Americans and Their Military, Drifting Apart

[pawnman]

An interesting article by a retired general about the large disconnect between Americans at large and the military. Some of his ideas make sense to me, others do not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/americans-and-their-military-drifting-apart.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

[guineapigfury]

Meh, color me unimpressed. I automatically tune out anyone calling for a draft outside of a World War 3 scenario. A draft is a good idea, just not for the military. Randomly selecting college educated citizens over the age of 30 to be Congresspeople would probably get us better government than we get now.

[i.o.w.a]

Guineapig, why don't you like a draft?

For arguments sake, the article mentions what sounds like a valid idea, if a draft puts a larger cross section of society in the military, congress is less likely to send us into harms way to solve other country's problems. Sounds like a good thing to me.

[10percenttruth]

Because politicians & rich/influential people have NEVER pulled strings to keep their babies out of the draft...

[pawnman]

Because politicians & rich/influential people have NEVER pulled strings to keep their babies out of the draft...

I wasn't on board with the idea of a draft either...but part of what doing a draft does is forces people from a large cross-section into the military. Even if the rich and influential people manage to keep their kids out, you now have voters across a large spectrum who are in the military or have kids in the military.

Because we've shown the American people we'll do any job, no matter the cost or lack of resources, and because so few Americans have contact with the military, we are now the answer to every problem. Libya? Send the military. Afghanistan? Send the military. Iran? Military will take care of it. The American people are far too willing to commit to military action because, on the whole, it costs them nothing. Their kids aren't in. It's all financed with deficit spending, so their taxes aren't going up. There are no food or steel or rubber shortages. It makes the American people apathetic when our political leadership wants to use the military for every minor problem around the world.

Part of what convinced our government to end Vietnam was the fact that draftees came from a wide-range of backgrounds, creating a wide-spread opposition to sending our military to die in a rice field thousands of miles away for nebulous objectives. Now, most Americans couldn't find Iraq and Afghanistan on a map, and most think we're done deploying.

[guineapigfury]

Isn't the real fix for Congress to take back it's Constitutionally prescribed role of declaring war, which it has currently abdicated? Repeal the war powers act, and then the president doesn't send troops anywhere without the nation's buy-in. This would force a debate every time politicians feel the need to fix something just because it's on the news.

[Prozac]

Isn't the real fix for Congress to take back it's Constitutionally prescribed role of declaring war, which it has currently abdicated? Repeal the war powers act, and then the president doesn't send troops anywhere without the nation's buy-in. This would force a debate every time politicians feel the need to fix something just because it's on the news.

This is also a part of the argument the article makes.

Personally, I'm for anything that gets the public more in tune with the military. I also think WE could do a better job getting ourselves out and intermixed with the public. One thing I don't agree on though is the author's take on the Total Force concept. From my perspective it is still very much a part of the strategy, yet fails to be the brake on military action that the general suggests. For the most part, thencivilian sector either accepts or ignores the downsides of what is a very small percentage of the workforce going off to war. I think a more appropriate approach would be to put real limits on how much you can use the reserve component. This may have the effect of forcing politicians to think twice before commiting the force to questionable causes.

[HeloDude]

I hate the idea of a draft. If our Republic was ever threatened to the point that it didn't have enough people to defend herself, then that is when the country will fall. If it's worth saving, then enough people will volunteer to stand up and fight for her, and if not enough people do, well then there's your answer to how people feel about their homeland and Freedom.

[Snooter]

I think a draft would be good, I mean if we can hire a TCN to do it why not give a kid a stripe and have them cook the omelettes. This is opposed to a contractor that will pay half a dozen civlians 6 figures to hang out behind a bar at 0800 with a contingent of 2-3 enlisted troops ensuring that none of the 10 patrons is getting more than their three drinks per18 hrs. The biggest problem I see is putting some of the punks I know through basic training with it being "kinder and gentler," we don't want any feelings getting hurt after all...

[pawnman]

I hate the idea of a draft. If our Republic was ever threatened to the point that it didn't have enough people to defend herself, then that is when the country will fall. If it's worth saving, then enough people will volunteer to stand up and fight for her, and if not enough people do, well then there's your answer to how people feel about their homeland and Freedom.

So WWII wasn't worthwhile, then?

[HeloDude]

So WWII wasn't worthwhile, then?

Japan attacked our country, and there was reason to believe that they could definitely attack her again (and they did...again). Germany declared war on the US on 11 Dec 1941, and I'm sure would have attacked us had we done nothing about it (we were shooting at them even before the war, which is another discussion in itself)...I'll let you history geeks correct me as necessary and go back and forth on the details. So yes, it was definitely a worthwhile fight because of those issues.

Do I believe there should have been a draft for it?...no, I don't. A quick google search shows that nearly 40% (about 6.3 million) of those who served were volunteers. Was that enough to win the war has we not had the draft?...I don't know, and I'm not going to search to see if someone wrote a book or paper discussing the question (I'm sure they're out there). But I know one thing--a war definitely could have been waged with that many volunteers. Who knows, maybe we would have gotten more volunteers if the war wasn't going as well with only the current volunteers we had? Maybe they could have offered more of an incentive/bonus to entice more volunteers?...and on and on.

The bottom line is that I think The Constitution is worth fighting for, and hence why I serve, and even if after retirement I will pick up a gun and defend the homeland if needed...I don't need a stinkin' draft to tell my heart what I should do. If you have to force an able man to take up arms then their heart just obviously isn't in it, regardless if the reason is out of religious reasons, selfish reasons, fear, whatever. Those people IMO would rather be slaves than be free...and that's their choice.

What you guys fail to realize is that you'll only be defeated/slaves if you allow yourself to be (and I'm referring to defending your lives on the homeland). Grant it, the other option is probably death, but as someone said one day....

"Give me Liberty, or Give me Death"

[slackline]

Grant it...

Totally sincere question here, no grammar nazi'ing here, but isn't this "granted" not "grant it"? I've always seen it with the -ed not the it, but I see enough of you guys on here saying -it that I'm beginning to doubt. I'll have to google it, but I'm here now, so Google later...

Edit: okay, I'm too OCD to wait. I googled it. It's granted. Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Edited June 18, 2013 by slackline

[pawnman]

Japan attacked our country, and there was reason to believe that they could definitely attack her again (and they did...again). Germany declared war on the US on 11 Dec 1941, and I'm sure would have attacked us had we done nothing about it (we were shooting at them even before the war, which is another discussion in itself)...I'll let you history geeks correct me as necessary and go back and forth on the details. So yes, it was definitely a worthwhile fight because of those issues. Do I believe there should have been a draft for it?...no, I don't. A quick google search shows that nearly 40% (about 6.3 million) of those who served were volunteers. Was that enough to win the war has we not had the draft?...I don't know, and I'm not going to search to see if someone wrote a book or paper discussing the question (I'm sure they're out there). But I know one thing--a war definitely could have been waged with that many volunteers. Who knows, maybe we would have gotten more volunteers if the war wasn't going as well with only the current volunteers we had? Maybe they could have offered more of an incentive/bonus to entice more volunteers?...and on and on. The bottom line is that I think The Constitution is worth fighting for, and hence why I serve, and even if after retirement I will pick up a gun and defend the homeland if needed...I don't need a stinkin' draft to tell my heart what I should do. If you have to force an able man to take up arms then their heart just obviously isn't in it, regardless if the reason is out of religious reasons, selfish reasons, fear, whatever. Those people IMO would rather be slaves than be free...and that's their choice. What you guys fail to realize is that you'll only be defeated/slaves if you allow yourself to be (and I'm referring to defending your lives on the homeland). Grant it, the other option is probably death, but as someone said one day.... "Give me Liberty, or Give me Death"

I'm not sure we would have won WWII missing over half of the total troop strength.

[AnimalMother]

Japan attacked our country, and there was reason to believe that they could definitely attack her again (and they did...again). Germany declared war on the US on 11 Dec 1941, and I'm sure would have attacked us had we done nothing about it (we were shooting at them even before the war, which is another discussion in itself)...I'll let you history geeks correct me as necessary and go back and forth on the details. So yes, it was definitely a worthwhile fight because of those issues.

Do I believe there should have been a draft for it?...no, I don't. A quick google search shows that nearly 40% (about 6.3 million) of those who served were volunteers. Was that enough to win the war has we not had the draft?...I don't know, and I'm not going to search to see if someone wrote a book or paper discussing the question (I'm sure they're out there). But I know one thing--a war definitely could have been waged with that many volunteers. Who knows, maybe we would have gotten more volunteers if the war wasn't going as well with only the current volunteers we had? Maybe they could have offered more of an incentive/bonus to entice more volunteers?...and on and on.

The bottom line is that I think The Constitution is worth fighting for, and hence why I serve, and even if after retirement I will pick up a gun and defend the homeland if needed...I don't need a stinkin' draft to tell my heart what I should do. If you have to force an able man to take up arms then their heart just obviously isn't in it, regardless if the reason is out of religious reasons, selfish reasons, fear, whatever. Those people IMO would rather be slaves than be free...and that's their choice.

What you guys fail to realize is that you'll only be defeated/slaves if you allow yourself to be (and I'm referring to defending your lives on the homeland). Grant it, the other option is probably death, but as someone said one day....

"Give me Liberty, or Give me Death"

Japan attacked the US government because we had taken extreme economic and political measures which severely crippled the island nation. And, if you believe such things, it was done deliberately in order to generate support amongst Americans to enter the war (again). Admiral Kimmel made repeated attempts to access information and prepare his base for the attack he knew was coming, he was shut down at every turn and then made a scapegoat for the whole debacle. He even went so far as to order naval patrols of areas he felt Japan might use to stage an attack. His ships were recalled, and japan attacked from one of those very locations. As for Germany, their fate was all but decided by the end of 1941. Invading Russia was complete strategic insanity, which fits with Hitlers military competence. Furthermore, the western front was, to be totally fair, a small sideshow compared to the eastern theater. Nazi troops actually rotated back to the western front for R&R. We tend to get a skewed perspective of history growing up, and understandably so, but lets not pretend that America the benevolent saved the day and made the world safe for freedom and democracy. Not trying to belittle our efforts, just think we should have the appropriate perspective.

But, back on topic, The New American Militarism, by Andrew Bacevich is a great read that addresses many of the issues we're discussing about losing touch with military folks as well as how the military has become the go to solution for many problems.

[NotADude]

Rachel Maddow also makes a few of the same points as this article does in her book Drift, which I thought was pretty well written.