NationStates Jolt Archive

Humans thrive in conflict, we may fear it, we may dispise it but no one can deny that evolutionary forces have given us the capability to project or defend against the threat of force on a scale mother nature has never seen before. No matter how peaceful, how civilized we become, we will always maintain a military, not nessacarily because it's needed, but because it's a projection of our survival instincts.

That being said, I believe the Armed Forces in America is one of our countries greatest natural resources. Here you have a group of diverse, well educated and intelligent people. Each of them join for different reasons but all are sworn to protect the ideals America was founded on.

In a time where the basic moral fabric of America is in question, (Not talking about abortion or homosexuality, but such common crimes as homocide, assault & battery and robbery.) here is a extremely large group of individuals who, by nature of their very professions, are the embodiment of words such as "honor, virtue, sacrafice, duty and valor," the best of what humanity has to offer.

Where Americans are divided by ideas and buzz words created by feuding politcal parties, brain washed by a under funded and ill run education system, they stand tall, ready to give their lives protecting civillians who would rather kill each other over a drug deal gone bad then give a shit.

Shouldn't we learn from these people? In America, the true America that the founding fathers created, the government is an extension of the people, the military an extention of the government. Military, Government, The People, these words should all mean the same, unfortunetly they do not.

Would it not make sense, to fully integrate certain Military values, indeed, Military personnel themselves, into every day life? The most well trained, well educated and well funded resource America has to offer can do more then just be thrown carelessly into a meat grinder created by bored politicans pushing their own agendas.

Imagine what a fully mobilized army could do in times of natural disastor, in times of crime and poverty, not an extension of the government, but an extention of the people, serving the people.

I offer humbly, before your scrutiny, an idealized America in which the Armed Services are the pinnacle of what America has to offer, combat engineers rebuilding low-income housing areas, trained soldiers preventing acts of violence, mentors teaching our children not to follow the government blindly, but to help their neighbors, to grow and mature into positive human beings.

Some of you may take my proposal as a call for martial law, I can assure you it is not, especially in light of our current administration. I say, since our soldiers are sworn to protect the constution of the United States and not the current political party...

Should we not integrate some of the finer points of the military lifestyle in our society?

Should we not treat our soldiers are role models our children should look up to?

Should we not fully utilize Americas most educated, trained and funded resource as we combat not just terrorism, but poverty and strife as well?

I say we integrate our Armed Services into the very core of America, from Law Enforcement to Urban Development. I say we triple our recruiting efforts, taking the best of our youth, teaching them the value of work ethics, honor and integrity, to think for themselves with fully developed and informed minds.

I say we do with the Armed Services what our shitty education system, horrible domestic policies and debautched beaucracy can not. Create an America worth fighting for.

Some would call me a conservative, some would call me a liberal, some would call me a communist, some would call be a democrat, some would call me a republican, some would call me an independant.

I like to call myself a Human Being, born in the United States of America, with a duty not to just his family and friends, but to all of Mankind.

Can we not as Americans, have a second revolution? A peaceful revolution that gives the current government a little kick back into the direction of "by the people, for the people," and create a military by the people, for the people?

Can we not agree on certain things? Can we not agree that changes need to be made, in our government, in our military, in our society?

Can we not agree that indeed we do have a future and that future is filled with limitless possibilites?

Can we agree it is at least possible for republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, capitalists and socialists, athiests and thiests, pacifists and the pro-military to put aside their difference, come together and build a better America?


What do YOU, whoever you are, think?

Oh come on, someone has to have the resolve to read the entire thing on these forums. :p

Sounds fascist to me.

I like juntas too. ;)

What???? Are you crazy? You want to take teh youth, shove them inti some military truck, and send them off to war? How will the youth prosper and grow while being in war, living miserable lives, living in fear of some bomb that may fall on them?

Sure, if promoting a democratic government based on tolerance, diversity and a government under direct peer review by its citizens is facism, then I'm a facist.


Edit: The idea was to turn the military into more then just a meat grinder used by politicans. Imagine, if everyone's sons and daughters are in the military, how often do you really think America would go to war? I think alot less then we do now.

Sure, if promoting a democratic government based on tolerance, diversity and a government under direct peer review by its citizens is facism, then I'm a facist.

Edit: The idea was to turn the military into more then just a meat grinder used by politicans. Imagine, if everyone's sons and daughters are in the military, how often do you really think America would go to war? I think alot less then we do now.

The US military, as you may have noticed, has gotten smaller. Much smaller. In fact, we invaded Iraq in less time with a fraction of the force we used in the first Gulf War. We're even fighting an insurgency with a fraction of the force that we used in Vietnam.

In both cases, the news media and the pundits and the "military experts" said we would never be able to take Iraq - which we took quickly even though it still had one of the largest armies in the world. We were told we would never stop the insurgency - that US troops would be taken hostage on a regular basis - that elections would never be held - that the insurgents could take the country over if the US left.

The insurgency, at this point, is reduced to the point where they take dolls hostage and say that the doll is an American soldier. They are reduced to the point where they cannot take an American soldier hostage. Where the only attack on US troops they can make and survive is a random bomb on the street. The last major attempt to fight US troops was in Fallujah - and there the US taught them a fatal lesson. They can come in their rifle-proof armor on foot and inflict 90 percent casualties in a week, while taking less than 10 percent casualties. And that is without using overwhelming numbers of US troops.

Future developments are already at hand. In Fallujah, a remotely operated robot with a machinegun was used in house to house fighting. Other robots are used to carry extra equipment in Afghanistan. Or to check out booby traps and mines.

The US military is making huge successful strides in reducing the manpower necessary. Why then would they draft a huge number of people? To sit around and polish brass?

You seem to have missed the ENTIRE point of my post, dear sir.

Indeed, your entire reply is completely off topic. This thread concerns turning the military into more then just a war machine but as a resource used at it's full potential. We literally have entire armies full of well educated, intelligent men and women who actually know what the meaning honor and virtue is. Why not use that resource for more then just a tool war fighting?

I suggest you re-read my post, as I do not enjoy repeating myself. This was not an Iraq war bashing thread, nor was I questioning the currentl capabilities of our fighting forces, please take your spam somewhere else.

Maybe total integration is a bit over the top... but in my country we have compulsory military service to "make men out of boys". I really don't think it's that harmful. You learn to work in a group better, get fit and to let those apron strings go. And it sure makes us not want to experience it again.

An army is inherently none of the things you describe it to be. An army is not about "honor, virtue, sacrafice, duty and valor." Any armed force is simply a tool, a concentration of power. As such it can be used to enforce those virtues you list as somehow intrinsic, or it can be used for all sorts of less noble projects. Hilter had a big army, Ghengis Khan had a big army, boo-yah funtime.

Your proposal doesn't really hold water. Because the army is not the source of these values you trumpet, expanding the scope of the armed forces will not spread these values.

Your argument might seem very solid, but this is only because you establish a false definition of the military as an unqualified good thing, then ask if expanding it wouldn't be a good thing too. That initial bad assumption is like root rot creeping through your whole premise.

You seem to have missed the ENTIRE point of my post, dear sir.

Indeed, your entire reply is completely off topic. This thread concerns turning the military into more then just a war machine but as a resource used at it's full potential. We literally have entire armies full of well educated, intelligent men and women who actually know what the meaning honor and virtue is. Why not use that resource for more then just a tool war fighting?

I suggest you re-read my post, as I do not enjoy repeating myself. This was not an Iraq war bashing thread, nor was I questioning the currentl capabilities of our fighting forces, please take your spam somewhere else.

You're talking about fascism.

I agree, the military possesses that most rare and cardinal virtues in society; the capacity to submerse individual desires for a collective good.

However, your plan for full integration faces one of the major dangers of such a draft - that 'civilian values' (what, no spitting emoticon? damn) might begin to infect and degrade the military. Indeed, some countries include a compulsory service system for just such a reason, in the somewhat silly belief that a military force might benefit from liberalisation - Germany is one example of this.

Instead of direct military integration, perhaps we should instead try and create such beneficial values as the military possesses in our young people without ostensible military involvement.

Instead of direct military integration, perhaps we should instead try and create such beneficial values as the military possesses in our young people without ostensible military involvement.

That could work, too.

Your proposal doesn't really hold water. Because the army is not the source of these values you trumpet, expanding the scope of the armed forces will not spread these values.

This is a matter of debate, may I ask, have you actively served in the United States Armed Services?

This is a matter of debate, may I ask, have you actively served in the United States Armed Services?

Ah, this is a matter of debate, but you take it for granted in your initial pitch. And, seeing as how it is a matter of debate, I'm sure you're not asking whether I have served in order to launch some sort of ad hominem "haven't been there, can't know" rebuttal, are you?

No, I simply ask for you to prove your statement. Not nessacarily active service, mind you, perhaps you have other grounds for your view?

Rarely do I hear about a ex-soldier killing a little girl in a cross fire in a gang war, nor do I hear about drug abuse. So please, prove to me, right now, that soldiers in the American Armed Services are not, on average, the well trained, intelligent, self sacraficing people I believe they are.

No, I simply ask for you to prove your statement. Not nessacarily active service, mind you, perhaps you have other grounds for your view?

Rarely do I hear about a ex-soldier killing a little girl in a cross fire in a gang war, nor do I hear about drug abuse. So please, prove to me, right now, that soldiers in the American Armed Services are not, on average, the well trained, intelligent, self sacraficing people I believe they are.

Prove to me that they are. You're the one who made the claim.

I'll grant you well-trained, but not all that well trained.

Two years back, when I was in Fairbanks, which is a town of around 40,000, there was a big flap about several soldiers allegedly raping an underage girl. In a town of 40,000, that sort of event happening once is well above the statistical average. And guess what? It was soldiers who were exceptional.

EDIT: I'll press it one further: The only major difference between soldier and civilian is fear of discipline. The soldier is more accountable than the civilian. It's not that they've got exceptional values to the man and woman, it's that they face more immediate consequences for misdeeds.

Well, it looks like we both lack the evidence to back up to our claims. Okay, how about this, assume we turn our military into what I say it is, with progressive policies, etc.

Now, what would you say about such integration?

Sorry if this comes across as argument for argument's sake, but I just do not believe that the sort of sacrifice embodied by the armed forces is necessarily a noble sacrifice. This is not to say that the armed forces do not or have not done noble things, just that the individual soldier has no say in what form their sacrifice may take. Once they've given their service oath, they're on board for the haul, like it or not. Yes, they have surrendered autonomy for the good of a larger body, but there's nothing whatsoever saying that that larger body will make meaningful sacrifices or whether it will squander lives instead.

Self sacrifice can be noble: Living a modest life so others don't die in poverty; dedicating your life to a cause; giving your life for the survival or freedom of others. But signing your life away to march where told? This is an entirely different matter, one totally contingent on what the marching orders may be. (Again, was the German blitz noble?) And without a large body of the population external to the military, it becomes more uncertain. If everyone must serve, no one is able to object.

Now that is a reasonable argument worthy of my time. ;)


The problem with integrating the Armed Services would probably be giving soldiers certain freedoms that they didn't already have, such as, objecting to orders, or voicing protest.

Military? Moral fiber? A military force gets out of hand too fast. In every conflict there are some rather nasty things done by bored and/or undisciplined soldiers. I don't trust people who've been brainwashed to not think, but to do as they're told (by people, who on their turn were also trained to not think but do).
Their actions depend on individuals higher in the hierarchy. The same could true of all other hierarchies, but not many are as dangerous as the military.

Also sailors swear alot and go to whores. :p :D

You seem to have missed the ENTIRE point of my post, dear sir.

Indeed, your entire reply is completely off topic. This thread concerns turning the military into more then just a war machine but as a resource used at it's full potential. We literally have entire armies full of well educated, intelligent men and women who actually know what the meaning honor and virtue is. Why not use that resource for more then just a tool war fighting?

I suggest you re-read my post, as I do not enjoy repeating myself. This was not an Iraq war bashing thread, nor was I questioning the currentl capabilities of our fighting forces, please take your spam somewhere else.

As a servicemember currently on Active Duty.

No, you would degrade the efficency of the Armed forces as a fighting force. That is why their is a difference between civilian and military. Sure a lot of jobs transfer over. Hell I'm a Military Police Soldier and I am performing Garrison Law and Order Duties right now on a Military Installation

But I AM NOT A CIVILIAN COP

Now that is a reasonable argument worthy of my time. ;)


The problem with integrating the Armed Services would probably be giving soldiers certain freedoms that they didn't already have, such as, objecting to orders, or voicing protest.

Other problems spring to mind as well. For example, being a soldier in a volunteer force is something totally different from being a conscript. I have respect for our volunteer force because they are making their sacrifice by choice (we'll give the politicians and commanders the benefit of the doubt and assume the sacrifice is noble). The conscript, on the other hand, is more or less handed an arbitrary prison (or potentially death) sentence. Compelling all to serve undermines the virtue of the sacrifice. And the need for a draft probably indicates that the fight is one that a large chunk of the population objects to.

I'm very pro the Predator and other unmanned vehicles. I'm pro Stryker and small unit tactics, the RAND swarming study and air superiority and Tomahawks. Fight the same wars with fewer people and more technology. Let those who choose to serve serve, you know, because it's the decision that carries the weight. That's where the sacrifice is.

As a servicemember currently on Active Duty.

No, you would degrade the efficency of the Armed forces as a fighting force. That is why their is a difference between civilian and military. Sure a lot of jobs transfer over. Hell I'm a Military Police Soldier and I am performing Garrison Law and Order Duties right now on a Military Installation

But I AM NOT A CIVILIAN COP

I have to agree here. Forcing everybody to serve in the military would not only harm the military as a whole, but it would definately degrade the small units. And yes I am currently on active duty.


Let those who choose to serve serve, you know, because it's the decision that carries the weight. That's where the sacrifice is.

Which brings up another awesome point, which basically speaks for itself.

Military? Moral fiber? A military force gets out of hand too fast. In every conflict there are some rather nasty things done by bored and/or undisciplined soldiers. I don't trust people who've been brainwashed to not think, but to do as they're told (by people, who on their turn were also trained to not think but do).
Their actions depend on individuals higher in the hierarchy. The same could true of all other hierarchies, but not many are as dangerous as the military.


Brainwashed? really? Any proof?

Actually, most nations train their soldiers to think. As an example in the US, soldiers are taught to disobey any order that is unlawful according to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Militry Justice). Some nations that actually do train their soldiers not to think are: North Korea, China, and the fromer armies of Iraq and the USSR. And yes, some nasty things are done by soldiers but as you get a cross-section of the population all kinds of people join.