Posted: 5/26/2006 1:18:18 PM EDT
|
I notice many of the veterans on this board are sons & grandsons of veterans. Do you think the US military, especially career, is a group of the same families, decade after decade? Or is the military a group of citizen soldiers like Ambrose's book Citizen Soldier? |
|
I think it's a class thing. Those who've fought or have been in the service have a realistic and certain look on life, and pass that down on their kids and so on and so forth. I live the same way my father and grandfather lived, my grandfather being a vet of WW2 and Korea and my father a civil servant of NY. I know the importance of my country, rights, obligations, so on and so forth from them. They had no problem stepping up ready and die, neither do I. My father didn't have a problem getting up at 4 in the morning to make him community a better place, neither do I. |
|
I voted for Warrior Class / I think we are moving towards a point in our history where it will become more of a Warrior class thing. It used to be that citizens from the complete strata of society would gladly and proudly serve as needed. These days, however, it seems as if certain segments of our culture view military service as beneath them, and leave that responsibility off on those that WILL accept that role. This gradually balkanizes things as expectations become more codified throughout the fabric of America and upper class and trust fund kiddies begin to see military service as something for stupid poor people. napalm (member of the warrior class since 1995)  Warriors come out and Play-ayyy!!  |
|
I wouldn't say a Warrior class exactly. I think it's more that America in general is (was?) a warrior culture. Even as recently as my childhood (I'm 33) there were very few kids who, by 8 or 9, were not taught how to use weapons & how to fight. Being good at fighting was considered the goal for every kid, not just "bullies" like these days. Fathers would teach us to never run from a fight & that cowardice was one of the worst acts possible. Hell, my stepdad even invited neighborhood bullies over a few times to jump me saying it was better to fight them than it was run from them, it worked too. These days parents never acclimate their children to violence in the ignorant hope that their kids will somehow live a life of complete peace, hence the current trend of these "soft", weak children. |
Now, why the Hell did you go and drag common sense into the debate??? 
|
The US was founded as a nation of "citizen soldiers". Our Guard and Reserve troops prove that the concept is as alive as ever. ETA: If you don't think so, I suggest you look up the A&E Network for the film about the Marines of Lima Company (3rd Battalion, 25th Marines), from Ohio. That Reserve unit lost 48 members in Iraq last year, which could have devastated their community. You'd be amazed at how the friends and families and community stepped up for these guys. |
+1 No Warrior Class, just a populace that's already sort of "preconditioned" to become fighting men. When the fighting is done, most go back home... not too different from the ancient Greeks. |
That's well said. My family were emigrants from England and arrived in Virginia in 1682. We brought with us the notion of militias; instilled in us by the British Army's needs for troops on hand but with little money to pay a standing army. My family, in the early days were for the most part farmers who belonged to a loosely organized militia. We fought in the Revolutoinary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. I have never heard a family member state that he felt like being part of a warrior class; only doing one's duty. |
I'd say there's a warrior class. Quite frankly, I have no desire to be "in touch" with 80% of the people of this nation. I'd also say that, given the nature of our governing system that we in the military are the most "in touch" with this country (or what it's supposed to be). To use Heinlein's analogy, the split between civilians and citizens is becoming more and more apparent in recent years. The Citizens are those in the warrior class - the civilians are the other 80%. While it is the civilian's right to be a civilian and I do not in any way hold that against them, they are not citizens. Call it an elitist attitude if you want, but deep down, you know it's correct. Matt |
Wow, that's pretty fucked. If my father had invited bullies over to jump me, I probably would have killed him in his sleep. |
It's not that that attitude is right or wrong, it's that it doesn't belong in America. |
|
I can trace my father's family back to a famous Revolutionary War naval hero. They fought on three sides of the Civil War from Minnesota, Georgia and Kentucky. Grandpa worked the coal mines during WWII. Dad did his two years during Korea until he got injured pretty good in a depot accident. I did nearly 24 years. |
lol, I never said I liked it  If he found out there was a bully around that us "normal" kids were avoiding he would invite the bully over, get us both out in the yard and say settle it now, then pay the bully if there was any damage to clothing & such. Most of the time I got stomped but it taught me not to run & not to give up.
|
No, I don't know that to be correct. We had a higher percentage of volunteers for Vietnam than we did for World War II. Our military is now comprised of 100% volunteers, most of whom will leave the military for civilian jobs. A good percentage remain in the Guard or Reserves. That is evidence that the "split" isn't nearly what you think it is and it isn't increasing. If that isn't a nation of "citizen soldiers", I don't know what is. Keep referring to science fiction authors. I'll stick with the "old white men" who created this country. Whenever you have a military of men and women who volunteer for military service, you're guaranteed to get a disproportionate sampling of the population. Men and women who've served in the armed services are much more inclined to the type of person that many of us gravitate toward. Perhaps you mistakenly view the small percentage of cowards, pacifists and refuseniks as representative of the larger population? You couldn't be more wrong. You use the remaining people who go to work, manage corporations, and overwhelmingly contribute funding for our military as some sort of punching bag. News flash: They're American citizens, as much as you are. Get over it. They might be preoccupied with their own lives and they may not understand or fully appreciate what we soldiers have accomplished, but you have no special claim to a special class of citizenship, regardless of what a science fiction author has told you. |
|
You mean that Science Fiction author who was a Naval Officer and graduate of the Naval Academy - you mean that one?!? Sure, I'll reference him and his fictional commentary on the nature of America.
I think you're missing the point I was making. Those who have served in the military, LEO, Firefighter, etc. have a very unique perspective on American culture. They pass this down to their children - just ask any child of a uniformed person, their childhoods are vastly different than those of the high school teacher's child (which is not to say either are bad). You asked if there was a warrior class within American Culture - there most certainly is. Only those who have served can know the true meaning of freedom (not to say they should get special priviledges, just that their unique perspective gets amplified throughout the generations). Why are there so few liberals in the armed forces (active, reserve or otherwise)? Because the warrior class is, for the most part, the conservatives. You say that Americans volunteer in droves. Sure, that's true - for the most part, CONSERVATIVES, volunteer in droves. Liberals, not so much. That is not to say they are unpatriotic - just that their "class" or their "culture" is different. I support their right to make that choice. But, in my opinion, there is a vast difference between the way we (conservatives - the warrior class, even if we are citizen soldiers) see America and our freedom and the way liberals see America. Matt |
HAHA! Do you even begin to realize the irony of your statement? Matt |
Maybe I'm a bit dense tonight but no I don't. What I'm referring to is the idea that soldiers should have more rights, a different class, like India. America is a classless society (in the strict sense at least), a welfare mother has the same rights, vote, etc. as an Army General. (Obviously I'm ignoring the privilege of money & such as, while it does have benefits, it's not a legal "class" separation) |
No, all the male Spartans were warriors; they were ALL in the Army. The helot class were not Spartans at all. |
From Wikipedia: "Spartan society in the classical period was rigidly divided into several castes, each with assigned duties and privileges. The smallest of these, with the most power and freedom, was the Spartiate elite. Spartiates were exempt from manual labor, and controlled the government of the state. Spartiate men were expected to prepare constantly for military conflict. Below the spartiates were the perioikoi, literally "dwellers around," inhabitants of outlying towns who carried out most of the trade and commerce of the city, since Spartiates were forbidden to engage in commercial activity. Further down the ladder were the helots, enslaved populations tied to the land and owned by the Spartiate families that owned their homes. In the late 4th century and later, a new class, the neodamodeis, arose. It seems to have been composed of liberated helots and former Spartiates who had lost rank." |
The perioikoi did not live in the five villages of Sparta. They were not Spartans; however, they usually accompanied them on campaigns. Each Spartan also had a helot with him to carry his stuff, prepare the camp, etc. In battle the helots would often join in as missile slingers and light skirmishers. The Spartans were a wonderful people. They held themselves apart from the perioikoi, helots and other Hellenes for over 700 years...that is more than Americans can say. |
Hence the term "class" or caste if you prefer. You take the term Spartans to mean only "the chosen ones of proper birth" therefore excluding the lower classes from the arguement when it should include those who lived in Spartan held territory who were considered lower forms of life by them. If you think it's a wonderful thing to have one section of society superior to others by birth then thats up to you but the Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". I'll live by those words rather than that of the Spartans who were, while incredible fighters, very elitist & brutal people. |
|
Warrior Class. The reality is, a sizable portion (if not majority) of all enlistees are 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation soldiers. the career combat arms soldiers (officers especially) are, I would guess, 2/3rds direct decendents of soldiers. I see this trend increasing. |
Of course the Spartans were brutal. If you were not brutal in that period, you were enslaved or dead. What I admire about them is their adhesion to their traditions and their people. Just look at the classic "self-hating Liberal"...they worship all other cultures except their own (especially if the culture is from a brown-skinned race), and have the stink of Suicide about them: racial, national, and cultural. Suicide is what Multiculturalism is about after all. I think suicide is bad and wrong. Only sick people think about suicide. Hence: Liberals are sick and should be ignored and their policies defeated. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"...does that include our beloved Illegal aliens? Eh? Do you not want to be superior to them? Do you not wish your culture to survive in America and not theirs? This is why I brought up the Spartans: they stayed a people apart...and remained Spartans for a long long time. I understand your point though. But if you let the lower classes gain influence in your culture, your own will be diluted and be lessened. Just look at the rise of the black "pimp/whore" ghetto rap culture...think that is making America better? Or the mexican ghetto culture...there is a reason Mexico is a Third-World shit-hole: its culture. I want as little of possible to take root here; what about you? |
Saying a particular point of view does not belong in America is rather unAmerican. Anyway, on one hand, I agree with you because I, too, am a product of the American socialist public school system. On the other hand, you must remember that, back in the day, the rights of the Constitution and so forth applied to LANDOWNERS. Those landowners were the ones who would generally go out and fight when the need arose because they had a stake in this nation. Those who did not own land were less likely to go and fight. The LANDOWNERS were the ones with all the rights and the priviledges. That changed over the years and the voting populace was dilluted with those who did not own land and had never served this nation because they had no stake in its direction. I think the idea that those who serve this nation (in whatever capacity) should be granted more priviledge is hardly that far fetched - it is simply going back to the way things used to be: While there is no requirement other than breathing to enjoy the benefits of freedom, there was a requirement, other than breathing, to actively participate in the government of this nation. Since land is at a premium and not everyone can practically own land, we need a new standard... the standard of service (which is by no means mandatory) seems good enough to me. But to allow the general person with no stake in the direction of this nation to vote? That is a recipe for the socialist BS we are now enjoying. Take a look at the blue vs. red on the voting map. Those who vote to destroy this nation with their socialist crap are, in general, centered in the cities and generally, those people do not own land, nor have most of them served this nation. Do you honestly believe that a welfare baby-maker has the same right to vote as an Army General who has dedicated his LIFE to this nation? I most certainly do not. The law may grant her that right, but I think a law such as that is an abomination. Is it really so much to ask that a man or woman dedicate two years to the Nation before being granted the right to vote or run for office? I do not think so. Is it really so much to ask that, if you are receiving your bread from the government that you relinquish the right to vote yourself more bread until you can get back on your feet? I think some of you, for all your exhortations of the "plan of the founding fathers," fundamentally misunderstand the actual premise upon which this nation was founded. Matt |
I once posted my idea for who should get to vote and got crucified. What I was proposing was a Graduated Meritocracy: those who sacrifice get to vote. At the basic level (vote for your State's representatives, and hold office): Complete your High School Degree, and do one year of local service. At the highest level (vote for your National representatives, and hold office): Complete a tour of Military duty. |
| I picked citizen soldiers. Both of my grandfathers are WWII vets - one Pacific theatre, one European theatre. My Dad is a Vietnam vet, and I'm an Afghan vet. None of us are or were careerists - we did our duty and came on back to build homes and families. There are certainly soldiers currently serving who have a long and storied family lineage in the armed forces, but they're not the majority. |
|
The main fallacy with the "Citizen Soldier" concept is that it falls mostly on the middle and lower classes. The rich usually do not serve (especially today). Thus, we do the bleeding, and the Elite sit back and make money. I don't think that is very fair. If todays "chicken hawks" Presidents, Senators and Representatives had their own children in the ranks (or, better yet, the POLITICIANS had to serve), I don't think we would be fighting all these wars. |
Throw in some serfs and you have feudalism (more or less)
While I don't disagree on the sentiment, many people have benefited this nation greatly with no military service. To disregard their contribution simply because they were not of the "Warrior Class" is short sighted & against the basic principals of this country
The country they made became the most powerful nation in history without ever resorting to your class based idea.... I'll take their word for it.
|
Which is why I said "service of some kind." It doesn't necessarily have to be military. Honestly, I don't think two years is too much to ask of anyone.
Their word was a class-based ideal. That is the point I am trying to make. Matt |
|
I believe in the warrior class model. As the liberals in education and society preach against violence & the military, even banning recruiters. It will be the military families teaching their kids a tradition of service who will be our next generation of soldiers. Sheepdogs protecting the sheeple. |
In your fantasy scheme, should there be different levels of "citizen" among the military? Should thoose that enlist but - because of circumstances beyond their control - spend their days in the proverbial "rear with the gear" be accorded a partial share of citizenship? I think that we should have a electoral system in which those that pay the most taxes have the most votes. Yeah, a ghetto-dweller would get a vote, but I would get a whole pile of votes. Is that reasonable? |
No. Chicken Hawks like Dick Cheney who never spent a day in the military would have a bajillion votes to your few. |
|
We have both... E-1 to E-4 (or E-5 in some of the technical MOSes with long contracts) is mostly made of folks who are getting out after 1-2 tours. Due to ROTC, a good number of 1LT/2LTs also fall in this category but not as many as the junior enlisted. E6 to E-9 and O-3 thru flag rank is generally where you find your 'Warrior Class' - basically, an aggregation of everybody who didn't get out after thair 1st-2nd term... As for me, I'm an outsider moving in -> I can't see myself doing anything else and if I ever do have any kids they will be strongly encouraged to at least join the military for a term, if not a career.... |
|
I'm going to go out on a limb and say... The military is a warrior class - but half of it is full of citizen soldier in the NG and Reserves. Hate me for saying this if you want, but most of America's greatest soldiers have been those who served when their country called - signed up to fight in a time of war. We should be citizen soldiers - a nation of men and women in good enough physical condition and intelligent enough to be trained into soldiers in a short amount of time. I don't know that this is the case anymore. The professional warrior class does have its benefits - it helps mold young men into citiizens who understand responsibility, punctuality and the value of hard work - but maybe most importantly that nothing runs on schedule and you have to depend on each other, not 'higher', to take care of you. Oh yeah, and also 90% of the things you do are meant to just fill time. Whatever you think - we have the greatest military in the world. I've trained with them and I'm a part of that machine (for a little while longer any way, till I have a medical MOS review board). ETA - think of ppl like Pat Tillman |
| I think it's a class thing. There are many people willing to step up to the plate, which is an honorable thing. They see the honor in serving their country (as I did). They keep that mentality throughout their lives. I believe that there is a trend towards thinking that military service is benieth them. Probably because of the recent good economy/good jobs (which has to reverse it's trend sometime, and I think it's headed that way at the moment). When good paying jobs are harder to find, and people are forced to see life for what it is (and that isn't $), they will realize the honor in serving. Just a thought, but $ blinds many people. Remove the $ and people will see things for what they really are. |