Jump to content

The Tragedy of the American Military


AUUSN

Recommended Posts

A really fantastic and thought provoking article. The following is just a sample. Check out the entire story at the link: "This reverent but disengaged attitude toward the military—we love the troops, but we’d rather not think about them—has become so familiar that we assume it is the American norm. But it is not. When Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a five-star general and the supreme commander, led what may have in fact been the finest fighting force in the history of the world, he did not describe it in that puffed-up way. On the eve of the D-Day invasion, he warned his troops, “Your task will not be an easy one,” because “your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened.” As president, Eisenhower’s most famous statement about the military was his warning in his farewell address of what could happen if its political influence grew unchecked.

At the end of World War II, nearly 10 percent of the entire U.S. population was on active military duty—which meant most able-bodied men of a certain age (plus the small number of women allowed to serve). Through the decade after World War II, when so many American families had at least one member in uniform, political and journalistic references were admiring but not awestruck. Most Americans were familiar enough with the military to respect it while being sharply aware of its shortcomings, as they were with the school system, their religion, and other important and fallible institutions.

Now the American military is exotic territory to most of the American public. As a comparison: A handful of Americans live on farms, but there are many more of them than serve in all branches of the military. (Well over 4 million people live on the country’s 2.1 million farms. The U.S. military has about 1.4 million people on active duty and another 850,000 in the reserves.) The other 310 million–plus Americans “honor” their stalwart farmers, but generally don’t know them. So too with the military. Many more young Americans will study abroad this year than will enlist in the military—nearly 300,000 students overseas, versus well under 200,000 new recruits. As a country, America has been at war nonstop for the past 13 years. As a public, it has not. A total of about 2.5 million Americans, roughly three-quarters of 1 percent, served in Iraq or Afghanistan at any point in the post-9/11 years, many of them more than once.

The difference between the earlier America that knew its military and the modern America that gazes admiringly at its heroes shows up sharply in changes in popular and media culture. While World War II was under way, its best-known chroniclers were the Scripps Howard reporter Ernie Pyle, who described the daily braveries and travails of the troops (until he was killed near the war’s end by Japanese machine-gun fire on the island of Iejima), and the Stars and Stripes cartoonist Bill Mauldin, who mocked the obtuseness of generals and their distance from the foxhole realities faced by his wisecracking GI characters, Willie and Joe.

From Mister Roberts to South Pacific to Catch-22, from The Caine Mutiny to The Naked and the Dead to From Here to Eternity, American popular and high culture treated our last mass-mobilization war as an effort deserving deep respect and pride, but not above criticism and lampooning. The collective achievement of the military was heroic, but its members and leaders were still real people, with all the foibles of real life. A decade after that war ended, the most popular military-themed TV program was The Phil Silvers Show, about a con man in uniform named Sgt. Bilko. As Bilko, Phil Silvers was that stock American sitcom figure, the lovable blowhard—a role familiar from the time of Jackie Gleason in The Honeymooners to Homer Simpson in The Simpsons today. Gomer Pyle, USMC; Hogan’s Heroes; McHale’s Navy; and even the anachronistic frontier show F Troop were sitcoms whose settings were U.S. military units and whose villains—and schemers, and stooges, and occasional idealists—were people in uniform. American culture was sufficiently at ease with the military to make fun of it, a stance now hard to imagine outside the military itself." http://www.theatlant...ilitary/383516/

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Well written and well thought out. I agree with the writers perspective and approach.

Thanks for sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to start another thread but I ran across this article as well.

General Chiarelli’s Brain Crusade How one Army officer raised the nation’s consciousness about head injuries.

"Chiarelli was dumbfounded. PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder, is the catchall term to explain the anxiety, anger, and disorientation people can experience after exposure to physical harm or the threat of it. An insurgent attack would qualify, as would the threat of one, which most troops in Iraq faced every day. TBI, or traumatic brain injury, can happen when a soldier suffers a concussion from the blast of a roadside bomb. While some soldiers appeared to recover from concussions quickly, for others the effects lingered for months, or even indefinitely.

What stunned Chiarelli was not just the high percentage but the long-term persistence of PTSD and the aftereffects of concussions. He had been the operational commander of all American ground forces in Iraq. Before that, he’d led an Army division that was responsible for Baghdad. And yet the prevalence of debilitating post-traumatic stress and serious brain injuries was news to him. He had assumed that the stress of a near-miss would dissipate. So, too, would the effects of a concussion. He figured they were no big deal.

“If I had a platoon that lost folks, I had combat-stress teams, and I made sure they were flown to whatever base they needed to go to,” he said. “I knew what my football coach told me about traumatic brain injury: ‘Shake it off and get back in the game.’”

The graph sobered him. As vice-chief, his job wasn’t to focus on war strategy. He was responsible for “the force”—for training and equipping soldiers, modernizing weapons and overseeing the budget, and ensuring the well-being of the half-million men and women in the Army, the second-largest U.S. employer after Walmart. But it also was personal: he had put many of these soldiers in harm’s way in Iraq, and he believed he had a duty to those who returned harmed.

So Chiarelli set out to learn everything he could about PTSD and TBI. The task took on even greater urgency a month later, when the Army tallied that 115 soldiers had committed suicide in 2007. That was the most since the Army began counting in 1980 and nearly twice the national suicide rate. Chiarelli’s boss, General George Casey Jr., asked him to figure out why so many soldiers were taking their own lives.

Chiarelli could see that PTSD, TBI, and military suicide were overlapping circles. But by how much? Not every soldier with a concussion was going to experience post-traumatic stress. Many stressed-out soldiers had not been subjected to explosions. And when it came to suicides, TBI did not appear to be a main cause. But all of it fit under the rubric of mental health, an issue that had never really been on the front burner at the Pentagon."

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz3NOsCp7PD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to consider none of these physical or mental injuries are new. They have been around since war was invented. But the incidence rate has undoubtedly increased with weaponry technology (explosives).

This made me think of a PBS special on drones. An engineer was pointing out that drone aircraft - not being limited by human physical constraints - can pull many more g's and react almost instantaneously. Anyone seen the 6 legged pack robot under development for the army?

Is there any doubt robots and drones will become a key part of our armament in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to consider none of these physical or mental injuries are new. They have been around since war was invented. But the incidence rate has undoubtedly increased with weaponry technology (explosives).

This made me think of a PBS special on drones. An engineer was pointing out that drone aircraft - not being limited by human physical constraints - can pull many more g's and react almost instantaneously. Anyone seen the 6 legged pack robot under development for the army?

Is there any doubt robots and drones will become a key part of our armament in the future?

It's scary if you ask me, but it's coming. Sky net may be real in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, with the machines fightinh our wars, entering them just became a lot easier. Robots don't need retirement, health care, dependent benefits, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, with the machines fightinh our wars, entering them just became a lot easier. Robots don't need retirement, health care, dependent benefits, etc.

No, but once they turn on everyone there won't be healthcare, retirement, etc. Just Arnold........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, with the machines fightinh our wars, entering them just became a lot easier. Robots don't need retirement, health care, dependent benefits, etc.

This has been my fear for a while now. Robots mean we enter war at the drop of a hat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, with the machines fightinh our wars, entering them just became a lot easier. Robots don't need retirement, health care, dependent benefits, etc.

This has been my fear for a while now. Robots mean we enter war at the drop of a hat.

And that will be different how??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, with the machines fightinh our wars, entering them just became a lot easier. Robots don't need retirement, health care, dependent benefits, etc.

This has been my fear for a while now. Robots mean we enter war at the drop of a hat.

And that will be different how??

There will be EVEN LESS REASONS NOT TO GO TO WAR.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, with the machines fightinh our wars, entering them just became a lot easier. Robots don't need retirement, health care, dependent benefits, etc.

This has been my fear for a while now. Robots mean we enter war at the drop of a hat.

And that will be different how??

With robots fighting wars, politicians will find it easier to enter them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post was satirical. It's already way too easy to justify a war.

Sorry for the confusion.

i Understood that, i was making the point that we would get into even more wars with robot technology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A really fantastic and thought provoking article. The following is just a sample. Check out the entire story at the link: "This reverent but disengaged attitude toward the military—we love the troops, but we’d rather not think about them—has become so familiar that we assume it is the American norm. But it is not. When Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a five-star general and the supreme commander, led what may have in fact been the finest fighting force in the history of the world, he did not describe it in that puffed-up way. On the eve of the D-Day invasion, he warned his troops, “Your task will not be an easy one,” because “your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened.” As president, Eisenhower’s most famous statement about the military was his warning in his farewell address of what could happen if its political influence grew unchecked.

At the end of World War II, nearly 10 percent of the entire U.S. population was on active military duty—which meant most able-bodied men of a certain age (plus the small number of women allowed to serve). Through the decade after World War II, when so many American families had at least one member in uniform, political and journalistic references were admiring but not awestruck. Most Americans were familiar enough with the military to respect it while being sharply aware of its shortcomings, as they were with the school system, their religion, and other important and fallible institutions.

Now the American military is exotic territory to most of the American public. As a comparison: A handful of Americans live on farms, but there are many more of them than serve in all branches of the military. (Well over 4 million people live on the country’s 2.1 million farms. The U.S. military has about 1.4 million people on active duty and another 850,000 in the reserves.) The other 310 million–plus Americans “honor” their stalwart farmers, but generally don’t know them. So too with the military. Many more young Americans will study abroad this year than will enlist in the military—nearly 300,000 students overseas, versus well under 200,000 new recruits. As a country, America has been at war nonstop for the past 13 years. As a public, it has not. A total of about 2.5 million Americans, roughly three-quarters of 1 percent, served in Iraq or Afghanistan at any point in the post-9/11 years, many of them more than once.

The difference between the earlier America that knew its military and the modern America that gazes admiringly at its heroes shows up sharply in changes in popular and media culture. While World War II was under way, its best-known chroniclers were the Scripps Howard reporter Ernie Pyle, who described the daily braveries and travails of the troops (until he was killed near the war’s end by Japanese machine-gun fire on the island of Iejima), and the Stars and Stripes cartoonist Bill Mauldin, who mocked the obtuseness of generals and their distance from the foxhole realities faced by his wisecracking GI characters, Willie and Joe.

From Mister Roberts to South Pacific to Catch-22, from The Caine Mutiny to The Naked and the Dead to From Here to Eternity, American popular and high culture treated our last mass-mobilization war as an effort deserving deep respect and pride, but not above criticism and lampooning. The collective achievement of the military was heroic, but its members and leaders were still real people, with all the foibles of real life. A decade after that war ended, the most popular military-themed TV program was The Phil Silvers Show, about a con man in uniform named Sgt. Bilko. As Bilko, Phil Silvers was that stock American sitcom figure, the lovable blowhard—a role familiar from the time of Jackie Gleason in The Honeymooners to Homer Simpson in The Simpsons today. Gomer Pyle, USMC; Hogan’s Heroes; McHale’s Navy; and even the anachronistic frontier show F Troop were sitcoms whose settings were U.S. military units and whose villains—and schemers, and stooges, and occasional idealists—were people in uniform. American culture was sufficiently at ease with the military to make fun of it, a stance now hard to imagine outside the military itself." http://www.theatlant...ilitary/383516/

It was obvious with the advent of the volunteer force, the connection to the public would be lost. The French set this example a long time ago with the Foreign Legion. This is nothing new; bring back the draft, with a lottery and no exemptions, and that problem is solved. What I did not see in the 10,000 words was the more obvious point; before you start a war you should know who the enemy is and have a specific goal? We haven't lost anything militarily. We lose the political tug of war because we don't have a well defined goal and can't define what victory is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A really fantastic and thought provoking article. The following is just a sample. Check out the entire story at the link: "This reverent but disengaged attitude toward the military—we love the troops, but we’d rather not think about them—has become so familiar that we assume it is the American norm. But it is not. When Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a five-star general and the supreme commander, led what may have in fact been the finest fighting force in the history of the world, he did not describe it in that puffed-up way. On the eve of the D-Day invasion, he warned his troops, “Your task will not be an easy one,” because “your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened.” As president, Eisenhower’s most famous statement about the military was his warning in his farewell address of what could happen if its political influence grew unchecked.

At the end of World War II, nearly 10 percent of the entire U.S. population was on active military duty—which meant most able-bodied men of a certain age (plus the small number of women allowed to serve). Through the decade after World War II, when so many American families had at least one member in uniform, political and journalistic references were admiring but not awestruck. Most Americans were familiar enough with the military to respect it while being sharply aware of its shortcomings, as they were with the school system, their religion, and other important and fallible institutions.

Now the American military is exotic territory to most of the American public. As a comparison: A handful of Americans live on farms, but there are many more of them than serve in all branches of the military. (Well over 4 million people live on the country’s 2.1 million farms. The U.S. military has about 1.4 million people on active duty and another 850,000 in the reserves.) The other 310 million–plus Americans “honor” their stalwart farmers, but generally don’t know them. So too with the military. Many more young Americans will study abroad this year than will enlist in the military—nearly 300,000 students overseas, versus well under 200,000 new recruits. As a country, America has been at war nonstop for the past 13 years. As a public, it has not. A total of about 2.5 million Americans, roughly three-quarters of 1 percent, served in Iraq or Afghanistan at any point in the post-9/11 years, many of them more than once.

The difference between the earlier America that knew its military and the modern America that gazes admiringly at its heroes shows up sharply in changes in popular and media culture. While World War II was under way, its best-known chroniclers were the Scripps Howard reporter Ernie Pyle, who described the daily braveries and travails of the troops (until he was killed near the war’s end by Japanese machine-gun fire on the island of Iejima), and the Stars and Stripes cartoonist Bill Mauldin, who mocked the obtuseness of generals and their distance from the foxhole realities faced by his wisecracking GI characters, Willie and Joe.

From Mister Roberts to South Pacific to Catch-22, from The Caine Mutiny to The Naked and the Dead to From Here to Eternity, American popular and high culture treated our last mass-mobilization war as an effort deserving deep respect and pride, but not above criticism and lampooning. The collective achievement of the military was heroic, but its members and leaders were still real people, with all the foibles of real life. A decade after that war ended, the most popular military-themed TV program was The Phil Silvers Show, about a con man in uniform named Sgt. Bilko. As Bilko, Phil Silvers was that stock American sitcom figure, the lovable blowhard—a role familiar from the time of Jackie Gleason in The Honeymooners to Homer Simpson in The Simpsons today. Gomer Pyle, USMC; Hogan’s Heroes; McHale’s Navy; and even the anachronistic frontier show F Troop were sitcoms whose settings were U.S. military units and whose villains—and schemers, and stooges, and occasional idealists—were people in uniform. American culture was sufficiently at ease with the military to make fun of it, a stance now hard to imagine outside the military itself." http://www.theatlant...ilitary/383516/

It was obvious with the advent of the volunteer force, the connection to the public would be lost. The French set this example a long time ago with the Foreign Legion. This is nothing new; bring back the draft, with a lottery and no exemptions, and that problem is solved. What I did not see in the 10,000 words was the more obvious point; before you start a war you should know who the enemy is and have a specific goal? We haven't lost anything militarily. We lose the political tug of war because we don't have a well defined goal and can't define what victory is.

So we agree on a draft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A really fantastic and thought provoking article. The following is just a sample. Check out the entire story at the link: "This reverent but disengaged attitude toward the military—we love the troops, but we'd rather not think about them—has become so familiar that we assume it is the American norm. But it is not. When Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a five-star general and the supreme commander, led what may have in fact been the finest fighting force in the history of the world, he did not describe it in that puffed-up way. On the eve of the D-Day invasion, he warned his troops, "Your task will not be an easy one," because "your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened." As president, Eisenhower's most famous statement about the military was his warning in his farewell address of what could happen if its political influence grew unchecked.

At the end of World War II, nearly 10 percent of the entire U.S. population was on active military duty—which meant most able-bodied men of a certain age (plus the small number of women allowed to serve). Through the decade after World War II, when so many American families had at least one member in uniform, political and journalistic references were admiring but not awestruck. Most Americans were familiar enough with the military to respect it while being sharply aware of its shortcomings, as they were with the school system, their religion, and other important and fallible institutions.

Now the American military is exotic territory to most of the American public. As a comparison: A handful of Americans live on farms, but there are many more of them than serve in all branches of the military. (Well over 4 million people live on the country's 2.1 million farms. The U.S. military has about 1.4 million people on active duty and another 850,000 in the reserves.) The other 310 million–plus Americans "honor" their stalwart farmers, but generally don't know them. So too with the military. Many more young Americans will study abroad this year than will enlist in the military—nearly 300,000 students overseas, versus well under 200,000 new recruits. As a country, America has been at war nonstop for the past 13 years. As a public, it has not. A total of about 2.5 million Americans, roughly three-quarters of 1 percent, served in Iraq or Afghanistan at any point in the post-9/11 years, many of them more than once.

The difference between the earlier America that knew its military and the modern America that gazes admiringly at its heroes shows up sharply in changes in popular and media culture. While World War II was under way, its best-known chroniclers were the Scripps Howard reporter Ernie Pyle, who described the daily braveries and travails of the troops (until he was killed near the war's end by Japanese machine-gun fire on the island of Iejima), and the Stars and Stripes cartoonist Bill Mauldin, who mocked the obtuseness of generals and their distance from the foxhole realities faced by his wisecracking GI characters, Willie and Joe.

From Mister Roberts to South Pacific to Catch-22, from The Caine Mutiny to The Naked and the Dead to From Here to Eternity, American popular and high culture treated our last mass-mobilization war as an effort deserving deep respect and pride, but not above criticism and lampooning. The collective achievement of the military was heroic, but its members and leaders were still real people, with all the foibles of real life. A decade after that war ended, the most popular military-themed TV program was The Phil Silvers Show, about a con man in uniform named Sgt. Bilko. As Bilko, Phil Silvers was that stock American sitcom figure, the lovable blowhard—a role familiar from the time of Jackie Gleason in The Honeymooners to Homer Simpson in The Simpsons today. Gomer Pyle, USMC; Hogan's Heroes; McHale's Navy; and even the anachronistic frontier show F Troop were sitcoms whose settings were U.S. military units and whose villains—and schemers, and stooges, and occasional idealists—were people in uniform. American culture was sufficiently at ease with the military to make fun of it, a stance now hard to imagine outside the military itself." http://www.theatlant...ilitary/383516/

It was obvious with the advent of the volunteer force, the connection to the public would be lost. The French set this example a long time ago with the Foreign Legion. This is nothing new; bring back the draft, with a lottery and no exemptions, and that problem is solved. What I did not see in the 10,000 words was the more obvious point; before you start a war you should know who the enemy is and have a specific goal? We haven't lost anything militarily. We lose the political tug of war because we don't have a well defined goal and can't define what victory is.

So we agree on a draft?

I think the draft at age 18 is a good thing for both the nation and young people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until 1972 we had a military based on selective service, the draft. That made the military and war a possibility for all healthy american men and their families. The reality of being drafted was on the mind of every young man and his parents at all times. Nixon shut down the draft to remove opposition to Vietnam by an entire generation. It has the ongoing effect of removing any concern about being forced to serve. Now Only those who want to serve, serve...... War is thus easy to start.

The chart on aircraft costs and operating expenses also indicates something else. To the left are old and new technologies that are cheaper. The A10 is an amazing aircraft that the army loves for its ground support role. The Air Force just doesn't think it is cool. Basically 50 year old technology that works. The predator drones are efficient and deadly, but there are no jet jockeys on board. Again not cool. f35s and f22s are cool. The Air Force could see its forces become remote controlled aircraft with no need for risking pilots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...