The Internet: A Portal to Violent Islamist Extremism

[bourbon]

Posts

You argue there is a disconnect between parts of our nation and civil society. However, we currently have an all-volunteer, professional military, which is in stark contrast to the traditional American way of war. Historically we rapidly stand up forces in times of need through conscription, and just as rapidly stand them down when the crisis ends. Standing armies in the United States have been historically small and insignificant, for our Founding Fathers warned us of the danger they bring. This is how we do it. This is our system.

I think you make some very good points, but is it right to be critical of portions of our nation when we have deviated so far from our historical norm?

[Ken White]

all volunteer professional military; conscription was used briefly only in the Civil War and World War I.

It was reimposed for World War II; intended to be for the war period only. The world was irrevocably changed by WW II and we had become a global power so, for the very first time, the draft was reinstituted in peacetime (1948) after the war and that effectively gave us a quite large standing Army from 1950 until 1973, running about .004 of the population for most of that period with spikes for Korea and Viet Nam (only about seven out of 24) .

From 1973 until 1991, that figure was about .003 -- with no draft.

Compare that to 1930. A 165K Army (including the Army Air Corps) equated to about .0014 of the population. Today with vastly more responsibility it's only about .0017 (with about as many aircraft as has the Air force). That is not a significantly greater number and it doesn't approach the 1950-1991 figure.

I suggest that the deviation in strength and processes is not great and that the real and very significant deviation is the transformation from an inward looking growing nation to a major power with global responsibilities. Given that major change in focus and responsibility -- wanted or not, we have it -- the actual change is miniscule and unavoidable.

The internal US societal changes are, I believe, a different issue that have little bearing on the size and structure of the Army.

[marct]

Hi Ken,

The internal US societal changes are, I believe, a different issue that have little bearing on the size and structure of the Army.

I'm not sure that I would agree with you on this. I have a suspicion that the social changes and, more importantly, the disjuncture between stated political ideologies and the "lived experience" of many Americans, is having a major effect on the size and structure of the Army. As a case in point, the issue of junior officer retention and the use of cash bonuses seems to point to a significant problem.

A few of my more radical, left wing friends and colleagues have made an interesting argument that is, IMHO, somewhat germane to this issue: they argue that, for the past 70+ years, the Management Society has been, basically, attempting to "domesticate" the average American. While I think they are definitely over the top in their rhetoric and their more than somewhat paranoid conspiracy theories, they does raise some interesting observations.

First, North American culture has been shifted significantly from a somewhat balanced point of individual freedoms and responsibilities to one where individual "rights" dominate. Second, and again obver the same period (roughly 1910 to the present if we go back to the Taylorite model), we have seen an increasing acquiescence to the power of "experts" to define how things should be run. Third, we have seen a systematic stripping away of many of the "traditional" systems of meaning (often religious, but also nationalistic) and their replacement with commercialized versions (i.e. and individual gets meaning not from acting within a transcendent system but from buying things and "constructing" their "own" identities).

I think that this trend has had an effect on the Army and, probably more on the USMC, since they still operate with an "older" form of "meaning" and identity construction. As a result, I think that you see the military attracting people who have a more "conservative" (please not the small "c") attitude towards rights and responsibilities, and this is where I see the disjuncture between the military and the rest of civil society showing up.

I'm tossing this out really as a discussion point rather than something I could prove .

Marc

[wm]

North American culture has been shifted significantly from a somewhat balanced point of individual freedoms and responsibilities to one where individual "rights" dominate. Second, and again obver the same period (roughly 1910 to the present if we go back to the Taylorite model), we have seen an increasing acquiescence to the power of "experts" to define how things should be run. Third, we have seen a systematic stripping away of many of the "traditional" systems of meaning (often religious, but also nationalistic) and their replacement with commercialized versions (i.e. and individual gets meaning not from acting within a transcendent system but from buying things and "constructing" their "own" identities).

I think that this trend has had an effect on the Army and, probably more on the USMC, since they still operate with an "older" form of "meaning" and identity construction. As a result, I think that you see the military attracting people who have a more "conservative" (please not the small "c") attitude towards rights and responsibilities, and this is where I see the disjuncture between the military and the rest of civil society showing up.

Marc,
I suspect you may be right about the shift in the systems that provide "meaning" to individuals' lives. But, I think it is more of a pendulum swing than a move to a new system.
If you remember your Locke, you jnow that he identified our fundamental rights as life, liberty, and property. We seem to have gone back to the Lockean notion of property as a defining characteristic of our place in the world. This is far from a new thing. What is somewhat new is what now counts as property. Where once it was what one actually produced with the sweat of one's brow (the original definition of property from Locke), it is now the number and type of possessions that our buying power allows us to acquire--necessities versus luxuries if you will. Those who are more concerned with the necessities are those who fit into what you described as "small c" conservatives, IMO.

To put this a little more poetically, Rousseau noted "Man is born free yet is everywhere in chains." Today, more of us than ever before are "chained" by our "need" to acquire the latest and greatest consumer goods instead of the basic essentials of life (like food and shelter). As a result, we have less time/desire to be "chained" by such things as national service, unless they can satisify our consumerism needs.

Those who are chained to the more fundamental needs are more likely to be attracted to the radical appeal. They see it as a means to break free from those chains so they can be shackled to the "higher pleasure."

[tequila]

I think economic change has enabled to a large extent a return to an older form of social organization where the emphasis is placed on individualism as opposed to communalism.

In the postindustrial economy, one's ability to work in teams, to sublimate one's own individual personality and goals for the good of a larger organization or effort, is no longer worth as much. These communalist values were useful on the factory floor or in large regular armies.

Nowadays there is more of an emphasis placed on individual achievement, how one's talents or abilities can separate oneself from the broader mass, on individual specialization and skills. This is in turn rewarded with individual satisfaction and outsized praise and awards. Consumerism is a symptom, not the cause.

In essence a shift back towards an aristocratic ethos more recognizable from the 1800s, except rather than limited by birthright the aristocracy is limited instead by educational achievement and skill set.

[Ken White]

Hi Ken,
. . .
I'm not sure that I would agree with you on this. I have a suspicion that the social changes and, more importantly, the disjuncture between stated political ideologies and the "lived experience" of many Americans, is having a major effect on the size and structure of the Army. As a case in point, the issue of junior officer retention and the use of cash bonuses seems to point to a significant problem.
. . .

Note I said little bearing. We can differ on the amount I suppose...

I suggest the bonuses are indeed a response to societal changes -- the metrosexualization slash liberalization and the increasing emphasis individualism for just two impactors -- but those are responses to address the societal impacts, not drivers of the size and structure.

I'd also suggest that junior officer retention invariably decreases with a volunteer force in any wartime scenario; the wives don't like it and the more sensitive of said J.O find out that war is brutal and not just an academic exercise, they are turned off at the waste and trauma (as is most everyone; some just tolerate it better than others).

I broadly agree with the rest of your comment, however, this:

"As a result, I think that you see the military attracting people who have a more conservative" (please not the small "c") attitude towards rights and responsibilities, and this is where I see the disjuncture between the military and the rest of civil society showing up."

while true has -- thus far -- had little bearing on size and structure but great impact on the disjunctive factor..

The reverse of that attitude, the progressive view in general, has had a more significant impact on size and structure in the downsizing, imposition of various social engineering programs and funding cuts prior to 2001.

There has been a societal effect, no question but I contend it has been minimal to this point. That said, I'll acknowledge the future doesn't portend well...

[Ken White]

"Nowadays there is more of an emphasis placed on individual achievement, how one's talents or abilities can separate oneself from the broader mass, on individual specialization and skills. This is in turn rewarded with individual satisfaction and outsized praise and awards. Consumerism is a symptom, not the cause."

I'd add all fed by an underperforming elementary and secondary education system and a national media that is effectively juvenile and dominated by the 'entertainment' industry.

[Norfolk]

I'd add all fed by an underperforming elementary and secondary education system and a national media that is effectively juvenile and dominated by the 'entertainment' industry.

The knock-on effect of this for the Military is that, in time, it may attract, and become attracted to, those who seek nihilistic glory; this has always been a temptation for generals (and others), but when social constraints against (due to lack of social attachments and traditional meaning), and social admiration of, those who stand out most, or seek to, may have serious consequences down the road. Heroism in the mold of Sergeant York or Audie Murphy may be displaced for that of Alexander the Great or Napoleon Bonaparte.

[Tom Odom]

I'd add all fed by an underperforming elementary and secondary education system and a national media that is effectively juvenile and dominated by the 'entertainment' industry.

Dude,

Way cool.

Tom

Where's my car?

[Norfolk]

Dude,

Way cool.

Tom

Where's my car?

Tom,

Like, you mean like, you didn't get one for your Sweet Sixteen?

[marct]

Actually, I think Norfolk did a really good job of analyzing the political sifting / attraction that seems to be going on. And I do agree that it has probably effected composition more than size or structure - at least for now, I also share Ken's concern about the future.

Tequila, I don't really see so much as a return to individualism so much as a return to reciprocity and the value (or value add) of individuals in networks. That's not communalism, BTW.

Tom, "Sexy 60"??????

Marc

[tequila]

Tequila, I don't really see so much as a return to individualism so much as a return to reciprocity and the value (or value add) of individuals in networks. That's not communalism, BTW.

Eh, what? My whole bit was about communalist values of the industrial age economy and military giving way to the individualist values of a postindustrial, services/information economy. The military will have to adjust to this and it is not simply along the lines of a Right / Left political breakdown. Key elements of the Right have been at the forefront of this societal shift (Margaret Thatcher: "There is no such thing as society.") which is primarily economic but which naturally remakes social relationships and values.

[Tom Odom]

Tom, "Sexy 60"??????

Marc

I'll send you a card

[Schmedlap]

I suggest the bonuses are indeed a response to societal changes -- the metrosexualization slash liberalization and the increasing emphasis individualism for just two impactors -- but those are responses to address the societal impacts, not drivers of the size and structure.

I'd also suggest that junior officer retention invariably decreases with a volunteer force in any wartime scenario; the wives don't like it and the more sensitive of said J.O find out that war is brutal and not just an academic exercise, they are turned off at the waste and trauma (as is most everyone; some just tolerate it better than others).

I'm an Infantry Captain who is passing up the $35,000 retention bonus without hesitation and who has spent a fair amount of time discussing the rationale behind this new bonus. Discussions have been nearly unanimous: whomever came up with this half-baked idea is completely out of touch with the values, interests, and general morale of the Captains, if not all other ranks as well.

My peers and I always seem to come back to the same set of issues for why we want to either take a break from the Army or leave it forever (most of us are undecided between these two alternatives, but steadfast in our decisions to leave for now):
1. The career of an Army officer is 1/4 command time and 3/4 staff time - and most staff work is mindless, meaningless work that could be done by people with far less training and physical prowess.
2. Most of us have social lives for one weekend, in every fourth month of even-numbered years - and/or recently divorced. The rest of the time, we're in the field, in Iraq, or pulling an all-nighter at work. If the two-month double rotation at NTC were really as worthwhile as the OC's claim it to be, then maybe this would be seen as more than just an unnecessary wet blanket on our non-existent social lives.
3. There is little to no merit involved in personnel moves. A Brigade's command queue is not based upon merit. It is based upon year group and date of arrival at the duty station (some BDE's might vary). There is tremendous frustration among Captains waiting for a command and seeing a known dud take a company simply because it's his turn when everybody, to include his rater and senior rater, openly admit that he is a dud... but it's his turn!

While #2 above may sound like it violates the value of selfless service, the frustration is not due simply to the lack of social lives, but the reason behind it. If we were leading platoons or commanding companies for years on end, then the absence of a social life is understandable and a cost that I think all of us would bear without hesitation. If we are sacrificing our social lives to put together a 90-slide presentation on how we're going to conduct next month's gunnery density (because it changes so much!) then that is where the anger sets in.

[marct]

Hi Scmedlap,

While #2 above may sound like it violates the value of selfless service, the frustration is not due simply to the lack of social lives, but the reason behind it. If we were leading platoons or commanding companies for years on end, then the absence of a social life is understandable and a cost that I think all of us would bear without hesitation. If we are sacrificing our social lives to put together a 90-slide presentation on how we're going to conduct next month's gunnery density (because it changes so much!) then that is where the anger sets in.

Thanks for this - it's one of the best descriptions I've heard of the reasons for leaving! I hope you won't take it amiss, but your reactions are the quintessence of Gen Y's views on meaning. Sort of a generic, "if it's got to be done, do it, do it well, and don't complain.. If it's drek, then say so and don't bother with it."

What, in your opinion and coming out of your bull sessions, would get you and your compadres to say "Yeah, this is worth re-upping"?

Marc

[Ken White]

By the way, I may have in another lifetime known your Father or maybe Uncle; first name Smedley? Come to to think of it, though, he may have been 'Schmerdlap' with an 'r.'

I agree the bonuses are a bad idea. I agree that whoever came up with the idea (probably the same guy who came up with $80K to leave the Army in 1994 applied to sharp CPT and MAJ) is an idiot.

I agree that most of what you say applies to other ranks as well. more so than the Army seems to realize...

I agree on the 1/4 command time versus inane staff jobs and having been forced into several of those due to age and civilian status late in life for about 12 straight years in a HQ echelons above reality I have horror stories out the wazoo about aimless unnecessary work...

I really agree with and understand your last paragraph and it truly and seriously pains me to say that the problem went for all the 45 years I was in or working for the Army and it is obvious that it still occurs twelve years later.

That is a huge lick on the Generals.

They are going to face a grass roots rebellion fairly soon and they do not seem to either realize it or be very concerned about it. SAD.

[Schmedlap]

What, in your opinion and coming out of your bull sessions, would get you and your compadres to say "Yeah, this is worth re-upping"?

Correct numbers 1 and 3 from the list. That will render number 2 irrelevant. I think that most of us would trade a pay CUT for 1 and 3 being remedied.

[Norfolk]

I have a suspicion that the social changes and, more importantly, the disjuncture between stated political ideologies and the "lived experience" of many Americans, is having a major effect on the size and structure of the Army. As a case in point, the issue of junior officer retention and the use of cash bonuses seems to point to a significant problem.

A few of my more radical, left wing friends and colleagues have made an interesting argument that is, IMHO, somewhat germane to this issue: they argue that, for the past 70+ years, the Management Society has been, basically, attempting to "domesticate" the average American. While I think they are definitely over the top in their rhetoric and their more than somewhat paranoid conspiracy theories, they does raise some interesting observations.

First, North American culture has been shifted significantly from a somewhat balanced point of individual freedoms and responsibilities to one where individual "rights" dominate. Second, and again obver the same period (roughly 1910 to the present if we go back to the Taylorite model), we have seen an increasing acquiescence to the power of "experts" to define how things should be run. Third, we have seen a systematic stripping away of many of the "traditional" systems of meaning (often religious, but also nationalistic) and their replacement with commercialized versions (i.e. and individual gets meaning not from acting within a transcendent system but from buying things and "constructing" their "own" identities).

I think that this trend has had an effect on the Army and, probably more on the USMC, since they still operate with an "older" form of "meaning" and identity construction. As a result, I think that you see the military attracting people who have a more "conservative" (please not the small "c") attitude towards rights and responsibilities, and this is where I see the disjuncture between the military and the rest of civil society showing up.

I'm tossing this out really as a discussion point rather than something I could prove .

Marc

I'll take the bait.

First off. If you walked into the lines of any Combat Arms unit in the English-speaking world, and asked for a show of hands of who was right-wing, most of the hands would go up; when you asked who was left wing, maybe a few defiant, or embarrassed individuals might raise their hands, to the (at best) the jeering of all the rest or (just as likely) the general annoyance of said. In general, I doubt that you would be able to find very many individuals, especially inside the Combat Arms, who would admit to be "left-wing". Even outside the Combat Arms, the troops tend to be right-wing in their views.
The Officer Corps, even though they are perhaps more likely (I suspect) to have individuals of leftist persuasion in their midst, not only tend to be rightist in their persuasions, but over the last generation or so a discernible "hardening" into right-wing tendencies has visibly occurred.

Second, and developing the first point, not only has there been much comment in recent years over the "politicization" of the Officer Corps (and in at least three of said English-speaking countries) - and to the right - but being in the Military in recent decades involves a political indentity as well, that is more or less part-and-parcel of being "Military". Political Parties are observed to be either Anti-Military - and invariably "Left-Wing" - or Pro-Military - and invariably "Right-Wing". Given the veiled (and sometimes open)hostility of Left-Wing politicians and parties to the Military in general, and the rather more "benign" (often it isn't), even solicitous attitudes of Right-Wing politicans and parties to the Military, the officers and men find themselves repelled by the former and inclined to the latter.

Third, and back to the "identity" matter. In the absence of strong traditional identities normally organic to society that suppressed or denigrated in our current "individualistic" society, people are encouraged to "construct" their own identity. First off, people are not just individuals; it is neither natural nor normal for humans to be simply individuals. Humans are naturally and normally organic members of human society (and I'm not going for the pathetic "communitarianism" rubbish of a decade or so ago - good riddance to that). They are not by nature simple individuals; political "philosophical" (I would say ideological instead) rhetoric directed to such ends is self-serving rubbish (literally) for selfish conceptions of human life and the ideologies that are constructed to see such conceptions brought into reality - like now. When such nihilistic (and to those who instead prefer the term "existentialist", well this is what existentialism really is with the thin layer of varnish stripped-off - existentialists are nihilists in denial) conceptions of human life are imposed upon human society, then individuals stripped of traditional sources of identity much more easily adopt whatever political persuasions are common to their place of work.

Fourth. The place of work has become so vital to personal identity for so many people in the absence of other sources of identity that the prevailing "culture" (in the modern anthropologically-defined sense) either socializes its member so those views, or is likewise attractive to individuals who see their own views more of less reflected in those places of work, and thus are drawn to those workplaces. For men, certainly, work has always been a key source of identity and purpose; said matter is greatly aggravated when there is little or no vital or at least important social attachments outside of work, or work and immediate family. The Military for one, is often seen by many men of "Right-Wing" persuasions to be attractive, even conducive to their own views. Once in the Military, they often find their Right-Wing views not only confirmed or developed further, but hardened as well. Conversely, those who are of "Left-Wing" persuasions strongly tend to view the Military with suspicion or even contempt, and avoid joining. Thus, the Military attracts, and is seen to be attractive to, those of the Right, and repellant to, those of the Left.

Fifth. In an individualistic society that deliberately leaves its members to construct (or rather, seem to construct) their own identities and purposes in life, such nihilism, given the breakdown of organic and traditional social attachments and identities - and above all meaning - creates two things. The first is a self-fulfilling prophecy - Leftists don't like the Military, and don't join; Rightists like the military, and are inclined to join - and the Military becomes inclined to the Right, whilst the Left are inclined to other professions, such as Academia, the Media, certain professions, and the like. This creates a not only a visible tension, but a potential source of serious conflict in the event of Left-Wing Governments and Right-Wing Militaries (in addition to the tensions that exist when both are of the Right). Thus, wars like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq lead to much bitterness back home, and a "war" of sorts is waged between the Left and the Right. The Military, not without good reason, strongly tends to perceive the attentions and intentions of the Left as being inherently subversive to its operations, and even to the Military as an Institution itself. Conflicts betwen the Military and the Right are usually (not always) unencumbered by such mutual suspicion and animosity. The Left, for its part, tends to see the Military as a tool of the Right (at best) or a key "plotter" so to speak in whatever vast Right-Wing conspiracy its political ilk are up to (at worst). Needless to say, the situatation is often poisonous. And it is the Left that tends to want to cut the Military, and deeply, whereas the Right tends to be more reluctant in this area.

marc is correct about his suspicions with regard to existing social conditions and individual identity. But given the fact that social scientists aren't exactly beating down the Military's doors to get in and do serious, open-minded research and study on the matter, there's not a lot of serious, objective, documented proof on this. Just the testimony of those who are or have been in, the Military.

I think that the Composition, much more so than the Size and Structure, of the military is most affected by this; but is has a lesser, though real impact on the latter matters.

[Ken White]

I'll take the bait.

First off. If you walked into the lines of any Combat Arms unit in the English-speaking world, and asked for a show of hands of who was right-wing, most of the hands would go up; when you asked who was left wing, maybe a few defiant, or embarrassed individuals might raise their hands, to the (at best) the jeering of all the rest or (just as likely) the general annoyance of said. In general, I doubt that you would be able to find very many individuals, especially inside the Combat Arms, who would admit to be "left-wing". Even outside the Combat Arms, the troops tend to be right-wing in their views.

My suspicion based on my sons units in the last few years is that you are correct. I think in the US the percentage of more liberal types may be slightly larger in the ranks but not much so. Interesting corollary from this old guy is that in my day, politics and such were just not discussed at all. Times change...

The Officer Corps, even though they are perhaps more likely (I suspect) to have individuals of leftist persuasion in their midst, not only tend to be rightist in their persuasions, but over the last generation or so a discernible "hardening" into right-wing tendencies has visibly occurred.

My sensing is that is also true though i suspect that if one asked the Officers for a party preference it would fall out pretty much in accord with civil society norms; to wit, a third each Democratic, Republican and Independent.

Your second paragraph is totally correct in my observation. As is the third.

Fourth... Thus, the Military attracts, and is seen to be attractive to, those of the Right, and repellant to, those of the Left.

Too true. As is your fifth, I think.

marc is correct about his suspicions with regard to existing social conditions and individual identity. But given the fact that social scientists aren't exactly beating down the Military's doors to get in and do serious, open-minded research and study on the matter, there's not a lot of serious, objective, documented proof on this. Just the testimony of those who are or have been in, the Military.

I think that the Composition, much more so than the Size and Structure, of the military is most affected by this; but is has a lesser, though real impact on the latter matters.

I'd also suggest that some degree of that polarization has always been there, certainly was in my day. It is slightly greater today and we're just much more vocal about it now. More vocal about everything, in fact...

[Adrian]

I'll take the bait.

First off. If you walked into the lines of any Combat Arms unit in the English-speaking world, and asked for a show of hands of who was right-wing, most of the hands would go up; when you asked who was left wing, maybe a few defiant, or embarrassed individuals might raise their hands, to the (at best) the jeering of all the rest or (just as likely) the general annoyance of said. In general, I doubt that you would be able to find very many individuals, especially inside the Combat Arms, who would admit to be "left-wing". Even outside the Combat Arms, the troops tend to be right-wing in their views.
The Officer Corps, even though they are perhaps more likely (I suspect) to have individuals of leftist persuasion in their midst, not only tend to be rightist in their persuasions, but over the last generation or so a discernible "hardening" into right-wing tendencies has visibly occurred.

Great post. Reminded me of an article in Democracy Journal: "The Progressive Case for Military Service" by Kathryn Roth-Douquet:

http://democracyjournal.com/printfriendly.php?ID=6566

There are two fundamental reasons for the present rift between progressives and the military. First is the emergence, during the twentieth century, of a rights-based philosophy on both the Left and the Right that sees government as a counterpoint and even a threat to the individual. Second is the Left’s re-action against the military after Vietnam, a reaction that was itself rooted in rights consciousness and, over time, solidified into a presumption that military values, and the members of the military themselves, are antithetical to progressive values.

...

If progressives should feel bound by their principles to serve, they must also learn to reassess today’s military and its mission. Although the war in Iraq dominates the headlines, today’s military is less about fighting wars and increasingly about deterring them, enforcing international protocols, peacekeeping, nation- building, democracy promotion, and a wide variety of activities, precisely the tasks that a hypothetical " progressive military" would undertake.