Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
The US Military
I have nothing against the Military. I love the military. I only made this thread so we'd stop talking about it in MOFW
Comments
I think, the volunteer-only service has created a very wide rift between military culture and civilian culture, and the two are often completely out of touch with each other. Now, I realize this probably not a popular stance to take, but I think that by instituting a mandatory service period like some European countries do, we'd solve that problem. On the other hand, that would mean that I'd have to join the military, which is not something I'd look forward to.
EDIT: "Bake your donuts" isn't some sort of sexual euphemism, is it?
Anything to bridge the division between the two. Because said division is extremely unhealthy.
I think one possible benefit (at least I see it as a benefit) of mandatory military service would be that people would be more cautious about involving U.S. troops in conflicts because of the greater public outcry that such an action might cause. Of course, there is the possibility that uses of military personnel in foreign countries would not decrease and that people would just be forced to be there.
Personally, I dislike mandatory military service because I do not believe that people should be forced to risk their lives if they do not want to do so and because I think that volunteer armies work better.
I agree that the military can sometimes seem very different from the U.S. populace as a whole. In some respects, I think that is understandable given how a group of people in any one occupational field (especially one involving the use of lethal force) might differ greatly from the general population. Still, I think it is important that at all times, a civilian (i.e. the president) heads the military in order to help bridge that gap. I also believe that Congress needs to make sure to take a bit of an adversarial role towards the military in order to check it. Adversarial may be the wrong word there. I just think that there can be problems when different parts of the government do not make sure another part is doing the right things.
Sorry, I have not really thought this out that well. I agree that there should be a bridge between military and civilian culture, but I also think that we need to make sure that civilians are ultimately at the top of the hierarchy in order to check the military.
"Sorry, I have not really thought this out that well. I agree that there
should be a bridge between military and civilian culture, but I also
think that we need to make sure that civilians are ultimately at the top
of the hierarchy in order to check the military"
The problem is that there are a lot of people who'd disagree with this.
Agreed.
I don't really think it matters whether or not the president (or PM or Queen or whatever) has military experience so long as they're sensible and have advisors with military experience and expertise.
Mandatory Military Service basically works as long as you have a
conscientious objector clause. In which case, you suddenly have a lot
more people claiming to be pacifists. That can't possibly be a bad
thing. FWGAW."
I'm sorry, can you please be more sarcastic? I didn't quite get it the first time.
ANYWAY. I realize that things like that are a problem, but I still can't think of a better solution to bridging the civilian/military gap without mandatory service. If you have any ideas you can certainly share them.
Khwar: Why are you posting like that and how are you doing it.
For that matter, I don't even know what a civics class IS.
For that matter, I don't even know what a civics class IS.
I am pretty sure that civics classes are typically just government/politics classes.
The problem is that there are a lot of people who'd disagree with this.
Well, if I understand the current system of government in the U.S. correctly, that is already the system (i.e. the president, and to a lesser extent the defense secretary, can overrule military leaders of any rank and Congress is supposed to vote to authorize military campaigns before they happen). I might be misunderstanding some things though. Still, I obviously am not advocating that any civilian bureaucrat be able to overrule someone like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
thatguythere47,
could introduce a bit of military info into civics class.
I think that makes sense considering the military is a pretty significant part of the government.
The problem with civilians on top of the military hierarchy is that history hasn't shown that they can lead a military since the skills they have, and I don't wish to say they are all incompetent, apply to civilian issues and a command structure.
For Conscientious objectors, you have two choices, you either go to prison or you serve in the military in a non-combat role (but this doesn't mean you won't be in combat as a medic or something similar).
At least the French give criminals a chance to die for their country. Also worth noting, the French Foreign Legion and the French Penal Division are too separate branches, while both are expected to die, the former is made up of foreign nationals, generally, and are well-trained and the latter is glorified cannon fodder.
Seems kind of a harsh reason to put somebody in prison.
The problem with civilians on top of the military hierarchy is that
history hasn't shown that they can lead a military since the skills they
have, and I don't wish to say they are all incompetent, apply to
civilian issues and a command structure.
I agree with you in some ways since I certainly do not believe that generals or their equivalents should be replaced with civilian bureaucrats. However, (as far as I know) the U.S. currently has a civilian-led military as the president is the commander-in-chief and Congress is supposed to vote to decide when the military takes action. I understand that that may be more theoretical when it comes to Congressional approval of military actions, but I still think that military leaders should ultimately be held accountable to a civilian president and Congress so they can be checked.
I will defer to you on the subject of conscription because you seem to know a lot more about it than I do.
Khwarizmi,
Seems kind of a harsh reason to put somebody in prison.
I agree, but I guess that if a government really wants to conscript people it needs to act harshly towards those who do try to avoid serving. I suppose that for some that is just another reason not to have mandatory military service in the U.S. or elsewhere.
Oh yeah, they also added alternate service now if you don't want to be in the military in which you have to be part of organization "group furthering national interest" such as healthcare.
I can't get in for that reason.