The Link Between Military and Political Service

[geezer]

If I were king... a minimum 9 months (3 months boot camp, 6 month hitch) would be mandatory for ALL citizens before they could claim citizenship...

Interesting idea except that it would deny citizenship to anybody with even a mild handicap (even flat feet!), anyone who is openly gay, or anyone who belongs to a pacifist religion (like the Quakers), people over the age limit who legally immigrate to this country, and a host of others who don't qualify for the military under current standards.

If you want to have a requirement like that, you'd have to make allowances so all willing people could serve honorably in some fashion, or relegate all those, who like myself, were excluded from military service to an inferior class of sub-citizen residency. Doesn't sound very fair to me. In fact it's ideas like that make be glad to be a gun owner and martial artist... even if the army wouldn't take me I can still fight for my constitutional rights!

More to the point, Clinton and Obama both proposed creating alternative forms of service to your country -- modern equivalents of the CCC, WPA and the like -- so that all young people (and many older folks as well) could serve their nation either within the armed services or through other channels like Vista, the Peace Corps, Teach for America, and so forth. I think it would be a wonderful idea if it became the norm for young people to dedicate a couple of years to serving their country right after high school, before settling down into the work force. But saying that only those who've been in the armed forces should be citizens is wacko. OK, it was interesting when Heinlein suggested it in his science fiction, but it's crazy-talk in the real world.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Take the Iraqi war for example:
It was not for the protection of the US (no WMD).
It was started over lies (they knew they had no proof).
It did not do much good for Iraq (if we just look at body count etc).
It did not make the world a safer place.
It did not make the middle east more stable.
It did not make America more safe/
It did however, squander any international goodwill the US had after Afghanistan.
It did cost the US a lot of money.
It did give anyone with a grudge against the US a cause to rally to.

I have respect for anyone who joins the armed forces to defend his / her country. But the Iraqi war is not really a 'gift'. You can be proud of the fact that you served your country as you promised when you signed on the dotted line. Make no mistake I respect that a lot. But the war itself and what the US did in Iraq is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Makalakumu]

Another option is to do as i did and join a State Guard or State Defense Force where such exist anymore, which cannot be deployed outside its state.

This is something I think I would support. I don't know if Minnesota had something like this when I was younger. I don't know much about these institutions.

 

[Makalakumu]

If you really think that War is fundamentally any different NOW when it comes to why soldiers serve and why nations go to war than it has ever been ...you are a fool.

That is a huge romanticized generalization. Reality is contextual.

 

[Makalakumu]

Take the Iraqi war for example:
It was not for the protection of the US (no WMD).
It was started over lies (they knew they had no proof).
It did not do much good for Iraq (if we just look at body count etc).
It did not make the world a safer place.
It did not make the middle east more stable.
It did not make America more safe/
It did however, squander any international goodwill the US had after Afghanistan.
It did cost the US a lot of money.
It did give anyone with a grudge against the US a cause to rally to.

I have respect for anyone who joins the armed forces to defend his / her country. But the Iraqi war is not really a 'gift'. You can be proud of the fact that you served your country as you promised when you signed on the dotted line. Make no mistake I respect that a lot. But the war itself and what the US did in Iraq is nothing to be proud of.

Like you, Bruno, I respect the intent, but I am sorely disappointed in my country. We can do so much better. We could really be the shining light of liberty and freedom on the planet...but...alas...I fear what they say about cynics is true, we are frustrated idealists.

One thing I would like to make clear is that it's not the people, it's the institution. I have so many friends who are members of the various branches of armed services and I hope they can all get out without getting maimed or killed for this hegemonic ********.

The myth that our troops are doing something to protect America has got to end. People need to take a step back and see this from a different perspective. Here's the sad thing though, my point of view is actually quite common, but you'll never get elected for expressing it, because it's expected that politicians bow down and kiss the MIC at every ceremony from funerals to sports events.

We have a lot of sacred cows in America and this is one of the biggest. And this one pretty much runs the show and we are worse off for it.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Interesting idea except that it would deny citizenship to anybody with even a mild handicap (even flat feet!), anyone who is openly gay, or anyone who belongs to a pacifist religion (like the Quakers), people over the age limit who legally immigrate to this country, and a host of others who don't qualify for the military under current standards.

If you want to have a requirement like that, you'd have to make allowances so all willing people could serve honorably in some fashion, or relegate all those, who like myself, were excluded from military service to an inferior class of sub-citizen residency. Doesn't sound very fair to me. In fact it's ideas like that make be glad to be a gun owner and martial artist... even if the army wouldn't take me I can still fight for my constitutional rights!

More to the point, Clinton and Obama both proposed creating alternative forms of service to your country -- modern equivalents of the CCC, WPA and the like -- so that all young people (and many older folks as well) could serve their nation either within the armed services or through other channels like Vista, the Peace Corps, Teach for America, and so forth. I think it would be a wonderful idea if it became the norm for young people to dedicate a couple of years to serving their country right after high school, before settling down into the work force. But saying that only those who've been in the armed forces should be citizens is wacko. OK, it was interesting when Heinlein suggested it in his science fiction, but it's crazy-talk in the real world.

If i actually believed this idea would ever happen, I would include such an option as well( I joined a State Guard because I myself was turned away from federal service due to my hearing).

 

[Bill Mattocks]

However, every war this country has fought since WWII has been entirely voluntary. Those wars have not addressed any real threat the country has faced. They have been fought mainly to advance political goals and the nebulous "interests" of the US.

First, there is no rule that says military might is only used to protect against military threats. Many threats are less tangible than bullets and bombs, but they exist nonetheless.

Second, the power of the military does not exist only in breaking things and killing people, but in the military's perceived ability to do same.

Third, political goals and nebulous interests are the realm of the elected leaders of the country. The electorate has the ability to change that leadership as they wish. That they choose not to do so is not the fault of the military, nor would we want it any other way.

The military is led by elected civilian leaders. If those leaders are idiots, then that is the leadership we get for the military. It has not been, and should not be, the military's job to say "Hold on a minute, that's stupid, we're not going to do it." The military's job is to carry out all lawful orders given it by proper authority. And we're not seabag lawyers, either; we don't parse Constitutional law and probe Congressional intent; that's for the civilian citizenry.

And you frankly would not want it any other way. If our military picked and chose which orders it would follow and which it would not, we would not have a truly free society - we'd have the type of society where every so often, the military came in, deposed this or that president, set a junta, and then, perhaps, allowed free elections again in a few decades. There are several examples of precisely that in the world. I don't think you want that - I know I don't.

And so, our military does what it is told by our elected leaders. And some complain that we're the tool of the government. Well, duh. We're a tool, that's exactly right. Use us incorrectly and it's YOUR bad, not ours. We're the tool, do you blame the hammer when you whack your thumb?

Do we take our marching orders from major corporations? Only if those corporations first influence our elected civilian leaders to issue the orders. And that, again, is hardly the fault of the military.

Once again, voters fail to provide our nation with good government and seek to blame others. The military responds to our elected leaders. If those leaders suck, it's YOUR fault, (and mine as a fellow voter). It is not the fault of the military.

 

[Sukerkin]

That was a well laid out espousal of the ideal relationship between a government and it's military in a democracy, Bill :tup:.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Serving in the military in an unconstitutional fashion in unconstitutional wars at the behest of nebulous international and corporate interests is not a gift. It's a mistake. I will talk any young person I can out of it in order to save them a lot of grief.

I respect the intent to serve others and sacrifice, but I don't see the military as a venue where you can really do that any more. You do not protect our country or its interests by essentially acting as socialized corporate mercenaries.

I'm not going to give a modern military man one ounce more deference then I would give anyone else who does a tough job.

You're not required to thank us for what we do for our nation. All you have to do is stay out of our way while we do it.

As my father once told an indignant woman he held a door for when she complained that "you don't have to do that just because I'm a woman." He replied "I don't do it because you're a woman; I do it because I am a gentleman." I didn't join my nation's military to get thanks wrung from the unwilling, or respect from the ungrateful. I did it because I wanted to give something back to my country, and I felt I owed my nation a debt that I wanted to repay. I don't need your approval or your respect; I know what I did was honorable, and I likewise honor the service of all who have served our nation. You'll never know that feeling; that's your loss.

 

[Empty Hands]

Once again, voters fail to provide our nation with good government and seek to blame others. The military responds to our elected leaders. If those leaders suck, it's YOUR fault, (and mine as a fellow voter). It is not the fault of the military.

Who said anything about the military being to blame? Certainly not I. I was pointing out that the Gift you refer to, generally referred to as "defending our freedom", hasn't been the case since WWII.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Who said anything about the military being to blame? Certainly not I. I was pointing out that the Gift you refer to, generally referred to as "defending our freedom", hasn't been the case since WWII.

The gift is that of loyal, dedicated, and honorable service to the nation. I don't characterize it as 'defending our freedom', and in fact I doubt we've defended our OWN freedom since the Civil War or perhaps the War of 1812. That's just a popular and easy catchphrase, it's hardly accurate.

The problem is when people define the role of the military as 'defending freedom' when that is far from the sole purpose of the military. I did not swear an oath to the concept of freedom, nor even democracy.

The Oath of Enlistment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.[1]

Who is 'all enemies'? It is whomever the nation says it is, via our duly-elected leaders and my chain of command. My sworn oath and my allegiance was to the Constitution, and I pledged to obey the orders of the President and my military chain of command.

Nothing about 'defending democracy' or 'protecting our freedom' in there.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Since this has come up a couple of times already in other discussions, and the question is an obvious one: where does that oath place you if the President is acting in violation of the Constitution?

I don't ask this to be provocative, but this seems to be an awkward position that could happen, and according to how you define / interpret things, has already happened for the last of presidencies to some degree.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Since this has come up a couple of times already in other discussions, and the question is an obvious one: where does that oath place you if the President is acting in violation of the Constitution?

I don't ask this to be provocative, but this seems to be an awkward position that could happen, and according to how you define / interpret things, has already happened for the last of presidencies to some degree.

It's difficult, isn't it? On the one hand, the UCMJ as well as the Oath of Enlistment require that a military member obey all 'lawful orders', which would presumably give one the the inherent requirement to determine for oneself what is 'lawful' and what is not.

And indeed, we can be held responsible for obeying orders that are unlawful.

So what to do?

When I was in the Marines, we took classes in which this question came up. At the time, it came down to common sense and I found this quote from a case involving a man who shot and killed a Vietnamese civilian under direct orders from a superior officer:

The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal."

In other words, a military man is not a machine. We must be able to tell the difference between a legal and an illegal command given directly to us.

And this applies even to orders given by the President. In 1799, President Adams authorized the US Navy to intercept any ship bound from or to a French port. A US Navy Captain seized a Dutch ship, and he found himself convicted of following an illegal order. Note that his crew was not similarly found guilty, however. They would not have had any obligation to know that the President's order was illegal; that was up to the Captain of the vessel.

I was never given a direct order by the President of the United States. I must presume that any order given me by my superiors is lawful unless as an 'person of ordinary sense and understanding' knows it to be illegal.

There is no fine line, no black-and-white here. It's all down to interpretation. However, recent cases have shown that a servicemember may not refuse duty assignments to what they consider to be an 'illegal war' for example. So apparently, that interpretation is not up to the individual directly.

Sorry there is no absolute answer or clear concise definition. It's all a bit mushy.

 

[Makalakumu]

And so, our military does what it is told by our elected leaders. And some complain that we're the tool of the government. Well, duh. We're a tool, that's exactly right. Use us incorrectly and it's YOUR bad, not ours. We're the tool, do you blame the hammer when you whack your thumb?

Do we take our marching orders from major corporations? Only if those corporations first influence our elected civilian leaders to issue the orders. And that, again, is hardly the fault of the military.

Once again, voters fail to provide our nation with good government and seek to blame others. The military responds to our elected leaders. If those leaders suck, it's YOUR fault, (and mine as a fellow voter). It is not the fault of the military.

The individual cannot absolve themselves of responsibility whether as a voter or as a military man. The bottom line remains that you must volunteer for this service. With all of the unconstitutional wars being waged across the world, volunteering for this service is like breaking your oath before you take it.

People need to think very seriously about that before they make the decision.

 

[Makalakumu]

You're not required to thank us for what we do for our nation. All you have to do is stay out of our way while we do it.

As my father once told an indignant woman he held a door for when she complained that "you don't have to do that just because I'm a woman." He replied "I don't do it because you're a woman; I do it because I am a gentleman." I didn't join my nation's military to get thanks wrung from the unwilling, or respect from the ungrateful. I did it because I wanted to give something back to my country, and I felt I owed my nation a debt that I wanted to repay. I don't need your approval or your respect; I know what I did was honorable, and I likewise honor the service of all who have served our nation. You'll never know that feeling; that's your loss.

There are a lot of ways to give back to your country. There are a lot of ways of doing this that are far more productive and beneficial then serving in the military. I would advise anyone to seek those paths out if they are truly interested in doing something good for their countrymen.

This notion of exceptionalism has got to be challenged in our society. One million dead Iraqis is not an honorable outcome. It's damn tragic and people who can check their conscience at the door and volunteer for that need to hear things from a different point of view. People need to stop heaping respect on atrocity or it will never stop.

The lone guy on the street with a protest sign has more dignity and honor then the guy in the chopper blowing up little kids and blowing it off and laughing. People need to shake the veil of propaganda from their eyes and respect our warriors when they do something worthy of our respect. If our leaders continue to insist that people sacrifice themselves in this way, I think the only honorable decision is to not volunteer.

That's why we need more non-military people in politics. You'll probably won't hear that from someone who has served and our people desperately need to hear that message.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Expletive deleted.

 

[Makalakumu]

Expletive deleted.

Just to further elaborate, 2 million people showed up to protest the imminent invasion of Iraq and it still went down. The people don't have any power to change things unless we stop the hero worship call a spade a spade. People need to be held accountable for their decisions and that includes people who volunteer for this "service."

When the supply of recruits dries up, the wars stop.

 

[CoryKS]

Just to further elaborate, 2 million people showed up to protest the imminent invasion of Iraq and it still went down. The people don't have any power to change things unless we stop the hero worship call a spade a spade. People need to be held accountable for their decisions and that includes people who volunteer for this "service."

When the supply of recruits dries up, the wars stop.

Or when enough potential recruits decide that the caliber of the American people is such that they are not worth defending. Keep up the good work.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just to further elaborate, 2 million people showed up to protest the imminent invasion of Iraq and it still went down. The people don't have any power to change things unless we stop the hero worship call a spade a spade. People need to be held accountable for their decisions and that includes people who volunteer for this "service."

When the supply of recruits dries up, the wars stop.

A protest is not a vote, a plebiscite, or a binding referendum. It's a protest. Our nation is not governed by who whines the loudest or the longest. No elected official in the USA has ever failed to leave office when voted out. Therefore, the power to stop whatever it is you think needs to be stopped still remains in the hands of the electorate. If that effort fails, it is not the fault of the military. Place blame where it belongs; on the electorate.

 

[Empty Hands]

Or when enough potential recruits decide that the caliber of the American people is such that they are not worth defending. Keep up the good work.

Uncalled for. Criticizing militarism and what one sees as unnecessary wars doesn't make someone unworthy of defense.

If you define patriotism as wanting what is best for the country, it should even count as patriotic. That doesn't make the argument necessarily correct, but it is an honorable intention.