OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS
Americans and Their Military, Drifting Apart
By KARL W. EIKENBERRY and DAVID M. KENNEDY
Published: May 26, 2013 44 Comments
STANFORD, Calif. — AFTER fighting two wars in nearly 12 years, the United States military is at a turning point. So are the American people. The armed forces must rethink their mission. Though the nation has entered an era of fiscal constraint, and though President Obama last week effectively declared an end to the “global war on terror” that began on Sept. 11, 2001, the military remains determined to increase the gap between its war-fighting capabilities and those of any potential enemies. But the greatest challenge to our military is not from a foreign enemy — it’s the widening gap between the American people and their armed forces.
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow Three developments in recent decades have widened this chasm. First and most basic was the decision in 1973, at the end of combat operations in Vietnam, to depart from the tradition of the citizen-soldier by ending conscription and establishing a large, professional, all-volunteer force to maintain the global commitments we have assumed since World War II. In 1776, Samuel Adams warned of the dangers inherent in such an arrangement: “A standing Army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the Liberties of the People. Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a Body distinct from the rest of the Citizens.”
For nearly two generations, no American has been obligated to join up, and few do. Less than 0.5 percent of the population serves in the armed forces, compared with more than 12 percent during World War II. Even fewer of the privileged and powerful shoulder arms. In 1975, 70 percent of members of Congress had some military service; today, just 20 percent do, and only a handful of their children are in uniform.
In sharp contrast, so many officers have sons and daughters serving that they speak, with pride and anxiety, about war as a “family business.” Here are the makings of a self-perpetuating military caste, sharply segregated from the larger society and with its enlisted ranks disproportionately recruited from the disadvantaged. History suggests that such scenarios don’t end well.
Second, technology has helped insulate civilians from the military. World War II consumed nearly half of America’s economic output. But in recent decades, information and navigation technologies have vastly amplified the individual warrior’s firepower, allowing for a much more compact and less costly military. Today’s Pentagon budget accounts for less than 5 percent of gross domestic product and less than 20 percent of the federal budget — down from 45 percent of federal expenditures at the height of the Vietnam War. Such reliance on technology can breed indifference and complacency about the use of force. The advent of remotely piloted aircraft is one logical outcome. Reliance on drones economizes on both manpower and money, but is fraught with moral and legal complexities, as Mr. Obama acknowledged last week, in shifting responsibility for the drone program to the military from the C.I.A.
Third, and perhaps most troubling, the military’s role has expanded far beyond the traditional battlefield. In Iraq and Afghanistan, commanders orchestrated, alongside their combat missions, “nation-building” initiatives like infrastructure projects and promotion of the rule of law and of women’s rights. The potential for conflict in cyberspace, where military and civilian collaboration is essential, makes a further blurring of missions likely.
Together, these developments present a disturbingly novel spectacle: a maximally powerful force operating with a minimum of citizen engagement and comprehension. Technology and popular culture have intersected to perverse effect. While Vietnam brought home the wrenching realities of war via television, today’s wars make extensive use of computers and robots, giving some civilians the decidedly false impression that the grind and horror of combat are things of the past. The media offer us images of drone pilots, thousands of miles from the fray, coolly and safely dispatching enemies in their electronic cross hairs. Hollywood depicts superhuman teams of Special Operations forces snuffing out their adversaries with clinical precision.
1 2 NEXT PAGE »
Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired Army lieutenant general, was the United States commander in Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007 and the ambassador there from 2009 to 2011. He is a fellow at Stanford, where David M. Kennedy is an emeritus professor of history. They are, respectively, a contributor to and the editor of “The Modern American Military.”
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on May 27, 2013, on page A17 of the New York edition with the headline: Americans and Their Military, Drifting Apart.
SAVE
E-MAIL
SHARE
Save 50% on a 16-week Times Subscription. Sale Ends 5/28. Act Now.
44 Comments
Share your thoughts.
ALLREADER PICKS
Newest
Write a Comment
cobblerUnion County, NJ
The need that the military might have for the draftees is so much smaller than the number of young men and women in each age group, that the chance of getting drafted will be akin to being hit by the car, and being treated the same - as a bad luck; the whole industry of draft avoidance will emerge. Much better will be introducing a year of the universal national service for everyone at age 18 or 19 - for those that wish it may be in the military (and may be followed by the enlistment for the professional service), for the rest doing all sorts of things that society needs but that are not done because of the costs - from improving the parks to graffiti removal to driving the elderly to their doctors' appointments. Most importantly, being forcibly put in a socially desegregated environment (for many) for the first time in their lives, and helping achieve the well defined and productive goals, our youths will feel being something bigger than themselves and their circle of friends...
May 27, 2013 at 8:39 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
Kevin BrockWaynesville, NC
I would argue that the first development in the widening gap between Americans and their military started at the beginning of the Vietnam-era draft, where those with the means to attend college could essentially buy their way out of military service through student deferments. Many of those who took advantage of such means of avoidance went on to figure prominently in decisions to embark on a fool's errand in Iraq, misleading the American public and the world about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
That said, as a veteran, I grow weary of those who thank me for my service. Instead, write your elected representatives and demand fully funded health care for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. That is the thanks they deserve. Veterans health care, including decisions about Agent Orange from the Vietnam era, and PTSD today, are seen as something the veteran has to prove in order to earn, rather than as a basic right. This care is simply one more budget item to be cut, rather than a moral obligation. We must take care of these veterans, no matter the cost.
May 27, 2013 at 8:38 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
BillCharlottesville
You write of morality. What about the morality of forcing people to kill total strangers or face being killed by them? If there's a national lottery for national service, working in hospitals, the fire department, teaching, etc., that's one thing. But to compel someone to take part in mass butchery or its constant threat (which when you get past the fife and drum is exactly what the military is), to rob someone of their own moral and intellectual agency - that is repugnant to both humanity and the concept of a free society.
This is a flawed, forgetful argument that mentions the end of the draft after Vietnam without remembering the trauma and destruction it wreaked on every aspect of American society, how many thousands of young men had their youth forcibly ripped from them by a misbegotten war and two presidents more concerned with their place in history than the lives they destroyed. Just like regulations, these changes happen for a reason. They are a necessary reaction to wholly unnecessary injury. We must not forget why we have them, or the danger of pretending the reasons for them never existed.
May 27, 2013 at 8:38 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Pat ChoateWashington, Va.
Excellent piece.
A no-exceptions draft of young people into the military or into alternative public service would been many beneficial benefits for our nation and the individuals. Among those, rich and poor alike would mix, which is socially useful in a democracy, and increasingly does not happen. Young people that went to deficient schools could get a remedial education. People could learn how to work together in a structured situation for common goals. And a strong political pressure would be exerted over our politicians to take us into war only as a last resort.
May 27, 2013 at 8:38 a.m.RECOMMENDED1
BruceSan Jose, CA
I am not worried as much by a chasm between the military and the civilian population as I am between the administration's rule-by-fiat with their non-military domestic enforcement cadre, on display as the "police" part of DHS, standing watch over, observing, and recording of, and the civilian patriots who peacefully demonstrated at IRS offices last week throughout this country.
Many soldiers, large numbers of whom have been relieved of duty, have publicly sworn to never raise arms against the domestic civilian population. We hear no such assurance from DHS. This *IS* the domestic force "equivalent to the military in size and budget," which Obama called for. A force clearly not directed towards threats from outside our borders, or even those domestic groups and organizations who have advocated and performed acts of terrorism within the country. They have, instead, singled out groups who have shown no tendency in action or speech to pursue terroristic activities.
With Obama declaring an end to the war on terrorism, what remains the purpose of the Division of Homeland Security? Shouldn't they be disbanded now? Actually I intended to say *NOW!*
May 27, 2013 at 8:38 a.m.RECOMMENDED1
usmc-foSomewhere in the Maine woods.
One of, if not the best, piece of writing and thinking I have seen on this topic since I first started ranting about the abolition of the draft, for crass political gain, since, oh, 1973. Perhaps the establishment of the all volunteer forces had yielded, with its access to incredible technological innovation, an armed forces of unparralled proficiency, but it has done so at the expense of real citizen involvement in the actual price of any military engagement and, I feel, encouraged a largely disconnected ease on the part of serveral administrations to use force in situations that were not really necessry, productive, or certainly not in the best interests of the nation.
May 27, 2013 at 8:38 a.m.RECOMMENDED1
GI-BabeUK
Good article.
I'm not sure if a return to the draft is the best idea but we do need some form of a national service. I would prefer that it include some type of Civilian Corps component in lieu of military service. Especially one that would address our nation's growing substandard infrastructure!
Another note that is briefly mentioned is that as the disconnect between the citizen and Soldier grows, so does the obsequious worship of the individual Soldier.
It's totally creepy. I'm a Soldier & I'm always surprised at the almost total veneration of "the Soldier" by people who have no experience with the military. It's like being a super-hero. It shouldn't be like that. It's impossible to live on a pedestal!
May 27, 2013 at 8:37 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
steven milhauserFt Myers, Florida
A return to the Draft is essential to get this country back to a diverse make up of the armed forces. The enormous diversity of the drafted military gave all elements of society the opportunity to mingle together, breaking down pre assumptions of parts of society by having to work together and actually finding that they had more in common than not. In my case I met a great guy from the Bronx, New York City, named Carlos Hernandez. We hit it off right away. We are still best friends. I went to his sister's wedding and meet his family. They are wonderful people. I consider myself fortunate to have the chance to meet Carlos. He is the brother I never had. The Draft is of enormous importance to preserve the sense of some sort of national service as an obligation to be fulfilled as a requirement to be part of America.
May 27, 2013 at 8:37 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Chris McMorrowWaltham, Mass.
This is an amazing editorial for Memorial Day. I agree with everything, particularly the suggestion of reintating a partial draft, not for those with no options or in need of a military-paid education, but for richer Americans whose vastly superior education can be put to good use in matters of US protection.
War today has eerily morphed into a highly technological but still dangerous experience that most Americans see--if they see at all--as one big game. Like an X-box game, a 3-D movie, a trivial pursuit to be played for a few hours or so and then abandoned to more important matters like local sports. This all started, in my view, with the Gulf War which so many of us watche on TV, as SCUD missles exploded in air and folks watched Giants-Buffalo Superbowl punctuated with interviews with soldiers at the front.
World Wart II was the last war that engaged the entire nation in its cause. Tomorrrow I depart for 2 weeks in Paris interrupted by 2 days in Normandy to tour the beaches. I'm rewatching Band of Brothers and struck by the innocence and fear of those who sacrificed for their country.
We've not only lost the connection between the military and civilian life, we've also lost any sense of collective sacrifice. What is true of the miltary is also true of just about every matter of civic discourse. Unless more citizens take ownership of their country, they will lose it. Liberty is precious as we remember the fallen today, and all days.
May 27, 2013 at 8:17 a.m.RECOMMENDED11
MichaelNorth Carolina
Verified
I agree with every syllable Janet Ellingson wrote, but I will have a go at this from a slightly different angle. Today's US military is, like manufacturing, increasingly automated. While in theory I agree with your premise that reinstating the "up close and personal" relationship between citizens and the military would serve to slow the rush to war, I don't think sufficient numbers would be directly involved in a way that brings home the horrors or the utter destruction of war. In fact, it is reasonable to expect the number of "soldiers" required to prosecute ever more humanly devastating wars to continue to decrease. And while I would like to believe that we Americans will somehow come to question the need for a "standing army" and perpetual war on purely philosophical and humanitarian grounds, in my opinion the only way to bring about such a reexamination is by directly levying the cost of war on the taxpayers, letting them see in stark detail just how many of their tax dollars go toward war and "homeland security", the benefits of which are increasingly difficult to perceive even as many of our children go hungry and our infrastructure deteriorates. The sad fact is that war is now reduced to just another video game, with personal risks and costs considered remote. Unless that changes nothing else will.
By the way, note the irony of the news item on the vast amount to be spent on nuclear weapons running alongside this column in today's NYT .
May 27, 2013 at 8:17 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
Matt ConnollyBoston
Such timidity in its solutions! The problems are neatly identified; the cure is lacking. The draft must be brought back in its full glory. It served three essential purposes: giving all of us a stake in the game; bringing a cross-section of civilians into and out of the military; and most importantly letting young Americans interact with other young Americans from other sections of the country.
The forced association of strangers brought about understanding and acceptance of others ideas; it gave us a country so unlike we have today where people worked together on more common issued. The universality of it made us reluctant to send known quantities off to die where today we send of strangers. The constant flow in and out of civilians tempered the military's isolation.
Technically we are far ahead of the world, in operation we lag far behind. Of what use is the cost of maintaining our vaunted Navy with nuclear subs and 11 massive aircraft carriers or out "Above All" Air force; to what purpose do they serve in our war against terror.
Time to rethink the whole paradigm. Time to think first of solving problems without the tools of war. Time to ensure if we war we all join in; no more war with just the professionals and the unknowns.
May 27, 2013 at 8:15 a.m.RECOMMENDED12
bluegalTexas
We should get rid of our standing army, and go back to our constitutional "citizen army". If conflict arises, all should be required to serve in some capacity. Even some of our disabled citizens could serve in some capacities.
If not this, then every high school graduate, regardless of race, religion, income, etc, should be required to serve 3 years...even conscientious objectors could serve stateside at a desk, or overseas in a field hospital etc. No exemptions except for the severely disabled and perhaps some felonies. This would guarantee the service of the wealthy elites, the rural farm kid, and the urban youth, and give all citizens insight into military service, and keep the military firmly in the hands of its civilian population.
Either this, or end up as Rome, with an army made up of mercenaries with no loyalties to the U.S, willing to take it over if not given their way.
May 27, 2013 at 8:15 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
C.E.Sweden
Albert Einstein would rather give up his citizenship than yield to conscription, and he did. As a sixteen year old he emigrated to Italy to avoid having to join the armed forces that he despised his entire life. This is an example of how conscription forces a rift between the people and the military, not the other way around. It's a most vicious form of tyranny of the majority.
In Sweden, where I live, conscription was not done away with until just five years ago. I belong to one of the first generations who had a safe way of avoiding that waste of time, and possibly harmful experience.
Involuntary servitude should not be glorified as bringing the military and the people closer together. What conscription is, is action taken for the greater good without respect for the individual. But to my mind, as a foreigner, that respect, the foundation of "freedom and liberty", is at home in America. Conscription is natural in China, it was natural in Soviet Russia... but to use involuntary servitude for the greater good, in the land of the free?
To me, it doesn't make sense.
May 27, 2013 at 8:15 a.m.RECOMMENDED1
Paul A. MyersClaremont CA
I was a clerk in the operations section at Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam in 1970-71 including the beginning of the invasion of Laos. The army headquarters in Saigon was almost delusional in its goals for this operation and incompetent at its execution. The civilian leadership in Washington DC was clueless and appeared to believe it was on a different planet.
This pattern of not understanding the reality of where wars are being conducted was repeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lessons learned in Bosnia and Kosovo were simply ignored.
Over a century ago, the Admiral Mahan school of sea power warned about avoiding land wars on the Asian landmass. Vinegar Joe Stillwell's experience in China, a real thrashing in Korea, a slow-motion debacle in Vietnam, and now the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan suggest that the United States military is incapable of mastering geopolitical strategy on the Asian landmass and should reconfigure its military power around using sea and air power to maintain worldwide lines of commerce.
The US should downsize its military from 1.4 million to about 1 million, disestablish its land warfare divisions, and reorganize around sea and air power with powerful strike capabilities but very limited capabilities for operating on the Asian landmass. Time to defend our interests, not try to run an empire.
May 27, 2013 at 8:15 a.m.RECOMMENDED6
TournachonadarChicago
What also needs to happen is for Congress to act seriously to starve the fascist beast we have referred to as the "military-industrial complex" since the days of the GOP Saint Dwight Eisenhower. Americans feel that regardless of what their true needs are as individuals, they are behind several doors and many days late in a line to get any substantive help from the Federal government. Revenue that is being used as a political pawn with government employees being furloughed and all kinds of crass and petty economies being forced upon various governmental agencies and entitlements still continues to flow in an uninterrupted, disproportionate, obscene stream to our military contractors. Maybe the people needs to keep a watchful and jealous eye trained upon procurement instead of being told, "Too bad!" when it comes to the rightful fiscal support of their well-being and regulated economic playing field. Priorities need to change so that we begin to lose the fascist model of quasi-state monopolies whose existence is based on a symbiotic parasitism with their Congressional host.
May 27, 2013 at 8:14 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
Kenneth BergmanAshland, OR
"Here are the makings of a self-perpetuating military caste, sharply segregated from the larger society and with its enlisted ranks disproportionately recruited from the disadvantaged. History suggests that such scenarios don’t end well." --- K Eikenberry and D. Kennedy.
That's what happened in ancient Rome, where citizen soldiers were replaced with legions of professional soldiers and eventually mercenaries who were not even Roman citizens. One of their generals, Alaric the Goth, invaded and looted the city of Rome when he decided that his troops were not paid enough, initiating the final stage of decline of the Roman Empire. The same thing could well happen here, maybe with outfits like Blackwater taking over the military and even dictating who could be President, much like the Roman armies often chose emperors.
The authors are right to suggest that we need to return to draft by lottery in order to give our citizens a stake in the choice to go or not go to war. They're also right to say that we should have a "war tax" to pay up front for any conflicts that we engage in. These measures would in all likelihood reduce the willingness of both citizens and politicians to become involved in wars.
May 27, 2013 at 8:14 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
Bob GarciaMiami
The idea of re-instituting a draft is a bad idea and a naive one, in terms of unintended consequences. This would not limit military adventures. Instead, with a much larger quantity of cannon fodder from the draft, it would encourage our leaders to be ever more reckless in committing war crimes, squandering resources, and ruining lives. Multiple administrations over the last 30 years make this clear.
However, the suggestion of a surtax to pay for wars in real time has great merit. Especially if the surtax were only applied to corporations and if it were levied in such a way that their loopholes wouldn't kick in. Perhaps a flat surcharge on gross income (not profit) of any corporations grossing $100 million or more. You would see armies of lobbyists deployed so fast to stop wars it would make your head spin! Instead of being the most war-like nation on Earth, we would become one of the most peaceful!
May 27, 2013 at 8:14 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
Diane MazurDavis, CA
The civil-military gap persists because it is much too convenient for the military, for civilian leaders, and for American society. Many complain and assign blame, but there is no real lobby for change.
The all-volunteer model insulates our armed forces from questions and criticism. ("If you haven't served, you haven't earned the right to have an opinion.") Self-selected volunteers also insulate civilian leaders from the full breadth of American viewpoint on the use of military force. Finally, when we rely on an increasingly narrow slice of America to serve in the military, we insulate most citizens from the cost of unwise decisions. The real problem is that the civil-military gap works too well for all sides, and so few are serious about wanting to shrink it. "Supporting the troops" has become an exercise in avoiding facts, responsibility, and accountability.
If we do not ensure that the military is more representative of our nation, we will continue to suffer the consequences.
A law professor, former Air Force officer, and author of a book on the civil-military gap, "A More Perfect Military: How the Constitution Can Make Our Military Stronger"
May 27, 2013 at 8:14 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
DavePacific Northwest
The carefully-crafted sentence "Today’s *Pentagon budget* (my emphasis) accounts for less than 5 percent of gross domestic product and less than 20 percent of the federal budget ..." is misleading. According to the American Friend's Service Committee (AFSC) the projected 2013 budget for the entire military budget brings the figure to 60%, an enormous difference.
Rather than revisit the draft, the United States needs to rethink its entire foriegn policy based upon force of arms rather than diplomacy. The world does not exist, believe it or not, for Americans alone, and their bottomless thirst for oil, at all times and all places. And while butting out of the internal affairs of other nation's business may well annoy the arms manufacturers of the military-industrial complex, it will go a long way to prevent being entangled in the bloody morass of nation-building projects that seemingly go on forever.
Finally, rather than be concerned about "mnimum of citizen engagement" perhaps the concern should be with returning those citizens elected representitives to their sworn duties to be the declarers of war, not corporate shills obescient to a maximally-powerful Ceasar of an Executive.
May 27, 2013 at 8:13 a.m.RECOMMENDED9
VED from VICTORIA INSTITUTIONSDEVERKOVILA
All English nations are entering into a very dangerous phase. People from outside who do not share the common national antiquity, national passions and traditions are swarming the nations. Everything good that was done by the English nations in the years past would simply go into oblivion, and would soon become questionable actions. Even the US participation on the side of England in WW2 would seem quite a preposterous action. Moreover, as such international institutions like the International Court and such other things become taken over by the other nations, there is every possibility that English nation previous administrators would end up in the wrong side of international laws and possibly end up in the goal or even at the lower end of a noose, in some god-forsaken nation.
May 27, 2013 at 8:13 a.m.
R. A.New York, NY
I agree with Karl Eikenberry that there is an increasing gulf between the military and civilian citizens. I think the reason for this is because our government policy-makers, in the executive branch and congress, want it this way.
It is not an accident that the shift to an all volunteer army occurred at the end of the Vietnam war. The intense opposition to that war affected the citizen-solidiers of the army and made it more difficult to prosecute that, or any other war. With the change to a professional volunteer army, the pursuit of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq faced no such obstacle, and the Afghan conflict has become the longest war in our history. It is perfectly possible for the average citizen to go about their business without being affected by the wars we fight now, and most do.
The changes proposed by General Eikenberry would certainly accomplish the objective of involving civilians more in the military, but our top policy makers don't want that. As one of them (I think it was Karl Rove) observed, we are an empire now--what with over 900 military bases all over the world--and we need the freedom to act that a professional military brings, if we are to continue this way.
The real question is, do we want to continue being an empire, dominating the world through force, with all that implies? Can we possibly remain a democracy while doing so? History suggests the answer to the latter question is, no.
May 27, 2013 at 8:11 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
Steve FankuchenOakland CA
An important element left out is that the political and economic elites no longer consider the military an honorable profession, something one's family should participate in, service in recognition of what America provides for them. The generation of elder Kennedys and the elder Bush served and sacrificed. Many Congressmen had served or had kids who served. 20% of the current Congress have served in the military, down from 64% in 1981-1982.
Most significant is the abolition of the draft. The draft guarantees that a war will be discussed, opposition guaranteed if there is not fundamental consensus on the need for the war. Opposition to the Viet Nam War did not occur in earnest until middle-class white kids faced the draft and started coming home in body bags. In addition, it largely prevents a war, such as Iraq, where only part of society bears the brunt of the cost.
Congress, perhaps, bears the greatest onus as, for over sixty years, it has funded wars (Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan) it has refused to declare. The Constitution requires that wars be declared by Congress. Instead of assuming its most grave responsibility, Congress has punted on that, while expending huge, self-righteous energy nit-picking every political and judicial appointment.
May 27, 2013 at 8:11 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
Jason ShapiroSanta Fe
This article ignores some issues that make its recommendations unlikely. The draft was eliminated in large measure BECAUSE of Vietnam. Iraq and Afghanistan have merely nailed shut the coffin on a dead idea. Not only were there massive, anti-war protests demonstrating fundamental disillusion with the Vietnam War, but the military had grown frustrated dealing with millions of angry, unmotivated recruits who resented being forced to serve in a conflict they did not believe in. The Pentagon decided it could be more effective with a smaller force of volunteers accepting of the rigors of military life. The second point reflects the authors’ comment that the nature of military technology has changed. Weapons, communications, and support systems have become incredibly sophisticated, requiring much more time-consuming and expensive training to master. The last thing the Pentagon wants are millions of short-timers who will be gone in a year or at most two, whose training would either be incomplete or wasted. The idea of imposing a longer term of indentured servitude, say 3-4 years, is so politically unacceptable that I doubt that even a handful of Congressmen or Senators (who children virtually never serve in the military), would support such a proposal. Clearly the American public would not. In short, both the culture of the military and America in general have irrevocably changed making any move towards the authors’ suggestions practically impossible to implement.
May 27, 2013 at 8:11 a.m.RECOMMENDED1
SophiaChicago
A wise and provocative editorial, which should perhaps have included as well a reference to the emergence of "security services", ie mercenaries.
Apart from the divorce between regular military and the citizenry, it's occurred to me these private armies could in themselves present some issues here at home. It's bad enough that we have hundreds of millions of guns - how heavily armed and how secure are these "contractors" and their weapons?
As for conscription, I remember the days of Vietnam and would be loathe to return to such a situation. On the other hand, the editorial makes a strong case against the system we now employ. The fact that so few of the elite actually fight is a major issue, since it's the rich and politically or economically powerful who actually send us to war.
Perhaps we should all be "drafted" to serve in some capacity for a few years, not necessarily as soldiers but in some other valuable way, in which we'd learn not only skills but about aspects of our society that we'd otherwise never see or consider - the work of teachers, forest rangers, farm workers, people who keep our cities moving.
Unfortunately the whole idea of conscription seems to cut against the grain of a free society. But, so does the presence of a professional military class and especially, military that is actually private and works for a profit. And, as we become ever more segregated from one another maybe universal, national service isn't the worst idea.
May 27, 2013 at 8:11 a.m.
