Who joins the US Military?

[DennisBreene]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Powell also shows how Wilson&#8217;s naiveté and poor strategy allowed the Bolsheviks to seize power in Russia. Given a boost by Woodrow Wilson, Lenin embarked on a reign of terror that continued under Joseph Stalin. The result of Wilson&#8217;s blunder was seventy years of Soviet Communism, during which time the Communist government murdered some sixty million people.

Just as Powell&#8217;s FDR&#8217;s Folly exploded the myths about Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, Wilson&#8217;s War destroys the conventional image of Woodrow Wilson as a great &#8220;progressive&#8221; who showed how the United States can do good by intervening in the affairs of other nations. Jim Powell delivers a stunning reminder that we should focus less on a president&#8217;s high-minded ideals and good intentions than on the consequences of his actions.

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]

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



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.

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]

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]

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]

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:



No wonder you reference him....

Nice argument. LOL.

 

[Makalakumu]

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!

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]

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



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.

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]

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.