The Internet: A Portal to Violent Islamist Extremism

[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.

[marct]

Hi Schmedlap,

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.

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!

It sounds to me, being an academic with an absolute bias towards seeing meaning structures everywhere , that you are saying that sacrifice is worth it if it ain't frittered away in a) makework and b) is recognized and rewarded. Is that a pretty fair summation?

Marc

[Schmedlap]

It sounds to me, being an academic with an absolute bias towards seeing meaning structures everywhere , that you are saying that sacrifice is worth it if it ain't frittered away in a) makework and b) is recognized and rewarded. Is that a pretty fair summation?

I'd say that (a) is correct. In my opinion, recognition and reward (aside from service being its own reward) are, and should be, irrelevant. I don't know anyone whom I would call a peer who is in the Army for the money, medals, or even the high regard in which our society holds military service.