Post by mominatrix on May 26, 2015 12:08:45 GMT -5
SPECIAL REPORT U.S. MILITARY AND CIVILIANS ARE INCREASINGLY DIVIDED By DAVID ZUCCHINO AND DAVID S. CLOUD
Despite civilians' widespread admiration for troops, there's little overlap between their worlds
Congress with lowest rate of military service authorized today's wars, led by 3 presidents with no active duty
One-half of 1% of U.S. population enlisted — lowest rate since between World War I and II
Jovano Graves' parents begged him not to join the Army right out of high school in 2003, when U.S. troops were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But their son refused his parents' pleas to try college. He followed them both into the Army instead.
Last June, 11 years later, Staff Sgt. Jovano Graves returned home from Afghanistan, joining his mother, Chief Warrant Officer 4 Sonia Graves-Rivers, for duty here at Ft. Bragg.
"My family, going way, way back, has always felt so proud to be Americans," said Graves-Rivers, who comes from a family in which military service spans six generations, starting with her great-great-grandfather, Pfc. Marion Peeples, who served in a segregated black unit during World War I.
Her father, Cpl. Harvey Lee Peeples, fought in the Vietnam War. Her uncle, Henry Jones, was career Air Force. Another uncle, Sgt. 1st Class Robert Graves, spent 22 years in the Army. Her sister, Janice, served 24 years.
"In our family, there's a deep sense that being American means serving — showing gratitude by giving back to your country," Graves-Rivers said.
Multi-generational military families like the Graveses form the heart of the all-volunteer Army, which increasingly is drawing its ranks from the relatively small pool of Americans with historic family, cultural or geographic connections to military service.
While the U.S. waged a war in Vietnam 50 years ago with 2.7 million men conscripted from every segment of society, less than one-half of 1% of the U.S. population is in the armed services today — the lowest rate since World War II. America's recent wars are authorized by a U.S. Congress whose members have the lowest rate of military service in history, led by three successive commanders in chief who never served on active duty.
Surveys suggest that as many as 80% of those who serve come from a family in which a parent or sibling is also in the military. They often live in relative isolation — behind the gates of military installations such as Ft. Bragg or in the deeply military communities like Fayetteville, N.C., that surround them.
The segregation is so pronounced that it can be traced on a map: Some 49% of the 1.3 million active-duty service members in the U.S. are concentrated in just five states — California, Virginia, Texas, North Carolina and Georgia.
The U.S. military today is gradually becoming a separate warrior class, many analysts say, that is becoming increasingly distinct from the public it is charged with protecting.
As the size of the military shrinks, the connections between military personnel and the broad civilian population appear to be growing more distant, the Pew Research Center concluded after a broad 2012 study of both service members and civilians.
We've disconnected the consequences of war from the American public. - Mike Haynie, director, Institute for Veterans and Military Families, Syracuse University
Most of the country has experienced little, if any, personal impact from the longest era of war in U.S. history. But those in uniform have seen their lives upended by repeated deployments to war zones, felt the pain of seeing family members and comrades killed and maimed, and endured psychological trauma that many will carry forever, often invisible to their civilian neighbors.
Today's military enjoys a lifestyle that in many ways exceeds that of much of the rest of the country: regular pay raises and lavish reenlistment bonuses, free healthcare, subsidized housing and, after 20 years of service, generous retirement benefits unavailable to many other Americans.
Senior officers live in large houses, travel on their own planes and oversee whole continents with little direction from Washington. Special-operations teams carry out kill missions and drone strikes — some even targeting U.S. citizens — that most civilians never even hear about.
Now, as the military winds down its 14-year-war in Afghanistan and the Army cuts 18,000 troops from its ranks, military officials are stepping up efforts to bridge the gap between veterans and the civilian world they are preparing to rejoin.
"The last decade of war has affected the relationship between our society and the military," Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a commentary in 2013. "As a nation, we've learned to separate the warrior from the war. But we still have much to learn about how to connect the warrior to the citizen.... We can't allow a sense of separation to grow between us."
Dempsey's comments reflect a growing concern in the military that reintegrating service members into communities whose understanding of war is gleaned largely from television may be as difficult as fighting the war.
A military-civilian divide
"I am well-aware that many Americans, especially our elite classes, consider the military a bit like a guard dog," said Lt. Col. Remi M. Hajjar, a professor of behavioral sciences and leadership at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
"They are very thankful for our protection, but they probably wouldn't want to have it as a neighbor," he said. "And they certainly are not going to influence or inspire their own kids to join that pack of Rottweilers to protect America."
::
As she awaited her husband's Ft. Bragg homecoming recently, Amanda Schade gave her twin baby sons pacifiers printed with "I love Daddy." She checked her makeup, then held up two small American flags the Army had supplied.
Amanda spotted Spc. Aaron Schade among paratroopers standing at attention before a huge American flag at Pope Field. She whispered to her 3-month-old sons, Bruce and Ben: "That's your daddy. He's a hero." It would be the first meeting for the father and his sons.
A general announced: "Please go welcome home your soldier!"
Amanda rushed forward, a twin tucked into the crook of each arm. Aaron swept up all three. "I love you," he said. He cupped Amanda's face in both hands for a long, passionate kiss. She broke down and sobbed as the band played "The Army Goes Rolling Along."
These scenes play out across America as the troops flock home, but they happen behind the locked gates of military bases, largely unseen by the civilian world.
Increasingly, those bases have become fortresses. Base closures have consolidated troop populations onto a dozen large "joint" bases and other huge installations like Ft. Bragg, home to 55,000 soldiers and their 74,000 dependents.
Bases often feature their own shopping centers, movie theaters, restaurants and ball fields. Troops board planes for distant conflicts on their airfields and return wounded to their hospitals. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the bases are largely off-limits to civilians.
"Military bases are our most exclusive gated communities," said Phillip Carter, an Iraq veteran who directs the Military, Veterans and Society Program at the Center for a New American Security, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C.
The Schades, like two-thirds of Ft. Bragg families, live outside the base. But most of their neighbors are military or ex-military.
The Army's influence in Fayetteville is so pervasive — as in many towns near big military bases in America — that it's often hard to tell where the military ends and the civilian world begins.
A helicopter crash or deadly roadside bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan can bring Fayetteville to a dead stop. The news races across town in phone calls, text messages and tweets: Was it one of ours?
People mark their calendars with deployment departures and arrivals. There is a baby boom nine months after every big battalion or brigade arrives home. In the schools, graduation ceremonies are live-streamed to parents deployed overseas.
Yet only a 65-mile drive north of Ft. Bragg, in the college town of Carrboro near Durham, the military is a universe away. Many there have no connection save for the brief moment of gratitude and embarrassment they feel when they see a man in uniform at the airport, missing a leg.
"We glorify the military in this country in a way that's really weird," said Eric Harmeling, 21, a Carrboro-area resident who often argues with his father, a politically conservative minister, about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It's like the Roman legions.... It's like we're being told to kneel down and worship our heroes."
Jerstin Crosby, a former graduate student at the University of North Carolina who now works as a computer artist, said the only direct encounter with the military he can remember was when he taught a Middle Eastern art course to airmen at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, N.C.
He respected the airmen's knowledge of Iraq — some seemed to know it better than he did, for all his education — but was also sometimes baffled by them. Why, he wondered, did everyone on base stop their cars at 5 p.m. and stand at attention? Only later did he learn it was a daily show of respect as the nation's flag was lowered.
"I thought it was some kind of prank they were playing on me," he said.
George Baroff, enjoying an outdoor lunch at an organic food co-op in Carrboro one recent afternoon, said he understood the military quite well: He served three years as a draftee during World War II before eventually becoming a psychology professor in nearby Chapel Hill.
Baroff, 90, finds himself startled when people learn of his war record and say, as Americans often do to soldiers these days, "Thank you for your service."
"You never, ever heard that in World War II. And the reason is, everybody served," he said.
For soldiers today, the war is never over; the enemy is never defeated. [The result is] a state of perpetual anxiety that the rest of the country doesn't experience. - George Baroff, WWII draftee, psychology professor
In Baroff's view, today's all-volunteer military has been robbed of the sense of shared sacrifice and national purpose that his generation enjoyed six decades ago. Today's soldiers carry a heavier burden, he said, because the public has been disconnected from the universal responsibility and personal commitment required to fight and win wars.
"For us, the war was over in a few years. The enemy surrendered and were no longer a threat," he said. "For soldiers today, the war is never over; the enemy is never defeated." The result, he added, is "a state of perpetual anxiety that the rest of the country doesn't experience."
::
Increasingly, America's warrior class is defined by geography.
Southern states consistently provide the biggest proportion of recruits. California had the highest number of enlistments in 2013 — a total of 18,987 — but the state supplies a relatively low percentage of its 18- to 24-year-olds, the age group that fills the military rolls every year.
The highest-rate contributors were Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Virginia and South Carolina. The District of Columbia was last.
The military-civilian divide is not marked by particular animosity or resentment on the civilian side. In airports and restaurants, civilians thank men and women in uniform for their service. They cheer veterans at ballgames and car races.
What most don't realize is how frequently such gestures ring hollow.
"So many people give you lip service and offer fake sympathy. Their sons and daughters aren't in the military, so it's not their war. It's something that happens to other people," said Phillip Ruiz, 46, a former Army staff sergeant in Tennessee who was wounded twice during three tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Douglas Pearce, a former Army lieutenant who fought in Afghanistan and is now a marriage and family counselor in Nashville, said civilians seem to think they "can assuage their guilt with five seconds in the airport."
"What they're saying is, 'I'm glad you served so that I didn't have to, and my kids won't have to.'"
A military-civilian divide
Opinion polls consistently find that the military is the most trusted American institution. A Gallup poll last June found that 74% of more than 1,000 Americans surveyed had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the military — versus 58% in 1975, at the close of the Vietnam era.
Yet a 2011 Pew Research Center study titled "The Military-Civilian Gap" found that only a quarter of civilians who had no family ties to the military followed war news closely. Half said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan made little difference in their lives, and half said they were not worth fighting.
"We've disconnected the consequences of war from the American public. As a result, that young man or woman putting on the uniform is much less likely to be your son or daughter, or even your neighbor or classmate," said Mike Haynie, director of the Institute for Veterans and Military Families at Syracuse University in upstate New York. "That is a dangerous place to be."
::
For decades, young cadets in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or ROTC, were able to rub shoulders with civilians on America's college campuses. During the height of the defense buildup under President Reagan, there were 420 Army ROTC units. Today, there are only 275 ROTC programs.
At Stanford University, Kaitlyn Benitez-Strine, a 21-year-old senior, was scribbling notes in the back row of her modern Japanese history class recently, listening as her professor cataloged the misdeeds of the American military in occupied postwar Japan.
"People became increasingly resentful of the U.S. military presence," the professor said. "There were crimes by U.S. Army personnel — rapes and murders."
For Benitez-Strine, due to be commissioned as a U.S. Army lieutenant this summer, it was an uncomfortable moment. Her sister, a Marine, is stationed in Okinawa. Her parents were Army officers, as were many other relatives. She grew up in a military community near West Point. But she rarely discusses her background with other students.
Stanford, one of the nation's elite universities, has more than 6,000 undergraduates. Benitez-Strine is one of only 11 in ROTC.
She sometimes feels uncomfortable wearing her uniform on campus, as ROTC requires two days a week. Students "might think I'm a cop or something," she said. "Or they see me as a badass who can kill them at any time."
A 2013 survey by three West Point professors found that the estrangement between the military and civilian worlds is especially pronounced among young people. Many civilians born between 1980 and 2000 "want no part of military life and want it separate from civilian life," according to sociologist Morten G. Ender, one of the study's authors.
I often wonder if my forefathers were as filled with disgust and anger when they thought of the people they were fighting to protect as I am. - Unnamed ROTC cadet, in a West Point survey
On the other side, military recruits in that age range had become "anti-civilian in some ways," the survey found.
"I am irritated by the apathy, lack of patriotic fervor, and generally anti-military and anti-American sentiment" of other students, an unidentified 20-year-old ROTC cadet told the authors.
"I often wonder if my forefathers were as filled with disgust and anger when they thought of the people they were fighting to protect as I am."
Benitez-Strine is not as critical of her fellow students. Indeed, the more time she spends in ROTC, the less certain she is about a career in the military.
As part of her training, she spent a month following a captain, the commander of an Army maintenance unit at Ramstein Air Base. She was not prepared for the sometimes mind-numbing routine of Army life and the restrictions on her freedom.
Her unit was confined to base after a radio went missing, forcing her to cancel a sightseeing trip. And when a male enlisted soldier friended her on Facebook, he was disciplined and she was warned against fraternizing with lower ranks.
"I realized being in the Army is a lifestyle, not just a job," she said. Benitez-Strine recently decided to join the Reserves, rather than go on active duty, when she graduates.
::
The previous school year was a grim one here in Fayetteville, where the Cumberland County school district serves the communities outside Ft. Bragg. Between the beginning of the term in September 2013 and the following spring, six students committed suicide.
Five of them — four boys and a girl — were from Army families, with a parent deployed overseas. Two shot themselves with military weapons.
School Supt. Frank Till, who has been an educator for three decades, is more than familiar with adolescent anguish. But it wasn't until he came here in 2009 that he experienced the helplessness of trying to truly understand — and help — students and staff members who live under the spell of violent events on the other side of the globe.
"You can only imagine the trauma families go through," said Till. Teachers in his district have been pulled from class to be told that a husband had been killed in Afghanistan. He has consoled students who dissolved in tears because a parent had just departed for Iraq or Afghanistan.
"There's just incredible tension here," he said.
Yet the civilian community has been overwhelmingly supportive. Local churches and other religious communities pitched in to provide support for families devastated by the deaths.
It wasn't a one-time gesture: Church prayers here are routinely offered for the living — soldiers in harm's way thousands of miles away, or just back from the war and in the next pew.
"The only people we pray for by name in church are deployed soldiers," said Jean Moore, 52, who was born and raised in Fayetteville.
"Mothers and fathers across the country — they give their children to us to serve in the military and defend our country," said Tony Chavonne, 60, a former mayor of Fayetteville. "We have an obligation in the community to support that."
"War is not a political word around here," agreed his wife, Joanne, 54. "It's where our friends and neighbors go."
This is interesting to read. I am in this weird in-between place. My dad was military. All 4 of his brothers were military. A ton of cousins were military. About 50% of my graduating class is current or former military (or married into it). I have had no personal connection since Dad got out after his 20 years. He works as a fed, but that's as close as we get in my immediate family now.
I briefly considered joining in high school, but ultimately decided against it. But I get what the article means about the need to serve, and I think that may be what pulled me into the current job. I do get a sense of service out of it, and I think that does stem from my upbringing.
I also totally see the gap between the two worlds in a lot of ways, and struggle with figuring out what is "my place" between them. Interesting stuff.
On the other side, military recruits in that age range had become "anti-civilian in some ways," the survey found.
"I am irritated by the apathy, lack of patriotic fervor, and generally anti-military and anti-American sentiment" of other students, an unidentified 20-year-old ROTC cadet told the authors.
"I often wonder if my forefathers were as filled with disgust and anger when they thought of the people they were fighting to protect as I am."
This part struck me. I'd be interested to hear specific examples.
On the other side, military recruits in that age range had become "anti-civilian in some ways," the survey found.
"I am irritated by the apathy, lack of patriotic fervor, and generally anti-military and anti-American sentiment" of other students, an unidentified 20-year-old ROTC cadet told the authors.
"I often wonder if my forefathers were as filled with disgust and anger when they thought of the people they were fighting to protect as I am."
This part struck me. I'd be interested to hear specific examples.
this part is interesting to me as well... I think in other ways.
I think, to a certain extent, that "patriotic fervor" is seen as a bad thing in civilian society, while at the same time "against the war but supporting the troops" rings hollow in military society.
It's the end of your quote that has me more thinking, though... "disgust and anger" toward the people they are charged with protecting. There's an analogy to be drawn to SOME inner city police. And I don't like where that analogy takes me if I think about it too much.
On the other side, military recruits in that age range had become "anti-civilian in some ways," the survey found.
"I am irritated by the apathy, lack of patriotic fervor, and generally anti-military and anti-American sentiment" of other students, an unidentified 20-year-old ROTC cadet told the authors.
"I often wonder if my forefathers were as filled with disgust and anger when they thought of the people they were fighting to protect as I am."
This part struck me. I'd be interested to hear specific examples.
I need to give this more thought because my initial reaction is, "WTF are you talking about?"
A military that is becoming anti-civilian reminds us yet again to be thankful for a civilian-led military.
This part struck me. I'd be interested to hear specific examples.
this part is interesting to me as well... I think in other ways.
I think, to a certain extent, that "patriotic fervor" is seen as a bad thing in civilian society, while at the same time "against the war but supporting the troops" rings hollow in military society.
It's the end of your quote that has me more thinking, though... "disgust and anger" toward the people they are charged with protecting. There's an analogy to be drawn to SOME inner city police. And I don't like where that analogy takes me if I think about it too much.
The police analogy is what I had in mind (although I think we may be thinking of two separate police-related issues here) ... example, I was talking to an NYPD family right after the two NYPD officers were killed in December. They were discussing the Eric Garner protesters and public reactions, and they basically said that anyone who wasn't 100% in favor of the police and their actions (example, Eric Garner was a criminal, if he died from excessive force then he probably deserved it, and nobody should dare to protest it while cops are out there putting their asses on the line every single day) is 100% against the police and hates them and wants harm to come to them. It was ... not a fun conversation.
Like you said, there seem to be a lot of people out there that have a hard time realizing that protesting a war/police brutality does not mean a lack of support for the military/police themselves. I'm wondering if the ROTC cadet in the article is talking about something like this, or if he's experienced genuine backlash.
this part is interesting to me as well... I think in other ways.
I think, to a certain extent, that "patriotic fervor" is seen as a bad thing in civilian society, while at the same time "against the war but supporting the troops" rings hollow in military society.
It's the end of your quote that has me more thinking, though... "disgust and anger" toward the people they are charged with protecting. There's an analogy to be drawn to SOME inner city police. And I don't like where that analogy takes me if I think about it too much.
The police analogy is what I had in mind (although I think we may be thinking of two separate police-related issues here) ... example, I was talking to an NYPD family right after the two NYPD officers were killed in December. They were discussing the Eric Garner protesters and public reactions, and they basically said that anyone who wasn't 100% in favor of the police and their actions (example, Eric Garner was a criminal, if he died from excessive force then he probably deserved it, and nobody should dare to protest it while cops are out there putting their asses on the line every single day) is 100% against the police and hates them and wants harm to come to them. It was ... not a fun conversation.
Like you said, there seem to be a lot of people out there that have a hard time realizing that protesting a war/police brutality does not mean a lack of support for the military/police themselves. I'm wondering if the ROTC cadet in the article is talking about something like this, or if he's experienced genuine backlash.
yes.
I think the police analogy works in several ways.
From the "with us or against us" way. To "us vs. them" (them = the people you're supposed to be protecting). Heavily armed and trained force having outright contempt for the people they're supposed to be protecting.
...I don't like where it goes with (again, some) police. Seeing their citizenry as animals they're keeping in some kind of zoo, and it's kinda OK to shoot them dead if they're not 100% in compliance 100% of the time. And I hope to everything holy we don't see that kind of behavior from even a small % of the military.
I also hear a lot of my coworkers, NCOs who have been in since 2001-2005, really frustrated about Iraq, complaining that it's civilians who made them come home and it's all going to hell now. That they went for nothing because civilians like short wars with unstructured ends.
I, a civilian, never thought our troops should have been sent over in the first place.
And that is the reason why I don't encourage my friends and family to join. Not because I lack patriotism or "fervor" but because as far as I'm concerned depending on who is the POTUS, troops may get sent over to somewhere they don't need to be because the VP has ties to a contractor or something equally shady.
Maybe Stan, or someone else in the military or with ties to it, could speak to how the military feel about Iraq and why we went, or any other place where it seems the reasons to go could be sketchy. I've always wondered how people who are actually in the military feel about it.
I haven't fully fleshed this out in my head, but color me not surprised that some military personnel feel some kind of way about the platitudes they hear from some civilians, like "I support our troops, but not the wars." I mean, like it or not, that's basically saying, wow, cool that you're serving, too bad it's for nothing.
I also see a lot of the civilian population that sees patriotism as something laughable or weird. Many of the military I currently know (and grew up with) are extremely patriotic, so when people are eyerolly or condescending about it, that divide grows.
I'm sure my opinion will be unpopular here, but as a military brat with family currently serving, and a large amount of military friends, it's what I see and hear.
I haven't fully fleshed this out in my head, but color me not surprised that some military personnel feel some kind of way about the platitudes they hear from some civilians, like "I support our troops, but not the wars." I mean, like it or not, that's basically saying, wow, cool that you're serving, too bad it's for nothing.
I also see a lot of the civilian population that sees patriotism as something laughable or weird. Many of the military I currently know (and grew up with) are extremely patriotic, so when people are eyerolly or condescending about it, that divide grows.
I'm sure my opinion will be unpopular here, but as a military brat with family currently serving, and a large amount of military friends, it's what I see and hear.
I think this is really unfortunate and sad because I don't really think people are on different sides. I think, like everything else political, people have different visions but ultimately want similar things. Does that make sense? Like I don't think patriotism is at all laughable or weird. But I think people have different ideas of what "patriotism" is. And I can't speak for anyone else, but I really do think extremely highly of people who make that sacrifice. I really really do. But I honestly don't see the disrespect in thinking some of the things they are ordered to do, they shouldn't have been ordered to do. I know that people really do see it as flippant as you said but it's not always meant that way.
H and I are not bothered by people who feel like our military resources could be used more judiciously and effectively. I agree that there is a ton of waste in the military budget and our tax dollars would be better spent in several more productive ways.
But the more routine parts of life are where people fail to "walk the walk" when they say they support the troops. Don't post memes of FB about how much you support the troops and then talk about me behind my back when I go three weeks without mowing my lawn when MH is gone and I'm solo parenting 2 kids and pregnant. Don't exclude my kids from activities because you're afraid we'll move and you'll have to explain to your kid why her friend is gone. It's those smaller things that highlight to me how big the gulf between mil and civ really is.
There is a lot of civilian paternalism towards service members. Oh you poor, stupid dupe, it must be so hard. Personally, I find it very uncomfortable when people hear my husband is enlisted and they react with such pity. Awww, well I'm happy he's home and not deployed, they say, that must be so terrible. I mean it's not awesome but he is enlisted and deployments happen. If it's not him, it someone else.
My husband has a particular level of disgust for those who supported the military going but then to his mind have hamstrung any chance at actually finishing either. He feels Americans in general are patriotic enough for a war declaration but really don't support actual conflict.
The pity aspect imo is the worst part of military involvement and imo, that's where the gap comes from. You can't really expect service members to feel good about a general public who thinks them lazy, uneducated dregs of society who got duped into going overseas and ruining other countries.
I think there is a huge divide between the way civilians view the military as a whole and how they view individual service members.
And I'm not mad at ROTC candidates. The way they are treated on high school and college campuses is abhorrent.
I also hear a lot of my coworkers, NCOs who have been in since 2001-2005, really frustrated about Iraq, complaining that it's civilians who made them come home and it's all going to hell now. That they went for nothing because civilians like short wars with unstructured ends.
I, a civilian, never thought our troops should have been sent over in the first place.
And that is the reason why I don't encourage my friends and family to join. Not because I lack patriotism or "fervor" but because as far as I'm concerned depending on who is the POTUS, troops may get sent over to somewhere they don't need to be because the VP has ties to a contractor or something equally shady.
Maybe Stan, or someone else in the military or with ties to it, could speak to how the military feel about Iraq and why we went, or any other place where it seems the reasons to go could be sketchy. I've always wondered how people who are actually in the military feel about it.
I was in during 9/11 and the consensus at the time was we wanted pay back. People were ready to go. They were ready for the fight against Osama full on. I got out before the deployments started in 2003 but from what I gathered from my friends who were still in, they were ready to (finally) go but things changed when we went into Iraq. I heard from many of my friends that they didn't want to go to Iraq when there was unfinished business in Afghanistan. They didn't understand why the focus shifted.
Look, someone has to go. If you depended on people to only join when they felt the cause was righteous, we'd never have a standing military. The military that deployed during WWII didn't even deploy for righteous reasons.
The fact that we liberated concentration camps was a way to pat ourselves on the back later but Lord knows that wasn't why anyone went.
So yeah, I get annoyed that anyone would say, well don't join unless it's a good cause. It will never be and for some people, there is no cause that justifies joining the military. That's fine. But I think part of the respect I have for people who enlist** is that they agree to serve regardless of the politics. Military service is separate from politics. When you enlist, you agree to go wherever you are sent, for whatever reasons the government chooses to send you. And you do your job to the best of your ability with honor.
**as a whole, mind you, I judge individuals on their own merit. I might respect the decision to enlist but some personnel are dicks so that's as far as that goes lol
I have been in awkward situations where people have said they would never let their kids join. In one recent incident the person knew I am a veteran and she was talking about her son wanting to join the military. She said she told him not to which was fine but the way she said it with such disgust offended me and I am not easily offended. The way she said it made me feel like she thought so lowly of our military. I know she was saying it because she didn't want to be the mom who buries her kid. I get that but I was still slightly offended by the way she said it.
I work in a field that has a lot of current and former military and many of my friends are veterans or military so I don't run into much negativity toward our military. Wait, I take that back. My FIL has issues with the military. I can't even deal with him and those convos.
Sure, we need people for a standing military. Approximately half our federal budget does NOT need to go into the military, though. It's vastly bloated.
I think that is where the disconnect comes. I can be supportive of the troops, but I'm not going to fall head over heels thinking that everything in the military and government is hunky dory.
(I would let my kids join. I think it's a perfectly fine career to get into. I would also be aware that if they got hurt, or their mind seriously fucked, that they would find no help in the military services. That's true with almost any job, though.)
Sure, we need people for a standing military. Approximately half our federal budget does NOT need to go into the military, though. It's vastly bloated.
I think that is where the disconnect comes. I can be supportive of the troops, but I'm not going to fall head over heels thinking that everything in the military and government is hunky dory.
(I would let my kids join. I think it's a perfectly fine career to get into. I would also be aware that if they got hurt, or their mind seriously fucked, that they would find no help in the military services. That's true with almost any job, though.)
And that's fine but there seems to be no acknowledgement that most of that money does not go to service members. It goes to planes and ships and shit. Remember the bullshit about kevlar and armored vehicles near the beginning of the conflicts? The military manages to afford stealth bombers and shit but can't spare some change for IVF treatments.
To be honest, this talking point reminds me of food stamp memes.
Sure, we need people for a standing military. Approximately half our federal budget does NOT need to go into the military, though. It's vastly bloated.
I think that is where the disconnect comes. I can be supportive of the troops, but I'm not going to fall head over heels thinking that everything in the military and government is hunky dory.
(I would let my kids join. I think it's a perfectly fine career to get into. I would also be aware that if they got hurt, or their mind seriously fucked, that they would find no help in the military services. That's true with almost any job, though.)
And that's fine but there seems to be no acknowledgement that most of that money does not go to service members. It goes to planes and ships and shit. Remember the bullshit about kevlar and armored vehicles near the beginning of the conflicts? The military manages to afford stealth bombers and shit but can't spare some change for IVF treatments.
To be honest, this talking point reminds me of food stamp memes.
Most of it goes to contractors. I understand that. I think service members get the shaft because the money is going elsewhere. That's what I meant by the bloated comment and obviously didn't make myself clear.
H's parents are awful about this stuff too. They offered him everything under the sun if he didn't commission after graduation - an apartment in Manhattan, cars, cash, you name it. They emigrated from the Middle East in part to avoid conscription and they are just fundamentally incapable of understanding why anyone would ever join any military, unless you are dirt poor and it's the only job you can get. The rest of H's family all have the same degrees he does and work on Wall Street making 6-7figures. They cannot comprehend why he would turn his back on that in favor of the military. He would have to pay back 6 figures worth of training expenses if he opted to get out any time in the next 8 years, and they have repeatedly offered to pay it if he would just get out. It causes him a lot of heartache to know that his parents are not supportive of his career and aren't proud of him.
I've talked about this quite a bit with my husband. Aside from his BIL, we really don't KNOW any vets from the most recent military conflicts. In addition, with no draft and no real sacrifice at home, the US being at war is just another day as usual. Can you fucking imagine if the government rationed the amount of gasoline or beef people could buy today? No one wants to make sacrifices at all.
From my perspective, I find the whole troop / civilian thing really odd in this country. The British people don't really do patriotism - at least, not out loud - and we don't really do fervour either - far to repressed for such display lol. But most British people support and respect our troops. Now I am in the US, and I feel the same way. I am respectful and thankful.
But I would never join, US or UK, and would never ask anyone to, and actually feel like its not a good thing to do, because all the wars since WW2 have seemed to me to be...dubious. Profit motivated or whatever. I have no doubt some were essential, but its hard to say which. So while I admire the desire to serve the country, I think that pure and good thing is used by politicians to line their own pockets.
And the other reason is that I think the USA treats the troops abysmally. No one in the USA should be expected or asked to donate to the troops because the troops should not need donations. They should not need help with medical bills. They should not be homeless. All that shit should be covered - if someone is willing to risk their life for their country, the least that country can do is provide for them. I am pretty sure the UK does cover those things, as I have never been asked to donate, nor have I ever seem homeless vets. And obviously they have the NHS, so the medical thing is a non issue. Yet I have never heard a UK citizen thank the troops. And I hear Americans do it all the time. And it IS an empty platitude because if the people really cared about the troops they would not be so badly treated (as it seems to me).
And when you think of the last decades of wars that a) were dubious and b) were pointless and c) were certainly not "won" in any tangible sense, it is no surprise that people are not really into being part of the army unless they have family involved and are living that way.
The UK has a fuckton less vets though so it's decidedly easier to care for them.
Conditions were a lot different when the UK had a much larger standing military with a much greater presence across the world and in those days, the situation was fairly similar to here.
I also feel some kind of way about the great continuous propaganda machine that was and is WWII.
We basically sat back and let Hitler oversee the murder and torture of swaths of people, not just the Jews. We hung out and did a whole lot of nothing while Japan raped entire Asian nations both literally and figuratively. But then oh well, maybe now that our national pride is at stake we'll go ahead and get involved.
Maybe if we'd entered the fray earlier we wouldn't have been left with the dubious wars like those fought ostensibly to stop the spread the communist nations that rose up in the vacuum that was postwar Europe.
ETA: I'm not saying it wasn't worth it. I'm merely saying we shouldn't pull a muscle patting ourselves on the back so vigorously.
The UK has a fuckton less vets though so it's decidedly easier to care for them.
Conditions were a lot different when the UK had a much larger standing military with a much greater presence across the world and in those days, the situation was fairly similar to here.
its true we have less vets - and less people. I think the US could afford to take care of the troops if it was a priority for people...but its just not.
I, a civilian, never thought our troops should have been sent over in the first place.
And that is the reason why I don't encourage my friends and family to join. Not because I lack patriotism or "fervor" but because as far as I'm concerned depending on who is the POTUS, troops may get sent over to somewhere they don't need to be because the VP has ties to a contractor or something equally shady.
Maybe Stan, or someone else in the military or with ties to it, could speak to how the military feel about Iraq and why we went, or any other place where it seems the reasons to go could be sketchy. I've always wondered how people who are actually in the military feel about it.
I joined in 2013, so my opinion doesn't matter particularly. H always thought they should've kept the focus in Afghanistan. He's been to both. I do know that he and I both were wistful for a Marshall Plan, Iraq style, but we both knew that will never, ever happen again.
My thoughts on why we went back in OIF were based on the claims of WMD by Bush & Co. I did vote for Bush in '04, so I was a blind believer in "his" cause. My exH... he didn't quite share his thoughts on the matter. I think deep down he didn't agree with it, and it wasn't revealed until maybe '07 that he didn't support our being in Iraq. He joined in '01 and served twice in both Iraq and AFG. I did an about-face on OIF and OEF back in late '07. My whole thinking regarding the wars changed when the basis for holding those positions changed.
My exH enjoyed his work, but he wasn't exactly warm and fuzzy about our being there and the whys/politics/agendas, etc.
Post by EloiseWeenie on May 26, 2015 20:11:25 GMT -5
My H was a Marine, and we live in a Marine town, so pretty much everything locally is about the military. Usually, we are the odd ones out because we don't have base access anymore. Although the city is growing, we're lacking so many resources (i.e. pediatricians run out of vaccines and tell you to go on base, no public swimming pools or YMCA, etc.) because it's expected that everyone goes on base- which was fine when any old Joe could drive through, but it hasn't been that way in years. As Marines are getting out, there's a growing number of people like us who are staying locally, so I hope there will be more growth for local stuff outside of the gates.
It's night and day when we visit other areas, or our hometowns. Where we live, it's expected that you are serving or have served. If you are the rare person who has never served, they most likely are still a contractor on base, or work for a place who's main focus is supporting Marines. When we are elsewhere, it seems the military is forgotten (which may not be the case, but it's so radically different than a community that is totally military focused). Then, when someone is talking to H and finds out he was a Marine, they always thank him for his service (which makes him really uncomfortable). Then, they are like, did you go to war? And he tells them that he was in the Marine Corps band, and they say "oh" in a strange kind of way. I get it, because you picture a guns blazing Marine out in the trenches, but instead you have a guy who played 600 gigs/year. FYI the band does deploy, but my H never did.
From my perspective, I find the whole troop / civilian thing really odd in this country. The British people don't really do patriotism - at least, not out loud - and we don't really do fervour either - far to repressed for such display lol. But most British people support and respect our troops. Now I am in the US, and I feel the same way. I am respectful and thankful.
But I would never join, US or UK, and would never ask anyone to, and actually feel like its not a good thing to do, because all the wars since WW2 have seemed to me to be...dubious. Profit motivated or whatever. I have no doubt some were essential, but its hard to say which. So while I admire the desire to serve the country, I think that pure and good thing is used by politicians to line their own pockets.
And the other reason is that I think the USA treats the troops abysmally. No one in the USA should be expected or asked to donate to the troops because the troops should not need donations. They should not need help with medical bills. They should not be homeless. All that shit should be covered - if someone is willing to risk their life for their country, the least that country can do is provide for them. I am pretty sure the UK does cover those things, as I have never been asked to donate, nor have I ever seem homeless vets. And obviously they have the NHS, so the medical thing is a non issue. Yet I have never heard a UK citizen thank the troops. And I hear Americans do it all the time. And it IS an empty platitude because if the people really cared about the troops they would not be so badly treated (as it seems to me).
And when you think of the last decades of wars that a) were dubious and b) were pointless and c) were certainly not "won" in any tangible sense, it is no surprise that people are not really into being part of the army unless they have family involved and are living that way.
I grew up around patriotism and nationalism. My father is a former active duty Marine, and was extremely gung-ho, uber moto type. He still is. His father served in the Navy and his grandfather in the Army. I was raised on war movies and military culture... he primed me early on. I had a deep respect for the USMC, and almost joined. He loves the Corps. I have a few uncles on my mom's side that served in the military, and quite a few cousins. Military and its patriotism was what I knew.
My dad was ecstatic that I married a Marine (first H), but he was never the uber moto type. Like, at all. Musicians in the MC weren't known for their hard core spirit and enthusiasm. lol My exH just isn't the super moto type, and that never changed. During the early part of our marriage I was pretty darn patriotic. That kind of comes with the territory of being a right wing conservative. But years later, nope, couldn't stand all that military fervor and we made it a point to live 45 minutes away from base to get away from that life. The culture just wasn't us, and as a milspouse I always felt odd for not being uber patriotic and moto. We both developed a love/hate relationship with the Corps. There was plenty we liked about it and a lot we didn't. I stayed away from the drama of milspouse culture/clubs, etc. I no longer fit in.
My H was a Marine, and we live in a Marine town, so pretty much everything locally is about the military. Usually, we are the odd ones out because we don't have base access anymore. Although the city is growing, we're lacking so many resources (i.e. pediatricians run out of vaccines and tell you to go on base, no public swimming pools or YMCA, etc.) because it's expected that everyone goes on base- which was fine when any old Joe could drive through, but it hasn't been that way in years. As Marines are getting out, there's a growing number of people like us who are staying locally, so I hope there will be more growth for local stuff outside of the gates.
It's night and day when we visit other areas, or our hometowns. Where we live, it's expected that you are serving or have served. If you are the rare person who has never served, they most likely are still a contractor on base, or work for a place who's main focus is supporting Marines. When we are elsewhere, it seems the military is forgotten (which may not be the case, but it's so radically different than a community that is totally military focused). Then, when someone is talking to H and finds out he was a Marine, they always thank him for his service (which makes him really uncomfortable). Then, they are like, did you go to war? And he tells them that he was in the Marine Corps band, and they say "oh" in a strange kind of way. I get it, because you picture a guns blazing Marine out in the trenches, but instead you have a guy who played 600 gigs/year. FYI the band does deploy, but my H never did.
Nofucking way!? I rarely come across other spouses whose husband is in one of the Marine bands! I think you may be the third. Are y'all stationed at Parris Island? My exH was stationed at MCAS Miramar when he was in the band. That was before he latmoved. He totally missed it (me, too) after the switch. They did a ton of gigs, lots of traveling, but he enjoyed it.
My H was a Marine, and we live in a Marine town, so pretty much everything locally is about the military. Usually, we are the odd ones out because we don't have base access anymore. Although the city is growing, we're lacking so many resources (i.e. pediatricians run out of vaccines and tell you to go on base, no public swimming pools or YMCA, etc.) because it's expected that everyone goes on base- which was fine when any old Joe could drive through, but it hasn't been that way in years. As Marines are getting out, there's a growing number of people like us who are staying locally, so I hope there will be more growth for local stuff outside of the gates.
It's night and day when we visit other areas, or our hometowns. Where we live, it's expected that you are serving or have served. If you are the rare person who has never served, they most likely are still a contractor on base, or work for a place who's main focus is supporting Marines. When we are elsewhere, it seems the military is forgotten (which may not be the case, but it's so radically different than a community that is totally military focused). Then, when someone is talking to H and finds out he was a Marine, they always thank him for his service (which makes him really uncomfortable). Then, they are like, did you go to war? And he tells them that he was in the Marine Corps band, and they say "oh" in a strange kind of way. I get it, because you picture a guns blazing Marine out in the trenches, but instead you have a guy who played 600 gigs/year. FYI the band does deploy, but my H never did.
Nofucking way!? I rarely come across other spouses whose husband is in one of the Marine bands! I think you may be the third. Are y'all stationed at Parris Island? My exH was stationed at MCAS Miramar when he was in the band. That was before he latmoved. He totally missed it (me, too) after the switch. They did a ton of gigs, lots of traveling, but he enjoyed it.
He was in the 2 MarDiv out of Lejeune. He misses the brotherhood, but not the work, LOL. He refuses to pick up his trumpet to play. I think he only has a few friends who are still in the band, since most have changed MOS.
Post by Queen Mamadala on May 26, 2015 20:41:21 GMT -5
EloiseWeenie, my exH and I PCS'd to J'ville for his lat move/reup. That was his last duty station before he got out a couple years ago. We hated J'ville (New River), but really enjoyed Wilmington.
My exH feels the same. It was about the brotherhood for him. The politics and a lot of the other crap, meh. He played the tuba.