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
Joe, as children we look up; as adults, we look down.
As you pointed out: perception.
My point being, that children today look up to today’s soldiers, just like you looked up to the soldiers of your era.
Yeah, Joe – that does tell the whole story.
Statistics show that Vietnam vets – as a group – are better off financially than their non-vet peers; have lower rates of homelessness and incarceration; and lower rates of substance abuse. In short: by objective measures, as a group they’re generally a bit “better” citizens than their non-vet peers.
That wasn’t what Hollywood and the anti-Vietnam folks in the media wanted to hear. So they created the myth of the “screwed up ‘Nam vet” as a ticking time bomb waiting to happen from plausible lies and a few aberrant cases and sold it to a gullible public as the norm.
That didn’t happen after either Vietnam or Korea.
Yes, some if it was child-like awe. But there was something else, a sense that it had been a shaed struggle. My civics teacher, pudgy Mr. Rotello, flew on a B-25 in the war. Mr. Gillen, my english teacher, had been in the army, and seemed to be something of a pacifist as a result. Our neighbors, the Geismars, had hidden out in Holland like Anne Frank’s family, trying to avoid being sent to the death camps. The covers of “Life” or “Look” magazine, some ten years after the end, might depict the death camps, or Hiroshima, or D-Day. More war movies than you could count. It was in the air, it was everywhere, there were signs of the fading aftermath of the war all around, including a sense of optimism and confidence. Everyone was effected, everyone was a part of the struggle. That’s in contrast to the “go shopping” mentality (whether he said those exact words or not) of the recent wars, trying to insulate the public instead of invlove it. So I don’t think the fact that I was a child tells the whole story, there was more to it.
No, Hondo, Hollywood is part of the story, but I don’t belive it is entirely responsible for growing divide, a divide you yourself brought up in this post, between servicemen and women and the American public. I mean you asked the question, but I sense you may not want the complete answer, may not feel like looking in the mirror. It’s easy to blame Hollywood. But what do I know, I’m “just” a civilian.
Have to agree about the “business as usual” attitude you reference in your last comment, Joe. Thank LBJ for that; it started with his attempt to have Vietnam and the Great Society simultaneously. And it’s continued ever since.
But to an extent, thank the American public as well. During my lifetime, I’ve observed what I perceive to be a general “dumbing down” of both public discourse and the American public’s desire to know about issues of vital importance. The US public appears far more concerned with the results of “American Idol” than with international terrorism, fixing Social Security, the huge problem with federal/state/local budgets, or any other issue of significance. And IMO, they’re much more easily led down the “primrose path” today than they were 30 year ago.
Hell, just look at a newspaper today vice one from 30 or 40 years ago today. Blame that somewhat on USA Today and CNN – the “Marvel Comics” of newspapers and news reporting, respectively. They started the trend towards one paragraph summaries of 10-page issues. And that trend has accelerated ever since.
But blame the public, too. Because USA Today and CNN (and the rest of the media) are merely giving the majority of the American public what they seem to want and are willing to pay for.
Joe: I didn’t say they were responsible for the entire growing divide. I said that they were responsible for the “screwed up ‘Nam vet” myth, it’s sale as the “norm”, and it’s continuation with PTSD today. That’s responsible for part of the divide – but only part.
The other major factor I see – and I thought I’d identified this pretty clearly in the article – was the end of the draft in the early 1970s. IMO, that resulted in both a more self-selected military (vice a more representative cross-section of society) and reduced turnover. Couple that with post-Vietnam military downsizing, and by the 1990s the proportion of the US population with first- or second-hand experience with the military began to drop substantially as the older generations began to die off.
I personally think this second factor is dominant, but I could be wrong.
I agree on both counts Hondo.
I do like the way you have framed this particular issue plus it does indeed present me a lot of fodder for thought. Nevertheless, from what precisely I have experienced, I simply just trust when the actual commentary pack on that individuals continue to be on issue and in no way get started on a tirade involving some other news of the day. Yet, thank you for this superb piece and even though I can not agree with the idea in totality, I regard the viewpoint.
“This ain’t your father’s Army” is a phrase I heard often when I was in. That was the truth back in the 90’s, and the sad truth was that when I enlisted, I imagined I was signing-up to serve in my grandfather’s Army! The one where men were noble and kind, and the children ran to them for candy bars. Where we strove to do what was right, and save the innocents from evil men like Hitler. I suppose I was somewhat of a Pollyanna. Still, more than 15 years later, my husband is still enlisted, and the changes in today’s Army just astound me every day. Today’s Army isn’t even my husband’s Army, and he is serving in it! It truly is sad how much the sheepdog is being encouraged to actually BE a sheep in the Army today. I’m not sure if it is in the name of equality and political correctness, helping the dirt-bag soldier feel good about himself in this “there are no losers and everyone gets a trophy” kind of society we are living in, or if it is being done intentionally to weaken our military. I hope it is just the first idea, and the military is just a reflection of that society.