I’m just now getting around to listening to the podcast. Violence is, yes, one reason to have an army but (in my opinion) being able to apply that violence is not what ‘love of the military life’ is about.

It’s about competence.

Generally speaking the military excels at building teams and getting stuff done. There is little in the civilian world to compare with this. You’ll find civilian organizations that do this well and you can tell this by their retention rates and high motivation.

But not many of them, and their competence can be fleeting.

I am younger than you and would potentially be impacted if there were a draft instilled today. The comment you made, “In my opinion, fear is a great motivator” is not necessarily true in all cases, especially this case. If a draft were to occur, I may express my dissenting opinions but it wouldn’t be out of fear, it would be out of principle. If the expressions of myself and my peers weren’t effective I would ship out for war on my scheduled date and stand strong for our country. It is not fear that motivates in a situation such as this and a draft wouldn’t change that. People are taking action now, look at the November election, and people will continue to take action but it is out of principle and morals. If a draft were instilled tomorrow that action may increase, but it would not be for fear of going abroad, it would be out of principle that the government was forcing people to do something they didn’t believe in. The merits and existence of a draft are trivial in this circumstance, people will stand up for their principles, rights, and morals, especially the right of choice no matter the situation.

The reasons you present for calling rc21 a “xenophobic” are not sufficient evidence to merit this comment. Xenophobia is the fear of strangers and rc21′s comments are not reflective of this. The fact that he may feel antagonism from other countries is an opinion and view, not a stated fear. The term xenophobia is strong in refering to strangers, rc21 is quite specific about who he feels is antagonistic towards America, making these people defined and not strangers. Even if the US Military actions are the reason rc21 believes that we should be worried about these people doesn’t mean that this is a fear of the unknown, rc21 rather has a specific concern and feels that the US military is taking appropriate action to take care of it.

OCP Thanks for the links. The article on Local Economy brings in the whole question of Lebensraum or living space, what ecologists call carrying capacity. The need to satisfy the insatiable want deeply programmed into us by the psychological warfare of advertising has to be linked to the military excursions and campaigns required to secure access to resources and markets and to protect trade routes. Following this argument, we can say that global capitalism requires a global security force to maintain inequitable and unsustainable over-use.

ROS staffGreat show. It would have been easy to address the question of the need for a more expansive US military, and shows on this should be warmed up, but that would have diverted our eyes from this informative view inside the box, however alarming it is.

Ralph Peters mention of the love of military life as an explanation for high troop moral reminded me of the poll results on American values written about by Michael Adams in American Backlash: The Untold Story of Social Change in the United States. Adams’ market research firm, Environics, has conducted the survey every 4 years since 1992 and it has found a significant increase in the acceptance of violence in day-to-day life. Americans who agreed with the statement “A little violent behavior relieves tension”, increased from 15 per cent in 1992 to 27 per cent in 1997, 31 per cent in 2000 and 32 per cent in 2004. Of males aged between 15~24, this was 55%. To put this in perspective, only 11% of Canadians, for instance, agreed with this statement in 2004 and only 22% of Canadian teens.

For the statement “It is acceptable to use physical force to get what you want”, 39% of males aged between 15~24 agreed. Overall, numbers agreeing with this second statement increased from 9 per cent in 1992 to 17 per cent in 1997, 24 per cent in 2000 and 23 per cent in 2004.

http://www.tvo.org/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa/wo/PTj0jvGpJ8OtVWtoUA6g30/21.0.0.83.45.26.25.13.1.1

http://www.penguin.ca/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780670063703,00.html?sym=EXC

I agree that fear is a powerful motivator and that it can indeed be “messed with” i.e., exploited. As I previously wrote in the Post Game: Fear Factor thread: http://www.radioopensource.org/post-game-fear-factor/#comment-18729#comment-18729 , Fear is the most primal emotion known to humans – therefore the cultivation and exploitation of fear is a well-worn tool (as old as mankind) to control those who can’t see that their fear is in the driver’s seat making decisions.

I don’t agree that “jumping off a cliff” always does or should have a fear component. If one empirically observes the effects of gravity on some mass and the consequences of abruptly interrupting its action after the mass has been traveling from a weak gravitational influence to a stronger one depending on the travel speed and composition of the interrupting medium, intelligent decisions and rationality rather than fear keep most of us from jumping (save BASE thrill seekers – who don’t seem to fear as long as their calculations prove out.)

Again I think you are correct in your analysis of “having a dog in the fight” vs. standing-by, motivates the “dog owner” to action to mitigate risk (thru fear of consequences for fear and intimidation work temporarily but a durable motivation is preferable.)

While you may justify those means to your end, I don’t believe manipulating (forcing by dint of threat of incarceration or other violence) young persons (or anyone else) into a situation where fear is the motivation to rebel, is moral, desirable or ideal.

I don’t know how you define “radical” dissent but in this theoretical democracy (representative republic) the agreement was to use the ballot box (no matter how easily corruptible) and the constitutional freedoms (no matter how trampled) to effect change and not violence.

Hold the powerful accountable through the system or use the system to change it, if people aren’t motivated to get off their butts, then they support the status quo tacitly and must accept the consequences of their decisions.

Using your personal FEAR (of lack of control regarding other humans’ predilections) to espouse the manipulation of the general public thru fear is no different in principle than the GWB/Neo-con’s fear-based manipulation our representatives (who should have known better) and the populace thru the specter of WMD, terrorists, and other axis-of-evil bogeymen to achieve their “end justifies the means” goals.

I am probably your approximate age and was drafted but failed the physical. It wasn’t fear that motivated my actions regarding Vietnam but conviction that the conflict was a mistake and way less than ideal. Violence or threats of it are never ideal and the best way to counter such situations is to love peace, live in a peaceful manner and lead by the example of one’s life.

Peace thru NO FEAR,

Jazzman

In my opinion, fear is a great motivator and a reality that we can mess with and modify in many ways, but jumping off a cliff should probably always have a fear component, otherwise, we wouldn’t have lasted long as a species….

The loss of the draft was the removal of the last real speed-bump in the way of the military-industrial-political complex. I think we are cowards for not insisting on a draft. Unless the powerful and the privileged risk something by going to war, there are no other real disincentives for them — it’s all somebody else’s kids or grandkids.

I think we underestimate the downside of keeping the risk pool so small when it comes to war. Our own self-interest allows the powerful a greased-track to war because we, ourselves, are so afraid of being part of the risk pool.

They knew it when the all-volunteer force came about in the first place. The not-so-hidden agenda of the all-volunteer force in the first place (1973) was to stifle dissent within ranks and without ranks. The military and the nation had just experienced tons of dissent. (rightly so)

The best way to “stifle” dissent is to smooth feathers… give them something they want. Well, what we wanted has a higher price than we expected and far wider downside ramifications than we anticipated… kind of like a deal with the devil — you know, most of us are “safer” (not part of the risk pool), but our country is not because the powerful can more easily move into war with less fear of radical dissent.

Believe me, I was in the draft, I know what it feels like to be part of the risk pool in a time not unsimilar to now. Believe me, being part of the risk pool motivates you to get off your butt and get radical about bad decisions by the powerful that put YOU at risk.