As Wendell Berry rightly pointed out years ago, we have war colleges/military academies and not one peace academy. And at "prestigious" Columbia, we have Clinton & Nuland imparting their state department experiences ... I wonder why US diplomacy is braindead....
What's more, we need to reinstate the draft and rid ourselves of the "all volunteer" army We need an Army comprised of citizens whose first loyalty is to the constitution. The "all volunteer" army is not made up of volunteers, it is made up of professionals who have made the military their careers. They are not looking forward to returning to civilian life, they are looking forward to promotions. Their first loyalty is to their superiors and their chain of command, right or wrong, it makes no difference. Their is no room for conscience. One must obey orders, else their careers are ended.
The wars we have won were all won with citizen-soldiers. The "all volunteer" army has won several battles but has not won a single war.
Absolutely 100% correct. Everyone needs to provide something to the country and the "all volunteer army" provides absolutely nothing and has not won a single "war" since WWII.
First, if an order violates a law, it is legal for a soldier to disobey the order. A soldier seeking promotion is unlikely to do so whereas a draftee, who is less concerned about promotions, will not be afraid to disobey the order and/or report the incident to higher authorities.
Second, an all volunteer army shelters the vast majority of the public from any risk of serving in combat. On the other hand, a citizen soldier army puts everyone at risk of serving in combat which raises the public awareness of our government's military policies. It was just that kind of awareness that sparked the anti-war demonstrations during the Vietnam war.
More anti-war demonstrations and anti-war political candidates are needed if we're ever going stop our government's penchant for waging war. With the "all volunteer" army, only a few people give a shit.
PS There is a reasonably high probability that had there been no draftees and only volunteers at My Lai, the incident would never have been reported and we would never have known about it.
As i said, in an armed confrontation, threatened conflict, or especially in actual combat, any soldier ~ draftee or volunteer ~ who refuses any order ~ lawful or unlawful ~ runs a very high risk of not merely not getting promoted, but of getting shot. Depending entirely upon who issued the disobeyed order.
At a minimum, if it is a lawful order that is disobeyed, legal action ~ including time in the Brig ~ is almost inevitable.
And did all those demonstrations end the Vietnam War? Did that war end when the American People demanded that it be ended? Or when the folks in DC could bring it to a “satisfactory enough for our side” conclusion? Regardless of what at least some Americans thought about it.
History has demonstrated that anti-war demonstrations seldom if ever end wars. It is antiwar candidates who get elected to office who end them. How many anti-war candidates ran for office during the Vietnam War? And how many won their election?
And You concluded: “PS There is a reasonably high probability that had there been no draftees and only volunteers at My Lai, the incident would never have been reported and we would never have known about it.”
PS: A “reasonably high probability” based on what?
And the person that first reported and then exposed the My Lai Massacre was Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, Jr ~ the pilot of the helicopter that interrupted and then terminated the Massacre. He retired as a Major after 20 years of active duty service. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr. ]
Your focus on the importance of the law is vitally important. A warrior exists to wage war; in his life, the law doesn't matter. But a citizen-soldier is a citizen first; in becoming a soldier, he remains a citizen of a republic based on law.
For a warrior, might makes right is the law; the mantra is "I must follow orders, for I am a warrior." For a citizen-soldier, it's right makes might, where questioning orders is desirable and disobeying them is permissible when those orders are morally and legally wrong.
Thus the warrior ethos is perfect for sustaining genocide and other crimes against humanity.
Yes. The warrior identity should include concepts like courage, honor, and morality. Too often, I think, the warrior identity degenerates to a mercenary mentality, where war and profit from the same is all that really matters.
They are not worth of the title of warriors or soldier, if their interest is just for the money and the kill, they are criminals in uniforms and just bullies, thugs and warwhores, lost souls blinded by their ignorance and greed, which don’t deserve to be called soldiers.
Too often we are accepting the unacceptable, and just look where it brought us.
I find the new U.S. Army ads very troubling. A female soldier fires some kind of large gun (I'm totally clueless as to what kind it is), making a big explosion and BOOM. A man (spotter?) looks through a scope and says, "Nice shot." It's a training exercise, apparently, but it just conveys the idea that there's so much pleasure in blowing something up. Makes me wonder if the same praise would be given if it was a live situation. Probably just me, but it freaks me out.
Equal opportunity destructiveness. Gotta love it! But for my part.....depressing. Hate to see women buying into that mindset. Bad enough that so many men do. ; ) And yes, that's a sexist comment. Mea culpa.
That must be soon after 9/11, since the F-14 is retired. And it was strictly a fighter. The F-18 was (and is) the fighter-bomber.
I'm guessing "bomber girl" was flying escort missions for the F-18s that were doing the bombing. Not that the details are vital here. The newspaper wanted to sell the idea of a warrior-woman who dropped bombs. So that's what they wrote.
"After nearly a decade of war, we don't need more "warrior ethos." What we need are disciplined citizen-airmen and citizen-soldiers who know their craft, but who also know better than to revel in a warrior identity. We knew this in 1942; how did we come to forget it?"
If I'm not mistaken there were long arguments during the constitutional convention on the dangers of a standing army. The second amendment was the result of those arguments which is precisely what you are advocating for in this essay. And now the"All volunteer army " is composed of more than 60% non citizens promised citizenship based on service. Something I find extremely troubling.
".....how did we come to forget it?"
Eisenhower warned us. We ignored him and went along with the consumer propaganda of the 60s till now which was hiding the MIC which was a large part of the"industrial complex". The MIC offered the best paying jobs by and large so citizens were unknowingly sucked into supporting it. Hindsight is 20-20.
And 40 years after Eisenhower warned us 9/11 and the "Patriot Act" gave us an endless "War on Terror" to spread freedom and democracy (translation "capitalism and oppression") throughout the world. The Patriot Act was the final nail in the coffin of the now buried Constitution and Declaration Of Independence.
Toma, I don't think this stat is right: the all-volunteer Army is more than 60% composed of non-citizens.
My quick check suggests the figure is about 5%. There are roughy 45,000 immigrants in the U.S. military (4/13/2023), and there are roughly 1.3 million troops on active duty. That's about 3.5%, but I think the % has creeped up recently.
I don't remember where but it was a few years ago. Given the accuracy and truth of the media it may well.be wrong. I do remember lots of comments on it and it appeared in more than one place. It was one of those things that stuck in my mind because I was so appalled at it. It's like the Osama bin laden interview that NPR did prior to 9/11 . Disappeared.
Regardless of the percentage it should not be allowed. The US military is not the French foreign legion. The trouble today is the weapons systems are so sophisticated that a standing army/military is essential to maintain training and maintenance for the systems. Thanks for the feedback.
I think Mayor General Smedley Butler has something to say about this issue in WAR IS A RACKET (1935). The warrior „ethos“ in the U.S. military dates back to a much earlier period than you think.
Yes, especially in the Marine Corps. But in the 1930s the U.S. military was far smaller than it is today. Even so, it was a meddlesome force, as Smedley Butler knew.
MaJor General Smedley Butler provided an Executive Summary to his message in WAR IS A RACKET in a magazine article that same year as follows :
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents ."
The "all volunteer" army is a misnomer. When you are employed by someone, you are not a volunteer, you are a paid employee. When you make a career using your special skills, you become a professional. Our military today consists solely of professional soldiers who have chosen military service for a career.
Therefore, it is wrong to call our military an "all volunteer" army. Instead, it should correctly be called a professional army.
As an aside, when professional soldiers work for a foreign government, they are called mercenaries. Since most of our military deployments overseas are in support of foreign governments, shouldn't they be called mercenary forces?
It would be interesting to how many people who have enlisted in the US military since the end of the Draft actually made a career of the military. i'm sure those numbers are available someplace.
As opposed to how many enlisted, spent their time, learned a marketable skill that they did not have before, and got out of the military to take a job in the civilian economy.
Along with a lack of enlistments, part of the reason that the military is having problems maintaining its authorized strength in personnel is because more people are getting out ~ and not making a career of it ~ than are signing up to get in.
As wrknight pointed out here earlier, the last war America "won" that included conscripted "citizen-soldiers" was World War II, 79 years ago. That same military composed in part of “citizen-soldiers” lost Korea and Vietnam.
And that post-Vietnam "all-volunteer" military has lost every war since Vietnam, unless one calls Panama, Grenada, and Kuwait "wars.”
The primary reason America has lost every war it has engaged in since WW II is because it was on the wrong side in each of them. And deserved to lose.
And it is on the wrong side in its up-to-this-point merely “proxy” wars in Ukraine and Palestine, and will lose those wars, as well. Especially if [when] American combat troops get deployed into those theatres. Just like it will lose the war with China over Taiwan and the South China Sea; and for the exact same reason again.
One wonders if and when the American Peoples are ever going to get tired of losing all these wars. As long as they don't have to pay for them thru the magic of Deficit Spending ~ and don’t have to worry about their Kids being drafted ~ probably never,
Unfortunately, the professional, standing army encourages military adventurism. Remember Madeleine Albright's famous words to Colin Powell, "What's the point of having this superb military you are always talking about if you don't use it?"
Can anybody here at Bracing Views who favors an involuntary Draft for mandatory national military [or even civilian] service explain how that is not, in fact, a form of Involuntary Servitude, aka Slavery?
How is it any different from what this Nation allegedly fought a Civil War to officially ~ but not actually ~ “end.”
How is it any different from forcing a Woman to carry a Fetus that she does not want for full-term to the birth of a Child she does not want?
My guess is that as long as Americans can stay online, keep putting gas in their cars, trucks, and SUVs, and ~ if necessary ~ can afford to buy an Exemption to the Universal National Military, Civilian, and Community Service Draft for their Kid, there will be no difference.
Yes, it is a form of involuntary servitude, but I would be reluctant to equate it to slavery. It is a limited duration (2 years) involuntary service to the nation, not a service that profits the owner. That service is rendered in return for the benefits of citizenship which are many. It also provides protection for one's family as well as for the nation.
First of all, It is a "limited duration" form of Involuntary Servitude that can get a Draftee physically and/or psychological killed and/or maimed.
Second: Without all those GIs to use all those weapons, armaments, and ammunition in a war someplace, how would the MICC make a profit?
Third: How did the Vietnam Draft protect any Draftees' family and/or the nation?
And finally: What were the "benefits of citizenship" enjoyed by most of the Blacks who were drafted during Vietnam, be they from the Deep South, or like "Clean" in APOCALYPSE NOW, from "some South Bronx shithole"?
Maybe what needs to happen is not for the American Peoples to get tired of losing all these wars; but tired of their government constantly getting this Nation into another ~ and eventually lost ~ war. And then Do something about it.
As Wendell Berry rightly pointed out years ago, we have war colleges/military academies and not one peace academy. And at "prestigious" Columbia, we have Clinton & Nuland imparting their state department experiences ... I wonder why US diplomacy is braindead....
What's more, we need to reinstate the draft and rid ourselves of the "all volunteer" army We need an Army comprised of citizens whose first loyalty is to the constitution. The "all volunteer" army is not made up of volunteers, it is made up of professionals who have made the military their careers. They are not looking forward to returning to civilian life, they are looking forward to promotions. Their first loyalty is to their superiors and their chain of command, right or wrong, it makes no difference. Their is no room for conscience. One must obey orders, else their careers are ended.
The wars we have won were all won with citizen-soldiers. The "all volunteer" army has won several battles but has not won a single war.
Absolutely 100% correct. Everyone needs to provide something to the country and the "all volunteer army" provides absolutely nothing and has not won a single "war" since WWII.
Minor amendment: the "all volunteer" army has NEVER won a war. Period.
Draftees need to obey orders just as much as Volunteers do; especially in a confrontation, or conflict, and, most especially, in combat.
How many GIs at My Lai were Draftees versus Volunteers?
And i noted Your comment in a comment i recently made.
First, if an order violates a law, it is legal for a soldier to disobey the order. A soldier seeking promotion is unlikely to do so whereas a draftee, who is less concerned about promotions, will not be afraid to disobey the order and/or report the incident to higher authorities.
Second, an all volunteer army shelters the vast majority of the public from any risk of serving in combat. On the other hand, a citizen soldier army puts everyone at risk of serving in combat which raises the public awareness of our government's military policies. It was just that kind of awareness that sparked the anti-war demonstrations during the Vietnam war.
More anti-war demonstrations and anti-war political candidates are needed if we're ever going stop our government's penchant for waging war. With the "all volunteer" army, only a few people give a shit.
PS There is a reasonably high probability that had there been no draftees and only volunteers at My Lai, the incident would never have been reported and we would never have known about it.
As i said, in an armed confrontation, threatened conflict, or especially in actual combat, any soldier ~ draftee or volunteer ~ who refuses any order ~ lawful or unlawful ~ runs a very high risk of not merely not getting promoted, but of getting shot. Depending entirely upon who issued the disobeyed order.
At a minimum, if it is a lawful order that is disobeyed, legal action ~ including time in the Brig ~ is almost inevitable.
And did all those demonstrations end the Vietnam War? Did that war end when the American People demanded that it be ended? Or when the folks in DC could bring it to a “satisfactory enough for our side” conclusion? Regardless of what at least some Americans thought about it.
History has demonstrated that anti-war demonstrations seldom if ever end wars. It is antiwar candidates who get elected to office who end them. How many anti-war candidates ran for office during the Vietnam War? And how many won their election?
And You concluded: “PS There is a reasonably high probability that had there been no draftees and only volunteers at My Lai, the incident would never have been reported and we would never have known about it.”
PS: A “reasonably high probability” based on what?
And the person that first reported and then exposed the My Lai Massacre was Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, Jr ~ the pilot of the helicopter that interrupted and then terminated the Massacre. He retired as a Major after 20 years of active duty service. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr. ]
A volunteer military is a mercenary military.
Soldiers are no longer soldiers, they are being transformed into Genocide ready mindless drones.
Here something I wrote.
https://mywisdom.substack.com/p/truth-be-told
Your focus on the importance of the law is vitally important. A warrior exists to wage war; in his life, the law doesn't matter. But a citizen-soldier is a citizen first; in becoming a soldier, he remains a citizen of a republic based on law.
For a warrior, might makes right is the law; the mantra is "I must follow orders, for I am a warrior." For a citizen-soldier, it's right makes might, where questioning orders is desirable and disobeying them is permissible when those orders are morally and legally wrong.
Thus the warrior ethos is perfect for sustaining genocide and other crimes against humanity.
Morality is the spine of the warrior, if he does not use it, than he is no warrior or soldier, he is just a merciless thug.
Yes. The warrior identity should include concepts like courage, honor, and morality. Too often, I think, the warrior identity degenerates to a mercenary mentality, where war and profit from the same is all that really matters.
They are not worth of the title of warriors or soldier, if their interest is just for the money and the kill, they are criminals in uniforms and just bullies, thugs and warwhores, lost souls blinded by their ignorance and greed, which don’t deserve to be called soldiers.
Too often we are accepting the unacceptable, and just look where it brought us.
Very well said, Sol Son.
I find the new U.S. Army ads very troubling. A female soldier fires some kind of large gun (I'm totally clueless as to what kind it is), making a big explosion and BOOM. A man (spotter?) looks through a scope and says, "Nice shot." It's a training exercise, apparently, but it just conveys the idea that there's so much pleasure in blowing something up. Makes me wonder if the same praise would be given if it was a live situation. Probably just me, but it freaks me out.
Isn't it nice to know a young woman can blow shit up too? This is today's DEI Army!
Equal opportunity destructiveness. Gotta love it! But for my part.....depressing. Hate to see women buying into that mindset. Bad enough that so many men do. ; ) And yes, that's a sexist comment. Mea culpa.
I may have posted this image before, but the sweet young blue-eyed "bomber girl" who is showing the Taliban what females can do reaches the limit.
It is at https://imgur.com/gallery/vVLmkap
That must be soon after 9/11, since the F-14 is retired. And it was strictly a fighter. The F-18 was (and is) the fighter-bomber.
I'm guessing "bomber girl" was flying escort missions for the F-18s that were doing the bombing. Not that the details are vital here. The newspaper wanted to sell the idea of a warrior-woman who dropped bombs. So that's what they wrote.
The F-18 was (and is) a fighter-bomber, but not much of a bomber compared to the A-6 and not much of a fighter compared to the F-14.
Sort of like the Swiss Army knife that does a lot of things but none very well.
Fortunately, there's no real threat out there.
I have no words.
"After nearly a decade of war, we don't need more "warrior ethos." What we need are disciplined citizen-airmen and citizen-soldiers who know their craft, but who also know better than to revel in a warrior identity. We knew this in 1942; how did we come to forget it?"
If I'm not mistaken there were long arguments during the constitutional convention on the dangers of a standing army. The second amendment was the result of those arguments which is precisely what you are advocating for in this essay. And now the"All volunteer army " is composed of more than 60% non citizens promised citizenship based on service. Something I find extremely troubling.
".....how did we come to forget it?"
Eisenhower warned us. We ignored him and went along with the consumer propaganda of the 60s till now which was hiding the MIC which was a large part of the"industrial complex". The MIC offered the best paying jobs by and large so citizens were unknowingly sucked into supporting it. Hindsight is 20-20.
And 40 years after Eisenhower warned us 9/11 and the "Patriot Act" gave us an endless "War on Terror" to spread freedom and democracy (translation "capitalism and oppression") throughout the world. The Patriot Act was the final nail in the coffin of the now buried Constitution and Declaration Of Independence.
Toma, I don't think this stat is right: the all-volunteer Army is more than 60% composed of non-citizens.
My quick check suggests the figure is about 5%. There are roughy 45,000 immigrants in the U.S. military (4/13/2023), and there are roughly 1.3 million troops on active duty. That's about 3.5%, but I think the % has creeped up recently.
Where did you see that 60% figure?
I don't remember where but it was a few years ago. Given the accuracy and truth of the media it may well.be wrong. I do remember lots of comments on it and it appeared in more than one place. It was one of those things that stuck in my mind because I was so appalled at it. It's like the Osama bin laden interview that NPR did prior to 9/11 . Disappeared.
Regardless of the percentage it should not be allowed. The US military is not the French foreign legion. The trouble today is the weapons systems are so sophisticated that a standing army/military is essential to maintain training and maintenance for the systems. Thanks for the feedback.
"National security" or "National insecurity"?
I think Mayor General Smedley Butler has something to say about this issue in WAR IS A RACKET (1935). The warrior „ethos“ in the U.S. military dates back to a much earlier period than you think.
Yes, especially in the Marine Corps. But in the 1930s the U.S. military was far smaller than it is today. Even so, it was a meddlesome force, as Smedley Butler knew.
MaJor General Smedley Butler provided an Executive Summary to his message in WAR IS A RACKET in a magazine article that same year as follows :
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents ."
The "all volunteer" army is a misnomer. When you are employed by someone, you are not a volunteer, you are a paid employee. When you make a career using your special skills, you become a professional. Our military today consists solely of professional soldiers who have chosen military service for a career.
Therefore, it is wrong to call our military an "all volunteer" army. Instead, it should correctly be called a professional army.
As an aside, when professional soldiers work for a foreign government, they are called mercenaries. Since most of our military deployments overseas are in support of foreign governments, shouldn't they be called mercenary forces?
It would be interesting to how many people who have enlisted in the US military since the end of the Draft actually made a career of the military. i'm sure those numbers are available someplace.
As opposed to how many enlisted, spent their time, learned a marketable skill that they did not have before, and got out of the military to take a job in the civilian economy.
Along with a lack of enlistments, part of the reason that the military is having problems maintaining its authorized strength in personnel is because more people are getting out ~ and not making a career of it ~ than are signing up to get in.
As wrknight pointed out here earlier, the last war America "won" that included conscripted "citizen-soldiers" was World War II, 79 years ago. That same military composed in part of “citizen-soldiers” lost Korea and Vietnam.
And that post-Vietnam "all-volunteer" military has lost every war since Vietnam, unless one calls Panama, Grenada, and Kuwait "wars.”
The primary reason America has lost every war it has engaged in since WW II is because it was on the wrong side in each of them. And deserved to lose.
And it is on the wrong side in its up-to-this-point merely “proxy” wars in Ukraine and Palestine, and will lose those wars, as well. Especially if [when] American combat troops get deployed into those theatres. Just like it will lose the war with China over Taiwan and the South China Sea; and for the exact same reason again.
One wonders if and when the American Peoples are ever going to get tired of losing all these wars. As long as they don't have to pay for them thru the magic of Deficit Spending ~ and don’t have to worry about their Kids being drafted ~ probably never,
Unfortunately, the professional, standing army encourages military adventurism. Remember Madeleine Albright's famous words to Colin Powell, "What's the point of having this superb military you are always talking about if you don't use it?"
On the Other Hand… :
Can anybody here at Bracing Views who favors an involuntary Draft for mandatory national military [or even civilian] service explain how that is not, in fact, a form of Involuntary Servitude, aka Slavery?
How is it any different from what this Nation allegedly fought a Civil War to officially ~ but not actually ~ “end.”
How is it any different from forcing a Woman to carry a Fetus that she does not want for full-term to the birth of a Child she does not want?
My guess is that as long as Americans can stay online, keep putting gas in their cars, trucks, and SUVs, and ~ if necessary ~ can afford to buy an Exemption to the Universal National Military, Civilian, and Community Service Draft for their Kid, there will be no difference.
Yes, it is a form of involuntary servitude, but I would be reluctant to equate it to slavery. It is a limited duration (2 years) involuntary service to the nation, not a service that profits the owner. That service is rendered in return for the benefits of citizenship which are many. It also provides protection for one's family as well as for the nation.
First of all, It is a "limited duration" form of Involuntary Servitude that can get a Draftee physically and/or psychological killed and/or maimed.
Second: Without all those GIs to use all those weapons, armaments, and ammunition in a war someplace, how would the MICC make a profit?
Third: How did the Vietnam Draft protect any Draftees' family and/or the nation?
And finally: What were the "benefits of citizenship" enjoyed by most of the Blacks who were drafted during Vietnam, be they from the Deep South, or like "Clean" in APOCALYPSE NOW, from "some South Bronx shithole"?
Maybe what needs to happen is not for the American Peoples to get tired of losing all these wars; but tired of their government constantly getting this Nation into another ~ and eventually lost ~ war. And then Do something about it.