Why do liberal professors hate the military?

[yamiyugikun]

Hi everyone:D

Thank you for replying to my post before on "appreciation for the military from civilians." I learned that you folks in uniform work in beauracries like those of us in academia, and also have to earn a living to buy bread and eat:o

I just started reading Gen. Petraeus's dissertation on "The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era." Gen. Petraeus's is amazing in his scholarship and depth of knowledge, but what surprises me more is the sense of realism in his work. I noticed that people in the armed forces, at least from what I understand on this forum, are a lot of realistic, seeing reality for what it is, instead of seeming to live in their heads like those of us in academia.

I like what Petraeus said about "perceptions" people have of reality, instead of what reality really is or "objective reality." Why can't those of us in academia have a healthy dose of reality? I will be honest: if I speak out against the liberalism so prevalent in academia I would probably be shunned by my peers. I feel I can be far more honest with you folks on small wars journal, then my fellow academics.

I don't like living in my head. I want to see the world for what it is. Maybe that makes me strange compared to other academics:D Here is my question for you folks in uniform: the situations of Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly different than Vietnam. You guys in Afghanistan are trying to help the Afghan people rebuild their lives, so that the conditions that give rise to war are stopped. That is real social justice and caring. I read in Time magazine last week that Admiral Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff was trying to help the Afghan people establish farming.

Could you imagine my reaction!? An admiral of all people, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this nation's highest ranked military officer works with the Afghan people himself and cares about them! Why don't we academics or civilians hear about this kind of thing? Why do liberal professors continue to cling to outdated ideas of the military from Vietnam, instead of understanding that the military wants to help people rebuild their lives? The example of Admiral Mike Mullen proves what real social justice is. Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?

Naomi

[William F. Owen]

Naomi, hi.

While I also dislike the liberal tendency within academia, I am equally dismissive of it in the military, or any other field. A lot of Afghans have no problem farming. They grow lots of Heroine poppies.

The US military should not be engaged in social work. It's job in A'Stan is to secure the population - a concept the US re-realised in Vietnam - to enable political and social solutions to work. This is not new.

The problem with liberal academics are same of those of conservative academics, in that they are generally very ignorant of both the history and realities of the use of lethal force for political gain, and have a problem understanding that killing and the breaking of will is a necessary part of ensuring human security and social order.

[AmericanPride]

I'd be careful with words like "hate", "social justice", and some of your assessments. Yes - the US military is helping the development of the Afghan people, but is it because policymakers "care" about Afghans? Remember -- the military, when ordered, also burned Vietnamese villages, firebombed Japanese cities, and took part in indian population transfers. Note Wilf's key terms: "political gain", "killing", and "breaking of will". That comes first -- the justifications come afterwards. It is what it is.

[goesh]

Theory and application - we all have notions of how others should live their lives. What distinguishes the military professional from the Liberal professor is the degree to which the former is willing to go to see theory enacted. The military man gets to live in both worlds, Liberals for the most part don't. Enlist in the Marines or any other branch and validate for yourself what I am saying. I don't know your life's circumstance and they are none of my business but if you are young, there is a darn good educational allotment in place. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is going to be bumped up to a 90K package - you'll even get to eat wonderful mess hall chow.

[John T. Fishel]

As an academic for the past 38 years and as a retired officer with 28 years of commissioned service, I have a foot in each camp. The first thing I'd say to you is a quote of one of my favortie lines, "Always bet on stupidity." - whether it is found in academia or the military. I really have heard some remarkably stupid things said by liberals and conservatives, civilians and military alike. Occasionally, I hear smart things said by folks in all of these camps.

The second point I'd make is one that you have already discovered. This site is much more civil about disagreement and debate than most. Bill and Dave and the moderators simply won't accept incivility and we all try to keep our discussion on a professional level.

Third, we have a pretty wide range of opinion and experience here. We have old guys like Ken and me, and many young folk and a whole bunch in between. We have academics, cops, soldiers, marines, and even a lawyer or two (like JMM). So, this is a place to hold real intellectual discussions, grounded in "boots on the ground" reality.

One suggestion: Perhaps, you could introduce some of your academic colleagues to the SWJ - a few might actually choose to contribute.:cool:

Cheers

JohnT

[BayonetBrant]

Well... after 8 years (and counting) back in grad school - and most of it while also serving in the National Guard - I have a small and untested theory, but one I seem to find more credence to every day.

Many academics fail to address 'reality' because it has very little impact on their lives. Campus is a great bubble to live in. It's a steady stream of 'customers' the academic freedom to pursue whatever personal science project you're after, and remarkably few consequences for being wrong. I spent one quarter suffering through a class with a professor who was still convinced that Marx was right, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary. In the political field, espousing Marxism gets you laughed at, for good reason. In the academic world, if you laugh at her for it, you're somehow failing to show proper 'tolerance.'

I had a professor openly brag to me that he went from kindergarten to PhD without a break. He had the odd bartender gig here and there to score pocket money and phone numbers. But he'd never had a 'real' job, never mind one with real consequences. When he was 22, he was pouring drinks between research papers. When I was 22, I was signed for $11 million of Uncle Sam's equipment, responsible for 18 soldiers, and chasing helicopters around the central California mountains at 2am. Our perspectives of 'real' were very, very different.

Liberal professors hate the military because they can. They've lived in their bubbles for so long that they lack an appreciation of people whose lives actually have some real meaning. They lack a perspective because the skewed ones they have don't include any consequences for being wrong. They lack an appreciation of history - especially recent history - because there's no negative penalty for it.

This harsh sentiment might come as a surprise to those of you who have seen me rather vociferously defend journalists before, but I see liberal academia as far, far worse in it's overt bias and lack of consequences than any journalist you can point to.

[MikeF]

Hi everyone:D

Thank you for replying to my post before on "appreciation for the military from civilians." I learned that you folks in uniform work in beauracries like those of us in academia, and also have to earn a living to buy bread and eat:o


I don't like living in my head. I want to see the world for what it is.

Hi Naomi,

Liberal professors should love us. We define the perfection of communism- our food, housing, and health care are free. All we have to do is implement policy.

If you want to see the world, start at the village level. Go outside and talk to the homeless guy on the street. You might find that he doesn't have a homeless problem- he may simply like being free. Go volunteer to help some teenagers in a halfway house- give them a little faith, hope, and love so they avoid the gangs. Invite a young marine/army veteran over to your house for dinner to say thank you. If you do those three things, then you'll gain more wisdom than you could ever imagine.

In other words, give up control to regain control.

You don't have to enlist to blow stuff up to see the world.

v/r

Mike

[Bob's World]

Just applying my commonsense psychology:

People tend to hate what they fear.
People tend to fear (or at a minimum disrespect) what they don't understand.

Many liberals cannot understand the sense of duty that would cause a person to risk ultimate self-sacrafice for the sake of the whole. They know they are very smart and that tbey would never do anything so foolish, so therefore those who do such things must not be as smart as them (but with that nagging irritating bit of self-doubt in the rational part of their mind that questions what if those who are willing to do so ARE as smart as them and also have a SUPERIOR value system?) This really drives them crazy.

Thus the expressed disdain. Its a rationalization process that helps them feel good about themselves.

[selil]

I’m a professor. I am a tenured associate professor with all the privileges that entails. Next year I will be the chair of our faculty senate. I am more liberal than some, more conservative than many, and hopelessly academic. I have been a member of the Army National Guard then transferred to the United States Marine Corps, and I served in two different sheriffs offices as a deputized officer. Given the opportunity I would sign up and serve in the military again without thought. At age 42 I doubt they would take me. I’d make an ugly fat lieutenant.

I am not an expert at counter insurgency. I am a parasite sucking the ideas of counter insurgency out of the community and reusing it to explain the transnational nature of cyber crime and cyber warfare. As an academic I look for information and data that allows me to test my theories in the real world. I would rather learn from the mistakes of others than endure the same pain for no gain. I am slightly different because my discipline is technology. I am inherently an applied academician. My fellow faculty in the liberal arts say when being nice that I am “a bit rough around the edges.”

Not all the faculty agree even among themselves.

A few weeks ago a hopeless Marxist sociologist was incensed that the United States Marine Corps sponsored an event on campus about leadership. Simply put he was angered that they may have been involved in recruiting even though he didn’t see any. He was also very angry that they were in full uniform. He would argue to have the military banned from campus though patently illegal.

Across the nation violence on campus has gone up as the economy has gone down. A few weeks ago a student was car jacked at gunpoint, and recently two students were “hand assaulted” by eight ski mask wearing individuals inside one of the laboratories. There was an awful hue and cry about something should be done. Even though our campus is in Hammond, IN next to Gary, IN a top pick for murder capital of the United States and all we’ve had were two smallish assaults. Perspective is not one of our strong suits in academia. I put together a quick study on policing standards and what the per capita officer ratio was for other campuses. Showing we had an officer shortage though not drastic.

Students though were incensed about one thing. They are not allowed to carry weapons on campus. Though Indiana has a specific provision about cities and counties making laws regarding weapons campuses can make rules and enforce them as law respecting weapons. No weapons allowed on campus. Students have been asking that the law be changed by the state. This last week there has been a cry of alarm by the faculty that students might be armed. Since I teach forensics and security topics several of my students are officers or deputies. They all carry concealed weapons all the time much like I did. Some faculty want to take the weapons away from our state certified fully commissioned campus police officers on campus.

On the one hand there are demands that something be done, and on the other hand they would remove the rights of people to protect themselves and the tools from those they have charged with that protection.

I think the fact is that you find divergent opinions among the faculty, students, and community. The entire faculty does not unanimously agree on any single point anymore than any community agrees on a single point. It is easy to pick single loud opinions out of the mix and paint a broad brush across the community. As an example a pundit here on Small Wars Council often paints a broad brush of slacker, drunk, lazy, idiocy across the entire college student community. Yet my students are smart, brave, often veterans, work 40 hours a week, take 48 hours a week of course work, do 30 to 40 hours of homework a week and rarely sleep. Many are first generation. Most are on the “pay as you go” plan since they can do the math on student loans.

Think of it this way. When you paint with broad words like liberal and conservative the chance is you are just going to make a mess. Sure you may paint the wall quickly but you cover up the windows to deeper meaning and discussion too.

[Hacksaw]

why did you have to throw in that last line and make us think...

"Think of it this way. When you paint with broad words like liberal and conservative the chance is you are just going to make a mess. Sure you may paint the wall quickly but you cover up the windows to deeper meaning and discussion too."

just like a conflicted academian...:D

[Ken White]

...the situations of Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly different than Vietnam. You guys in Afghanistan are trying to help the Afghan people rebuild their lives, so that the conditions that give rise to war are stopped. That is real social justice and caring. I read in Time magazine last week that Admiral Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff was trying to help the Afghan people establish farming.Contrary to many myths, there was a great amount of "real social justice and caring" in Viet Nam and we started that way, then digressed badly and later eventually go that part again raised to the fore.

Unfortunately, by the time that succeeded, it was too late due to earlier major mismanagement of the problem by the Army having done a tremendous amount of unnecessary damage. We just got a lot smarter a lot faster this time around -- partly as a result of recalling the errors we made in Viet Nam and refusing to replicate them.

On your broader question, Others above have answered better than I could but I will paraphrase Bob's World: People tend to disparage what they do not understand -- even when the perception is flawed.

[bourbon]

Something I often think about is how some people desperately need to have enemies. How their hyper sense of self righteousness requires an enemy. From this frame you can see how ‘enlightened’ members of academia from a progressive-activist bent will demonize the military to secure their identity.

“I’m a good person, seeking to advance humanity” they think, therefore there must be forces that are bad and regressive. The military will then personify these bad and regressive forces, it must, because it is the closest thing available. The military deals in death and destruction; like most people (even military people) they see death and destruction with disgust, but they turn their disgust of these acts into moral disgust.

I like giving the argument to such people that a military base operates similar to ideal socialism; and how surprised I am that a socially conscious person such as themselves is not indeed celebrating this. Sometimes I will get a smile and can see their mind opening. Often this comment is a surgical strike on their worldview, and is met with anger, hostility, and a belligerent response.

Hah, that’s irony; this post delves more into the theoretical then realistic.

[Van]

The academic eggheads vs. the military knuckledraggers stems from a much older issue than contemporary academic life and differing political philosophies. It is a contemporary manifestation of the classic "active live" vs "contemplative life". This is something the Greek philosophers wrote about, and, ironically, they understood better than most contemporary philosophers. The Greeks were combat veterans from an era when combat was at a range to smell your opponent's breath. In the Renaissance, there was a degree of integrity, where active and contemplative were viewed as essential parts of a whole. Sadly, these values are gone from academia, even though Generals Petreaus and Caldwell are doing exemplary work to bring them back to the military.

Today, I would argue that we are in the most openly hostile point in this conflict since the Renaissance, and part of the issue is that all commissioned military leaders have attended college and if it was a civilian institution (and most were) were subjected to open and institutionally accepted harassment and denigration from people who hypocritically claimed to embrace diversity and acceptance of all people. Four years of verbal abuse and corrupt academics grading on political agenda rather than substance and structure leave an indelible mark.

Now these coddled academics attack any act by the military or anyone affiliated with the military but won't come up with viable alternatives or go into harms' way to try to help (unless they're being paid five times what the officer next to them is getting).

Let academics stay in their cloisters pursuing their contemplations. They clearly view themselves as 'too good' to do manual labor in combat zones to make a real difference in the problems they blather on about.

So Naomi, how do we convince academia that they need to strike a better balance between the contemplative life and the active life?

[AmericanPride]

part of the issue is that all commissioned military leaders have attended college and if it was a civilian institution (and most were) were subjected to open and institutionally accepted harassment and denigration from people who hypocritically claimed to embrace diversity and acceptance of all people.

I never experienced this during my four years of college. 'Criticisms' came from fellow students who met most of the conditions you describe.

[William F. Owen]

IAs an example a pundit here on Small Wars Council often paints a broad brush of slacker, drunk, lazy, idiocy across the entire college student community.

...well that pretty much describes me as an 18 year-old Rifleman! Throw in the complete lack of qualifications and the then reading age of an 8 year old and you've got me exactly!
:)

[Hacksaw]

I've been contemplating whether to post, but since its a decent story I'll go ahead whether it moves the thread forward or not...

I attended what is routinely regarded the most liberal of Illinois public universities (NIU)... whose liberal traditions date back to well before the campus radicals raided and burnt down the ROTC offices back in the Vietnam era...

Northern Illinois Peace Activist Committee, John Lennon Society and the Gay-Lesbian Union routinely "picketed/protested" our weekly labs in which we mostly marched around in circles... rather humorous to be honest since I'm convinced none of the participants really had a solid idea why they were marching in protest (except maybe the Gay-Lesbian consituents)...

In my senior year, I was a social science course short and had no choice (based on scheduling constraints) but to take a course with the Campus' most notorious card carrying communist... he literally took great pride in displaying his communist party membership card, and of course my lab immediately followed the class period so I was always front and center in my uniform...

I was convinced that he intentionally spouted the most ridiculous BS just to piss me off, I literally took exception with nearly every discussion item he presented to the class... my graded course work after the final exam = D...

I simply refused to give him the answers he wanted... so needing at least a B to finish with a 3.0 GPA, I went in to see Dr K....

He greeted me very cordially and was surprised that I wanted to come in and discuss my grade since it never seemed to concern me in the past... then he let me know that he had already intended to give me an A for vigor in which I engaged him during class....

Go figure...

Have fun storming the castle err.. admissions office...

[Ken White]

...'Criticisms' came from fellow students who met most of the conditions you describe.is this:

""civilian institution ... subjected to open and institutionally accepted harassment and denigration from people who hypocritically claimed to embrace diversity and acceptance of all people.""(emphasis added /kw

Acknowledging that the other factor "...and corrupt academics grading on political agenda rather than substance and structure leave an indelible mark." is probably the exception rather than the rule, still when it occurs is more discomfiting than is the institutional toleration if not encouragement of student expressed disapproval...

I am specifically recalling a Son converting an 'A' in 'US history After 1865' to a final 'D' because he accurately stated that Kennedy started the Viet Nam war partly to boost the US economy arousing great ire and a lengthy lecture from the instructor.

[selil]

This is a plaque on the Purdue campus. The word academy has it's roots fully entrenched in the realm of veterans.

[AmericanPride]

Ken,

I would agree with your assessment that it was "institutionally accepted harassment" if I was not permitted to voice my thoughts in response.

[J Wolfsberger]

I took several courses in Pol. Sci. from a very liberal professor in the early 70s. Our classroom "discussions" became famous within the department. But he graded me on mastery of facts and reasoning, and I got Bs in his courses.

On the other hand, I also had several professors (even back then) who graded on ... if not "ideological purity," then on whether my work demonstrated an ability to regurgitate what they said. Hard to tell the difference - especially when you get hammered for predicting the USSR won't last out the century. :D

As to the OP, along the lines of Bob's post, I've noticed in conversation with friends (yes, really) who are liberal/left academics, that they don't understand or relate to conservative values, and the military is nothing if not the embodiment of conservative values.

[marct]

Hi JW,


As to the OP, along the lines of Bob's post, I've noticed in conversation with friends (yes, really) who are liberal/left academics, that they don't understand or relate to conservative values, and the military is nothing if not the embodiment of conservative values.

I think it might be worthwhile to contextualize that a bit as in "In the US". I know a lot of Canadians who, by US standards, would described as extreme left wing (morally) who are "pro-military". Hell, by US standards, I would be considered as "dangerously left-wing", and I hang out with you guys :D!!!!!

[Ken White]

I would agree with your assessment that it was "institutionally accepted harassment" if I was not permitted to voice my thoughts in response.with your assessment that it was a freedom of speech issue if I did not see too frequent reports of quite selective application of that principle.

All Schools differ, yours may be a good one but in many today, it appears to this observer that any student can denigrate the armed forces and anyone connected therewith in public but no one dares to so criticize another on race or religious grounds. While I do not agree with slurs that are based on ethnicity or worship choices, I also do not agree with slurs on the nation or it forces -- or any other nation and their forces. Decent behavior in public and 'freedom of speech' are not selective...

[marct]

Decent behavior in public and 'freedom of speech' are not selective...

except in academia :wry:. Ken, as a note, I had to justify to my chair taking two of my students to an Inter-University Seminar conference on Armed Forces and Society. Her complaint was that "we don't do War Studies". My response was "We don't study war? Then we don't study history!".

Much as I hate to say it, every bit of Anthropological research does point to the fact that "decent behaviour" is culturally relative and freedom of speech is selective. Personally, I don't think it should be, but it does tend to be.

[Ken White]

You're correct, of course. And, in fairness, the pendulum swings and what is demonized today will be probably be acceptable in a few years and versey vicea. :wry:

Shame your response was so accurate -- but it is. :o

[marct]

LOLOL - Well, I learned back when I was doing my MA in the most Left Wing (by Canadian standards!) Canadian Studies dept., that if you want to be a "conservative", you have to ram it down their throats.

A humourous story from my MA......

For some idiotic reason, we were asked to out on a "Show and Tell" session during our core seminar. By this point, I had already noticed that I was five strikes down (White, Male, Straight, Anglophone, from Toronto). My response was to get hold of my Great-Grandfathers' master work, entitled Daughter of the Empire, and talk about how Canada was, for me, the incarnation of the ideal of the Empire as explicated by Kipling. My (American born) professor, a staunch "Canadian" nationalist, didn't know what to say....

[yamiyugikun]

Hi everyone,

Thank you very much for all of your thoughtful and varied responses. I admire the depth of thought, and expressions that everyone has shared. I had no idea the conflict of the "contemplative" versus "active" lifestyle went so far back to ancient Greece. I find it ironic that the word "academy" came out of a site named after a warrior in anciet Greece, that in fact at one point the contemplative and active lifestyles were one.

I will admit, I sterotyped when saying academia is "liberal" and the military "conservative." That is black and white thinking on my part. Things always seem to be shades of gray. I like posting here cause what you folks say is honest, thought provoking and contemplative.

After reading everyone's posts, my thoughts on why some academics disdain the military is because the fear it. I am actually visiting an assist professor in the military science department tommorow to find out about the Army Librarianship Program. I was feeling nervous today at work, since this is a person in uniform, even though he is a professor. Then it occured to me, he is a human being like me, but by visiting him, I'm trying to overcome my own biases as an academic.

How to get acadmics to have a balance between the "active" and "contemplative" lifestyles? That is something I'm still trying to figure out. I admire a lot of values in the military such as duty, honor, sacrifice, living for something greater than yourself. It's also true that militaries are involved in killing and destruction. Thus, its easy for academics (or people in general) to project their own insecurities onto the armed forces.

But I think it also stems from a part of human nature. No matter how much we try to "civilize" ourselves, there is always that primitive part of us, that fight or flight response. Anyhow, thank you everyone for your opinions in this discussion, and feel free to continue this post:D

Naomi

[BayonetBrant]

I will admit, I sterotyped when saying academia is "liberal" and the military "conservative." That is black and white thinking on my part. Things always seem to be shades of gray. I like posting here cause what you folks say is honest, thought provoking and contemplative.

During the 7.5 years I was in both Grad School and the National Guard, I noticed a trend:

Around campus, I was considered a goose-stepping fascist right-wing tool of the machine.
Around the armory, I was a commie pinko tree-hugging f*g who refused to be a team player.

Somehow I took comfort in knowing I was pretty squarely located in the middle....

[marct]

Hi Naomi,


I will admit, I sterotyped when saying academia is "liberal" and the military "conservative." That is black and white thinking on my part. Things always seem to be shades of gray.

Well, that's a first step. Next thing, we'll introduce you to colour :D!!!!


How to get acadmics to have a balance between the "active" and "contemplative" lifestyles? That is something I'm still trying to figure out.

We see the same strain inside the academy as well, especially in the status games between "Pure" (or "Theoretical") and "Applied" research. Personally, I'm actually a theoretician but, in order to have some connection with reality (however limited that may be), I do a lot of "applied" work. For me, the trick was realizing that the "contemplative" mode of theory was, essentially, a sterile bore unless I had some chance of testing it out somehow or other.


But I think it also stems from a part of human nature. No matter how much we try to "civilize" ourselves, there is always that primitive part of us, that fight or flight response.

"Civilization" is, frequently, over-rated and used as a term to avoid getting your hands dirty by doing any real work :cool:. Case in point: one of my academic specialties lies in the area of "narratives" (actually, myth, folklore, etc.). I am using that rather "abstract" area of knowledge in a number of applied ways including to help publishers restructure their editorial policies and, also, to restructure ways of thinking and talking about Information Operations and Terrorism.

The "primitive" response of fight or flight (part of our limbic system actually), is actually quite instructive. One of the things that many academics forget is that we are animals in the sense of being biological creatures, and we have to take that in to account when we do our academic work, otherwise we are just engaging in mental masturbation.

[selil]

We see the same strain inside the academy as well, especially in the status games between "Pure" (or "Theoretical") and "Applied" research. Personally, I'm actually a theoretician but, in order to have some connection with reality (however limited that may be), I do a lot of "applied" work. For me, the trick was realizing that the "contemplative" mode of theory was, essentially, a sterile bore unless I had some chance of testing it out somehow or other.

And, as a technologist I am very much "applied" to the horror of my fellow faculty in liberal arts and the "hard" sciences. However, I have to ground application heavily in theory or be bored out of my skull doing the same thing over and over and over.... again. Theory is part of the scientific process and since a big part of what I do is "glue" the different sciences together I am also very interdisciplinary.

Theory is easy. Any fool can spout theories without consideration. Application of theory requires perseverance, dedication, and some times a good dose of inspiration.

[William F. Owen]

Theory is easy. Any fool can spout theories without consideration. Application of theory requires perseverance, dedication, and some times a good dose of inspiration.

Well said Sir. Bravo! Unfortunately spouting un-proven theories can make you money and reputation... thus some of the current mess

[Van]

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun
But I think it also stems from a part of human nature. No matter how much we try to "civilize" ourselves, there is always that primitive part of us, that fight or flight response.

"Civilization" is, frequently, over-rated and used as a term to avoid getting your hands dirty by doing any real work :cool:. .

Naomi,
Did we warn you that we have a number of anthropologists in residence here?
:D


Originally Posted by yamiyugikun
... visiting an assist professor in the military science department tommorow ... I was feeling nervous today at work, since this is a person in uniform,
That's interesting. You're nervous about visiting a person who has taken, and practices an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, and whose core institutional value is to defend you (and the rest of the U.S.)? Would you be nervous visiting a firefighter? (And yes, I believe the service of firefighters is comparable to military service.)

Let us know how it goes. I'd be very interested in any shifts in your perceptions of the military.

[marct]

Well said Sir. Bravo! Unfortunately spouting un-proven theories can make you money and reputation... thus some of the current mess

It can get you tenure, too, Wilf :mad:.

[William F. Owen]

It can get you tenure, too, Wilf :mad:.

Tell me where? I can change. I can speak post-modern gobbledegook jargon.

"War is becoming a non-hierarchical, non-linear, complexity defined, form of adaptation driven, non-state enterprise that will redefine emerging geo-political trends in an increasingly globalised, and complex world, where actors will be constantly forming and re-forming networks of networks, covering all areas information and social domains."

Good enough? :D

[MikeF]

"War is becoming a non-hierarchical, non-linear, complexity defined, form of adaptation driven, non-state enterprise that will redefine emerging geo-political trends in an increasingly globalised, and complex world, where actors will be constantly forming and re-forming networks of networks, covering all areas information and social domains."

Or systems within systems interacting, interrelated, or interdependent components that form a complex and unified whole clashing in conflict as civlizations merge???:eek:

Can I get tenure too?

v/r

Mike

[marct]

"War is becoming a non-hierarchical, non-linear, complexity defined, form of adaptation driven, non-state enterprise that will redefine emerging geo-political trends in an increasingly globalised, and complex world, where actors will be constantly forming and re-forming networks of networks, covering all areas information and social domains."


Or systems within systems interacting, interrelated, or interdependent components that form a complex and unified whole clashing in conflict as civlizations merge???:eek:

Obviously, the emerging, post-network neo-praxitic form of understanding will supersede the merely, and now hopelessly passe, understandings inspired by outdated theoretical models inspired by cybernetics. In order to truly comprehend the increasingly fragmented, fractured and existentially nihilistic nature of post-network warfare, we must adopt linguistic formats that both adequately and accurately reflect the increasingly bricolage-esque nature of modern conflict.

'nuff said (:p).

[selil]

Oh darn. I thought it was a proto-marxist heuristic based neo-theistic intelligentsia? Oh wait that would be the faculty.

[Schmedlap]

Why do liberal professors continue to cling to outdated ideas of the military from Vietnam, instead of understanding that the military wants to help people rebuild their lives? The example of Admiral Mike Mullen proves what real social justice is. Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?
I don't know if common perceptions of the military held by many professors are so much from Vietnam as they are from poor sources in general, whether that be Vietnam era foolishness or bad Hollywood movies or other nonsense.

I would not hold up any of our current efforts as exemplifying or attempting "real social justice." We are not out attempting to spread impartial benefits of freedom. We are attempting to establish political order in such a manner that we think will strengthen our national security and we are doing it where our civilian leaders say our national interests lie. At a human level, irrespective of one's vocation as a military officer, I think that we all want to help others. But, when acting in the capacity of a military officer, I don't think that desire trumps any other. On the contrary, apolitical, obedient subservience to the civilian leadership, conducted in a manner that brings credit to the institutions that the military leaders serve in - that is what they want.

I think that the real division between academia and the military is the willingness of the military to subjugate themselves to civilian masters, regardless of ideology or political affiliation, and to wage violence upon others dispassionately, when those masters order them to do so. Contrast this with the outrage that sweeps a college campus, to include some faculty, if some bozo with a differing ideology shows up to give a speech meant to incite. Differing views are to be argued to the death in academia. In the military, there is a chain of command and a decision must eventually be made. Otherwise, the enemy kills you while you're arguing whether to pursue course of action 2 or 3. There is a need for willingness to accept disagreement and follow orders that one does not agree with. In academia, there is always another opportunity to argue about it.

[goesh]

- nothing personal intended but what a hue and cry would arise if someone was to meet an authority figure and was nervous because of the color of their skin and stated so publically......

[AmericanPride]

I don't think one's employment is comparable whatsoever to one's skin color, especially given that service is a choice (now) freely made. Nor do I think there is much of anything denied to servicemembers (I for one enjoy the 5 dollar movie tickets), and while the disparaging opinions of some may be distasteful, it is IMO not any different than general opinions expressed by military personnel about those who are perceived to not understand national service as it is packaged and sold by the military establishment.

[MikeF]

I don't think one's employment is comparable whatsoever to one's skin color, especially given that service is a choice (now) freely made. Nor do I think there is much of anything denied to servicemembers (I for one enjoy the 5 dollar movie tickets), and while the disparaging opinions of some may be distasteful, it is IMO not any different than general opinions expressed by military personnel about those who are perceived to not understand national service as it is packaged and sold by the military establishment.

Where do I need to move?

Goesh statement is accurate. People make impressions based off status, education, job title, dress, and the less political correct stuff (creed, color, and religion). When I changed command in Iraq, my IA CDR (one of the best that I ever worked with) initially insulted the incoming commander b/c he was african-american. Major Aziz assumed he was simply a private b/c of the color of his skin. Many Iraqis are racist towards african-americans. They did not get off to a good start. We sometimes forget/overlook these conceptual blocks.

v/r

Mike

[AmericanPride]

Mike,

I don't disagree that people make unsubstantiated judgments on a whole host of factors. What I disagree with is making comparisons between one's occupation (and choices) and one's race. Goesh's statement, maybe accurate, was not precise.

And the 5$ movie tickets were at theaters outside Ft. Sill.

[jkm_101_fso]

And the 5$ movie tickets were at theaters outside Ft. Sill.

They are still pretty cheap.

MikeF: Don't come to Fort Sill.

[Ken White]

...it is IMO not any different than general opinions expressed by military personnel about those who are perceived to not understand national service as it is packaged and sold by the military establishment.and I acknowledge that occurs with some. Most who serve, though do not really accept that and fairly quickly come up with their own reasons for serving -- or not (and most of those get out). Members of different tribes always suspect and tend to dismiss non-members, goes with the human condition.

The issue, I think, is whether and how firmly tribal identity is accepted and espoused as opposed to particular accepted belief models, then it becomes a case of defending the tribe against all others. Regardless of logic...

That applies to Academics and Military people. Or Cops, Butchers, Pashtuns, Anishinabe and the local Chapter of the GLBTHS -- any grouping of people. Even religious and pacifist groups. :D

Oh -- and people are not precise...

[yamiyugikun]

Wow, I just read all the posts here everyone left after visiting that military science professor:D Okay, to Marc, I think I'm finally learning how to see in color:eek: Seeing in black and white is inconvienent. If there is one thing the UC system in California is good at, its mental masturbation, LOL, especially those of us on North Campus in the liberal arts. We are all theory, flying off in the mental realms of imagination all day long:) People on the South end of campus who are more applied, or in the hard sciences, really do seem more in touch with reality. A friend of mine who does engineering says to me "Of course your absent minded, you live on north campus, lol."

And to the anthropologists lurking here, hello.

Okay, visiting the military science professor. I will admit what was echoed by someone previously, people in uniform who tend to embody fighting have this effect on (liberal) academics, lol. I just experienced it. I was really nervous visiting him at first, cause I thought as a civilian, he would force me to get on a Black Hawk, or airplane and make me jump out in a parachute. I know he's taken an oath to upload and defend the constitution, especially to protect us civilians, but the uniform is scary, lol. I think I'd be less afraid of a fire fighter cause as a civilian I would be more used to them.

Even in the military science department, the ROTC cadets were entirely different from the rest of the civilian students at my school. When the assistant professor came in, they froze in posture and replied, "Yes, sir!" and "No, sir!" to the professor/army captain. I found this to be an interesting anthropological experience, studying the ROTC department. I felt alienated at first, odd that they behaved so rigidly, but after a few minutes the people there were friendly. There was an honestly about them in how they described the annoying people who hand out fliers. One of them said, "Yes, that is annoying, they act like **%$#."

I was really intimidated by the professor at first, but then he welcomed me to the department and told me to finish my lunch. However, when I was talking to him in his office, no one dared interupt him. Someone wrote down something with a post-it note and slapped it on his desk in a way that seemed very kinetic. After about 10 minutes, when he looked up information about civilian jobs in the military, I felt comfortable, he was very nice, upright and helpful. I gave him information about the art history department, since one of his cadets coming in will be majoring in art history.

Although it was really intimidating at first, I'm glad that I met him and I hope the information that I shared with him helped him as well. After meeting with him, I talked to this other undergraduate girl about my experience meeting with that professor. She said, "There's something about military guys that makes them very sexy, something about that uniform and their toughness makes them attractive. But they are also really scary cause they use guns."

I agreed with her. Also what she said echoed what was said earlier in this thread, that service personnel in uniform embody fighting/violence, which can be very scary to academics or those unfamiliar with it. But I learned that even people in uniform, when they are out of uniform, they become ordinary people with families, who have the same worries and problems as the rest of us:D Anyhow, this was an interesting experience. I'll try not to be scared of guys in uniform who are supposed to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Naomi

[120mm]

It is interesting and refreshing to get your point of view on this. For those of us who have been associated with the military for decades, it is instructive to read how other people, who have not perceive "us".

It's also cool to see an unassociated academic type take an interest. Make sure to avoid becoming a "fan"; as most of the dogma against military personnel is incorrect, there are some systematic issues with the military and the majority of people who serve in it.

I know I didn't sign up for either a pedestal or a halo, and when I get issued them by a "fan" it makes me extremely uncomfortable.

[John T. Fishel]

is really good. I second the motion.

Cheers

JohnT

[jmm99]

Hey Naomi, your recent saga gives me a chance to tell a "I don't know, but I've been told" story - told by JMM's mom.

When my dad got to come home for a bit before he shipped over for his Euro vacation, my mom and I met him at the railway station. So, we ran up to dad and mom said, Let's hug daddy. At that, JMM (then betwixt 1 & 2) yelled That's not my daddy - and ran under one of the benches.

I suppose it was the uniform - and also that he of the porcelain skin was several shades darker after baking some months in the Texas sun (the recessive French-Canadian, especially the Canadian, genes came to the fore).

All was not lost - mom and dad managed to talk me out from under the bench - and family life went on.

And, of course, JMM had to have his uniform - which mom made (see attached). So, your life experience with the military, or sans military, has everything to do with your perception of the person in uniform.

Still, re this:


"There's something about military guys that makes them very sexy, something about that uniform and their toughness makes them attractive. But they are also really scary cause they use guns."

I've not found guys in uniform either sexy or scary - Is there something wrong with me ? :D

Naomi, very interesting thread, filling the need for a better civilian-military interface. Thanks for wading (diving) in.

Why am I doing this at 0900 on a day off - I could be sleeping. :)

[goesh]

"Okay, visiting the military science professor. I will admit what was echoed by someone previously, people in uniform who tend to embody fighting have this effect on (liberal) academics, lol. I just experienced it. I was really nervous visiting him at first, cause I thought as a civilian, he would force me to get on a Black Hawk, or airplane and make me jump out in a parachute." (Naomi)

I take it there was a helicopter near the building its rotors sending a lethal, ominous wind in all directions, forcing the student body to cower, cringe and whimper .........? I am totally flabergasted at this

[Van]

...After meeting with him, I talked to this other undergraduate girl about my experience meeting with that professor. She said, "There's something about military guys that makes them very sexy, something about that uniform and their toughness makes them attractive. But they are also really scary cause they use guns."

Like the old crack:
He: "Do I scare you?"
She: "No!"
He: "Would you like me to?"

In my undergraduate days (a few years back;)), I was older than my classmates as I had served five years enlisted in the Coast Guard, but was taking the Army's money to pay for college. I met a young woman from one of the pacifist political groups at a party. When she found out that I was in ROTC and the National Guard, she loudly berated me, insisting that I was a cold-blooded killing machine. Before the party was over, she invited me to her room for the night. I didn't take her up on this as, even if she had been sober, she was clearly as neurotic as a shaved monkey.

Years later...
One of my brothers married his second wife in the UC Berkley faculty club, where he, a Engineering PhD candidate and his English PhD candidate bride were attending school. I had my dress blues with me, and a different brother (I have three brothers, this one is the other soldier) and I briefly discussed our options for attire. We felt that uniforms in the UC Berkley faculty club would go over like flatulence in a mosque, especially given that the first description of our new sister-in-law included the phrase "peace activist". So we went with civilian attire.

About a year later at my wedding, my brother and I were both wearing uniforms as were several of the guests and the chaplain performing the ceremony (Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard in uniforms, former Navy and more Army and Air Force in civilian attire among the guests). During the reception, the English professor scampers up to us and says "You look so good in your uniforms! Why didn't you wear them to MY wedding?". God bless him, my brother had the presence of mind to look her in the eye and say "We didn't want to do anything to distract attention from your special day." (Note: I'm a commissioned officer and my brother is [and was at the time] a senior non-commissioned officer, and did an excellent job of what NCOs are supposed to do, keeping me out of trouble.)

[Schmedlap]

In my undergraduate days (a few years back;)), I was older than my classmates as I had served five years enlisted in the Coast Guard, but was taking the Army's money to pay for college. I met a young woman from one of the pacifist political groups at a party. When she found out that I was in ROTC and the National Guard, she loudly berated me, insisting that I was a cold-blooded killing machine.
I never cease to be amazed at the prejudices held about the military. If one were to hold similar prejudices against just about any other group (aside from investment bankers, lawyers, or politicians) then one would be labelled a bigot or racist.

A fellow law student, upon learning that I used to be in the Army, asked me, "are you going to do pro bono work for veterans?"

I asked him, "you mean like a veteran's discount for any clients who are veterans?" I had no idea what he was talking about. Upon further discussion, I found that he was under the impression that most veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have mental and medical issues that rarely get addressed or resolved and that they have a difficult time reintegrating into society, no job skills, minimal education, and often need legal assistance to force the bureaucracy to help them get jobs, medical help, counseling, et cetera. It was eye-opening, to say the least. I went on to open his eyes, as well, explaining the media's tendency to only report the sensational (whether it be about the Army, Hollywood, or anything else in life) and using the olympic-intramural analogy (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=70133&postcount=10) to explain to him the errors in his assumptions.

[jmm99]

Hey Schmedlap,

Your's has been a good experience re: VA, etc. (my inference from your posts); but that is not always the case. Sometimes (IMO, too often the case) it is necessary to use "legal assistance to force the bureaucracy".

As to such legal assistance, two main things should be kept in mind:

1. VA law (and military benefits law, in general) are very specialized fields - in short, e.g., JMM is not competent to handle VA claims. Period.

2. The USG, in its infinite wisdom (that crack is only half-sarcastic, since some constraints are needed), has placed hurdles in the path of legal representation of veterans - some going back to the civil war.

Most often, service officers from the various veterans organizations are the best choice to render assistance. The vets orgs are also often the best shot at getting on-line assistance.

My own choice has been Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA; associate life member since near its inception, mem # 1xxx), which has several guides, etc., on vets benefits:

Benefits Guides on PTSD & Agent Orange (http://vva.org/benefit_guides.html).

Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents 2009 (http://vva.org/benefit_update.html). VA Guide is here (http://www1.va.gov/opa/vadocs/fedben.pdf).

VVA's Guide on PTSD (http://vva.org/ptsd.html) has a section on Lawyers (http://vva.org/lawyers.html):


Lawyers

There are limits on when you can pay a lawyer to help you with a VA claim. Generally, you can hire a lawyer only after the BVA has decided your claim. Many lawyers work on a contingency basis that means you do not have to pay them a fee up front. If you do not win benefits, you will not have to pay a fee. Some private lawyers and some legal aid or legal services offices provide representation free of charge at all stages of a VA claim.

There is an organization of attorneys who regularly practice before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (which has jurisdiction over BVA decisions). Its members are available to represent you at the Court. For a list of these attorneys contact: the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA (http://www.vetadvocates.com/))

If no private practitioners are willing to represent you at the Court, it might be possible to obtain pro bono representation through the Veterans Pro Bono Consortium. The Court will send you information about this opportunity if you file an appeal there.

The VA regs on agents and attorneys are here (http://www.vetadvocates.com/docs/VA_Regs_May2008.pdf).

No suggestions by me as to what (if any) pro bono legal work Schmedlap should do. You know my thoughts about the relative worth of good infantry officers vs good lawyers.

But, the combo (law + infantry) has worked in the past - e.g., Caesar and Giap to name two.

Bonne chance. :)

Mike

-------------------------

PS: for the benefit of others. JMM position: We need good infantry officers more than we need good lawyers.

[Schmedlap]

JMM,

I've seen some bureaucratic foolishness. For example, I know of a Soldier who lost two limbs, nearly lost a third, and some paper pusher wanted to give him something absurd, like 10% disability. About 15 very angry Officers and NCOs, to include some surly field grades, paid a visit to that office to explain why this was unacceptable. Things changed quickly.

Nonetheless, that is good info that I was not aware of. When a chain of command fails to do what I observed, I'm sure the paperwork and legality gets really stupid, really quickly.

However, my source of befuddlement with this fellow mentioned in the previous post was one of degree. Had I asked him, "what percentage of veterans have these issues?" I suspect that he would have said, "70 or 80 percent?" He seemed truly surprised when I told him that most veterans don't have those medical/mental problems and, among those who do, most do not encounter the bureaucratic nightmares that he referred to.

[jmm99]

agree with your analysis of a common misperception by folks who are not familiar with active or former serving types. So, the misperception that a majority of Vietnam vets were C-4 packages awaiting a fuse to be lit - as per the Rambo series, etc., ad infinitum, ad nausium.

Truth being that even the "nut cases" (full VA disability) are scarcely Rambo. E.g., close friend (combat medic attached to 1CAV), after his first full shrink and group sessions, was told he had severe problems. He told the shrink (in effect): What'd mean, I've stayed married to the same woman; ran a successful business, been a school principal; and have had to self-medicate some, but I'm on an even keel. The shrink said: That's what I mean. You're in total denial and have repressed everything. You're nuttier than a fruitcake.

That was many years ago - the shrink was right (and much of the repressed stuff was pretty bad). So, my friend could have sat on his ass and collected his checks (well-deserved). But, being a hard charger, he became and still is heavily involved in Vietnam vets stuff - so, he has earned his VA bucks at least twice over.

PS: He also has the PH for physical wounds; but those had less lingering effect than the mental stuff.

[jmm99]

was written off the top of my head - and frankly anecdotal. The question of the severity and extent of mental problems in combat veterans has been a controversial topic since Vietnam. I've linked the VVA Guide above; the definition of PTSD accepted by that organization is here (http://vva.org/what_is_ptsd.html).

The April 2009 issue of Scientific American has an article on the subject, Soldiers' Stress: What Doctors Get Wrong about PTSD (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=post-traumatic-stress-trap), with a number of links to related studies. A critique ("PTSD, Mental Health, and the Military: Problematic Reporting at Scientific American and ScienceBlogs") of that article is here (http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/03/ptsd_mental_health_and_the_mil.php); and an update ("Mental Health and the Combat Veteran: It's Not All PTSD") to the crtique is here (http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/03/mental_health_and_the_combat_v.php).

All of this tends to be inside baseball for those who are following it. In any event the links above will give those in liberal academia (and elsewhere) an idea of what is going on in this area. The %s (in whatever view) are much lower than those of Schmedlap's hypothetical friend's 70-80%.

-------------------------
Another Vietnam vet related question is that of mortality. I read Phil Salois' Taps column in the VVA Veteran. I've noticed for some time that more obits were of people younger than I, than the same age or older. So, I went though the latest issue and added up the deaths by two age groups: 66 and over - 17; 65 and under - 46.

That does not square with mortality tables. Possibly, VVA members are an unhealthy bunch as compared to other Vietnam vets. Also possible is that there are many more VVA members in the younger cohort (e.g., if average age ca. 1968-1969 was 19, born ca. 1949-1950; that may be the answer). Something for a statistician to report on.

I don't know whether anyone in academia (liberal or otherwise) has looked at the comparable death rates of Vietnam vets vs their general cohorts.

In any event, these are issues with which academia (liberal or otherwise) does not have to personally deal.

[jmm99]

such as this - reports at BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8044229.stm), FOX (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519788,00.html) and MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30678715/). This is a tragedy and should be treated as such. I expect we will know more over the next few days.

[jmm99]

AP at 0006 EDT (http://www.courant.com/news/specials/sns-ap-ml-iraq,0,353096.story), 12 May, seems the latest update to the stress clinic shooting - shooter is identified as a sergeant, 5 victims not identified; with some added details to earlier accounts.

[120mm]

What distinguishes that event, is it's relative rarity.

If Conventional Wisdom ran the world, armed combat vets would be slaughtering each other on a daily basis. (and not in the context of enemies, either)

Fortunately, it IS the exception, not the rule.

[jmm99]

from 120mm
Fortunately, it IS the exception, not the rule.

I know it will be spun by some. And others will over-emphasize the event, not for their personal or partisan gain, but because they are concerned about the soldiers' welfare. Hard to keep that kind of headline in balance.

[Old Eagle]

Think we've strayed from liberal academia. Rec we start a new thread. Check out this topic over in the Dander Room @ Wired.

If I knew how to install a hyperlink, I would probably do it # here.

[Rex Brynen]

I'm not sure (as a liberal acedemic) I see quite the same bias against uniformed folks that others are reporting here. Then again, I'm in Canada, and we don't see many uniformed folks.

However, to recover the thread on a lighter note, a few years ago one of our PhD students--a USAF Captain at the time--applied for university Research Ethics Board clearance of his proposed PhD research. The Board, not surprisingly, asked for clarification of the relationship between his research and his military service, and the nature of his USAF funding, in order to determine the ownership and uses to which the research might be put.

A reassuring letter was requested from the Department of the Air Force, which duly sent this useful gem:


The Area Studies Advanced Program represents an EAF related initiative aimed at developing an expeditionary force capable of supporting a broad range of global military operations, from peacekeeping to major theater war (MTW).

As you might imagine, this kind of language was rather less than reassuring to the members of the Research Ethics Board :D

(In the end he got the ethics clearance. Interestingly, his first topic was turned down not by the university but by the USAF--they considered it too dangerous to send an officer to the country in question on research, although our other graduate students routinely visit there!)

[marct]

Hi Rex,


(In the end he got the ethics clearance. Interestingly, his first topic was turned down not by the university but by the USAF--they considered it too dangerous to send an officer to the country in question on research, although our other graduate students routinely visit there!)

LOLOL - now, why doesn't that surprise me :D!!!!

On t'other hand, I've noticed the research boards (and ethics boards) tend to be driven by political and legal considerations much more than by the potential value of the research. I had one of my projects turned down by an ethics board because I wasn't the right gender and then the decision was reversed when I proved that the board members were politically biased.

I also think your comment about being in Canada is spot on. Even in Ottawa, where I teach and we have a fairly high uniform count, we don't see that many on campus. BTW, there is a session at the Canadian Political Science Association annual meeting this year on COIN and ethnography and the military. I'll be quite interested to see if we have many uniformed folks showing up to it.