There are a number of important trends in US civil/military relationships these days that many of us wonder about. Among these is the spectre of praetorianism – all of my military peers seem to have their children at the Naval Academy or in NROTC programs. An occasional reader here is a serviceman with all four of his sons in uniform.
Ivy League schools continue to block ROTC programs from funding the education of deserving students at our elite universities and only then grudgingly admit military lawyers to recruit on campus. Rather than lose federal funding. Being replaced in the line by our own flesh and blood is a source of great pride to those of us in the service, but resourcing the officer corps exclusively from on base schools is not necessarily a healthy thing for the Republic.
Then there is the civil/military cultural divide. Coastal elites often prefer clever and ironic poses to the stout, straightforward and famously un-ironic, Anglo-Saxon-laced language of the wardroom and barracks. When asked if they believe in America, the members of our armed forces – a preponderance of whom come from southern and western “fly-over” states – will passionately aver that they do, while increasing numbers of people who haven’t ever met a soldier “IRL” seem baffled by the question.
Servicemen have faith – sometimes in God, sometimes not. But always in themselves, the man or woman next to them. Always in their mission, if properly led. Back at home these traits are now either considered charmingly quaint or else sneered upon. Secularism now extends even into the secular.
This matters most especially, as Robert Kaplan points out in his latest article in The American Spectator, not in “little wars” of no great consequence, nor “great wars” immediate, existential survival – but for everything in between:
These “in-between” wars are bloody affairs in which we are forced to place a high value on the individual because of our universal values, even as the enemy does not. Abu Ghraib, which showed America at its worst, does not register in terms of barbarity compared to what the enemy was doing on a daily basis in Iraq at the very same time. But because “in-between” wars lack the context provided by clear stakes and personal commitment, the average citizen is more easily knocked off a moral balance by a media culture whose avocation is not to inform but to win market share.
Read the whole thing.
Dartmouth, Penn, Cornell, and Princeton have ROTC programs. Like all ROTC programs, each is distinct in terms of history and present strength. But, they’re there, and their cadets are committed (and to the most part supported by their peers). The Ivies don’t need me to defend them, but take care in criticising them — their faculties are far less representative of students and alumni than the current Congress is of the United States.
Cornell produced more Army officers for WWI than any other institution, including that school downstate. Long time ago, but nationhood is a long game.
Lex, my previous post got flagged by your spam filter. Can you check it out?
Here’s an interesting commentary on the subject:
If the real reason behind Harvard’s ban on ROTC is to protest the military’s perceived backwards attitudes towards homosexuals, then it’s a pretty hypocritical ban. The army is controlled by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, but you don’t see Harvard preventing those branches of government from recruiting on campus. Just the opposite, Harvard has an entire school, the Kennedy School of Government, devoted to training people to work for the evil government which violates the rights of homosexual members of the military.
Unlike working for the Supreme Court or for the President, being in the military is considered to be for the lower classes, so it’s not a career opportunity that interests many Harvard students. Thus Harvard can painlessly protest government policies without causing any harm to its students. A genuine protest, such as rejecting funding from the government, is out of the question.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 12/14/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Ron F, that’s a good point.
I love Robert Kaplan’s work but I have to disagree with one thing from Lex’s snippet. I don’t think that the media is at all driven by market share. If it were, they would attempt to appeal to the significant percentage of readers and viewers who label themselves as conservative. I think that for many years now the media has been driven by ideology to such an extent that they refuse to change a thing in order to pull out of the death spiral that their subscriptions and ratings are in.
I had a lot of contempt for the media before the GWOT started, but even I wouldn’t have believed that they would actively aid and abet the utterly evil enemy that we are fighting. Their instinctive hatred for all forms of conservatism and Americanism coupled with a disdain for the military have led them down a very strange path in this war.
My Grandfather was an ASW officer during WWII, and two of my Grandmother’s brothers were Senior Chiefs in Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet in the early days of the last century. My father was a career Naval Officer with 30+ years of service. Both my brothers and I were Naval Officers, one is still active, and the other one and I still take a paycheck from Uncle Sam, just no longer in uniform. I have one cousin who was enlisted in the Navy for one tour, and another who is a Marine LTCOL. A lot of my friends in the military came from military families, I’d say more than not.
I agree with Lex that there is a civil/military cultural divide, one that was not as large as 50 years ago. I think the reason for the divide, or better yet, for the lack of a divide in past years was due to the massive military buildup during WWII. Everyone had someone in the fight due to the need for vast numbers of personnel to fight that kind of all out 2 front war. The decades since have seen a waxing and waneing of the size of the military with respect to the overall population of the country, but an overall decrease in that percentage. The cultural twists and turns of the 60′s and 70′s shoved some serious wedges into that divide, forcing it ever wider. In the years since, we have narrowed the gap considerably, but only on the emotional level, not on the experience and personal connection level. Whether or not the divide is growing, stable, or shrinking is up for debate and will probably only be decided in the years to come.
I have hope for the future. The current Congress is almost devoid of Veterans. The few that are there come from the old school Post Vietnam Pre Desert Storm military. How many thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines serving in the last 5 years are now combat experienced vets? Fast forward 10 to 20 years from now and those young men and women who have learned the hard lessons of leadership will be among the captians of industry, and some will be running for higher political office. It has already begun here in San Diego with Duncan Hunter’s OIF veteran son campaigning for his father’s congressional seat.
The pendulum will continue to swing and they will be dragged along with us. It just takes time.
Um, Lex, with all due respect, I have to question the way you start off– “Among these is the spectre of praetorianism – all of my military peers seem to have their children at the Naval Academy or in NROTC programs.” Your peers sending their kids to military school is not indicative of praetorianism– at least, I hope not.
I agree with what you and Kaplan say about the divide between (most) civilians and the military, but even Kaplan does not argue that the military will take matters into their own hands and overthrow over the government. Jerry Pournelle talks as thought he thinks it might some day happen, but he is the only one I’ve read who will come out and say this. Ironically, Pournelle is also an exception to your coastal elite theory- he has at least one of his children in the military, and he is a strong supporter of the armed services.
I am not sure what the answer is to the problem of the widening divide between civilians and the military. The solution is probably multi faceted. Reinstating the draft might be one way to start, as long as it was fair and equitable (a topic in and of itself). That would not, however, address issues that Kaplan raises, “that Americans as a people are ever further removed from any semblance of a warrior spirit as we grow increasingly prosperous and our political elite grows increasingly secular.” You can force people into the military via the draft, but that alone will not change their mindset.
A most interesting topic for discussion. Let’s hope the divide doesn’t lead to praetorianism.
/BeachBum
hail brother Praetor!
Praetorians looked to a Caesar for continued employment, and acted as kingmakers to ensure the continuity of their role as palace guards. They were the gatekeepers and they wanted the result to be a sure thing. Stability at all costs was the goal, because of the crippling civil wars that weakened Rome and left her vulnerable to chaos and eventual ruin. Practical, but cynical and short-sighted.
A military that has its ethos in protecting and defending the Constitution has adopted a faith in an unknown and evolving future. And that’s OK. Its the whole point. The Constitution is an unfinished process. Interpreting it, and if need be changing it, is the responsibility of the rest of the non-military citizenry. The dynamic instability of the three branches of government doesn’t guarantee a particular outcome favoring only one faction, but promises a workable result that the nation can live with. It doesn’t need to be perfect, it just needs time to work out its issues, unmolested from enemies foreign and domestic. That’s the work of generations. 200-something years into the mission, so far–so good. Could be worse. Much, much worse…
Americans are continually discovering and re-inventing who they are. Remembering who we were and how we all got to where we are now, requires a need to know and respect history, and the way our actions shape it daily. A secular elite has little use for history, and finds the Nation’s trust and affection for its citizen-warriors irksome and retrograde. But the people , as usual , know better.
Military members draw strength and faith from their knowledge of the Nation’s history. Its a history that belongs to everybody, not just those in now in uniform. Civil War reenactors have been rightly called ‘living historians.’ Their efforts make it possible to understand a past that is still our past.
Today’s serving military could be called ‘living futurists’. Our future is secured by their faith in the duties of the present, and the contagious inspiration of their example to their fellow citizens. And each one has personally decided that all YOUR tomorrows are worth their today. That’s gotta mean something. Even when we don’t want it to, because of the obligation it implies.
When the rest of the country figures out what ‘they owe’ –what that meaning implies for them personally–freely given and not compelled–the divide will be bridged. To find out that faith-however they understand it–is its own sure thing. And in the world we’re in , maybe the only sure thing.
I found Kaplan’s point about the how the culture inside the military is changing to be most interesting. He’s right about the blurring that is occuring because of “jointness”, I just wish he had gone on to show how truly bad for the services that is. In particular the culture of the Navy is being changed to more match that of the Army-perhaps because of all our requirements to do their jobs-but its not a trend for the better in my opinion. Goldwater Nichols never intended for that to happen.
I also find it more than a little disturbing the attitude that the military “somehow knows more than the general populace”. Carry that to its most ridiculous conclusion and that is how coups happen.
There is a civil military divide-but without a program of national service it will never change. And the very same people who are decrying the civil military divide are also those who say they don’t want a draft or to have to deal with people who do not want to be there. You cannot have it both ways-and if the military is supposedly so much more professional now (if not as much fun), then this is a challenge that can and should be taken on. A program of national service is necessary.
re -”praetorianism”
I would venture that between big wars it has been that way since the early 1800′s., particularly Officers in general and Marines- officer and enlisted. Nothing new. I consider it a blessing.
The Ivy’s are privately owned AND endowed..Not that I agree with their non-ROTC policies but they actually have so much money in trust that I don’t know why any federal $$ should go to them even if they re-established ROTC!
IMO, I think the novelty of Ivy is slowly wearing out- passing time and their present course to irrelevancy are inevitable.
re- “clever and ironic”
Perfect. Exactly. Although the services have some of those on AD inside the beltway too. You know, come to think of it SpongeBob is “clever and ironic”, one could never say that about any role John Wayne played in!
b2
Well said, CPT J.
Well, if the Republic collapses and The Legions decide who the Emporer is gonna be, I got’s my receipts from Valour-IT.
Oh, I think it’s called “Uptonianism” in America, after Emory Upton.
Oh, here ya go, found it at Wikipedia:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/03autumn/cassidy.htm
Skippy, I’m not certain exactly how you intended a program of national service, but it seems to me we already have one we’ve simply let whither away. I’m referring, of course, to the organized and unorganized militia, which since the formation of the National Guard has darned near ceased to exist. The Swiss, on the other hand, take this sort of structure far more seriously than we are likely to. Perhaps the English example of required longbow practice on the commons every Sunday afternoon is an example of a happy medium between conscripts and volunteers.
I fear this misses the point, though — so long as our government is set up such that the military is separate from and subordinate to the politicians, it will be difficult to ensure the politicians understand the military via experience unless we vote in veterans. That is the job of the electorate, not a job for legislation.
– Max
Max,
My vision for National service would be that as prerequisite for college admission or graduation a male youth would have to satisy a national service commitment. Either through 3 years service in the armed forces ( with attendant money for college0 or a 6 year stint with the National Guard / Reserves. There would also be non military alternatives which could be worked out but the progran would be designed to incentivize miltary service. To gain things such as student loans/house loans/etc one would have to show that he was square with the government vis a vis national service.
Of course in my perfect world the military and the reserves would be twice as large as they are now.
So my vision is never going to happen.
Conceptually I agree with Skippy on the need for National service. Universal national service. No “Fortunate Sons” or daughters. Thing is that the last figure I heard from the Recruiting folks was that only about 29% of the elegible population could meet military initial entry standards. Understand that universal service does not exclusively mean military service. The shape and form of other service remains to be seen. Probably a good reference were the programs of the 1930s – the CCC was an outstanding program but I recollect that the WPA was found unconstitutional.
Lex,
On the topic of the faith of military members, I’d love to hear your opinion on the views expressed here. This has been a hot topic in the AF of late, and especially at USAFA. If you’ve already written about it, just point me toward the old post. Thanks.
JTG, that was a really good read, thanks.
Doc, I read that link and scarcely know what to think. I’m right-hand-up-to-God certain (sorry, couldn’t resist) that such an environment does not exist at the Naval Academy in particular or the Navy generally. What the actual situation is at USAFA I can only guess at – much of what Antoon writes about does seem chilling.
But on the other hand, his use of such scare words as “the-con”, “neo-Crusader” and “Christian supremacists” does rather suggest an element of axe-grinding on his part. “Normal” people just don’t talk that way – culture warriors do.
And they make me sick to death, all of them, because make no mistake, whether from the Christian”ist” side or the secularist, these people are trying to substitute their preferences for yours and everybody else’s. Some want to hang the Ten Commandments in court houses and some want to banish all mention of God from the public square.
There are all kinds of zealots, and they are particularly skilled at spotting the mote in their neighbor’s eye, while disregarding the beam in their own.
Antoon obviously has an axe to grind.
His profile: “David Antoon is a Vietnam veteran and retired U.S. Air Force colonel, a husband and father who worries about what kind of world his children, and all children, will inherit. He fears the damage to America’s reputation and credibility due to hypocritical, immoral and illegal foreign policy supporting military occupations around the globe will not be repaired in his lifetime.”
Personally I don’t recommend the AF Academy, they don’t call it ‘the zoo’ for nothing. But it isn’t representative of the AF as a whole. Not even close.
And for what it’s worth? Any self-respecting secularist who passes on his dream of flying F-22′s in his country’s service because a general officer (who will be retired in a couple years anyway) says “warrior” a lot in his speeches and because a bunch of cammy-clad evangelists do that evangelism thing just doesn’t want it bad enough. Sometimes you’ve got to hold your nose and stand on the courage of your convictions. Kid let somebody else’s general beliefs influence his personal actions. That horse lacks a little barrel.
If it’d been me, I’d have been all, “Yeah, yeah, God, etc. Knock yourself out, smoke some if you got it. Now where’s my Raptor?”
Hee, hee.
That sounds like something my husband would say!
I’m not sure how the navy runs things, but in the AF being an academy graduate doesn’t count for much as far as getting a jet to fly. It might have been that way (many) years ago, but no more. The only academy graduate in my husband’s pilot training class got a UAV out of there. Ouch! That was in ’94.
Need to add…
I just spoke with him and he says roughly half of his squadron (F22s) are academy graduates so I suppose it must count for something…..
So much to respond to . . . .
On the evangelism side, this issue has settled into a slow simmer for the moment (if you read Antoon’s article carefully, you’ll see the Academy stuff is 3.5 years old now), but the guy who made it his raison d’etre, Mikey Weinstein, still has plenty to be upset about in the military in general.
Here’s my take. I’m with you guys, in terms of what I stand for and what I think most of our service is willing or not willing to put up with. But Mikey’s windmill, “the draconian influence of command,” is at least a little more substantive than Quixote’s. On the whole, I think the man makes very good points that are not taken seriously enough because, like Antoon, he comes across occasionally as being a little over committed (to put it nicely).
A significant part of the three hours I spent at the bar the other night was spent hearing conspiracy theories that played into enough of what I’ve seen on my own to make me just a little uncomfortable. My answer throughout was much like Lex’s, that I don’t think the rank and file are quite the sheep that some of these folks fear. I think if the idealogues do try any outright grabs for power, most of America, including most of the armed forces, will raise the bullshit flag in a hurry.
Still, Bible-thumpers alternatively irritate or scare (in terms of what they might do if they ever did have the clout, not in terms of any eternal damnations) the hell out of me. The spectre of an American equivalent of the Taliban is just real enough that I think we should be alert to killing it while it’s still a puppy, or at least giving a good hard and frequent yank on the leash. When I find myself in conversation with these people, it’s all I can do to keep things non-personal and avoid issuing an invitation to kiss my thrust-vectored engine nozzle.
So thanks, I’d like to believe you’ve answered my question. I think most of us in uniform would pretty quickly squash any evangelical coups, but I have to tell you, that was one hell of a disconcerting bar conversation because my partner wasn’t the kind of clearly over-the-top conspiracy theorist you can easily dismiss. I kept having flashbacks to Julia Roberts’ certainty that Mel Gibson was just off his rocker in Conspiracy Theorist and remembering the byline from that movie: “Jerry Fletcher is a man who sees conspiracies everywhere. But if you keep doing that long enough, sooner or later you’re going to get one right.”
Liz, What being a zoomie counts for changes year to year. The Blue Zoo only has one firm tradition: constant change.
Blue skies. Doc.
Lex, Longer answer waved off by ze spam filter. Help, s’il vous plait.
CPT J – “When the rest of the country figures out what ‘they owe’ –what that meaning implies for them personally–freely given and not compelled–the divide will be bridged. To find out that faith-however they understand it–is its own sure thing. And in the world we’re in , maybe the only sure thing.”
Gotta disagree with you on this one. There is a huge swath of the American population that not only will never explore “what they owe” they resent any mention of anything military at all, unless of course you want to bash the military or our C in C. Even the mention of the fact that I am involved in Operation Gratitude put a huge chill in the air at a Christmas get together last year with one of the men letting out an extremely derisive snort. No, I am afraid that many, many Americans are just too comfortable to even contemplate the role the military plays in their well being. This is something that “someone else” does that has no relationship to them (other than in the negative) and, it cuts across all economic stratas.
I’m think I’m seeing some motes up thar, or are they beams?
‘Course, I’m simply a lousy ‘snapper who goes to Mass 2-3 times a year! I detest it when talk degrades to too much religion or a lack of it.
Wasn’t the subject about the Roman Secret Service?
b2
Babs, I’m not sure what you’re describing is a bug or a feature–or both. Sure, its painful that a significant number of our fellow citizens get their backs up when the subject of the military appears [or it it 'intrudes'?] on their comfortable, insular lives. Well, its still a free country regardless of their scorn, and that’s the point. What I imagine they’re really angry about is themselves [being mainly self-centered] and the unwanted reminder that their negative but still passive opinions don’t really count for much one way or the other. The world just doesn’t do what they insist that it does.
During the Revolution, 1/3 of the population were patriots, 1/3 were tories who supported the crown, and a critical 1/3 just wanted it all to go away and not lose any sleep over the issue. The tories couldn’t be convinced, so the patriots had to win over the uncommitted third by creating a stronger national narrative than what the tories had to offer. They wanted freedom bad enough to make the extra effort. Service, in any form, is an individual effort towards a greater goal larger than an individual. The individual has to see the meaning for themselves now, because the results are not immediate nor the end certain by any means.
The bitter bystanders who smirk on the sidelines simply don’t have a better alternative. If they did, you’d see both enthusiasm on their part AND effective results from that alternative. I agree with you that they are wholely dependant on ‘someone else’ saving their bacon and will resent it forever. Their minds are made up and won’t be changed or confused by the facts. Despite their dead weight, their lives and liberties get protected and defended anyway. What they won’t get is the power to go on denying the reality of the situation we are in. The jihadi enemy has a vote too, and unlike our sullen passive brethren, he will take every opportunity available to him. If he doesn’t conquer, he knows he’ll be destroyed. So he can’t be ignored or appeased.
The critical undecided third will see the faith and determination of military members to the mission and the Nation, and eventually find a personal meaning in that reflected for themselves. They will see that they are worth being defended. Its a mistake to invest all of a nation’s virtue in its fighting forces alone. Relatively few of us can meet the standards and sacrifices expected of the serving military. But we are all citizens whose choices [or lack of them] still make a cumulative difference. The bitter third resents the undisputable fact that people they despise are willing and able to face down unmitigated evil–and win. Especially without their help or support. The undecided third that isn’t invested in hatred is open to the idea that their contribution, however small, could make a critical difference, because the tiny fraction of our population that makes their particular difference in uniform has already proved that. Making a difference is open to everybody who will invest the effort, in their own unique way. In a war of ideas, your efforts in Operation Gratitude are a force multiplier far beyond what you may think.
Ignore the nay-sayers. Press on, and Thank You.
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/12/re-guild.html