William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[Fuchs]

The moral standards are a similar thing. If you don't have the discipline to not drink and drive, or use drugs, or even cheat on your spouse, I don't think you should wear a uniform. None of those things will necessarily get you fired from civilian employment, but they'll get you booted out of the service pretty quickly.

Yep, with you 100%. Without morals, the rest is just window-dressing.

I don't buy it.
Career soldiers have a tendency to think of themselves (or the military) as superior to the general
population - particularly if they happen to write in English. It was only a question of time till this
attitude would resurface once the topic wandered towards the civ-mil-relationship and
representativeness issue.

There's nothing that special about the military. And the people in it aren't that special either. Many of
them would be (or were) failures in civilian life, for example - and this includes officers and NCOs.

The more strict the military pretends to be on minor offenses, the more likely they are to be hidden from
official records. You don't really think a general loses his job for driving drunk or cheating on his wife, do
you? And abuse of 'go drugs' by flying personnel is an open secret if not officially endorsed.
The ones who get into great trouble for such things are the ones who have made the wrong enemy in
the system.

Besides, there are plenty civilian jobs in which stuff like drunk driving or drug abuse may be career-
ending. German policemen live in perpetual fear that some stain in their personnel records could stall
their career indefinitely, for example. A great share of the working population depends on their driver's
license and lives in fear about losing it.


There's also nothing special about job requirements for a very large portion of the military. Office work is
office work, workshop work is workshop work - for most of its jobs and much of the time the military
cannot really claim to be in need of substantially elevated standards.
It's easy to find a great many civilian jobs with more critical demands on the personnel than for most of
the military personnel, even at wartime.
Think of a railway control centre, a surgeon, a bus driver, a pilotage, a lab technician, ... the dumbass
doing an inventory list in a depot full of spare parts cannot come close to them only because he's
wearing a BDU. So why would him cheating on his wife or smoking pot on weekends be of interest at all?

[TheCurmudgeon]

I don't buy it.
Career soldiers have a tendency to think of themselves (or the military) as superior to the general
population - particularly if they happen to write in English. It was only a question of time till this
attitude would resurface once the topic wandered towards the civ-mil-relationship and
representativeness issue.

There's nothing that special about the military. And the people in it aren't that special either. Many of
them would be (or were) failures in civilian life, for example - and this includes officers and NCOs.

I am assuming you are a civilian. You have never been a police officer, or a fireman, or a medic. You have never held any position where your personal wants, needs, and desires were subordinate to those of the people you served. That should it come to it, your life is forfeit so that others may live.

I guess not.

What allows you to do that without fear, or remorse, is belief in a set of values. Values that transcend simple day-to-day life. That connect you to something bigger than yourself. That allow you to go to the most miserable places and do the most horrible things and then come home with honor and not kill yourself.

This value system is not something shared by the average civilian in the liberal west. The closest thing it comes to is a form of tribalism - a dedication to your tribe. But that is only the part that connects you. It is not the ideal that drives you to sacrifice for others.

I am sorry, but very few positions in the civilian world compare on any level. You are right that we do think of ourselves differently from, but not superior to, the population we serve. It is part of being a Soldier. It is part of being a service member. It is something that you take on with an oath, not a simple contract. Too bad you don't see that.

[Bill Moore]

I am assuming you are a civilian. You have never been a police officer, or a fireman, or a medic. You have never held any position where your personal wants, needs, and desires were subordinate to those of the people you served. That should it come to it, your life is forfeit so that others may live.

I guess not.

What allows you to do that without fear, or remorse, is belief in a set of values. Values that transcend simple day-to-day life. That connect you to something bigger than yourself. That allow you to go to the most miserable places and do the most horrible things and then come home with honor and not kill yourself.

This value system is not something shared by the average civilian in the liberal west. The closest thing it comes to is a form of tribalism - a dedication to your tribe. But that is only the part that connects you. It is not the ideal that drives you to sacrifice for others.

I am sorry, but very few positions in the civilian world compare on any level. You are right that we do think of ourselves differently from, but not superior to, the population we serve. It is part of being a Soldier. It is part of being a service member. It is something that you take on with an oath, not a simple contract. Too bad you don't see that.

Interesting comment, one I largely agree with. We identify with people who hold similar values. You may find the following uncomfortable, but your comments apply equally to insurgents and terrorists. As for feeling superior to the general public that is a broad claim by Fuchs, who is the general public? If it is those who wait outside a store overnight on black Friday to rush in and get a good deal on a computer, and work a 9-5 job that means little to them, so they turn to drugs and mindless T.V. to escape life, I don't necessarily feel superior, but I'm glad I chose the path I chose, because I serve among those who also seek to contribute to a higher cause. Superior? Happier? More meaningful? I don't know what label to put on it. What I described is a segment of the public, and it doesn't reflect others that I'm actually envious of, such as pathfinders in science, those who lead social revolutions (Martin Luther King), etc. General is too general of a term :-).

[JMA]

Another gem from that seminal work by Lord Moran : Anatomy of Courage which gives some insight into this age old problem (written a mere six months after the armistice):

The clear, war-given insight into the essence of a man has already grown dim. With the coming of peace we have gone back to those comfortable doctrines that some had thought war had killed. Cleverness has come into its own again. The men who won the war never left England; that was where the really clever people were most useful. I sometimes wonder what some of those good souls who came through make of it all. They remember that in the life of the trenches a few simple demands were made of all men; if they were not met the defaulter became an outlaw. Do they ask of themselves when they meet the successful of the present how such men would have fared in that other time where success in life had seemed a mirage? Are they silently in their hearts making those measurements of men which they learnt when there was work afoot that was a man’s work? They know a man, for reasons which they are too inarticulate to explain, and they are baffled because others deny what seems to them so simple and so sure.

Interesting comment, one I largely agree with. We identify with people who hold similar values. You may find the following uncomfortable, but your comments apply equally to insurgents and terrorists. As for feeling superior to the general public that is a broad claim by Fuchs, who is the general public? If it is those who wait outside a store overnight on black Friday to rush in and get a good deal on a computer, and work a 9-5 job that means little to them, so they turn to drugs and mindless T.V. to escape life, I don't necessarily feel superior, but I'm glad I chose the path I chose, because I serve among those who also seek to contribute to a higher cause. Superior? Happier? More meaningful? I don't know what label to put on it. What I described is a segment of the public, and it doesn't reflect others that I'm actually envious of, such as pathfinders in science, those who lead social revolutions (Martin Luther King), etc. General is too general of a term :-).

[AmericanPride]

JMA,

Continuing the conversation of job risk, here are some more statistics.

As of January 2010, from Congressional Research Service:

OIF: 4,410 KIA, 31,942 WIA
OEF: 2,299 KIA, 19,572 WIA

Troop levels also from CRS:

Cumulative FY02 -FY10:
OIF: 1,013,200
OEF: 238,300
Combined: 1,251,500

That comes out to the following hazard rate of KIA/WIA rate per 100,000 of:

OEF: 964 KIA; 8,213 WIA; 9,177 combined
OIF: 435 KIA; 3,152 WIA; 4,116 combined
OEF/OIF: 536 KIA; 4,116 WIA; 4,652 combined

Now, that's wartime. In comparison, during the eight years of the Clinton administration, there were 7,500 military deaths (I'm assuming most non-combat related). That gives an approximate rate of 53.72 deaths per 100,000.

As of 2007, the BLS had the following deaths per 100,000 rates for the jobs listed in the previous post:

1. Fishers: 111.8
2. Loggers: 86.4
3. Pilots: 70.7
4. Iron/Steel workers: 45.5
5. Famers: 39.5
6. Roofers: 29.4
7. Electrical workers: 29.1
8. Drivers: 28.2
9. Refuse collectors: 22.8
10. Police: 21.8
...
12. Construction: 19.5
13. Firefighters: 17.4

So, yes, the obvious answer is that military service during a time of war is more dangerous than any civilian job. But during a time of peace, it is more dangerous to be a fisherman, logger, or pilot.

[JMA]

Thanks for the detail but I don't want to get into that detail.

My point is simple - and perhaps I should have explained more carefully...

I have sympathy with the police, fireservices and first responders in general as their sacrifice is is essentially on behalf of others. This is like the soldier who dies in combat for his friends, his unit and the country (however misguided the particular war may be). Quite frankly I see no comparison between a driver dying in a motor accident and a soldier KIA. In fact the more I think about the comparison the angrier I get. Outrageous.

JMA,

Continuing the conversation of job risk, here are some more statistics.

As of January 2010, from Congressional Research Service:

OIF: 4,410 KIA, 31,942 WIA
OEF: 2,299 KIA, 19,572 WIA

Troop levels also from CRS:

Cumulative FY02 -FY10:
OIF: 1,013,200
OEF: 238,300
Combined: 1,251,500

That comes out to the following hazard rate of KIA/WIA rate per 100,000 of:

OEF: 964 KIA; 8,213 WIA; 9,177 combined
OIF: 435 KIA; 3,152 WIA; 4,116 combined
OEF/OIF: 536 KIA; 4,116 WIA; 4,652 combined

Now, that's wartime. In comparison, during the eight years of the Clinton administration, there were 7,500 military deaths (I'm assuming most non-combat related). That gives an approximate rate of 53.72 deaths per 100,000.

As of 2007, the BLS had the following deaths per 100,000 rates for the jobs listed in the previous post:

1. Fishers: 111.8
2. Loggers: 86.4
3. Pilots: 70.7
4. Iron/Steel workers: 45.5
5. Famers: 39.5
6. Roofers: 29.4
7. Electrical workers: 29.1
8. Drivers: 28.2
9. Refuse collectors: 22.8
10. Police: 21.8
...
12. Construction: 19.5
13. Firefighters: 17.4

So, yes, the obvious answer is that military service during a time of war is more dangerous than any civilian job. But during a time of peace, it is more dangerous to be a fisherman, logger, or pilot.

[Fuchs]

You sound like the Army trying to justify why combat awards should only be given to Soldiers in combat positions. Sorry, but my clerks ran to the bunkers from the same rockets that landed in my FOB every week. You need to go downrange.

Don't think those engineers, mechanics, and cooks in all those civilian equivalents had to put up with indirect fire on a regular basis.

My country never handed medals out for running to cover. If we had, almost all of my grandparent generation would have had the medal since almost all of them had to run to a bunker hundreds of times. They had to put up with hostile fires - literally fires- on a regular basis.

Also
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/11...bs-in-america/

I am assuming you are a civilian. You have never been a police officer, or a fireman, or a medic. You have never held any position where your personal wants, needs, and desires were subordinate to those of the people you served. That should it come to it, your life is forfeit so that others may live.

Actually, incorrect. I served in the military. Besides, to subordinate "wants, needs and desires to those people you serve" is the nature of every work contract. You wouldn't need to get paid otherwise.

What allows you to do that without fear, or remorse, is belief in a set of values. Values that transcend simple day-to-day life. That connect you to something bigger than yourself. That allow you to go to the most miserable places and do the most horrible things and then come home with honor and not kill yourself.

Wow, that's some nonsense. Soldiers have no fear because ... "values"?
I suppose you're the one who has no clue (or has delusions) about soldiers here.
Same for remorse.
And what drives soldiers in warfare isn't a "belief in a set of values". It's hate driven by propaganda and psychology mixed with comradeship and authority.

You're inflating "values" beyond recognition.
I understand the right wing in the U.S. does so, pretending "values" are important above all and then pretending the own team has them. I suppose you fell for this delusion and applied it to the 'team military'.

This value system is not something shared by the average civilian in the liberal west. The closest thing it comes to is a form of tribalism - a dedication to your tribe. But that is only the part that connects you. It is not the ideal that drives you to sacrifice for others.

That's not "values", but comradeship - plus a heavy dosage of bollocks. Look at underground coal miners and how they bond at work in face of constant danger. They're civilians.

I am sorry, but very few positions in the civilian world compare on any level. You are right that we do think of ourselves differently from, but not superior to, the population we serve. It is part of being a Soldier. It is part of being a service member. It is something that you take on with an oath, not a simple contract. Too bad you don't see that.

A coal miner is different from a clerk, is different from an electrician - every job is different from most jobs. The trivial difference doesn't matter and doesn't explain the obvious pattern of American soldiers thinking of themselves as so much better than the common population 'who does not really deserve their stalwart service'.
And yes, that's the impression conveyed, not the impression that they merely think of themselves as "different", not superior.

[TheCurmudgeon]

My country never handed medals out for running to cover. If we had, almost all of my grandparent generation would have had the medal since almost all of them had to run to a bunker hundreds of times. They had to put up with hostile fires - literally fires- on a regular basis.

Fuchs,

I apologize for inferring your lack of service or commitment. At this point it would seem that we are talking past each other. Since part of the problem is inter-generational shifts in values, comparing today to the past makes the case that things have changed today.

In any case, I think I am just going to have to disagree with you and leave it at that.

[Fuchs]

We may agree to disagree, but let me first explain WHY I discuss this at all.


Soldiers in general aren't that much different from civilians. Their organisation is a bit more authoritarian, but even this is not always true.

Soldiers deployed in a war zone live an altogether different life - about as much different from other soldiers (even those in 'the rear' or in 'camps') as from civilian relatives who live in safety.
Yet this applies to civilians in a war zone as well.
The odds of sacrificing much - including life - were much higher for a German civilian in 1944 than for an American soldier on occupation service in Iraq, ever.
So the difference isn't that much between military and civilian, but between war and peace.

The attitude of some (many) soldiers that they are meeting higher standards than the general population, have more 'values' (which often sounds a lot like 'higher morality') goes hand in hand with the perception that they deserve 'much', and regularly 'more'.

And that's an attitude shared by almost all military forces staging a coup d'tat.

Attitudes are a matter of freedom of speech and freedom of thought and generally not to be cared about - unless there's good reason to believe they might turn harmful. And this is the case when a military thinks it's better than the civilian world. Then it's about time to set the record straight.
Military personnel merely do a different job, they're no better or more deserving people than civilians.

The same applies to journalists. They tend to assert that they deserve many privileges. Nonsense.


---------
It shouldn't surprise that this is coming from a German. To Germans, war is about the entire nation, not something delegated to a fraction of the population. We also don't have any kind of 'veteran' cult, so I only write that "I was in the military" or "I was in the Luftwaffe" and never claim to be a "veteran" or something. I also never mention my time in uniform to Germans unless asked specifically.
There's simply no value in 'having served' here. Right after WW2 everybody had served in uniform or suffered from bombing raids or more. Everybody had seen battle. Later on "I have served" was merely a code for "I am no leftie" and wasn't really about the military per se. This 1970's code fell out of use long ago, though.

The debate whether soldiers are distinct, superior, different, more moral et cetera is only provoked by anglophone sources. It is really a speciality, not a global phenomenon.
Some German troops of our time were infected with this school of thought because it's so flattering to them, of course.