Is there a tragedy in our modern military (or wars?)

Capt Richard I P. — Sun, 28 Dec 2014 23:20:38 -0500

This article by James Fallows in the Atlantic takes a long time to read, but is worth the time when you have it available.

I take issue with a few specific points he makes, but the overall argument is thought provoking and worth considering. Which of his points are well made? Which are ill-founded?

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/

The Tragedy of the American Military

The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2014 12:09 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 00:09:14 -0500

A lot to chew on in that article. I definitely don't agree with everything in the article, and I'm fairly certain I don't agree with his basic premise that it's caused by the general American public being so removed from military life. However, he does highlight a lot of issues that the DOD faces at present.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2014 1:57 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 13:57:13 -0500

Good article, long, but worth reading. One point I found prophetic was the foresight Dwight D. Eisenhower had back in 1961 when he warned that business and politics would corrupt the military, and vice versa. The "Chickenhawk Politics", as the author calls it, is one of the true tragedies our military deals with today. Some are forced on us by politicians and we bring some of it on ourselves by trying to get a bigger share of the budget pie.

I really loathe politics. At all levels.

Response by CPO Greg Frazho made Dec 29 at 2014 2:00 PM

CPO Greg Frazho — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:00:01 -0500

1. Which of his points are well made?

- The growing rift or chasm between the military community and the civilian community. While enthusiastic if not glowing in their admiration, the point he makes about the increasing disconnectedness vis-a-vis the military is spot on. In short: you can't understand what you don't know.
- The admission that the Obama administration couldn't care less about this problem. Since they micromanage military and foreign policy from the White House, it's something the president and his inner circle give little if any credence toward. In microcosm: the Hart Commission's recommendations were solicited and then ignored by Obama.
- The dearth of reformers, as opposed to post-Vietnam, in the senior officer corps of the U.S. military as the mission in Iraq wound down and the mission in Afghanistan is winding down after well over a decade of war. His broad implication, and it's legitimate, is who's going to champion the cause of making changes in our thinking and our culture to meet the challenges of future asymmetrical, low intensity conflicts?

2. Which are ill-founded?

- I think it's a bit early to write off the F-35 just yet. Given the statistics he sites, though, there is serious cause for concern, although I don't think we can ride the A-10 or any other platform indefinitely. Drones and remote-controlled aircraft, however, may make such arguments academic if they're truly the wave of the future as we've been led to believe.
- Notable largely by its absence were arguments for, or against, the rise of unconventional warfare at the expense of conventional warfare, although he did touch on it briefly. That, to me, is a separate think-piece in and of itself. It could be something titled like, "Is conventional warfare dead?" That question needs to be answered along with a host of other related questions and I don't know that anybody's willing, just yet, to put themselves and their reputations on the line to have a candid discourse about it.
- I don't think the notion of sending mid-career officers or, hell, even senior NCOs, to the think tanks as he calls them is necessarily a bad idea, but he makes the argument that by getting that check in the block it perpetuates a formulaic career path for those who will eventually directly effect policy and strategy.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2014 3:21 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:21:04 -0500

Thanks for sharing this article, sir. A great deal to think about.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2014 2:04 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:04:39 -0500

There's been a dramatic shift in the psychology of both war and service since we went to a volunteer military that represents about .1% of the population. There are millions actively seeking to stay in vs get out, and many who are actively seeking deployment into a combat zone. I volunteered to go back to Afghanistan pretty much for financial reasons - the extra pay and tax incentives are nice.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Dec 30 at 2014 6:44 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Tue, 30 Dec 2014 18:44:52 -0500

It is really a shame. Some people see veterans as dysfunctional for doing the very things that gives them the rights to label us. So many jobs don't translate into civilian concepts. They don'tembrase the fact that veterans are used to doing the impossible with next to nothing and see every task as "the mission to accomplish". No matter what the career field, a veteran will give 100% even if it comes to something they may not be an expert at. In time, a veteran SME will be worth their weight in gold.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2014 6:41 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Dec 2014 18:41:20 -0500

As one commentator said, Capt Brandon Charters, the American military has gone to war and the American public has gone to the mall. There's a HUGE disconnect/divide between those who serve (/families of those who serve) and the average American who has no connection to the military.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2014 11:49 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 31 Dec 2014 11:49:06 -0500

A very good and thought-provoking article. I'm not sure I agree with every point, but overall the article raises a lot of valid concerns. There is definitely a divide between the military and civilian population in this country. The civilian population is not significantly affected by the military's actions, win or lose, and so have stopped caring about the actions and success of the military as a whole. This has led to a number of problems, including:

- The civilian population is unwilling to hold military leaders accountable for their military effectiveness (note that this does not apply to their non-military behavior, as evidenced by the resignations and prosecutions for sexual misconduct). I'm not sure whether this is because they just don't care, or simply feel unqualified to judge a highly trained professional in a field where they themselves are not trained.

- The civilian population does not hold the military fiscally accountable. This may seem like a good thing, except that it leads to fraud, waste, and abuse, which are not good for the environment and discipline of the armed forces.

- The treatment of military veterans does not get sustained coverage...when a major disaster is brought up, the public clamors for a fix, and then moves on to what the latest pop-starlet was wearing at the last awards banquet. This would not be the case if the civilian population felt more connected to, and directly affected by, its service members.

I'm sure there are other examples, but these are what occur to me right away. The question is, how do we go about fixing things?

Response by Capt Mario Mangiameli made Jan 1 at 2015 11:32 AM

Capt Mario Mangiameli — Thu, 01 Jan 2015 11:32:59 -0500

This article was disected by Army Vet Andrew Exum. Writer seems to ignore initiatives already underway and wishes to boast his own views.

Response by MAJ George Hamilton made Jan 3 at 2015 5:23 PM

MAJ George Hamilton — Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:23:11 -0500

I think that the issue of the growing civilian-military divide is two fold, and what I mean by that, is that it is equally the fault of both sides.

On the civilian side of the issue, there really is no need to know or understand the military and what it does. I don't think that this is done out of intentional malice, but rather because we live in a society that is increasingly self-centered (read social media), and there is no need nor a requirement for the average American citizen to serve in, or understand the military or what military service means. It also makes it entirely too easy (as was pointed out by GEN Mullen) to send our military off to war, because it does not require any real sacrifice on the part of the American public.

When it comes to the military, we are entirely too quick to point at the civilians and then insulate ourselves by clamoring about how great we are and how it's us against the world. I am not particularly well educated on what programs are out there encouraging the outreach from the military to the civilian community - but there need to be more of them, and we need to really focus on our responsibility of connecting with the civilians that we serve.

This is a large and growing issue. One that has to be tackled from both sides with equal energy in order to get it solved.

My belief is that the first step must be making sure it is very difficult to send our forces to war. From there, we must stop promoting militarism in our society, and establish the understanding that joining the military is something that benefits the nation as a whole, as well as the individual that does it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2015 12:42 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Jan 2015 00:42:14 -0500

Thank You for sharing a link to these articles CPT Private RallyPoint Member , I shall respond in more detail when I have a chance to read them.

I am not sure I am informed enough at this time to make a statement.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Feb 24 at 2015 4:44 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:44:40 -0500

There have been some interesting follow-ups.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/whats-the-matter-with-the-american-military/385735/

And
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/sebastian-junger-on-chickenhawk-nation/385825/

Sebastian Junger Responds to James Fallows on the 'Tragedy of the American Military'

Less than 1 percent of the U.S. population has served in the country's recent wars. But if that's a problem, what's the solution?