The Rich and the Military
While driving to my consulting gig today, NPR aired an interesting piece on how the composition of the U.S. military personnel today has affected how the military and its engagements around the world are reported, portrayed and politicized.
The thesis of the book the program was based on is that everyone should serve in the public services to really fully be a citizen of a country, but the authors of the book happened to choose the military service because of their personal ties to it and using it as a magnifier to put a few interesting ideas in perspective. One of the examples used was the contrast of the number of students from Princeton enrolled in the military 20-30 years ago (about 50% of all undergrads) v.s. today (exactly 10). The premise of the argument: Should the United States keep a military? If yes, who should serve?
It turns out that back in WWI and WWII, the Rich and the Powerful and their children were drafted to serve in the military for those wars. And as such, those who were in control, namely the politicians and other stakeholders of a war, were very careful on what to do with military deployment, precisely because they had someone very close serving in the military. Even the media reported wars differently because of own personal ties. And as a whole, the society took it personally when the nation waged wars.
While the book does not try to bash the Republicans or the Bush administration*, it points out that because today’s political and economic leaders don’t have a personal stakes and connections to the military (the example was that 70% of the Senate members 50 years ago were veterns v.s. only a handful or so today), when they wage a war or deploy troops to protect U.S. political or economic interests, they tend not to take it personally the human consequences of such actions.
I remember there’s a scene in Bowling for Columbine where Michael Moore was going around the Capital Hills trying to enlist children of the Senators and Congressmen, but nobody dared to so much as to talk about the subject. The underlying message was clear: we need a military to protect our interests as long as it’s somone else’s children doing it.
One caller mentioned a book, “Starship Troopers” (which was made into a 3rd rated movie in the 90s), where the social structure only allowed a person to become a “full citizen” after s/he has engaged in some kind of public service. I thought that idea is pretty interesting and intriguing. It’d force each individual to partake in the business of the society, not just selfishly minding one’s own business from birth to death. That kind of experience would make someone more conscious about grander social issues than pathetic personal problems (boo-hoo, Jane broke up with John).
Sometimes I wish I can just keep driving to enjoy the road and listening to NPR when they have interesting programs on….
* One of the authors is a Democrat while the other is a Republican, but both have someone they are close to serving in the military
Related PostsBlogger Made Rich Worst American President, EVER! Civilization IV for Mac Farewell to Yi-Sheng U.S. Wants Taiwan to Pay More Protection Money
June 24th, 2006 at 2:09 am
Actually we have this kind of public service here in Germany. It has a long tradition and was re-installed out of the fear of communist Russia, and is still legal today.
If you are male, you have to do military service for 9 months. Conscientious objectors are required to do alternative civilian service for the same time. Females can do both, but it’s fully voluntarily.
I objected and did the civilian service. I was very grateful for that thing, mainly because it gave me another year to think about what I wanted to become in life. Also, if you still live in your parents house the money is good.
I am, however, against the military service. Germany had a strong connection between the military and society in the past, and it was one of the many problems that led to WWI and WWII.
Nowadays, the military service isn’t of any use to the military. Imagine sending a 19 year old boy to Afghanistan! If only one gets killed, the military has a huge problem here.
Additionally, the training of these people costs a lot of money. My guess is that only 10 percent at maximum stay in the military, so the money is not well spent.
Moreover, and this applies to the USA as well, modern armies don’t need huge numbers of relatively bad trained people. They need mobile experts and specialists that can handle high tech weapons, so the conception is all wrong.
In Germany, I believe that the military service will be stopped within the next 10 years or so.
I am in full support a general civilian or community service. It really gives you a different perspective on life if you work with disabled and mentally challenged people, or with the elderly. It can also serve as a moratorium like I described it above.
June 24th, 2006 at 2:11 am
Uh, so many grammatical errors. Sorry for that! I need to wake up…
June 24th, 2006 at 9:20 am
What you raised about close civilian ties to the military if everyone served was brought up in the program as well. But the authors argue that many countries in the world have compulsory military service (Switzerland, S. Korea, Taiwan, Thiland, maybe even France… etc), none of these countries are thought of as military state or specifically perceived as hostile towards another country. I guess using Germany, being one of the Axles during both World Wars, is a tricky example.
I think you are absolutely right about the need to keep a large military in any nation. HOWEVER, in the case of total ground assults like what the U.S. did in the Middle East, you do need to keep a handsome number around just to keep peace (even then, see how poorly it’s being done in Iraq now!). That said, I believe it’s all about planning and coming up with good alternatives. In the case of Iraq and the U.S. troop deployment, I just think the whole operation was poorly and half-assly planned from the beginning (they only thought about how to take out the Royal Army but completely failed on almost everything else afterwards).
A universal civilian/social service is great. And I agree that it will provide great insight to a great depth in many social problems that one would otherwise take for granted.
June 24th, 2006 at 10:58 am
I find it very interesting that the authors suggest that we go to war more often and plan less diligently because the war-makers and planners have no personal stake in the matter at hand besides that of economic gains.
It seems to be similar to the problems the government has in recognising internal problems. PBS Frontline had a program recently about how bad the METH addiction problem was out here in CA, but they couldn’t get any funding from the Federal Gov’t to deal with it because practically no one was addicted to meth on the east coast - they didn’t see the problem first hand - so they saw no need to respond to it. The federal Gov’t is slowly changing as people become addicted over there.
I was under the impression that people could serve 2 years in the military or 3 years in a hospital in Germany… and the Netherlands also maybe?
I also think it would be good to have our kids serve some time immediately after high school in public service JUST so the can have a little time to figure out what the heck they want to do in life AND see how the American culture works first hand. Forcing them to be there for a year or so would cause them to want to change things for the better when they’re older - instead of ignoring it or soemthing. If we force people to become involved, they will stop being apathetic. It’s illegal NOT to vote in Australia I think…
Good subject Chu.
June 24th, 2006 at 11:09 am
The conditions of both military service and alternative civilian service have rapidly change for the decades. During the 1980s you had to serve significantly longer when you objected, 1,5 years compared to 3 years. They have been cutting it down ever since. Both are now at 9 months.
I am skeptic about the issue of forcing someone to do the service. It’s the law for males in Germany, but in my opinion that’s wrong. It should be voluntary with good incentives (money, reputation and for the career), and for both sexes with the same conditions.
Funny thing about the not-voting thing in Australia. People should vote, and I’d love to see a fine - not too much, say $15 or so - for not voting.
June 24th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Taiwan is going through similar phase as Germany in that now there’s an overpopulation in the military so that the government is making professional services (fireman, policeman.. etc) as an alternative for longer time. They also got the really smart guys out of the service by giving them the option to serve in the private sectors as programmers, engineers… etc for 1.5x the length in time (which in itself has issues).
I think the point is, by “forcing” youngsters to devote a meaningful time in the public services sector creates awareness of issues in these young people’s minds. These connections to the “public” can last a lifetime. And I agree w/ JASE that taking a short period off from academics can really put you in new perspectives. I think that’s what we are going to do with Bryan if we can convince him to put off school for a year or two just to “screw around” with odd jobs and pursue personal interests. Sometimes I wish I’d done that when I was 17.
Making not-voting illegal? Wow… that’s a very different approach. In most countries, they see voting as a “right”. It seems like the Aussies see it as an “obligation”… Interesting perspective indeed.