Why Study War?

[jastay3]

Something I've been batting around in my head for a bit: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

As an ecomonics student in college I learned there was no such thing as a free lunch, everything has a cost. However, with a volunteer military, is there now a "free lunch" for those who decide not serve, especially during a time of war or conflict. For those adult Americans who are not serving or have not or served and without direct relations to a servicemember (Wife/ husband or child of a servicemember under the age of 18) what is the cost to them?

Yes, they pay taxes that financially support the military. However, as a servicemember I pay the same taxes, (In effect I helping to pay my own salary every year (When I'm not deployed atleast).) For that reason, I do not think taxes count as a true cost to those who do not serve since they are not unique to them, they have not incurred those costs specifically because they have chosen not to serve.

If taxes are not considered a "cost," what costs are there for the person who chooses not to serve that make the "lunch" not free?

Obviously, the underlying assumption of my argument is that those who do not serve gain a benefit, the free lunch, that is provided by those who do serve: security.

However, if you argue that our operations ISO GWOT are making the US less secure, not more secure, it would follow that there is "no free lunch" because the purported benefit, security, is not being delivered.

Unfortunetly, I do not think you can assess if there is a benefit "now" or if they will be one in the future. However, it could be argued that there has been a benefit over the past several years because the US homeland has not been attacked since 9/11, the starting point of the GWOT for the US.

Back to my initial question: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

__________________________________________________ _____________

Calling a voluteer military a "free lunch" is odd. The purpose of the military is to be the "uniforms that guard us when we sleep"-in other words to make sure that as many people can have a "free lunch" in that sense as is plausible.
I tend to think that using conscripts for Small Wars is ineffective(for, by necessity morale will be strained and conscripts cannot maintain the subtlety necessary). It is also unethical because few conscripts have an immiediate personal stake. Conscription should be reserved for times when the danger to the country is obvious, extrodinary, and immiediate.
In fact I think we should go the other way. Accept that Professionals are Professionals and don't worry to much when they are doing their jobs. We do our, "brave young men and women in uniform" no favors if we interfere with their task by sentimentilizeing them as if they were refighting World War II instead of dealing with what is basically another Savage War of Peace.

[jastay3]

"Calling a voluteer military a "free lunch" is odd. The purpose of the military is to be the "uniforms that guard us when we sleep"-in other words to make sure that as many people can have a "free lunch" in that sense as is plausible.
I tend to think that using conscripts for Small Wars is ineffective(for, by necessity morale will be strained and conscripts cannot maintain the subtlety necessary). It is also unethical because few conscripts have an immiediate personal stake. Conscription should be reserved for times when the danger to the country is obvious, extrodinary, and immiediate.
In fact I think we should go the other way. Accept that Professionals are Professionals and don't worry to much when they are doing their jobs. We do our, "brave young men and women in uniform" no favors if we interfere with their task by sentimentilizeing them as if they were refighting World War II instead of dealing with what is basically another Savage War of Peace."<br>


In fact that is a very good reason to study war-to remind us that nothing unusual is happening. The whole point of terrorism is essentially theatrics. If we can acknowlege that it is a regretable part of life then it will be less effective.
That doesn't mean, "terrorism is a law-enforcement problem": it is the problem of whichever agency can deal with it conveniently. What it does mean is part of defeating terrorism is not being terrorfied. And part of that is letting people do their jobs.

[Tom Odom]

__________________________________________________ _____________

Calling a voluteer military a "free lunch" is odd. The purpose of the military is to be the "uniforms that guard us when we sleep"-in other words to make sure that as many people can have a "free lunch" in that sense as is plausible.
I tend to think that using conscripts for Small Wars is ineffective(for, by necessity morale will be strained and conscripts cannot maintain the subtlety necessary). It is also unethical because few conscripts have an immiediate personal stake. Conscription should be reserved for times when the danger to the country is obvious, extrodinary, and immiediate.
In fact I think we should go the other way. Accept that Professionals are Professionals and don't worry to much when they are doing their jobs. We do our, "brave young men and women in uniform" no favors if we interfere with their task by sentimentilizeing them as if they were refighting World War II instead of dealing with what is basically another Savage War of Peace.

Jaystay,

Your opinion in context is welcome. This, however, is not in context ansd the opinions are nearing the offensive. I suggest you go to this thread and introduce yourself.

Regards,

Tom

[jastay3]

No offense was intended. If this sounded like it was insulting our troops it was not intended that way. It was a criticism of the rhetorical style in which they were described.

[jastay3]

Jaystay,

Your opinion in context is welcome. This, however, is not in context ansd the opinions are nearing the offensive. I suggest you go to this thread and introduce yourself.

Regards,

Tom

Perhaps this is irregular. I am sometimes unskilled of speech and can give offense accidently but I assure everyone no offense was intended. Nontheless I am appealing to the general opinion of SWC. Was I really out of line?

[RTK]

Perhaps this is irregular. I am sometimes unskilled of speech and can give offense accidently but I assure everyone no offense was intended. Nontheless I am appealing to the general opinion of SWC. Was I really out of line?

The more you post without appealing to the PMs of at least two moderators to introduce yourself and fill out your profile, the more out of line you are. You had best unscrew yourself quickly or you may end up here.