The Link Between Military and Political Service

[Sukerkin]

A very interesting read in the BBC on-line magazine:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/10575471.stm

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Some interesting things...

At the federal level, veterans can add their years of military service to their eligibility for federal civilian retirement, they get hiring preferences, and they may even be able to 'double-dip' on retirement benefits.

One might also note that military life is a life of working within massive bureaurocracy, so civil service can be quite normal for them.

Until recently, it was also assumed that anyone seeking public office would get their ticket punched by doing a term in the military.

And frankly, I think most veterans in the USA tend to view civilian leaders with no military experience with some distrust. Non-veterans haven't the first clue what it is like to serve; and often insult us by pretending they do. No, Mr. President, if you haven't worn the uniform of our military, you're not one of us, you never will be, and quit trying to pal up with us.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I agree with the US view that we must have civilian control of the military but ALSO agree that it is problematic when someone meant to be CINC has not the first clue about the business.

If I were king, we wouldn't have either problem because a minimum 9 months( 3 months boot camp, 6 month hitch) would be mandatory for ALL citizens before they could claim citizenship. This way, anyone wanting to join up after their hitch, can, anyone who wants to be done with the service for the rest of their lives , can, but EVERYONE is on the same page from a national defense standpoint, and since all those seeking office must be citizens, every politician would be former service. End of problem.

 

[Makalakumu]

If I were king, we wouldn't have either problem because a minimum 9 months( 3 months boot camp, 6 month hitch) would be mandatory for ALL citizens before they could claim citizenship. This way, anyone wanting to join up after their hitch, can, anyone who wants to be done with the service for the rest of their lives , can, but EVERYONE is on the same page from a national defense standpoint, and since all those seeking office must be citizens, every politician would be former service. End of problem.

I know that some countries do this, but I am glad that I live in a country where this is not the case. I have no desire for myself or any of my kith and kin to serve the Military Industrial Complex. I don't think that there should be any special benefits offered to veterans. Nor should there be any special connection between military service and politics. IMO, we risk our freedoms by doing this. Our Founding Fathers knew that standing armies were one of the biggest threats to freedom that could exist in a country. The creeping influence of the military in our society threatens, not protects, our Constitution.

 

[Sukerkin]

An interesting point from Andy, that I do actually agree with mostly, despite the fact that I think that Mauna has his finger on something very important too.

Amongst the reasons the Founding Fathers left Britain was to get away from religious strictures and the de facto totalitarianism that existed through the military power of the monarchy.

It is one of the great ironies is that the state of the USA at the present time reflects, to outside eyes at least, the very things they tried to get away from in the first place.

 

[Archangel M]

While I understand Andy's intention, I wouldn't want mandatory service (beyond a draft in a national crisis). First off, it's seems contrary to the American spirit and secondly I would't want to be serving with someone who was forced to serve.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I know that some countries do this, but I am glad that I live in a country where this is not the case. I have no desire for myself or any of my kith and kin to serve the Military Industrial Complex. I don't think that there should be any special benefits offered to veterans. Nor should there be any special connection between military service and politics. IMO, we risk our freedoms by doing this. Our Founding Fathers knew that standing armies were one of the biggest threats to freedom that could exist in a country. The creeping influence of the military in our society threatens, not protects, our Constitution.

I agree that no one should have to serve in order to claim a birthright. However, while I also agree that veterans should have no special rights, I do believe in privileges for those who have served honorably. We are special, nothing wrong with recognizing it.

I'm no threat to the constitution; on the contrary, I took an oath to defend it.

 

[Archangel M]

I don't know what "special benefits" he is talking about. If a person served their nation/government and was promised a service that promise should be kept. If that person was injured/disabled because of that service the gvt. should take care of that person. Just like any other employee/employer contract or workmans compensation arrangement. The only "special benefit" I ever received as a "veteran" was a VA loan to buy my house...all that amounted to was that I didn't have to put any cash down on the purchase. I guess I could also go to the VA hospital if I was ever deprived of my health benefits....

 

[Archangel M]

Our Founding Fathers knew that standing armies were one of the biggest threats to freedom that could exist in a country. The creeping influence of the military in our society threatens, not protects, our Constitution.

Yet GENERAL Washington would have easily been able to have declared himself "King" if he had but desired too....

 

[Archangel M]

I'm no threat to the constitution; on the contrary, I took an oath to defend it.

And would have given your life to have upheld that oath. While others who live under the protection of that same Constitution at no personal risk to themselves would disparage you or minimize the honor of your service.

 

[Makalakumu]

And would have given your life to have upheld that oath. While others who live under the protection of that same Constitution at no personal risk to themselves would disparage you or minimize the honor of your service.

It's not disparagement to point out that our military is being used in an unconstitutional fashion. The Oath is meaningless if at the moment you take it you have to break it in order to carry out the orders one is given. The intent behind some peoples decision to serve is good, I object to the way the military is used.

As far as special priveleges go Bill noted them in a post above. One that I've experienced first hand is the fact veterans get first find for federal jobs. The danger in this exceptionalism is that it creates another class of citizenry. We've got a long way to go in order to hit any historical benchmarks in that regard, however maybe we don't need to go that far any more. Maybe what we have is plenty to encourage a class of people to oppress another.

It's dangerous to the founding principles of our country to have a military so large and pervasive in our society and culture. We need WAY more non military people in politics and the government.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's not disparagement to point out that our military is being used in an unconstitutional fashion. The Oath is meaningless if at the moment you take it you have to break it in order to carry out the orders one is given. The intent behind some peoples decision to serve is good, I object to the way the military is used.

As far as special priveleges go Bill noted them in a post above. One that I've experienced first hand is the fact veterans get first find for federal jobs. The danger in this exceptionalism is that it creates another class of citizenry. We've got a long way to go in order to hit any historical benchmarks in that regard, however maybe we don't need to go that far any more. Maybe what we have is plenty to encourage a class of people to oppress another.

It's dangerous to the founding principles of our country to have a military so large and pervasive in our society and culture. We need WAY more non military people in politics and the government.

Veterans do get preference in hiring for federal jobs, it's the law. And they also get preference for federal government contracting, as do minority and women owned businesses. It's called a 'preferential set-aside' and it was intended to right historical injustices.

With regard to veterans, it was intended to right two injustices. The first was the (at the time) strong anti-military sentiment in the USA, which put veterans in the same light as criminal convicts. The second was the simple concept that while they were serving our nation, they were not going to college or building up experience in private industry, and that they should not be penalized for having taken time out of their lives to serve their country while others were busy climbing the corporate or federal employment ladder of success.

I like it myself, although it has never benefited me one iota (except the VA loan, which was a promise made to me prior to my enlistment).

And frankly, I see my fellow veterans as heroes and I always will. No amount of disparagement of our service will ever make me think that we're anything less than terrific people who performed an admirable service for a sometimes less-than grateful public. Love us or hate us, your choice. But we gave you a gift. Wipe your *** with it as you see fit, we still get the props for having given it.

 

[Empty Hands]

Love us or hate us, your choice. But we gave you a gift. Wipe your *** with it as you see fit, we still get the props for having given it.

I believe your attitude about veterans is basically right, and I honor the service. As I honor the service of many others.

However, every war this country has fought since WWII has been entirely voluntary. Those wars have not addressed any real threat the country has faced. They have been fought mainly to advance political goals and the nebulous "interests" of the US.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I agree that no one should have to serve in order to claim a birthright. However, while I also agree that veterans should have no special rights, I do believe in privileges for those who have served honorably. We are special, nothing wrong with recognizing it.

I'm no threat to the constitution; on the contrary, I took an oath to defend it.

As did I. And while my days in uniform are now officially over, I don't recall ever having rescinded that oath.



But at least now, if something were to happen on my soil, I have, at least, compared to someone who's never had service, half a clue about how military tasks are carried out and how to teach others the basics as well. We could only benefit from having as many civilians on the same page with this stuff as possible.

 

[Makalakumu]

Serving in the military in an unconstitutional fashion in unconstitutional wars at the behest of nebulous international and corporate interests is not a gift. It's a mistake. I will talk any young person I can out of it in order to save them a lot of grief.

I respect the intent to serve others and sacrifice, but I don't see the military as a venue where you can really do that any more. You do not protect our country or its interests by essentially acting as socialized corporate mercenaries.

I'm not going to give a modern military man one ounce more deference then I would give anyone else who does a tough job.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I believe your attitude about veterans is basically right, and I honor the service. As I honor the service of many others.

However, every war this country has fought since WWII has been entirely voluntary. Those wars have not addressed any real threat the country has faced. They have been fought mainly to advance political goals and the nebulous "interests" of the US.

I won't deny that at all. And I think given our current debt/financial situation that's gonna have to be over soon whether those in power want it that way or not.

I am talking about getting rid of the problem in the OP, of politicians becoming involved in military affairs who never wore a uniform or fired a weapon themselves.

An example might be the way the Clinton administration handled Somalia.
Have a news crew, camera, lights and all, right there waiting to interview the top secret Special Forces unit as it hits the beach? No problem. Have a general describe in exacting detail, every move you intend to execute two hours bafore the attack? Can do. It'd be great publicity, right?

It's also military suicide.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Double post

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Serving in the military in an unconstitutional fashion in unconstitutional wars at the behest of nebulous international and corporate interests is not a gift. It's a mistake. I will talk any young person I can out of it in order to save them a lot of grief.

I respect the intent to serve others and sacrifice, but I don't see the military as a venue where you can really do that any more. You do not protect our country or its interests by essentially acting as socialized corporate mercenaries.

I'm not going to give a modern military man one ounce more deference then I would give anyone else who does a tough job.

I would agree our inessential involvement abroad would have to cease for my plan to be of any use.

Given our financial situation as it is, that's going to happen very soon anyway.

Another option is to do as i did and join a State Guard or State Defense Force where such exist anymore, which cannot be deployed outside its state.

And since soon all there are GOING to be are states, that could work with my original idea, too.

But again, my idea at this point is just that, an idea and no more.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Interesting discussion.

In Canada we have had 22 Prime Ministers, and only two, (three if you want to argue the point), ever had any military experience. Both of those two, never seen any combat.

I would argue that the effectiveness of Canada in war time has not been hindered or enhanced in any way by these facts. Canadians would still have fought and died in wars regardless of the sitting PM having military experience.

The civilian government may say we are going to war, but it is our generals, (and thankfully we’ve had some great ones), that continue it from there.

Civilian authority is an absolute must over the military, otherwise we end up as dictatorships.

 

[Archangel M]

If you really think that War is fundamentally any different NOW when it comes to why soldiers serve and why nations go to war than it has ever been ...you are a fool.