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.

On the one hand you seem to think the world would be better of with more pacifists, (with which I agree) but you also think pacifism is unrealistic because you FEAR that violent people want to kill and enslave other people. This is a reaction to secondary (subjunctive) information. You are in no danger of those people killing or enslaving you, yet a primary information fight or flight response is physically generated (in your case, a fight response) the chemicals released by the endocrine system (back into biochemistry) have no means of dissipation (except via violence) and can contribute to stress-related syndrome.

rc21 To sidewalker; I’ll try and explain. First it’s not my military it’s our military.

The military you describe is a creation of your mind that you generate anew every time you present your opinions (this is true for all of our opinions) and therefore the military you present to ROS and sidewalker is wholly yours except as sidewalker creates his own perception of the military you adduce (as do we all) and in that respect it does become our military. See the William James thread for clarification, but I think you mean ours in the United States’ sense.
rc21 The UN had 17 resolutions authorizing force. S.H. was a brutal dictator who tortured and murdered his own people and practiced genocide. This is something the civilized world vowed to never let happen again.

Yes the UN was strong-armed into authorizing force in those (and most) bellicose resolutions but the force agreed to by the UN should be a UN force (I don’t agree that force was or is necessary though I’m aware that’s arguable and a minority position) and not a pre-emptive, and for all intents and purposes a unilateral invasion by United States and close historical allies (with whom a common language is shared.) The civilized world who vowed to counter violence with violence did so under the aegis of the UN so they who voted for this option should be charged to carry out the ill-advised “end justifies the means” policy.

rc21 What I really don’t care for is all the posters who seem to think people who join are ignorant.morally,and ethically,under developed and easily manipulated. What is really being said in a nicer way is ‘’people who join are really fu—-g stupid morons’’.

I reiterate: As a normal distribution, the populace is ignorant in general and we all are in particulars NOTHING has been said with regard to the set of people who join the service that does not apply to the public at large. Young people in general are moral and ethically underdeveloped and more easily manipulated than those older and more set in their ways and those who make choices to support questionably moral & ethical premises must live with the consequences. The only ones who say anything about “stupid morons” are they who defend illusions of their own creation.

“These assumptions, so far as I can make them out, are as follows:
…
8. That it is all right for a nation’s or a region’s subsistence to be foreign based, dependent on long-distance transport, and entirely controlled by corporations.
9. That, therefore, wars over commodities – our recent Gulf War, for example – are legitimate and permanent economic functions.
10. That this sort of sanctioned violence is justified also by the predominance of centralized systems of production supply, communications, and transportation, which are extremely vulnerable not only to acts of war between nations, but also to sabotage and terrorism.”

Right back at ya Jazzman. Off-thread: Thanks for the sad but pertinent news regarding Alice Coltrane.

While public engagement in affairs of state is necessary for dynamic democracy, the means to that engagement may run the gamut from enlightened self/public interest to terrorizing the populace (the preferred means for the last 6 years – using the specter of terrorism to affect policy thru fear.)

You say The All-Volunteer army idea scared me back when (1973) and still scares me. I prefer the draft.

This is a FEAR based preference which ironically seeks to mitigate one fear with another (the irony is that it isn’t – FEAR tends to beget itself.) In order to assuage your fear of unrestrained military adventurism for gain by those with little or no personal risk in the equation, you would introduce a mechanism to instill FEAR on the part of the not only the architects (elitists, mega-capitalists, politicians etc.) but those who are or would be drafted.

Whereas this scenario might act as a governor to dampen a hasty commitment of troops, I don’t believe FEAR based incentives are ideal or serve the commonweal. A voluntary military is ideal as it is not FEAR based, but comprised of those who are acting in their own perceived interests. It may be due to patriotism, vengeance, or an opportunity to better one’s lot, but it’s their choice and primary responsibility.

A society that codifies conscription is a society that is desperate and fears for its existence and as you so aptly noted at the start of your thesis Force rarely solves political problems. so ALL diplomatic means should be exhausted before resorting to it. Not that I ever condone violence for any reason – even self preservation.

Peace,

Jazzman

“Communism and “free-market” capitalism both are modern versions of oligarchy. In their propaganda, both justify violent means by good ends, which always are put beyond reach by the violence of the means. The trick is to define the end vaguely – “the greatest good of the greatest number” or “the benefit of the many” – and keep it at a distance.”

It was made clear to me as a child that the founders never envisioned a permanent military establishment. Militias were the model. The Cold War produced what Eisenhower described as the military/industriadlcomplex.

The emphasis after the cold war was a drawing down of the military as the post cold war benefit. The use of military was seemingly transformed for global peace-keaping and humanitarian efforts. I support Charlie Rangles desire to talk about a draft as a way of having a national conversation about the future of the military and american power.

I am coming to this discussion a bit late…. I guess that is what “old” people do — get behind a bit. I scanned most of the replies posted here and I have the following thoughts.

Force rarely solves political problems. I thought the “might makes right” syndrome had died off, but it came back and reinfected a whole new generation.

The All-Volunteer army idea scared me back when (1973) and still scares me. I prefer the draft. I felt my generation bought into the notion way too easily because of their feelings about the Vietnam war. It scared me because it had the potential for being akin to a mercenary military force… you know, doing the bidding of the “commander” and not the bidding of the people. In a sense, that is what we have.

I felt the All-Volunteer army would strengthen the military-industrial-political complex, and it has. How has it? It has made it easier to go to war and easier to stay in a war that has dubious justification. It has allowed the elitists, mega-capitalists (those who gain from war) and other powerful people (who gain from war) to lobby and leverage for war more or less “risk free.” That is, their sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters would not be at risk for the actions that they contemplate which more-often-than-not enhance their bottom lines.

If there is NO RISK to the powerful, there is no disincentive to put other people’s lives at risk for the purpose of the almighty dollar (or some other ideological or political rationalization). The All-Volunteer army allows that exact greased-track and if you don’t think that conflicts of interest about money (or stubbornness) don’t have influences on people’s thinking… think again. Unless there is a risk to the powerful, there is no check on their power.

Even though this Iraq War is more unpopular at this point than the Vietnam war ever was while troops were in Vietnam, there are practically no protests. Why is that? The main reason there are very few public protests is that the pool of those at personal risk for the actions of the powerful is so small — It is just those who know and love those who have volunteered for service. Such a small group cannot mount much of a protest — after all, they “volunteered.” We discount their risk because they “chose it.” How superficial can we be?

Unless we have a personal risk in a matter, we will generally NOT be responsive. That, my friends, is the huge downside of a “semi-mercenary, all-volunteer” military force. It isolates the personal risk and allows the powerful a more-or-less free ride.

As to the past I won’t argue that at times we may have acted in ways that we should not have. People bring up the Phillapines quite a bit. Honestly I’m not to knowledgebale on that war. I better do some research. But I think in most cases there is a defensible and valid argument for our military aggression. You may not like the argument, and I’m sure your reasons for not using the military are just as valid. for example Iraq. You could say S.H.never invaded us. He did not have wmds,and our invasion has led to more death and more terrorist groups being formed. All of which I agree with. On the other hand I could say Almost every legitimate politician and intelligence gathering group throughout the world thought S.H. had wmds, or was trying to get them. The UN had 17 resolutions authorizing force. S.H. was a brutal dictator who tortured and murdered his own people and practiced genocide. This is something the civilized world vowed to never let happen again.

So there we have it 2 reasonable and valid arguments for and against the war in Iraq,. Obviously for brevitys sake I tried to really condense the whole thing,but you get my point.

The antagonism I sense twords America is real. It mainly comes from MidEastern extremist muslim groups and it not only threatens the US but most of Western Europe. I’ve spent time in the MidEast and this is not a new development back in the 70’s and 80’s terrorist groups were growing and becoming more powerfull. Now we have terrorist nations run by lunatics. Iran is a prime example.

I hope that explains things a little. I’m not here to debate the pros and cons of a specific war, or war in general and I have no real problem with people who detest the military. I also don’t think that people who served need to be treated like heroes. They did there job just like they were supposed to. Some do herocic things some never do more than a store clerk. What I really don’t care for is all the posters who seem to think people who join are ignorant.morally,and ethically,under developed and easily manipulated. What is really being said in a nicer way is ”people who join are really fu—-g stupid morons”.. Most of these people have never even been in the military. On this I must disagree. sorry.

Define ’stalemate’. The war ended with the British empire absorbing the two republics that started the conflict, albeit with self-government in 1910.

It’s beyond shameful—it’s murderously negligent—that our military and political leaders are “slow to recognize” the lessons of these previous imperial conflicts. All the more reason for citizens to defer to none of these elites in making decisions about war.

Which leaders? The USMC ‘Small Wars’ manual was first drafted in 1920 (I think – right decade) when the Marines were fighting the Banana Wars in Central America. That drew on lessons learned from the Phillipine Insurrection in 1900. It’s not – I submit – that the military doesn’t know how to fight these wars but that the guys who actually direct how the military operates are sometimes slow to listen or allow political considerations to override the best method to win the current war.

Which may be what you’re saying of course.

Then of course there’s the Algerian War, Vietnam, etc. etc. which don’t require so strong a rearview mirror to bring into view.

It’s beyond shameful—it’s murderously negligent—that our military and political leaders are “slow to recognize” the lessons of these previous imperial conflicts. All the more reason for citizens to defer to none of these elites in making decisions about war.

Brian your comments on the racial and etnic breakdown are pretty much what I also saw .Obviously a generalization I think somewhat accurate.

From William Grimes Review of the book “the Utility of Force”: (quote)
Right now in Iraq the mightiest army on earth is being fought to a standstill by insurgents using rocket-propelled grenades, rifles and improvised roadside bombs. This should not come as a surprise. In nearly every respect the war in Iraq fits a new paradigm of conflict that has been operative since the end of World War II, although military and political leaders have been slow to recognize it. Until they do, conventional armies, applying conventional wisdom, will continue to misapply their power and risk defeat at the hands of seemingly inferior enemies.

This, in brief, is the hypothesis put forward by Gen. Rupert Smith in “The Utility of Force,” a closely argued, searching textbook on strategy and the efficient use of military power in the post-Cold War era. General Smith, whose more than 40 years of service in the British Army has included command positions in Northern Ireland, Iraq and the Balkans, maintains that the world has entered a new era dominated by nebulous, open-ended conflicts that are as much political as military.

Modern armies and their civilian masters are ill suited to win these new-style conflicts, largely because they fail to recognize that the old conceptual model of all-out industrial war between nation states has evolved into what General Smith calls “war amongst the people” — political struggles in which combatants do not wear uniforms, mingle with the people and battle as much for hearts and minds as for outright victory on the battlefield.( endquote)

I would love to hear Gen. Smith speak about this. Perhaps this should go in your pitch-a- show but it is closely related to this topic.

Hard data would be good. All I have is anecdotal which is a horrible way to actually know anything, I will agree.

What I have observed is that minorities will choose the military for a career and are over represented in the non-combat arms specialties. Your average white dude from the sticks sees the military as less of a career option and more something you do after high school for a few years. These guys are attracted to the combat arms specialties which would incur a larger proportion of casualties.

I don’t think we’re seeing a WASP-y military – quite the opposite.

Is it because you don’t want to share the Veterans Hospital with the rest of us? I don’t know, Brian… but I’d love to hear what’s wrong with the idea.

I’ve never seen the inside of a VA facility and don’t plan on it. As far as I know I incurred no service-related disabilities.

My premise was that, if everyone spent a few years doing the gov’t’s bidding, then maybe we’d all be as entitled as government employees to that kind of treatment

I don’t feel specially entitled to any VA benefits. If you find someone who does, you can ask them.

I don’t disagree that everyone should have healthcare – but I suspect that a massive government-run system is the wrong way to go about it.

You also bring up Iraq, Panama, Phillipines, Vietnam as acts of agression carried out by the military. What about The civil war,ww2 Korea, the first Iraq war.

Vietnam was a war based on good intentions,It went bad for several reasons. I really would not care to debate them as it could go on for days.

Educated people can make reasonable rational arguments for and against almost all the wars we have fought. Without the military you may not enjoy the freedom you have today. As a matter of fact our nation would not even exist in the way that it currently does.

Jazzman You seem to be a pacificst so our philosophies on life,morality,and ethics are different. We see things differently. I’m glad you are a pacifist the world would be better with more. I try and take a more realistic view(My opinion from travelling the world) and acknowledge that there are people who want to kill and enslave others. While in Egypt,Tunisia,and other MidEastern countries I met many. So a strong military is needed. We will not change each others opinion, so I’ll stop trying.

tbrucia; You see more whites than blacks killed in Iraq than VietNam. Why do you assume they are all protestant and religously, fundementalist. Does the news state John Smith a fundementalist Christian was killed in combat, or do you just assume this, I’ve seen the same news shows you have where they list and show soldiers killed in Iraq and I never once heard any mention of their religous affiliation. Some may be Catholic some Lutheran some athiest. You make quite a broad and uninformed judgement I would say. I do agree that more whites than Blacks have been killed I also see quite a few Hispanics.

Did you know that Blacks actually died at a rate less than their populatin % during Vietnam and they served at just about the same % of their national avg.
I like many others was suprised to hear this but the stats came out last year I believe. The media sure had us fooled. I also thought Blacks served and died at a rate higher than their actual % of population. It go’s to show you how the media can manipulate things.

In closing I have nothing against people who dislike the military or those who serve. Or just think we are a bunch of naive fools. Your entitled to your opinion I guess I probably feel the same about you. Sorry about any spelling/punctuation errors I’m in a hurry .