The mechanism correcting itself, even if slowly.
Like my brother; born in raised in small-town Illinois, joined the Air Force to “see the world,” and was stationed for four years in Little Rock, Arkansas. I dealt with a lot of PO’d soldiers down at Ft. Hood for this very reason.
Plenty of the FF had military experience, either with the British Army, the Colonial Militias, or the Continental Army. A lot of blood was spilt securing those rights, and making sure that they aren’t taken away by other nations, and in ensuring other people could either gain or *re-*gain those rights.
The bottom line is that force was necessary to secure them, and force is necessary to preserve them.
Johnny L.A.: The Army didn’t do a real good job teaching “self-reliancy.” Soldier pay was often too low to move out of the barracks (generally prohibited until you got married and assigned quarters, or rose up high enough in rank to pay for it yourself), so the “kids” didn’t learn about paying rent and utilities on time, balancing a household budget, etc.
And the fact that barracks soldiers are forced to keep the barracks clean is no indicator that they’ll maintain the same standards in an apartment of their own, as I’ve seen plenty of soldier’s homes that were shit holes (almost as a backlash reaction to having been forced to maintain a spotless barracks).
And I believe (IIRC the numbers from back when) soldiers (at least in/around Ft. Hood) experienced much higher substance abuse rates, DUI/DWI, check bouncing, spousal abuse, unpaid utilities, etc., etc. You can always cop and say it was an Army problem, or a Ft. Hood problem; that neither the Air Farce, Navy, or Marines were that bad, but I’d believe that to be incorrect, even if hard number smight be hard to come by.
No, the Army always told us, “You get out what you put in.” And draftees or mandatory service people will generally not have the incentive to “put into,” or invest themselves in, their military experience. Exceptions will occur, but they’ll be just that: the exception that prove the rule.
I actually think that there are some (very small?) words on the enlistment contract that basically says the government can keep you for however long they want. “Needs of the service” and stuff like that.
I believe you’re talking about a classic militia. The government has this partially covered with the Inactive Ready Reserve. The deal is this (for those who don’t know): when you sign up for the military, you’re really signing for 8 years. If you enlist for two, you do your two years, and then six more in the IRR. If you join for four, then it’s four years active, four years IRR.
Not in a straight-up fight like WW’s I & 2, and the Gulf War. But in Korea, Vietnam, and the mess in Afghanistan and Iraq, plenty of REMFS are getting shot at. Hell, with something like a 9-to-1 Support/Combatant ratio, the “Tail” is the biggest, softest target of the “Tiger.”
Actually, Doug, I think that’s a harsh and overly simple analysis of military training.
In the Basic Training, the idea is kind of to knock the individuality out of the individual recruit; teenagers tend to think that they’re the center of the universe (which is why the older recruits in my basic training outfit actually did better on the academics and “teamwork drills” than the teenagers), and getting them to set aside the “self” to work on difficult and sometimes dangerous tasks together is something few of them are equipped to handle coming into the service.
After basic training, the new service member has to learn unit mission tasks, from squad, up through platoon, and on up to company-level specific tasks, which entails a whole 'nother level of training. Since the Army at least maintians that it trains the way it intends to fight, the unit-level training can be intense, uncomfortable, and prolonged that way.
But many found it challenging, if not enjoyable, and what I came to appreciate about it (in retrospect) was that: A) it was actually harder than real war, and B) when you’ve been in the field for months at a time, once you come back to the world you seriously appreciate the common things most people take for granted (like family, hot water, refrigerators, clean sheets, washing machines, ice cream, etc.)
Well, running an effective combat military on democratic principles is much more often than not an invitation to disaster, as a long record of military history will show. That doesn’t mean that the military rejects democratic principles as the underpinnings of a civil government, just that the military rejects them as a method of unit management/leadership.
And I’d like an example from American history in which the military usurped control of American society in time of threat. The civil executive may have delegated lots of normally civil powers to various military commanders in the past (police functions, for example, in the territories), but that’s hardly a usurpation of society.
Slight nitpick: I thoroughly enjoyed my time and experiences in Germany, Italy, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar, courtesy of the U.S. Army. The exposure to the history and culture of other nations broadened my perspective and made me appreciate and understand my own culture and history even more.
Sure, some Joes will sit on their ass and complain about wierd beer (or no beer at all), and the way the locals talk and dress funny, but most do not.