All-volunteer military may desensitize U.S. to war, some fear - Polidicks

[quote]WASHINGTON — Before a roadside bomb in Baghdad burned and tore apart Jerry Majetich, before 62 operations put him back together, even before he volunteered for the Marines, then the Army, there were five older brothers who’d enlisted and a mother who’d served as an Army nurse in Korea. His family background shaped former Staff Sgt. Majetich, who’s now 42 and a single father and investment firm vice president in Jacksonville, Fla. Despite the torment since the 2005 blast, that history is part of what moved his 21-year-old son to consider leaving college to pursue a military career, and his 17-year-old daughter to join her high school Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. [img]http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2012/12/31/15/52/uK43I.Sm.91.jpg[/img] “I’d be thrilled if they chose to serve,” he said. “Despite everything, I believe in military service.” January marks 40 years since the United States ended the military draft, and an ever smaller slice of the population appears to share Majetich’s belief, however. Statistics are rare, but a[B] Department of Defense 2011 Status of Forces survey indicated that 57 percent of active troops today are the children of current or former active or reserve members of the armed forces.[/B] A recent Gallup poll showed that despite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a much smaller percentage of those who’ve reached military age since Sept. 11, 2001, have served than in previous decades. Part of it is simple demographics. While the U.S. population has grown since the draft ended in 1973, the military has shrunk. But this all-volunteer force appears to be passing from generation to generation, bringing up the worrying notion that the United States is developing a warrior class. [B]“The declining veteran population is one of our concerns, since there are fewer young adults in American society who are exposed to military service,” said Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman. “While the armed forces continue to be largely representative of the country as a whole, nearly four decades of an all-volunteer force has shaped who is most likely to serve and from where.”[/B] In the wide halls of the Pentagon, the military often is referred to as “the world’s largest family business.” The fear among some military leaders, politicians and experts begins with the belief that as fewer segments of society have family or friends in uniform, others become desensitized to the risks and stresses of military service. The feared risks range from a reluctance to fully support those who serve to an almost cavalier willingness to wage war, reasoning, “That’s what THEY signed up for.” Historically, problems with such classes have ranged from the military having too much influence in all walks of society – Prussian officers collected taxes – to being marginalized, as with the so-called “barbarization” of the Roman military, which relied heavily on non-Romans. [B]Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, has spent decades voicing such fears. He’s one of the few politicians around who still yearn for a draft. “Now, we’re never going to get the draft back,” he said. “But I really believe the greatest risk isn’t to the military and the few who serve, it’s to the rest of society.”[/B] Inhofe thinks that military service makes better citizens. The broader the base of volunteers, he said, the better. Even in a conservative state such as Oklahoma, Tulsa residents – more distant from military bases than other parts of the state are – express less interest in Afghanistan and other defense issues than those who interact more often with the military, he said. “It’s only natural that people are becoming more and more distant from the military,” Inhofe said. “It’s a nationwide trend.” The concept of a warrior class isn’t new, nor is it unique to the United States. Japan had its samurai. Europe had knights and vassals. The Aztecs had warrior nobility known as the Shorn Ones. [B]Israel, with nearly 8 million people, avoids this by having everyone serve. That wouldn’t work in the U.S., with a population of 310 million and a military of 1.5 million. Military leaders widely prefer a volunteer force, and one that’s committed to learning and staying on the job, to a conscripted one that can’t wait to muster out.[/B] Still, Michael O’Hanlon, a defense policy expert at the Brookings Institution, a research center based in Washington, worries that whole segments of the population won’t even consider military service in the coming decades. When that happens, do those serving lose political clout? “A broader base of volunteers helps ensure we don’t stop paying attention,” he said. The military relies heavily on volunteers from the South and Midwest. Current trends might lead to an even narrower pool of volunteers. Military and civilian officials admit that there are some positives in the smaller recruiting pool. The children of service members enlist understanding the job. They often were raised around the military and aren’t shocked by the culture, the level of expectations or long deployments. Consider the Cotter brothers, who share a military life in the Flint Hills of central Kansas. Several years ago, with college over and the recession in full swing, Gregory Cotter realized that his teenage dream of escaping the family business was a mistake. “As a teenager, I wanted to do anything but this,” he said But like his father and two brothers, he enrolled in the Army. A tour in Afghanistan now behind him, Sgt. Cotter, 27, lives at Fort Riley, along with his twin, Andrew, a lieutenant, and their 28-year-old brother, Brian, a captain, both of whom served in Iraq. Their father, Col. David Cotter, retired not too far away, in Platte City, Mo., outside Kansas City. “What we understood when we signed up is that this is a job, and we were raised to believe in serving something beyond ourselves,” Brian Cotter said. [B]While public support for the military has been strong for the past decade, “the real test comes five years after we leave Afghanistan, after the sexy missions are over,” he said.[/B] Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said the current picture of the military might have been inevitable. Some people gravitate toward the military, while others are lured to jobs in finance or the post office, he said. “A lot of people think this current system is a great deal, and that includes both those who chose to serve and those who chose not to,” he said. Still, former Staff Sgt. Majetich can’t help but wonder whether national defense shouldn’t have a broader base of support. “Do people understand the sacrifices?” he said. “Do they understand the toll combat, long deployments, not to mention injuries and death, take on a person, a family? Do they understand that my 17-year-old daughter has more memories of me in recovery than before the injury? No, they don’t. Not at all.” [/quote] Source: [url]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/31/178702/all-volunteer-military-may-desensitize.html[/url] Slightly opinionated, but I thought it was an interesting read.

I only skimmed the article, but from what I gathered, this guy is concerned that people don't really want to serve in the army, correct? And where exactly is the problem in that?

[quote]" after the sexy missions are over,” he said.[/quote]Sexy missions? Where do I sign up

that graph actually surprised me I thought it was higher

I don't really see the problem with less volunteers. It seems like the idea of having an overly large armed forces grows more obsolete every year in this age.

[QUOTE=Stopper;39066319]I only skimmed the article, but from what I gathered, this guy is concerned that people don't really want to serve in the army, correct? And where exactly is the problem in that?[/QUOTE] u should be happy. In some countries u HAVE to.

He didn't mention how selective the military has gotten now too. 20 years ago a 20 on the ASVAB and no history of asthma was just about the requirements. Now it's about passing everything from the duck waddle, the counseling sessions, to pre-bootcamp to get in. This guy's opinion is valid but while less people are looking at the military for a career, the military is also looking at less people.

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;39066369]He didn't mention how selective the military has gotten now too. 20 years ago a 20 on the ASVAB and no history of asthma was just about the requirements. Now it's about passing everything from the duck waddle, the counseling sessions, to pre-bootcamp to get in. This guy's opinion is important but while less people are looking at the military for a career, the military is also looking at less people.[/QUOTE] What the hell is the duck waddle

Its mainly because the wars fought by America and more so Britain have been less and less in the public's interest. WW1 and WW2, had huge amounts of people joining up because it was the done thing to do to fight the wars to end wars. The likes of Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan haven't had the same appeal.

[QUOTE=Stopper;39066319]I only skimmed the article, but from what I gathered, this guy is concerned that people don't really want to serve in the army, correct? And where exactly is the problem in that?[/QUOTE] What he is saying is, the people who serve in the military are usually descendants of those who served in the military, creating a "military social class" of sorts. And he then goes to say, historically, such a social class has turned out bad for countries. Though I think it's a bit of a far out conclusion for modern society.

I don't really see the problem in here, and thats fucking stupid to want another draft.

[QUOTE=iusehax;39066379]What the hell is the duck waddle[/QUOTE] When recruits enlist and are sent to a processing station, they're required to complete what look like the most hilarious exercises possible(but actually expose physical problems). Things like walking on your knees to dragging them with the top of your foot flat on the floor. One I remember was nicknamed the 'Duck Waddle'.

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;39066424]When recruits enlist and are sent to a processing station, they're required to complete what look like the most hilarious exercises possible(but actually expose physical problems). Things like walking on your knees to dragging them with the top of your foot flat on the floor. One I remember was nicknamed the 'Duck Waddle'.[/QUOTE] Damn, I thought it was just a word you came up with to add to the list of things

[QUOTE=Black;39066353]u should be happy. In some countries u HAVE to.[/QUOTE] Like Estonia. like, what the fuck why.

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;39066369]He didn't mention how selective the military has gotten now too. 20 years ago a 20 on the ASVAB and no history of asthma was just about the requirements. Now it's about passing everything from the duck waddle, the counseling sessions, to pre-bootcamp to get in. This guy's opinion is valid but while less people are looking at the military for a career, the military is also looking at less people.[/QUOTE] if you get a 20 on the ASVAB, you might have some other issues

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39066384]What he is saying is, the people who serve in the military are usually descendants of those who served in the military, creating a "military social class" of sorts. And he then goes to say, historically, such a social class has turned out bad for countries. Though I think it's a bit of a far out conclusion for modern society.[/QUOTE] Well, it doesn't really matter if it's good or not for a society. As the article itself points out, that "social class" of sorts is dying down. Looking at things from that perspective, I'd make a parallel with religious families - you have 5-6 generations of religious members and little by little, the trend starts to die out until eventually you have a non-religious family.

So the blame lies with a small number of people who choose to do national service on a military level, and not the constant barrage of movies, video games, books, etc. that show war as an adventure that is to blame for our desensitizing?

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;39066417]I don't really see the problem in here, and thats fucking stupid to want another draft.[/QUOTE] he doesn't

[QUOTE=Coppermoss;39066506]So the blame lies with a small number of people who choose to do national service on a military level, and not the constant barrage of movies, video games, books, etc. that show war as an adventure that is to blame for our desensitizing?[/QUOTE] To be fair, most renowned books and movies on war put it in a negative manner. Ever since moderism really.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39066540]To be fair, most renowned books and movies on war put it in a negative manner. Ever since moderism really.[/QUOTE] World War I was known as the Writer's War because that's where the futility of war was first exposed.

[QUOTE=Swilly;39066580]World War I was known as the Writer's War because that's where the futility of war was first exposed.[/QUOTE] First exposed? No not really. There are many anti-war texts that pre-date the first world war. Even this from 411 BC: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata[/url] But you are correct in that it really helped popularise it, both with writing of experiences and the consumption of such materials. I just wouldn't discount all the work previously from Tolstoy and such like.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39066630]First exposed? No not really. There are many anti-war texts that pre-date the first world war. Even this from 411 BC: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata[/url] But you are correct in that it really helped popularise it, both with writing of experiences and the consumption of such materials. I just wouldn't discount all the work previously from Tolstoy and such like.[/QUOTE] I think crimea was a big deal for that sort of thing too. Especially when most of the soldier's died from disease, not from battle, and this could all be photographed.

[QUOTE=Hellduck;39066787]I think crimea was a big deal for that sort of thing too. Especially when most of the soldier's died from disease, not from battle, and this could all be photographed.[/QUOTE] Yeah that is what I was thinking of with Tolstoy.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39066806]Yeah that is what I was thinking of with Tolstoy.[/QUOTE] Oh, I see. I've got no idea what I'm talking about tbh, I've only got one BBC documentary's worth of knowledge on crimea to go on.

[QUOTE=Stopper;39066319]I only skimmed the article, but from what I gathered, this guy is concerned that people don't really want to serve in the army, correct? And where exactly is the problem in that?[/QUOTE] The idea is that only people who have relatives that have served are signing up, thus creating a "warrior class" of people. This overall lack of military exposure leads to people thinking war is ok and thus happy to wage it

[QUOTE=Black;39066353]u should be happy. In some countries u HAVE to.[/QUOTE] You had to in the 60's in America. You had to sign up for selective service for the army. My uncle was selected and he had flat feet so he couldn't march or anything like that.

I fail to see a problem here honestly, the US has an enormous population to select from and standing army of 1.5 million people is enormous. Unless they plan to get into a total war with China or Russia (which would probably end in a nuclear engagement anyways) I just don't see why you'd need a bigger force than that. The US is already desensitized to war as well, the entire world is desensitized to war, is this honestly a new concept? The average casualty figure for any modern, industrialized war is nuts and yet the numbers don't even phase anybody anymore. Hell, if you went back 700 years ago and talked to some pillaging, raping marauder of a soldier he wouldn't even be able to [I]imagine[/I] how we managed to kill 80 million people in WW2.

[QUOTE=Unreliable;39067407]You had to in the 60's in America. You had to sign up for selective service for the army. My uncle was selected and he had flat feet so he couldn't march or anything like that.[/QUOTE] You still have to sign up for selective service in the US...

[QUOTE=Unreliable;39067407]You had to in the 60's in America. You had to sign up for selective service for the army. My uncle was selected and he had flat feet so he couldn't march or anything like that.[/QUOTE] *have to sign up for selective service. If you're 18 and male, congrats, you need to sign up for SS. I mean, they aren't going to hunt you down if you don't (at least not until a draft), but it's you either sign up or never receive a federal loan, federal aid, state or federal welfare, etc. This is for the draft, if we should ever have one again- you're in it whether you like it or not. The only way out is through conscientious objector status, which means that you can prove that your personal beliefs are opposed to warfare and violence. And that's hard as fuck to do- you have to prove you're opposed to [I]any warfare and violence[/I], so even if you're like, say, me, who's been opposed to nearly every war ever committed after 1921, I still wouldn't be able to get objector status because I agree that there could be situations where war is justified. So whether you like it or not, if you have a penis and are 18 years old, and you aren't a hippie or a Buddhist, you're gonna get shipped off the wherever to fight for Uncle Sam if they tell you to.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39066630]First exposed? No not really. There are many anti-war texts that pre-date the first world war. Even this from 411 BC: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata[/URL] But you are correct in that it really helped popularise it, both with writing of experiences and the consumption of such materials. I just wouldn't discount all the work previously from Tolstoy and such like.[/QUOTE] [quote]...in which the women abjure all their sexual pleasures, including The Lioness on The Cheese Grater (a sexual position).[/quote]