It’s entirely relevant - most people understand the difference between joining an organization that sometimes involves dying in a good cause, and passing the civil service exam.
Regards,
Shodan
Of course there is a difference. There is not any difference that makes the civil service any less “elite and meritocratic” than the military.
As has been pointed out, that is not what Schiff was saying, there is not a shred of logic behind blaming the current crisis on “outsourcing,” and we’re now very off topic.
There was a time when Lenin had similar expectations of Russian soldiers . . .
Difference is, Lenin was right.
Perhaps it’s more relevant to ask: why are most conservatives for “small government” but not for a small military?
Well, if you want to go down that road, then the federal government can’t offer universal health care.
Your analogy fails since the constitution does say the government can raise armed forces.
If the constitution said the government could fund health care, but didn’t say to what extent, then there wouldn’t be any limit.
Wait, what? Since when is he being tortured, and why am I supposed to be in favor of that?
Well, NR is a propaganda rag. Liberals don’t generally want the entire health system controlled by the government. They want to use taxes to fund basic care, & private medicine can exist on top of that as a supplement.
But it does seem like righties really do think that any money spent domestically on a category of citizen who is not oneself or a uniformed warfighter is a waste of money, but uniformed warfighters are always sacred, no matter how much money is wasted. I was raised GOP, & I know they know there’s waste in the Pentagon, I hear them gripe about it. Until they can use it to score points with the constituencies that believe in massive military outlays.
Mostly I think it’s a matter of a mixed-bag party pandering to different constituencies in a big tent. But I wonder if there was a deeper fascist intent behind creating this particular tent.
The “military” exists to protect us and our national interests.
The “government” wants to regulate and control us and take our money, and it never stops trying to do more of each.
See the difference?
Not as funny as it sounded in your head.
They believe in authority, but not government by the elite? Come again? I think the real issue is that there are different groups called by themselves “conservative.” The Movement was always a bizarre monster stitched together, to oppose whatever pissed off a rich guy in Connecticut, from whatever allies he could find. Now the original generation is dead, & the Movement lumbers along, believing its own propaganda.
Hardworking and successful are not mutually inclusive, as populists have pointed out for generations.
And yet the"Starve the Beast" policy of tax cuts embraced by Reaganites deliberately tries to create an untenable situation where political necessity will cause the government to continuously provide more in services than it can take in in revenue, leading to debt and eventual economic collapse. How ironic.
What was Containment then? What pipehead constituency of the GOP believes that? They obviously never served in war. War is the enforcement of foreign policy.
An imperialist military, classically, uses guns & bombs to threaten to kill foreigners so we can force them to trade with us in a manner beneficial to us & not beneficial to them. A government makes laws so we don’t rape & pillage each other.
Who’s the protector, who’s the extortionist?
“How do conservatives reconcile government distrust and love for military?”
That’s easy. In the military their are consequences for bad behavior and poor decisions. In government there is little, if any.
Well, not beneficial to us, classically, but to our ruling class.
Well, to be fair the OP asked how conservatives reconcile government mistrust with love for the military.
But apart from that, perhaps you could cite the undoubtedly numerous countries around the world who are trading with us because of threats and a fear of our military?
And perhaps you could cite where conservatives have shown themselves to be disdainful of government when it comes to laws against rape, theft, assault, murder, etc.?
And perhaps you could cite where the OP asked who was the protector and who was the extortionist?
And finally, in light of the fact that everything you said was fallacious, could you perhaps explain how your post actually has anything to do with anything I said?
Thank you.
I responded to your post. If you can insult the government, I can insult the part you like. See how that works?
These were responses to your post, as I said. Stop moving the goalposts.
He’s been in “maximum custody” for the past five months. Every day after the first week can fairly be counted as torture, I’d say.
Yeah, I see how it works. I explained why conservatives dislike government but still like the military, and you countered with nonsense.
Works for me. 
Pardon, but I didn’t ask for Wikipedia definitions of gunboat diplomacy. You said our military is used to threaten other countries into trading with us. I’m asking you (again) to list just which of the 83 or so countries in the world are trading with us due to military intimidation by the U.S.
Bwahaha! Pot, meet kettle.
Still, there was no goalpost moving on my part. The OP wanted to know why conservatives oppose government but support the military. He said nothing about who’s the extortionist vs. who’s the protector. You came up with that all on your own. And then when asked just who it was that was being extorted, you were left holding an empty sack.
Works for me also.
No, you brought it up. I’m explaining that, historically, it’s nonsense.
No, I said, “classically.” I didn’t say “currently.” I know you’re trying to be disingenuous, but any conservatism that isn’t based in a study of history & a belief in historically demonstrated truths is just self-important generational provincialism.
You love the military for whatever damn fool reason you’ve convinced yourself they’re good. But the conservative movement embraces jingoists for a reason known to those who stitched that movement together. And once upon a time, the fathers of the fathers of modern conservatism were globalists who believed in gunboat diplomacy.