For Part I of this blog post, click HERE.
The military establishment expresses almost universal support for the all-volunteer army. And this is understandable.
Tasked with the job of recruiting, training and deploying soldiers, who would not prefer a force of motivated, relatively unconflicted volunteers? It makes their job easier, cheaper and arguably more inclined toward success. Their position is similar to that of teachers who face a mandate to educate, promote and successfully test out students—wouldn’t they also prefer and benefit from “recruiting” an all-volunteer class of motivated students?
In both cases, however, there are larger principles at stake that outweigh narrow interests and institutional expediency. A teacher’s preference for screened students (and the implied success associated with such screening) does not conform with the educational and democratic mission of America’s public schools, which must educate all citizens no matter what their individual level of talent, intellect and motivation.
These principles are a reflection of core, longstanding American values. The same holds true of the military. In a purely logical sense the military may see the practical advantages of an all-volunteer army (ease of recruitment, training, deployment) without ever plotting those advantages against the broader, more meaningful, philosophical framework of America.
That framework includes notions of fairness and shared sacrifice. Simply put, Americans do not let others do their dirty work. They don’t espouse policies and points of view without demonstrating a concrete willingness to actively support those positions, which in this case means embracing rather than evading the primal duty of war—fighting.
There is, I fear, a cynical explanation for much of this. The military industrial complex described warningly by President Eisenhower in 1961 is too much served by war. And it isn’t clear to me, at least in my lifetime, that this complex of soldiers and industry are as dedicated to eliminating war as an acceptable means to national ends as they are to remaining the necessary cog in the wheel of war. War is their function and duty.
This entrenched war-structure also knows something. It knows that modern, free, and educated societies like the one we have in America have grown increasingly averse to war.
Modern media, starting perhaps with Mathew Brady’s Civil War photography, has gradually torn down the curtain and mythology of glorious war, and replaced it instead with a hard, brutal, unrelenting truth. A truth that is hard to erase or refine. A truth that makes it increasingly difficult to engage and motivate citizen populations into accepting and participating in war especially war that might involve their sons and daughters.
It’s ever so much easier to press the war policy button and “sell” a 1% subset of the population as opposed to the 99%, especially if elements of that 1% face uncertain educational and economic futures.
It’s a side issue to what I am arguing here, but if anybody doubts the subtly exploitative nature of the all-volunteer military, just look at the Dream Act. In this case, the people of the United States, not wishing to actually fight themselves, have come up with an arrangement that offers citizenship to “unauthorized immigrants” (who tend to occupy the lowest economic quintiles) who volunteer to enlist in the military. In other words, you can become one of us, but only if you first take the up-front risk of possibly fighting and dying in our wars. Awfully big of us don’t you think?
There is also another truth that I see no sense in denying. For the vast majority of Americans war has become an abstraction. Unlike the populations of Europe who saw and felt the literal destruction of their communities, cities and homes, not once, but twice in the previous century, Americans have been virtually untouched by the actual, physically destructive nature of war.
Sitting on one’s couch watching Wolff Blitzer describe the video-game-like destruction unfolding “over there” does not deliver the same, real dose of war as let’s say seeing your school bombed, your street set afire, your neighbors incinerated. Ours is an insulated relationship to war, and my concern is that the vast majority of Americans, with no skin in the game and no exposure to the real impact of war, increasingly accept the notion of war with a sense of ease incongruent with war’s true product and residue, which is mayhem and death. Combine that distance to war with an all-volunteer army, and what you create is an environment that further enables acceptance, and a turning away in the face of war.
I only hope that acceptance does not turn into an actual liking, but who knows? People tend to like what they are good at, especially if there is no risk to them in the liking.
Which returns me to my fellow fathers. Knowing the goodness in their hearts, I cannot imagine any of them as bombastic supporters of war. But knowing the depth of their love for their sons, I cannot imagine any of them refuting the all-volunteer army, which gives them, and their sons, an out. And that is the problem.
In the face of war, the all-volunteer army renders them and us passive observers. An all-volunteer army lets Americans off the hook. We know it, and unfortunately we like it that way.
Yeh, just what the Founding Fathers had in mind....war-making as a profit/loss statement.
I think people are missing Robert's true point, which he laid out for us. It's to attack our military, America and Americans. He couldn't be any clearer. "There is also another truth that I see no sense in denying. For the vast majority of Americans war has become an abstraction. Unlike the populations of Europe who saw and felt the literal destruction of their communities, cities and homes, not once, but twice in the previous century, Americans have been virtually untouched by the actual, physically destructive nature of war". Really Robert, are you including all wars we've fought in? You think physical destruction isomehow brings more pain to someone than the death of a loved one? Robert sounds upset that war hasn't visted us enough on our own shores, to suit him. Would that make you happier Robert, would we have "more skin" in the game then? As a Viet Nam Era Veteran, who thankfully didn't go to Nam, I remember my drill segeants, all Viet Nam Vets, in basic telling us that we were being trained to do the mission the military has, to protect the country. None of them liked war, I don't remmeber anyone I seved with ever liking the fact they might have to go into battle, NOT ONE, but they accepted that was part of the deal. War is a dsitraction to you Robert, not to most.
Not when 1% do the actual fighting and 99% sit on their couches watching highlights.
http://news.yahoo.com/fallen-marines-letter-marks-memorial-day-kabul-075023226.html
He's a harrowing thought, if our side can build drones to bomb the enemy remotely, so can the other. That’s a future I don’t want to be around for.
I think this entire piece is based on a flawed premise, namely that if all Americans had some "skin in the game," we would have fewer wars. I would rather have a committed force of volunteers defending our nation than a half-hearted force of drafted recruits. Our founding fathers were comprised of only 1/3 of the population; 1/3 remained loyalists and 1/3 were non-committal. That 2/3 that didn't fight to create America didn't mean they had no skin in the game. They helped to create the nation, albeit once the fighting was done. And as for tthe Dream Act, which I do not favor for other reasons, the notion is not that we want others to do our bidding but that once someone swears to defend the Constitution with his life and then goes out and does it, he is deserving of citizenship. That's what the members of our military do. I know. My son is a Midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy, and he took that oath. In doing so, he agreed to defend this country not because he was forced to, but because he wanted to. I too watched him play T-Ball in the Arroyo and spent hours coaching him at soccer to teach him to play hard, to be tough and to be a man.Those are the people who we should want in our military, not somebody who is there only because they are forced to be.
1, The Patch is NOTHING like a leftist website, 2. What America means, and what people fight for is the right of others to think, believe and say what is disagreeable. Everyone. Even those I or you disagree with. 3. the greatest honor we can show our veterans is to allow even those whose treatment of them is less than noble to express their opinion. thats the FREEDOM our country was founded on and that those noble men lived, fought and died for. Show some real Americanism.
IOW - more than is required of the 99% who are already citizens. Like I said, how convenient.
The closest Ronald Reagan came to combat was in Hollywood. As president he was unable to differentiate actual war events and fictional (Hollywood) war movies. However, this little bit of ignorance was of no concern to many of his supporters as the profits from their many war-related businesses were quite good. And Bill, It is, indeed, quite a stretch to label Robert's thoughts as hate speech. Simply because you disagree with him does not make his comments, "hate speech". As to Patch being, "...a left leaning site...". Bill, please try to understand that one of the great strengths of these United States--a country you obviously love--is that people can express their ideas in a calm rational manner without being labled with hateful adjectives. Robert should be thanked for bringing this very important subject into the open market-place of ideas. While I agree with him about a draft I don't think it will work. My earlier comment as to why I don't think the draft will work was a serious comment.
As for your number 3, who is stopping anyone from expressing their opinion? My thought is that this is simply not the day to post what Robert did. Am I entitled to that opinion in your world view? Did i demand the removal of his article? No, that's what the left does to the right on a daily basis, would you like examples? Sam- To each their opinion right, I think it's hateful and really that he posted nothing to thank those he labels in such regrettable ways on this day speaks to the shallowness of the left. As Patch decided this was an ok day to print his article they are no different to me. So me claiming the Patch is a leftist site is hateful? Are you serious, don't people everywhere label news organizations in that manner? Is Fox News not right leaning? You're way to PC in my opinion. Wait, is that hateful as well? Were you in the service Sam? See I was, and served with countless draftees and much as I cared for them, and got along with most, by and large they had to be motivated more than the guys like me. Didn't mean they didn't do as much or sacrifice an ounce less, but having people in the service of their own choice is a much better deal than a draft.
What I think is heartless is a citizenry that enables war policies via the war-making decisions of its elected political leaders (see chicken-hawks Cheney & Bush) secure in the knowledge that they'll never have to fight. That is the very definition of cowardice and hypocrisy. It's an ideal for sure, but I am less interested in an endless repetition of a holiday that honors dead soldiers than in eliminating the need for such a holiday entirely - which POV is truly heartless?
As for Patch being leftist, Patch content is largely generated by and reflects the hyper-local views of the readers. So to the extent that Los Angeles (and Eagle Rock in particular) is left-leaning, the Patch will also be left leaning. But I suspect anything left of Faux news is borderline-socialist to you...
I get that Cindy. But there's a big picture here - tens of millions of U.S. citizens cannot ascent to war policies via the ballot box w/o making themselves and their children available to fight. America was not founded on the principle of a warrior class. Cindy - "as for eliminating the holiday -- that can and never should be done -" You understand that my sense of eliminating the holiday is related to eliminating its cause - war.
Last time I checked it's actually a salaried job/career that is in fact chosen by the individuals who enter into it - "volunteer" - with a contract that often even includes paying for their college education as well, others choose to stick with it for twenty years and work towards this goal of retirement/pension. Because of this, the word volunteer is a poor choice for this situation (and not yours of course) as most definitions imply a situation of work without pay. Various countries around the world have various situations/levels of re-imbursement for their conscripted forces. What many may find surprising, is that the trend worldwide is of countries dropping and transitioning away from conscripted service for a model more like that of the current situation in the United States of America. And... (gasp!) half of the world (possibly a bit more) has already adopted a military service model like ours and even more countries are lined up to convert over the next few years. Certainly in this climate of looking to the U.N. and considering the opinions of the world court, we have to consider what the rest of the world is doing on this issue too right?;-D
On top of this, there's a little thing called the 13th Ammendment to the constitution which bans the existence of involutary servitude in the United States, and while it was visited in terms of a challenge to the draft during ww1 and Vietnam, the latter of those times it only went as far as a lower court which suggested that a draft situation with out a formal and specific declaration of war in place was highly problematic and would need to be decided by the supreme court. There are more than a few educated individuals that dont see the court going along with that. Finally, it is more than just a little elitist, pointy headed and insulting to see a "subtly exploitative nature of the all-volunteer military". If it wasn't for you and your wonderfully enlightened friends mr. smarty pants, all the dumb people (in this case you imply immigrants) would just be running around bouncing off of walls and eating dirt off the ground. Good thing you are there to look out for them and make decisions for them because obviously they're too stupid to do it for themselves. Eeesh! Maybe next time a two part post can be about something useful?
Respectfully, Joe Puglia
don't know how accurate. as u can see, most wars are over! as of 2 yrs ago, 7 were ongoing. better yet, spend ur time stopping the cause of wars vs. the cause of the holiday. then, u kill (no pun intended) 2 birds w/ 1 stone.
Using your logic, since this country was born from victories on more than one battle field, shouldn't that be done away with as well? I'd tell you to look up what Obama said Robert, but not mentioning him in your skewed rhetoric speaks for itself. Get those fingers ready for four years of bashing Republicans because it's coming.
That makes absolutely no sense. I think it's a little disgusting that you would advocate state sponsored violence and slavery in order to possibly get people to agree with your position that state sponsored violence is bad.
Citizens who elect leaders who espouse military policies are the ones who "advocate state sponsored violence." I just want to make sure, once they do that, that they do not abdicate their further responsibility to participate in the violence they support by allowing a "warrior-class" to do their dirty work. I lose respect for such hypocrites.
I've been getting responses from all over the country and all I can say is that many military types (some quite prominent) are not offended.
Good for you. Nobody said you couldn't. Freedom is a good thing. So too would be the mitigation or gradual elimination of war - no? Introducing a POV about the all-volunteer army insults no-one, disrespects no-one and is most appropriate on a day when people are focused - in many different ways - on military issues.
Then who the hell is supposed to fight in a democracy once the "people" have voted in leaders who involve us in wars? A separate "warrior-class"? It better be us...all of us. Elias - "it is more than just a little elitist, pointy headed and insulting to see a "subtly exploitative nature of the all-volunteer military"...(in this case you imply immigrants) Fact is the vast majority of "unauthorized immigrants (the bill's language, not mine) fit into the lower quintiles (economically) of our society: •The 2007 median household income of unauthorized immigrants was $36,000, well below the $50,000 median household income for U.S.-born residents. •A third of the children of unauthorized immigrants and a fifth of adult unauthorized immigrants lives in poverty. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/a-portrait-of-unauthorized-immigrants-in-the-united-states/ Those numbers don't just "imply" they prove that unauthorized immigrants tend to be poorer and the Dream Act's offer of citizenship to that group in exchange for fighting and possibly dying (in an all-volunteer Army) is, at least in my books, more than subtly exploitative.
Well said! Hope you are right! Joe Puglia