I spent five years in the Air Force. Posts like this are really helpful, a lot of Americans are disconnected from members of the military, especially in the upper classes where people do not need to serve, or in fields (like tech) where people can often find less intrusive ways to pay for college. My favorite part of the article is dispelling the myth that in the military senior people bark orders, and don't ask for feedback, and subordinates dutifully carry out those orders. None of those is true. There is a time to "shut up and color" but that is by far the exception. For the young people on here, I can't tell you what to do, but I can tell you serving in the military was a positive experience for me.
All of that is true about my Army experience lol. If I could go back and do it again, I'd definitely choose Air Force. I agree that the military can be a positive experience and it's a good idea for some people, but the caveat with my endorsement is that you gotta carefully choose the branch and the job.
I almost chose linguistics, but for some silly reason chose mechanic and paratrooper, and wouldn't you know it I ended up with injuries causing me to walk with a cane in my 20s.
> All of that is true about my Army experience lol. If I could go back and do it again, I'd definitely choose Air Force.
Yes, it varies wildly based on branch, different units or battalions/brigades etc, and which MOS (job) you are. Or if you are enlisted or officer. I had a leadership change in my company over a period of like 6 months where all senior enlisted and officers changed, and it was like night and day different. Very micro-managed. It was like being back in Basic Training at Ft. Benning, insane. This ruined it for me, I chose not to re-enlist. I do really miss a lot of camaraderie, and every point in the "Why do I do it?" section of the article resonates very strongly with me.
I'd also chose Air Force or Navy instead of Army if I did it over again. Better training. More impactful missions I think for my MOS (Satcom). Not sure it would be available though, Navy and Air Force don't have as much "room" for folks then (2011) and especially now.
As I understand it, space force is doing ramping up by keeping the same Air Force people in the same Air Force desks off the same Air Force building and changing their uniforms and insignia.
> you gotta carefully choose the branch and the job
yes absolutely. I'd even say "the job" is the most important part. There are Army jobs that are pretty good, and there are Air Force jobs that are pretty bad.
There's a saying in the Navy I was told from day 1 at the recruiter's office:
Choose your rate, choose your fate.
Your choice can be the difference between getting out after 4-6 years and easily making six figures, or struggling to find employment at $35k. Not to mention your lifestyle while in and other side effects of your service like PTSD.
For sure, speaking for the Navy (though I'm sure the same applies for the other services as well). Cryptologic/electronic/nuclear fields are all known to be cash cows after getting out. Granted, you need to score well on your ASVAB, especially for nuclear fields. But the ASVAB can be studied for and is probably the easiest of all the standardized tests someone that age may face in my experience.
Not asking for myself. I am a high school English teacher, and I am currently helping a young man with his application to the academy. He is committed to the Air Force either way, but I try to pass along any information that I come across (with the caveat, of course, that I don’t know what I’m talking about).
I joined Air Force active duty for a 4 year hitch when 9/11 happened, and was in the Air National Guard for a few years after my initial enlistment. I mention that because some things may have changed since I've been out more than a decade, but I don't think they have. Individual job descriptions do change though, so I will only give high-level advice rather than specific AFSC/MOS.
I went into Satellite, Wideband, and Telemetry Systems, commonly called SATCOM (although we did have wideband terminals like the TRC-170 and the GRC-239 TSSR). It could be lucrative with the right experience, but for most people it wasn't (although I was able to get a civilian job pretty easily with the skills/training but it wasn't highly paid).
The Air Force has deepened their cybersecurity expertise quite a bit, and even has some great opportunities for enlisted airmen. That can be a very lucrative field when you get out (and is also badass while you're in, from what I'm told). This is a very lucrative field if you're good at it, and still a good living even if you suck. Before doing this, be confident that the person considering this would be able to get a TS/SCI clearance. Read the requirements and make sure they aren't disqualified. If they've smoked pot before but no longer do, they have never smoked pot ;-). If can't get a clearance, opportunities in the service will be limited and some specialized training will not be accessible.
Some people will say "linguist" but it has not been my experience that that is all that usable outside the military unless you want to work for State (US State Department). If you are really, really good you can find lucrative opportunities though.
Anything nuclear is also pretty good if you can get it. Aircraft mechanic can be good, but the number of employers isn't huge and you'll work your ass off while still in the service.
From experience, nuclear is not good. The career field has some of the lowest morale in the whole DoD, both officer and enlisted. Postmil options are only available if you have advanced degrees and are highly geographically limited (national laboratories, some contractor sites)
Speaking as an Army Cyber guy who is also a reservist (about to get out, so FWIW); the Army Cyber programs are not good. The (US) Army Culture is bad, very bad. Sure, if you're intelligent and enterprising you can have a path to getting some awesome training; however, the reality is most of the Army is really, really, really dumb. Senior Leaders at the G-Staff level (O6 & >) will have very little understanding of the value to the mission, will constantly think Cyber <> Tech. are interchangeable disciplines and will be FAR FAR more focused on how high you can score on the fitness test than your actual ability to do the work (mission).
The missions I've gotten to be a part of were awesome; however, I could have experienced just as much "cyber knife fighting" in the civilian world had I taken that track (perhaps more, because less rules) and I would have had a lot less bullshit.
Now, I'm a physician, and I'd say this - my residency was more bearable than the last 19 years in the army guard. I'm happy to be getting out soon, and while I will miss the friends I've made, I won't miss the organization as a whole.
I'll say the unpopular but hard truth. Relative to other nations, US DoD Cyber Forces by and of large part are woefully inadequate and unprepared for the real cyber fight. Sure, bright exceptions exist at the 3 letter agencies, and the occasional few people in the uniformed services - but these folks are rare, and they rarely stick around long. There is a lot of Cyber "showmanship" and BS, and most people are dis-incentivized from telling the truth about how bad at is - because they all want the prestige to help them attract high paying civilian jobs. I get it. But, I'll say the US taxpayer should be very concerned about how so much money was spent for frankly so very little.
The average US Army Cyber soldier can't even explain how an exploit works, technically. Moreover, they have a complete lack of cloud training or concepts or really any depth at all. Yet, they have all convinced themselves that if "cyber 9/11" happened - they'd somehow be useful to civilian companies, city governments and utilities beyond getting the people who know what they're doing some coffee. And this is a shame, because 15 years ago the potential existed for this to be much better; but a lack of new leaders who understand tech, greed and the DIB machine have made the situation unbearable.
I feel sorry for the United States. We could have done so much better, but real systemic change in the Army seems absolutely impossible. I still hear racist, homophobic and sexist jokes on the regular - despite the big push for "zero tolerance". The DOD hasn't, and likely won't ever change. It is simply too big and too slow and too entrenched.
Plenty of options. Any sort of intel field, lots of technical or mechanic fields -- some of them like fixing F-18 radars, are serious door openers; even diesel mechanics can do well as a civilian -- and plenty of less shooty roles, like dental or x-ray technicians, electricians, satellite techs, etc.
I know dudes who went into the AF and USMC and ended up as programmers, to include 1+ years of coding training.
Meanwhile the infantry guys end up as cops or security guards, lot of the logistic guys end up as truckers, etc.
Everyone wants to get into the Air Force, so if you are applying to say subsidize your medical education, you’ll find that there aren’t many openings; so most people tend to opt for the Navy. The Army is the last choice for most people.
This goes back to assignment of conscripts in WW II. Since the end of the Cold War, spoilsports have noticed that one reason the old German army did so well was that they got a higher proportion of high-quality recruits than their UK or US counterparts. The US and UK needed navies to fight the war, and they also gave their air forces a higher priority for recruits relative to their armies.
I’m not sure that’s relevant to even Gen X’ers. I think the real answer is which branch of the military is more notorious for abuse with their members. Historically, it tends to be the Army.
Your biggest issue was choosing to be a light wheel mechanic in an airborne unit. If you think survival rates for combat dropping troopers are bad, I'd hate to show you the actual percentage of HMMWVs that drive away from a drop zone.
YMMV, but I was Army too. And everyone I dealt with was an adult.
At the absolute end of the Cold War we were on the ground crew for a demonstration jump for some Soviet generals. The wind was too high for a safe jump but, Soviets, so they jumped anyways.
Two arty cannons and a Sheridan tank burned in because they got swaying enough to collapse their shoots. Plus three chalks ended up in the trees also due to the high winds.
They (luckily I wasn’t on the hook and ladder crew) spent the rest of the day recovering the parachutes from the trees while we just tried to not draw attention to ourselves so we didn’t have to help with the recovery operation.
Only time I ever saw heavy drops go wrong and I was on ground crew many a time — there were a couple times we did have to scatter because one was landing right where we were standing but those things are easy to see even on a night jump.
It's the military term for Humvee - the huge vehicle that was popular for a while when gas was cheap. Or rather "hum vee" is how it is pronounced and the civilians spelled it phonetically.
> If I could go back and do it again, I'd definitely choose Air Force
Aye, I hear that. Mixed experience, overall. I did signals intelligence stuff in the USMC and if I'd have to do it again I'd go back and be blue-water Navy.
Were these injuries in training or in War ? I thought that paratrooper training was made really safe nowadays with extensive basic training done by Sergeant Airbornes in the BAC course. (assuming US)
Airborne training is "safe" in the sense that they thoroughly teach you all the steps and do lots of ground training before getting in a plane. But by no means does that mean your body won't get wrecked by doing jumps.
The parachutes are designed for combat: their goal isn't a soft landing, it's to get you out of the sky as fast as possible.
I was stationed in Alaska. Wintertime jumps were a toss-up in terms of landing in a big pile of snow — or solid ice.
A few things in play here. Each job has certain quotas they have to fill. Too many of one job will make advancement nearly impossible which prevents people from moving up into leadership positions and will eventually cause a shortage when those that can’t promote decide to leave. Recruiters have quotas too, like 2.5 recruits this month or at least one female this month, etc.
Your ASVAB score and likelihood of qualifying for a clearance are also considered. You can join the military without being a citizen (and can get expedited citizenship), but your job prospects will be limited to non clearance jobs, for example.
When you go to the Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS), you are put through a bunch of medical tests and once you are cleared for entry, you go on to negotiate the job you want. This is where you have to stick up for yourself. The recruiters there, who you don’t know, will try to push you one way. For instance, I wanted IT which I was told was full. Instead, I was offered “deck seamanship” which I was told let me get a feel of different jobs which I could the “strike” (apply) for. It sounded good, but I really wanted IT. I stood my ground and said I wasn’t in a rush and I could wait until IT opened up. They aren’t letting you out that door if they can help it, and I magically got IT with a signing bonus no less.
Come to find out deck seamanship meant I would be chipping paint and repainting the ship and other really hard grunt work. By the time I would have struck for another job, my peers would have been promoted years ahead of me. It helps to talk to a vet or have them go with you when talking to the recruiters. The recruiters don’t always lie, but they do sometimes only reveal the information they think is important.
Is "IT" in the military the same as citizen professional/corporate? As in, mostly "administrator" level work or is it more expansive? I'm just curious in the sense that it either may be all encompassing like programming too, or perhaps things I never heard of. Just curious, thanks! I appreciate the reply.
I'm guessing you can do the ASVAB before "signing on?"
Somewhat. If you say choose to be an electrician, and it’s later found you are colorblind, you will be placed somewhere. When I joined the Navy, I was given the rate of AV, which doesn’t really exist at the lower ranks. After joining (read contract already signed) I found out that I would be an AE.
"My favorite part of the article is dispelling the myth that in the military senior people bark orders, and don't ask for feedback, and subordinates dutifully carry out those orders. None of those is true. There is a time to "shut up and color" but that is by far the exception."
Based on my limited knowledge, I think it's highly dependent on the leaders in the unit. I have a friend who always dreamed of being an naval aviator, went to the academy, and served for several years as a pilot. They are leaving due to the political BS of the organization and poor leadership by those in command. My relatives' experience back up similar experiences - up to and including the extreme example that an XO overrode a maintenance officer in order to bark orders that work needed to be done in a way that was contrary to documented procedures and resulted in loss of life (in training no less). Basically 9/10 leaders range from decent to excellent. That other 1 is the one that can make your life hell or get you killed with little to nothing you can do about it.
> They are leaving due to the political BS of the organization and poor leadership by those in command.
I have a brother-in-law (a chief) leaving 3 years prior to retirement for the same reason. Except it’s exactly the opposite. They’re not allowed to yell anymore, have a lot of limitations on punishment, and have to accept things like enlisted being late to work. They’re leaving because they think the military is on a downtrend and can’t control the high schoolers under their command.
There has to be more to this story. You don’t walk away at 17 because you are annoyed at having to do the paperwork required to get someone properly punished rather than doing whatever you think is best.
For reference, I’m a 21 year Chief with time at Squadrons, Ships Company, USMC commands, and a few other places.
If you can’t stand waking up everyday because of your job then at some point mental health steps in.
Since you’ve been there for 21 years, I’m sure you’ve seen the changes as well. Is the Navy the same as when you started? The crossing the line ceremony for instance. When I was in, they had to have permission to haze you. Nude mermaids are no longer on the certificates as well from what I understand. Many little things changing since he joined is what did it.
How does basic training even work now in this post yelling world? I was called “Porky the Pig” in basic. It forced me to exercise much more than threat of some fake arrest.
> How does basic training even work now in this post yelling world? I was called “Porky the Pig” in basic. It forced me to exercise much more than threat of some fake arrest.
As a non-military guy, this is what I've always found really nuts about military institutions. In normal life, people do an extraordinary array of difficult and uncomfortable things, and generally learn a whole lot for specific roles in their workplaces, without anybody raising their voice.
In normal life, an organization that bullied its employees in the way that's routine for militaries would be considered extremely dysfunctional, and you would expect to see extremely dysfunctional and toxic people flourishing in that atmosphere.
The point of bootcamp isn’t just for you to learn how to do this or that, it’s also about breaking you of your individualist civilian mentality and molding you into a soldier/sailor/marine/airman who can put the mission and their fellow service members above themselves. Being yelled at is negative reenforcement and quickly helps you understand your mistakes. Camaraderie also flourishes when you all hate your drill instructor. When you get out and join the real military, you often think back some drill instructors as the “stern but fair” types.
Navy bootcamp was surprisingly easy. You quickly figure out what they can and cannot do, how many push-ups you have to do before they’ll let you up, how long they can make you PT, etc. We still had people who couldn’t handle it and were sent home. It was probably for the best. The military isn’t always easy and it really helps to be resilient. If someone criticizes you for doing something stupid and accept that you did a stupid thing, or you can’t let it go, you may not get very far.
I know the logic, it's just, I don't think it makes that much sense any more. Fighting wars has become an increasingly technical occupation in the last couple of centuries. Therefore, a technically capable soldier who is cowardly, individualistic, and occasionally insubordinate would be, in some roles (say intelligence) superior to one who was none of those things, but didn't have the technical skills or aptitude.
Realistically, a ship is a big machine, so it would make more sense to prize people that fit the typical 'conscientious engineer' profile, warts and all, even if those people are going to be pretty awful at traditional soldiering. These kind of roles have absolutely proliferated over the years, and it makes zero sense to prize physical fitness and ability to follow orders in a lot of them.
Imagine if you were a hiring manager for a gigantic industrial complex with cutting edge technology, producing a delicate and high-stakes product, in a environment that often demands extreme creativity and imposes severe timetables. Except all your hirees have to be able to do twenty pushups and be OK with being shouted at by some guy in a big hat. That's the literal situation of human resources on an aircraft carrier, and it's insane.
This entire paragraph reinforces what's mentioned elsewhere: that modern people are completely divorced from what the military is actually required to do and how it does it.
Why does every person on an aircraft carrier need to be physically fit, follow orders, and be able to put others or the mission ahead of themselves? Because under fire, in a casualty (fire, flooding, etc.) those technically apt, out of shape people die and get other's killed. I need to know you can put on the SCBA, carry smoke curtains and hang them, etc. No, we don't have dedicated fire fighters or casualty handlers; in a SHTF situation everyone needs to pitch in. There isn't room for dead weight.
To go further, I haven't found that those "conscientious engineer" profile people are even worth the time. The people who we get into the jobs are often far more competent than you would give them credit for, while still being fit and capable of taking orders. We get plenty of that profile in my jobs (I used to be one if I'm being honest) and though they excel at the technical aspects of the job they are so bad at everything else that's required that they often end up getting hurt or getting others hurt even in daily activities. Performing demanding technical tasks (like running software updates on a linux distro, only the bash script is corrupted so you've got to understand WTF is happening, pull the required info from the aircraft's systems, slip it into the patch so it will be authorized, then push it manually) in 40lbs of safety equipment on a flight deck with moving ordnance and launching/recovering aircraft is something we need a well rounded person for, not a prima donna.
Basically you are making an outsiders mistake of thinking you understand what's required to make that ship function. If you are interested in learning what's really required there are any number of people in this topic that would likely be happy to tell you. I'm one.
My feeling is that a lot of people work in dangerous workplaces, where mistakes can and do kill people. The miltary is one of those workplaces: if you look at the stats[0] you can see that ordinary workplace injuries absolutely dwarf combat-related injuries.
Even in wartime[1], the number of deaths from enemy action rarely exceed those from accident.
What makes this worse is that the military is a pretty dangerous workplace. Even in peacetime, the US military typically loses more people to accidents than any other profession (I suspect a lot of this is down to people being 'on the job' even when they're not, but even accounting for that, the stats are bad).
If you compare the military to other institutions that do similar things the military doesn't look good. If you have an underperforming car plant that keeps on maiming employees, and the last two car models were both hideously expensive flops, then you don't go around telling people that they 'don't understand' the special requirements of your institution. You reform. I think a lot of the people in the US military are on that page already (judging from the stuff I've read about the upcoming overhaul of the marines), but in general, I think militaries would be better off if they were way more open to civilian criticism.
We are absolutely open to criticism; my point is you don't even know WHAT to criticize.
Your entire argument is predicated on a flawed understanding of what we do and the resources we have to do it.
Note that I'm not saying we are perfect (or even close), and there are so many things we could do better I could write a book, but you are moving goalposts rather than addressing the points I brought up.
The plain and simple fact is that the things we do and the conditions we do them under aren't analogous to anything in the civilian sector (with some very small exceptions) and need to be looked at and understood as such.
I'll be the first person to tell people they probably shouldn't join, but it has nothing to do with this particular argument that you are making.
> my point is you don't even know WHAT to criticize.
Yeah, sure. That's what I'm responding to with all the stats. The nice thing about numbers is that they are fungible. Anybody can read a chart and tell you the US military is really bad at workplace safety, whether or not there is a war going on.
It's a bit like the US police force. You can show a bunch of figures to a LEO, and the figures for law enforcement in the US are worst in class - the US spends more and gets less from its police than almost any other nation on earth - and they'll just say straight up that you don't understand their jobs, not realizing that the figures clearly show they don't understand their jobs either.
Now, the US military is much better than the US police force, but there's the same underlying problem. It doesn't have to fix its problems because there's no soldier's unions, there's no competitor coming in to eat its lunch, and the only oversight is the worst kind of political interference.
If I was in the military, I'd see it Iraq and Afghanistan as a golden opportunity for reform, just as the Sino-Vietnamese war was for the chinese PLA. You can use defeat as a bludgeon against entrenched tradition. It's no good in that situation just saying to outsiders that they don't understand your special requirements - you want to actually encourage academics, journalists, etc, especially the unsympathetic ones, to pitch in and try and work out what went so awfully wrong.
The first step in that would be to absolutely draw every parallel and draw every lesson you can from the civilian sector, because that's your testing bed for organizational strategy. That's what people like Robert MacNamara did in WW2 - they took civilian traditions like accountancy and statistics, and applied them to the USAF, to devastating effect. If you're in a situation where you feel like there's some experiential special sauce, it needs to be absolutely pinned down, quantized, and described, so you can work out how its effecting all the other metrics.
I think what you wrote makes perfect sense and I could get behind not caring so much about some standards for some positions. What would you propose for the support jobs like “Culinary Specialists” or “Logistics Specialists”?
My thinking is that a peacetime military is basically a skeleton that needs to be able to be rapidly fleshed out when it becomes necessary. That's not exactly a novel thought, but I think there's a lot of room to explore when you stop thinking about fighting wars, and start thinking about how to build the machine that builds an army (preferably within weeks) if a war breaks out.
European countries can be quite good at this: the whole logic of Finland's conscription system is to have it so that if a war breaks out, you can mobilize the whole nation within a short time, and everybody knows where they fit in.
In previous big wars, nations have typically just slashed their standards when the war broke out to meet manpower quotas. It would be better, generally speaking, to build an institution that can, in an emergency, use everyone. That would mean, in peacetime, working out if there are profitable places to put people to use, so when you get a deluge of asthmatic flat-footed civilians signing up because a big war has broken out, you don't waste time trying to make them into infantry.
Obviously, my view is informed by being a peacenik. If you want an army to do offensive, expeditionary operations on a budget, there's much less to change. Having a big and capable HR department would be important if you were going to get all the dysfunctional people in a country to fight in an actual war, but it would be better, in a small professional force, to just not induct anybody who doesn't meet a bunch of stringent standards.
At this point you are just trying to force fit your ideals to the real world. Please stop, you clearly don’t understand. the original post i made is clear, make your army hard. or lose your country. maybe you’re russian…
> As a non-military guy, this is what I've always found really nuts about military institutions. In normal life, people do an extraordinary array of difficult and uncomfortable things, and generally learn a whole lot for specific roles in their workplaces, without anybody raising their voice.
I've worked at large orgs, to include F500s and national-tier multinationals with plenty of yelling.
> In normal life, an organization that bullied its employees in the way that's routine for militaries would be considered extremely dysfunctional, and you would expect to see extremely dysfunctional and toxic people flourishing in that atmosphere.
Bollocks. I've worked with plenty of ruthless, absolutely out-to-get-you sociopaths in brand-name corporations that I'd bet most of you'd know. Just cuz there wasn't out-and-out yelling doesn't mean it was nice, and most were far more dysfunctional than the military orgs I was involved with while enlisted.
There is something to be said for not shying away from conflict and having it out.
I take your point, but if somebody called me a 'porky pig' in the first month of a new job, I'd probably a) quit, and b) assume the organization was seriously messed up. I'm not a particularly sensitive person, but I don't want to waste my time on an organization where high levels of interpersonal aggression is normal.
Intuitively, you'd expect organizations that have management styles that make everybody miserable to have high turnover and low productivity. That's why it doesn't make sense to me when militaries actively teach and propagate management styles that are, by normal standards, misery-inducing.
>I take your point, but if somebody called me a 'porky pig' in the first month of a new job, I'd probably a) quit, and b) assume the organization was seriously messed up.
Even if that job requires physical fitness?
As another stated, it's a good thing that such people quit basic training.
I was a Chief and got out at 16. They made me CMEO so instead of doing my job, I was handling Equal Opportunity and Harassment complaints, which are taken very seriously. When I was told of something, I had mandatory reporting timelines and had to send messages to big Navy, NCIS, etc. Nearly all of the complaints were from junior sailors who lacked the resiliency to withstand an ass chewing or were suicidal because their Chief made them work late correcting something they messed up. It was all very strange and it wasn’t worth the mediocre retirement pay. I am much happier as a civilian.
> an XO overrode a maintenance officer in order to bark orders that work needed to be done in a way that was contrary to documented procedures and resulted in loss of life (in training no less)
It seemed like a sore point so I didn't ask questions about it (form things I pieced together it sounded like they were injuried and their copilot, maybe others, died; in sounded like the XO probably didn't have any serious consequence or I think they would have mentioned it). Generally, I would only ask questions about the good stories they shared but let them just share what they wanted when they were not happy stories.
I signed up for 4 years for the US Army in order to finish college. Ended up doing 5 years for being stop lossed due to a deployment that got extended. When I joined I had 72 hours college under my belt, went in as a PFC. The reality of service is it is both the good as portrayed here and the shit experiences I know we have all had in the service. Would I change anything, no. Was it all cake, hell no. But I wouldn't change anything. The single best thing about service, that I think most people actually need in life, is the forced mega dose of reality, and how the military deals with it, especially when as a person you've refused to, and made it the militaries problem. Everything about my time in has helped me in my civilian life, except how to explain to people that they are denying reality.
I don't doubt your experiences, more generally the military is quite unreal - a world with very different cultures, rules, clothes, jobs; a world where you can exist without dealing with outsiders very often. There's almost nothing else that is quite so much a parallel reality. A lot of people leaving the military have trouble adjusting to real life.
The Military forces you to strip yourself of your preconceptions. To see things as they are. No lying to yourself, no lying to others, that is a great way to get called out, its expected and encouraged, but you better be right. The concept of this if foreign to civilians. Most civilians would be down right offended at the idea if questioning someone's beliefs, its expected in the military. INTJ's that I have met seem to do this naturally as Civilians but they are the exception. Academic debate, papers, also does this but the acts are again frowned on outside of that environment. After years of this Military members have a core belief system that has been striped and rebuilt, with all the fluffy civy nonsense discarded. All this happens during those in-between times in the Military, the times we spent waiting for the next event, training, location to be at, bullshitting to each other. Someone inevitably say's something so naïve or untrue, they get called out on it. This happens enough and you start examining yourself. You want to fit in, belong, your subconscious starts to reorient its self and realign your thinking.
I've recently came across what appears to be a pretty sober take on what is being a soldier about from Ukrainian soldier[0]. It's likely much different if one serves during peace time or away from the front lines.
Some reserve units in the US are highly technical too. I did a cyber education course at AFIT when I was in Air Force ROTC and there was a particular reserve unit somewhere in Maryland I want to say nearish NSA that had a lot of super smart security researchers that came to guest lecture us including Raphael Smudge (creator of https://github.com/rsmudge/armitage)
> a lot of Americans are disconnected from members of the military, especially in the upper classes where people do not need to serve, or in fields (like tech) where people can often find less intrusive ways to pay for college.
I think that's a serious problem. Americans have little idea how the US military works and tend to form extreme opinions, either glorifying it or villifying it - the former especially in the last 20 years or so but neither is at all healthy. When people understood the military - when we had a draft and a wide spectrum was personally familiar with it - we had popular entertainment like Gomer Pyle and MASH, and expressions like FUBAR and SNAFU. The military was seen as an enormous, absurd, powerful bureaucracy; people understood its limits and capabilities, and could make decisions about using it. Warfare was not glorified so much, but seen as the scourge it is, the last option, because many actually had experience of it. They also had skin in the game during a war, risking being drafted and knowing people who were. Now we fight the 20 year GWOT, send people on one tour after another, and many outside don't even realize there's a war on or wonder how it's going - but they do say 'thank you for your service' endlessly (a young relative in ROTC (US undergrad trainee program) was thanked several times wearing their uniform around town!).
Part of the problem is the narrow population from which the military recruits. In the US Army, 79% of recruits come from families which already have service members. [0] Consider that only a few percent of the population is in the military. Also, I read that the military does not recruit in - or puts very little effort into - major cities (though I can't find the cite now, and it was a few years ago). [EDIT: cite found: 1]
The flip-side is that with mandatory manpower for military adventurism, politicians and the military leaders who advise them have fewer reasons to temper their aspirations.
> Part of the problem is the narrow population from which the military recruits.
I wonder if this relates to how military service (not civilian-contractor roles) appear to have a bit of an, er, "sign your soul over and hope for the best" mechanic.
I dimly recall some event where some state was offering a "Try it for a year" promotion for their National Guard service, and the guy on it ended up being stop-lossed over to Afghanistan or Iraq.
>The flip-side is that with mandatory manpower for military adventurism, politicians and the military leaders who advise them have fewer reasons to temper their aspirations.
That's not really true. Open democratic societies that still practice conscription like Israel for instance, have a much higher level of civic engagement and understanding of foreign affairs amongst the average people. The population is ultimately much less tolerant of macho strong men and war mongering when they know what it looks like in reality.
>Israel uses their military heavily, so I'm not sure it will provide a great example.
Take a look at their neighbors. When you're surrounded by people who are ideologically bent on your complete destruction, paranoia is no longer an irrational response.
That changes the discussion from, 'do drafts in democratic countries temper civilian perspectives on the military' to 'is Israeli military policy justified'. Tangents happen, but what do you think of the former issue?
Israel? AFAIK Israel is increasingly radicalizing itself. Starting as an experimental European Socialists complete with communes and ending up rather jingoistic. Not an example I would use at all. I wouldn’t put all the blame on conscription as there are many other factors at play, but I also wouldn’t use Israel as an example less war mongering via conscription.
One issue with reserves, especially army. Through the iraq/afghanistan deployments BOG time was way up (ie, your service commit is not just that weekend a month). BOG = Boots on ground time.
In afghanistan Army deployments (both active and reserve) were far higher than other service branches.
My quick understanding is that normally they would like to target 1/4 BOG/Dwell time. So if you are thinking of reserves, particularly army, be asking, could I be gone 12 months out of 48, with potential for more?
I can't speak for other people's experiences but I did deploy to Afghanistan as a combat arms reservist in the Canadian army. Typically, you're expected to be overseas for 6 months but anything from 5-8 isn't that uncommon. Other roles had other expected deployment lengths. To prep for a 6 month tour involved full time training for about 8 months. This is the same training time the regular forces got and was done with them.
I think you may also underestimate the amount of training reservists do. To get fully qualified in my trade took over 3 months of full time training split up over a couple years. During my time in the reserves you'd do 1-2 evenings a week from September to May/June. You'd also have 1 weekend a month training for most of those months and 1 week long training exercise per year. During the summer, people who had the time could do full time work taking or teaching on courses.
> Is there data on how much real service one might be doing?
Not really ‘data’ but the last time I was in a combat zone there were mortars/rockets flying in on a daily basis, usually around chow time.
Also ‘safe’ jobs weren’t a guarantee. We were going out on a convoy mission and the reservists unit escorting us was short handed so just found a warm body to ride in the gun truck in the form of an office girl in the Air Force who had been in country three weeks and probably hadn’t touched a weapon since basic training.
Mission takes priority and if you need a body you find a body.
Also my last ‘real’ deployment was in a reserve unit and I wouldn’t recommend that to anyone. Zero discipline and we were a transportation unit so mobile enough to get into all sorts of trouble. We got out of there before things got really bad (our mission was over so they just sent us home) so there’s that.
Yeah that’s what I’m saying. If you’re going to do it and head into a dangerous situation you’d likely want to be with a bunch of people of professional mindset, not people who thought this would be an easy paycheck + health benefits.
Being in a transport group sounds horrible. Possibly taking orders from someone who doesn’t know where they’re going etc etc.
>> My favorite part of the article is dispelling the myth that in the military senior people bark orders
I heard Petraeus (I think) on a podcast and he said the biggest misconception by civilians about the military is you can just order people to do things, and the biggest misconception by the military about the private sector is you can just sack people.
I spent 4 years in the USAF and echo the same sentiment. Military service isn't for everyone but I had a positive experience and my decision to join remains one of the best decisions I ever made in my life.
> a lot of Americans are disconnected from members of the military, especially in the upper classes where people do not need to serve
Why do Americans need to be connected with the military though? What do you think the benefits of being more connected would be?
Many of us are disconnected from members of the constabulary, from members of the ambulance services, from members of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing, Pipefitting and Sprinkler Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada.
From a leftist perspective, it’s beneficial to have something like a draft because it forces all classes to confront the reality of our wars. Instead of how it is now when it’s mostly the lower class that goes to war.
The last draft we had was Vietnam, which was a PR disaster for the US military because middle class america saw (and experienced) the war for what it was: destructive and unnecessary.
I guess the difference is the sprinkler fitting industry doesn't result in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths the way a war does, so I don’t really care how the general public perceives it.
Really depends on your AFSC (job code), unit and era. I was in one of the more infamous career fields (Security Forces), and the running joke was that we were "real military" compared to the rest of the "Corporate Air Force". A lot of maintainers I knew had similar sentiments towards other office-based career fields.
And that was only at a stateside base - the dynamic got really weird when we deployed on in-lieu-of taskings to relieve understaffed Army units in Iraq. Their Military Police had a similar level of intensity as us, but most of their rank-and-file in the role were augmentees pulled from other career fields without a law enforcement background.
Posts like this are really helpful, a lot of Americans are disconnected from members of the military, especially in the upper classes where people do not need to serve, or in fields (like tech) where people can often find less intrusive ways to pay for college.
8% of the US population are veterans. 34% of the US population have a bachelors degree. That suggests to me that quite a low proportion of people use the military as a route to education.
"Enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Low-income neighborhoods were underrepresented among enlisted troops, while middle-class and high-income neighborhoods were overrepresented." [0]
"Military recruits mirror the U.S. population and are solidly middle class.
A recent report shows that more recruits come from middle-income families, with far fewer drawn from poorer families. Youth from upper-income families are represented at almost exactly their fair share."
Your source is inaccurate because it's for enlisted only. Upper class are far more likely to be officers or warrant officers.
My point stands: upper class serve more than lower class.
Thanks for providing some citations. The military.com link is to a military recruiting ad, and Heritage's business is generating talking points and 'research' for conservative/Republican policy (look at their front page).
Here's a report saying that 79% of US Army recruits come from families with service members. [0] IIRC, the military is overwhelmingly rural and does not recruit in major urban areas - which matches my experiece in major urban areas. [EDIT: 1] Also, the officer corps is overwhelmingly white people, afaik, in a country that is only about half white people in that age group. However, I realize I've only provided one [edit: 2!] good cite[s] myself!
>The military.com link is to a military recruiting ad
military.com is a news and information website that covers topics such as benefits to military members, veterans, their families and those with military affinity. Even if there are links to recruiting, this does nothing to refute the facts.
>Heritage's business is generating talking points and 'research' for conservative/Republican policy
Reality has a conservative bias apparently. The facts are here for all to see.
>Here's a report saying that 79% of US Army recruits come from families with service members.
Which is a meaningless statistic. This number could be the same across all income classes, or again, higher income classes could be overrepresented.
>the military is overwhelmingly rural and does not recruit in major urban areas
That is hilariously wrong. Your own sources shows Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Tampa, Atlanta, etc. all in the top counties for recruitment. "Blue cities" != "[all] major urban areas". Your anti-Southern bias is showing.
>Also, the officer corps is overwhelmingly white people, afaik, in a country that is only about half white people in that age group.
This is to be expected due to requiring a four year degree, among other things. Whites are slightly overrepresented in the officer corps. The US is 73% White (including Hispanic), and the officer corps is 75.8% White (including Hispanic). Asians are also ever so slightly overrepresented in the officer corps.
I can easily attack your source(s) as fake news outlets (New York Times especially), but I'm not going to use fallacies like you have here. Your sources simply do not back up your claims.
The richest quantile is overrepresented. The aforementioned report was compiled by Dr. Shanea Watkins, a policy analyst specializing in empirical studies.
Unless you have sources that claim otherwise, my original claim stands.
I think it’s fair for the person you’re replying @ to point out the heritage foundation is a self professed conservative think tank if you point out that you believe the NYT is not trustworthy. There’s nothing inherently wrong with being a conservative think tank but it’s important to consider how data presentation might be impacted by the person(s) presenting the data. Which is in line with your suspicions of the NYT.
I wouldn't be so even-handed. Asserting something is biased doesn't make it so; assertions aren't taken as fact or truth. Assertions are worthless and two assertions are equally worthless. I talked about the factual basis of my claims and the parent claims, not assertions.
>Whites are slightly overrepresented in the officer corps.
This is why whites were overrepresented as a percentage of troops killed in Vietnam, because so many young officers were killed leading platoons in the jungle.
My point stands: upper class serve more than lower class.
While that may very well be true, it i worth highlighting that the reports you are citing as evidence is looking at the years 2003 and 2006-2007, and a lot has changed, economically and politically, since then.
Also their cut off for "high-income" seems to be significantly lower than what most people would consider "upper class".
Because that is reality. $65k is where the richest quantile for neighborhood median household income starts, by census tract [0]. The linked report was compiled by Dr. Shanea Watkins, a policy analyst specializing in empirical studies.
Unless you have sources that claim otherwise, my original claim stands.
Or that just means that upper class doesn't start at the boundary of the top quantile.
I'm sorry but no stretch of the imagination has upper class as a couple making 33k/yr each. That's absolutely absurd. That's $16.50 an hour with no overtime.
Looking at it, upper class typically is the top one or two percent of the population.
The OP specifically mentioned "upper classes". It is a fact that the lower classes (lowest quantile) are underrepresented, and the higher classes (highest quantile) are overrepresented [0].
> “Upper class starts at $65k/yr” is peak Heritage Foundation.
Yes, peak facts that don't care about your feelings. $65k is where the richest quantile for neighborhood median household income starts, by census tract [0]. The linked report was compiled by Dr. Shanea Watkins, a policy analyst specializing in empirical studies.
Unless you have sources that claim otherwise, my original claim stands.
There might be good reasons to use that breakdown, but I still think referring to people with a household income of $65K as "upper class" is misleading.
There's also something a bit strange with this breakdown. The top 20 percent of households made more than $91,705 [0][1] in 2007. $65K appears to be the top 20 percent of census tracts. That doesn't seem right, though, because you wouldn't expect 20 percent of the population to come from 20 percent of the tracts, unless they're exactly the same size (which tracts are not), so maybe I made a mistake in interpretation.
The OP specifically mentioned "upper classes". It is a fact that the lower classes (lowest quantile) are underrepresented, and the higher classes (highest quantile) are overrepresented [0].
No need to be rude. It sounded like you were suggesting that if the two populations were merged, the underrepresented-rich effect would rise above the minimal level for enlisted alone (0.1%). And I’m saying it’s not going up by much.
The section of the report on officers starts at page 9, I’m looking at the graphs on pages 9, 10, and 11. If you see the data elsewhere, please share.
$65k is where the richest quantile for neighborhood median household income starts, by census tract [0]. The linked report was compiled by Dr. Shanea Watkins, a policy analyst specializing in empirical studies.
Unless you have sources that claim otherwise, my original claim stands.
Yes, and that data stops the grouping of household income at $87k and higher, which isn’t really that high of a floor, and is telling in itself. There are no further breakouts, such as 87-100, 100-200, 200+ because it would presumably be insignificant.
The link YATA1's been posting actually does [0]. About 3.46 percent of people enlisting come from households making more than $100K, although those households make up about 8 percent of the population [1]. In general, it looks like it matches the population more than the quintile breakdowns do.
Because that is reality. $65k is where the richest quantile for neighborhood median household income starts, by census tract [0]. The linked report was compiled by Dr. Shanea Watkins, a policy analyst specializing in empirical studies.
Unless you have sources that claim otherwise, my original claim stands.
They're even more rare in the military than in the general population. Firstly for the obvious reason - they don't need any of the benefits so they don't join. Secondly - someone that becomes that wealthy while serving (via a trust-fund, large inheritance, or winning the lottery) would no longer be a good fit for the military. They usually get offered an Honorable Discharge. However, if they still desire to serve the remainder of their term, they can place the money into a blind trust.
> someone that becomes that wealthy while serving (via a trust-fund, large inheritance, or winning the lottery) would no longer be a good fit for the military. They usually get offered an Honorable Discharge.
That's shocking. Where is this rule? Have you seen it happen? I didn't know wealth defined fitness for service.
The evidence is to the contrary--middle class and above are over-represented in the US military.
"Their median family income is more than $73,000, compared with $66,000 for civilians, and recruits are most likely to come from families in the middle of the wealth distribution, with median wealth of $87,000, almost $10,000 more than civilians."
This is for enlisted members. It's probably safe to have some intuition that officers will skew wealthier.
>Combat is for the lower classes, preferably rural poor
(Former 11A here)
This kind of glosses over a lot of cultural reasons for why you find "rural poor" in combat branches. For a lot of the folks in my platoon, it was a family affair. Many were from e.g. Texas or Georgia, and had a brother/cousin/uncle/whatever who were also an 11B/13B etc. There isn't really a "preference" that the Army or Marine Corps has for poor people, but there is a cultural reason why people who like combat tend to be rural poor. This is of course my experience, and precise demographic data is hard to come by without a FOIA request.
Just wanted to throw my two cents out there. The guys in my platoon weren't the "dumb hicks" a lot of people seem to think populate the infantry.
The parent poster is talking about "rural poor", i.e., socioeconomic class, not "dumb hicks", i.e. perceived intelligence/education level. I think this is an important distinction.
Yes, this is anecdata, and yes, there are many reasons why people serve, but I know some smart people (from college and in my career) who've served (in infantry) because they saw it as their only way to get money for college. I think that says less about military recruiting tactics than the government overall, because there really should be more options presented to someone looking to get an education to move up the socioeconomic ladder.
I recently read an article where Army Chief of Staff, Gen. McConville, said that 79% of recruits come from families with service members, and how they need to expand the pool.
As far as the rural, the military focuses their recruiting in rural areas and barely touches major cities - an odd choice given where the population centers are and the efficiency of sales in high-density population. In a quick search, I found this from 2019:
I don’t have the links handy, but yes many are fully aware that the AVF (All Volunteer Force) is in some ways sectioning themselves off from the rest of the population. In other ways I could argue it’s almost becoming a “warrior caste” situation, where fathers serve, (at least one of) their sons serve, and so on. I’m not ready to say this is unhealthy, necessarily, but it’s a very real trend. The only way to fix it is to bring back the draft, in either full or some modified form.
>Where have you heard that?
My classmates in grad school, other networking events with perhaps over-educated professionals. N = 1 and all that.
> The only way to fix it is to bring back the draft, in either full or some modified form.
One idea is a draft for the reserves, not for active duty. That gives us the benefits of an AVF - the professionalism, etc. - and also gives Americans 'skin in the game' when at war, when reserves are called up. It's hard to imagine Afghanistan dragging on for 20 years if, for the whole time, civilians were being sent there to drive trucks, make dinner, even do some skilled labor, etc. And it would solve the civilian-military divide.
But how much effectiveness would we lose with draftee reserves? I believe that volunteer professionals are far superior to draftees in active duty, but reserve jobs frequently seem different.
> I could argue it’s almost becoming a “warrior caste” situation, where fathers serve, (at least one of) their sons serve, and so on. I’m not ready to say this is unhealthy, necessarily, but it’s a very real trend.
I've seen that phrase many times, but how can that be a good thing, especially in a democracy?
We got lied to about Vietnam. Iraq had WMDs. Afghanistan was a budding democracy, fully equipped to stand on its own. Russia was an unstoppable modern military and we need hundreds of billions to hold them off!
Now. All those people lied - buy we're blaming the civilian population for not having skin in a game which is clearly run by liars, and not "doing more" to stop these liars?
We've watched it mangle generation after generation of our young people, and none of the liars are held responsible.
Of course we don't want skin in the game.
In a healthy democracy, these military liars wouldn't last. It's not a healthy democracy.
> All those people lied - buy we're blaming the civilian population ...
Those people are us. The system is us, including you and me. There's nobody else to blame, and nobody else to do anything about it. Nothing in the parent comment offers a solution, or a better solution, or an improvement on the existing solution.
Blaming some unnamed entity, pulling out a list of bad things that have happened over a half-century, simplifying and hyperbolizing them, taking them out of context (of the good, of the possibilities, of the causes and effects, etc.) - that only disrupts the situation further, and that act is part of the reason our system sometimes doesn't work. That comment was written in your capacity as a fully fledged, fully vested actor in the system. Of course it isn't working right here, right now.
No. There's no context - they lied to get us into multiple wars. The American people don't want that shit. This sounds like apologia for the military-corporatic interventionist garbage.
Honestly it's the same infuriating "personal responsibility" CRAP like recycling - it's a smokescreen, meant to make a collective problem your personal responsibility. It doesn't matter how many bottles you throw out if you allow the factory up the street to make 1B of them, some of them are going to end up in the river, but do we hold the businesses accountable or make them switch to glass bottles? "That would impact their profits!"
A rational actor would avoid, if at all possible, anything to do with the military. It hasn't "worked" for us for decades and decades. Those people are NOT US.
That was one of the reasons I joined the USAF. Dad was in the 99th ID at the Battle of the Bulge (Purple Heart, Bronze Star) and later crossing the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen. Granddad was a Sergeant Major in the Cheshire Regiment[1] for His Majesty doing secret stuff he never talked about. I was the underachiever of the family - serving in Germany during the Cold War.[0] But I felt compelled to follow in the family tradition, and I'm glad I did as it helped me get my shit together.
Most of the people I served with had some college. There were a couple of guys in Basic with Bachelor's degrees, and we wondered why they went enlisted instead of officer. But each to their own.
There did seem to be a rule that the Ivy League turned out for Armageddon. Elliot Richardson, who as about as upper crust as you can get, landed in Normandy on D-Day, as did Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.
$65k is where the richest quantile for neighborhood median household income starts, by census tract [0]. The linked report was compiled by Dr. Shanea Watkins, a policy analyst specializing in empirical studies.
Unless you have sources that claim otherwise, my original claim stands.
You're talking about a society with HIGHER wealth inequality than right before the French Revolution, and you're defining "upper class" as anything above 60-odd K - an amount that would not allow you to rent a two bedroom apartment...almost anywhere in the USA.
It... Doesn't support your point at all?
Here's the Wall Street Journal saying the quiet part out loud:
"If young Americans can access free college without having to earn the GI Bill or sign up for follow-on military service, will they volunteer for the armed forces in adequate numbers?"
It's really hard to say "rich people are overrepresented" and then "who will sign up if we make college free" in the same breath.
>You're talking about a society with HIGHER wealth inequality than right before the French Revolution
Immaterial. The class definitions are in quantiles which means proportional per capita. The facts of the matter is the lower classes are underrepresented, the upper classes are overrepresented.
QED.
>and you're defining "upper class" as anything above 60-odd K - an amount that would not allow you to rent a two bedroom apartment...almost anywhere in the USA.
"Upper classes", as in, the top quantile of classes. $60k (2007 numbers) would allow you to rent a two bedroom in almost everywhere in the USA, except the most expensive areas (in 2007). Not everyone is making $300k combined. Your SV bias is showing.
>It... Doesn't support your point at all?
It... 100% supports my point absolutely.
>Here's the Wall Street Journal
Paywalled opinion piece.
>saying the quiet part out loud:
Leftist shibboleth. Not that I'm surprised, but reddit is that way.
>It's really hard to say "rich people are overrepresented" and then "who will sign up if we make college free" in the same breath.
Yeah... Because it's an opinion piece from a random contributer that similarly fell for the fake news. Poor Americans are not joining the military in disproportionately higher numbers to pay for college and what have you. That is a fact. If college becomes free, the military can raise pay and sign on bonuses, add other programs, etc. They'll find a way, no doubt.
"The class definitions are in quantiles which means proportional per capita. "
Yes - hence the problem with income inequality in the numbers.
The "upper quartile" is so low, it includes people making 60k a year.
More granularity in your numbers would show that actually wealthy people don't sign up.
It looks like you're using statistics to lie. It's pretty clear that "wealthy people are overrepresented" is only true if you do things like, define "rich" starting at 60k.
>Yes - hence the problem with income inequality in the numbers.
Immaterial. You're just announcing to the world that you don't know how "per capita", census tracts, or quantiles work.
>The "upper quartile" is so low, it includes people making 60k a year.
Because that's the facts for the median income of the census tract.
During 2009–2013, Beverly Hills had a median household income of $86,141 as an example.
Pacific Heights has a median household income of $125,550 per year.
>More granularity in your numbers would show that actually wealthy people don't sign up.
It would show the complete opposite, as it shows with the quintiles now.
>It looks like you're using statistics to lie.
No. I'm using statistical FACTS to tell the truth. It's an inconvenient truth that shatters the narrative and the fake news the left has been spewing on this topic for decades, but it's still the truth.
The fact that you just can't handle the truth shows how bad you've been subverted.
>It's pretty clear that "wealthy people are overrepresented"
Of course it's clear, that is reality.
>only true if you do things like, define "rich" starting at 60k.
The upper quintile for census tract median income starts there. You want to deny statistical fact because it goes against the narrative.
The statistics show clearly that the lower classes (lowest quintile) are underrepresented. Poor people do not serve as much as the upper classes (top quintile) do. QED.
When people say “combat,” they mean the combat arms. Pretty much any soldier could be exposed to combat, but the infantry is going to see more combat than a Human Resources soldier.
Agreed, but not just because there is no longer a draft, but that the song referenced does not differentiate between the rank of those who serve. It does distinguish between those who serve and those who send them into harms way with no risk to themselves.
The most important thing to realize about military service is that you sign away all your citizenship rights (free speech, etc.) when you sign up for the service. Hopefully you won't be used in ridiculous debacles like the 2003 Iraq Invasion, based on lies about WMDs pushed by Washington (and see British role as well), but you'll have no say in the matter.
The other thing to realize is that, at least in the USA, they'll do everything they can to deny you medical benefits for injuries suffered in basic training, and this will persist after you get out, i.e. Veteran's Administration health care is pretty poor by all accounts. You can't just trust the system to look out for your interests in this area.
In addition, the 'educational assistance' is barely enough for a two-year vocational training program, certainly nowhere near enough for a full four-year college degree. It's better than nothing, certainly, but the advertising and the reality have a big disconnect.
If you're a teenage with zero alternative options and are completely desperate for a way out of an urban slum nightmare or a poverty-stricken rural life, the military is there as an option. I was once in a similar situation but I rejected military service because I'd heard too many Vietnam vets tell horror stories about how they'd been treated by the military. It wasn't much better for those who had to serve more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq, for equivalently dubious reasons.
> Americans' satisfaction with the way the healthcare system works for them varies by the type of insurance they have. Satisfaction is highest among those with veterans or military health insurance…
> Americans' satisfaction with the way the healthcare system works for them varies by the type of insurance they have. Satisfaction is highest among those with veterans or military health insurance…
Sounds about right to me. The VA health care system has problems [1] but on the whole doesn't seem worse than the rest of the US healthcare system, maybe better.
Anecdote: when my dad retired, my parents lost their insurance through his work, and my mom wasn't eligible for Medicare yet. They looked around at individual insurance options, which were horrible. My mom ended up using her VA benefits and was very glad to have them. The VA has treated my parents quite well, although the VA doesn't seem used to having a lot of female patients my mom's age.
It's a terrible system, and it was more terrible before Obamacare.
In general when someone retires they're old enough to be eligible for Medicare (government-sponsored health care). My dad was. But my mom was just enough younger that she wasn't eligible for Medicare when he retired. There were (and still are) all kinds of weird gaps like this.
Obamacare created new gaps that absolutely sucked - made over 58k and self employed? No subsidies for you and paying a skyrocketing premium higher than any reasonable home mortgage with a 10k deductible. Completely unrealistic. And then the IRS hit you for thousands in penalties via the individual mandate.
I lived through that, uninsured, for five years or so as a business owner - to “rich” to get subsidies, too poor to afford 20k+ per year for nothing except a theoretical out-of-pocket max (I say theoretical because there are many exceptions, loopholes, and the annual reset). Being hammered by the IRS for this was.. just.. swell.
So for me Obamacare sucked because it made the cost of individual market plans completely unaffordable and then taxed me for not being able to afford it. As a business owner responsible for employing others, it seemed especially ridiculous because here was a strong disincentive for me to continue on, which would mean a negative ripple effect beyond just me, i.e. layoffs, if I shuttered the operation.
Once the individual mandate went away, and some new options for employer cost sharing like QSEHRA/ICHRA came about, it has gotten a bit more manageable, but most small business owners I know still struggle with healthcare. Cost sharing programs like CHM are about the only workable alternative but they don’t offer the kind of bankruptcy protection a solid insurance premium would cover, and they are religious by nature. Alternatively, DNR and a term life insurance policy.
Best option is to be married, have spouse work for the man to get into corporate group plan for family, while you grow your business enough to sustain an insurance scheme.
But it sucks out there on the individual market - the raw actuarial numbers to insure you are bad - and subsidies disappear quickly with any amount of AGI. Since the vast majority of Americans are on employer-paid healthcare plans, this is a view into it that most don’t see. The cynical side of me (as a small business owner) says this is by design to keep you working for corporate America - consolidation of labor, consolidation of the profits. For me, Obamacare further entrenched this aspect of the system, which has become more terrible, not less.
> and subsidies disappear quickly with any amount of AGI.
This has not been true for 2021 and is not true for 2022.
Your payments for health insurance are limited by a cap that is hard to explain, but basically, you should not be paying more than 8.5% of your AGI for the 2nd most expensive silver plan in your state.
I (self-employed) have an AGI in the mid-100k range, and these subsidies more or less reduced my wife and my insurance payments by half.
This system still sucks - we are paying private corporations, via government subsidy, for their overpriced goods and services. But from a numerical perspective, it's much closer to being inline with most of the rest of the industrialized world: 8-14% of income for health insurance that covers most stuff.
And in all likelihood, Congress will not renew it at the end of this year.
"Obamacare created new gaps that absolutely sucked - made over 58k and self employed? No subsidies for you and paying a skyrocketing premium higher than any reasonable home mortgage with a 10k deductible. Completely unrealistic. And then the IRS hit you for thousands in penalties via the individual mandate."
I am currently paying $800/mo for a "silver" plan in a state that did not accept the extended Medicare. No, I don't get subsidies. I believe my deducible is roughly $2000, although I don't know because all of my costs have been covered, including the trip to the emergency room after I wacked myself in the eye. (The out-of-pocket limit for 2022 is $8700 for an individual. (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-li...))
Before the ACA, individual market plans were cheaper (although for the first couple of years they were comparable), but did not cover asthma (as a "pre-existing condition). Hello, $750 daily inhalers.
Just out of curiosity I calculated roughly the cost in Germany. If you were self employed and made 5.000 € a month your health insurance would be somewhat around 900 € per month. Partly tax deductible if I am not mistaken.
So quite a bit of money. But probably manageable for many/most people.
I am lucky. As I only do freelance work on the side I am insured via what I pay from my main income. So no additional costs for me as long as I don't make more on the side than in my main job.
Premium costs vary by state. When I last looked (three years ago?) my bronze plan was $1600/mo with high deductible. It was higher than that six years ago. The affordability exemption started to alleviate me of the tax penalty once the exemption was available, and then the removal of the mandate removed the penalties entirely.
That's horrible, my sympathy. Personally, I think Obamacare fixed more than it broke, even immediately. In particular, it was a huge relief to get rid of the possibility you could be permanently uninsurable after even a tiny gap if you have a "pre-existing condition".
I wanted Medicare for everyone (still do), but politics...and lies about "government death panels"...
I want medicare for all (or at least wish that people could figure that out, in a workable way - probably not possible until international defense spending takes a huge haircut, meaning a very different world order), but I also don't think "death panels" are a lie - ignore the scary hyperbole, the point is that health care on a fixed budget needs to be rationed. The kind of plans we could offer the nation of 350m people without dramatic world-changing changes in budget structure would be pretty bare bones. That's a reality in all systems. None of us have a "right" to have endless repair services - we are "entitled" to services within the confines of the systems we create, pay for, and subscribe to. Limited budget, just like with NHS, means choices have to be made. Totally okay with that.
For what it’s worth, currently you can get a mid-tier Obamacare / ACA health insurance plan for no more than 8.5% of your income. It’s a big jump to have a new expense of 8.5% for sure, but we do have that option now.
From what I can tell, Alabama has all the regular subsidies for ACA plans. What they don’t have is Medicaid expansion. The federal government offers states money to expand Medicaid to anyone making less than the minimum needed for ACA plans. Some states like Alabama have refused the money and continue to only offer it to specific subgroups of low income people, usually only after they spent 100% of their assets also.
> In addition, the 'educational assistance' is barely enough for a two-year vocational training program, certainly nowhere near enough for a full four-year college degree. It's better than nothing, certainly, but the advertising and the reality have a big disconnect.
This is entirely false. I served my commitment on active duty and then went to college using the Post-911 GI Bill. I got 9 semesters (4.5 yrs) paid for with housing allowance as well.
I dropped out of school before I joined the military, and had $10k in student loan debt with nothing to show for it. After serving, I graduated with a CS degree, and a job lined up as a software engineer. I am truly grateful the opportunities I was afforded through my service.
As I read this post I kept thinking you had a rough time in service. This doesn’t match my experience at all. Then I saw at the end you didn’t serve, made assumptions based on stories, and had an axe to grind.
> The most important thing to realize about military service is that you sign away all your citizenship rights (free speech, etc.) when you sign up for the service.
False. I can say the same things as any citizen outside of my uniform. I am a US citizen with rights. I signed away no such rights.
> The other thing to realize is that, at least in the USA, they'll do everything they can to deny you medical benefits for injuries suffered in basic training, and this will persist after you get out
False. I have had access to every medical care I’ve needed, for free, for myself and family. This includes four major surgeries. I can go to an ER for free any time we have an issue. Zero stresses over medical expenses here.
> the 'educational assistance' is barely enough for a two-year vocational training program, certainly nowhere near enough for a full four-year college degree.
False. The military completely paid for my undergrad and masters at a high quality university (50k+/yr). Zero loans. They subsidized a second masters in software engineering. After all this I still have my full GI bill that I can use for myself or pass off to my kids for their undergrad.
> If you're a teenage with zero alternative options and are completely desperate for a way out of an urban slum nightmare or a poverty-stricken rural life, the military is there as an option.
Or if you wanted to serve with every opportunity in the world in front of you, the military is an option.
> False. I can say the same things as any citizen outside of my uniform. I am a US citizen with rights. I signed away no such rights.
You're not allowed to say disparaging things about anyone in your command chain, which goes up to the president. There's also limits on your political speech, in relation to making political statements in favor of candidates.
The limits on your political speech aren't limited to service members, but also includes a pretty decent percentage of federal employees.
> False. The military completely paid for my undergrad and masters at a high quality university (50k+/yr). Zero loans. They subsidized a second masters in software engineering. After all this I still have my full GI bill that I can use for myself or pass off to my kids for their undergrad.
I'm glad that the GI bill worked well for you. It does for most people, but note that not everyone gets the GI bill benefits they are promised. I don't agree with the OP that it doesn't cover enough for a four-year college, especially if you're going to a state school.
> Or if you wanted to serve with every opportunity in the world in front of you, the military is an option.
I agree with you, in general, but it's important to note that the benefit one gets, vs the risks one takes are heavily correlated to ones status prior to entering. If you're poor, with poor education opportunities in your past, the likelihood of being enlisted, and being in a more dangerous service (and post) are substantially higher. If you're rich and had good educational opportunities, it's likely you'll be an officer, in a better service and post, with relatively low risk (and substantially higher pay).
> You're not allowed to say disparaging things about anyone in your command chain, which goes up to the president. There's also limits on your political speech, in relation to making political statements in favor of candidates.
You are right, there are more restrictions for me. I'll change my evaluation of "you sign away all your citizenship rights" to mostly false. The OP made a rather encompassing assertion. I still retain most of my rights as a US citizen.
For anyone reading this that is curious, we do agree to a new law code. It's the Uniform Code of Military Justice. One aspect is that it ensures service members are held accountable to laws in countries where there may be drastically different laws. It also includes provisions such as article 88 which states:
> Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
And article 89 also limits speech more than an average citizen.
> not everyone gets the GI bill benefits they are promised
I'd be curious to hear the facts behind this assertion. The regulations are pretty clear on how to qualify. I've never seen someone qualified then denied.
> I'd be curious to hear the facts behind this assertion. The regulations are pretty clear on how to qualify. I've never seen someone qualified then denied.
The first article is for a completely different benefit. The GI Bill from WW2, the Montgomery GI Bill, and the Post 9/11 GI bill are completely different things. To be clear - the article reports on a great injustice and it's sad to read about. I had no idea. Thank you for showing it.
The second article is specific to the reserves and guard. The main point I gather is that the process of evaluating time served is flawed and caused mistakes which made members a) lose their benefits even if they were currently using them and b) place the burden and costs on the service member to resolve. I'll restrict my statement to active duty only.
He's not totally wrong. If you enlist in the army and later during your service they tap you for a conflict which you have ideological differences with, YOU ARE GOING irrespective of your convictions... unless you want a military tribunal and possible jail time.
> they tap you for a conflict which you have ideological differences with, YOU ARE GOING irrespective of your convictions
Your statement is not entirely true, it is not irrespective of convictions. A conscientious objector is defined as either:
A member who, by reason of conscientious objection, sincerely objects to participation in military service of any kind in war in any form.
or
A member who, by reason of conscientious objection, sincerely objects to participation as a combatant in war in any form, but whose convictions are such as to permit military service in a noncombatant status. Also referred to as noncombatant duties or noncombatant service.
Yes there is an application which can be denied. Here is a GAO report on the rates of that. In an all volunteer force the numbers requested are pretty small.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse as to the parent poster's point. In 2003 the military was abused to start an illegal war that many knew from the start was wrong and had ideological objections. The Iraq war had a grievous effect on morale and on our moral standing in the world. Most of us are quite willing to defend our country by force, the question is how to avoid being sent into another pet project like that. If we want the military to be respected and prestigious, we need more robust protections against what happened in 2003.
I served in the military for 11 years as an air traffic controller; 95% military jobs are non-combat related. Moreover, the military does more than fight wars, we launched aircraft to aid Indonesia after the tsunami hit them, Haiti after the earthquake hit them, Antartica for scientific research, etc... Additionally, the military completely paid for my bachelors and two masters degrees and I am now employed as a data scientist for a cyber-security company. I still have GI Bill benefits if I want to pursue further eduction.
I think there is some incorrect information in this post. I know people who have completed their Bachelors and Masters completely funded by the GI Bill, including living expenses.
In the experience of the people I know, the VA goes out of their way to give benefits as needed. One case, in particular, they were granted 100% disability for life with a packet submission and one phone call.
The details matter. A lot of people sign up for a two-year active duty contract (it's an eight-year contract in all though, you're in the reserves afterwards). That only gives 70-80% of the benefit (which only runs for a max of 36 months, not a full four years). You're also restricted to in-state public schools, no private (Ivy League etc.) or out-of-home-state schools. Most of the military people I talked to at my local community college barely got two years of schooling out of it.
The link you posted says 100% of benefits which is either all tuition at an in-state school or up to $26k/year at a private of foreign school. $26k a year is a lot...
You also get 100% of the benefit if you served for 36 months. That is a far cry from what you described.
As others have noted, a lot of what you wrote is wrong. The Post 9/11 GI Bill will cover any tuition up to the maximum in-state university. You also do not have to return your Home of Record and can declare citizenship in any state post service and receive in-state tuition (you will of course need to meet the states requirement for citizenship).
Also, many universities (private and public out-of-state) have the Yellow Ribbon program that will cover gaps between what the government provides and the university's costs.
Finally, the Post 9/11 GI Bill also provides BAH based on your universities location which can be quite substantial.
I used the Post 9/11 GI Bill to get my degrees in CS and ECE. If I was single, the money from the program would have more than covered me.
Yep, same here - GI bill + yellow ribbon paid for me to go to a very expensive private university in DC. Also gave me an additional $2500 a month in BAH while I attended.
Yep! I had my entire undergraduate degree and my MBA (for a couple of semesters) paid for. While I’m undergrad I also got BAH which was around $1,000/month in Southeast Ohio. Not to mention full Pell Grants. I used every cent of my GI Bill.
> If you're a teenage with zero alternative options and are completely desperate for a way out of an urban slum nightmare or a poverty-stricken rural life, the military is there as an option.
yeah... I was in DEP for Marines felt like an ahole when I didn't follow through/returned to school. I was desperate to escape my life situation but I had to wait a while before going to bootcamp. I made a dumb choice with what I was going to do, despite getting 90's in ASVAB. I was going to drive trucks. I felt bad for the people that wanted to get into the military but could not pass the ASVAB or they had a medical condition. My education was funded with student loans/aid but I was able to leave my home.
Edit: in retrospect if I didn't go into school (debt) I could have just lived off labor jobs... It was the piling up debt from school that was freaking me out because I was also failing out of it (low 2.0's GPA). Idk if I would have ended up in tech/make the 3-4x labor wage (medium-level dev).
There are limits to your ability to take leadership roles in political parties and to make political statements while in uniform or where there could be reasonable confusion about whether your activity is as a private citizen or as a member of the military.
That is a far cry from “sign[ing] away all your citizenship rights (free speech, etc.).”
> they'll do everything they can to deny you medical benefits for injuries suffered in basic training
I know of a guy who got run over by a speeding MP during Basic and had his leg broken in like 3 places. The guy who got run over got a medical discharge, and now gets a full pension and Tricare
Every vet I know about has some disability payments. (Part of that may speak to a lack of safety culture, but they don't fight too hard to prevent anyone from getting them.)
Thank you for the post. I had friends in college who were previously marines, but their entire school was paid for along with something to the effect of “Anything you need to achieve the career you want, within reason”. New laptops, writing easels, etc.
Are there varying levels of educational assistance?
For the GI Bill, I put in $1200 ($100/month for the first year), and I while enrolled at an accredited university I was paid $400/month. I could use that however I wanted. Early 90's, that didn't come close to paying for much, but it was certainly something.
I was in the Marines, however. The Army, Navy and Air Force had matching funds and paid a lot more (like triple). This may have all changed or become consolidated.
I've also been through the VA for something and it's very much a government bureaucracy. If you have things documented it will run smoother, and it may run slow at times, but there is certainly no policy of denying everything.
The poster above just has an axe to grind and isn't concerned with reality.
It changed a ton. Over the late 90's (ie, in my day) the per-month payments were increased up to a little over 1k. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is structured very differently and is far more generous: Tuition + BAH. There's a ton of fine print around the tuition part, but in practice it really does fully cover tuition just about everywhere in the US.
My experience is a bit old (2008 ish) so things might have changes.
I had the GI Bill. I submitted paper work each month that showed I was taking a certain number of credits towards my degree to the VA dept at the school. Money was deposited into my bank account a couple weeks later. I could use that money for anything I wanted. Sounds like this is what your friends had/have.
There are other programs such as paying off student loans when you join up, but I am not familiar with them.
"The GI Bill can pay up to the full resident tuition at any public school, if you are qualified to receive benefits at the 100% rate based on your active service shown above.
If you are attending a private or foreign school, the VA will pay you an annual maximum of $26,042.81, that amount increases to $26,381.37 on Aug. 1, 2022."
This reads like one of the perspectives other comments here lament, ie about Americans disconnected from the miilitary, and not having a clue what it's like.
There is so much misinformation in this post is appalling. Plenty of responses have pointed out some but I will just say this: I know several people that have received masters degrees while serving
> In addition, the 'educational assistance' is barely enough for a two-year vocational training program, certainly nowhere near enough for a full four-year college degree. It's better than nothing, certainly, but the advertising and the reality have a big disconnect.
Could you expand on this, please? My experience was different so I'm curious about what you actually know.
UCMJ is pretty clear re: the free speech angle and all points in that direction. UCMJ != the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Always blows my mind when people complain about this aspect.
The last I heard, there was a US destroyer undeployable because the Captain refused to get vaccinated and (so far) has successfully sued to prevent his being transferred to another position.
The US spends a lot on public education. A lot of it is inefficient due to highly politicized unions and top-level admins that pilfer the money out from benefitting ground level teachers and students.
> 1. Thanks to decades of increases, America spends more per student than any other major developed nation.
U.S. per-pupil expenditures have nearly tripled over the past half-century, from $4,720 in 1966 to $13,847 in 2016 (2018 dollars).
America spends more per pupil than any other major developed nation—10% more than the United Kingdom and 28% more than France; in the OECD, only Norway, Switzerland, and Luxembourg spend more.
Per Pupil Nearly Highest in the World and in History
The U.S. spends 35% more per pupil than the average among countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).[7] Among those countries, the U.S. falls behind only Denmark, Norway, and Luxembourg.[8] In 2015, the latest year for which OECD data are available, combined primary and secondary spending in the U.S. reached $12,800, significantly higher than other major European nations such as the United Kingdom ($11,400), Germany ($11,100), France ($10,000), Italy ($9,100), and Spain ($8,300).
Similarly, we spend a lot on other social programs. But inefficiently.
This is due to both governmental inefficieny and rent seeking.
Your post is standard Gish gallop. It is easy to post a slew of false statements and put the burden on others to correct them (and then respond by saying they are "besides the point"). Standard Gish gallop.
If I knew my country's armed forces were 100% a domestic defense and emergency response force, I would absolutely have considered signing up when I was young. You learn good skills, and I see great value in some larger-than-self contribution to community there. My father is German and left Germany for good not long after doing his compulsory 1 year service. He hated it, and it was one of many factors that led to him emigrating. But one thing my aunts have told me is that before he joined he was a disorganized messy irresponsible person, and afterwards he was neat and structured. He is also an amazing marksman, which he learned there (before he left they were talking to him about advancing him through sniper training). He amazed my Canadian uncles when he went hunting with them.
But even here, in Canada, the armed forces gets involved in adventures abroad which I can would characterize as "dubiously thought through" at best ... but "blatantly imperialist" at worst. Being deployed to Afghanistan or some other adventure that I could not support would both enrage and depress me.
Yeah. I’ve grown up starkly anti military due to the kinds of fights the American military has fought in my lifetime. It’s been evil. Plain and simple. And yet, I’m glad we have a strong military given happenings in Ukraine. I would strongly support putting boots on the ground.
To have the training necessary to join the volunteer defense forces in Ukraine or something similar resonates as a valuable, important skill.
In the US, the military doesn't choose the targets. Elected civilians do. The way to square those feelings is to direct them at the people who give the top-level orders, and the rhetoric used to support those orders to the public.
There is an entire branch of ethics and philosophy dedicated to the topic: Just War Theory. The US interventions in Serbia and Kuwait were both well-justified in my eyes.
You're not responding to the point the OP is making though. They (and I) are aware that the military isn't making these decisions, and I'm not blaming the military for them. But who gets the blame isn't the question being asked here, it's whether we as individuals should join, and for that the question of blame is irrelevant. I would also serve if there was some kind of guarantee that I would only see deployment in self-defense or against another Hitler. But what I absolutely will not do is be cannon fodder in another imperialist war like Iraq or Afghanistan, and part of serving in the military means you don't get any choice in the matter. So I don't join.
Edit: but bravado aside, I think no, it would not. I think Russia would just back down. If they were willing to escalate, I think we would have seen a nuke in kyiv by now
Edit edit: and it is worth it to show we are willing to stand up for such things. We cannot afford to roll over to anyone with nukes
Russians would likely shoot at US forces in Ukraine. Then what? I sympathize with the Ukrainian people but Ukraine is not a US treaty ally.
If you're brave enough, the Ukrainian military is accepting volunteers. Other foreigners have already enlisted. Go join them. And I'm not being snarky: if you really believe in the cause then I sincerely think you should do something about it.
The United States is capable of getting involved even if Ukraine is not a treaty ally. I am stating a geopolitical policy preference. Yes, that involves some US soldiers dying.
It doesn't just involve US soldiers dying, it probably means some cities turned to cinders.
There's a line you cannot cross, and wasn't crossed in the entire cold war as bitter as things got-- and that is NATO troops on Russian soil or vice versa.
You are advocating conflict escalation and expansion that will drastically shorten the decision tree that ends in the permanent end of human civilization in its present form. Given that the Ukrainians -- with Western material, financial and intelligence support -- appear to be capable of destroying the combat power of the Russian Army in the field without a direct NATO intervention, what you're in effect asking for is to take on the literally largest conceivable risks for minimal added benefit beyond feeling tougher and stronger and like you're doing something, all without personally having to leave your chair. Forgive me if I don't think that's a good trade off.
And as an aside, my personal view is peak nuclear escalation risk is in another 3 or 4 weeks when Russian forces in the east and south hit a similar point of exhaustion/forced withdrawal that we just witnessed in the north. I don't think Putin is going to react well once the news finally penetrates that his miscalculation has destroyed his army and revealed him and the Russian state to be laughingstocks.
You can’t simultaneously claim I’m risking nothing while also encouraging a path with the potential for nuclear war. If the latter is true, the former is not.
I said you would not have to leave your chair, as in you are treating this like a game, as in you are not taking this seriously, as in you are prioritizing your personal emotional satisfaction over any sort of analysis of strategic interest. What do you believe is at stake here that would justify dramatically increasing the probability of a strategic nuclear exchange? I agree that a strategic nuclear exchange is p<.5 in the event of a NATO-Russia war, but how high a probability should we tolerate before the risk-benefit analysis of nato intervention collapses? The end of civilization is an almost unbounded price to pay, and even at a very low probability of occurrence we would still be taking on an extraordinarily expensive risk. So what are we buying for that risk? That Russia loses this war? To the extent that their political objective was to turn Ukraine back into a satellite client state, they’ve already lost. Destruction of the Russian armed forces for a generation? The Ukrainians are already doing yeomans work there. A chance for regime change in Russia? If so we’d be increasing the probability of a strategic nuclear exchange well above .5 then. A chance to punish the cretins who bound and shot, and raped, and tortured civilians to include children? Laudable but many of the immediate perpetrators are likely already dead, and to be frank it’s generally not a good time to risk nuclear war when you are feeling personally outraged. So what then? A chance to feel like you fought the good fight? As others have noted you have every opportunity to personally go fight that fight without NATO involvement, particularly, but not necessarily, if you have infantry or medical training.
I know I’m being an antagonistic asshole, but I would genuinely be curious to know what precise benefit you think nato intervention would achieve and why you value that benefit so highly as to incur near incalculable risk. I’m assuming you haven’t done that analysis, but then I’m an asshole who may be selling you short.
Were you around for the buildup to the second gulf war? The rhetoric against Saddam Hussein was not terribly different in tone than that against Putin. People were similarly outraged and many people wanted us to invade because of all the awful things he did, e.g. his treatment of the Kurds. In fact, pretty much all the major conflicts that have happened in my lifetime have been accompanied by a call to action based on moral outrage. I don't mean to offend, but it seems to me it's people such as yourself who have abetted our participation in so many conflicts, and precious few have been better for our involvement.
I'm fully on board in supporting Ukraine, but the quality of the coverage is no better. I don't often watch TV, particularly American TV, but I was down at a friends recently and he had CNN on and I was like... yep, same old same old, just as bad as it was in the early 2000s. Sensationalistic, simplistic, and highly biased.
Beats the Fox News bias, but still bias.
But, I'm neither liberal or conservative. I'm a socialist, and mainstream politics is pretty alien to me on both "sides."
My son was Army Reserve (US), did a tour in Iraq back in the day. He reported that Reservists didn't get the respect of regular Army, at least in his unit. They got shot at, shot back, did convoy duty, got blown up (twice). But somehow not 'real soldiers'. His unit got no commendations or promotions from the regular army base commander.
He returned, still had enlistment period left, went straight to the Army Recruiting office and signed up regular. Went well after that - at least the career part. He eventually got a medical discharge for his accumulated injuries. At the time was at Ft Benning, driver for the Sgt. Major of that base, a Sgt. himself.
Got a Mechanical Engineering degree from state college, GI Bill, and is marrying a doctor. So all's well that ends well.
The treatment of reservists, in OIF specifically, across the board -- from active duty service members all the way up the chain to top military leadership and the GWB admin -- was disgraceful. I saw a little bit of it first hand when I was enlisted. FWIW, they're all real soldiers in my eyes.
It was well deserved in my experience. Toward the end of my deployment, statistically the most dangerous period due to complacency setting in, we had to take over an AO that the Army had given to reservists for a year. They'd been reporting for months that all was quite, so we were looking forward to an uneventful weeklong left-seat/right-seat transition. They no joke met us going the other way as our convoy moved into the old British airfield they were using as a FOB, and we soon found out why they were so desperate to put distance between us and themselves: everything that could be wrong was wrong. Total indian country, their patrol routes got tighter and tighter as they'd just never return to an area they got attacked, they hadn't left the FOB for a month. Piles of unmarked UXO, serialized weapons hidden in elephant grass... a total nightmare. The first few days we got a lot of direct fire engagement on patrol, which NEVER happened - but the locals quickly figured out that, unlike Army reservists, infantry Marines take that sort of thing personally - and they fell back to the familiar coordinated IED attacks.
In fairness, I can really only speak to the first couple of years of OIF. I separated in January of 2006.
My larger point would be that the function of reservists and National Guardsmen changed dramatically with OEF/OIF, that the mobilization in reserve and guard forces was unprecedented over the last 20 years.
heh, this was in 2005. But I agree with you about the role of the reserve being changed, though I'd characterize it as less "changed" and more "abused". My contract ended soon after yours... er, my active duty contract - they don't really make it clear during the recruiting process that there is a commitment to four more years of "inactive reserve" involved. I got involuntarily recalled twice, didn't bother re-enrolling in college after the second retread - and gave up trying to get reimbursed for the GI Bill failing to handle a problem of the DoD's own making.
The odd part of that is that many of the reservists were active duty, including combat veterans, and then moved into reserves. So it's not like they haven't seen stuff.
As someone who did convoy and “force protection” (sitting in a guard tower) in OIF/OEF I don’t think this is a reserve specific thing. It was just kind of a shit-tier job they got random people to do from all over (I was in the Air Force)
When I got back to my base literally no one cared or seemingly even noticed I had been gone for months lol
So one of the things I like about Tiktok is you get exposed to something you normally wouldn't and it can be fascinating. One example of this I had an Air Force recruiter pop up on my fyp. This is obviously US-centric (as opposed to the article, which is the UK) but here are some things I've learned:
1. The difference between Reserve and Guard? Reserve is Federal, Guard is State (this was news to me);
2. Signing up for the Guard or Reserve is typically a 6 year commitment;
3. Your commitment begins when you sign up but you can defer your enlistment for up to a year;
4. You can sign up having completed your junior year in high school and defer training until after you graduate (which I think you have to anyway) but that's 1 of your 6 years down already;
5. Reservists get tuition assistance of up to $9,000/year;
6. Assuming a 4 year college degree and early enlistment, you can graudate with 5 years of your 6 year commitment done;
7. For one weekend a month and 2 weeks a year, you typically get $250-300/month (plus active duty pay where appropriate);
8. You also get medical and dental insurance.
As ridiculous as the US college system is in terms of cost, I'm happy things like this exist to at least give people more options. If you go to college, the above can amount to $50,000 plus benefits over a 6 year period.
This isn't a positive. It is a tragedy that these services (education, healthcare) are difficult to obtain without military service in a supposedly developed country.
I'd argue it's a positive in that its the only route out currently for people born in certain zip codes, such that with 2 years in active duty, your whole life trajectory can change (free college, "honorable military service" stamp on your resume, so on - I'll spare the recruiting pitch). The local high schools aren't doing it, the government isn't doing it, but the military will. But...
The tragedy is that this is the only route available for people born in certain zipcodes. The dynamic of needing to volunteer to discernibly bump up the odds of your own gruesome death in order to get the only decent fair deal on succeeding in the civilian world is everything that is wrong with the US at the moment.
I will never view military service as a bad thing in totality. Locally evaluated, it's a good option. Putting aside the more heady concepts of public service and sacrifice, it is one of the last remaining conduits to change your stars and "make a man/woman/adult out of you," *although it is certainly not without faults and has certainly caused horrible experiences for people who served*. It is an imperfect organization that does its core mission well (fight and win wars), and it does its best beyond that. I know this can spark a lot of debate and "what about X" discussions, and I won't participate in those if they show up so I apologize in advance.
The tragedy is that it's the only option to change one's stars for a lot of folks and this dynamic is present across the entire country - poor rural south, poor urban, poor rust belt. High schools and governments, local or otherwise, are failing these kids, and the military is the only semi-competent entity available to help. That's not a dynamic we want.
As the son of a son of a father who wouldn't have gone to college without WWII-era tuition assistance, can confirm it changes entire family trajectories.
My grandfather had the work ethic and intelligence in him, subsequently proven, but was born dirt poor with a snowball's chance in hell he could have afforded college without the GI Bill.
The military is an option which largely accepts you if you say "Yes" and can pass a basic intelligence test. Those are the only requirements. Not your family name. Not your family wealth. Not (now) your race or gender or sexual orientation.
And in trade for that, they open up benefits that change lives.
It certainly shouldn't be the only option, but that it is an option is better than not existing.
Same thing here. My grandfather was excited when his dad found some pallets 'that fell off the back of a truck' so they could have a floor for the tent they lived in outside Portland, and not see the rats. (funny when people in PDX complain about the homeless problem, my grandpa was in those cities in the 30's and 40s)
GI bill put him into college, and set him up with an eductation that setup my mom and her 6 siblings with a 'normal' middle class life. Not too shabby for a man that literally grew up dirt poor.
I knew a Soldier with a 32 ACT (yes, I double checked as that's a great score) from East St Louis. Guidance counselors and everything else failed them, so they joined the mil.
How that kid (making an adult's decision by joining) wasn't scooped up by basically anyone other than their local recruiter blew my mind. If you spend some time around the military jobs that require smarts, these stories are very common. The non-high test score jobs tend to be staffed by very solid and smart people who just didn't have many other options at the time.
Soldiers from enlisted to General can and often are idiots and by glorifying them one risks the same risk as glorifying a professional athlete or any other symbol, but in aggregate the above story is common.
It's rare that survivorship bias gets to be used quite so literally.
Nearly 300,000 families also had their trajectories changed because their loved ones died.
The military as a class on-ramp disproportionately harms the poor, and ethically that's wrong. It's almost literally a lottery where you're gambling your life in exchange for basic needs.
> Nearly 300,000 families also had their trajectories changed because their loved ones died.
What are you referring to here? 300,000 is a specific number and you qualify it with "because their loved ones died". Let's assume you're talking about active military deaths, which are less than 100,000 since 1945 [1], the vast majority of which is Vietnam and Korea.
Up until the Vietnam War, the draft was a significant factor. That's not really a factor because you have no control over it.
You'll also note that my comment was specifically about the Air Force Guard and Reserve. Your chances of getting deployed to a war zone and dying are incredibly low and so many roles aren't active combat anyway. Unlike active service you enlist ofr a particular job. If you sign up to do logistics in Ohio. your risks are pretty low.
The military mostly recruits from the middle class now. Unfortunately, poor people often can't meet the eligibility requirements due to medical problems (especially obesity), poor fitness, criminal record, history of drug use, lack of a high school diploma, or low test scores. Of course there are exceptions but relatively few. The modern military is pretty selective in whom they take.
Many years ago my uncle got in minor trouble with the law as a young man. The judge gave him a choice: join the Navy or go to jail. The Navy worked out pretty well for him, but today he probably wouldn't even have that option to get his life back on track.
It's the responsibility of the government and by extension, the military. I suppose you could blame society at-large because we elect our representatives, but the majority of Americans already support single-payer healthcare and free or reduced college tuition.
It's disturbing to me that it's normal to concentrate efforts on recruiting poor teenagers to fight wars. The focus on the poor also has the effect of disproportionately impacting minorities.
Even if you survive, over the past decade hundreds of thousands of veterans have ended up with PTSD and even then they're left to fight for proper treatment under the VA. The VA has been failing veterans for decades and in some cases causes additional harm, including using experimental and ineffective treatment for covid while under their care (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7276049/).
Americans may claim that they support healthcare or education reform in the abstract, but they don't actually vote that way. Most people aren't willing to voluntarily pay higher taxes or cut other programs in order to actually implement those policies.
I'd like the government to give me all sorts of stuff for free as long as someone else is paying.
We're all already paying for it through health insurance companies, who are siphoning off huge profits.
Unless you're living off-grid the government already gives you mountains of "free" stuff paid for by taxes! It's an enormously long list of utilities and services that contains everything from fire departments to food safety. Mostly things that shouldn't be profit centers.
unless you know recruiters personally and have more than an anecdotal example or policy to share, that specific targeting, especially in terms of a policy, doesn't happen but yes recruiters will go to the high schools in poor areas.
Locally evaluated, it's a rational option. But I think you're going to lose a lot of people by framing it as "good". Rational decisions are not always good ones, and vice versa.
I really hate this kind of argument because it's an argument that springs from privilege and entitlement.
We can sit around and say that education should be free and accessible and that would be nice but it's not the world we live in. The fact of the matter is that life isn't fair and some people get substantially better or worse starting hands.
Yet you would seemingly rather remove opportunities from those with the fewest options because of how the government chooses to use the military.
It's pretty easy to say that others with fewer options than you should make sacrifices that that are at best symbolic when it requires no such sacrifice from you.
What are you doing to effect change? I guarantee you that influencing the government that sets policy is going to be a whole lot more effective than a few disadvantaged people sitting out a Reserve program where they might otherwise just be doing admin work.
The US military is largely a blue-collar jobs program that lets you opt in to service in exchange for something resembling standard European social benefits (retirement, healthcare, housing, education). Which sucks for a bunch of reasons, including that some are excluded from eligibility, but it's what we've got. That's obviously not the whole reason we have a military, or even close to it, but it's become a big part of its role in society.
As far as I can tell, the closest we have to a white-collar jobs program is the health insurance industry and insurance-related jobs elsewhere. Keeping millions employed while being a drag on the rest of the economy.
Is education difficult to obtain? America is the #6th most educated country in the world, when viewed from the perspective as percentage of population having at least some tertiary schooling:
People having a lot of student loan debt doesn't imply that education is hard to obtain. Having a low percentage of your population with tertiary degrees would show that. But that is not the case in the US.
A quick search determined that at least in Switzerland and South Korea, there is an avenue for conscientious objection, so I wouldn't say that "military service" is mandatory there. Even in Israel there seem to be plenty of options to get around military service.
I recommend the Wikipedia articles about "Conscription in <insert country here>".
b) People who choose civilian service to avoid military service.
c) Conscientious objectors who go to prison instead of serving.
d) People who could be conscripted but somehow manage to avoid serving.
From my Finnish perspective, "mandatory military service" means that the ratio (a + b + c) / d is high. Civilian service does not exist because the country wants to use slave labor instead of paid labor, but because it's socially more acceptable than imprisoning people who refuse to serve in the military.
This is factually incorrect - you literally can get $400k in education of your choosing at the tender age of 18, which is why we frequently discus articles revolving around student debt for degrees that don't pay anything. There isn't anything even remotely equivalent when it comes to money access of this sort (try getting a $400k mortgage with zero income and zero assets )
You can get mortgage of 400k USD, what a great thing to get when entering 18... Sorry guys but this is so fucked up from European point of view. And that poor people are pushed to enlist to kill innocent folks half around the globe just to be able to study is yet another level of fuckery.
But at least you guys get some semi-decent medical insurance to live like a human being. For which we also don't need to pay (or very little bulk sum with hard ceiling). Something about basic human rights, future of our race and all.
European here as well; I suspect you misunderstood: Getting college loans in the US is absolutely trivial and the amount of money you can have access to is objectively preposterous. Any notion that the only way to get access to education is by joining the military is patently wrong.
Last time I checked most the best human rights had to be fought for and defended at some point. Stop taking for granted what was paid for in blood by your predecessors and being all sanctimonious about what are "basic human rights" it makes you sound like a spoiled child.
Your healthcare isn't a human right, is is a benefit you collectively decided to pay for. Others can make different decisions.
You’re just complaining. The world exists as it does now and broad generalized complaints like yours are often used to support positions which actively harm those you purport to help.
Say we take away the military on-ramp to class mobility. What can we do for those trapped in poverty whose only ticket out was enlistment? Your answer should be focused on what we can practically do as the world stands now, not in your fictional utopia where militaries aren’t necessary and education is free. The military is offering “good” and you’re looking for “perfect.” We all know the saying.
Things don't get better if you don't complain. All of my siblings have come back from military service (marines, army rangers, navy) worse off, and the benefits in no way compensate them for what they lost. I recommend it to no one. The best military service is the service you did not perform. The VA is notorious for being terrible. The US has non profits for wounded/disabled veterans because care and support (most importantly around mental health) the government should be providing isn't. Since 2001, more than 114,000 veterans have died by suicide [1] [2]. Over 40,000 veterans are homeless on any given night [1]. This is a pipeline problem; stop putting people into the pipeline.
I max out my contributions to progressives, similar PACs, and canvass door to door at every election I can for those who champion for these public goods (healthcare, education) to be universal. I'm doing my part to sway anyone I can from putting themselves through a grinder for services they should be entitled to without military service. Yes, the world sucks current state, and yes, I agree whole heartedly that complaining is not enough.
[1] https://stopsoldiersuicide.org/vet-stats ("Veterans are at 50% higher risk of suicide than their peers who have not served." ; "Depending on branch, up to 31% of service members develop PTSD after returning from combat." ; "The rate of suicide for veterans in the LGBTQ+ community is up to 7x higher than for non-LGBTQ+ veterans." ; "More than 40% of female veterans report experiencing military sexual harassment or military sexual trauma.")
Sounds like your siblings had tough deployments or unit issues, which is certainly a thing and the ugly side of the tradeoff of service.
But, most of what you point out is a veteran issue, and I 100% agree, but that's not the military's fault, its the VA and the executive/legislative branch.
Arguably no branch of the government is more invested in a strong veteran support network than the military itself, as the dynamic you point out is well known, and keeps people from service for probably good reasons.
The military is no picnic and it’s no savior. It’s not billed as a day spa and the people who join up are without question taken advantage of. It’s hard on many families, including mine and yours apparently. Support isn’t there once you’re out. Support probably isn’t there while you’re in either.
But there’s nowhere else to go for someone stuck in the cycle of poverty. They don’t have money. They go to one of the few places that still recognizes that cash isn’t the only currency the young have to give and offer their bodies and lives. If you’re just as likely to get shot in the streets of Chicago as overseas, well you might as well get your tuition paid for.
The groups you support (progressives, similar PACs, politicians) have recently started telling the world about how poverty is systemic and how useless poor people’s actions are in the face of such a fucked up system, so how can you sit here and tell me that these people need to find a new way to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps while taking away their army issued boots?
> The groups you support (progressives, similar PACs, politicians) have recently started telling the world about how poverty is systemic and how useless their actions are in the face of such a fucked up system, so how can you sit here and tell me that these people need to find a way to pull themselves by their own bootstraps while taking away their army issued boots?
Much easier to get out of poverty with universal healthcare and subsidized education versus going to the sandbox and coming back with PTSD just to get your GI Bill and Tricare. Don't tell me it isn't affordable, the productivity and wealth demonstrably exists. The system chooses cannon fodder over plowshares. It is very easy to sit here and tell you this with every other OECD country providing models to crib off of.
Establish the other pipeline out of poverty then come after the military. Or, alternatively, establish the other pipeline and let the government compete for young people. Don’t just try to fuck poor people by taking their options away and then promising that a different option is “coming.”
> Much easier to get out of poverty with universal healthcare and subsidized education
Isn't that the case though? Medicaid provides great healthcare for those in the lower income brackets (my family used it for the majority of my childhood years) and most colleges are basically free (community college and some state schools will actually pay you).
I don't think the ability to pay for education or healthcare is really the reason for poverty here.
We already pay for most of those services, it's just that right now, we often get to pay twice for them, in both the upfront dollar cost, and all the non-dollar suffering that untreated medical issues, chronic homelessness, and generational crime cause.
> What can we do for those trapped in poverty whose only ticket out was enlistment?
You just give them the fucking food, education, and healthcare. Look at the current US military budget and tell me that's impossible.
The military is not offering "good" — it's offering the roll of a dice. Sure, one side says "good" but you've got a "death" side too. Wealthy people do not have to roll this dice at all.
The majority of our lives has featured a "war" almost entirely based on false pretenses. Thousands of soldiers died. Do you think their families were happy about having this on-ramp to class mobility?
I had recruiters coming to my house and deriding my living conditions to get me to enlist when I was 17. It's predatory, abhorrent, and not even remotely "good."
This almost entirely ignores the phenomenon of insurance companies inflating healthcare costs and making incredibly large profits. Health insurance industry profits ($31bn in 2020) are almost equivalent to what your link says the entire military expenditure for the European theater is ($35bn in 2018).
Not to mention the bureaucratic, political, and productivity costs plus the costs to employers and what individuals pay out of pocket.
Higher education funded through government spending is not a utopia, it already exists in many places and would not be prohibitively expensive for the United States if there was a will.
Try it first, then compare. I had free college, it was mostly a waste of time for everyone. It was not a bad college, it was the best in the country, the others were worse.
In many cases you get what you pay for. In my case it was approximately zero. From what I hear from new hires, the quality these days it's worse, they are mostly diploma factories.
It's a silver lining. It's shameful that the need exists at all, but it's definitely a positive for the people who are getting mostly screwed by the status quo but would otherwise be getting completely screwed.
It's nuts that some people have to consider joining the military to be able to pay for tuition and/or to get health care. I have nothing to contribute other than expressing how soul crushing this seems for someone outside the US.
Being a part of a society means not only freedoms, but responsibilities. You're responsible for following the law. You're responsible for paying taxes (you know, those things that pay for all the free stuff you're demanding) and sometimes you're responsible for defending the country that guarantees you those freedoms.
The US has a large population and is able to field a military with only volunteers (at the moment. This wasn't always the case, and the draft can be reinstated if necessary). Smaller countries would not be able to have a military at all without mandatory service. Their freedoms would be moot if they were invaded and conquered.
Demanding freedom and shirking responsibility is the act of a child.
This reminds me of a point Michael Moore made in Sicko – that Americans are generally fine with government spending if it's directed at the military. As he put it, America could probably have a national health service as long as the doctors and nurses wore camo.
It's a pretty lame point. We're fine with spending on members of the military because, at any point, they may have to put their lives on the line for the rest of us. National defense isn't something you can prepare for after you need it.
There are valid arguments to be made for society banding together and providing health care for everyone. "but the military gets it" isn't one of them.
Still though, government-provided medical insurance is accepted as a perk in this context, where as in other contexts, many Americans express extreme skepticism about the concept.
IIRC, Bill O'Reilly wrote about this idea while he was getting his MPA from Harvard. Create a universal national health service run by the Surgeon General where all the doctors wore military uniforms. This would radically reduce any big government scare messaging from financial conservatives.
> As ridiculous as the US college system is in terms of cost, I'm happy things like this exist to at least give people more options.
The only people I want in an army are those who have freely and independently chosen to join the army and who have been psychologically and physically checked to be fit for service. The motivation of a soldier should exclusively be to serve their country, not financial or status (e.g. citizenship) gain.
People who have "chosen" because they have no other perspective to rise in life later-on should they survive their service or because they were pressured to do so by their family or friends have no place in the armed forces.
An army should strive for excellence - Putin's troops are the current showcase for entire generations to see what happens otherwise.
‘ The motivation of a soldier should exclusively be to serve their country, not financial or status (e.g. citizenship) gain.’
No successful professional military has ever worked like this. Basically you want a an army comprised mainly of fanatical nationalists whose only purpose is to ‘serve their country’ (whatever that means). Hate it to break it to you but such a force would more closely resemble the Waffen SS, rather than the citizen militias of colonial America or ancient Greece. A modern professional military should mainly made up from balanced and educated professionals to be effective. People like this usually have other choices in life and thus need certain incentives to join. Not saying serving you country shouldn’t be a part of it, but for most such people that alone is not enough.
For that you either need to decrease the general size of the army dramatically or find other ways of ‘motivating’ new recruits to ‘join’. The second options has not historically resulted in anything resembling ‘ excellence’ outside of ultra-militaristic, jingoist societies.
> At RubyConf 2014 someone in the lunch queue asked what I did before I was in tech and asked me if I enjoyed killing babies when I explained.
To some extent your question is in the same category as the above. It decontextualizes the situation entirely. He lives in a democracy. He obviously believes that society is less worse than some visible alternatives. He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership determine. It's obviously possible for him to morally re-evaluate that at a later point: it might even cost him his life to do so. But his actions are morally considered whereas I think the question is morally thoughtless.
I don't know if this was your intention, but your comment comes off as extremely dismissive. If you are joining a fighting force, you absolutely should consider where and how you might be deployed should your unit get mobilized. There is a tremendous difference between doing an active tour of duty in a foreign country and being called up domestically, and it is fine to use your own moral calculus when weighing the two.
In the US, for example, part time opportunities are either in the reserves or the national guard, with the former having a foreign focus and the latter having a domestic focus. Plenty of guardsmen ended up doing tours in Iraq, but more recently, guardsmen helped staff overwhelmed medical facilities during the height of the pandemic.
It's fine to dismiss boring flamebait. The top-level comment is dressed up to sound curious but basically falls in the same category of questions that the GP and OP called out as thoughtless.
I think the top-level comment ("Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from invasion?") is exactly the kind of thing you should ask yourself when joining something like the Army Reserves. Everyone has some things they will not do, and it's important to figure out what those might be before finding yourself pushed to those limits.
The thoughtless comments basically express the idea that no one should be in any military, whereas thoughtful questions acknowledge that not everyone has the same red lines.
FWIW I was asking because the 3rd paragraph describes the Yeomanry as being founded to prevent invasion and "formed to serve only within Great Britain" and so I was curious if it was a special-purpose unit still (and I asked about civil disturbance as clearly at some point that was a function, but perhaps later civil rights changes prevent the use of the army for policing like in the USA).
But it doesn't really matter what my intention with the comment was, clearly I touched a nerve and most folks are replying on the ethics of the issue. That probably means that it is actually an interesting topic of discussion.
> He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership determine.
This is, at best, a naive portrayal of how London and Washington start wars.
See the infamous Downing Street Memo [1].
In Washington, which often leads the rest of the West in military adventurism, Congress hasn't approved a military operation since 2002, despite a US-led coalition destroying sovereign Libya in 2011 and occupying Northern Syria since 2015.
Indeed, the 2002 AUMF authorized by Congress for the Iraq War is still in effect 20 years later [2], and used by the executive branch to dictate any military operation, bypassing Congressional approval.
It might be naive but doesn't make the statement any less accurate or true. Some people have a strong belief, and faith, in democracy and democratic leaders. To the point that they'd join up and go fight if called upon. It's not for everyone but that's ok in a democratic society. Implying that people who do believe in the system are stupid or "lesser," is perhaps something you should consider not doing.
"Some people have a strong belief, and faith, in democracy and democratic leaders. To the point that they'd join up and go fight if called upon."
There must be some serious cognitive dissonance going on in those people who give Congress and the President abysmally low ratings and yet believe in democracy so much that they'd join the military and then trust their elected leaders (who they have such awful opinions of) to "do the right thing" when deciding who to wage war on.
It does make the statement less true, because it is evidently not based in reality.
In actually-existing 21st-century "democracies", the people do not choose who gets bombed. Those choices are made by unelected officials in the MIC and rationalized by think tanks and communications firms funded by the same MIC.
> Implying that people who do believe in the system are stupid or "lesser," is perhaps something you should consider not doing.
First you say it was "used by the executive branch to dictate any military operation"... ie the executive branch are the ones calling the shots. Now all of a sudden it's "unelected officials in the MIC" who are choosing who gets bombed. So which is it? The author clearly believes elected officials are in charge and he trusts them. Emphasis here on "believes".
I'm not here to make a judgement on whether the article author's *beliefs* are correct or based in reality as defined by you. It's pretty straightforward to see how the author came to his conclusions (described in parent replies in this thread), when you begin with his starting assumptions. Clearly you disagree with those (e.g. whether democracy exists and whether it's worth signing up/fighting/dying for), but that's a real boring conversation.
Also, fail to see how it's "strawmanning" when I'm pointing out your name-calling the author "naive," and how it's not great.
No goalposts have been moved. The executive branch sans the president/VP are all unelected officials, and the State/Defence departments are part of the MIC.
> But his actions are morally considered whereas I think the question is morally thoughtless.
I would disagree with this. Agreeing to fight an as-of-yet undefined enemy is abdicating any moral decisions based on who the enemy is, or how the war is fought. It is delegating personal moral decisions to the masses.
> He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership determine.
This is basically exactly my point. The soldier doesn't get to decide that it's immoral to carpet bomb El Salvador; they've already agreed to kill whoever their leadership tells them to.
I find it unpalatable under my personal morals, because I believe there is no act with more gravitas than intentionally killing another human. No amount of societal cohesion or democracy can absolve a person of their personal responsibility for that death.
The basis of the question is "How can you morally justify outsourcing your decision of whether it justifiable to kill a person or not?", because many of us simply can't imagine that. Democracies have done a lot of morally unbearable things, from slavery to the rise of Hitler, so they're clearly not infallible.
This is basically just the Nuremburg defense with a veneer of democracy.
"The soldier doesn't get to decide that it's immoral to carpet bomb El Salvador; they've already agreed to kill whoever their leadership tells them to."
Not sure why this is getting down-voted. One of the greatest stories of courage and principled behaviour I have heard of is of the US helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson Jr. who intervened in the My Lai massacre, saving children and civilians. He had to interpose his helicopter between the murdering US troops and the civilians. He ordered his crew to shoot US soldiers if they did not stop massacring civilians. His actions were eventually recognized, but at the time he was vilified by US politicians, and many citizens.
You can simultaneously believe in democracy and believe that ceding one’s moral agency to the whims of the populace is immoral.
We’ve had several recent examples of absolutely tragic uses of our military might. Voluntarily putting oneself in a situation where you have to “kill babies” or face serious consequences is itself immoral.
The royalty is still very much in charge in the UK, actively using their constitutionally protected veto power over new laws.
It's only in the vaguest sense a democracy.
Edit: At least read the article. There's documentation that all new law including simple amendments gets passed by the royal family before being voted on, and the royal family asks for major changes of both removals and additions to these laws. Having a monarch who has to sign off on all law and actively participates in the writing of that law is not a democracy, full stop. As a british subject, you are only allowed the laws that the queen thinks you should have, demonstrably, by the uk government's own documentation on the matter.
You are mostly right, except the democracy part: that does not mean anything. Greeks had democracy 25000 years ago and it did not go so well, a certain very famous dictator was elected to power and a present day Russian president as well. On paper they are all democracies, in practice there are degrees of bad or fake democracies all over.
> Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from invasion?
Yes, yes, and no. His own explanation mentions Peterloo! He joined the full time army during the Iraq war (although doesn't mention being deployed). This is evidently not something he's curious about.
Ukraine has certainly highlighted the need for a defensive force. It's also made the question of whether all the fighting of the past 20 years has made the world safer or more dangerous - you could argue that Iraq re-established the precedent for aggressive war, and the fallout has made most of the muslim world less safe. Including Russia's war in Syria. Which they used as training for invading Ukraine.
According to [1] in 2004, when numbers were at their peak, reservists made up 20% of Britain's strength in Iraq; and 'large numbers' of reservists deployed in Afghanistan.
Seems to me that's the big downside to joining the TA - you're putting your life and honour in the hands of professional politicians.
(However, it also says 'many' reservists were deployed as 'individuals' rather than units - presumably meaning they were deployed by choice?)
I was wondering exactly this. I see the author is still here in the comments and I'm curious to know how he feels about this.
Does he get to choose whether he fights or not? Does he get reasonably and transparently informed about the issues leading to him being deployed?
Having to fight or kill is not something one should consider lightly. It's a responsibility that very few should have to bear and hopefully you should be as informed as possible about why you're doing it when making the decision to bear that responsibility.
I'ts likely whatever wild hair the politicians dream up. Which has always made that a "hell no" for me. Not willing to go murder people because some politician thinks it's a good idea.
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians."
— Sir Humphrey Appleby, Yes, Minister, March 1980.
+1. Part of being part of a national military is subordinating your desires to the chain of command, which in a democracy usually flows to the highest elected official.
If one wants to pick and choose "right" conflicts, one shouldn't serve.
And ultimately... while I know HN has a pretty anti-authority bend... if you don't trust your government to deploy military power, what do you trust them for?
Which isn't saying that uses of military power in reality are always right or justified, but is saying that effectively every other government power rests on top of its having the authority to use force to enforce compliance. And a military is a major component of that.
I'd consider deploying the military to be a much higher bar of trust than building and maintaining roads and tax policies, providing healthcare and education, etc.
I don't trust the government to use force responsibly, especially on people who are not part of a social contract with it. The government's authority comes from the consent of the governed, not by force
> I'd consider deploying the military to be a much higher bar of trust than building and maintaining roads and tax policies, providing healthcare and education, etc.
What happens when roads are destroyed or barricaded for tolls, taxes aren't paid, or healthcare and education are withheld from anyone who isn't a white man? (to offer a few hypotheticals)
I am more ok with destroyed roads then with expansive war or atrocities and so on. Those cause way more harm. I not ok with racist education. By I am even more not ok with army being used for racist project - and that one causes more harm.
Also, by current legal standards, soldiers are supposed to refuse orders if those lead to genocide and such. It is so after Nuremberg after WWII.
I am very fine with the rare Russian soldier refusing to fight Ukraine. The one following orders when "filtering" or killing civilians should be prosecuted.
> When push comes to shove, it's about power. F.ex. the desegregation of Arkansas schools [0]. If don't have force to command, you don't have authority.
I would point out that segregation itself was hold by forces. The particular unit went there, because local ones were onthe other side.
Being subordinate didn't work for the Nuremberg "I was following orders" crowd, which makes me doubt your assertion.
> if you don't trust your government to deploy military power, what do you trust them for?
Do you have to trust them for anything? It's not like it's a viable option to decide that you don't want to designate any government as "yours". Good luck surviving in no man's land if you do. What makes government "theirs" for lots of people is just the threat of organized violence or exclusion.
It didn't work for those convicted in the Nuremberg trials because the Nazis lost. Had the Third Reich persisted with a truce, do you really think they would have been charged, convicted, and sentenced?
Legal liability gets pretty hazy when applying it in a non-sovereign arenas (i.e. international matters). Yes, there are treaties [0], but what are treaties without enforcement?
> Do you have to trust them for anything?
People are welcome to move to areas where government interaction is less or non-existent. They generally choose not to. Largely, because the economies in places like that suck, because it's hard to employ capital in an anarchist, solely-"might makes right" environment.
> Had the Third Reich persisted with a truce, do you really think they would have been charged, convicted, and sentenced?
Pre Nuremberg expectations on soldiers were blind obedience nazi or not. Nuremberg set the expectation on soldiers from then on. WWII changed that.
It could not happen due to their own ideology. It did not allowed for lasting compromise which everyone else knew. Third Reich would not prosecuted those people, because by their ethical standards they were doing right thing.
Then again, Pablo Escobar believed he is cool guy by own standards too.
I also conjecture that once you turn a non-governed area into an El Dorado, "might makes right" will push it right back into a government. I don't feel a regular person has any choice if they want to thrive but to surrender themselves to some government regardless of trust.
Hard to tell if you're just trolling or being serious.
* Nuremberg and "just following orders" was about actual orders to specific individuals to do things that were literal war crimes, and those individuals carrying those orders out. One country designating another country an enemy is not, in fact, a war crime.
>> Do you have to trust them for anything?
I mean, yes? Even when you live in a libertarian fantasy land it turns out you need to have some level of trust in a government. You trust the road you're driving on won't collapse and that the folks at fire department know which end of the hose the water comes out of. You trust that because you trust that the gov that pays for that made the right choices. You can pretend you can have a society without relying on an organized collective of people who live in that society but I cannot logically see how that would work.
Starting an illegal war of aggression is a crime for which some people were convicted in Nuremberg Tribunals.
However, all the soldiers fighting in such an illegal war of aggression are not considered responsible for that crime. For "simply" fighting a war and killing uniformed enemy soldiers "I was just following orders" actually is a legitimate excuse, and should not result in any convictions (of e.g. murder) unless they commit some explicit war crimes, e.g. murdering captured civilians.
> For "simply" fighting a war and killing uniformed enemy soldiers
But, that is not how those wars happen. Like, literally none of those wars was limited to killing uniformed enemy soldiers. That might be Hollywood idea of war.
But pretty much all of real ones involved units killing/torturing locals. Sometimes more and as a strategy, other times less so. But it happens literally every time. It is not that all armies are the same, they are not. Some are much much better then others.
But, in general, worldwide, "simply" fighting a war and killing uniformed enemy soldiers is not what war is.
While none of the wars was limited to killing uniformed enemy soldiers, for the vast majority of soldiers fighting those wars (even if illegal wars of aggression) their personal actions were limited to killing uniformed soldiers and they are not responsible or liable for any war crimes, as they did not perform them.
It's often misunderstood, but the Nuremberg Defence is a genuine defence to criminal behaviour, including war crimes. It's just not an absolute one, and cannot be used for the crime of genocide. If you're in a missile silo and you're ordered to nuke Moscow, you're not responsible for the outcome.
I don't think they were literally looking for an answer for this specific question, but pointing out how unsettling, at the very least, the lack of concrete answers is.
Anyway if they won't say it I will: signing up to fight without knowing who or why you'll be fighting is morally compromised at the extreme very best.
Modern economic powers like the UK do not use their militaries for self-defense. Someone able to write with his sophistication about the military knows what they use them for. In serving, and even in writing this piece of pro-military propaganda, he's supporting imperial violence.
> Modern economic powers like the UK do not use their militaries for self-defense.
Modern economic powers have militaries and alliances that make attacking them unattractive. They have sufficient teeth to dissuade conflict.
If you are fortunate enough to live in a Western democracy your safety and security is preserved by the actions of those who you call morally compromised.
Doesn't really matter for this purpose, I'm not arguing that the military is inherently wrong, or that military service is.
I'm asserting that by far the most likely use of a wealthy nation's military is going to be a bad one. Encouraging people to join the military in that context is bad.
People have an incredibly wide range of reasons for joining or supporting militaries, and I would absolutely not universally condemn all of them. Just this one.
---
That aside, just because I benefit from something doesn't make it ok. What kind of first grader ethics is that?
> I'm not arguing that the military is inherently wrong, or that military service is.
Just that everyone who signs up for the military of a developed nation is morally compromised at the extreme very best. Can you square that statement with believing in the moral existence of a military for a developed nation?
> By far the most likely use of a wealthy nation's military is going to be a bad one
And yet, as I said, developed nations require a military for defence. The world is not a nice place, as Russia is current proving, and modern conflicts cannot be fought successfully with poor quality untrained troops recruited on the fly for a particular conflict, where those signing up know what they are going to be doing in advance. Developed nations therefore need a well trained standing army. In signing up for this army, people put their lives on the line, and in doing so protect you, me and others from harm. I do not consider doing this for that ideal morally compromised.
You are right that nations have engaged in wars of aggression that should not have been fought. Living in such a nation I bear some of the responsibility for those wars, as do the soldiers who fought in those wars, but much less than the politicians and dictators who declared them for their own or their nations strategic gain in the first place.
Unfortunately nice binary moral choices are few and far between.
> That aside, just because I benefit from something doesn't make it ok. What kind of first grader ethics is that?
My point was not to suggest that because you benefit from something that makes it ok, as you well know.
>And yet, as I said, developed nations require a military for defence. The world is not a nice place, as Russia is current proving, and modern conflicts cannot be fought successfully with poor quality untrained troops recruited on the fly for a particular conflict, where those signing up know what they are going to be doing in advance. Developed nations therefore need a well trained standing army.
Seriously, how do people miss this. The US Military is currently advising the Ukrainian armed forces while Germany has their thumb up their ass spending billions on Russian hydrocarbons. Unfortunately conscientious objection only works in the world we all wished we lived in. Somebody has to hold the guns and spend the money on this shit.
THANK YOU. it's amazing how this point seems to be lost on so many people, it would be one thing if I were able to contribute to a specific conflict or situation that I was ideologically aligned with... it's a completely different thing to sign away my life to the military and give them carte blanche to point me anywhere they choose.
Every soldier has the choice whether to follow or disobey an order of dubious legal/moral consequence. If you are asked to kill babies, you sure as shit had better say "no". As a species, there is broad agreement that "just following orders" is not a defense for committing crimes against humanity.
> A lot of people talk about Mỹ Lai, and they say, 'Well, you know, yeah, but you can't follow an illegal order.' Trust me. There is no such thing. Not in the military. If I go into a combat situation and I tell them, 'No, I'm not going. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to follow that order', well, they'd put me up against the wall and shoot me.
~ Lawrence La Croix, a squad leader in Charlie Company in Mỹ Lai
Illegal/immoral orders can be silently sabotaged and reported later. Look at RF and Belarus. Russians are happy to kill Ukrainians, while Belarussians are wrecking Russian military trains. They received same orders.
Only if the lower echelons of leadership are on board with sabotaging the orders. If they're not that's when you end up taking the "enemy fire" that back authorizes the use of force for the war crime.
Soldiers claim they arw willing to die as part of job. If one brags he is ok to go on super dangerous missions, he should be OK also to die in order to not commit attrocity
True, but there are plenty of soldiers who are simply trying not to get killed. The calculus of "if I don't commit this war crime, I'll for sure die, but if I do, the US has pledged to literally invade countries that try to investigate us war crimes, and don't have a great track record of internally policing war crimes" is pretty clear.
My point isn't to defend the actions of war criminals, but instead point out that relying on foot soldiers to become conscientious objectors at the spur of the moment against the structural pressures against that is well documented to not be a great strategy for reducing war crimes.
> point out that relying on foot soldiers to become conscientious objectors at the spur of the moment against the structural pressures against that is well documented to not be a great strategy for reducing war crimes
Nor is excusing all those as a result of them all being scared of forced to do them. A lot of those are committed, because soldiers on the ground in fact want to commit them. Sometimes you have no choice and would be shot otherwise. And many times you do have choice and can choose to not rape or not kill that civilian. That is something that former soldiers report on too - if you read their accounts.
> but if I do, the US has pledged to literally invade countries that try to investigate us war crimes, and don't have a great track record of internally policing war crimes" is pretty clear.
For all US faults, US actually has better track record that ISIS or Russia or China. They are not bunch of angels, plenty of sociopaths all around.
But specifically in US army, you are unlikely to die or be tortured of you don't commit war crime.
Or closer to more recent events, imagine signing a contract to defend your country from NATO or Chinese invaders, and then one evening receiving an order to kill your friends and relatives in Ukraine...
While reading, that paragraph really stood out to me. Why would you even want a queen? It's an expensive relic of darker times.
The whole idea of fighting for your life is completely alien to me. But then again i guess the people in Ukraine weren't expecting to be invaded for the longest time either.
The Queen basically serves as an extra head of state, a useful diplomatic figure and not much more. I don't think the UK monarchy is a net-negative but admittedly isn't all that necessary either.
I come from a military town so my view may be different to some but I believe you need to be able to fight when you are threatened and to do that you need to be prepared. It's very hard to be prepared if you don't have a military and competent, motivated and well trained people to fight in it.
It's not meant literally. Even in Australia our armed forces are still "Royal" but this is just a vestige of the past. i.e our ships are designated Her Majesty's Australian Ship (HMAS).
What is means in practice is they fight for their country and its allies, just like any other military. While technically the Queen's representative in Australia (the Governor-General) is the chief of Australias armed forces (as defined in the constitution) this has never been used in practice (and would probably be ignored at this point).
Then don't say it period. Also, isn't the british queen still the head of state of australia? Every time I bring this up, it's always australians, canadians, british, etc making excuses.
What do you mean excuses? It's just history. It's said for the same reason, because history.
I'm sorry it offends you but nobody in Australia is overly motivated to change something that has no practical impact and given you don't seem to be from a Commonwealth country I don't think you are entitled to complain about it either.
It's why some people freak out when someone "disrespects" their flag, why judges wear special clothes and why courthouses/government buildings are so frequently built to look impressive.
Such symbols perpetuate attitudes of deference and subservience to what the symbols represent... not for everyone, but they are effective on a lot of people, which is why they're still being used.
Isn't using the literal meaning of that oath similar to claiming that an American oath [0] is to a sheet of paper? It's indicative of either ignorance [1] or lacking good faith.
Sure if you take the most hardcore literal interpretation. It's just short hand for "the enemies of the state" or "whoever my duly elected leadership consider to be the bad guys". Yes, people still willingly give up their independence for what they consider to be the greater good. Consider the entire united states armes forces and almost all government employees (in particular the folks who work for 3 letter agencies).
The author is... very nonchalant about the ethical aspect of his calling.
From the sanitized language (the "destroys the enemy through mounted close combat" euphemism kind of glosses over the killing part of said combat), to the almost smug dismissal of pacifists, I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric being put into deflecting the criticisms of the military without actually addressing them.
Like... the author mentions the Peterloo Massacre, the Boer War, and the Iraq War, and completely blows past them, and then goes on to explain how good the military is at building character and stuff. And I have no doubt it's true, but somehow I don't think Iraqis were especially thrilled to know the foreign troops occupying their country were from socially and economically diverse backgrounds.
Speaking as someone who supports my own country's government, mostly supports my country's military involvement abroad, and would enroll (hopefully) without hesitation if our territory were invaded, I've considered taking military-related jobs in the future, and I still might.
But if I did, it would be because I decided the positive outcomes of France's military interventions outweighs the negatives; which, given our past exactions, and the current state of Lybia, is... not at all obvious. My moral calculus certainly wouldn't be "on the one hand we're destabilizing poorer countries for cheap oil, but on the other hand the army sure pushes me out of my comfort zone and that's great".
This article was about the author's reasons for joining the military, not sure why you expect it to also be about the detailed history of a particular unit or the general ethics of being a modern soldier?
Because ethics aren't something you hang up on a rack when your shift starts and pick back up when you go home.
If you saw someone post about all the cool technical aspects of their job designing a marketing app for a tobacco company, your first reaction might be "Wait, is this really something you should be working on?". At least it would be mine.
And if the author included bits like "Tobacco companies need apps too" and "I've heard extremists ask me if I liked poisoning children" and "If it wasn't me, it would still have to be someone", I would question how much they have really thought about the ethical aspect of their work.
Yes, I expect someone who joined the military and wants to convince me that's a great thing to do and I should do it too to spend a bit more time on the general ethics of being a modern soldier.
I'm not addressing the rest of your post, but pacifism is absurd and pacifists should be dismissed. Pacifism allows those who are not pacifist to impose their will on others.
> we emphasise explaining the context two levels up. I may tell my soldiers to raid a compound, but I would also tell them that the reason for this is to create a distraction so that the Colonel can divert the enemy away from a bridge, and that the reason the Brigadier wants the Colonel to divert the enemy is so that the bridge is easier to cross.
many organizations could benefit from more of that.
The term is communicating the "Commanders Intent". It's exactly I how work with my teams. Giving the people doing the work as much information as possible, lets them make better decisions as all the little decisions pop up.
I wasn't in the military, and have always led this way because it seemed more effective and tbh, less work for me. Ideally I don't need to micro-manage anyone when they have all the same information that I do. If a big issue comes up, I trust my team to surface it me.
I've watched other managers deal in information (only sharing bits and pieces to certain people), and it just never made sense to me IMO. Everyone was always a little confused and things were never done quite right.
That's how I do things with my group. How do you expect people to learn to see the bigger picture if you never admit or make them aware there is one in the first place?
> I spend about a hundred days a year of my spare-time in evenings, weekends, and holidays, training my Squadron.
From an American perspective, as someone who was in our Army Reserve, that's an insane amount of time if you aren't a full time AGR. I guess he like's his big time Major pay and status, but if you're really dedicated to being a part time soldier, the higher you rise in rank the more you'll be expected to contribute in your own personal time.
I doubt pay is a factor for the author at all. A quick look (https://apply.army.mod.uk/what-we-offer/army-reserve/army-re...) reveals Majors in the reserves make £135/day, which is frankly nothing compared to what the author would earn in his job at Shopify.
When you join the reserves you have to go through basic infantry training (you can't just go straight to Sandhurst like if you went into the regulars). You're paid £40.13 per day at the moment (I think I was paid something like £30 a day when I went through it a decade ago). I don't think anyone goes in for the money - I've made a days training sat on the toilet after lunch at my last contract gig.
These are all valid points everything you said resonates with me.
I was in the US Navy myself and have been out for 11 years during which time I've finished a Bachelors (thanks GI Bill), will be finishing a Masters here shortly (also in CS), and have been in tech the entire time. While the pay is great and intellectually fulfilling, a part of me certainly misses having contact with a broader cross-section of society and of doing things that give you purpose.
I've been considering returning to a National Guard unit especially as I was born under Soviet occupation and the current events of the world highlight the growing threat of certain nations deciding to invade Eastern Europe.
Your reasons for missing service and considering returning ring very true with me.
As someone who's been in tech for a decade now, the biggest obstacle to me is the 1-2 years of training and how that would affect my career and family. It seems harder for mid-career adults to enlist/commission once you're already in a career and trying to advance...
hah, tempting but if I went back to the Navy reserves I'd try to go to dive school, but I'm well past the age for the Navy. For the Army and Air Force their max age is 39 waiverable so I have some time there though I'm too old to go pilot :(
Yes it does. Was Afghanistan better off before the pull out, or now under the Taliban? Iraq is a mess, sure, but at least nobody is gassing whole cities and we can be immensely proud of the liberation of Kuwait although that was more than 20 years ago. Right now we are providing vital military assistance to Ukraine, and I wish we were doing a lot, lot more.
The failures were political ones. Militarily the army did the job it was given efficiently, ethically and professionally. I'm not saying it's perfect by a long shot and in war mistakes often mean deaths, it should be held to account where necessary, but what organisation is flawless?
>> Was Afghanistan better off before the pull out, or now under the Taliban?
Why is that the comparison? The comparison should be was Afghanistan better off before we invaded in the first place. And committed war crimes. And radicalised a tonne of people who then came into Europe to murder civilians. You'd have to do mental somersaults to justify the Iraq + Afghanistan wars and think they were the right choice.
It's as contentious as the russian invasion of ukraine is. Meaning, not at all unless you fall for the obvious war justifying rhetoric.
I dont know why but it seems like there's been such a weird push for rehabilitating what the US and it's allies did to the middle east since the start of the russian war of aggression against ukraine.
The situation in Iraq is tough but no, I don’t think it’s obvious to me it would be better off still under Saddam Hussein, or maybe by now one of his sons. If you wonder what a dynastic succession like that can look like, check out Syria, and the young Assad is a pusseycat compared to Uday or Qusay.
There was no dynastic succession in syria, if anything the baathist regime shows how weirdly resilient it is even when faced with insane pressure. Keep in mind the iraqi baathist party was much more popular in iraq that assad is in syria. Also, no matter how violent a hypothetical baathist succession crisis would be, it would not have come close to what happened due to the invasion.
If anything, the iraqi war was the reason the syrian civil war was so bloody. The al qaida elements in iraq overtook the grass root rebellion in syria, and ISIS would literally have not existed if Saddam was still in power. Same for the sectarian violence that will plague iraq for decades to come.
Saddam absolutely deserved the rope, but that does not mean the US had any right to intervene because of that. Plus, the reason the US invaded had officially nothing to do with regime change. The "saving iraq from it's dictator" narrative only came after the WMD lies became evident.
> The "saving iraq from it's dictator" narrative only came after the WMD lies became evident.
True, none of which can be laid at the feet of the British army. I’m no fan of Blair but I’m not sure to what extent he knew it was all flimflam either.
There was no shortage of radicals coming to Europe already. I think the lesson from all of our engagement and lack of it in the Middle East, and beyond, is you can’t not be engaged. It will come and kick you in the arse whether you like it or not. For all the problems our interventions might have caused, our attempts to disengage have caused as many if not more problems.
I suspect anyone who thinks our withdrawal from Afghanistan, and abandoning its people to their fate is the end of our problems in that direction is going to be sadly disappointed.
> For all the problems our interventions might have caused
Might have caused? US is heavily responsible for the current state of the Middle East. A lot of the issues stem from the coups in Syria and Iran which were orchestrated by the CIA. Nevermind the shit show there of the last 30 years.
When you sign up to join the military, you are signing up to enforce those political decisions. You are not only signing up to "defend its people and friends." I would find this sort of article much more convincing if the author took an honest accounting of what it is that a military does. He has chosen to enable and participate in all aspects of British military activity, not just the patriotic soundbite version.
That is correct, but by and large I think the army is used mainly for those purposes. Not perfectly or without error, but mainly.
In any case defending our citizens and allies is a task that needs to be done no matter how much we wring our hands about the consequences. If we want it done more competently it’s on us to elect more competent governments, not the army.
So it's okay that the US military is used as the world police?
Neither the war in Afghanistan nor Iraq were justified. Not to mention Saddam was an ally of the US for some time. US even gave Iraq the chemical precursors for their chemical weapons program.
Yes, what's happening in Ukraine is awful, but by this logic, why has the US been supporting the Saudi Arabian regime in its war on Yemen? Why isn't the US providing humanitarian aid to the people of Yemen? There's political motives for nearly every recent conflict the US has gotten involved in. It's not for moral reasons. The "moral reasons" politicians give are sales pitches to gain support.
We've got our own problems at home. The taxpayer money thrown away on contractors and needlessly getting involved in these conflicts could have very well gone towards funding universal healthcare and higher education programs for the public, rather than giving folks the stick and carrot of putting their life on the line for such "benefits".
They're "benefits" because they're walled off in our country, whereas elsewhere they're covered by taxes. Providing them to each citizen from day 0 would only boost productivity/GDP in the long run, if money is the concern. But it's likely there's an awareness of that, and a worry of a healthy and educated population getting ahead, which would disincentivize people from joining the military.
A government that doesn't provide its people with, at the very least, healthcare, and uses healthcare (and education) as a means of drawing in folks to put their lives on the line in its military for selfish and offensive purposes, does not give two shits about its people. Its interests are morally devoid and elsewhere, not with its people nor the people of other nations.
What an original, dismissive, red-baiting-ish comment. Next it's gonna be the other classic dismissal, "whataboutism". Truth is, I despise Putin just as much as the next and am fully against the war.
Oh and Mohammed bin Salman understands you. See what I did there? Didn't take much effort.
I'm sorry but this is pure apologist rhetoric. It's so hand wavy that it puts even russian propaganda war justification to shame. "I bet they are doing better, if we ignore the 2 decades of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths!" is not a great argument, especially since you ignore the even more repulsive intervention in libya.
>Iraq is a mess, sure, but at least nobody is gassing whole cities
We didn't invade Iraq because of Saddam's genocide. That occurred while Iraq was allied with the US against Iran. The sudden concern for the Kurds was simply to manufacture consent for the war.
To be fair, a country that is able to defend its people is unlikely to actually ever need to. And the more able the country is, the less likely it will need to defend itself.
A fair number of people in the US, probably in other countries with similar programs, use the military as a means of funding their education at the uni or post-uni level. The govt pays for them, and in return there is a multi-year commitment in some form of the military. It's a good deal for both sides, although the risks were pointed out big-time back when Desert Shield became Desert Storm and a whole lot of EMT...MD's disappeared from neighbourhoods and reappeared in the Middle East. Something about the King's Shilling.
Many other social welfare programs require you to do X or Y to keep receiving benefits as well. From a societal level its absolutely used as a social welfare program to create opportunities for lower class individuals to advance. Thats even used as a part of their recruitment pitch! If you can handle the military service its well known that its a very easy way to make 6 figure salary is to join the military get a high clearance level and then go get a job that requires the clearance after you leave.
Its also a social welfare program in the sense that its goal is to create jobs/employment/training more so than to accomplish its ostensible mission of winning wars. (see how aggressively states try to keep military bases nearby, and a little thing called the military industrial complex)
Most social welfare programs have limitations as requirements, which has a negative effect. It keeps people content with the welfare because if they work they no longer qualify for it. A lot of the time the welfare will pay similar to a job so they won't bother with the slight increase.
The military you put your 4 years in, you get your experience, and you earn your GI bill for further education (or you go into private security or whatever your job in the military was).
I've known people who went into programming after doing it in the military. Chefs, airline pilots, IT analysts, etc.
It's more of a jobs program than a welfare program.
Officers = jobs, enlisted = welfare if you want a naive partitioning. Although high-ranking NCO's probably do quite well as they actually do/direct the work. Officers just look good :-).
it's absolutely welfare. Just because you're working doesn't make it not a socialist policy for the benefit of those who join.
You can have a jobs program that pays the civilians to dig the holes and the military to burn shit in them and fill them - just because they all now have jobs doesn't make it not welfare, and you've got 100% employment rate.
> In a sense federal jobs is socialistic I suppose, which is why you should want limited government.
Before one spends a trillion that could be going to the welfare of the citizens themselves, yeah probably.
>But you do need a military force in the country
Obviously, not sure why this is said here.
>It's not genuine to say military service is a welfare program, it's more of a jobs program.
It's not genuine to say it's a jobs program either - my healthcare money is being strapped to rockets and shipped across the ocean. Are those rockets filing taxes?
> Before one spends a trillion that could be going to the welfare of the citizens themselves, yeah probably.
So your suggested system would be to do away with the jobs and just give the taxpayer money away? That's much more socialist. You need to incentivize people or they won't work. If you do away with the military, you might as well not tax the people as much in the first place rather than taking their money and distributing it in a welfare program.
> Obviously, not sure why this is said here.
It was said because it wasn't clear what you were suggesting. If you're for keeping the military I'm all for lowering the industrial war complex, but I thought we were talking about military service and the benefits we give soldiers. Salaries make up a big part of military expense but those are jobs filled and livelihoods supported. It's the rockets and money we funnel into the middle east that could be cut, not GI bills.
> It's not genuine to say it's a jobs program either - my healthcare money is being strapped to rockets and shipped across the ocean. Are those rockets filing taxes?
That's fine, along as we agree that it's not genuine to say it's a welfare program. While I don't agree with a lot (or most) of our overseas ventures, especially Middle East or LATAM, you do need a force to protect freedoms. So I agree overall in the branches, just not the leadership, unless they are reducing our presence in places where they aren't needed.
>So your suggested system would be to do away with the jobs and just give the taxpayer money away? That's much more socialist. You need to incentivize people or they won't work. If you do away with the military, you might as well not tax the people as much in the first place rather than taking their money and distributing it in a welfare program.
So to sum up your take, the military only spends money on jobs, and without the all the money we throw at the military, we'd immediately start having to make cutbacks to personnel?
In the UK you typically go to college (university in our terminology) before you join the Army, rather than after, but we do have bursaries to support some technical specialities if they commit to joining after they graduate. You can also do in-service degrees, up to PhD I believe.
In the US, all officers must be university grads. The enlisted ranks do not need a university degree to join. I would assume the same is true of enlisted ranks in the UK.
Technically you don't need a degree to be an officer in the UK: you only need A Levels (finish high school) to go to Sandhurst and begin officer training. In reality however something like 98% of Sandhurst applicants are university graduates. I don't know the exact percentage of entrants who don't have a degree though, so don't quote me. It has been a while.
P.s. as a famous example, I believe Prince Harry went to Sandhurst without going to university first.
> I meet a lot of people in tech who tell me with a straight face that they genuinely think we should just unilaterally disband the Army right now, and cannot comprehend why I’d have anything to do with it. At RubyConf 2014 someone in the lunch queue asked what I did before I was in tech and asked me if I enjoyed killing babies when I explained.
I think Silicon Valley has a lot to learn from this. I worked with a defense contractor (one of the largest ones), designed parts in military airplanes and always found it uncomfortable to share this history of mine after moving to SV. What I did was so cool and always wanted to contrast it with software engineering (which is also cool sometimes but in a totally different way). I was met with tremendous guilt, disdain and unfair judgement of my character. The whole thing would flip after I explain to them that the airplanes I worked on were used for search and rescue recon. SV is myopic and politically fraught, sorry to say.
I’m not following, what’s Dell vs Apple in 1997 has to do with disdain for working on Defense in SV?
I want to clarify: there is still a massive spectrum from people working on Defense in SV and the types of engineers I interacted with (Googlers). What I find incredibly worrying is that the people that have disdain for Defense, it is sort of shallow and the main motive is to use it as a moral-superiority weapon against people that are on the receiving end. It’s free points to score with their colleagues. This is truly despicable behavior and I’ve seen it first hand. Fortunately, I’ve always been able to avert the discussion and diffuse it before it gets worse.
But it has left with me a sort of a chilling effect. Not being able to express one’s history, however marred it is in the opinion of the listener. This was not the case in places I’ve lived (East coast). Anyhow this thread is a way for me to share my grievances, for those listening please be kind to people that may not share your political or philosophical background. They’re not all baby killers.
It's interesting if there could be something similar to the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) but for emergency preparedness. In there Western portion of North America, it seems such things will be more needed going forward - whether it be prescribed burns or actual fire fighting.
From an individual participant perspective - it'd seem like it'd scratch a similar itch - slightly dangerous, wilderness training, heroic and camaraderie building.
From a societal perspective - there will always be natural disasters. Also some of the skills could be useful for national defense but not having to maintain an organization that's sole purpose is national defense seems like it'd be a huge benefit. Why not train the team and build camaraderie by fighting fires that need fighting versus expensive simulated war games.
> It’s sacrosanct that I tell the people in my Squadron what I want them to achieve, and not how to achieve it. They take a goal from me and then use their own initiative to make it happen. This is ‘mission command’ and violating it and micromanaging my Yeomen is a real taboo. If you try to tell a Yeoman how to cross a piece of ground in their vehicle rather than telling them where to get to they’ll certainly let you know what their job is and what your job is. I feel like tech could really learn something from this.
This is huge. "Commander's Intent" is something all team leads should set; trust your team to make decisions on the ground, because they all know the mission and understand they 'why.'
This is pure Extreme Ownership in action - allow ownership over decisions by informing and providing direction.
> It’s sacrosanct that I tell the people in my Squadron what I want them to achieve, and not how to achieve it. They take a goal from me and then use their own initiative to make it happen.
This is one of the qualities the military me with, and it has been so important to me that I constantly challenge my kids to do the same.
>In 1797 the Kingdom of Great Britain feared an invasion by the French. You may think of the British as always having a large standing Army, but it was relatively small at the start of the Napoleonic era. To give a better chance of defending the nation against invasion, volunteer units of part-time soldiers were formed to serve only within Great Britain. Infantry were easy to form as they just needed weapons and other basic equipment, but cavalry posed a problem in that it needed trained horses. A way to get these was to borrow them from local farmers and country estates.
As an American I interpret this to mean that the British took to heart a lesson learned from their recent experience in the American Revolution. I am reminded of this particular amendment to the US Constitution which was ratified by the US states in late 1791, a few years before the establishment of the Yeomanry.
>Amendment II
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Codifying this amendment in the Bill of Rights is the cornerstone for guaranteeing that trained individuals could be available to the United States should an external threat to the security of the new country arise.
This amendment has obviously become a trigger and a political dividing line here in the US. It's a shame. It is the one amendment of all of them that guarantees that a random collection of individual citizens drawn from any random locality can be quickly made ready to serve their country as an effective fighting force if called upon to serve.
Perhaps it is seen as too outdated, too permissive, etc. though in fact it is short and sweet defining the important desired outcome - (A well regulated militia,) the reasoning behind the need for that outcome - (being necessary to the security of a free state,) the specific right granted - (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)
It would have been awesome if they had laid out the responsibilities of the citizenry who exercise this right and the types of arms permissible for a citizen to keep and bear. I'm sure we can figure it all out in time. I'm not holding my breath though and you shouldn't either.
I thought the meaning of the 2nd amendment is now not solely understood as needing a well regulated militia. It is presented as an example of the benefit. So a modern sentence would be something like
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. For example, it is required if a well-regulated militia is to be assembled.
Thus disconnecting the "well-regulated militia" idea as the sole justification.
No disrespect intended at all in my response. I know it is a divisive issue.
Looking at the history though you would want to be a revisionist historian if you were to be phrasing it in that manner.
It was a contentious issue even back then. I have described why it reads as it does as it is important to understand that in reality, those who drafted the amendment went through multiple revisions before arriving at the final version precisely because each state had reservations about the level of power that should be given to individual citizens. They based their reservations on their own experiences dealing with threats on the frontier and with their experiences raising, training, and incorporating citizens into a force capable of defeating a well trained army during the American Revolution.
They tried to use what they had learned looking back, and craft an amendment that would help preserve the nation's ability to look ahead to a more prosperous future as an independent nation capable of defending itself from the threats they knew about or could expect at the time.
Like all the other amendments, the text in this one was a compromise between those who were charged with codifying standards for the new nation that all could agree upon.
So the guy spends 100% of his time outside of his job at Shopify in constant training to fight some war someday. That day may not arrive for years, if at all. Still, he needs to go and spend all of his free time in some imaginary war exercises every week. I am unable to fathom in what way this is a good and worthwhile use of anybody’s time. I can understand needs of many people to satisfy their caveman style hunting instincts, to fight, to feel important, to feel brotherhood, to feel adrenaline rush, to fund their education, to feel proud, to get medical insurance while rationalizing this entire enterprise beneath patriotism. To be honest, I haven’t understood the need for armies for “defense” (I understand it’s need for offense). If you want only defense, you should train every able citizen with basic and mandatory training with occasional refreshers. This makes a country with 10M+ population nearly undefeatable, even without nukes. Most countries can then get rid of 80% of the army this way and the associated costs. There is no need for human robots who act up in imaginary wars every day of their lives as their sole purpose and meaning. Human life hopeFully should mean something more than that.
Who’s going to train all your citizens if you don’t have any professional soldiers? Who’s going to lead them? As the article says, the knowledge of how to fight can’t be generated from nothing on the day that you suddenly need it. You need some kind of cadre to maintain skills and knowledge.
I think one of the biggest issues of our generation / society is that we see military personnel not as the rapist, civilian killing, perverts they never fail to show they are when in combat, but we see them as someone with a strong mind (where?), doing something noble in killing other human beings as tool of the wealthy / powerful
You want to get out of your comfort zone? Be pushed to improve? Go do some sports, go play football, go play tennis, go play cricket
If you peer at the photo very carefully you can see that the author is not in fact holding operations orders, but hard copy of a long discussion from bugs.ruby-lang.org regarding optimizations of the third implicit context
"This is ‘mission command’ and violating it and micromanaging my Yeomen is a real taboo."
In 1912, a guy by the name of Frank Schofield gave a lecture to the US Naval War College that was later published as a booklet called The Estimate of the Situation. (This was later blown all out of proportion, but I think the original is the clearest.) (http://edocs.nps.edu/dodpubs/topic/general/est-sit_1912.pdf)
It's a very good way of setting up a mission command-style order:
1. Here's my understanding of the situation.
2. Here's what we need to do.
3. Here's the difficulties preventing us.
4. Here's the assets we have.
5. And therefore this is what I want done. (The person getting the order gets to go through a similar process to figure out how to do it.)
The DoD could certainly use some technical help, and the leadership from ex (or current reserve/national guard aka "R/NG") officers and NCOs in tech jobs benefits the tech industry.
The issue is this - the American military Reserve/NG is not very truthful, in my experience, with the time commitments. The marketing slogan is "a weekend a month, two weeks a summer" of time commitment, or something to that effect.
In reality, as a National Guard member you'll see commonly see month-long "activations" to go supplement active duty military training in Louisiana in February. You'll see 9 month deployments as R/NG are in fact part of the military and will deploy, and you'll go over there with a fraction of the training, funding and equipment but the same mission requirements as the funded, trained, and equipped active duty unit you replaced. This is somewhat akin to a FAANG hiring a suite of contractors and subbing them in to take over Google Search for a quarter or two. When your R/NG Soldier has domestic issues, you as the R/NG are on the hook to go help them quite literally. The list goes on... All for pretty bad pay, so-so healthcare, and a civilian employer who starts having an aneurism about the lack of managed expectations from you as it's not a weekend a month and some summer vacation time.
To bring this back to tech - the situation above is very well known, and it coincides with the military's efforts to heavily ramp up its technical expertise via "software factories," civilian corps, direct-commissions into elevated ranks at higher pay if you're a technical SME like the military does with civilian doctors, and reserve units focusing on cyber or software development.
Unless the military is able to fix that above, which anyone who has spent a shred of time in active duty military can confirm exists in one form or the other, the upside-down logic of R/NG service will keep good technical hires out... unless they really need the healthcare. The talented ex-military who go into tech stay out of R/NG efforts because of this, as serving actively would damage their career.
I hope it is different in the UK!
Edit - I will put a hopeful ending to this: the PLA's (CN mil) hackers go to "work" in an officer tower in a city, wearing civilian clothes, and (at the risk of speculation I don't enough about probably) work a 9-5 or if they're up late, it's for a mission. I say this with some background in the US version of ex-mil in tech: the moment the DoD and Federal agencies enable its technical hires to go to work in NY, Seattle, or SF in a fiber-equipped office building (or really just not rural West Virginia/North Carolina/Alabama/Mass), can meet at least 60% of private sector pay with some tax benefits perhaps, and gets sane about past civilian marijuana use re: getting a security clearance, they will have more technical patriots signing up than they can handle processing. It's really just this simple. The FBI was trying to hire talented CS students out of college with a great opportunity to go work in their brand new facility for tech that they built in.... Huntsville, Alabama.
This is spot on. I had a coworker who was in the reserves and the commitment was significantly more than what they say in the brochures. He was often gone for weeks at a time. This made it really difficult for him to progress because he was never able to start AND finish any major projects. Our manager really tried to support him but going through a promo process without any good examples of execution is nearly impossible.
Even raises and bonuses were tough because our company's policy in these circumstances was to default their rating to "meets expectations". The company didn't want to penalize people for their service but it also meant he usually didn't get anything above the average rating. Middle of the road salary adjustments and bonuses. Not bad but not great.
Ya, it's a real organizational management and national service tragedy.
So much of the technical modernization is getting pushed towards the R/NG units, and you can just see how that will go short/mid term. This is paired with a common refrain from vets in tech that the pay and lifestyle is great but the work is pretty empty, so they'd look to do something else. But, they also know the meaningless silliness they'd sign up for by going back into the R/NG, let alone active duty. So, they land in defense contractors or SV startups doing defense tech, and straddle a middle ground that's not much better. The good ones won't go to the big defense contractors either.
Therefore, given that the recruitment target is a populace that has lived fairly simple lives in duty stations around the US, are happy earning something over $100k and calling it a day, and have pretty firm moral views on the importance and value of service the inability to capture this population back into public service due to the lack of any form of sane incentives is maddening to watch. Even discussing the pay is hard - the general populace and their representatives in congress (I say this reading OPEDs via them, although it is def anecdotal) can't believe that $70k is too low pay for an engineer to leave private sector. I'll stop this rant here, but my dream is someone in power finally starts understanding it's only (1) pay, (2) work geography matching modern tech centers, (3) drug policies from the 1950's keeping the talent out in aggregate.
Thank you for posting this. I'm a USAF vet and former reservist and guardsmen. Most of the rest of the comments here are FUD, but this one actually captures one of the biggest challenges of balancing military service with a developing career.
Here's the actual reality on the ground, from someone who's been in and around the military for ~ 20 years:
- A surprisingly high percentage of military personnel share views that would fit right in with the HN crowd. They are largely anti-war and anti-interventionists but continue to serve for a variety of other reasons. What you see on TV and TikTok is often a gross mischaracterization of who military people are and what they think.
- The military is an amazing escalator for the poor and lower middle-class. I know plenty of folks who started out as junior airmen making less than $25k a year in their early 20s who are solidly upper-middle class/rich millionaires in their 40s. Sure tech affords you the same opportunities these days, but that wasn't necessarily the case when the folks were getting started 20 years ago.
- As a rule, you generally have a lot of freedom when deciding which assignments to take as a reservist or guardsman, at least on the Air Force side. There are usually more volunteers for missions than their are slots available for people to go into. From my understanding, this is much less true on the Army side, where they will often deploy an entire unit on a mission. Anyone assigned to the unit most go, with few exceptions.
- The benefits are generally better than what the HN crowd are representing here. It's pretty easy to get a 4-year degree from a good (and occasionally great) school with little or no out-of-pocket expenses. You can also buy a house up to $650,000 in most areas (with adjustments for even higher cost-of-living areas) with $0 down and no PMI payment.
You've captured most of the downsides here. But for me, the biggest downside was that the military (at least during the time I served) has an extremely poor record of properly recognizing talent within its ranks. I worked with a lot of folks who could and often did land cushy jobs in SV. But back in their military jobs, they often were tasked with menial jobs that failed to take advantage of their talents. Yes, there are leaders that can and do recognize talent in their ranks. And the Air Force isn't nearly as hierarchical and directive as folks here would have you think. But rank still matters. I left when the delta between my "rank" in my civilian career and my military rank became to big to bear.
Just a small aside, Huntsville, AL seems to make perfect sense to me to build a new facility. It has a huge built in base as it supposedly already has one of the highest concentration of STEM majors in the USA and the cost of living is 55% lower than SF (https://www.nerdwallet.com/cost-of-living-calculator/compare...). If you are going to make government wages your dollar will go a lot farther there.
It has the highest concentration of STEM majors because the govt keeps building and recruiting there. And I would add that I agree yes - robotics labs in high school, etc. Very solid STEM.
Issue is recruiting people outside the govt network. The exceptions prove the rule, but it is a very hard sell to get people from Big Tech who aren't Eric Schmidt or the newest CS grads from MIT to move to these places. Tell me the 23 year old who all things equal to include a comparable salary will choose rural AL over SF?
As a result, it perpetrates the issue of insular govt technical hires that heavily orient around weapon systems and similar, and are out of step with the new practices, which means less talent comes in and then dicy implementations like PlatformOne are the result.
If you want govt tech to be continually dictated by the clowncar of govt contracting and general DoD grift, then Huntsville makes perfect sense as you say. Space Force is HQ'd in rural AL for similar reasons.
There is a reason why Kessel Run (USAF) is in Boston, Army Futures is in Austin, and smaller elite units have outposts in SV.
Edit - and fwiw, the fact that the defense tech startups out of SV can hire those 23 y/o or ex-Google types without a lot of issue is a good indicator to track.
The saddest thing is the #1 reason why people join the military in the US is financial or college assistance.
Shows why the US is so hesitant to provide UBI or Free college. We'd lose one of our biggest recruiting tools.
If the US Military can appropriately show why people should be enthusiastic about joining, I'd be much more positive about it.
Also I have ex-military friends... Getting that college funding isn't easy. The health insurance they provide for you is sub-par (I know a lady who had Indemetriosis, and was completely untreated and in excruciating pain for years because... they just don't understand female anatomy at the VA hospitals apparently)
college is definitely a top reason people join, but anecdotally I don't think it's number 1 (though any data on the subject would be interesting).
It's also very complicated because there are almost always multiple reasons at play, and usually they change as you go. I joined because I was homeless and floating around from crappy and physically demanding jobs, and I wanted to GTFO of where I grew up. After a couple of years though, college became the most important reason to me.
This is so prevalent that the military actually spends a significant amount of money trying to educate young recruits about predatory car loans. Dealerships know they're easy marks and have been funneling them into the debt pipeline for decades.
The most bizarre thing in the article for me (as a total layman) is that linked Jackal vehicle[1]... It's an armored vehicle which does not protect the... crew???
Why is it armored at all? Why are they not just using a Toyota Hilux instead of this 7 tonne monster?
It appears to be the replacement for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatch_Land_Rover , which got its name from the use by military units grabbing civilians off the street in Northern Ireland.
Yeah, but I don't get the concept at all... why use this kind of vehicle, why develop it at all? What is the benefit of having the crew so exposed and how is it a good idea at all?
> Our Jackal vehicles are lightly armoured so that we can see more and use our weapons more freely.
Armour is a trade-off. More armour means less manoeuvrability and less ability to fight. You could completely encase yourself in a foot of steel if you wanted and just sit there on the battlefield, but you wouldn't be able to achieve anything.
Your comment is not really worth responding to, since the article you linked addresses all your points/questions, but the armor is on the bottom to protect the crew from IEDs.
It's commendable that he's explaining some things the average person probably doesn't understand. He also explains why a military is needed.
In the US, I think a lot of people may have a negative opinion of the military/defense in general because in the last 20 years it's been used more offensively (at least the stuff covered in the media) than defensively.
Maybe a volunteer fire department, Search and Rescue Unit or another local civil protection organization?
I'm volunteering at my local "Sea Rescue" station as a boat commander (not in the US). I feel like I'm getting similar things out of it, that are described in the article, namely
- leadership experience
- taking decisions under pressure
- contact with many different groups of society
- feeling like I'm doing something concrete to help my community
Even though I am sure Chris is a great guy and who is absolutely doing this for the right reasons, he mentions a "daring raid across the desert in Libya to rescue captured sailors". When you read about the dash, it ended with the "captors attempted to run away but were gunned down by the enraged British rescuers. The prisoners attempted to stop the killings but failed."
Sure, that was a long time ago, but the guy commanding this raid still seems to be a fondly remembered role model for the squadron. Not because of the above war crime I'm sure, but they are overlooked in favor of a "daring dash". That is one of the issues I have with the military.
I believe French foreign Legion, YPG, and possibly the Georgian National Legion (operating in Ukraine) accept non-citizens, although none of these are in the US. There is at least one foreign legion protecting Yazidis that does as well.
You need to be a permanent resident or citizen to join the US military. As an H1B visa holder you can apply for permanent residence, but you wouldn't be able to join the military until you have received that status.
I am struck by the author's expansive comfort in the use of "we" to describe their military organization, even in the context of historical events. I have never felt such a strong identification with any organization I was actively participating in, much less with its existence before my involvement. I wonder what accounts for this.
Question for you all:
I'm coming into my forties, so if I want to volunteer for the reserve, I need to start now. Is it a ridiculous thought? If SHTF, I'd like to have some more useful life skills than typing at a computer. I do have responsibilities to my family, so it would not be an easy sell. That said, it does appeal to me.
If your family responsibilities don't prevent you from going away for ~5 months for the initial training (depending on MOS), then it's not utter madness to join at 40 if you're in decent shape.
It may be a pride-swallowing experience at first. You'd be thrown into a barracks with a lot of 17-20 year olds and you'd be treated like one of them. We had a 35 year old in my basic training. The trainers gave him only a tiny bit of slack.
You'd also spend some time as a 40 year old private - which might get you some looks.
Whatever you do, pick your MOS carefully. Look around and see what type of reserve and guard units are local because that's going to dictate your job choices. If there's nothing but infantry locally, then you're going to be infantry or something that supports them. If that's the case, be a medic. Everyone likes the medic.
I spent 20 years in the USMC reserve, I enlisted while I was at high-end west coast liberal arts college in the first trimester. I felt college was a little too easy and lacked challenge. I went on to reenlist, become a chief warrant officer, start an MBA program, activate for OIF, become the first Combat MBA in Pepperdine History and retire after 20 years.
I brought 2 ESGER complaints, due to harassment for being in the reserves. I missed out on civilian promotions, weekend parties, social events, etc.
I still don't think I would have changed a thing. The experiences I have had shaped me into what I am today. The only thing close to my experience in the Marine Corps vs. the civilian world would be working on a start-up because they are fun and exciting and everyone is working as a team.
Voluntary participation in the military can be a great way to learn leadership skills that can translate to other occupations. No one should be forced to serve but it is possible that with the right motivation it can be beneficial to individuals and society.
I had quite a lot of fun in the Army Reserve in England (6 Rifles, B Company) while I was a teenager (17.5 - 19.5). Being paid to spend my weekends running around a field, camping, and shooting was a lot better than alternatives like working in a shop. I do partly regret not joining a deployment (some of my buddies went on Herrick XIII) but I still toy with the idea of rejoining in the future so maybe one day.
I don't care about doing missions somewhere else in the world though.
War is mostly killing random people just because politicians decided so and it would be impossible if stealing money from people through taxes wouldn't be so widespread, easy and accepted. The cost of war is always socialised and it's huge.
I think the ideal way to defend society is to teach everyone how to fight, allow people to own guns and have a small army branch to do monitoring / deploy army leaders to assemble people when the enemy is approaching and organise local combat. There are tons of things to consider (think about airborne / naval defense) but that's something we can figure out, without having to steal profits for people and funnelling in war machines that are rarely used for defense. I'd be happy to chip in money to make sure we have anti-air weapons to fight the neighbouring country fighter jets, in case they invade us.
Instead what's happening is that the government spend my money, buy weapons and then give them to the Taliban, another country or use them to go and kill people in the middle east - without me having any say on the topic.
The top-down approach of the army and its reliance on corrupted governments makes it so that soldier are, most of the times, just an armed gun for the mafia you call government.
There's a difference between being willing to die defending your country, and willing to kill to defend yourself. That's critical to understand. Until then, I suggest sticking to paintball.
Like the people in Derry marching to protest the internment of Irishmen without trial in concentration camps? Guess not, the Parachute Regiment shot into the crowd in 1972 and the Queen pinned medals on them.
How about the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in India, or the Batang Kali massacre in Malaysia in 1948, and so on.
As a male Finnish citizen, I have gone a year of conscript military training and am now in the reserve. Army life is perhaps the single most bizarre experience you can have in the West. Practically nowhere else do you lose control of your own life so completely.
Yeah, that myth comes from Hollywood's portrayal of US Marines-- I dont know if actual US Marines are like that, but that's certainly how Hollywood (and most fiction) portrays them.
The closest accurate Hollywood portrayal IMO would be the series "The Pacific". As far as shouting something similar to "sir yes sir" that typically can be found from boots(folks who havent deployed yet).
I won’t mince words; it is unquestionably immoral and evil to join or even support the American military in any capacity in its current form. I say that as someone with direct knowledge and experience, and someone that is not “left” or subscribes to the whole “America always was evil” nonsense, even though there is a legitimate angle to that claim too.
The American military is a lying, conniving, duplicitous, war mongering, murderous entity just like the whole American government has ever increasingly become. The institution and its diabolical leaders want your skills and your soul. Make that deal with the devil as you see fit.
There, I said my piece/peace. Make of it what you want.
Thanks - some of the comments here that say we should literally unilaterally disarm just absolutely blow my mind. Can’t understand how they think that works in practice.
>> I originally joined the British Army full-time after finishing my masters in computer science at Bristol in 2007. At the time, the campaign in Afghanistan was in full-swing, and the campaign in Iraq was still running. All my peers were going into office jobs in London but I still wanted more fresh air at that point in my life.
I just cannot understand this mindset. "I wanted to see the world so instead of taking a gap year I thought I'd go to the middle-east and do a bit of invading".
I think that's a pretty disengenous take on the author's thought process. If you read the entire article it's clear that he believes in the concept of defending his country and trusting his leaders to correctly decide how that defense is carried out. If that decision is to send him to the middle east then so be it. It very clearly is not about him wanting to "do a bit of invading."
Maybe you think the middle east invasion was the wrong call. Totally fair. But you should blame the correct actor for that call, and it certainly is not the individual soldier.
Sure, if you're operating under the assumption that a) he understands geo-politics and global defense better than the leadership of his country and b) he has better and more real-time information (than the leadership) about the situation on the ground in Iraq/Afghanistan at the time.
If he thought what they were doing over there in 2007 was morally/ethically indefensible and decided to join up anyway then, yes, judge away.
Probably more straightforward to lay the blame squarely where it's due, at those who made the high level decisions to engage in the war in the first place, especially in the context of the outcomes of said war.
The world doesn't work the way you wish it did. Atrocities are prevented and security is maintained through action and credible deterrence. This requires men and women willing or conscripted into service. Would be great if none of this were necessary, but it's simply not how the world works and there is ample historical evidence of what happens when a country lowers its guard. As I type this Germany is coming to grips with its own wishful thinking regarding Russia and its energy and food supplies.
There is ample historical evidence that having an army to send into war makes the world less safe, not more.
If the US army in particular had a clear conscience, why would the US oppose the International Criminal Court in The Hague? Telling your soldies that their war crimes will go unpunished is a great way to invite them.
I was against the war in Iraq and still am, but IMO the jury is still out whether the war in Iraq made the world less safe. Saddam was a brutal dictator including gassing and genociding the Kurds. The Kurds now have a fairly stable government in Northern Iraq thanks to the invasion and are a center of prosperity in the region. ISIS has been largely suppressed, and there's been no repeat of the Iran or Kuwait wars of Iraq since the US takoever.
The aftermath of the Iraq invasion led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. It doesn't seem unlikely that Saddam would have killed fewer than that.
>> so instead of taking a gap year I thought I'd go to the middle-east and do a bit of invading".
The fault of bad wars is partly in military leadership but much more with politicians and voters. To blame anyone who serves for the choice occupy Afghanistan is misplaced. And who do you want to have in the military of a democracy? Only people from a particular class or culture? I'm glad that someone from the Hacker News crowd is doing this.
All wars are bad, but if you meant unsuccessful then until the Taliban again starts harboring terrorist intent on attacking the United States its a bit early to label it a 'bad war'. Similarly, Iraq is no longer a threat in the region and is instead a sink hole into which Iran must expend blood and treasure to maintain influence. Perhaps in time one or both can be clearly viewed as unsuccessful, but its not yet clear that is the case.
You can literally always justify a war lol. The "stability" argument is so insane considering the iraq war plunged the region into it's most unstable period of the past century but okay. You also dont consider the enormous collateral damage and loss of life that it caused.
At that point you might as well believe what russia is doing is okay because in the very long run it's probably going to mean it will lead to less neo-nazis in ukraine? If we ignore the destruction and death caused by the russian invasion and focus on a very comparatively tiny upside to the war.
Geopolitics is a fluid system. Stability is always in play.
> the iraq war plunged the region into it's most unstable period
Really depends on whose instability we're talking about. Its been 'good' for some and 'bad' for others; all depends on what side of the thousand year conflict you find yourself on.
> If we ignore the destruction and death caused by the russian invasion
If you think Russia invaded Ukraine all on its own without being coaxed into doing so after years of US/UK intervention in Ukraine then you're poorly informed. Russia's arrogance, inhumanity and long-standing fears were used against it to great effect. If the risk of escalation can be managed Europe (and Ukraine) may eventually be free of Russia's stranglehold on energy.
> If we ignore the destruction and death
Strategic narcissism to think our generation can be free of war, have bloodless wars or find ourselves substantially more evolved than prior generations. Until we figure out how to prevent sociopaths from becoming leaders we are doomed to repeat history many times over.
Because you start out from the standard tech person position of arrogance. You didn't try to argue why you think his decision was ethically wrong. You went for a smug soundbite that sounds glib and clever.
1. He chose to join in 2007 - during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Those are both wars that, in my opinion and the opinion of many others (evident by the massive protests at the time) the British should not have been involved in.
2. In my opinion, anybody that joins the army when they aren't defending against an invasion (i.e. someone who travels thousands of miles to fight another country nowhere near their own) has a screw loose. There are times when fighting is necessary (e.g. WW2, Ukraine/Russia). There have been few of those times recently.
3. I have friends who have friends + relatives in the military. I've met those people at social events. I can't obviously say they represent all people in the military but the ones I've met have all been racist, homophobic and worse. Again, I believe you have to have a certain mentality to join the military when your country isn't actually at risk and this has been bore out by the people I've met.
4. The British military has committed countless crimes and atrocities over the last 50 years. I can't respect anyone who would decide to be part of that institution when it is not necessary to be.
In my case it's more me being a muslim that who saw first hand the effects of what is being "handwaved" in this very thread. I dont think that has anything to do with me being in tech.
In the UK lots of people max out their overdraft and spend some time travelling after uni. They then pay this back when they get good grad jobs - e.g. like the OP.
Regardless - if you cannot afford to do some travelling after uni, spending time in a war zone is hardly a sound alternative.
