Citizens vs. Soldiers: The Growing Cultural Divide

[Ratzel]

Originally Posted by Ken White

1) No, merely that Summers got more wrong in that book than he got right. In fairness, as he got older he changed some of his positions and thus got smarter, I guess one could say.

2) The civilian leadership screwed up and the military leadership screwed up. Tossup on which was worse. I fault the military more because they had an obligation to the nation to do it right or explain why they couldn't -- and they did not. Just as they screwed up initially in Iraq.I disagree. The 1/3 rule applies. 1/3 will object to a war, they will be from the political party opposite the one that started the war. 1/3 will support it and they will be from the party that started the war. The other third, the big middle, will waffle back an forth depending on how the war is going; if it's going good they'll be okay. If it is not going good, they'll gripe. Thus, if a war is not going well, about 2/3 will be complaining -- crying as you put it. That's been pretty much true in all our wars all the way back to the revolution. There are a few nuts on each end, some people are truly anti-war and oppose all wars -- that's their right. there are a few that want more wars (some of those will be in uniform, some not).You're entitled to your beliefs. Thatr's all any of us are really entitled to -- all the rest SOMEBODY pays for.

3) I strongly disagree with you on two counts. The guys who serve are well compensated for what they do. It is not an 'entitlement' -- it is compensation, timely and deferred, for service. They deserve what they get but no more. They like every other American are 'entitled' to a fair shake on life. No more and no less.You might want to give that some thought. I understand where you're coming from and agree with the goal or desire it expresses but I don't think that passes the fairness test. I also wonder how many people who don't wnat to spend a hundred bucks of their money will get a hundred from someone else and vote the way the payer wanted them to...I was referring to the sentiment that you expressed in this quote from your earlier post:As I said, in my opinion, the sentiments expressed in either of those two sentences is not in keeping with any American values I ever knew. I guess mt wife qualifies as one of those family members you cited -- she doesn't think much of the idea. I'm being polite there.Your 'tax' ideas.

4)You're entitled to your opinions and to express them but I do have two suggestions. First, every American is entitled to their own ideas and to state them but I suggest you might really want to give serious thought to the 'soldiers and their families are special' and your tax thoughts -- not least because there are, proportionally, as many kids of that top income batch as there are 'working class' people in the services. Everybody can't be a soldier...

5)Secondly, if I thought most Americans are as bad as you say, I wouldn't stay here.

Fortunately, I'm pretty sure they aren't so I can stay...

1) I'll assume you know more than I do regarding Vietnam. It seemed to me as if the military was never allowed to go "all the way" in developing a strategy for that war? Perhaps no one in the military demanded this?

2) I think you may have point here with this 1/3 concept.

3) In the United States we have many groups who extract economic rents from the government. Some groups deserve more than others. Taking care of combat soldiers and their families is one way of attracting people to the military, and most importantly, seems to be the honnorable thing to do? When I read about soldier's families living on food stamps, or veterans getting the run-around at the VA, it disappoints me. It especially disappoints me when I read about other groups that get taken care of or "bailed out" while combat soldiers do not. I should mention that in my own experiences I feel the federal government has treated me very good (education benefits, health care).

As far as my voting plan goes, I'm not sure what "fairness" you're talking about? The way I see it, if you can't pass a simple civics test in English and come with $100 every ten years, then you shouldn't have much of a say in what happens in this country. And while someone could pay for someone's vote under my plan, they can do so today as well.

4) I pretty sure that you're wrong about the same proportion of the rich serving as the working and middle classes? This is something we'll have to find data on to confirm.

5) Nowhere did I say Americans are "bad." I can go on for a long time on why I think America is a better place to live than anywhere else. I just don't think Americans handle war very well. In fact, most of the Western world doesn't handle war very well. Somehow the West went from a people that thought its destiny was to conquer the world to being conquered by political correctness and decadence. Given the Zeitgeist of today, do you think we could conquer North America like the early Americans did? The allies killed 130,000 Germans in a day at Dresden, and the US vaporized 200,000 Japanese with the two atom bombs. This could never happen today. We could have ended our "problems" in Iraq and Afghanistan in no time if we still had the will that we had back in WWII.

I believe its WILL that wins wars (this isn't a new idea of course), and I see very little of it in the West today.

[Ken White]

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.

[Steve Blair]

Originally Posted by ODB

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.

Quite true, and it's also important to remember that there are a number of private sector jobs that hit people with the same sorts of thing (or private sector jobs that don't go far enough and people have to take two jobs or more to make ends meet...not an uncommon thing at the institution I work for). Not saying it's a good thing in either case, but just sayin' that it's not unique to the military. No compensation is good enough to deal with that, IMO, but as the old saying goes it comes with the territory. And unfair territory it often is.

[Schmedlap]

Originally Posted by ODB

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.

I've been out of the Army for nearly a year now. But two weeks ago I saw two Air Force Reservists in dirty uniforms (not knocking the AF or Reserves - it was just their day), one with his pants unbloused, both were overweight, and neither was wearing a cover. I'm not sure what the Air Force regs are regarding hats/berets/etc, so I didn't bother with that one. But, even though I'm no longer in the military (don't even owe IRR time), I nearly lost it and chewed their asses for a good two minutes in that Best Buy parking lot. I was wearing a suit, but I think just by the manner in which I yelled at them they figured I was still in the military. In any case, they knew that they were dicked up and didn't have much to say other than "yes, sir."

Originally Posted by Ratzel

Taking care of combat soldiers and their families is one way of attracting people to the military, and most importantly, seems to be the honnorable thing to do? When I read about soldier's families living on food stamps, or veterans getting the run-around at the VA, it disappoints me.

I would say that we're already doing a very good job of taking care of combat Soldiers, as well as the non-combat variety. It should not done with the intent of attracting people, though. It should be because of what you went on to state: it is the honorable thing to do. Recruitment should not be geared towards attracting people with pay or rewards. It should entice people to serve by instilling in them a desire to do so for its own reward.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

I've been out of the Army for nearly a year now. But two weeks ago I saw two Air Force Reservists in dirty uniforms (not knocking the AF or Reserves - it was just their day), one with his pants unbloused, both were overweight, and neither was wearing a cover. I'm not sure what the Air Force regs are regarding hats/berets/etc, so I didn't bother with that one. But, even though I'm no longer in the military (don't even owe IRR time), I nearly lost it and chewed their asses for a good two minutes in that Best Buy parking lot. I was wearing a suit, but I think just by the manner in which I yelled at them they figured I was still in the military. In any case, they knew that they were dicked up and didn't have much to say other than "yes, sir."

Uniform regs in the AF aren't materially different from the other services, so you were right correct them and furthermore, thank you for doing it!

[Wana88]

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.

[Steve Blair]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Uniform regs in the AF aren't materially different from the other services, so you were right correct them and furthermore, thank you for doing it!

We have a recruiter around here who routinely wanders around outdoors without his cover while in uniform. Not a good image.