Citizens vs. Soldiers: The Growing Cultural Divide
Interesting article, titled "Duties That Are Best Shared" from The Washington Post By Matthew Bogdanos
(Sunday, March 1, 2009; A17)
Quote:
"Send in the Marines" has been uttered by every president since Thomas Jefferson sent a detachment of leathernecks to the shores of Tripoli in 1801. These words are likely to be uttered in the next four years -- of special interest to me as a Marine who has served multiple combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Veteran status is no guarantor of a leader's successful use of the military, of course; nor is its absence necessarily a harbinger of misuse. But in the 1970s, 74 percent of Congress had prior military service. Today: 23 percent. Barack Obama, though clearly respectful of the military, has never served in the military and has only two veterans in his Cabinet -- the fewest since Herbert Hoover. By contrast, John Kennedy, decorated for heroism in World War II, had only two Cabinet members who were not veterans.
...
The solution is an educated citizenry that understands its soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines -- understands that we are you.
Matthew Bogdanos, the author of "Thieves of Baghdad," is a colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves and an assistant district attorney for New York City.
This thoughtful piece written by a Marine Colonel who has drunk deep at the well of liberty and the Constitution, highlights a disturbing -growing-- cultural divide: one group (the citizen-soldier)espousing the importance of "honor, sacrifice and country;" while the other -much larger segment- advocates immediate gratification, narcissistic self indulgence and political correctness (Soviet era lexicon) all in the name of "freedom." The latter group not forced to make any sacrifices as once famously advocated by JFK and Jefferson, and blinded by short sighted indulgences, doesn't recognize the grave peril we face. Our enemies watch in wonderment and rejoice: we are our own worst enemies thanks to a seemingly blind majority. Our most famous Citizen-Soldier and Founding Father George Washington must be turning in his grave.
I have less of a pessimistic view ...
of the American People, but do not want to dispute that. I thought the Marine-lawyer made many good points (not the least of which is that the military is better educated than the general population).
These two points, however, I found very telling:
Quote:
But if we limit the warrior ideal's physical courage to an isolated subculture of military, police and firefighters, focusing them solely on this virtue, we risk cultivating doers less tolerant of different lifestyles or ways of thinking. And if we limit aesthetic appreciation to the world of academics and economic elites, never encouraging them to roll up their own sleeves, we risk fostering gifted thinkers great on nuance but subject to paralysis by analysis.
Or worse. This artificial separation forces us to confront global terrorism with either the compassionate consensus of the whole-food collective or the indiscriminate anger of the lynch mob -- failures both. "War is an ugly thing," British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote about the American Civil War, "but not the ugliest of things: the decayed . . . feeling which thinks nothing worth war is worse." We must, instead, face terrorism's cult of death with hard steel, informed strategies and a rock-solid code of shared societal behavior to defeat those whose defining feature is the absence of honor.
Instead, we (civilians) were told to go shopping - a failure of leadership vis a vis the civilian population that still continues.
COL Bogdanos' overall theme that there must be better military-civilian communication is preaching to my choir (more than one of my posts have emphasized that).
Nor, do I blame the leadership for this ...
Quote:
from Schmedlap
And some others did the opposite - seeking cheap political points rather than seeking to contribute something productive. They responded with slanders against the President, shameless anti-American propaganda, attempting to politicize the military, and criticizing every step of the effort, whether the criticism was legitimate or not and whether each step was proper or not. I no more blame the civilian leadership for the pathetic behavior of some of this country's citizens any more than I blame Allah for my Iraqi Army counterparts' lack of punctuality.
What I am blaming the leadership today for is the same thing that I blamed the leadership for in Vietnam - the leadership's concept that you can have a serious long-term war while everyone at home goes on with life as though no war exists ("guns and butter" in my dads's words).
There's nothing really wrong with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
What I am blaming the leadership today for is the same thing that I blamed the leadership for in Vietnam - the leadership's concept that you can have a serious long-term war while everyone at home goes on with life as though no war exists ("guns and butter" in my dads's words).
Guns and Butter, I mean.
Same thing happened during WW II -- was there rationing and were there shortages of some things, were all the men and a lot of women gone off to war somewhere? Sure but life was remarkably unchanged from 1939. Only after the war (with no more Depression) did most realize they'd been restricted a fair bit.
Korea was pure guns and butter, so was Viet Nam. Not much worse this time than those two -- but the troops got to l9ive better in Viet Nam than they had in Korea and today's live better than the VN era. Progress... ;)
In none of those wars or this one did the leadership really know how long it would last and IMO anyone who tells you that they could've predicted even the approximate length of any of them at the start is either amazingly prescient or a liar. Sure, we all know now -- ain't hindsight wonderful? Anyway, I'm quite unsure what imposing stringent measures or even mild restrictions of any kind on the populace would accomplish
I think the problem is that the Armed Forces want to act like they're a part of mainstream America and that coupled with the fact that people on both sides of the aisle try to not disparage the troops leads all to want to think we're a big happy family with some members off doing things the rest would rather not do but that just isn't correct as a view. We should all be in this together sort of thing. That has never happened in this country in my 75 years nor in reading of history of earlier wars. People in the service and out express a wish that it were different. Why? What would we do to make it different? Make people give up things just do we could say we did? That's real smart...
The disconnect between the Armed Forces and 'society' has been there all my life and I doubt it will change. The Armed forces should acknowledge that and avoid building up an idea that those who serve are just like everyone else -- because they aren't. If they get out, they can be again -- but while you're in, you are not like other Americans. Anyone uncomfortable with that ought to find other employment. It's not a big deal but it isn't a normal life. Period. It is my belief that the Armed forces do themselves a disservice by trying to be like everyone else -- changing that would hurt retention. Slightly. That's okay, most of those who'd leave aren't that happy with what they're doing anyway. They get up to 17 years or so in and do not want to make any waves, they just want to coast and depart. There aren't that many of those, fortunately and the few who'd leave aren't much loss.
Most of the folks I served with, Marines and Army, had no particular problems with all that and most of us were just happy (or at least okay with the thought) that we were picking up the slack so that Cousin Jack or Uncle Bud didn't have to. All of us were glad to get back to the big PX and get a Milk Shake and a decent Hamburger. It was a shock to see the attitudes and relative comfort (everyone is chubby :eek:...) -- but that usually wore off and one assimilated in a couple of months. There were a few that grumbled loudly -- but those were the kinds of folks that didn't even like themselves, much less anyone else.
It would be nice if more law and policy makers had some military experience but it wouldn't make much difference in the long run. I suppose it would be nice if Mr. and Mrs. America sacrificed more and were more empathetic to the real issues affecting troops committed to combat -- but I'm totally unsure what that would mean or why it might be construed to make any difference in anything that counted. Much less what they might do that would contribute anything.
I always looked it with a view that I was a professional, had a job that was sometimes onerous, sometimes dangerous, sometimes not fun but mostly was fun and I did not care what what the public did or, really, thought about it. I realize not everyone looked at it that way and I spent time telling the younger guys (including a very few that were drafted -- most of whom took it all better than their younger regular fellow Troopies) not to lose sleep over the fact that they were where they were and Joe and Mary Sixpack were where they were. That was the way it was -- nothing to fret about and we weren't going to change it. How would we change it if we could? What should be done?
I never got a good answer to those questions.
That is a completely wrong suggestion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ratzel
I think the book "On Strategy" by Ltc. Summers covered this in detail.
Summers got more wrong than he did right. His 'strategy' was for a war that didn't exist.
Quote:
However, as for the non-war fighting pubic, I think they were too involved in the war. Because the middle class and elite kids were not sent to war, they felt guilty. Because of this they were swept away by the anti-war movement. If all the kids had went, the guilt wouldn't have existed. The Red Diaper Babies on campus would have been beaten like dogs, and the ROTC would have never been burnt down.
Having been around then, I know that's specious.
Quote:
The American people can't handle the realities of war. They should be insulated from it as much as possible. However, the men and women who do fight should be taken care of above anyone in this country. If there's one group of people who truly are "entitled" in this country, its the warfighters and their families. For the rest of the population its bread and circuses (or beer and football).
This is the suggestion I say is completely wrong.
First, the American people handle war very well. If they did not we wouldn't have so many and they wouldn't last as long as they do. Insulating them from war is directly opposite of what should be done. The dipwad politicians try that in every war; the insulation stupidity and it always fails. I don't know about your warfighting experience but I've got over six years worth plus another 24 years of service and your comment that warfighters are the only people who are truly entitled in this country is flat wrong. In fact, in my book, it's insulting to anyone who has gone off and fought.
Every American citizen is as entitled as every other American citizen to opportunity to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as they see it. If you've been off fighting a war, you did it just so that could be the case and you have a greater obligation to insure that it remains true than did those who did not go.
The sentiment you express may sit well in another country but it is totally inappropriate in this one IMO.
The rest of your post doesn't merit much comment as it is a totally unworkable idea..
Counter counterpointer (if there is such a thing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
Ok...since there's a fair amount of what seems to be civilian-bashing included in this thread, let's take a moment to examine how some folks end up interacting with military personnel. Perceptions go both ways, you know.
Take "Joe Smith," for example. He grew up in a smallish town just down the road from a major military installation. When he was in high school he had to compete for dates with high-paid (compared to what he could make in his after school job) military types who liked to date high school girls. They had cars, they had beer...you name it. Later, "Joe" marries and has daughters...who he's now afraid will get knocked up by some over-testosterone endowed military type from down the road who will then cop an immediate assignment elsewhere leaving him holding the bag. He's not a fan of the military, and feels that he has every good reason to feel that way. Never mind that his experience has been limited.
Overdrawn? Sure...but no more so than some of the rants about "typical" civilians I've seen here. It's those "typical" folks who some people seem to despise who pay for all your entitlements...and don't kid yourselves: military compensation these days is damned good...better than it ever has been and far better than you'll see in the real private sector. For the most part they pay without complaining (Nixon's "silent majority" comment has a great deal of validity) and certainly don't treat military members like they did sixty years ago. It's easy and tempting to cherry-pick your examples, and I could point out a number of military types I've seen over the years who were just getting over on the government...and an equal number of civilian types who did more or less the same thing.
But there are always the good ones out there, and the folks who may not fall into either camp but will offer you a military discount even though their store is in trouble and you make more than they do.
Point well made. I may be an exception to many. I hate the Soldier at the mall, Wal-Mart, Lowe's etc.... in uniform. Especially PT uniforms. Unlike many who believe this projects a good image for the military. Generally the ones I see doing it are not the ones you want projecting that image, but save that for another day and another time. However this does coincide with your getting over statement, when it is 1100 a.m. and they are cruising the mall in uniform. Great role model!!!! Ever seen the UPS, FEDEX, Postal Worker cruising around after work in uniform? Wonder why?
As far as military discounts are concerned.....never take them and never will. It's my job, does not make me one bit more special than the next guy. I guess it comes down to personalities, I'm not the guy who needs the big parades, speeches, and recognition. Unfortunately some feel civilians owe them that.
Final comment, is my military compensation enough for the times I've missed? Been home for 2 of my daughters 10 birthdays and missed 5 of the last 7 Christmases? Again not complaining one bit because I agree that we are being paid well and I did volunteer, but just thought about the compensation.
We can partly agree, partly disagree, Ratzel.
Re: Viet Nam. The Armed forces do not demand. This country has civilians firmly in control of the military and most everyone likes it that way. They were not allowed to 'go all the way' or even part way. It was a war of limited objective that was deliberately constrained for several reasons. Poor civilian -- and military -- policies made that situation worse than it needed to be.
I agree with you on the food stamps and poor treatment but some of that is due to individual failures and not system screwups -- though those also occur. All things considered, the system is reasonably fair and no one is getting screwed. Nor is anyone getting special bennies -- and I do not think anyone should.
Many think all official business in this country should be conducted only in English but every time that gets to a vote in Congress or in this or that State, it gets tromped. So you may think your proposal is fair but I do not think many will agree. I don't.
Depends on what you call rich I suppose. My point is that in 45 years in or around the Army and with three sons who served, on of whom is still serving their and my perception is that the Army pretty well represents all classes of society in this country.
As for American handling war well, may be a function of where you live and / or what you watch or read. Basically, I think the 1/3 rule pretty well covers it -- that and the two year rule. That rule says Americans will give a war two years; if it then looks like it's not doing well, they start getting upset. That rule also has strong historical validation.
Food for thought: Col Bogdanos words revisited
Quotes from Col Bogdanos's piece:
"Just as "Semper Fidelis" (always faithful) is not merely the Marine Corps motto but a way of life, so is honor a form of mental conditioning -- a force-multiplier: Decide in advance to act honorably, and you know without hesitation what to do in a crisis. Codes of conduct are society's version of the same conditioning."
"During the darkest days of World War II, George Orwell allowed that "we sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to do violence to those who would harm us."
"But if we limit the warrior ideal's physical courage to an isolated subculture of military, police and firefighters, focusing them solely on this virtue, we risk cultivating doers less tolerant of different lifestyles or ways of thinking. And if we limit aesthetic appreciation to the world of academics and economic elites, never encouraging them to roll up their own sleeves, we risk fostering gifted thinkers great on nuance but subject to paralysis by analysis.
Or worse."
"War is an ugly thing," British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote about the American Civil War, "but not the ugliest of things: the decayed . . . feeling which thinks nothing worth war is worse."
"We must, instead, face terrorism's cult of death with hard steel, informed strategies and a rock-solid code of shared societal behavior to defeat those whose defining feature is the absence of honor."
"The solution is an educated citizenry that understands its soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines -- understands that we are you."
The comments have been lively here, with some diatribes thrown in for good measure (free therapy some would call it), but I fear the essence of what this honorable Colonel is trying to inform us on has been somewhat neglected in this discourse. A divided citizenry cannot successfully defend our way of life against enemies both foreign and domestic. As the comments here have duly noted, there is a chasm between those in uniform and the rest. It is this very chasm that our enemies seek to exploit through varied means.
If we focus on the insignificant like dress code violations, salary benefits or not and other such mundane matters, we miss the salient: we are all in this together. Our freedom as envisioned by the founding fathers depends on sacrifice by all for the common good. I fear it is this ethos that seems lost today within the general public.
As a student of the first civil war (our revolution), it is never lost on me how giants (Washington, Adams, Samuel Adams, Franklin, Jefferson et al) risked everything to serve in the name of liberty and to throw off tyranny. They knew they would hang if they failed yet these leaders shared their respective skills and wealth (these were not "welfare recipients") for liberty and freedom. Some were in uniform led by Washington himself; others duties ran the gamut from diplomacy (seeking foreign aid) to raising money for the cause of freedom. There were no guarantees and nor were they the stronger party to the conflict but their honor propelled them to live free or die.
"Dutied that are best shared" if we are to become better citizens (than the growing numbers who seek govt bailouts/handouts) inherently involve supporting/defending both our constitution and our military in whatever capacity that we are able. "Citizenship" should be earned through self imposed duties. There are countries that require two years or more of "national service" that involve a choice of duties (military included). JFK established the Peace Corps with this in mind.
The concepts of "honor, duty, responsibility and sacrifice" are learned. As parents we must teach these every day to our children. Now I'll get off my soapbox and end my diatribe. :)
