had enough success to influence America in the dark days of the Civil War, when Lincoln imposed a draft to build a military that would defeat the South.
Drafting, levying, kidnapping – all forms of slavery, which instead of cotton, is designed to harvest death at any price.
While having a draft is part of America’s history, is it wholly unAmerican. It is why the America built by legal immigrants keeps the military at arms’ length.
If, as a nation, we will not take the Constitution seriously then the function of our government and its relationship to the citizenry will be radically altered. Those of us who wear the uniform take an oath to uphold the Constitution and because of that are more likely to take it seriously.
The traditional interpretation of the Constitution as an “antitrust clause” against the government runs counter to the “gimme stuff” mentality that is prevalent in modern America. We can talk about the appropriate role of the military in American society, but until we deal with the entitlement mentality, we aren’t addressing the root of the problem with regard to modern American government and its relationship to the larger society.
None of that is to suggest that what WOTN says about the rise of the bureaucracy which answers primarily to the executive is not spot on-it clearly is. That’s a huge problem and creates a host of other issues, but as long as the government is seen as “delivering the goods” by a sizable segment of the population they will more readily tolerate its abuses.
@ #20 Hondo – don’t think we actually disagree on this one. Sure, sheepdogs and wolves share a lot of genetic similarity, probably much more than do humans and sheep. (It’s been a LOT of decades since geneteics and biology!) My point was simply that getting a sheepdog to act like a wolf doesn’t make it a wolf. It’s still a sheepdog, just one behaving like a wolf.
How this relates to your question is that there are members of the warrior class in and out of the military. We hope that we get mostly warriors in the military, but, particularly during a draft, we get a bunch who have already self-identified themselves as not warriors. Some of those will discover that they do indeed have what it takes a become great warriors. Others can be trained to go through the motions well enough to contribute to the effort and be justifiably proud of that contribution.
The ones who are unfit to become warriors are a huge strain on all of us because they typically do not have inate characteristics for being trained, the desire to be trained, perhaps even lack the physical/emotional ability to absorb training, and minimal or nonexistent life skills to support any of it. Even if those are a small number, they disrupt everything.
I don’t know how good the mirror should exactly be. I think that it should be a whole lot better than it is now. Society needs to keep up (or back) with the military. Work ethic, civic responsibility, morals etc etc. For my experiences in Colorado springs and California people either see/treat the military like targets or animals (wolves to go with the theme being used.) Kentucky and lawton were better in some degrees but still a lot of people that see the military as targets.
The author of that article failed to include the many incidents in which the sheepdogs hide among the sheep and spring into action to take the wolves down, as in the many recent news reports of passengers stopping a bomber or an agitated or drunken passenger from harming other passengers and damaging the aircraft. But the analogy is good, and I appreciate it. And let’s remember that after World War I, the War Bond veterans were denied the money they’d been promised and marched on Washington to demand payment, only to be treated like criminals. They were no longer necessary items, and could be discarded. If they had known this in advance, would they have joined up? Hard to say. I joined the Navy in 1967 because I actually believed that my doing so would shorten the length of the Vietnam war. Even if I had known then what I know now, I doubt I would have done things differently. The military is changing with the times, sometimes in ways that seem downright silly to me, but change is necessary if we’re to continue to have a sense of security and safety, and that requires a strong military land-sea-air force. There are, and always have been, those who want to take up the sword or the rifle, and those who don’t. The latter expect the former to protect them from the bad guys when attacked, no questions asked. But when there is no imminent threat, those who don’t want to fight run for help to those who do or are at least willing. It has always been this way and always will be. However, it’s unreasonable to expect people to volunteer to do a dangerous job, whether it’s firefighting, or police work, or a strong military force, and not expect a cost in exchange. There may be a wider divergence going on between the civilian world and the miliatary, but keeping a defensive force is not a convenience that you shelve when you don’t feel threatened. Therefore, I see no harm in offering space to people who want to serve… Read more »
I don’t think there is anything intrinsic (e.g. genetic) in what role one finds in life; there is nothing in the first 24 years of my life to suggest that I would spend the next 10 and counting in uniformed service. I made a decision to be something different, to take on a responsibility that no one was pushing on me. You won’t find many examples in my family; it’s not that it’s looked down upon, but it’s just not generally something we do.
Re: involuntary draft, my thoughts on that are pretty simple. If we cannot find enough people willing to step up and defend our republic, we don’t deserve to keep it.
I think military service is a valuable experience that more people should volunteer for, but so long as we aren’t having manning issues then I’m fine with the lack of military service.
I don’t want to serve with conscripts if possible. An all volunteer military forces higher ups to be proactive about personnel quality of life issues, and not lag in gear innovation.
I’m fine with any sort of service. IMO being a fireman, policeman, aid worker, nonprofit employee, or a volunteer with some random job that doesn’t involve public service all qualify
I also feel that if we are attacked again most of the veterans who are able to will be sitting outside MEPs to volunteer for active duty again.
On a positive note the kids who grew up in the late 90’s up until at least today seem to have a much stronger desire to do meaningful work. I can’t remember who did the study, but a significant number of respondents consider having a career with a positive impact on society more important than a high salary.
There’s a lot of discussion here about “On Sheeps, Wolves, and Sheepdogs,” which was authored by LTC Dave Grossman: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2010/08/on-sheep-wolves.html
Sheepdogs, etc., are a mindset, not genetics. As LTC Grossman points out (article linked above), after 9/11, the American people moved closer to Sheepdog, from Sheep. And Wolves prey on the Sheep. That doesn’t matter if they are politicians, or terrorists, or serial killers.
The difference between Sheepdogs and Wolves is that Wolves enjoy making Sheep suffer, whereas Sheepdogs are willing to commit violence to protect the Sheep. There are Wolves in Sheepdog’s clothing, such as Police Dept and Military, but there is a fundamental difference between Sheepdogs and Wolves
Do any of you realize the contempt for your fellow citizens displayed by this “sheep/sheepdog/wolf” stuff.
Sorry, I just don’t see things that way. See I am not a sheepdog or a sheep. I am a man, one who made a decision to become a soldier. No one forced me and I knew what the compensation package and the risks were when I did it. I don’t have any complaints about how my fellow citizens have treated me. I got applauded in the airport, bar and meal tabs picked up, 10-20% off nearly everywhere I go. I get respect. Yeah, they don’t understand me. Yes I have a hard time relating. They haven’t been where I have or done what I’ve done. But I like it that way. I want it that way. That’s whay I joined.
Let me tell you who those “sheep” are. They are you neighbors. The guys you went to high school with. Your brother, your sister, their wives and husbands. The guy that fixes your car, builds your house and trucks your food. The woman that rings up your purchase at Wal-Mart. Guess what, on a day to day basis, you need them more than they need you. And I’m betting, push come to shove, they’ll pick up a rifle and join you if it comes down to that.
When I was in I saw it as my job to make sure that didn’t happen.
Yeah, there is a divide. But it is not going to be bridged assumptions of superiority. Look I have a ton of respect for the bloggers here and (with a very few exceptions) the commenters. But I will have to respectfully disagree with that veiwpoint.
As the author of the piece above, I feel the need to reply.
Any supposed “contempt” displayed above is your perception, FOMSG. But it’s not in the article, and I don’t see it in the “sheep/wolf/sheepdog” metaphor, either. I see that as merely another way of explaining the “warrior/non-warrior/threat” dichotomy that’s existed in most societies outside Sparta and a few others ever since antiquity. You obviously perceive it differently; you’re entitled to your opinion.
In any case, the “sheep/wolf/sheepdog” metaphor is only incidental to the main point of the article article (which is why it’s a bit of a sidebar at the end). Why I wrote the piece is that history also shows that a military too far removed and different from the society from which it is drawn also yields a danger to that society. Military coups converting democracies and monarchies to dictatorships are not unknown in history. See my comment 9 above for a few quick, off-the-top-of-the-head examples.
My main point was that the US military, bluntly, now appears more separate and different from US society in general than any time since approximately 1940. While that’s consistent with our history, the fact that it is also a relatively large standing professional army is new. My article was meant to point that out, and to raise the question of whether or not that was a good thing. Again: history shows us that large standing armies who don’t share much in common with the society they serve can be rather dangerous to liberty.
Sorry if that point escaped you. I thought I’d made it clear enough, but I guess I didn’t. I’ll have to work on making the main idea in future articles stand out more clearly.
Not at all sure that the seperation between the warriors and the rest of society really IS worse now than following the Korean conflict or Viet Nam. Having lived through both, albeit as a youngster for Korea and what was going on still with WWII vets, it seems that there was little to no acknowledgement of their service by the communities within which I lived at those times.
Perhaps it was just a quiet kind of pride instead of all the flag waving hooplas we have today? I don’t really know for sure.
Am also wondering if that disconnect may only be there for active forces who are assigned to posts far from home. For the Guard, since they are already citizen soldiers and mostly have full-time jobs, living in the communities, they have daily interaction with the folks. Pretty much everyone here has a family member, neighbor or co-worker who has been or is deployed.
I’d argue the contrary, OBW – from a different perspective. Starting with the (slightly) pre-WWII expansion of the US military, the draft ensured a relatively large fraction of the US population had experience in and firsthand-knowledge of the military. They’d experienced the military environment firsthand, knew its norms and culture, and (perhaps most importantly) could interpret/explain it to their friends and neighbors. This condition persisted until and even for a relatively substantial time after the end of the US military draft. The result was a military drawn from – and returned to – a rather broad portion of society. And the informal cultural/behavioral norms within the military were somewhat moderated by this effect as well. However, since that time, the military has been selected differently – e.g., largely self-selected. Entry demographics are changed. I don’t have hard data, but I’d guess the average person entering the military during at least the last 20 years has been generally different from his/her civilian counterparts in terms of political and personal philosophy (more conservative), concept of duty (higher), altruism (more altruistic), and social background (more rural and/or small-town). And IMO, the military generally reinforces these qualities. There’s also less turnover today, and the US military – though still relatively large – is smaller. Thus fewer in the civilian population have firsthand military experience or know someone who does. In short: in terms of norms, behaviors, and philosophy, the military is today IMO substantially different now than the society it serves. I didn’t see that kind of difference between the soldiers on-post and society in general while growing up near Fort Rucker, AL, during the height/drawdown/immediate post-Vietnam era. The soldiers of that era seemed to be more representative of society in general. Disclaimer: I was a youngster then, so I may well have missed something. But here, I don’t think so. I perceive a different situation today – today’s soldier appears to me quite different in terms of attitudes/behaviors/outlook than general US society. And I also perceive that same divergence, though to a lesser degree, in the reserve component personnel I’ve served with. That’s… Read more »
The issue I think isn’t that there is a mirror or there isn’t a mirror. Right now, the problem is that its a one way mirror. In the recent conflicts, the Reserves and NG have carried a large share of the burden. This means that a good portion of our military knows what its like to be a civilian, knows what its like to struggle to balance the needs of a career against the needs of our nation. Even those who are active duty (insulated if you will) have more second hand knowledge of what this is like, having worked with the NG and Reserves than most non-Reserve or NG civilians have of what the military really is like. Or to put it this way, our military looks through the mirror and see’s civilians as they are. The civilians look into the mirror and, at best, see themselves. At worst they see the distorted and maimed reflection the press and presents of the military.
This is my second Reserve enlistment, my first was in 1991 to 1993. I got out in 1995 after taking two years of IRR time to serve a mission a mission for my church, because I was disaffected and felt abused by the political leadership at the time (Go President Clinton). Granted I got out the wrong way and as a result had to fight like hell to get back in (RE code of 3 is no joke).
And I see that happening today. A lot of good soldiers are getting out because of the current leadership, leaving behind the wrong type of people, and this leads to a weakening of the military. Something that we can ill afford.
This might (and hopefully is different) on the AD side.
Wow, what a comment thread. I have no points on the subject that haven’t been made (and made well). I just wanted to point out what a pleasure this was to read.
To draft off of LZ’s point, I have really enjoyed reading the responses to this topic, and since my opinion mirrors many others already expressed, I haven’t been able to think of any other points to inject.
I meant to add…good job on this Hondo.
Well, Hondo, another thought occurs. In the past 50 years I have personally observed a huge shift of the country toward the left, progressive political philosophy, dependency, or any of a number of other characterizations. Pick any of them for purposes of this “argument.”
In most ways, all of society went along with this shift, to include the military. However, among the military, major portions of which remained focused on mission readiness, the shift was at a much slower rate. The result being that divide you are observing today?
I’d agree that’s a part of the reason, OWB – probably a large part.
But “why” doesn’t change fact. The basic questions remain: just how far apart can a society and its protecting military get before the relationship goes bad? Does that inevitable or avoidable? Are we (American and it’s military) moving into dangerous territory?
I don’t pretend to know those answers. But rightly or wrongly I perceive a significant and widening gap. And that worries me.
To all who’ve commented, thanks – for the commentary, and for taking the time to read the article in the first place. They’re food for more thought.
Oh, Hondo, I think there is a better chance now than existed 10 years ago that it will not go as bad as I then feared. In these 10 years how many folks have had a military experience? A couple of million? Even those who may have been somewhat disillusioned by it were steeped in a culture, one which cuts across all demographic measures, and have now returned to their communities with that military culture, and to more or lesser degrees, the mindset. I see that as a huge plus for the country as a whole. The power of these people gives me great hope.
I am third generation Army. Son of a Sergeant Major, grandson of a First Sergeant. I did 24 years myself, and continue to work for the Army now. I made it as clear as possible to my kids (one girl, one boy) that I would not push them to military service…it had to be their choice.
Interestingly, daughter is married and a mommy now, but works for the police force in our town. She prefers the feeling that she is taking care of “her cops” so they can provide the thin blue line. She was drawn to service.
My son is in law school, just completed his first year, and is interning with an Army JAG office and making noises like he’s considering JAG corps when he finishes law school. He is drawn to service.
My point is, I ACTIVELY pushed them away from service to ensure they came to it for the right reasons, and both seem drawn to it in one form or another. I have wondered if it’s nature or nurture, or that they feel a level of comfort in that structured existence, or what.
Of the senior soldiers with whom I work, the vast majority have kids in the military now.
I just don’t know. But I think what it tells me is that there is a very real likelihood that we are forming a warrior caste in this country, one that is, more and more, by bloodline.
The sheep/sheepdog thing is in fact a very demeaning metaphor to the rest of the hard working people in this country, the ones who keep it running, just one more sign of the divide, and of how smug some, repeat, some, service members are. These service members seem constitutionally unable to refrain from putting themselves on a pedestal. But ’nuff said about that. The services were more democratized during WWII, millions served, but when the war was over they returned to civilian life, and I don’t believe they thought of themselves so much as soldiers as loyal Americans. My dad fought in the navy in WWII, but his identification was not primarily as a sailor. The service was almost like public education in that you might find yourself serving next to people you would never meet in civilian life. When they got out, the returned to being “regular Joes. Now it is a much more exclusive club, numerically speaking and otherwise. If some of the contributors to this site are representitive, they have lost that civilian connection from previous eras, some would put themselves on a pedestal, and assert that military service is the pinnacle of human experience, and anyone not a soldier is somehow inferior, trivializing all other occupations, such as those mentioned in #32 (“The guy that fixes your car, builds your house and trucks your food. The woman that rings up your purchase at Wal-Mart.”) You know what I mean, you’ve seen these self-serving posts. Does it surprise you that a group that positions itself as smugly superior finds itself increasingly alienated? One more symptom of the divide, more and more articles, movies, etc. (valid or not), about the problem of disgruntled, alienated veterans in our midst. I don’t think that perception was there 65 years ago. The man in the grey flannel suit may have had his demons, but he wasn’t viewed as “other” or as a threat. This from a non-vet. I will await the inevitable flaming diatribes about my inferiority, lack of character, etc., that will soon arrive from some of the very same… Read more »
No, Joe. The “disgruntled vet” is largely a creation of Hollywood and those who were against Vietnam war – to include CBS and the other major media networks. As a group, Vietnam vets were actually more likely to be successful and less prone to suicide/drinking problems/drug addiction/incarceration than their civilian peers. But that didn’t “sell”, so the myth of the “disgruntled Vietnam vet” who was a “ticking time bomb” was created out of non-representative examples and baldfaced lies. A movie about successful suburban business owner would have been boring; “Rambo” was violent and exciting.
Now – wanna guess which one most closely represents the average Vietnam vet? I’ll give you a hint: successful suburban business owners actually exist.
Returning Vietnam vets would never have been viewed as threats, either – had Hollywood and the media not created the myth of the “troubled, brooding Vietnam vet” out of lies. They convinced the public to believe in something that did not exist.
The same thing is going on today re: PTSD. The reality concerning PTSD is far different than the bull you’re being sold by the media. Military PTSD sufferers are no more likely to go bonzo than anyone else. And when they do, they’re far more likely to harm themselves than others. Yet the media is trying to sell a reworked version of the “disturbed vet” myth again. Only difference today is that today’s veterans aren’t going to wait 15+ years for someone to write a book detailing that fact. Rather, we’re opposing it in real time.
I’m not saying vets were, or are, threats. I’m talking perception. This thread started out about differences between service members and society in general, and societies perceptions of service members plays into this.
But I will say I don’t get the same kind of warm fuzzies I did with “the greatest generation”. Maybe it’s the increasing specialization. Maybe it’s the other worldly imperial stormtrooper look of the current gear. Maybe its the muscle bound, tatooed, buzz cut image of some modern soldiers. Maybe it’s all of this and much more. Whatever the underlying causes, from a civilians perspective, I would agree with the idea of a growing divide and an aloof professional military class. And this from a kid who idolized WWII era soldiers, and who realized that a lot of them were the guys next door.
I was talking perception too, Joe – created perception. Hollywood and the media has been selling that same snake-oil for a good 30 years or more. Wasn’t true in 1982 when Rambo came out, and it isn’t true today.
Other than that point, for once I can’t really disagree with much else in your comment.
Joe,
Hondo is spot on. You got “warm fuzzies” from the “Greatest Generation” because they were highly regarded by the the media and Hollywood. Your “perception” could well be jaded by their portrayal of veterans since….find me a WWII equivalent to “Rambo”…
Well, most of the men in my neighborhood, my playmate’s fathers, served in WWII in some capacity, and I think that helped fueled the perception of the military being part of “us”, not “them”. But yeah, the closest I can come to an unstable, dangerous veteran from that era is Gregory Peck in “The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit”, and you can’t exactly call him threatening. I agree with your assertion that since Viet Nam, Hollywood has capitalized on the idea of the dangerous, alienated veteran. But I’m not sure that tells the whole story….
Gee, Joe, as a kid you got warm fuzzies from the WWII vets and you’ve noticed that current vets are not offering you the adult the same warm fuzzies? Ever consider that were it otherwise, perhaps you should be concerned??