# Who joins the US Military?



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2013)

Put aside all the "poor and uneducated" memes:

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers



> Based on an understanding of the limitations of any objective definition of quality, this report compares military volunteers to the civilian population on four demographic characteristics: household income, education level, racial and ethnic background, and regional origin. This report finds that:
> 
> U.S. military service disproportionately attracts enlisted personnel and officerswho do not come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Previous Heritage Foundation research demonstrated that the quality of enlisted troops has increased since the start of the Iraq war. This report demonstrates that the same is true of the officer corps.
> Members of the all-volunteer military are significantly more likely to come from high-income neighborhoods than from low-income neighborhoods. Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 percent came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40 percent of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods-a number that has increased substantially over the past four years.
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 28, 2013)

It is a surprise to an extent but it ties in with the idea that those with some 'investment' in their society are more likely to be the ones to volunteer to defend it :nods:.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Jul 28, 2013)

I almost joined the army on a number of occasions. I wanted to be part of something bigger and do something that I found meaningful, but I would have missed my family to the extent that it would have ruined the entire experience for me. I stayed out and pursued other options. I think part of me will always wonder what it would have been like if I did join.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 28, 2013)

> American soldiers are more educated than their peers. A little more than  1 percent of enlisted personnel lack a high school degree, compared to  21 percent of men 18-24 years old,


That number will eventually go to zero as the US military does not accept anyone with a GED anymore. 
I joined because I wanted to serve my country.


----------



## REY MISTERIO (Jul 28, 2013)

interesting


----------



## sfs982000 (Jul 30, 2013)

I initially joined for the opportunity to provide a better future for myself, I came from a pretty depressed area (former steel mill town) so the jobs just weren't there.  Now after I joined the pride in service, brotherhood, comradere I learned along the way.  I retired after 21 years of service and looking back I would do it again in heartbeat, best decision I ever made.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 30, 2013)

When my father had a high school diploma and when he joined the Navy he left college without finishing his degree. However he did eventually get his degree while in the Navy. But all this was many years ago.


----------



## shihansmurf (Jul 31, 2013)

This varies based on current Recruiting needs. I am (thankfully I would point out) back in the operational Army, but I just completed my three year stint of being "voluntold" to recruit. While the above list is flattering, it paints a rather broad picture.

Specifically on the GED front, depending on our current needs the Army will accept a GED holder that scores above 50 on the ASVAB and has no criminal convictions above traffic violation(or rough equivalent). In any event, a GED holder that also had 15 college credit hours is considered the same as a high school graduate and they are also qualified to join.

I bring it up because this was a source of constant frustration for me as a Recruiter. I can't begin to tell you the number of times I had high school seniors and grad fail the ASVAB or barely scrape a passing score and at the same time have an applicant with a GED pass in the 80 to 90th percentile but I couldn't put them in. I understand the reasoning that the GED holders are historically less likely to finish their first term of service but the consistancy with which I witnessed this was disquieting.

In any event, thank you for your service.

Mark


----------



## crushing (Jul 31, 2013)

> The facts do not  support the belief that many American soldiers volunteer because society  offers them few other opportunities. The average enlisted person or  officer could have had lucrative career opportunities in the private  sector. Those who argue that American soldiers risk their lives because  they have no other opportunities belittle the personal sacrifices of  those who serve out of love for their country.



I wonder if this has changed much as we approach this 2008 Heritage Foundation article's fifth anniversary next month?  Has anyone ever really argued that all American soldiers risk their lives because they have no other opportunities?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 31, 2013)

On the surface it's a really good opportunity. You don't get paid much, but the bonuses and perks can be substantial. If you retire after 20years of service, you have the means to pursue something else. And the retirement package can be substantial. Also, veterans have first dibs at most well paying government jobs. And, if you're an officer, you are going to do really well. Many of the million dollar homes on Oahu are owned by retired officers. They usually have several houses on the mainland as well.

So, it doesn't surprise me that the poor and uneducated are under represented in the military. Service in the military has become even more attractive because so many well paying private sector jobs have dried up. On the whole, I think the overall state of the economy drives this. As more private sector jobs are outsourced, we'll see even more competition from middle and upper middle income families.


----------



## Instructor (Jul 31, 2013)

I joined to do meaningful work for our country. It was one of the best decisions I've made (both times).  The Coast Guard is my third military branch and I love it!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 31, 2013)

Instructor said:


> I joined to do meaningful work for our country. It was one of the best decisions I've made (both times).  The Coast Guard is my third military branch and I love it!



The Coast Guard looks like a lot of fun and I'm sure it's very fulfilling. It's also a branch that legitimately protects our country and is constantly risking their necks to save people's lives. I'm glad you find it fulfilling.


----------



## Instructor (Jul 31, 2013)

They have taken very good care of us over the years.  No complaints.  

Oh and for the record I had a high school diploma when I joined the service and obtained an associates degree in business while I have been serving.  I am just a handful of classes away from my Bachelors in Computer Science.  Financed in large part by the American taxpayer via the military.

At the time of my joining the service my folks could afford to send me to college no problem but I didn't want to lean on them.  I felt then that a person should try to make their own way.


----------



## sfs982000 (Jul 31, 2013)

Instructor said:


> They have taken very good care of us over the years. No complaints.
> 
> Oh and for the record I had a high school diploma when I joined the service and obtained an associates degree in business while I have been serving. I am just a handful of classes away from my Bachelors in Computer Science. Financed in large part by the American taxpayer via the military.
> 
> At the time of my joining the service my folks could afford to send me to college no problem but I didn't want to lean on them. I felt then that a person should try to make their own way.




Well put,  I was in the same boat somewhat.  I had my diploma when I enlisted, but after I enlisted I obtained 3 associates degrees and started working on a bachelor's degree, 2 of those degrees I paid for out of pocket without using my G.I. Bill via the Education Center on base.  My family couldn't send me to school and even if they could I don't think I would've leaned on them to pay for my education. It was quite a sense of accomplishment doing it on my own.


----------



## billc (Jul 31, 2013)

> It's also a branch that legitimately protects our country



Er...so does the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines...as well as the C.I.A. and several other services that keep us protected from the bad guys...



> and is constantly risking their necks to save people's lives.



Er...ask some of the vets from Iraq, Afghanistan and the other theaters of operation around the world if they aren't doing this as well...with a heavier loss of life of their fellow soldiers than the Coast Guard...(I am not putting the Coast Guard down, but to put them in a different category than some of the other heavy lifters in national defense could be seen as...not nice...)


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 31, 2013)

billc said:


> Er...so does the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines...as well as the C.I.A. and several other services that keep us protected from the bad guys...
> 
> 
> 
> Er...ask some of the vets from Iraq, Afghanistan and the other theaters of operation around the world if they aren't doing this as well...with a heavier loss of life of their fellow soldiers than the Coast Guard...(I am not putting the Coast Guard down, but to put them in a different category than some of the other heavy lifters in national defense could be seen as...not nice...)



Calling everything the US military does "defense" changes the meaning of that word. Americans need to be more honest about what is actually happening around the world. It's the only we can truly honor the people who sign up with the idea of "defending" our country in their heart.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 1, 2013)

http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/221774/37/Marine-Helps-9-Year-Old-Cross-Finish-Line

I found more people like this in the military than the news would leave you to think. Semper Fi Marine.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 2, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/221774/37/Marine-Helps-9-Year-Old-Cross-Finish-Line
> 
> I found more people like this in the military than the news would leave you to think. Semper Fi Marine.



It's a shame this person serves a system that wages aggressive wars, commits war crimes, and uses bodies up without conscience or regret.

This is the other side of the coin. You get the perks if you take the risks.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 2, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> On the surface it's a really good opportunity. You don't get paid much, *but the bonuses and perks can be substantial.* If you retire after 20years of service, you have the means to pursue something else. *And the retirement package can be substantial. Also,* veterans have first dibs at most well paying government jobs. And, if you're an officer, you are going to do really well. Many of the million dollar homes on Oahu are owned by retired officers. They usually have several houses on the mainland as well.
> 
> *So, it doesn't surprise me that the poor and uneducated are under represented in the military.* Service in the military has become even more attractive because so many well paying private sector jobs have dried up. On the whole, I think the overall state of the economy drives this. As more private sector jobs are outsourced, we'll see even more competition from middle and upper middle income families.



Bonuses are only paid to enlisted, or at least when I was in.  There was also a cap on the amount that could be paid, and you usually hit the cap on your second or third enlistment.  Perks, I don't know what you mean there.  I mean I got three hots and a cot, but I got a very small amount of monthly pay as well.  I had commissary and PX, but that has eroded to the point you can often do better off post for food, clothing and appliances.  Gasoline is much more expensive on post than off.  Were there other perks you thought were off-setting?

I don't get your point about the poor being underrepresented in the military.  If they meet the criteria, whatever that may be, they have the same opportunity.  If a recruiter has plenty of volunteers, he may be allowed to start ranking them, but that would not automatically exclude the poor, and wouldn't be a criteria anyway.

As to rich officers, I guess you are talking about admirals.  I can't comment on that as I wasn't in the Navy.  If you are talking about Army Generals, in my experience, they weren't poor, but they weren't among the super rich either.  Too many social obligagions.

Retirement at 20 years is 1/2 base pay.  The clever thing the government does is part of the pay congress authorizes is at the discretion of the president, put into benefits; clothing allowance, subsistance (which a lower enlisted probably wouldn't get anyway, etc.  So if, as an example, when I retired, I was making $1000 a month, $400 or more could be benefits.  I would then only get 1/2 of the remainder, or $300 a month.

The congress' attitude toward military pay is quite insidious.  Remember what I said about pay versus benefits?  My social security is based on my military pay.  Military pay and benefits seldom is on a level with civilian (at least in those jobs that have a civilian counterpart) jobs.  Then take out the benefits and you will find my actual pay is rather meager.  I made more bagging groceries before I enlisted than when I joined.  When I joined, I got about $74 a month.  That is what went into my social security.  So I don't get as much social security as a civilian of my age who got most everything as salary towards social security.  I am surprised that if you see it as such a better thing than civilian pursuits, you didn't join the military for a career.



Makalakumu said:


> Calling everything the US military does "defense" changes the meaning of that word. Americans need to be more honest about what is actually happening around the world. It's the only we can truly honor the people who sign up with the idea of "defending" our country in their heart.



Well, I don't think I can agree with that, but then you didn't define defense, so I can't be sure.  Thanks in advance if you wouldn't mind doing that?



Makalakumu said:


> *It's a shame this person serves a system that wages aggressive wars, commits war crimes, and uses bodies up without conscience or regret.*
> 
> This is the other side of the coin. You get the perks if you take the risks.



I find that quite irksome.  Which branch of the military were you in, and when?  You can't really make the above broad statements unless you were, or have some personal experience of serving in combat.  Otherwise, you are simply spewing out things you have heard or read, that fit a belief you want to savor, and have no factual basis for your assertions.  

Knowing there may have been crimes or improprieties committed on rare occasions is not the same as painting every service member with that flawed brush.  Nor does it give any branch of the military credit for honestly investigating allegations of those crimes, and making anyone for whom proof can be found that they committed those crimes, face the military judicial system.  Had you ever heard of that?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 2, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I don't think I can agree with that, but then you didn't define defense, so I can't be sure.  Thanks in advance if you wouldn't mind doing that?



Defense is a limited response to the initiation of force whose intent is to protect life and property.  Which actions that are taken by the US military services fit this definition?

As to the rest of your post, I'll post more later if I have time.


----------



## DennisBreene (Aug 2, 2013)

I joined the Navy on a scholarship for medical school. I had the pleasure and privilege of working with high caliber dedicated people from all circumstances. It was an exceptional period in my life that I would not trade. In my experience, the decisions with regards to how our forces are utilized is primarily the function of the civilian political leadership. As a professional military leadership should; it appears that the role in decisions to deploy troops is to advise civilian leadership as to what is militarily possible and what outcomes can be expected.  The choice to deploy falls on our elected leaders. To expect the military leadership to contravene those decisions and act autonomously is to invite a military dictatorship.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 2, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> I joined the Navy on a scholarship for medical school. I had the pleasure and privilege of working with high caliber dedicated people from all circumstances. It was an exceptional period in my life that I would not trade. In my experience, the decisions with regards to how our forces are utilized is primarily the function of the civilian political leadership. As a professional military leadership should; it appears that the role in decisions to deploy troops is to advise civilian leadership as to what is militarily possible and what outcomes can be expected.  The choice to deploy falls on our elected leaders. To expect the military leadership to contravene those decisions and act autonomously is to invite a military dictatorship.



This....


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 2, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> I joined the Navy on a scholarship for medical school. I had the pleasure and privilege of working with high caliber dedicated people from all circumstances. It was an exceptional period in my life that I would not trade. In my experience, the decisions with regards to how our forces are utilized is primarily the function of the civilian political leadership. As a professional military leadership should; it appears that the role in decisions to deploy troops is to advise civilian leadership as to what is militarily possible and what outcomes can be expected.  The choice to deploy falls on our elected leaders. To expect the military leadership to contravene those decisions and act autonomously is to invite a military dictatorship.



At the same time, an individual must weigh the morals and values of the people they will ultimately take orders from. The benefit of having an all volunteer defense force is that the leadership and the mission can be taken into account.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Defense is a limited response to the initiation of force whose intent is to protect life and property.  Which actions that are taken by the US military services fit this definition?
> 
> As to the rest of your post, I'll post more later if I have time.



From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

_a_ *:* the act or action of defending <the _defense_ of our country> <speak out in _defense_ of justice> 

From the Oxford online dictionary:



1the action of defending from or resisting attack:_they relied on missiles for the country&#8217;s defense_ _she came *to the defense of* the eccentric professor_

 attempted justification or vindication of something:_he spoke *in defense of* a disciplined approach_

 an instance of defending a title or seat in a contest or election:_his first title defense against Jones_

 military measures or resources for protecting a country:_the minister of defense_ _ [as  modifier]:__defense policy_

 a means of protecting something from attack:_education is the best defense against tyranny_

  (*defenses*) fortifications or barriers against attack:


Nothing there that indicates limited as a definition of defense.  Is that what you are hanging your hat on?  Even if so, our current conflict in Afganistan is hardy all out war.  It is limited in geography and weapon use.  Also there is nothing in the above definitions to indicate life and property, but I would agree there is a strong aspect of that for the person/country initiating a defense.  Then you can ask how the actions one claims are defense does that.

If there is a threat to a country or its citizens, then I think you can make some actions taken by the country to protect them, fit into a definition of defense.  The real problem in my opinion, is how far you are willing to reach out.  Do you wait until domestic territory is attacked?  Do you wait until an ememy is 50 miles away on an attack course, 100 miles?  Would you take action against an enemy at some point before the enemy attacked your territory, knowing the countries intent was to eventually attack, even if there wasn't an imminent attack?

I think we decided after Pearl Harbor that we didn't want to wait for attacks if we could stop them before they occurred.  We intervened in Korea.  We intervened in Vietnam, and more recently in Iraq and Afganistan.  I think the reasonn is that after WWII, the world was effectively divided between the US and Russia, and their allies, with other countries more or less neutral.  It seems to be the case that our country decided that anything that made Russia and her allies gain more territory, had to be stopped.  Understand that territory brought manpower and natural resources directly, as conquered territories, and indirectly as other countries decided to cooperate with the other side, out of fear.

Can you accept defense as an action that prevents at attack from occurring?

Military action in WWII had less limitations than since.  We have tended to limit military actions geographically to the country we were fighting in, or at least the immediate environs where we thought there was a peripheral threat.  We have certainly limited the weaponry used (no nukes or gas) and used more and more sophisticated targeting (no more carpet bombing or targeting of large civilian areas).

If you want to leave 'limited' in your definition of defense, can you accept we have not engaged in all out war in our conflicts since WWII?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> At the same time, an individual must weigh the morals and values of the people they will ultimately take orders from.



That is true.  But the "people" they ultimately take orders from is the President who is the commander in chief.  Our military is under civilian control.  I think that is a good thing.  But if you don't, you should work to change that.  Just expect a lot of resistance.



Makalakumu said:


> The benefit of having an all volunteer defense force is that the leadership and the mission can be taken into account.



Soldiers don't have the option to disobey orders that are legal.  You cannot have a useful military that operates that way.  Surely you know that?


----------



## DennisBreene (Aug 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> At the same time, an individual must weigh the morals and values of the people they will ultimately take orders from. The benefit of having an all volunteer defense force is that the leadership and the mission can be taken into account.



There are clear guidelines as to what constitute illegal orders, and when these occur, they should not be obeyed. Disagreement with policy is not included in that proviso.


----------



## DennisBreene (Aug 3, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
> 
> _a_ *:* the act or action of defending <the _defense_ of our country> <speak out in _defense_ of justice>
> 
> ...


John Kennedy established that doctrine after his experiences with the war and the realization that non-interventionist doctrine espoused by world leaders (including his ambassador father) delayed the US entry and significantly prolonged the war and escalated the ultimate damage. Hence a large array of alliances between governments; pledging to come to the military aid of allies. Another recognized valid use of military power, though one can certainly take exception to the individual treaties and alliances in the political arena.



> Can you accept defense as an action that prevents at attack from occurring?
> 
> Military action in WWII had less limitations than since.  We have tended to limit military actions geographically to the country we were fighting in, or at least the immediate environs where we thought there was a peripheral threat.  We have certainly limited the weaponry used (no nukes or gas) and used more and more sophisticated targeting (no more carpet bombing or targeting of large civilian areas).
> 
> If you want to leave 'limited' in your definition of defense, can you accept we have not engaged in all out war in our conflicts since WWII?



Current technology allows for much more precise targeting and avoidance of non-combatant casualties. The financial cost is enormously higher. How do you propose that these various costs and conflicts in ideology be reconciled. I hope is not at the expense of the American soldier as we saw after Vietnam. I believe that one can decide to beat one's sword into a plowshare but that it would be foolish to blame the steel or to ignore the potential need to reconfigure that plowshare back into a sword.


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2013)

Just look at the run up to World War 2 and the policy of appeasement.  Not stopping hitler, time and again, didn't make the problem go away or peace reign supreme.  At any point in that gradual expansion of hitler, had the Europeans stood up to him militarily, his own government would have collapsed.  After each easy victory, the German military became more and more confident in hitler's theory that the other Europeans wouldn't stop him...and the results speak for themselves...

The history behind our current military actions goes back a long way with a lot of hard won experience to back it up.  Letting threats build doesn't make the threats go away, and will end up getting more people killed.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Nothing there that indicates limited as a definition of defense.



When it comes to defending against the initiation of force, I think my definition is accurate, moral and philosophically sound.  The word "limited" is legally defined on the personal level and international level.  On a personal level, I am legally bound to restrain myself in a self defense situation.  For example, I can escalate to using deadly force if certain criteria are met.  On an international level, according to a Nuremberg prosecutor, no country can wage war in anticipation of self defense.  It turns the legal definition for much of what happens in the war on terror into questionable territory.  On the ground, a war waged is limited further to certain weapons and tactics.  The use of torture is prohibited.  Attacks against civilians are prohibited.  The use of radiological weapons and weapons that will cause undue damage to civilians in the future is prohibited.  

Noting this definition and it's legal backing, a strong case could be built for going into Afghanistan and retaliating against Al-Qaeda.  Staying there for over ten years and expanding the mission turns the action into something other than self defense.  Also, clearly, the Iraq war was not self defense.  This was an aggressive war and a breach of the UN charter.  I think a good case for the undermining of the US policy as "world policeman" is also made.

I think all of this should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to serve.  The wars that will be waged in the future will not be wars of "defense".


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> That is true.  But the "people" they ultimately take orders from is the President who is the commander in chief.  Our military is under civilian control.  I think that is a good thing.  But if you don't, you should work to change that.  Just expect a lot of resistance.
> 
> 
> 
> Soldiers don't have the option to disobey orders that are legal.  You cannot have a useful military that operates that way.  Surely you know that?



I do know that and I agree that this is a wise policy.  They only exception that I would make is when we are talking about conscripts.  If a draftee disobeys orders, they have every right to do so because they are being forced into service at gun point and given no opportunity to question the morality of actions or policies.

That said, how should people evaluate the leaders that will send them into battle?  I think this an extremely important question that people need to ask themselves before they sign the dotted line.  For example, did you know that President Bush is not able to travel abroad for fear of prosecution?  Human Rights organization are putting governments in other countries on notice and there are sovereign entities like Switzerland that would be willing to arrest and prosecute.

This is the caliber of man that you will have to serve if you volunteer.  And I don't think it gets any better if we consider the historical context.  Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, all of these administrations are plagued by scandals and have given orders that servicemen in blatantly immoral situations.  All of this can be avoided by refusing this option for your future.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> There are clear guidelines as to what constitute illegal orders, and when these occur, they should not be obeyed. Disagreement with policy is not included in that proviso.



The legality and illegality of orders is suspect IMO.  John Yoo, senior defense strategist lawyer for the Bush Administration, argued for the "legality" of torturing a child in front of it's parents in order to gain valuable battlefield information.  Ultimately, the legal framework of what is legal and illegal is one of the battlefields that war is fought on in modern democratic countries.  This is a war of justification and it is fought against the citizens who would oppose it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> Current technology allows for much more precise targeting and avoidance of non-combatant casualties.



http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355798



> Peshawar - A new field investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism provides evidence confirming revival of the use of "double tap" tactics that target rescuers coming to the scene of a previous drone strike.



This contradicts your assertion and I think it also could be classified as a War Crime.  These strikes deliberately target civilians.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

billc said:


> Just look at the run up to World War 2 and the policy of appeasement.  Not stopping hitler, time and again, didn't make the problem go away or peace reign supreme.  At any point in that gradual expansion of hitler, had the Europeans stood up to him militarily, his own government would have collapsed.  After each easy victory, the German military became more and more confident in hitler's theory that the other Europeans wouldn't stop him...and the results speak for themselves...
> 
> The history behind our current military actions goes back a long way with a lot of hard won experience to back it up.  Letting threats build doesn't make the threats go away, and will end up getting more people killed.



The history of war in the 20th century is largely shaped by Wilson's entrance into WWI.  WWII would not have occurred and the emergence of the Soviet Union would have been impossible without US intervention.  

http://www.amazon.com/Wilsons-War-Woodrow-Blunder-Hitler/dp/1400082366



> President Woodrow Wilson famously rallied the United States to enter World War I by saying the nation had a duty to make &#8220;the world safe for democracy.&#8221; But as historian Jim Powell demonstrates in this shocking reappraisal, Wilson actually made a horrible blunder by committing the United States to fight. Far from making the world safe for democracy, America&#8217;s entry into the war opened the door to murderous tyrants and Communist rulers. No other president has had a hand&#8212;however unintentional&#8212;in so much destruction. That&#8217;s why, Powell declares, &#8220;Wilson surely ranks as the worst president in American history.&#8221;
> 
> _Wilson&#8217;s War reveals the horrifying consequences of our twenty-eighth president&#8217;s fateful decision to enter the fray in Europe. It led to millions of additional casualties in a war that had ground to a stalemate. And even more disturbing were the long-term consequences&#8212;consequences that played out well after Wilson&#8217;s death. Powell convincingly demonstrates that America&#8217;s armed forces enabled the Allies to win a decisive victory they would not otherwise have won&#8212;thus enabling them to impose the draconian surrender terms on Germany that paved the way for Adolf Hitler&#8217;s rise to power.
> 
> ...



The WWII mythology is undermined by this case.  Unfortunately, far too many people are taught the WWII mythology as sort of a new founding myth for the US.  This myth is used to perpetuate and drive our current foreign policy of intervention everywhere.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The history of war in the 20th century is largely shaped by Wilson's entrance into WWI.  WWII would not have occurred and the emergence of the Soviet Union would have been impossible without US intervention.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Wilsons-War-Woodrow-Blunder-Hitler/dp/1400082366
> 
> ...



Powel...pfft...his version of history is nothing more than an oped opinion...not historical fact. If that's what you base your worldview on I laugh at it.

A critic of his work has him nailed:



> ...
> 
> Powell seems more interested in demonstrating the efficacy of his four principles that should guide the making of U.S. foreign policy and the managing of political economy than he is in writing sound history. *The libertarian ideology of the Cato Institute (where he is a senior fellow) is apparent on virtually every page.* The information he imparts sometimes seems oddly chosen as historical evidence, but makes sense as building blocks for the ideological edifice he constructs. This kind of writing makes for an effective essay, but does little to enlighten us about the making of U.S. foreign policy.
> 
> ...



No wonder you reference him....


----------



## Tgace (Aug 3, 2013)

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
    For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
    But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
    An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
    An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

A student of mine recently joined the Air Force.  This student was a poor student in High School, but very intelligent.  He also came from an upper middle class family who had a history of military service.  We had an interesting discussion over coffee as he was asking my opinion on the matter.  I asked him why he wanted to join.  He told me he wanted to join because he didn't have the grades to get into a good college, he would score high enough on their tests to get a good job, he would get trained and would be able to organize his life and he would make more money than he would if he simply went to college and got your average four year degree.  My student is determined to join the PJ's, the Air Forces Special Ops, a unit that is designed to rescue people behind enemy lines or otherwise in trouble.  He told me that he knew about some of the problems of leadership and about the issues with the US Foreign policy, but he felt that he could be part of the solution by helping people who were hurt by this system and making sure they lived.  

This is one kind of person who is joining the military now.  Here is a person who knows about the issues, but is still willing because of the benefits and because they want to try and make things better.  Maybe if people like this rise through the ranks, become officers, and start to have influence, things will eventually change.  I am pessimistic about that prospect.  I think it would be far better if people simply refused to serve.  I believe you can't reform an organization like the government by joining it because it's very nature is shaped by what it does.  Still, I supported him, despite my moral misgivings, because I know his heart is in the right place.

I do have some lingering doubts about the whole system.  I think the way the benefits are offered preys on kids who are like my student.  They weren't good students in high school, but are intelligent and come from good families with high expectations.  Here is a way for students to dodge the results of not doing well in school and still make a decent, respectable, living.  And how will I feel if my student is killed overseas in some ridiculous war that has nothing to do with "defense" and could easily be avoided if the US had a different foreign policy?  Should I have made a stronger case for not joining?  Should I have encouraged him to pick up a trade and start working?  Should I have a firmer public stance on this so that people I care about know exactly where I stand?

Further, what will it be like when my son is old enough for military service?  Will there be good jobs for him that will be enticing enough to work hard in school and pursue a peaceful career?  I think that history shows that the benefits for volunteering will only grow and that other options will continue to shrink.  As the US economy bleeds jobs through outsourcing and globalization, the kind of careers that people like my son will have to choose from will be increasingly limited.  

I can see a future where my son could create a case for joining because it provides a clear path to success, where the opportunity to earn a lot of money and prestige is present, and this path is more preferable than the darker and more uncertain careers in the economy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Powel...pfft...his version of history is nothing more than an oped opinion...not historical fact. If that's what you base your worldview on I laugh at it.
> 
> A critic of his work has him nailed:
> 
> ...



Nice argument.  LOL.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
> We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
> Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
> The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
> ...



This emotional appeal does not hide the true costs of joining.  Here is a documentary that gives you good idea of the other side of the coin.  






Show it to your boys before they join.


----------



## DennisBreene (Aug 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The history of war in the 20th century is largely shaped by Wilson's entrance into WWI.  WWII would not have occurred and the emergence of the Soviet Union would have been impossible without US intervention.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Wilsons-War-Woodrow-Blunder-Hitler/dp/1400082366
> 
> ...



Personal opinion here: and I admit that it reduces my pressure to quote sources. The advantage and the folly of historical study is that it allows one to assess all the relevant data and accounts at leisure. There are no constraints of time, inadequate discovery, the blinders of the historical figure's presuppositions, or the uncertainty of the outcome.  It may allow us to see the potential unfolding of events in ways that were unlikely to be seen by those in the middle of the events. It also puts us at risk of making judgments about historical figures and events based upon our own unrealized blinders and "more perfect" knowledge.  Clearly, history shows the need for a citizenry to be vigilant and to question it's leadership. And inquiry into events such as you have described are worthy of such questioning. However; when I decided to join the navy, I did not use Watergate, or the riots in Chicago at the democratic national convention as a lens to evaluate whether my choice was morally sound.  If we fail to serve because poor leaders have made bad decisions, we will never have a working republic. Just as these events see the light of day because the first amendment is a sound principle, active involvement by honest and well meaning people is our best defense against those who would act in ways that are not moral or just or legal. There must always be someone on the inside who can expose corruption or incompetence.  It will never be perfect and in 100yrs they will probably argue about different events.  Our country will still be successful if they are still able to argue in 100 years.


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2013)

we could sit back and never leave our shores...and it would just take the bad guys a little longer to get around to attaching us, because that us the nature of the bad guys, they never just leave you alone.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> Personal opinion here: and I admit that it reduces my pressure to quote sources. The advantage and the folly of historical study is that it allows one to assess all the relevant data and accounts at leisure. There are no constraints of time, inadequate discovery, the blinders of the historical figure's presuppositions, or the uncertainty of the outcome.  It may allow us to see the potential unfolding of events in ways that were unlikely to be seen by those in the middle of the events. It also puts us at risk of making judgments about historical figures and events based upon our own unrealized blinders and "more perfect" knowledge.  Clearly, history shows the need for a citizenry to be vigilant and to question it's leadership. And inquiry into events such as you have described are worthy of such questioning. However; when I decided to join the navy, I did not use Watergate, or the riots in Chicago at the democratic national convention as a lens to evaluate whether my choice was morally sound.  If we fail to serve because poor leaders have made bad decisions, we will never have a working republic. Just as these events see the light of day because the first amendment is a sound principle, active involvement by honest and well meaning people is our best defense against those who would act in ways that are not moral or just or legal. There must always be someone on the inside who can expose corruption or incompetence.  It will never be perfect and in 100yrs they will probably argue about different events.  Our country will still be successful if they are still able to argue in 100 years.



If you don't mind me asking a personal question, how did you evaluate your choice?


----------



## DennisBreene (Aug 3, 2013)

Fair question. As a younger man, I looked at my options for paying for my medical education, my role as a military physician (both as a non-combatant and as to the risks of combat), my perceptions of the military (I was a child of the Vietnam war era and I also had many people in my life who had been in the military with varying perspectives) and fairly silly minor concerns such as which uniform looked better. My world view was not naïve, but it was not informed by events of the subsequent 37 years either. I am still not naïve and I am still happy I made the choice I made. I feel I understand the military much more than I would if I had not entered. I strongly favor an all volunteer force. I strongly favor an educated and professional military that can counterbalance errant civilian oversight. I recognize the inevitable conflicts that arise over how and when to use force. And I am probably more optimistic than you that our system puts more value and trust  in open debate and disclosure to mitigate tendencies to  act in ways that are not supported by our public than most give it credit for.  I only have one dog in this fight, and that is to remind others that the soldier on the ground is not the enemy or the bad guy. And to be candid, I do not wish to imply that you are in any way espousing that view. I do believe that the military is necessary and that discussions serve us better when they expose issues that need attention rather than appearing to be a blanket condemnation.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> I only have one dog in this fight, and that is to remind others that the soldier on the ground is not the enemy or the bad guy. And to be candid, I do not wish to imply that you are in any way espousing that view.



I think words like "enemy" and "bad guy" are going to cloud the point I want to make in this thread, but that is not the case.  Clearly, I think there are good people who serve.  There are people I care about.  There are people who I respect in the armed forces.  The only point I want to make, and this point is not popular, is that people who join are responsible for the results of their actions and share some moral responsibility for the results of the system as a whole.  This reminder makes a lot of people uncomfortable, because it means that now all of the orders people are given within the hierarchy are somewhat reflective on the character of the individual who follows them.  When people volunteer to serve, they are volunteering to follow the people at the top of the hierarchy who are making the decisions, moral or immoral.  As uncomfortable as this point is now, I believe that we will have a better, more just, and more restrained military in the future if we have this discussion with our young men now.  

In essence, I would like to see more of this.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 3, 2013)

And as an American citizen you are responsible for electing the politicians that decide to send guys (and girls) like us to meet our enemies....where's your moral obligation? Service people are at least willing to do more than lip service in regards to serving their countrymen.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> And as an American citizen you are responsible for electing the politicians that decide to send guys (and girls) like us to meet our enemies....where's your moral obligation? Service people are at least willing to do more than lip service in regards to serving their countrymen.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



Good point.  However, there is a difference because a citizen is made such when they are born.  They are not given the choice, unlike people who join the military, they are claimed.  This, IMO, reduces the moral culpability for bad decisions made by the leadership in a representative republic, but doesn't erase it.  The citizens of the US have, to a large extent, ignored what is happening overseas.  You can google images of who is actually being killed, how they are being killed, and read the reactions of those on the other end of the foreign policy if you want.  That is all available in seconds, but Americans aren't interested in that.  Most people are emotionally and ideologically driven and those pieces of data would create quite a bit of cognitive dissonance.  Yet, ideally, all Americans share the blame for the various actions committed abroad to some degree.  

That said, I don't think soldiers are victims of this system as is so often portrayed by people who would claim that the military is civilian led and that they have no choice whether to follow orders.  In an all volunteer force, if a person chooses to join an organization that has bad civilian leadership, who is chosen by an unresponsive and uninformed electorate, that person gets a greater share of the moral responsibility.

So, how do you reduce your share of responsibility?

If you want to remain consistent to some basic moral principles, reducing your share might means that you don't participate.  For example, perhaps you might forgo military service until such a time that the foreign policy changes. Reducing your share might also mean that you might have to organize and work against the foreign policy politically.  Ultimately, reducing your share of the responsibility might mean that you must completely withdraw from the political system and leave the geographic confines of the tax farm upon which you were born.  That choice still remains open, although it is difficult.


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2013)

> that they have no choice whether to follow orders.



As long as the order is lawful they are required to follow it...if it is an unlawful order they are obligated to not follow it and report it up their chain of command.  Too many people who haven't served don't get that point about the military, or at least the United States military.  What I want to know is how an individual, such as yourself, knows exactly what the facts are on the ground where you can make the moral judgments about the military that you do with such certainty?

The U.S. military and it's allies in Britain...do not willfully murder civillians.  They go out of their way to not kill civilians, often times making it more dangerous for themselves as they fight the enemy.  Civilians in a war are going to get killed no matter how careful our military is...they are after all in the middle of a fight between two armed parties...one party, the radical islamists do not care about the casualties they create...so yes...civilians will suffer.  It is better that our guys are doing the fighting because our military actually has a tradition and history of not killing civilians as a matter of policy...while other nations have no such concern...

Ask guys who actually have been fighting in Iraq, and Afghanistan...see what the guys on the ground, pulling the triggers have to say about your views of what they are doing over there and how they are doing it...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 3, 2013)




----------



## Tgace (Aug 15, 2013)

Who joins the US Military?

ROCK STARS!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/magazine/evermans-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&



> He had three drill sergeants, two of whom were sadists. Thank God it was the easygoing one who saw it. He was reading a magazine, when he slowly looked up and stared at Everman. Then the sergeant walked over, pointing to a page in the magazine. &#8220;Is this you?&#8221; It was a photo of the biggest band in the world, Nirvana. Kurt Cobain had just killed himself, and this was a story about his suicide. Next to Cobain was the band&#8217;s onetime second guitarist. A guy with long, strawberry blond curls. &#8220;Is this _you_?&#8221;
> Everman exhaled. &#8220;Yes, Drill Sergeant.&#8221;


----------

