McClatchy; Is the no-draft military creating a warrior class?
McClatchy writer, Matthew Schofield, in a hand wringing piece in the Stars & Stripes, contemplates the all-volunteer military and worries that we’re creating a warrior class and a government which doesn’t feel repercussions from sending warriors to the field.
In the wide halls of the Pentagon, the military often is referred to as “the world’s largest family business.” The fear among some military leaders, politicians and experts begins with the belief that as fewer segments of society have family or friends in uniform, others become desensitized to the risks and stresses of military service. The feared risks range from a reluctance to fully support those who serve to an almost cavalier willingness to wage war, reasoning, “That’s what THEY signed up for.”
Historically, problems with such classes have ranged from the military having too much influence in all walks of society — Prussian officers collected taxes — to being marginalized, as with the so-called “barbarization” of the Roman military, which relied heavily on non-Romans.
Yeah, well, we don’t collect taxes and we’re Americans fighting for our country, so your historical references are empty. The real problem isn’t us. It’s the same problem the rest of the country has – it’s the culture. Teachers in schools tell their students that somehow military service isn’t a way forward in their lives. They demean the life, mostly because they don’t understand it either. That educator class which has no experience outside of academia, never worked during summer months, but act like they know everything.
Journalists and politicians like John Kerry (Halp us John Cary) have no problem propagating the myth that the folks who join the military are taking the only route available to them because we’re all miserable failures. And in a culture which touts success, somehow that doesn’t resonate with today’s youths.
Yeah, military service is a “family business” because most of us have parents and grandparents who have served and we can filter out the cultural bullshit. On another forum which I participated years ago, I had some bonehead hippie turd try to convince me that because he was so smart, recruiters didn’t want to even talk to him, let alone recruit him. Such are the misconceptions of the types of people who join the military.
One of my workmates complained that he’d been beat out of a government job because of a “10-point” veteran and he couldn’t figure out why employers put such a heavy significance on military service. Probably because folks who are hiring are learning the value of hiring vets despite the cultural bullshit.
Maybe it’s because “the best and the brightest” join the military and it’s society’s dregs who spend their hours figuring out who they should vote for in the latest “American Idol” competition and can’t get out of their own way. Maybe it’s not the military service that makes us better people, maybe it’s the other way around.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Why do civilians with no connection to the military feel the need to EVER attempt to weigh in on anything military at all? Personally I think it’s because they realize they’re kept in a safe, bubble-wrapped society protected by much better men than they. They feel inferior. As the Ultimate Warrior would say, they’re “normals” and they know it.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:04 pm
And what’s this guy’s plan? Reinstate the draft? I don’t want the guy next to me to be some bitter draftee who’s going to get me killed, and I DEFINITELY don’t want to listen to all the incessant whining that would come from the liberals used to unearned handouts.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:12 pm
I probably should have added a disclaimer; not all journalists are shitbags – some of them who haven’t served honestly do their best to understand us, some of them lurk here at TAH. And I can probably name a half dozen or so other writers who do good work for us.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Grandpa Insanity made it to E-7 and retired.
Papa Insanity to E-9 and retired. 2 of his 4 siblings served briefly.
I made it to O-4 and retired. None of my 3 siblings served.
Insanity Jr. is in law school and wants to be Army JAG. His sister works for the police department.
What’s the problem with any of this? It’s not like we’re Spartans, creating some warrior caste to the exclusion of all other options from within or newcomers from without.
All four of us (the Insanity men) married strong-willed women who were not in any way affiliated with the military. They were drawn to us, I suspect, by our natures.
We are the ones who fight against the wussification of the American Male.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:17 pm
@ Jonn, Too bad they aren’t the rank and file. Instead we have to put up with the sensationalist, agenda pushing, lack of integrity muck rakers like the ones who published the gun owner information.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:22 pm
Actually I think the writer has a valid point. The problem is that they come up with ridiculous ways to solve it such as reinstating the draft.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:26 pm
Mike–Doesn’t the increasing number of politicians with servie backgrounds take care of much of that problem, though?
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:26 pm
service. fat fingers.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:33 pm
@7 Great idea, the only concern I have is that folks with no attachment to the military tend to pay lip service and not much else to the experienced service members.
When we re-elect 95% of the turds in Congress that we claim to disapprove of by 90% to 10%…..well it doesn’t lend itself to getting a lot of new blood, military or otherwise, into the fairly shallow political gene pool…
I sure would like to see more folks with service backgrounds replacing incumbents…and maybe the next mid-term elections will help me see that happen.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:34 pm
I hope the increasing number of Vets moving into public office will help. I hope their example will lead others who consider themselves the “best and brightest” to give military or at least some form of non elected service a try. Hopefully the ones serving in public office with such experience (military, police, fire or hell even health and human services) will use their boots on the ground experience in actually carrying out politicians rules to make some that make sense. From the military perspective, hopefully they’ll make missions and training and funding match. But as long as people sit back and whine instead of doing anything, those of us who choose public/military service will become more and more isolated from the rest of society, especially the military branch of that service.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:43 pm
Schools are a bit hypocritical. On the one hand, they celebrate those who choose military service at graduation (or at least our local schools do) but most of the teachers desperately try to talk those same kids out of it in favor of college, any college. Most of my sons teachers reaction when he told them he was joining the Air Guard was “Why would you do that?”. They don’t have a clue about any other path other than school to college and back to school as teachers.
And why would the left want a draft? They themselves are contemptuous of military service, just like the ski-bum type who spit on my son at Denver’s Parade of Lights. Fortunately for my son, and unfortunately for the creep, the cop nearby was prior Navy. Needless to say, said creep didn’t have a good weekend. Any lefties that claim to support the troops and not the war are full of sh*t.
Oh, one more… my sister-in-law’s reaction to my daughter also joining the Guard was “why would you do that, you known they rape all the women”. An Obama support of course.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:45 pm
My family has always considered it an honor to serve. It stems from being raised in values that allow us to look around at our nation, at our community, and especially at our Constitution and say to ourselves “There is something here that is worth risking my life to protect, to defend.”
For many, however, they never have that epiphany. Either because their family had no connection to the military, or, more likely, they attended public schools where civics, American history, honor, value and the foundations of our society and country are diminished, replaced by the ideals of victimhood, of repression, suppression, and regression.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:48 pm
FWIW, my teenage daughter has already made the decision to apply for the Army when she graduates from High School. She wants to be a Forensic Scientist, so her plan, as she told me, was to join the Army and become an MP. That would help her learn some of the judicial/police stuff, and then afterward, she’d have her GI Bill to pay for college to get that Forensics degree.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Depending on location, some people never even SEE a Servicemember from one year to the next. We are concentrated in a few states and in remote corners of those often. Civil society is increasingly ignorant of anything to do with the Military. Will this turn us into tax-collecting Prussians or Barbarian Romans? Probably not. I think those are not the greatest historical examples. But it WILL have negative impacts. Including POSSIBLY:
1) Leaders who don’t know about or care about Soldiers. Result: Mogadishu.
2) Semi-permament Officer Class. Result: Balaclava
3) A perception that Soldiers are (Duke of Wellingtonesque) Scum. Result: Read Kipling and/or Vietnam Homefront.
The problem is that the cure can be worse than the disease. Except for rare exceptions, Conscript Armies suck. Professional Armies tend to win wars.
I am not sure how to fix the problem. Possible solutions include a REVERSE BRAC program where we reopen bases where we don’t have many now. For example, New England has no Army or Marine bases and only very small Navy and Airforce Bases. I think CA only has one Marine base and that is in the middle of the desert. Basically the Military is based (like 75%) in Virginia, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina. This would also assist the National Guard.
I think a military out of touch with society and a society out of touch with the military is a bad thing. If you go to an elite university and go into its “Memorial Hall” and most have one. You will see names listed on the wall of that university’s war dead. You will find (depending on geography and age) a huge number of names for the Civil War, about 1/3 as many for WWI, another really big chunk for World War II, and then just a smattering for everything after that. Vietnam will be maybe 5% of what WWII was and far less than even the Spanish American War. Everything else (GWOT, Dominica, Desert Storm, etc.) might be one or two names.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:55 pm
I don’t have time to read all of the comments on this story, but I have to throw my…five or six cents in. First off, I have been a teacher for 12 years; I served two enlistments on active duty in the 1980′s, but ETS’d to come home and be a father after a divorce. I then spent 21 years in the ARNG because I didn’t really want to get out, so I figured I’d continue to serve anyway I could. Just retired from that “experience” two years ago. Whe kids ask me about military service, I am very blunt and share with them the realities, yet more than once I have had kids ask me to accompnay them to see a recruiter, which I am proud to do. Incidentally, both of my sons are serving, one enlisted, one officr. The author of that article is an effing moron.
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:15 pm
Even if it is, to some extent, creating a Warrior Class,the military is still ultimately controlled by the civilians, and swears allegiance to the Constitution that sez it’s so.
Are they worried about something like Starship Troopers (the book, not the crappy movie(s)), where the military takes over the governement and the only people who get to vote are those who have served?
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:15 pm
Another problem also is the fact that as our country’s population increases the number of slots available for the military service has steadily decreased and the retention rate has also increased. This is allowing the military in theory get the more qualified person who wants to be there.
As for the draft there is hope by some with it will increase the disgruntled person who did not want to be there in the first place. They want to have the optics of the demos of the Viet Nam era. It has not materialized as they had hoped over the last ten years.
The difficulty with persons entering politics is that the pool is getting smaller for electing politicians who have served as the percentage with combat time has increased. Plus the costs stack against a returning vet.
I agree for most the military is a family affair, I and my brother were third generation soldiers. The family goes farther back with the military but he received the Eisernes Kreuz on the Western Front.
As for the next generation, my daughter was thinking of it, as well as going into law enforcement, also following the family, but she got her mother’s eyes and is officially blind as a bat without glasses. This makes her mother, being a mom, whose father passed away on leave while serving in the Navy through WW2, Korea and Viet Nam, very happy.
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:19 pm
I lost some brain cells reading this tripe.
First the elected officials worried that middle and lower income classes were dying in too great a number because of the draft for some land over in Southeast Asia. So they created the all volunteer Army. And after some growing pains and congressional inflicted wounds prior to going all volunteer (Project 100,000), it has become arguably one of the most successful programs ever.
Now they worry that not enough people know the sacrifice of military service and that we will have a warrior caste. I have words for them. Shut the fuck up!
Our entire military (active and reserves) are so diverse, much more so than ever in the history of this country. Sure maybe we don’t have Trump’s kid serving but virtually every other segment of society is represented somewhere in the military.
Perhaps we should be wary of the political class that is currently being perpetuated. The Bushs’, the Clintons, the Gores just to name a few.
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:24 pm
The author isn’t a moron… he is an employee of the stars and stripes… you are insulting morons… Teehee, I even heard a tale from a friend of a strips reporter being busted in Afghanistan with drugs within 9 hours of landing. I don’t know why DoD continues that farce of a paper like anyone even reads it. They should just take the Early Bird, throw a masthead on it and BAM, money saved.
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:27 pm
Today’s military is the best educated the country has ever had. You guys know your way around a library as well as a rifle range. I guess that means trouble.
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:50 pm
The article as a meme falls has a long history. Every generation sees this meme – do we have a Warrior Class – usually to upset the jack and jill garden-growers and get them to take away the Federal academies, strip the military, and so on.
The answer is yes, Virginia, we do have a warrior class. We also have a class of officers that come from America’s Ruling Class (refer to Codevilla).
The draft has not a damned thing to do with a Warrior Class. Ever since the Continental Army was disbanded and the militias dismissed, we have had a professional, standing Army. Starting first with the Regiment of Artillery and Engineers, which we later added infantry since the Queens always bitch.
The draft is an ancient form of servitude/slavery, which is why Democrats and Prognazis love it so much. In the era when single shot/spear thrust/sword slash (pre-1860) required large levies to counteract marksmanship/superior fighting skills, the draft made sense.
Occasionally, draftees do good things. When the Revolutionary French Army under later-Marshal Kellerman defeated the Prussian/Habsburg army at Valmy in 1792, folks got to thinking that draftees were great (in this case, Prussian canoneers just sucked).
Sylvanus Thayer brought the intellectual justification to the US of A through his annual summer maneuvers, in which West Point cadets re-created the battles of Napoleon. Those same cadets, now generals in the Armies of Northern Virginia and of the Potomoc, convinced their prospectice politicos to go with drafts.
I worked with draftees in Afghanistan – Afghani, American (VN vets) and European. Draftees suck. They are resentful. They take very short views on life. The Americans went from the slavery of the draft to the enjoying the free will of free men and enlisted or were commissioned. I have no love for the draft, and I understand its purpose is to reintroduce slavery in America.
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:51 pm
One of the biggest problems that most of us normal people find when attempting to deal with libs is that when they learn something, they assume that no one else in the world has ever known it and it is their duty to educate the rest of us on their discovery.
A lib has discovered that there is a “warrior class” and that the military contributes to it. Are you kidding me??
Anyone here not understand that concept without additional schooling on it? Not to belabor the obvious, but the entire purpose of the military is to protect us. To do that you train warriors to do the job. The result is a group of people who can protect us. In other words, every society with an expectation of surviving more than 24 hours, purposely develops a warrior class to protect itself.
Yeah, libtards, we kinda sorta knew that. But be all shocked, even outraged, if you must, that not everyone has any desire to whimper helplessly in mommy’s closet when life gets tough. There are quite a few of us willing to protect your ass while we are protecting our own. (As long as you stay out of the line of fire. If you don’t have sense enough to keep your head down, we can’t help you much.)
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:54 pm
The reason there is a Navy Operational Support Center (formerly Navy Reserve Center) in all 50 states and PR and Guam, is so that there is a connection maintained between the Citizens and the Sailors. The obvious alternative would be that the Navy Reserve would be isolated to the coasts (on the Navy Bases).
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Nicely said, OWB.
I wonder if Scoop Schofield ever heard of WWII and the millions of draftees who served during that lttle conflict.
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:59 pm
I taught high school for a total of 16 years. I always encouraged any of my student who were interested in a military career to explore every facet and be knowledgable before they visited a recruiter. I was a sponsor/booster of my school’s JROTC and had a most enjoyable time with the best and brightest kids on campus.
Unfortunately, too many of my Lib-Cong collegues discouraged any interest in a military career.
January 2nd, 2013 at 7:07 pm
To be honest I didn’t find the article objectionable at all. I first read of this phenomenon in the 1980s in a book whose title I forget, but his term for the growing separate-ness and insularity of the military and civilians was “the great divorce.”
I think the article raises some worthy issues but of course reinstating the draft (which we could never do even if we wanted to) is not a solution.
For that matter, I think the thesis (which is that governments will be more likely to send soldiers off to war if they have little personal connection to them) has actually been shown to be false. Not only are countries with large conscript armies quite eager to send their sons off to die, but those who have a professional military actually appear to be much more reluctant to put those professionals into harms way (see, for example, Great Britain in the post-conscription era.)
I think the primary reason for this is economic: Even with non-draftee professionals, wars and similar military operations are expensive and countries with small, professional militaries usually have lots of other things they’d rather spend their money on.
Another point worth mentioning is that the current respected status of the military is pretty much a WWII phenomenon.
Oh, sure there were brief interludes such as the Civil War and WWI when soldiers were hailed as heroes, but for most of the first century and a half of American history, the military was at best tolerated and at worst excoriated by polite society as the gutter dregs (enlisted) and/or small-minded, petty dictators (officers) and certainly not the proper career for a well bred young man from a good family.
January 2nd, 2013 at 7:11 pm
#26 martinjmpr,
I disagree with one point: Americans did hail its military after Desert Storm.
It ebbs and flows depending on a nation’s self-knowledge.
January 2nd, 2013 at 7:14 pm
Living in one of the more dense/intense Specop areas, (the Greater Eglin AFB area), I am quite insulated from those who would neuter the military. An added layer is that this is region is quite conservative, and all in all is very pro military. When I go in the Supermarket, the drug store, the big box stores, I can see duty uniforms in the aisles, as well as the wives and children of military who stand out from those who are not mil connected. We, as a Community, even have an annual event on Armed Forces Day called, MARC, (Military Appeciation Recognition Celebration), where every thing offered, cold drinks, BBQ dinners, even Boy Scout produced Fudge Brownies, are free to all. On the other hand, my state of birth Michigan has no active duty military installation. That is the sad opposite. We do have a Warrior Class,and I see it on the Right Shoulder Patches, on the CIBs on the uniforms, and on the “High and tight” haircuts in the local businesses. GOD bless our Warriors.
January 2nd, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Sadly with such a small percentage of Americans serving and the threat of the forces being cut even smaller, we can’t help but be a warrior class. However with all the social engineering going on to make room for someones next project the curerent military may have reached its zenith having to have so many billets for social experiments.
If you follow Tuesdays with Claymore it’s easy to pick up on the other 51% that thinks the military is somehow neanderthal and less than cerebral. We are in for some tough years ahead.
January 2nd, 2013 at 8:23 pm
@#14. “Professional Armies tend to win wars”. That accounts for a lot of the disconnect, JA. There are some in this country who don’t mind using the military, as long as no one really gets hurt and the U.S. doesn’t “win”. Witness “nation building” and “humanitarian missions”. As long as it’s just handing out food, helping to rebuild places, inoculations and free milk, it’s OK.
Once the guns, jets, tanks and the like come out, it’s “baby killer”, “no blood for oil” and the rest of the garbage that a certain segment of the population is hung up on.
January 2nd, 2013 at 9:49 pm
Well he is correct. Less than 1% serves. Government does everything they can to marginalize the rights of our military or deny them their rights such as voting. We’ve been at war for over a decade and the average citizen isn’t invested nor impacted the least bit by it. “support the troops” has turned into frivolous bumper stickers and feel good gestures by civilians while they simultaneously vote for an administration that’s been taking a crap on the military, veterans, and their lives for 4 years.
When politicians are literally criminally negligent when it deals with our law enforcement and military nobody holds them accountable because they don’t give a shit. Benghazi, Afghanistan going to hell right when Obama came in with his absurd roe’s, and the administration’s targeting of veterans as a threat to national security.
January 2nd, 2013 at 10:00 pm
@14
Kalifornia has a dominant position in raw number of military installations…Yeah the state is a Democrat stronghold and maybe not the most hospitable to the military, but politicians know it brings in the federal $$$.
Air Force Bases
Beale Air Force Base
Edwards Air Force Base
Los Angeles Air Force Base
March Air Reserve Base
Travis Air Force Base
Vandenberg Air Force Base
Army Posts
Fort Hunter Liggett – near Jolon
Fort Irwin – north of Barstow
Presidio of Monterey
Sierra Army Depot – Herlong – closed Dec 2010
Marine Bases
Camp Pendleton Marine Base – north of Oceanside
Miramar Air Station – San DIego
Barstow Logistics Base
Mountain Warfare Training Center – Pickel Meadow
San Diego Recruit Depot
Twentynine Palms Air Ground Combat Center
Navy Bases
China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station
China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division
Coronado Naval Amphibious Base – San Diego
Coronado Naval Base – San Diego
El Centro Naval Air Facility – west of El Centro
Lemoore Naval Air Station – west of Lemoore
Naval Postgraduate School – Monterey
Naval Surface Warfare Center Corona Divison – Corona
North Island Naval Air Station – San Diego
Port Hueneme Construction Battalion Center
Point Loma Naval Base – San Diego
Point Mugu Naval Air Station – southeast of Port Hueneme
San Diego Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center
San Diego Naval Base
Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station
Ventura County Naval Base – south of Oxnard
January 2nd, 2013 at 10:01 pm
Jonn- Quote in the first paragraph was stolen from the time magazine article from oct 2011- you wrote about it then- and I was reading it when Ethan left in November 2011. I don’t know who said it- but he said “it’s the family business and business is booming”. It’s a recycled story.
January 2nd, 2013 at 10:10 pm
What? Not one mention in the S&S article of our 100+ year policy of overseas foreign interventionism? Should we simply continue to assume that WHENEVER US forces march across the globe, the cause is justified — i.e., that it ALWAYS entails actual defense against an actual aggressor? Or have we quit pretending that that’s even the case anymore?
I will never see it in my lifetime, but America must adopt the Swiss system of armed neutrality. A large citizen militia — say 90% of able-bodied males (with pacifists/objectors serving in the medical corps) — with a small corp (i.e., the other 10%) of full-time professionals, all backed up by an official foreign policy of non-intervention.
Otherwise, you get two choices: A warrior class, or conscription. And I don’t like the idea of either.
(BTW, I am a vet: USAF jet engine mechanic, 1980-1984. And I once wanted my three sons to join “the real military” — i.e., the Army or the Marines. But our invasion of Iraq following 9/11, as well as our seemingly endless occupation of Afghanistan, have caused me to wise up. It truly saddens me that I had to counsel my sons AGAINST enlisting.)
January 2nd, 2013 at 10:14 pm
My son, the one who graduated with a degree in accounting, decided the nation would be better served if he did his part for the country before he took a normal job. Now, I can’t see him ever taking a normal job as he’s grown to love the sea and intensity of the CIC. Meh… not bad coming from an old grunt.
January 2nd, 2013 at 10:33 pm
I will add this- the “regular” world has changed so much that some of us want our kids to serve to learn a little “honor, courage and commitment”.
January 2nd, 2013 at 10:45 pm
The “Warrior Class”, I believe, stems in part from the nation’s youth who are brought up with strong values and emulate the men and women from our collective military histories – others out of necessity (better living, income, etc.). While on recruiting, I always made it a point to have the applicant take the DD Form 4 with him/her and read the back, because what’s on the back is VERY relavent and not too many youngsters understand it, let alone even read it. Most of the ones I dealt with were bright, articulate, had little or no history of service in their family background.
I’ve seen some of the best and brightest young adults go on and do great things. Hell – we have young NCO’s in AFG making decisions that can have a strategic impact, and can garner either positive or negative world opinion, whereas a majority of their peers don’t know what it’s really like to work for a living, commit to something, and eek by day to day wondering what they’ve accomplished in life. I, for one, am a better person for having witnessed the caliber of youth I’ve seen today, their achievements, and having had the opportunity to serve with them.
Matthew Schofield doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about – plain and simple.
January 2nd, 2013 at 11:29 pm
#16 VI,
I STILL think that Heinlein’s concept of the ultimate soldier-citizen is one of the best ideas for bringing this country back around to it’s former greatness.
If you want to vote, you have to serve at least one term of (military) service, with an honorable discharge.
And to all the trolls lurking out there who want to pounce and whimper about the “why” and “what about the handicapped” and “war and violence never solved anything” – - all I have to say is READ THE EFFIN’ BOOK. All your dummy questions will be answered within the covers of “Starship Troopers”
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:25 am
Yep, I joined up to go to war and kill assholes in other countries…
(no, not really.). We do need a professional Military and those with the balls to go kick ass once in awhile…
January 3rd, 2013 at 1:22 am
Yup, loots high talk about “honor” and “service” and “sacrifice.” Oh, and Heinlein, of course — “you don’t get to be a citizen unless you serve!”
But not one word about considering the moral legitimacy of the wars they WILL send you to fight. About demanding a just foreign policy.
“Ooo-RAH.” :eyeroll:
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:59 am
@40- Moral legitimacy means fuckall. Legality is what controls the “lawful orders” doctrine. If congress approves of the war, we fight it, because if it is approved by congress, it is therefore lawful.
As far as establishing a “moraly legitimate” foreign policy- that’s for you civilians to sort out, Frank. Military members go where we’re told, when we’re told, and do what we’re told. We are not allowed to question those orders unless they violate the aforementioned litmus test for being “lawful”.
But civilians, especially morally superior, smug ones like yourself, should be able to direct the nation’s foreign policy through contact with your representative’s office. After all, what the fuck are you doing with your time?
January 3rd, 2013 at 5:36 am
I think that it’s a symptom of an increasingly insular military culture. Civilians don’t understand what military life is like, what it’s about, or the full breadth of service the military provides. What they do see is increasingly packaged through the eyes of Hollywood, and biased media institutions that know about as much about the military as the people they’re marketing to do.
Too many of these grotesque stereotypes go unchallenged because the civilian population is less likely to know a veteran personally than any time in the nation’s history. As the military continues to shrink in size, and the civilian population continues to grow, the military is going to be increasingly misunderstood as it becomes a smaller and smaller segment of the population. We’re 7% of the population and shrinking.
If we assume this to be a problem, then there are many ways to fix it. Mandatory service is one way, it artificially bloats bloats the number of veterans in the community. However, many of us have misgivings that such a policy would water down the quality of troops, and as such put troops at risk. Those are valid concerns.
The other option is for we, as veterans, to take a more proactive role in how we’re presented. We need to be open about our service. We need to make it so that when some teacher is trying to convince a kid in high school that joining the military is the last refuge of the dumb, poor, and maladjusted, that they can point to the neighbor down the street who served in the Army, and still managed to have a family, a career, and in general a life worthy of emulation. The time of silent service is passing by the wayside. That’s not to say that we be obnoxious about it, but it needs to be something we’re open about.
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:11 am
I served with some of the most outstanding soldiers ever… and low and behold… some were draftees!
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:10 am
AW1 Tim , I did not read all of the posts so I am not sure if this has been said. If your Daughter wants to join the Army and knows what carreer field she wants out of life (Forensics) then have her also check out the Army National Guard. She will get the experience as well as having her college paid for at the same time. It is a somewhat more college friendly atmosphere than going active right out of High School. She can also get her commission and go active after. Either way, it is good to hear young people thinking about their future in the work force instead of getting handouts. Wish her luck from me.
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:43 am
AW1 Tim – what Detn8r said. The MP field should be the place to start (or close to it), that, as I recall, offers training for forensic related jobs. They have some pretty good skills progression schools, up through the FBI National Academy. Just make sure she doesn’t get roped into Personnel Identification and Recovery (Mortuary Affairs, if that’s what they still call it).
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:59 am
@43 — Two of my drill instructors at Ft. Dix started out as draftees and stayed on…..they had served in Vietnam during the late 60s….
I understand, and I believe the article stated the same, that a draft is not feasible to resolve the issue. I am curious what the solution might be when 99.3% of the population is not really invested in the .7% serving? A grateful nation is only grateful while it is expedient to do so, a regular reading of this site indicates there are rampant misunderstandings and perceptions about veterans. I suspect much of that has to do with the fact most people don’t know a veteran and aren’t really going to take the time to meet any so they believe what the media tells them, which isn’t positive all the time. How does that perception change? Sites like this aren’t educating the masses, the appeal of this site is that you can discuss these issues with like minded veterans. A site like this has little appeal to the 99.3% of the public (no offense intended I love the site, and spend a fair amount of time here as you can see).
What mechanism do we then use to educate the masses on issues of relevance? Most people today seem far more interested in the sexual activity of the children of OJ’s dead lawyer than they do about the daily living conditions, logistical concerns and benefit issues of their military.
I think the value of an article like this, it’s publication aside, is that maybe enough of these articles will at a minimum start some dialogue about this topic. Since civilians will continue to be the overseers of the military, an understanding of the nature of service life, and a respect for those who serve along with a commitment to honor the promises made to service members would be a good start.
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:07 am
We’re 7% of the population and shrinking.
And if you’re under the age of 60, it’s far less than that. Yet it amazes me how many of the old stereotype (Army or jail, etc.) still exist.
Oh, the stories I could tell from my recruiting days. But to make a minor point of correction, Jonn–some recruiters WERE intimidated by smart kids, and told me exactly that when I went to talk to them.
Needless to say, they were among the less successful recruiters. However, one thing I DID find is that if you got a reasonably intelligent kid with his shit somewhat squared away (as much as a 17- or 18-year old kid can be) they are actually much more successful than the kid with the 31 AFQT or one who needed a shitload of waivers just to enlist. (duh.) Once they commit, they STAY committed.
I came from a pretty conservative area, and even 30 years ago, the only teachers I had who were positive on the idea of me enlisting versus attending college were those who had actually served. I can’t imagine what it would be like in some libtard enclave.
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:21 am
My daughter- with three siblings enlisted- is still being actively discouraged from shipping USMC because of her “potential”. She’s a smart kid, top athlete ( rugby) but she is committed to serve. She plans to use the benefits she earns- for sure- but it’s only part if the plan. People who haven’t served do not get it. And I don’t know if I care if they do
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:30 am
You got one 21 year old who makes life and death decisions. Then you got another whose biggest decision is what kind of beer to drink on the weekend. How do you overcome the disconnect between those two?
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:10 am
@49 Twist, that’s the key, I don’t think you can fix the disconnect at that age. There is nothing to cross reference for the kid who parties and spends his weekends doing dumb 4ss kid stuff….but 10-12 years later, when that party kid becomes a husband, or parent….you might have a shot of getting them to connect the dots regarding responsibility, you might.
I don’t think there is an easy, or expedient answer. I think it’s great that right now the public still speaks highly of veterans, keeping that moving forward when budget cuts and competing interests struggle for tax dollars will be important. The value of a highly trained, professional military is a tangible benefit in deterrence and application of force in the national interest. Keeping the public and their duly elected leadership aware of that point will help veterans and service members.
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:33 am
Frank Golubski Says:
January 3rd, 2013 at 1:22 am
Just because you have abdicated your responsibility to assure that these men and women aren’t sent out on unjust missions is no excuse for you to criticize them.
You do understand that service people are restrained by law from speaking out on those issues, don’t you?
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:35 am
Of course the military, draft or no draft, creates a warrior class. But class in America is not what class was and is anywhere else in the world.
Americans choose their class.
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:42 am
Seems to me Heinlein’s concept was that you had to serve to be a full citizen, but you had to volunteer to be military.
I’m OK with a ‘draft’ on that basis. (To brag, my daughter’s asthma was too bad for her to enlist – so after college she volunteered with Americorp for two years and is now an investigator with ICE. She serves as she can.) A draft into some form of public service would do a LOT of kids a lot of good….Guess I need to reread the book for the umpty-umph time for the details again.
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:18 pm
teddy996: “Military members go where we’re told, when we’re told, and do what we’re told. We are not allowed to question those orders unless they violate the aforementioned litmus test for being ‘lawful’.”
A.k.a., “I was only following orders.”
See Nuremberg and My Lai.
And the 29 Palms survey.
Yeah, teddy. You’re JUST the kind of guy I want “defending our freedom.”
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Oh fat tapdancing Jesus on a fucking cement bicycle, Frank.
Lighten up, Francis. FWIW, I’m pretty sure teddy has a lot more going on between his ears than do you, but feel free to argue your case.
Bottom line, as a wise old Chief once told me, “You get to defend democracy, not practice it.” You don’t like it, don’t reenlist.
And no, Paultard, we don’t get to pick and choose which battles to fight. You can argue lawful versus unlawful all day long, but in almost every case, you’re going to be doing it from behind bars. My Lai was a VERY isolated incident, as was Abu Grahib. Nuremberg was a clear-cut set of cases of Nazi atrocities, but then again, you knew that.
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:25 pm
@54, “I was only following order.” I guess you missed the part where the U.S. Military is under legal obligation to dissobey unlawfull orders.
Please don’t hurt yourself when you fall off of your high horse.
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:26 pm
valerie: “Just because you have abdicated your responsibility to assure that these men and women aren’t sent out on unjust missions is no excuse for you to criticize them.”
Uhh, “No,” and “No.”
1. How have I “abdicated my responsibility to assure that these men and women aren’t sent out on unjust missions”?
2. Where did I criticize them?
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:28 pm
“Oh fat tapdancing Jesus on a fucking cement bicycle, Frank.”
Really? Does that constitute some sort of intelligent contribution to a discussion where you come from?
Go pack sand, miltard.
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:32 pm
“Go pack sand, miltard.”
Really? Does that constitute some sort of intelligent contribution to a discussion where you come from?
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Atta boy, Frank–way to demonstrate the old, “swoop and poop” method.
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:43 pm
I got my DD-214 back in 1974, could not find a job so I went to the labor board/unemployment Office. 21 years old and married three months I was ready to roll on my future.
I walked in with a confident smile and was finally seen by the guy who handles ex-con’s just out of prison. I said wait Mr. I’m not just out of jail I am a discharged veteran!
He said “The veterans files are kept in the same area as the returning convicts just released from prison.”
Then he saw my MOS and stated, “Well I can find you a job as a security guard or you can join the Mafia, Ha, Ha, Ha.”
As a group veterans of the Vietnam era were all considered the same as convicted felons. Why? Because a Veteran named John Forbes Kerry did a winter soldier testimony calling all veterans dopers, baby killers and torture maniacs.
The people believed the anti veteran propaganda and we suffered.
John F. Kerry did well I see, despite being a Vietnam Vet.
Must have been the botox or that trip up the mekong, on Christmas wearing that l’il hat sailing on his Swift Boat.
January 3rd, 2013 at 2:01 pm
[...] blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…., with a post on a hand wringing [...]
January 3rd, 2013 at 2:04 pm
This resonates with me so deeply.
Between the GI Bill, the kicker Army College Fund, and some fortuitous Guard tuition assistance, I got through grad school (another useless MBA) and perhaps spent $1000 out of pocket.
I get hired above peers with similar educational background because of my status as a veteran. And my wife, who comes from a world and a slightly younger generation that looks down on military service, went to an expensive private college to be a teacher, and without my income to pay off her student loans, she’d be screwed.
Frank, please go away. My people were on the other end of the Nuremberg Laws, and we sit at our Passover Seder with survivors, and I find no commonalities between the American fighting person any German (or Polish/Ukrainian collaborator) who victimized them. Maybe if you had actually been a warrior instead of a jet mechanic, you’d know how far off the mark you are. WE DO NOT HAVE a class of warriors that have, as a group, the kind of murderous amorality that it takes to pull off genocide. If you suffer any confusion on this, I’d happily put you in touch with a Auschwitz survivor who was marched to Dachau at the end of the war. She can shit all over your false equivalency. Too, my ex-wife and her family, refugees from Vietnam and now American citizens, along with her grandfather who served with the South Vietnamese Army, would tell you My Lai notwithstanding, “following orders” doesn’t wash. Grow up.
January 3rd, 2013 at 3:30 pm
BK: “Maybe if you had actually been a warrior instead of a jet mechanic …”
Translation: “If you only repaired aircraft to keep pilots flying, F— YOU. Your ‘service’ doesn’t count.”
Yet another fine example of the superioristic mentality commonly on display here.
January 3rd, 2013 at 3:34 pm
I genuinely believe that every young man — in whatever country he may live — should be trained and prepared to defend his country.
Hence my support for a militia-based system of national defense.
But I also believe that my country is more likely to use “her” troops for purposes other than national defense. This has certainly been the case for the last 100+ years.
Hence my support for a policy of neutrality and non-intervention.
Armed and prepared to die for my family, community and nation, but not for anything else.
January 3rd, 2013 at 3:34 pm
“Yet another fine example of the superioristic mentality commonly on display here.”
You might want to re-read your own comments. Pot meet kettle. Funny, in your last two comments you have failed to rebut anything said. Instead you throw out insults.
January 3rd, 2013 at 3:36 pm
“Hence my support for a policy of neutrality and non-intervention.”
I seem to have read somewhere that we tried isolationism once. It didn’t work out too well.
January 3rd, 2013 at 3:36 pm
And I ask again — of valerie or anyone else:
1. How have I “abdicated my responsibility to assure that these men and women aren’t sent out on unjust missions”?
2. Where did I criticize them?
January 3rd, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Twist: “I seem to have read somewhere that we tried isolationism once. It didn’t work out too well.”
But then, armed neutrality isn’t the same as “isolationism,” is it?
Clue: see “Switzerland.”
January 3rd, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Frank is a troll, folks. Plain and simple.
He’ll eventually go away – like a bad rash always does.
January 3rd, 2013 at 3:56 pm
Frank–as much as you might like to think so, Switzerland wasn’t really “neutral” as much as they’re out for their own, knowing full good and well had they lifted a finger to the Nazis in WWII, they’d have been rolled over faster than you can say “watches” or “chocolate”.
Clue: go get one.
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:15 pm
69 – Frank
I would suggest to you that in no way was Switzerland “neutral” in WWII. The were glad to allow Europe’s Jews to deposit their money in Switzerland, so long as they didn’t try and deposit themselves. Of course after the war, getting that money back was a whole different story.
I know quite a few Holocaust survivors who can tell you that to maintain its facade of “neutrality,” Switzerland sold its soul to the Nazis.
Also, that is just not the American way. See the Battle Hymn of the Republic: “As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free…”
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Frank, I see you opted out of answering to the question. I’m merely saying, in reality, that if you had dealt with warriors, you would know that they don’t have, as a whole, the kind of sickness it takes to carry out unlawful orders on a scale as grand as the Holocaust, which, jackass, you brought up.
Again, don’t answer to the substance. Focus on the one thing that tousles your pubies and go from there.
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:28 pm
Frank, answer a question instead of repeating old ones. It’s rude.
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:34 pm
I’m going to rephrase a question for you Frank, and truly, it frightens me that you ever worked on aircraft if I have to do this.
What, in your experience as a jet mechanic, informs you that our troops have the wherewithal to carry out missions on the scale of what was tried at Nuremburg, a comparison you brought up?
What component of the American military, on a comparable scale, could carry out pogroms against unarmed millions? Did our units travel with special troops in the rear in Iraq with trucks and tents they piped exhaust fumes into, you know, for mobile killing platforms? When, in Iraq or Afghanistan, have troops carried out massive operations against unarmed civilian groups, other than by sick individuals or accident? What “orders” are troops following that are unlawful on the scale of what was tried at Nuremberg?
Watching my wife’s late aunt’s survivor testimony a few weeks ago, I’m hard pressed to find any example in my own experiences with the Army that parallels even a little bit.
Throw out some hyperbole much, Frank? Take umbrage at people finding you to be a tidbit ridiculous?
Sorry, bro, not biting. I’m glad you are willing to notionally defend anything. It sounds like your hardest choice in life has been between plastic and cardboard applicators.
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Well, I see it’s after noon on the left coast and the trolls are awake.
Seriously, Golubski: are you really so stupid (or inattentive) that you missed the “lawful order” part of teddy996’s comment 41? Or are you deliberately ignoring that point so you can insult via intentionally comparing members of the US military to Nazi war criminals? Either makes sense; you tell us which you’re doing.
You’re also appallingly naïve regarding how nations interact with one another. Moral justification has nothing to do with it. Interests and power are what govern how nations interact with one another, not abstract moral considerations. Why? Because different nations and cultures have different concepts of what is “morally justified”, numbnuts; there is no universal consensus regarding what is moral. In contrast, interests and power are fairly universally understood.
You’re similarly woefully ignorant of US history. Other than 1898 and roughly 1915-1918 (post Lusitania), “armed neutrality” fairly well describes US foreign policy vis-à-vis the rest of the world from roughly 1783 to roughly 1940. (The level of arms possessed by the US during most of that time was low because, until the 20th century, that’s all we required for our own security.) That foreign policy didn’t exactly keep us out of the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, or World War II.
Now, run along Frankie. Aren’t you late for an “Occupy Seattle” meeting or something?
January 4th, 2013 at 12:43 am
BK: “Frank, answer a question instead of repeating old ones. It’s rude.”
You got it. I can only assume that you mean valerie’s (51): “You do understand that service people are restrained by law from speaking out on those issues, don’t you?” (I sure don’t see any others.)
I can only assume she posed her question in response to my (40): “But not one word about considering the moral legitimacy of the wars they WILL send you to fight. About demanding a just foreign policy.”)
Yes, I realize that service members are politically muzzled, but I believe that’s only to a certain extent. As I recall (I could be wrong), service members may not participate in political rallies, events, speeches, etc. IN UNIFORM, or in any other way that identifies them as service members. (E.g., you can write letters to the editor about anything you like. You CAN’T sign them “TSgt. Joe Fabeetz, 33rd POL Sqn, Fairchild AFB”.)
So, I have a Q: Is her “question” really just an objection to my comment re. the remarks (or lack thereof) by author Schofield, or any of the commenters at the original S&S piece or here, about the justness of our various military engagements over the last 100+ years? That I shouldn’t EXPECT that discussion here, because military members may not legally speak out on those issues?
Two more Q’s: I’d still like to know how I “abdicated my responsibility to assure that these men and women aren’t sent out on unjust missions,” or where I “criticized them.”
And if I missed the mark on the questions you’d like answered, BK, please just point them out, and I’ll give it a whack.
But please don’t lecture me about “rudeness.” If anything, I’ve pretty much come to expect that rudeness is pretty much SOP around here.
At least toward those who don’t toe the party line.
January 4th, 2013 at 1:01 am
teddy: “Seriously, Golubski: are you really so stupid (or inattentive) that you missed the ‘lawful order’ part of teddy996’s comment 41?”
Not at all. But that begs the questions, “Who gets to decide which orders are lawful — and when does that decision get made?”
The answers are (always), “Your chain of command (up to and including the president);” and “right now”; and (occasionally) “some legal authority outside your chain of command” (e.g., a war crimes tribunal) and “only if your side loses the war.”
Example: Lt. Ehren Watada. His fundamental argument — the very thing that motivated him to intentionaly miss movement — was that the Iraq War was illegal. (BTW, Pat Tillman evidently agreed with him.) Thus Watada considered it his duty to disobey the unlawful order to go to Iraq.
But when he faced his court martial, the court disallowed any discussion of the legality of the war. The only question they were going to discuss was whether or not he disobeyed an order.
But how can the question be discussed fairly if the government (you know, the side with all the guns, badges, officers and judges) won’t even COUNTENANCE a discussion of the LEGALITY of the order?
(Oh, and BTW, I don’t “do” Occupy … Seattle, Wall St., or whatever. I’m more of a Tea Partier. You know, the ones who demonstrate peacefully and clean up after themselves.)
January 4th, 2013 at 1:03 am
(Sorry. Last post directed to Hondo, not teddy.)
January 4th, 2013 at 1:18 am
BK (75): “What, in your experience as a jet mechanic, informs you that our troops have the wherewithal to carry out missions on the scale of what was tried at Nuremburg, a comparison you brought up?”
Truth be told, I wasn’t thinking anything like that when I wrote it. I was simply comparing the statement, not the scale of what American troop could do in that regard.
But then, you have the needless use of WMD against Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html
But our side WON, you see. Who’s gonna judge the winners, especially when they’re armed with nukes?
January 4th, 2013 at 1:52 am
Not at all. But that begs the questions, “Who gets to decide which orders are lawful — and when does that decision get made?”
Actually no. For example if your superior officer tells you “Shoot that obviously unarmed civilian” and you do it, you can (and likely will) go up on charges of Murder (or one of it’s lesser penalized kin).
You have many things to guide you as far as whether or not an order is lawful or not, UCMJ, the US Constitution, Geneva Convention, standing orders from someone who has more authority than someone seeking to contradict them, etc.
Now, to be sure, if you disobey an order, you better damn well know it’s unlawful, and you better be able to prove it.
January 4th, 2013 at 7:26 am
Golubski: your comment 78 above identifies you as a naive dilettante who cannot discern the difference between an illegal order and a lawful order with which someone disagrees.
Here’s the short version: as Nik pointed out above, an unlawful order is an order to do something which is per se unlawful – e.g., something that is an obvious crime. The classic example is that of the cold-blooded murder of an unarmed civilian or captured prisoner who poses no threat.
What Watada the tool did was to disobey a lawful order – e.g., an order to deploy – because he didn’t like the politics behind the deployment. As an Army officer, Watada knew full well that the politics behind his deployment were irrelevant to the order’s legality. There is nothing inherently unlawful about being ordered to deploy; soldiers are ordered to deploy by competent authority all the time whether or not they agree with the reason for deployment. His deployment order was thus known a priori to be lawful as a settled point of law, and discussion of its purported “illegality” would have been nothing but a waste of time. That is why the judge did not allow discussion of the “illegality” of Watada’s deployment order.
Further, Congress had clearly authorized the use of military force against Iraq in PL 107-243, signed into law on 16 Oct 2002. So Watada either (1) knew that fact but was ignoring it for political reasons, or (2) was a complete idiot. Either theory is plausible.
Frankly, Watada got much less than he deserved. He should have been retried, convicted, and sent to Leavenworth for the max on all counts. (I have no sympathy for officers who refuse to do their sworn duty, who refuse legal orders, or who make blatant anti-war statements for political reasons while still in uniform – like Watada did in January 2007.) Instead, Watada got off very easy when the current administration decided to drop the case for political reasons and he escaped retrial, receiving instead an administrative discharge.
There is also zero conscientious objector “angle” for Watada here. Conscientious objector status requires an across-the-board objection to personal participation in hostilities, which Watada did not claim. Selective objection to a particular war doesn’t cut it. Further, conscientious objectors can still serve in a combat zone, generally in the medical field. At least 3 have done so and been awarded the Medal of Honor (Desmond Doss, Thomas W. Bennett, and Joseph G. LaPointe, Jr.).
January 4th, 2013 at 9:16 am
Interesting discussion. And one which, to my way of thinking, really does need to be had and settled (if that is even possible) periodically in a healthy society. It is society collectively which answers the questions, sometimes through individual members of society, but in this one, most often through it’s elected representatives.
Is it a perfect system? No, but it is one which has worked well for us for several hundred years. It would not have survived this long had there not been those willing and able to defend it and to punish those who violate the policy of the time.
January 4th, 2013 at 10:08 am
Frank, that Lew Rockwell shit’ll rot your brain. And really, Ron Paul is sitting in a bunker in Texas somewhere. He’s done. You can move along now.
Finally, Watada did what he did for purely political reasons. That’s it. Nothing else. He could have refused his commission or walked away long before 2007, considering the fact the war had been going on for almost four years when he pulled his little stunt.
Refusing to follow orders which you don’t like doesn’t make them unlawful ones, but does make you a first-class assclown who can and should be beaten about the head and shoulders for being an attention whoring douchenozzle.
YMMV.
January 4th, 2013 at 10:17 am
But then, you have the needless use of WMD against Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
Ah, one of THOSE people. Newsflash: you obviously never saw the casualty estimates for Operation Downfall, didja? Consider that few of those estimates included Navy casualties, and NONE went past the first 60 days of operations. And no, the people at the time who nitpicked the decision were in fact wrong.
Consider the following: In 1945, the US was damned near bankrupt. Continuing the war for another 18-plus months might well have pushed us over the edge. Our allies weren’t going to be putting millions of troops on the line going into the Japanese home islands like the US was. Second, look at how the Japanese troops AND CIVILIANS fought on Okinawa, Iwo Jima, etc. Now imagine how it would have been on Honshu, etc. If you question their dedication (or fanaticism, whichever term you prefer) look no farther than people like Sgt. Yokoi, Pvt. Nakamura, or Lt. Onoda.
The war was already losing popularity before 1945, and the civilian populace was tired of the sacrifices they were making, not to mention the loss of life. Almost a half-million men were killed in the war to that point. Imagine that many again being killed taking Japan, if not more.
Oh, and you may go now.
January 4th, 2013 at 10:29 am
NHSparky: Golubski obviously never heard of Unit 731, either.
January 4th, 2013 at 10:48 am
Frank thinks that nations build foreign policy from a place of loving concern for their neighbors….when in fact each nation works tirelessly to promote its’ own selfish interests. Since the dawn of man conflict over resources has led to violence, high minded words and ideals are great for the diplomatic corps. When the words don’t stop your neighbor, like Chamberlain’s situation with Hitler, the wise nation has a solution that involves the high level application of deadly force.
The Japs were suing for peace as honestly as the Palestinians sue for peace everyday in the middle east. Tell the Chinese how the gracious Japanese soldiers ran their occupied territories in Manchuria, Nanking is a prime example of the moral concern Japan had in its relations with foreign nation states it had little respect for. The Japanese reaped the Karmic benefits of their militaristic interventions into their neighbors affairs. It’s what happens when you fight outside your weight class.
The real truth is an ugly one, when you consider that someone will die, most folks prefer it to be the citizens of the foreign nation than their own. The children of a fanatical, corrupt, theological jihad will become adult jihadists. It would be wonderful if some great diplomatic mission could find the words to prevent that, but they won’t because idealism or fanaticism doesn’t respond to diplomacy except to use it as a stalling mechanism to build strength.
So what is your solution? Stay isolated and hope that they never figure out how to access our civilian population? How would you accomplish that? Close the borders? That won’t happen because we have been unwilling to do that for decades and decades….better to kill them where they live than let them take their sweet time to figure out how to kill us where we live.