Problem with the US military?

welsh

welsh

Junkmaster
Came across this interesting story about the US Military. It's long but worth it for those of you interested in that kind of thing- http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/

There has been a lot of discussion about the need for military reforms and sadly, the US defense department doesn't get the critique is often needs or deserves. That said, the military went through a reform phase after Vietnam. It is likely to have that again.
 
There are so many different angles to this story, I don't really know where to start. Fallows touches on all of them to some extent.

I'm unconvinced by the argument that people would be more sensible about their use of the military if there was a draft, or a different mechanism to provide a more direct connection between those dying overseas and the upper classes. I don't think there's a lot of historical evidence for that idea, as there has always been an impulse toward military intervention in American foreign policy, regardless of the makeup of that military.

One issue Fallows doesn't touch on is that while these wars cause a lot of local devastation, the cost to the American military personnel in terms of wounded and dead is significantly lower than the cost to local civilian populations. That gap will only grow as we get more and more devastation from a distance, thanks to technological wonders like accurate flying bombs. And the USA (or really any country involved in these wars) hasn't come to grips with that, nor has it shown any inclination towards coming to grips with that. The debate always tends to be framed around how technology can save the lives of American military personnel, which shifts the center away from the human cost to everyone in war.
 
America spends more on their military than the next 24 top spenders in the world, all of whom are allies of the usa, combined. And that's ridiculous. Correction: Not all are allies.

I think that the combination of a lack of connection between american citizens and the actual effects the american military has in the middle east means those behind american foreign policy can get away with a lot of shit. But on the other hand I realize the problem where if a crisis like ISIS pops up, the us can't really make any right decision. On the one hand they are kind of policing the world if they do send their military over, and on the other hand they will be told they are negligent of they do not send any personel. But I think that the motivation to send troops to help against ISIS are much better than the ones behind basically invading countries like Iraq or Afghanistan. I've really only heard negative results on the latter. Bear in mind I have done absolutely no research on this besides watching the (excellent) bbc documentary 'Why We Fight' from 2005, though.

But it's true the american military seems to be shockingly irresponsible. Shit like this should be starting riots:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
well the US follows the idea of Clausewitz (...)War is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means, while at least some European nations - like Germany follow the concept of ultima ratio. ("last argument of kings"). It is more or less the dominant stance on war in central Europe.

Akratus said:
Click to expand...

Why again are US citizens surprised that a large part of the world hates them?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, anti-military sentiment is on the rise in america, as far as I can tell. It's just the ignorant "Murica!" shouting masses that won't stand for anti-patriotism.
 
well its all in the hands of the people anyway. The internet can give you a pretty clear picture about the Military and what they do. Its all out there. You just have to dig a bit. You can go to google, search about the Iran, Iraq, Syria and all the other places, learn some of their history read the one or other biogrphay about their leaders. And maybe you can even understand why there are so many US troops on foreign soil.

In other words. Educating your self.

Hey! no one has to become some kind of expert really. But just knowing the basics here will do the trick. But I guess its simply easier to get to your smart phone playing candy crush or posting dog pictures on facebook.
 
Last edited:
The military is going through a lot of transitions - culturally and politically. I have been in for eight years, by time I get out it will be nine years. I have done two deployments and I have seen a lot of changes. Most of the old mentality is gone and it has been replaced with a more political correct frame work. Of course, I am just an Infantryman and I haven't seen everything but I do know that the last six years of the war has been the hardest because the powers that be slap so much ROE on us, it makes it hard for us to do our job. And a lot of the changes aren't for the better. I got young guys that whine and cry about everything. They don't want to train, they always have an excuse and while a lot of them are in the best physical shape, they don't want to push themselves.

Of course, I am sure any other vets may have other perspectives of how the military is going about.
 
Carib FMJ said:
The military is going through a lot of transitions - culturally and politically. I have been in for eight years, by time I get out it will be nine years. I have done two deployments and I have seen a lot of changes. Most of the old mentality is gone and it has been replaced with a more political correct frame work. Of course, I am just an Infantryman and I haven't seen everything but I do know that the last six years of the war has been the hardest because the powers that be slap so much ROE on us, it makes it hard for us to do our job. And a lot of the changes aren't for the better. I got young guys that whine and cry about everything. They don't want to train, they always have an excuse and while a lot of them are in the best physical shape, they don't want to push themselves.

Of course, I am sure any other vets may have other perspectives of how the military is going about.
Click to expand...

I sometimes hear Americans who are not in the military themselves say "Support the troops!", as if regardless of what the troops do in a war or how legit the war they are waging is, one should always support them and not criticise them for anything. Do you agree with the idea that the civilians of a nation should always support the troops regardless of political affiliation etc.? Do you get very upset and angry when and if someone criticises the US military and/or the troops? What if it's a non-American criticising the US troops?
 
Last edited:
Sander said:
One issue Fallows doesn't touch on is that while these wars cause a lot of local devastation blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Maybe that's because his article is about the tragedy of the American military and not about the tragedy that is the rest of the world. Unlike you, who always has to drag in 'related' things by the head and shoulders, this man is focussed on his subject. You get a lot of things done when you do that. And readers generally appreciate it because that way they can clearly follow what would otherwise be total gibberish. But I understand your remark. Your style relies heavily on complex emotional constructs like oikophobia and moral superiority, so you're more into tirades. I get it.

The US military should just ignore the rest of the world. I know that's what I would do. Homeland security, that's it. Trying to save the rest of the world is stupid if the rest of the world doesn't want to be saved by you.

Also: robot soldiers! :aiee:
 
Last edited:
alec said:
The US military should just ignore the rest of the world. I know that's what I would do. Homeland security, that's it. Trying to save the rest of the world is stupid if the rest of the world doesn't want to be saved by you.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Sadly the article also points to a small animation, which highlights nicely why the US is (maybe?) all over the world.

European states spend quite a lot on their military as well, though not even nearly as much like the US. To many people simply earn their living with either directly or indirectly working for the military, it is what many simply call the Military-Industrial-Complex.
 
The article seems to nail my sentiment; seemingly everyone in the US is all about supporting the troops because of the hardships they face and blah de blah, which is understandable, but very few seem to even ask questions about what they are doing, why they are doing it, what are the long-term goals, if the intervention is worth it, etc. So you get this endless circlejerk where people congratulate the servicemen about how good of a job they are doing, without having a clue what this job actually is.

So it ends up with the upper leadership of the US military looking like, sorry to say, a bunch of clueless morons who have absolutely no idea what they are doing and seem to be sending troops only to be able to say that troops were, indeed, sent when comes to time to see if they pass the obligatory patriotism check at elections. Because there's no patriot like the one that sends soldiers on pointless wars because 'Murica Fuck Yeah apparently.

I mean, since WW2, can anyone cite me any US military intervention that has actually succeeded at its goals? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm curious. Maybe one could count Korea, if a 60+ years long mini Cold War is considered a success (even then it took some time for South Korea to get its shit together, along with much juicy US capital). Vietnam? Complete waste of time. Somalia? Disaster. Iraq? enforced a statu quo the first time at best (pissing off large amounts of Muslims in the process), made things far worse for everyone concerned the second. Afghanistan? Still a craphole. Cuba? Bwahahaha. To say nothing of all the smaller operations you never heard about. Or bombing the ever-loving shit out of civilians and maybe some guys we think kinda look like terrorists in Pakistan.

It all seems like a giant, self-sustaining machine of pointlessness that needs to keep turning because of the economic and political interests behind it. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands over the world suffer in silence because of it, including US military personnel of course. Eisenhower was 100% right, it seems.
 
Last edited:
People seem to forget that alot of our spending is to insure the rest of the world doesn't spend as much on their arms anyway. The U.S. provides something known as a nuclear umbrella for its allies as well, that means less countries seek nuclear weapons, which means we are less likely to blow the entire world to hell.

On a side note the next 24 countries combined statement is bull, Russia and China are NOT U.S. allies. And its intellectually dishonest to look at it like that. Defense spending is historically actually looked at in terms of GDP, which the U.S. is still fairly high on, but not as terrible as people would suggest.
 
It is an interesting illusion from the internet generation that publicly broadcasted messages over an electronic format wouldn't be intercepted somehow.

Especially since the same technology was birthed out of the military industrial complex to begin with.


What a lot of people do not realize is that internet surveillance and internet freedom go hand-in-hand with each other, for the former is much more effective with the ladder in place. If someone is using signals in whatever format to broadcast destructive information in a way that is counter-productive and drowns out the white-noise of a completely open forum, it is far more likely that a registered hit would be more correct than a closed system where every small infraction can be misinterpreted.


What the big boys are doing is making sure things like nukes don't appear in a city over night.


The issue that needs to be focused on is public oversight. Public oversight of these systems is a necessity to insure that a checks and balance system is in place so that one entity does not monopolize control over another, which in the long term would cause more terrorism and problems than an open system would.


You aswell cannot remove these systems, for someone else will take control over them and use them for their own purposes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eh, the Brits and French are at least as bad like the Americans with their spies. The Germans are the only one who suck at it though. That's why they are so angry. Angry and jealous.
 
The Italians and the British are the kings of spying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top