Calling Airman_Doors: WHY does the military want to go to war?

Great Debates
1

This OP isn’t specifically directed at you, Airman, but it arises because of a contention you made in this here thread about whether the miltary is partisan:

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Historically, you had guys like Douglas MacArthur (“There is no substitute for victory”) and Curtis LeMay (“Bomb them back into the Stone Age”) who have made political-type statements, but those people usually got mustered out right quick or ignored outright. There is an overall institutional bias towards going to war, but imagine that- that is, after all, what we train for. We still can’t go on our own hook.
[/QUOTE]

(Bolding mine)

My question is, well, what the thread title says. Granted, soldiers train to fight in wars and people like to do what they know.

Still, firefighters don’t start fires (although I’m aware that firefighters are more likely to be arsonists than those in other professions). Why should members of the military be pro-war?

I understand that a lot of people join the military because they’re hawks. I also understand that some (not many, but I’m led to believe that there are some) join because they enjoy the killing.

I presume that the vast majority join to defend their countries or just because it’s a job with good benefits. What makes these people want to go to war? It’s dangerous, presumably less pleasant than peacetime duty, and means you’ll be away from your loved ones, good pizza, crappy beer, and the Steelers for a long time.

2

I’d imagine it’s two reasons:

  1. As you mentioned, soldiers are trained for war. People like to do the thing that they’re trained for. Firefighters don’t go out starting fires, but they would get really restless if there was a long spell without any fires. But eventually, there’s always another fire. War is different, in that they don’t just happen, someone has to start one. Short of outright invasion or domestic insurrection, any war the US will enter will be by choice. The military is understandably eager to do their duty, and thus, in at least some part, eager for war.

  2. If you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The military is used when diplomatic or other solutions fail. They aren’t the diplomats themselves, and probably don’t much think about all the times that diplomacy worked and the war proved unnecessary. A soldier must think of every situation in terms of warfare, that’s his job, not any possible diplomatic solutions.

3

I’m no expert, but I would imagine that a large number of people who join the military do, in fact, want prove themselves in battle, fighting for their country (or they think they do). You train for war and you want to test those skills. There are also probably career benefits to having combat experience as well.

People always assume their side will go in, kick some ass, not incur too many casualties, reap just enough glory in battle to be interesting and come home to a big parade. It seems like it rarely works out that way.

As an aside, I’m always amazed by people call insurgents and guerrillas “cowards who won’t face us in a stand-up fight”. That’s right idiot, because you are the ones with the tanks and fighterplanes. History’s lesson is that people who don’t have mechanized armies tend not to directly take on a mechanized army because they won’t win. War is not some large-scale duel.

4

Its entirely human. Firefighters don’t start fires, but when they get together to shoot the shit, primate-style, its the guys with the best fire fighting medals and stories who “win”. Same with any such choice, with the unfortunate exception that soldiers get points for participation in death and horror. And, as you probably know, nothing brightens up an officer’s resume than leading in a combat role. In the Viet Nam era, they called it “getting you ticket punched”, there was a long list of young “lifers” trying to get in to Viet Nam.

And it is not really that dependent on political orientation. I’ve sat in on bull sessions amongst Viet Nam Veterans Against the War (though they might not have been so open if they had known I was a total civilian…) and it was much the same: the most attention, the most respect, was paid to the guy who had the most horrendous experiences, even as he regretted.

Human, all too human.

(Upon reflection, if it matters, amend the above: the men I heard would almost certainly not have been so open if they had known they had a lifelong civilian in the midst.)

5

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I understand that a lot of people join the military because they’re hawks. I also understand that some (not many, but I’m led to believe that there are some) join because they enjoy the killing.
[/QUOTE]

I sincerely doubt there is any significant number of people who join the army because they like killing, for the simple reason that such a miniscule number of people have ever killed anyone before they join the army.

The armed forces has an institutional bias to war because, as the old saying goes, if all you have are hammers, everything starts to look like a nail. Professional soldiers think in military terms and they will see problems as military problems that have military solutions.

I was in the Canadian Forces and it took place, more than once, that at a mess dinner or a Remembrance Day event, people would talk about how soldiers are the world’s great pacifists because we were the ones that took the brunt of it when war came - and then when shooting the breeze over beers afterwards, when world politics came up, the solution to everything was WAR! It wasn’t that they realize the contradiction; in every case, the person advocating war really, truly believed that there were no political or diplomatic options left, that, unfortunately, war was the last resort and had to be used. They thought this because when war is your profession, it’s just the obvious solution.

This is generally true of all professions. My best friend works for Cisco, and he and his work buddies seem to be unaware, at some deep level, that the IT industry does not comprise the entirety of the business world. Everything to them is the IT industry; that other industries exist is just utterly foreign to them. Human resources professionals perceive problems in HR terms. People who work in the trucking industry see everything as being related to logistics. You only notice the military more because they stand out and when they go to work it’s a particularly lively spectacle.

msmith:

Of course, such people are all either yellow-bellied chickenhawks who’ve never put on a uniform, or morons. U.S. forces in Iraq have been repeatedly impressed by their enemy; Marine after-action reports after the battle of Fallujah spoke in glowing terms of the insurgents’ ability to learn and adapt, talking about how they had started to use solid tactics and operational control- use of fire and maneuvre, indirect fire techniques, and the like. American professionals have no illusions about the bravery of their enemies.

6

[QUOTE=msmith537]

As an aside, I’m always amazed by people call insurgents and guerrillas “cowards who won’t face us in a stand-up fight”. That’s right idiot, because you are the ones with the tanks and fighterplanes. History’s lesson is that people who don’t have mechanized armies tend not to directly take on a mechanized army because they won’t win. War is not some large-scale duel.
[/QUOTE]

An especially ironic complaint, given the birth of the US.

7

Nego Majore.

I deny the premise of the OP.

There have certainly been soldiers who looked forward to war. However, many of the greatest commanders have not been interested in fighting and certainly not in starting a war.

If we look at the U.S. Civil War, we find the real firebrands were among the civilian population. Winfield Scott, (the comander of the U.S. Army), has been criticized for being too slow to make sufficient preparation for the “inevitable” war, yet his correspondence shows that he did begin preparations once the inevitability was clear and that his reluctance to move earlier was an effort to prevent provocation. William Tecumseh Sherman had no part in calling for war and actually suffered a nervous breakdown when called upon to prosecute it. Nathan Bedford Forest initially enlisted as a private.
George Marshall was actively opposed to war–although he was also actively opposed to losing war and worked to prepare his forces for the inevitability of U.S. involvement in WWII.
In fact, as I noted in a recent thread, the Joint Chiefs and other military brass opposed the invasion of Iraq, publicly.

Certainly, there are Pattons, Custers, and like-minded individuals who lust after battle. On the other hand, many in the military seek the comraderie and the challenge of membership and maneuvers and translate that–plus a desire to defend their country–into a military career. However, I do not see any serious evidence that there is a direct correspondence between selecting a military career and desiring war.

8

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Nego Majore.

I deny the premise of the OP.

There have certainly been soldiers who looked forward to war. However, many of the greatest commanders have not been interested in fighting and certainly not in starting a war.
[/QUOTE]

You’re already attacking a straw man. The OP spoke of all members of the military, not just hand-picked examples of commanding officers.

Speaking as a former soldier I am telling you right now that soldiers are FAR more hawkish, on average, than civilians. It is not a small difference, it is a dramatic, overwhelming one.

9

[QUOTE=RickJay]
You’re already attacking a straw man. The OP spoke of all members of the military, not just hand-picked examples of commanding officers.
[/QUOTE]
The stawman appears to be yours. Being more hawkish–more willing to perceive a need and hope that one gets to engage in combat–does not, to me, mean that “they” (as in, the overwhelming super-majority) are “pro war.”*

Maybe it is just a semantic distinction, but by having this thread in GD it appeared to me to be a question why the military promotes warfare. If the question had simply been, “what motivates people to join the military knowing they may be called upon to fight?” I’d have expected this to be an IMHO poll.

  • It might also be interesting to take a poll of soldiers who had spent a lot of time in preparation for combat before they had ever been in combat when compared to similar troops who had been engaged in prolonged combat conditions.
10

The distinction is important. I’m not asking about motivations for joining the military; I understand those.

I don’t understand why one would seek a war after joining.

11

To blow shit up!
(Obligatory GI Jane reference.)

Put in other words, it’s the chance to put all of that training and equipment to the test, much like others have said.

I’d just as soon participate in a firefight if no one got hurt… this is why stuff like airsoft and paintball exists. It’s hard to spend all that time and money and put on all that gear and not want to shoot things.

12

I’d like to see the breakdown on this between officers and enlisted men. I suspect it would be somewhat different.

I’ve known several officers of almost all the services, and they’re decidedly not hawkish. Conservative to a man, but not hawkish.

The guys I knew who enlisted were pretty much all super-macho aggressive types, and if they’re representative of the majority of enlisted people, I wouldn’t be surprised if by and large, enlisted people are fairly hawkish.

13

[QUOTE=bump]
I’d like to see the breakdown on this between officers and enlisted men. I suspect it would be somewhat different.

I’ve known several officers of almost all the services, and they’re decidedly not hawkish. Conservative to a man, but not hawkish.

The guys I knew who enlisted were pretty much all super-macho aggressive types, and if they’re representative of the majority of enlisted people, I wouldn’t be surprised if by and large, enlisted people are fairly hawkish.
[/QUOTE]

Well, most officers are in non-combat roles, as I understand it. I think it would be only naturally that, say, a JAG officer or surgical trainer would be doves.

If you compared enlistees to combat-duty officers I don’t think you’d see much difference, though. This is conjecture, though; I have neither anecdotal nor empirical evidence to back that up.

14

[QUOTE=bump]

The guys I knew who enlisted were pretty much all super-macho aggressive types, and if they’re representative of the majority of enlisted people, I wouldn’t be surprised if by and large, enlisted people are fairly hawkish.
[/QUOTE]

Had they been in combat?

My reading of the history of the run up to several wars showed me that in general high ranking officers are less willing to fight. They know war is risky. If they lose, they get screwed. They have high positions - if things go badly, they get fired. What’s the upside for them? Now, promotions come faster in war time, so I can see junior officers wanting to get into battle. It seems though, that civilians are more sure of the outcome - as we’ve certainly seen in the present situation.

15

It’s an interesting point to discuss. In my observation (and mine alone) people who are trained for war and know precisely what their abilities are and those of their particular unit almost invariably think that they can solve any diplomatic problems by doing what they know how to do. How many times have you heard “we need to just take that fucker OUT!”? Well, in the military we have the means to do exactly that. That is part of why there is so much bitterness about President Clinton still within the ranks. He downsized the military (i.e. he cost members’ buddies their jobs) and he refused to let the military do what they thought they should have been doing. That’s not to say that Clinton was wrong- as it happens I don’t think that he was in that regard (the fullness of time has changed my mind in that regard). But if you ask a military member for their opinion, I suspect that more often than not you’ll hear them say that the military can take care of it.

There’s also the “glory” aspect. That has been around forever and probably will be. We as humans have always feted our victorious heroes and remembered our losses. The disillusionment only comes after the fighting is done. Until then it’s a lot of rah-rah and introspection: can I survive in combat? How will I perform? Am I a man or a mouse? The same stuff that you hear when someone challenges you to a fistfight on the street applies here. It’s a test, one that young people eager to strike out on their own often intentionally subject themselves to.

That’s what I mean by “institutional bias”. Kids with guns and all the answers, combined with experienced people who think they know all the answers, combined with leadership that have been practicing the solutions to all the problems of the world for all of their adult lives, that kind of combination tends to incite even the most cautious of leaders to promote a military solution. That is, after all, what we train for.

16

Ummm, I was in the Army, and I went to Iraq, and I just didn’t see anything like what you guys are talking about. Granted, I joined up before September 11, and most soldiers joined then for a good job and college money, not for combat. I’ll also grant that a lot of soldiers were excited about the possibility of a war, and the inevitability when we finally got the orders to go. But excited is not hawkish, it is intimidation and curiosity and the thrill of facing the unknown and seeing what you are made of. I pulled a lot of guard duty with a lot of soldiers; and while mostly we talked about home or family or how much we hated the first seargent, when it came time to talk about what we’d do when Hadji came over the wire, nobody spoke of it in glowing terms.

Of course, I knew a handful of gung-ho nutjobs who couldn’t help volunteering to accompany the tankers or infantry on a patrol, itching for a fight. Always telling some (obviously made-up) story to illustrate their similarity to Rambo, these people invariably carried a knife of some sort in their boot and were the butt of many jokes between me and my intelligent buddies who knew that death and destruction were not cool. (Death at least. Sometimes destruction can be very cool.) We always knew it might be necessary, but among us mechanics and technicians at least, killing or attempting to kill was not something anybody had any desire for.

I guess I’d like to make the distinction between the soldiers who might have talked excitedly about the possibility of war, and bragged about how good they’d be at it, but really would rather have stayed home, versus the soldiers who actively pursued combat and sincerely wanted to fight and kill. If you ask me, the latter category was a very small minority of the soldiers I met.

I was not in a combat arms MOS, so there might be some bias there, but I fixed a lot of infantry equipment and talked to the grunts, and the sentiment seemed to be the same. Its just that for them, killing people was not something you could hope wouldn’t have to happen, but something that happened that you had to justify or rationalize on a daily basis. I’m glad I wasn’t an infantryman, and I rejoice to this day that I never had to kill anybody in Iraq.

17

Based pon my experience talking with soldiers in a combat enviornment, most do not wnat to be put in the line of fire (that is they don’t want to be shot at) but they do want to return fire if they are. As part of my job, I had to conduct debriefings of Service Members who had been involved in a fire fight. I personally did not speak to a single one who felt bad about shooting the bad guys. We do what we are trained to do, be it shoot the bad guys, fly an aircraft, or drive a HMMWV.

You would be better off to ask why do the police want to arrest felons.

Sgt Schwartz

18

To add to RickJay’s and Airman’s excellent posts, I’d point out that it’s just that being in the military influences one’s outlook. There’s also a selection bias: people who tend to favor military solutions are the generally the ones who are interested in joining the Army.

19

I think that you’ll find that soldiers who have seen real combat are not particularly enthusiastic about war. Well that is my experience.

Although I do remember that a friend of mine, a Lt Commander in the RN who had mysteriously served with a branch of the Marines in N Ireland, was positively itching to get called up during the Falklands conflict.

20

[QUOTE=bump]
I’d like to see the breakdown on this between officers and enlisted men. I suspect it would be somewhat different.

I’ve known several officers of almost all the services, and they’re decidedly not hawkish. Conservative to a man, but not hawkish.

The guys I knew who enlisted were pretty much all super-macho aggressive types, and if they’re representative of the majority of enlisted people, I wouldn’t be surprised if by and large, enlisted people are fairly hawkish.
[/QUOTE]

Odd. The majority of Servicemembers, both officers and enlisted, I’ve known in my military career were not hawkish. Rather, they were pretty much concerned with defending the country, not going out to wage war for the fun of it.