A very long piece by James Fallows here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/
The introduction:
QuoteThe Tragedy of the American Military
The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can't win.
James Fallows
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2015
In mid-September, while President Obama was fending off complaints that he should have done more, done less, or done something different about the overlapping crises in Iraq and Syria, he traveled to Central Command headquarters, at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. There he addressed some of the men and women who would implement whatever the U.S. military strategy turned out to be.
The part of the speech intended to get coverage was Obama's rationale for reengaging the United States in Iraq, more than a decade after it first invaded and following the long and painful effort to extricate itself. This was big enough news that many cable channels covered the speech live. I watched it on an overhead TV while I sat waiting for a flight at Chicago's O'Hare airport. When Obama got to the section of his speech announcing whether he planned to commit U.S. troops in Iraq (at the time, he didn't), I noticed that many people in the terminal shifted their attention briefly to the TV. As soon as that was over, they went back to their smartphones and their laptops and their Cinnabons as the president droned on.
Usually I would have stopped watching too, since so many aspects of public figures' appearances before the troops have become so formulaic and routine. But I decided to see the whole show. Obama gave his still-not-quite-natural-sounding callouts to the different military services represented in the crowd. ("I know we've got some Air Force in the house!" and so on, receiving cheers rendered as "Hooyah!" and "Oorah!" in the official White House transcript.) He told members of the military that the nation was grateful for their nonstop deployments and for the unique losses and burdens placed on them through the past dozen years of open-ended war. He noted that they were often the face of American influence in the world, being dispatched to Liberia in 2014 to cope with the then-dawning Ebola epidemic as they had been sent to Indonesia 10 years earlier to rescue victims of the catastrophic tsunami there. He said that the "9/11 generation of heroes" represented the very best in its country, and that its members constituted a military that was not only superior to all current adversaries but no less than "the finest fighting force in the history of the world."
If any of my fellow travelers at O'Hare were still listening to the speech, none of them showed any reaction to it. And why would they? This has become the way we assume the American military will be discussed by politicians and in the press: Overblown, limitless praise, absent the caveats or public skepticism we would apply to other American institutions, especially ones that run on taxpayer money. A somber moment to reflect on sacrifice. Then everyone except the few people in uniform getting on with their workaday concerns.
The public attitude evident in the airport was reflected by the public's representatives in Washington. That same afternoon, September 17, the House of Representatives voted after brief debate to authorize arms and supplies for rebel forces in Syria, in hopes that more of them would fight against the Islamic State, or ISIS, than for it. The Senate did the same the next day—and then both houses adjourned early, after an unusually short and historically unproductive term of Congress, to spend the next six and a half weeks fund-raising and campaigning full-time. I'm not aware of any midterm race for the House or Senate in which matters of war and peace—as opposed to immigration, Obamacare, voting rights, tax rates, the Ebola scare—were first-tier campaign issues on either side, except for the metaphorical "war on women" and "war on coal."
This reverent but disengaged attitude toward the military—we love the troops, but we'd rather not think about them—has become so familiar that we assume it is the American norm. But it is not. When Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a five-star general and the supreme commander, led what may have in fact been the finest fighting force in the history of the world, he did not describe it in that puffed-up way. On the eve of the D-Day invasion, he warned his troops, "Your task will not be an easy one," because "your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened." As president, Eisenhower's most famous statement about the military was his warning in his farewell address of what could happen if its political influence grew unchecked.
At the end of World War II, nearly 10 percent of the entire U.S. population was on active military duty—which meant most able-bodied men of a certain age (plus the small number of women allowed to serve). Through the decade after World War II, when so many American families had at least one member in uniform, political and journalistic references were admiring but not awestruck. Most Americans were familiar enough with the military to respect it while being sharply aware of its shortcomings, as they were with the school system, their religion, and other important and fallible institutions.
Now the American military is exotic territory to most of the American public. As a comparison: A handful of Americans live on farms, but there are many more of them than serve in all branches of the military. (Well over 4 million people live on the country's 2.1 million farms. The U.S. military has about 1.4 million people on active duty and another 850,000 in the reserves.) The other 310 million–plus Americans "honor" their stalwart farmers, but generally don't know them. So too with the military. Many more young Americans will study abroad this year than will enlist in the military—nearly 300,000 students overseas, versus well under 200,000 new recruits. As a country, America has been at war nonstop for the past 13 years. As a public, it has not. A total of about 2.5 million Americans, roughly three-quarters of 1 percent, served in Iraq or Afghanistan at any point in the post-9/11 years, many of them more than once.
The difference between the earlier America that knew its military and the modern America that gazes admiringly at its heroes shows up sharply in changes in popular and media culture. While World War II was under way, its best-known chroniclers were the Scripps Howard reporter Ernie Pyle, who described the daily braveries and travails of the troops (until he was killed near the war's end by Japanese machine-gun fire on the island of Iejima), and the Stars and Stripes cartoonist Bill Mauldin, who mocked the obtuseness of generals and their distance from the foxhole realities faced by his wisecracking GI characters, Willie and Joe.
From Mister Roberts to South Pacific to Catch-22, from The Caine Mutiny to The Naked and the Dead to From Here to Eternity, American popular and high culture treated our last mass-mobilization war as an effort deserving deep respect and pride, but not above criticism and lampooning. The collective achievement of the military was heroic, but its members and leaders were still real people, with all the foibles of real life. A decade after that war ended, the most popular military-themed TV program was The Phil Silvers Show, about a con man in uniform named Sgt. Bilko. As Bilko, Phil Silvers was that stock American sitcom figure, the lovable blowhard—a role familiar from the time of Jackie Gleason in The Honeymooners to Homer Simpson in The Simpsons today. Gomer Pyle, USMC; Hogan's Heroes; McHale's Navy; and even the anachronistic frontier show F Troop were sitcoms whose settings were U.S. military units and whose villains—and schemers, and stooges, and occasional idealists—were people in uniform. American culture was sufficiently at ease with the military to make fun of it, a stance now hard to imagine outside the military itself.
Robert Altman's 1970 movie M*A*S*H was clearly "about" the Vietnam War, then well into its bloodiest and most bitterly divisive period. (As I point out whenever discussing this topic, I was eligible for the draft at the time, was one of those protesting the war, and at age 20 legally but intentionally failed my draft medical exam. I told this story in a 1975 Washington Monthly article, "What Did You Do in the Class War, Daddy?") But M*A*S*H's ostensible placement in the Korean War of the early 1950s somewhat distanced its darkly mocking attitude about military competence and authority from fierce disagreements about Vietnam. (The one big Vietnam movie to precede it was John Wayne's doughily prowar The Green Berets, in 1968. What we think of as the classic run of Vietnam films did not begin until the end of the 1970s, with The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now.) The TV spin-off of Altman's film, which ran from 1972 through 1983, was a simpler and more straightforward sitcom on the Sgt. Bilko model, again suggesting a culture close enough to its military to put up with, and enjoy, jokes about it.
Let's skip to today's Iraq-Afghanistan era, in which everyone "supports" the troops but few know very much about them. The pop-culture references to the people fighting our ongoing wars emphasize their suffering and stoicism, or the long-term personal damage they may endure. The Hurt Locker is the clearest example, but also Lone Survivor; Restrepo; the short-lived 2005 FX series set in Iraq, Over There; and Showtime's current series Homeland. Some emphasize high-stakes action, from the fictionalized 24 to the meant-to-be-true Zero Dark Thirty. Often they portray military and intelligence officials as brave and daring. But while cumulatively these dramas highlight the damage that open-ended warfare has done—on the battlefield and elsewhere, to warriors and civilians alike, in the short term but also through long-term blowback—they lack the comfortable closeness with the military that would allow them to question its competence as they would any other institution's.
The battlefield is of course a separate realm, as the literature of warfare from Homer's time onward has emphasized. But the distance between today's stateside America and its always-at-war expeditionary troops is extraordinary. Last year, the writer Rebecca Frankel published War Dogs, a study of the dog-and-handler teams that had played a large part in the U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason she chose the topic, she told me, was that dogs were one of the few common points of reference between the military and the larger public. "When we cannot make that human connection over war, when we cannot empathize or imagine the far-off world of a combat zone ... these military working dogs are a bridge over the divide," Frankel wrote in the introduction to her book.
It's a wonderful book, and dogs are a better connection than nothing. But ... dogs! When the country fought its previous wars, its common points of reference were human rather than canine: fathers and sons in harm's way, mothers and daughters working in defense plants and in uniform as well. For two decades after World War II, the standing force remained so large, and the Depression-era birth cohorts were so small, that most Americans had a direct military connection. Among older Baby Boomers, those born before 1955, at least three-quarters have had an immediate family member—sibling, parent, spouse, child—who served in uniform. Of Americans born since 1980, the Millennials, about one in three is closely related to anyone with military experience.
The most biting satirical novel to come from the Iraq-Afghanistan era, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, by Ben Fountain, is a takedown of our empty modern "thank you for your service" rituals. It is the story of an Army squad that is badly shot up in Iraq; is brought back to be honored at halftime during a nationally televised Dallas Cowboys Thanksgiving Day game; while there, is slapped on the back and toasted by owner's-box moguls and flirted with by cheerleaders, "passed around like everyone's favorite bong," as platoon member Billy Lynn thinks of it; and is then shipped right back to the front.
The people at the stadium feel good about what they've done to show their support for the troops. From the troops' point of view, the spectacle looks different. "There's something harsh in his fellow Americans, avid, ecstatic, a burning that comes of the deepest need," the narrator says of Billy Lynn's thoughts. "That's his sense of it, they all need something from him, this pack of half-rich lawyers, dentists, soccer moms, and corporate VPs, they're all gnashing for a piece of a barely grown grunt making $14,800 a year." Fountain's novel won the National Book Critics Circle Award for fiction in 2012, but it did not dent mainstream awareness enough to make anyone self-conscious about continuing the "salute to the heroes" gestures that do more for the civilian public's self-esteem than for the troops'. As I listened to Obama that day in the airport, and remembered Ben Fountain's book, and observed the hum of preoccupied America around me, I thought that the parts of the presidential speech few Americans were listening to were the ones historians might someday seize upon to explain the temper of our times.
It goes on and is, I think, quite interesting and important. Though I also found this piece which discusses Fallows' draft-dodging good:
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-james-fallows.html
Partly I wonder if the problem's a culture of sentimentality which is certainly something that's emerged in the UK over the military in recent years. There's a now very large charity which has really started in the last few years called Help for Heroes which sums it up and there's now televised games for amputees from the military and that sort of thing (I'm rather pleased that the Legion haven't got involved in this sort of thing, but I wish half the money was going to them). It all seems very alien and something I see as a recent shift. I was recently on holiday with a friend from a military town who now lives abroad and he said how he's noticed it more and more each time he returns.
To the extent that this sentimentality is helping ex-servicemen and their families it's entirely okay. But I also think it has that distancing effect that Fallows describes; people on podiums are inevitably a little more distant from us. I can't remember who but a retired General recently said that he was worried by it because ultimately British soldiers are doing a job which is to do whatever missions that are in Britain's interests but we're reaching a point where the general public just don't want them in harms way. Very few missions are, in their eyes, worth the cost of a hero's life - I think WW1 centenary feeds into this too. Which isn't necessarily a positive trend if we want to continue to act in the world (this is British and not something Fallows discusses).
In addition to that the government's cutting defence spending and planning a new round of cuts that would be even worse. At the same time because we're dealing with heroes, even the very medalled Generals, I don't think there's sufficient awareness or discussion of the fact that UK lost in Basra and didn't really do very well in Afghanistan - I'm not even sure if UK military figures really realise how profoundly we disappointed our allies (Jonathan Powell doesn't, he's using Northern Ireland as a model fit for all conflicts despite many Americans going a shade of puce whenever they hear the words 'berets' or 'Belfast'). I've always thought the US was slightly better at this because of the whole 'soldier-scholar' tradition, but the article makes me wonder if part of it's just a general disengagement. There's no real interest just lots of feeling. I don't know just some thoughts I had when reading it.
It's result of the Vietnam war. There was a feeling that US soldiers were not treated properly then and ever since the military has been worshiped to try to compensate. One of the odd consequences is that after being elevated to demi-god status, soldiers are now expected to shoulder Herculean burdens.
A draft dodger? Fuck him. Let someone else make the point.
Quote from: derspiess on December 29, 2014, 09:12:00 PM
A draft dodger? Fuck him. Let someone else make the point.
Yes, somebody with multiple deferments would be much more convincing.
Quote from: derspiess on December 29, 2014, 09:12:00 PM
A draft dodger? Fuck him. Let someone else make the point.
It's easy to hate on draft dodgers. But I don't think there are many in the military who would want to serve alongside someone who really doesn't want to be there that much. Not because of their impression of their character, but in terms of their motivation/dedication.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 29, 2014, 09:53:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 29, 2014, 09:12:00 PM
A draft dodger? Fuck him. Let someone else make the point.
It's easy to hate on draft dodgers. But I don't think there are many in the military who would want to serve alongside someone who really doesn't want to be there that much. Not because of their impression of their character, but in terms of their motivation/dedication.
That might be true in today's US military, because everyone is used to an all-volunteer service. I don't think the same attitude would prevail among those who served between 1940 and 1975.
Quote from: derspiess on December 29, 2014, 09:12:00 PM
A draft dodger? Fuck him. Let someone else make the point.
Yeah, God forbid someone try their best not to get sent off to kill someone or get killed themselves.
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2014, 12:55:07 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 29, 2014, 09:53:05 PM
It's easy to hate on draft dodgers. But I don't think there are many in the military who would want to serve alongside someone who really doesn't want to be there that much. Not because of their impression of their character, but in terms of their motivation/dedication.
That might be true in today's US military, because everyone is used to an all-volunteer service. I don't think the same attitude would prevail among those who served between 1940 and 1975.
Yes, I would think the whole survival-in-combat thing would provide enough motivation/dedication. That, and a much more rigorous boot camp system than exists now.
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2014, 12:55:07 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 29, 2014, 09:53:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 29, 2014, 09:12:00 PM
A draft dodger? Fuck him. Let someone else make the point.
It's easy to hate on draft dodgers. But I don't think there are many in the military who would want to serve alongside someone who really doesn't want to be there that much. Not because of their impression of their character, but in terms of their motivation/dedication.
That might be true in today's US military, because everyone is used to an all-volunteer service. I don't think the same attitude would prevail among those who served between 1940 and 1975.
Presuming it was taken from the book/accounts of those it was based on...I remember in Band of Brothers, there was a few derogatory mentions of draftees.
But I agree. Those who were drafted, and didn't dodge certainly likely resented those who did...that doesn't mean they'd want to share a foxhole with them.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 30, 2014, 01:09:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 29, 2014, 09:12:00 PM
A draft dodger? Fuck him. Let someone else make the point.
Yeah, God forbid someone try their best not to get sent off to kill someone or get killed themselves.
I have much more respect for Vietnam era draft dodgers than I do for the sons of rich men who got deferments or safe deployments through connections in the same period.
Tonitrus has to dig twice as much for his foxholes. Keeps his legs in the other one.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2014, 01:11:00 AM
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2014, 12:55:07 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 29, 2014, 09:53:05 PM
It's easy to hate on draft dodgers. But I don't think there are many in the military who would want to serve alongside someone who really doesn't want to be there that much. Not because of their impression of their character, but in terms of their motivation/dedication.
That might be true in today's US military, because everyone is used to an all-volunteer service. I don't think the same attitude would prevail among those who served between 1940 and 1975.
Yes, I would think the whole survival-in-combat thing would provide enough motivation/dedication. That, and a much more rigorous boot camp system than exists now.
I'm no Siege, but I'd think the "I am just trying to survive" mentality doesn't work well for a successful combat op.
Among many volunteers (perhaps more in special ops), there probably is very much more of a "kick ass/get the mission done" mentality. You're probably right about the "I joined up to pay for college" crowd. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2014, 01:14:31 AM
Tonitrus has to dig twice as much for his foxholes. Keeps his legs in the other one.
I won't pretend to be anything more than a REMF. I defend freedom with my big brain. :P
People who really don't want to be in the military can be shaped into formidable fighting soldiers. IF they actually get into uniform.
Quote from: The Brain on December 30, 2014, 03:28:56 AM
People who really don't want to be in the military can be shaped into formidable fighting soldiers. IF they actually get into uniform.
There is no way you can make a formidable fighting soldier out of me.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2014, 03:31:57 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 30, 2014, 03:28:56 AM
People who really don't want to be in the military can be shaped into formidable fighting soldiers. IF they actually get into uniform.
There is no way you can make a formidable fighting soldier out of me.
Not because you don't want to be a soldier.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2014, 03:31:57 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 30, 2014, 03:28:56 AM
People who really don't want to be in the military can be shaped into formidable fighting soldiers. IF they actually get into uniform.
There is no way you can make a formidable fighting soldier out of me.
As I understand PLA doctrine, your job would be to absorb one or more bullets, till such time as the United Nations forces run out of bullets. You could do that. :)
Don't hate draft dodgers, hate the fucked up system that tried to unfairly steal their freedom.
I can understand why many went along with things and didn't try to dodge, but, even though they were the majority, they are the anomaly.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2014, 03:31:57 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 30, 2014, 03:28:56 AM
People who really don't want to be in the military can be shaped into formidable fighting soldiers. IF they actually get into uniform.
There is no way you can make a formidable fighting soldier out of me.
How about we use you to operate a lethal drone and give you share options for each jihadist killed?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2014, 04:27:09 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2014, 03:31:57 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 30, 2014, 03:28:56 AM
People who really don't want to be in the military can be shaped into formidable fighting soldiers. IF they actually get into uniform.
There is no way you can make a formidable fighting soldier out of me.
How about we use you to operate a lethal drone and give you share options for each jihadist killed?
For the first time in my life, becoming a soldier seems an attractive proposition :menace:
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2014, 04:01:22 AM
Don't hate draft dodgers, hate the fucked up system that tried to unfairly steal their freedom.
I can understand why many went along with things and didn't try to dodge, but, even though they were the majority, they are the anomaly.
Josq says: vote Mosley.
Edit: Well, I guess you guys did have World War I. How does living in an irredeemably-declined global power feel? No, seriously, I need to know what to be prepared for. :(
What's unfair about meeting people from a different culture and killing them?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 30, 2014, 04:33:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2014, 04:01:22 AM
Don't hate draft dodgers, hate the fucked up system that tried to unfairly steal their freedom.
I can understand why many went along with things and didn't try to dodge, but, even though they were the majority, they are the anomaly.
Josq says: vote Mosley.
Edit: Well, I guess you guys did have World War I. How does living in an irredeemably-declined global power feel? No, seriously, I need to know what to be prepared for. :(
?????
What does being against conscription have to do with being fascist? The opposite surely ?
Britain hasn't declined (well.... Maybe a bit what with the 80s...), the rest of the world here merely rose :contract:
The guys who don't volunteer for military service are the guys who need it the most. Order and discipline is a good antidote to hippieism.
The question posed is "Should Britons have had the freedom not to spend a few years fighting the Nazis when they threatened to enslave the continent forever?"
Shouldn't all young men be ready to slaughter foreigners or enemies within and to lay down their own lives if their country's elders tell them to?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 30, 2014, 04:43:31 AM
The question posed is "Should Britons have had the freedom not to spend a few years fighting the Nazis when they threatened to enslave the continent forever?"
Ideally yes. If a war is really so critical then there should be enough volunteers.
In practice a moral war against an evil enemy that is directly attacking your country is a bit more important and valid a cause than going to the other side of the world to help one nasty little regime to murder it's citizens because they might possibly like another nasty little regime instead.
A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, defending it with his life. A civilian does not.
Quote from: The Brain on December 30, 2014, 06:53:36 AM
A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, defending it with his life. A civilian does not.
I am: civilian :bowler:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 30, 2014, 04:33:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2014, 04:01:22 AM
Don't hate draft dodgers, hate the fucked up system that tried to unfairly steal their freedom.
I can understand why many went along with things and didn't try to dodge, but, even though they were the majority, they are the anomaly.
Josq says: vote Mosley.
Edit: Well, I guess you guys did have World War I. How does living in an irredeemably-declined global power feel? No, seriously, I need to know what to be prepared for. :(
It feels good; the Empire really was a very silly thing, redeemed by the final use it was put to.
There's been a lot of talk lately about a widening gap between those in the military and civilians because such a small percentage serve, and so not many people have much or any contact with the military so have little idea of it. Most people hold military members in high regard, I think partly because people realize that they're doing the job asked of them and aren't the ones making the political decisions. Unlike Viet Nam where the military was demonized instead, though the politicians were demonized as well, but it seemed the soldiers caught too much the brunt of anger at the war.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 30, 2014, 01:09:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 29, 2014, 09:12:00 PM
A draft dodger? Fuck him. Let someone else make the point.
Yeah, God forbid someone try their best not to get sent off to kill someone or get killed themselves.
Or to serve his country.
Quote from: KRonn on December 30, 2014, 09:17:20 AM
There's been a lot of talk lately about a widening gap between those in the military and civilians because such a small percentage serve, and so not many people have much or any contact with the military so have little idea of it. Most people hold military members in high regard, I think partly because people realize that they're doing the job asked of them and aren't the ones making the political decisions. Unlike Viet Nam where the military was demonized instead, though the politicians were demonized as well, but it seemed the soldiers caught too much the brunt of anger at the war.
And then, there are 7 pogs for each infantryman.
Talk about a gap.
Bar opens a little early at Fort Campbell
Quote from: mongers on December 30, 2014, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 30, 2014, 04:33:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2014, 04:01:22 AM
Don't hate draft dodgers, hate the fucked up system that tried to unfairly steal their freedom.
I can understand why many went along with things and didn't try to dodge, but, even though they were the majority, they are the anomaly.
Josq says: vote Mosley.
Edit: Well, I guess you guys did have World War I. How does living in an irredeemably-declined global power feel? No, seriously, I need to know what to be prepared for. :(
It feels good; the Empire really was a very silly thing, redeemed by the final use it was put to.
Kill Argentines? Agreed.
Quote from: Siege on December 30, 2014, 10:30:56 AM
Or to serve his country.
Which one, Betzalel Arnold?
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 30, 2014, 01:12:07 AM
Those who were drafted, and didn't dodge certainly likely resented those who did...
Well, moral cowards often resent those who take costly and unpopular principled positions. ;)
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:21:22 AM
Well, moral cowards often resent those who take costly and unpopular principled positions. ;)
I dunno; Mitt Romney took a costly and unpopular principled position in creating an unpopular anti-draft dodger group on campus during his six college deferments and one "LULZ, IMMA ON MAH MISSION" to Paris. That takes real guts.
What is Martinus doing in a military thread?
Somebody smack him pleaz.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 30, 2014, 01:09:44 AM
Yeah, God forbid someone try their best not to get sent off to kill someone or get killed themselves be a coward.
FIXED
lol, derCheney.
:lol:
Quote from: Siege on December 30, 2014, 10:33:23 AM
Quote from: KRonn on December 30, 2014, 09:17:20 AM
There's been a lot of talk lately about a widening gap between those in the military and civilians because such a small percentage serve, and so not many people have much or any contact with the military so have little idea of it. Most people hold military members in high regard, I think partly because people realize that they're doing the job asked of them and aren't the ones making the political decisions. Unlike Viet Nam where the military was demonized instead, though the politicians were demonized as well, but it seemed the soldiers caught too much the brunt of anger at the war.
And then, there are 7 pogs for each infantryman.
Talk about a gap.
Much less of a gap then having to drive home from Iraq every night to get dinner and some more ammunition.
Why would anyone care about draft dodging in any event? The draft ended 40 years ago, and should have been ended sooner if the US wanted to use their military on pointless wars that they'll fight to lose, like Vietnam.
Because they're "cowards". Duh.
Pretty good article. I've worked with a lot of senior military officers (and CSM) and what I've noted was how remarkably uninspiring most of them are. Far more often than not they are essentially plain bureaucrats who rose to the top by never making any waves. Being boring and unimaginative seem to be prerequisites to rise to the top. I've met many very interesting and competent Colonels, who never make it to flag officer rank, the selection criteria is certainly broken.
Quote from: Neil on December 30, 2014, 10:12:59 PM
Why would anyone care about draft dodging in any event? The draft ended 40 years ago, and should have been ended sooner if the US wanted to use their military on pointless wars that they'll fight to lose, like Vietnam.
Everyone is expected to do his duty. Those who shirk do not deserve to live here. Shit, at least get some conscientious objector gig or request non-combat duty.
What about those who serve their country in other ways? Like being a teacher?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 31, 2014, 10:03:28 AM
What about those who serve their country in other ways? Like being a teacher?
Or becoming Vice President?
Quote from: Habbaku on December 30, 2014, 10:24:41 PM
Because they're "cowards". Duh.
No, it's one thing to be a coward. Vietnam era draft dodgers, in the main, weren't cowards--they were Commie sympathizers.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 31, 2014, 10:03:28 AM
What about those who serve their country in other ways? Like being a teacher?
Under certain circumstances, sure. I think that's what Dave Barry did as a conscientious objector.
Quote from: dps on December 31, 2014, 10:38:31 AM
No, it's one thing to be a coward. Vietnam era draft dodgers, in the main, weren't cowards--they were Commie sympathizers.
Some of them were traitors and some were cowards.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 31, 2014, 10:03:28 AM
What about those who serve their country in other ways? Like being a teacher?
Being a teacher doesn't mean you're locked up for years with a bunch of ethnic little sadistic psychopaths and eating disgusting food.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on December 31, 2014, 10:43:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 31, 2014, 10:03:28 AM
What about those who serve their country in other ways? Like being a teacher?
Under certain circumstances, sure. I think that's what Dave Barry did as a conscientious objector.
Are there some circumstances when serving in the military is not a form of serving your country?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 31, 2014, 11:30:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 31, 2014, 10:43:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 31, 2014, 10:03:28 AM
What about those who serve their country in other ways? Like being a teacher?
Under certain circumstances, sure. I think that's what Dave Barry did as a conscientious objector.
Are there some circumstances when serving in the military is not a form of serving your country?
Sure-- e.g., cases where you're not a citizen of said country.
Quote from: derspiess on December 31, 2014, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 30, 2014, 10:12:59 PM
Why would anyone care about draft dodging in any event? The draft ended 40 years ago, and should have been ended sooner if the US wanted to use their military on pointless wars that they'll fight to lose, like Vietnam.
Everyone is expected to do his duty. Those who shirk do not deserve to live here. Shit, at least get some conscientious objector gig or request non-combat duty.
That would be a lot more compelling if the people preaching it at the exact same time were not slobbing on the knob of some d-bag who used his wealth and influence to do the exact same thing with a different label.
Quote from: derspiess on December 31, 2014, 10:44:20 AM
Quote from: dps on December 31, 2014, 10:38:31 AM
No, it's one thing to be a coward. Vietnam era draft dodgers, in the main, weren't cowards--they were Commie sympathizers.
Some of them were traitors and some were cowards.
I don't agree. There's no shame in avoiding going out there to get shot at for no purpose. The US had decided to lose the war in Vietnam, so why participate? Maybe if you were black, because then you could get the training to fight your real enemy, the United States. But it'd still be pretty risky, especially since you'd have to subordinate yourself to racist officers.
Quote from: derspiess on December 31, 2014, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 30, 2014, 10:12:59 PM
Why would anyone care about draft dodging in any event? The draft ended 40 years ago, and should have been ended sooner if the US wanted to use their military on pointless wars that they'll fight to lose, like Vietnam.
Everyone is expected to do his duty. Those who shirk do not deserve to live here. Shit, at least get some conscientious objector gig or request non-combat duty.
How many years did you serve in the military?
Quote from: Neil on December 31, 2014, 12:22:41 PM
I don't agree. There's no shame in avoiding going out there to get shot at for no purpose. The US had decided to lose the war in Vietnam, so why participate? Maybe if you were black, because then you could get the training to fight your real enemy, the United States. But it'd still be pretty risky, especially since you'd have to subordinate yourself to racist officers.
2/10
I served 15 years online. I bunny hopped though the ETO.
Quote from: derspiess on December 31, 2014, 11:54:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 31, 2014, 11:30:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 31, 2014, 10:43:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 31, 2014, 10:03:28 AM
What about those who serve their country in other ways? Like being a teacher?
Under certain circumstances, sure. I think that's what Dave Barry did as a conscientious objector.
Are there some circumstances when serving in the military is not a form of serving your country?
Sure-- e.g., cases where you're not a citizen of said country.
That kind of irks me (but I'll give the benefit of the doubt if you didn't mean it in the following case), as there are plenty of folks serving in the U.S. military who are not yet citizens, but are striving to be. I would say they are serving our country, and what could fairly said be their adopted country.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 31, 2014, 06:43:41 PM
as there are plenty of folks serving in the U.S. military who are not yet citizens, but are striving to be. I would say they are serving our country, and what could fairly said be their adopted country.
Security risks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 31, 2014, 06:57:04 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 31, 2014, 06:43:41 PM
as there are plenty of folks serving in the U.S. military who are not yet citizens, but are striving to be. I would say they are serving our country, and what could fairly said be their adopted country.
Security risks.
I think overly-idealistic Millennials are the greatest security risk. Jaded curmudgeons are America's last line of defense.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 31, 2014, 09:54:41 PM
I think overly-idealistic Millennials are the greatest security risk. Jaded curmudgeons are America's last line of defense.
Get the fuck out of Laramie, hippie.
Quote from: grumbler on December 31, 2014, 02:07:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 31, 2014, 12:22:41 PM
I don't agree. There's no shame in avoiding going out there to get shot at for no purpose. The US had decided to lose the war in Vietnam, so why participate? Maybe if you were black, because then you could get the training to fight your real enemy, the United States. But it'd still be pretty risky, especially since you'd have to subordinate yourself to racist officers.
2/10
If I was really trolling, I would have said that the US military lost all legitimacy when they mothballed their dreadnoughts.
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2014, 12:55:07 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 29, 2014, 09:53:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 29, 2014, 09:12:00 PM
A draft dodger? Fuck him. Let someone else make the point.
It's easy to hate on draft dodgers. But I don't think there are many in the military who would want to serve alongside someone who really doesn't want to be there that much. Not because of their impression of their character, but in terms of their motivation/dedication.
That might be true in today's US military, because everyone is used to an all-volunteer service. I don't think the same attitude would prevail among those who served between 1940 and 1975.
Exactly. I don't think most people who got drafted wanted to be drafted or sent to Vietnam, but they didn't 'bitch out' or take the easy way out.
While he brings up some good points, misses the mark completely on others, it just seems bullshit coming from someone of his background as if hes speaking from the inside. :yuk:
The old army from the Korean war to the Vietnam war still had a very large core of volunteers and professional NCOs. I remember reading that 75% of soldiers in Vietnam were volunteers. Draftees tended to go to Europe, Korea, Japan or stay in the US.
Two of my colleagues -- one at the old office, one at the current one -- were in the Army during the Vietnam War and were sent to Vietnam.
They both got drafted and just showed up for induction like they were told to. The first one was drafted after college at the peak of the war and the second was drafted after high school a couple years later. They were both stationed on base during their respective years in Vietnam, the first as a typist and the second as a truck mechanic. Then rotated back to the US, at bases in California and the South, both having all their family and friends back in New England. Then given honorable discharges and that was that.
Neither of them really seem to have any strong feelings or anything to say about it. They each told me it felt like a complete waste of two years of their lives and that their service seemed pointless. No memorable anecdotes or harrowing tales; no pride in serving and no resentment at being drafted -- just a two-year blank spot that consumed ages 22-24 and 19-21 a long time ago, before and after which they lived their real young adult lives.
These accounts are almost the oddest to hear, given how emotionally overloaded the whole Vietnam experience is in the American psyche.
Quote from: derspiess on December 31, 2014, 10:44:20 AM
Quote from: dps on December 31, 2014, 10:38:31 AM
No, it's one thing to be a coward. Vietnam era draft dodgers, in the main, weren't cowards--they were Commie sympathizers.
Some of them were traitors and some were cowards.
Others were smarter than most.
Quote from: Hansmeister on December 31, 2014, 02:40:48 AM
Pretty good article. I've worked with a lot of senior military officers (and CSM) and what I've noted was how remarkably uninspiring most of them are. Far more often than not they are essentially plain bureaucrats who rose to the top by never making any waves. Being boring and unimaginative seem to be prerequisites to rise to the top. I've met many very interesting and competent Colonels, who never make it to flag officer rank, the selection criteria is certainly broken.
You, my friend, are absolutely right.
When I look at the ribbon rack on any CSM, I see no combat awards whatsoever.
They all got the right schools, but few if any has been in the shit and has the little metal hanging on his chest to prove it.
My impression is senior NCOs are hostile to combat focused hot shots.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 01, 2015, 03:49:22 PM
Two of my colleagues -- one at the old office, one at the current one -- were in the Army during the Vietnam War and were sent to Vietnam.
They both got drafted and just showed up for induction like they were told to. The first one was drafted after college at the peak of the war and the second was drafted after high school a couple years later. They were both stationed on base during their respective years in Vietnam, the first as a typist and the second as a truck mechanic. Then rotated back to the US, at bases in California and the South, both having all their family and friends back in New England. Then given honorable discharges and that was that.
Neither of them really seem to have any strong feelings or anything to say about it. They each told me it felt like a complete waste of two years of their lives and that their service seemed pointless. No memorable anecdotes or harrowing tales; no pride in serving and no resentment at being drafted -- just a two-year blank spot that consumed ages 22-24 and 19-21 a long time ago, before and after which they lived their real young adult lives.
These accounts are almost the oddest to hear, given how emotionally overloaded the whole Vietnam experience is in the American psyche.
But this should be rather the norm than the exception. As I said, only one out of seven Soldiers is an infantryman.
Which is kind of telling me that there a lot of mechanics, cooks, and supply dudes with great war stories out there.
After seen the Hall Of Shame : http://guardianofvalor.com/hall-of-shame/
I do not believe war stories people say unless I know the dude personally and are other guys around that were there and can vouch for the story.
So were Boomers just allowed to walk into Canada and work and stuff?
Quote from: Siege on January 02, 2015, 03:53:50 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 01, 2015, 03:49:22 PM
Two of my colleagues -- one at the old office, one at the current one -- were in the Army during the Vietnam War and were sent to Vietnam.
They both got drafted and just showed up for induction like they were told to. The first one was drafted after college at the peak of the war and the second was drafted after high school a couple years later. They were both stationed on base during their respective years in Vietnam, the first as a typist and the second as a truck mechanic. Then rotated back to the US, at bases in California and the South, both having all their family and friends back in New England. Then given honorable discharges and that was that.
Neither of them really seem to have any strong feelings or anything to say about it. They each told me it felt like a complete waste of two years of their lives and that their service seemed pointless. No memorable anecdotes or harrowing tales; no pride in serving and no resentment at being drafted -- just a two-year blank spot that consumed ages 22-24 and 19-21 a long time ago, before and after which they lived their real young adult lives.
These accounts are almost the oddest to hear, given how emotionally overloaded the whole Vietnam experience is in the American psyche.
But this should be rather the norm than the exception. As I said, only one out of seven Soldiers is an infantryman.
Which is kind of telling me that there a lot of mechanics, cooks, and supply dudes with great war stories out there.
After seen the Hall Of Shame : http://guardianofvalor.com/hall-of-shame/
I do not believe war stories people say unless I know the dude personally and are other guys around that were there and can vouch for the story.
I was a computer guy in the Guards. Oh the stories I could tell...
Quote from: Ideologue on January 02, 2015, 03:57:45 PM
So were Boomers just allowed to walk into Canada and work and stuff?
They were allowed to apply for landed immigrant status. Once that was obtain, yes they could stay and work and stuff.
It was fairly easy to qualify for most as they were generally well educated.
As I said a few posts ago, the people who came to Canada were smarter than most. :)
Whiter than most you mean.
Quote from: The Brain on January 02, 2015, 04:33:24 PM
Whiter than most you mean.
No, I don't.
During that period of our history immigrants came mostly from Europe - ie white. So if anything even the small percentage of Black Americans coming North was an improvement.