Don't Delegate National Duty to the Few
More from this column:
- Don't Delegate National Duty to the Few
- Don't Commit to Wars We Can't Finish
- Don't Let U.S. Politics Impede Rebuilding of Iraq
- Why I Will Always Be an American
- Sacrificing Ourselves for Ambition
- Like in Iraq, Local Politics Proves to Be Key
- Soldier Makes Peace with War and Religion
- U.S. Should Have a Truly Integrated Military
- Learning Is Not All About GPA
- Remember the Dangers and Assets Contained in the Koreas
Nov 25 2008 at 12:21 p.m.
Actually, the Vietnam War ended because the U.S. got thrown out by a people who stood up righteously to war criminals in your beloved Army.
Nov 25 2008 at 2:16 p.m.
I can summarize every Quinn column in just a few words: "I was in the military; this makes me better than you; feel bad for me anyway. I'm angsty."
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Nov 25 2008 at 6:54 p.m.
I can sum up the previous two comments easily:
"I am too scared to say anything to anyone's face so mock them anonomously on a message board."
I don't 100% agree with everything Quinn says but this university has become a joke (requests for alumni donations go straight to the trash at my house) if someone's service to this country is not only unappreciated but ridiculed.
I was not willing to commit to years of service (I went through the recruitment process at one point) both due to selfishness and likely fear so I will certainly say thank you to those who have.
I do believe a volunteer army is what makes ours the best in the world though, based on the previous two posters who have likely led spoiled lives of luxury, perhaps mandatory service is not a bad thing.
Thanks to all who have served and Happy Thanksgiving to any rational people left on campus.
P.S. If you hate people in the military so much, there are plenty of military folk who frequent bars in Georgetown. Just go up to the next guy with cropped hair you see when you are out and explain your hatred. Let me know how that turns out. I'd also be willing to bet they are probably more intelligent on any topic outside of how much Israel, the US, capitalism, and the military suck (I hear there is a high demand for those skills in this economy so have fun living at home for ten years).
Nov 25 2008 at 7:11 p.m.
Hey, Hoya, let me remind you of your own policy:
"Comments which are spam, off-topic, abusive, use excessive foul language or promote hate or bias will be deleted."
The two comments up there hit at least 4/6 of those.
Clean up the trash, Hoya.
Quinn,
The root of evil in the political-military-industrial complex lies mostly on the political side, because they enable the bad apples on the industrial side to do less than ethical business, and the military just gets stuck in the middle, as I'm sure you've experienced. But where the civ-mil line gets thin, with non-uniformed folks involved in the defense industry and even on the front lines, much more than the 0.5% are affected by the war, and that's where understanding between civilian and military has been growing over the years. The only solution is a top-down reform of government, and it just may happen starting in 2009, we'll see. If the public can be vigilant and articulate and demand exactly what change they want from Obama, (like just start chanting "Oversight" instead of "change", why not?) I bet he'll do it. Peace.
Nov 25 2008 at 9:05 p.m.
When you join the military, you are being paid to die at a rate way below FMV for other pretty safe activities such as... consulting, cubicle work at a think tank, and a bevy of other options available to college grads. So how does it make economic sense for anyone who can get a safe white-collar job to join the military???? Stop blaming upper-middle class kids for being economically rational.
The cold reality is: the military is mostly for the poor because it makes economic sense. I recognize the few that join the military and become officers out of civic duty - and commend them. However, there are only a limited number of officer positions. You can't possibly expect a kid going to Georgetown to become a buck private or a NCO, on top of getting paid next to nothing while facing a hazardous job.
The solution to this economic reality is NOT higher military pay. You get paid according to what the market values your task. As a buck private, you are essentially EXPENDABLE (sorry, but thats the truth - the military is a system designed to make sure that individual soldiers don't make or break the mission). To pay a person for a task that is heavily fungible doesn't make economic sense. High pay goes to individuals that do jobs that very few others can do (CEOs, corporate lawyers, hedge fund managers). Buck-privates, ncos, and junior officers do jobs that many can be trained to do at fast rate - hence, not deserving of high pay. In light of the foregoing dynamics, we must resign ourselves to the fact that the military is mostly appealing to the economically desperate.
I'm pretty damn sure my post will be construed as offensive. However, can you really tell me that I am wrong?
Nov 25 2008 at 10:32 p.m.
Mike:
Thank you for your defense of military service. However, I urge you to reconsider cutting off donations to the university. I have not encountered many people with negative attitudes toward military service at Georgetown. On the contrary, I find it to be a very welcoming atmosphere for soldiers. There is simply a lack of engagement with the military among many of the more educated members of my generation, which is one of the trends I discuss in my article.
Please read the interview with the Georgetown freshman from Iraq in today's HOYA. His presence on the Hilltop is a testament to the quality of Georgetown's student body. http://www.thehoya.com/node/17216>
KMM:
You make an important point, and one I am sorry I neglected to consider in my article. The defense industry, civilian contractors, and Department of Defense civilians are certainly a large group of people directly affected by the current wars. I should have acknowledged this especially because so many of them are friends of mine with whom I served overseas.
If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that these civilians who are involved in the conduct of war due to the growth of the defense industry have increased the understanding between the military and civilian populations. It is precisely their relationship with the military that I discuss when I quote Eisenhower. Eisenhower believed that relationship was a necessary but potentially toxic one because the civilian (non-governmental) interest in war is purely economic. I urge you to read his speech in its entirety.
Though I recognize the value of defense contractors on the modern battlefield, I am concerned that they are essentially soldiers (some call them mercenaries) who are hidden from the public. We have over 300,000 people in Iraq working for the U.S. military, but only about 138,000 of them are uniformed soldiers. The rest are rarely noted, except when they are being derided as war profiteers or criminals by the media.
What is missing is the active engagement of civilians who are not part of the defense establishment. Though I agree with you that politicians deserve some of the blame for this, we are the ones who give them their power. As you say, we must demand greater oversight and transparency. I certainly hope that President-elect Obama moves in this direction, but he has a lot on his plate, and this is not a personal issue for him (it is, incidentally, very important to John McCain, and I hope Obama reaches out to McCain on this issue). I think that it is absolutely imperative that citizens take a more active interest in understanding who our military is and what it is doing. Continuing to operate as we have been is damaging to our social fabric.
Tell Me I am Wrong:
You are not wrong, if you believe that reasonable people act for purely economic reasons. It would be very silly for such people to choose a low-paying job that is potentially dangerous. However, I do not think that is true. I think that principles are important for most people. I think that people make decisions for a variety of reasons, and not only economic ones.
I am not blaming upper-middle class kids for anything. I was an upper-middle class kid. However, I am concerned about their level of involvement with a particular sector of society because I think their lack of involvement is damaging to society as a whole.
I never argued for higher military pay. As a soldier, however, I certainly will not argue against it.
From your post, I do not think you served in the military (I am sorry if I am wrong). In the U.S. military, privates are not expendable, as you claim. Again, I disagree with the way you talk of humans in purely economic terms. I could accept your claim if the U.S. used levée en masse to build its military, but we do not. We train professional soldiers, and our tactics emphasize group and individual safety. We do not conduct “suicide missions.”
Finally, we do not have a "poverty draft" in the U.S. You should research this. The truth is that the military is better educated and better off financially than the civilian population. One of the more troubling aspects of poverty in the U.S. is a lack of quality education. People who are poorly educated are disqualified from military service. Besides, I do not see anything wrong with military service for anyone, rich or poor.
Nov 25 2008 at 10:33 p.m.
George Patsourakos
We have to keep in mind that when Eisenhower was President of the U.S. in the 1950s, the Cold War with the Soviet Union was at its peak. Moreover, the U.S. was stunned in 1957, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik before the U.S. launched a satellite in outer space. Americans had feared that the Soviet Union had surpassed the U.S. in the space race, which was closely related to the defense of our nation. Consequently, the Defense Department was able to increase its budget significantly at that time and for many years thereafter. The fact that there has been no draft in the U.S. since 1975 is a good thing, because our armed forces are now comprised of highly-motivated troops who have freely chosen to serve their country!
Nov 25 2008 at 10:42 p.m.
This column is extremely non-comital in terms of clearly establishing the author's particular positions. More time is spent attacking straw men and declaring what that position is NOT than on making a clearly definable point, subject to appropriate critique and criticism.
Perhaps that's the point - use soft words and lots of hedging and avoid having to put oneself out there for equal measures of hate and love (see e.g., Mark Lance, that indomitable little spirte) In short, this isn't written in the fashion of an op-ed but rather, a high school essay, vacilating and unsure of itself.
Mr. Quinn:
What is the issue? What is your position? What are your reasons for holding that position? I'd appreciate hearing a response. I don't know if I'm opposed to you or in support of you or somewhere in the middle, as I genuinely don't knwow why you've written this piece (besides it being a job to fill every few weeks and a way to get one's name in the newspaper).
Nov 25 2008 at 10:42 p.m.
Mr. Patsourakos:
I agree. I do not know very many people in the military who would support a draft. Having a highly-motivated professional military is a good thing. However, I do think it is bad for society at large that civilians are less engaged. That should not necessarily be remedied with a draft, but such an option should not be so quickly dismissed. I wrote about one possibility here: http://www.thehoya.com/node/13762>
Nov 25 2008 at 10:49 p.m.
Peacekeeper:
I am sorry you do not think I was clear. I am trying to raise an issue that is very important to me.
What is the issue? -- The civil-military divide: the lack of awareness of and involvement in the defense establishment among society as a whole.
What is your position? -- The civil-military divide is morally corrosive and threatening to liberty. We end up with wars very view people care about and money spent on defense with little oversight and for reasons most cannot defend.
What are your reasons for holding that position? -- I went to Iraq. Then I came back. I found a country that did not know why I went in the first place.
Nov 26 2008 at 12:28 a.m.
I choked up big time when I watched this.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=31450874
Nov 27 2008 at 1:00 a.m.
Quinn continuously evokes his military record, making sure that it is posted at the bottom of every article and writing on the topic constantly. I would respect his judgment much more if he did not try to slap people in the face with his former career, or treat it as some sort of portal to a higher moral ground. real dignity is not needing to remind people buddy
Nov 27 2008 at 7:40 a.m.
Wednesday:
I do not post a reference to my military record at the bottom of every article -- the editors do. I have never asked them to do so, but they apparently feel that it lends credibility to some of the topics I write about. I write about the military because it is something important to me, not because I think it is a "portal to a higher moral ground," whatever that means.
I hope you are able to find something that matters deeply to you. Perhaps then you will also find "real dignity" in the opportunity to share with people the issues that have had the greatest impact on your life.
I am sorry if you feel that my words are imposing on your right to ignore my experiences. But I am sure that you do retain the right to not read my column.
Nov 27 2008 at 10:20 p.m.
Mark Lance
Sprite here. First, I wish we could all drop the red herring of spitting on people in the military. Turns out, after comprehensive research on the topic about a decade ago, that there are zero known cases of this happening in the Vietnam years. Zero. All the famous allegations were shown to be made up by pro-war folks trying to discredit protestors.
More seriously, I don't understand how one can be opposed to the disconnect between military service and civilians -- which I agree to be a bad thing -- and not see that the lack of a draft is a factor in that. In fact it seems rather common sense that people will have much more investment in what goes on with the military if there is a chance they might have to serve. Maybe not, but I'd like to hear why.
Also, of course, this article ignores the largest part of what Eisenhower was talking about - namely the massive power that military industries have over the government. Enormous corporations, paid billions out of the military budget, use a portion of that money to "lobby". Politicians who retire from government are given "jobs" in that industry and then go back and lobby their former colleagues for more spending. that is why we have ended up spending more than the rest of the world combined on our military, while still treating soldiers badly, with worse health care, worse pensions, etc. than many comparable countries. The truth is that the bulk of military spending in this country is not geared towards defending the US, nor even to projecting US power around the world -- what we sprites call imperialism -- but simply to making military corporations rich.
This, not a social disconnect between military and civilian, is the main thing Eisenhower was warning us about. Would that we had listened.
PS: really like this column, which I find to be consistentlymore thoughtful and more interesting than almost any in the Hoya.
Nov 28 2008 at 9:09 p.m.
I think an interesting follow-up piece would attempt to address - or at least wrestle with - these tripartite tensions
* On the one hand, it's hard to deny the fact that, when a draft is imposed (or, in a lesser sense, when mandated domestic-side military service ala some smaller european countries is imposed) there is more of an investment by the overall population in the mechanisms of war and peace used by the country. People care more.
* On the other hand, from everything that I've heard, read, and researched indicates that, point to fact, modern, 1st world, lead-edge militaries DO NOT WANT conscript armies. They just don't want them. Most reasonable minded academics on either/neither side of the political divide seem to agree that the modern consensus emerged during and immediately after the Vietnam war: that, from a marginal cost standpoint, it was more effective to fight wars with smaller volunteer armies than it was to use drafts to bring in huge swaths of the population for rapid training. Granted, there's always the backstop 'if the country is invaded'. But, short of that, the plain truth is that you're more likely to hear a civil-side politician with an anti-war agenda calling for a draft reinstatement than a military leader with inside knowledge. It's un-pc to say it, but conscripts make crappy troops, make for crappy armies, and, outside that 'save the motherland from the invading aliens' scenario, crappy war-fighting tools.
* Finally, a third tension: the heart of the American polity - indeed, let's go farther back and wider afield and say the heart of modern successful polyarchies - is a clear division between the civil and the military. Not a DISCONNECT - not some enervating 'oh, the troops are somewhere abroad, let us eat cake' type of deal, but a clearly defined separation such that we DON'T permit the former to seep into the latter, and such that the civil is forever at the helm of the military.
It's going to take a wiser person than me, but addressing these three tensions seems to be a fundamental (and fundamentally yet-unsatisfied) challenge of 21st century:
* political science
* public discourse
* philosophy
* military strategy
Nov 30 2008 at 12:02 a.m.
Professor Lance:
Thanks for setting me strait on the issue of protesters spitting on the military. I take your word for it. My point was simply that the civil-military divide was more obvious during the Vietnam War. On that, I think we are in agreement.
You are absolutely correct that I did not focus on the main point of Eisenhower’s speech. I wanted to focus more on an aspect of civil-military relations that affects members of the Georgetown student body. I also agree with your analysis of the problem. I’m not afraid to call the U.S. an empire. In my most cynical moments, I think it is fair to call it an empire of consumption.
Regarding the issue of the draft, Woodland 3 describes the ambivalence I sense in the military regarding the issue. I do support the idea of a draft (though not a strictly military draft – I would prefer that citizens are given a choice to do some form of mandatory federal, state or municipal service). The problem is that any form of a draft is very unpopular with various groups, including the military.
Though we might quibble over the details, we are in complete agreement that a draft would be ideal (though probably for different reasons).
Woodland 3:
Thank you for your comments. I am thinking of writing a thesis on this topic. Your sense of the tensions involved in the issue is very close to my own. I would add that the military has become an extremely flexible professional organization that is increasingly difficult for its civilian masters to understand and control. There is perhaps no department of the federal government invested with so much power. We would be much better off if the politicians and people of the United States understood it better.