Janissaries

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'm not quite sure how to frame this so I'll just dive right in.

This issue of TIME Magazine, along with Holiday interactions with friends and family and recent posts/comments here have stirred up a whole mess of personal hang-ups that I thought I had put to rest.

Someone who's opinion on the matter I respect once told me that I should not try to reconcile the person I was (am?) in a warzone with the person I am "in civilization". They inhabit different worlds and as such different rules of judgement apply. This advice always struck me as a cop-out, but it does highlight something that I feel is a growing problem in American society/politics.

From WWII through Vietnam roughly 12% of the US population had some interaction with the military (enlisted/drafted or had a family member that was) today that number has fallen to 1.5%. For 98% of the US population warfare has become "somebody else's problem". Likewise, the military has increasingly become a society distinct from main-stream America. I routinely catch my self subconsciously labeling many of the people I interact with as "Muggles", blind to the true nature of world around them. Conversly, despite being a "people person" I now find it difficult to interact with family members and civilian friends simply because our frames of referance and approach to morality are utterly alien to each other. As much as I may care for them it is (as one TIME interviewee put it) like talking to a martian.

In my opinion this has frigthtening implications for our long-term stability in that we are progressively building a fighting force that has less and less in common with the nation they are created to protect. "Thanking the troops" has become reflexive, and we are fetishized in viedo-games and the media. From the moment a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine is recruited they are told by both civillians and their peers that they are the better than you, the best of their generation. There is also plenty of objective data to affirm this view when you consider that of US citizens over 18 only 15% meet the physical and educational requirements to join the USMC.

I know that I am stronger and faster than most.

I also made the Dean's List so I must be smart.

Rationally I find myself looking at a civilian leadership who seems increasingly incompetant and out of touch and asking myself "Why do I need you?"

ETA: I know I am commiting a falacy in that I am prohecting my own thought processes on to other but the question should still be asked. If you have a subset of the population that honestly believes in their own superiority and has the resourses to act on it, why wouldn't/shouldn't they?

Comments

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

And when you no longer need you civilian leadership you are either a civilian yourself or you are a non-state enemy of the United States.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

A frightening thought.

What "United States"?

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

What are you even talking about? WHAT "United States"? When the supposed U.S. Congress votes to legislate things that the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids, just what in the world could you possibly mean when you use that name, "United States"? There is no such creature outside of people's rhetorical convenience.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

So you're saying you like the direction Egypt is heading in.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Not particularly, what I'm say is that I feel that the US is at risk of heading in the same direction.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

A lot of Wall Streeters feel the same way. So do a lot of big shots in the public sector. So do a lot of academics.

Where did you make the Dean's List?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

University of California San Diego, Engineering Major

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

I think you should have gone all the way and included the stuff we talked about in your journal. Follow up post maybe? ;o)

Also, I don't even remember what the comment I made was that kick-started all this reflection, and maybe it would have come up anyway, but I'm sorry for my part in dredging up these issues for you.

Now to answer your question, to take action against a civilian leadership, even if a group is convinced of their own superiority due to constant praise and acknowledgement that would be projecting your (or the groups) own thought processes onto an entire population. We live in a society where our government and leadership is decided in the polls. Not down the barrel of a gun.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'm kind of reluctant to broach the subject on an open forum. Naming names, or admitting that I enjoy the sight of blood is trollish even by my standards.

[thies.livejournal.com]

ETA: I know I am commiting a falacy in that I am prohecting my own thought processes on to other but the question should still be asked. If you have a subset of the population that honestly believes in their own superiority and has the resourses to act on it, why wouldn't/shouldn't they?

because then you'd be a Nazi

:D

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Well yah, that's the problem isn't it.

[speciesofspaces.livejournal.com]

1.5%? Are you sure?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

This was the number cited by the TIME article and the math does not seem unrealistic.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Well, you know, we could just have a Heinleinian society, where you have to deserve to vote and where you need to perform in certain ways with as little handicap as possible in order to gain influence.
I'm even willing to believe that not so few in T_P sort of would want a variety of that reality.

Do you see any downfall with that model?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The downfall is in that different people have different interpretations of what it means to contribute.

Who are you to decide who deserves a say? Who am I for that matter?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Let's be realistic here: military rule is directly contrary to the traditions of the United States, and in fact of every single civilized state. Military dictatorship in the United States would be a disaster same as it is everywhere else, and there is not army enough to impose it here. US Army forces could only do this if they're willing to make the Imperial Japanese Army and the Soviet NVKD look like blushing virgin schoolgirls in the process.

There's nothing that'd prevent such a thing from winning any fighting required to impose it, but then there's also the reality that to conquer here is one thing. To treat the USA like it's Imperial Japan or Pakistan is something very different. It would also be a fundamental betrayal of anything remotely smacking of democracy in even the loosest sense of the word.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Well yes but I still think we're sowing the seeds of future troubles.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

Col. Hackworth once said that draftees keep the military establishment honest.

I love how that is plainly stated. The statement adds some perspective, so thanks.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

:((((

TIME Magazine content is available exclusively for U.S. TIME subscribers. Current subscribers click here for full access. Not a TIME subscriber? Click here.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

erp sorry,

try this link.
http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/11/10/an-army-apart-the-widening-military-civilian-gap/

My 2 knuts

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

My friend I think you worry too much. There is still way too much inter-service rivalry for that to happen.

Re: My 2 knuts

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not to mention the more obvious question of how 1 million military personnel would be able to occupy a society that outnumbers them 300:1 *and* govern at the same time. Like in most other times of US history the relatively puny size of the US Army is the crudest and most efficient protector of them all against a coup..

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

From WWII through Vietnam roughly 12% of the US population had some interaction with the military (enlisted/drafted or had a family member that was) today that number has fallen to 1.5%.

are you effin kidding me?! what the *$%#?

that sure as hell is NOT the case in my family, and definitely NOT for the people i know either. so i can't help but feel that this statistic is flawed :/

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Welcome, you are the 1% ;)

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

Lastly....

If you have a subset of the population that honestly believes in their own superiority and has the resources to act on it, why wouldn't/shouldn't they?

Oooooooooooo ~ gooood one. Er, wait. what exactly is being said there?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The rational choice would be to disregard civilian authority, but is it the moral one?

I would argue "no" but if enogh people could be convinced otherwise...

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Forgive my "muggle" ignorance. I have had military interactions in my life, but for the most part I'm pretty far removed from the world of military interactions.

I don't feel the military makes the world any better, or safer, or calmer, or is in any way necessary. I don't feel I'm ignorant of the true nature of the world. I just feel that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting some different result eventually.

This idea that the "enemy" hates "us" for our freedom is absurd. Does anyone really ever hate anyone for their lifestyle? That doesn't make sense. I think they hate us because of what we have done to them. And much of what we have done to them has been done through military means.

I believe violence breeds violence, plain and simple. Stop being violent towards them and people will stop being violent towards us. Stop being mean towards them and people will stop being mean towards us. It's like an addiction. And addictions are hard to kick.

True defensive military is on alert standby waiting for the attack. Unfortunately the military is more then strictly defensive. It's intervening. It's pre-emptive. Historically it's even imperialistic.

[normaltrouble.livejournal.com]

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

“We seek peace, knowing that peace is the climate of freedom.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


Eisenhower knew what being a warrior and soldier entailed, also knew what war, and peace was and knew what being a citizen meant, also. He had an understanding towards what war meant to the “outsiders” (“muggles”) and “insiders”(soldiers, active/retired/etc), and these quotes show it. I see very little of this wisdom, knowledge or compassion amongst his party’s members and leaders today.

(disclaimer: I do not agree with all of what Eisenhower was about, but I feel those quotes were relevant)

I like Ike

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

...and I am inclined to agree

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

ETA: I know I am commiting a falacy in that I am prohecting my own thought processes on to other but the question should still be asked. If you have a subset of the population that honestly believes in their own superiority and has the resourses to act on it, why wouldn't/shouldn't they?

"My interest is, my one hobby is, maintaining a democracy. If you get these 500,000 soldiers advocating anything smelling of Fascism, I am going to get 500,000 more and lick the hell out of you, and we will have a real war right at home."

Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC, 2 Medals of Honor

The point is, champ, that for all this wank, there are twice as money good American boys with good American bread-and-butter values to take you arrogant pricks on and settle the issue.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Oh and this is why ex-military hero-takes-on-the-establishment movies like Shooter or that stupid-ass Dwayne Johnson movie feature United States Marines. Because Marines attempt to simulate some semblance of honor and loyalty.

It is clear to me that you've been suckling on your own sense of superiority to have completely forgotten the soul of service. Where is your goddamn honor, man? Are you fucking shitting me? Did you serve to puff up your own pathetic sense of self, or did you serve to swear fealty to something greater than yourself?

Politics aside, and the reality of evil in this world and the compromised nature of military service for any global power, are you so blatantly lost to the altar of self-worship to forget the very essence of your service? Why would you even think these things? I ask again, where is your honor? What sort of disgusting man would even entertain these thoughts? You have sadly or sorely mistaken the nature of service. This entire post is an affront to the honor and example of millions of men, however compromised, in the highest ideals of service to one's country.

I shall have no more of this fucking bullshit.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

It's OK to feel superior as long as you nurture and respect that seed of self-doubt within you that keeps everything in check. If you don't have that, then you most certainly do have a problem.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Sometime I think that my own sense of self-doubt is the only thinh keeping me sane.

I can't shake the feeling that if I were to believe as hard and as clearly as certain people on this forum that I would be comfortable with genocide.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

If you have a subset of the population that honestly believes in their own superiority and has the resourses to act on it, why wouldn't/shouldn't they?

I know I do.

Although most of the enlisted military people that I know personally are pretty much average, at best.

I think the main source of the difference in viewpoint comes more from whether someone has experienced life/culture outside their own rather than from being in the military or not.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I am reminded of a joke. "There is nothing that narrows the mind quite as effectively as travel."

I guess the question is how many (non-military) people now a days really experiance something outside of the homogenised American/Western European Culture?

[lions-wings.livejournal.com]

If you don't wonder why we need this civilian leadership at least a little, you may not be rational. If you think you've got a better alternative, you're probably not rational. It'll take time and digging before this system is closer to working like it should.

If you have a subset of the population that honestly believes in their own superiority and has the resourses to act on it, why wouldn't/shouldn't they?

Oh god! Philosophy question! Is there a time limit on answering this?!

In an odd sort of way, I find it encouraging that our force-and-fighting side has a different standpoint than our seen-only-civilization side. It's tough on you guys, it's not fair, and it's a luxury paid for by having an army. On the other hand, it does show that we're getting to be more civilized and peaceful thinkers, or would be if we'd stop invading the shit out of places.

I guess I see it as limping, clumsy progress by a lot of very evolved apes.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

There is some signifigance to the OP's title.

If you're not already familiar with the term (and middle-eastern history) I'd reccomend looking it up.

Better questions for you, Soldier

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

1. Do you take your oath to defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, seriously?



2. Have you ever stopped to considered why the oath is to defend the U.S. Constitution and not merely to follow the orders of your immediate superior, or your "Commander in Chief?" Do you understand the difference in responsibility inherent in the distinction between these two oathes?



3. How does one defend the U.S. Constitution, anyway? Do you think the oath is referring to a piece of two century old parchment in the Smithsonian? What actions constitute enmity to an abstract entity like a constitution? Is there a line which can be crossed?



4. Do U.S. military personel think about such things, or are they, in their own way, "sleeping Muggles"?

Re: Better questions for you, Soldier

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You're actually one of the posters I had in kind when I wrote this comment. (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1256573.html?thread=100137085#t100137085)

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Rationally I find myself looking at a civilian leadership who seems increasingly incompetant and out of touch and asking myself "Why do I need you?"

For the same reason that the civilian leadership and populace needs you.

There is a fallacy in all of humanity, that certain qualifications lead certain individuals to greater ability when it comes to making decisions. This is what keeps the upper classes in power, that feeling of noblise oblige coupled with the frightening thought of what might happen if the lower classes got hold of the reins.

I hope it helps you to realize that, far from that being the case, a pluralistic society that allows a majority of its members to take part in decision making proves the most effective way of ascertaining the truth in just about every situation. There is not just some but quite a bit of evidence for this, and I would be happy to share it if you like.

Bottom line: a military dictatorship would make the same mistakes in leadership that a technocracy, an oligarchy, a monarchy or any other form of limited-input government is destined to make. The more people who are included in the decision making — no matter what their perceived qualifications — the better the quality of those decisions.

[lions-wings.livejournal.com]

Besides the possibility of groupthink being much more in play if everyone's part of a culture where shutting up and obeying is part of the deal.

(Unless that was something you covered already when you summed up the pluralistic thing.)

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Rationally I find myself looking at a civilian leadership who seems increasingly incompetant and out of touch and asking myself "Why do I need you?"

Oh, you mean our elected officials and bureaucrats? I'm a civilian and I ask myself the same thing. But rather than oil up my Glock or join silly protest movements like the Tea Party or Occupy, I simply vote in such a way as to keep government gridlock going strong.

If you have a subset of the population that honestly believes in their own superiority and has the resourses to act on it, why wouldn't/shouldn't they?

If you're asking me in the moral sense, I'll give you a moral nihilist answer(because I'm a moral nihlist myself): Why? What does it matter in the long run? One day nobody around will remember it. Time and entropy eventually sweep away everything we do, being a species of mayflies when viewed through the stark lens of cosmic indifference.

If you're asking me from a practical standpoint then sure, act on it. But not to rule over or lord your superiority over everyone else. That's ultimately pointless. A human has vast superiority over a possum or an ant colony. But do humans try to govern possums? No, they use their superiority to keep possums and ants from sneaking into the house and eating your sugar. In the same vein, there's no need to control the riff raff plebeians beyond making them keep their filthy little conformist hands off of your stuff.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Good answer.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

They inhabit different worlds and as such different rules of judgement apply.

That's kind of the whole point of military indoctrination in the first place, beginning with jumping off the cattle truck in basic and continuing through out your service life. A civilian mindset isn't going to do so hot in a military situation, just as a military mindset isn't going to do so hot in a civilian situation. Just like getting out of prison, a whole lot of people go back into or stay in the service instead of having to deal with the jump back to real life.

It also happens to be one of the bigger contributors to PTSD since the military gives so little training on going from a highly structured and integrated environment back into a relatively chaotic and insensible one, and when you're trying to deal with mental issues on top of a total overturning of your life's applecart by trying to return to civilian life that makes getting your head straight even harder.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It also happens to be one of the bigger contributors to PTSD since the military gives so little training on going from a highly structured and integrated environment back into a relatively chaotic and insensible one, and when you're trying to deal with mental issues on top of a total overturning of your life's applecart by trying to return to civilian life that makes getting your head straight even harder.

And yet it's not like I magically became a different person on the plane ride from Balad to Bangor.

What could that training really entail?