The Military - Civilian Divide

[cwjerome]

Retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen: "America doesn't know its military and the United States military doesn't know America.”

The relationship and differences between civilians and the military today are different than it used to be. What does it mean now and where might it lead in the future? This topic has fascinating me for a long time. As someone with one foot in the military and one foot in the civilian world, I have made observations over the years and think it’s a rather strange dynamic with interesting implications. The basis for this topic is an intriguing study found here: STUDY

It’s rather long but filled with interesting kernels. Some relevant facts:

* Only about one half of one percent of the U.S. population has been on active military duty at any given time during the past decade of sustained warfare.

* Only a quarter of civilians say they are following news of the wars closely. And half of the public say the wars have made little difference in their lives.

* At a time when the public’s confidence in most key national institutions has sagged, confidence in the military is at or near its highest level in many decades.

* Politically, post-9/11 veterans are more likely than adults overall to identify with the Republican Party 36% are Republicans, compared with 23% of the general public. Equal shares of these veterans and the public call themselves independents (35%), while 21% of post-9/11 veterans and 34% of the public describe themselves as Democrats.

* The military in the post-9/11 era is older than the force that served a generation ago. While about two-thirds of active-duty military personnel are ages 30 or younger, the average age of enlisted personnel and officers has increased significantly since the draft ended in 1973.

* The percentage of minorities in the ranks of enlisted personnel and officers has increased significantly since 1990. In 2009, more than one-third of all active-duty personnel were minorities (36.2%), an increase from 25.4% about two decades ago. Women also comprise an increasing share of all active-duty officers and enlisted personnel

* Today’s enlisted personnel are better educated than those who served before them. Fewer are high school dropouts and more are college graduates.

* At a time when marriage rates are declining in the broader population, the share of active-duty military personnel who are married has increased dramatically in recent decades.

* Today’s military is roughly 30% smaller than it was 20 years ago, when slightly more than 2 million men and women served on active duty. The 9/11 terrorist attacks and the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq halted the decline, and since 2000 the overall size of the military has increased by about 40,000, to approximately 1.44 million.

The gist seems to be that fewer people make up the “military class” and fewer people in general have any real connection to the military. Before, it was common to know someone in the military, more politicians had military service, etc. There are several points to be made, but one of the most glaring is the way a very tiny segment of about 1-2% of the population bears the burden of military life and war. Meanwhile, no real affect is felt by the other 98%; it’s business as usual.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates: “Whatever their fond sentiments for men and women in uniform, for most Americans the wars remain an abstraction. A distant and unpleasant series of news items that do not affect them personally. Even after 9/11, in the absence of a draft, for a growing number of Americans, service in the military, no matter how laudable, has become something for other people to do.”

I would also add there has been no financial burden, which is unprecedented. There is little to connect the masses to what’s happening in this sphere. To me this has some potentially serious repercussions. The military is becoming “isolated” and that is dangerous. They live different lives, are developing different values, and this disconnect from the people at large seems almost to be breeding a separate “centurion class” of people, some sort of tiny “elite” that overwatch the masses and shields them from the hard reality. There is something to be said for all people having a stake, feeling the pain, and being involved and affected by what’s happening in the country and in the world.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree that all people should have a stake in our military actions. That being said, I guess I worry more about the fact that the military draws so heavily from the lower classes. It has always bothered me that the people who get the least from our system are the most likely to die defending it.

I did find it funny that they mentioned marriage rates though. The reason why those are high and climbing is pretty obvious, there is a large financial incentive to get married if you are an E-4 or below.

 

[Murloc]

you have an army of poor people, that's dangerous and unfair.

Reintroduce the draft and see public support for wars fall to politically unsustainable levels.

 

[RPD]

That is a very small stat of the % in the military, one half of a percent... I know a lot of people that served or have served. Just seems if it was so small, most people wouldn't know anyone or only 1-2 people at most.

 

[randomrogue]

We should have a smaller stake. There have been very few wars that were even worth fighting. Iraq? Vietnam? Korea? Grenada? Panama?

The moments we've had with peace and no conflict have been very brief. Many of you haven't even been alive at a time when the USA was not in some country fighting.

 

[blankslate]

I agree that all people should have a stake in our military actions. That being said, I guess I worry more about the fact that the military draws so heavily from the lower classes. It has always bothered me that the people who get the least from our system are the most likely to die defending it.

I did find it funny that they mentioned marriage rates though. The reason why those are high and climbing is pretty obvious, there is a large financial incentive to get married if you are an E-4 or below.

The part about marriage is especially true. I know for a fact there are some in the military who have gotten married for the extra allowances.

It's also true that more people should serve in the military. I'd like to see a program like Israel where people do a year or two of either military or civil service. With the civil service option perhaps being a bit longer because of the lesser risk.

you have an army of poor people, that's dangerous and unfair.

Reintroduce the draft and see public support for wars fall to politically unsustainable levels.

^pretty much true.

That is a very small stat of the % in the military, one half of a percent... I know a lot of people that served or have served. Just seems if it was so small, most people wouldn't know anyone or only 1-2 people at most.

The thing is who do you know. It'd be interesting to know if there is much difference in how likely a family will have a son or daughter in the military based on income.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The last one to serve in my family was one of my grandfathers (Navy), and he didn't talk about it much to us kids. No one in my mid-middle class circles has served. So I don't even have second-hand knowledge of what it's like.

I like to think I have at least a faint idea from reading books by veterans. Authors like David Drake (even with the SF settings) make me feel like I know a little, and how much more I don't know.

But most people don't read any more. They learn about war from movies and video games that often make going to war look like a cool and fun way to spend a couple of years. "Why should we care about vets? They get to play Black Ops for reals!"

It does worry me that the majority of the populace lacks even my weak understanding. I suspect that's one reason why citizens aren't demanding better care for their vets, including mental health services. We need to acknowledge the full costs of feeding people into the meat grinder even if they come back physically intact. I'd like to see some of the money currently earmarked for 300 tanks that we don't need redirected into supporting our returning vets, to finish paying what we owe them.

Is amateur service the answer? I'm not sure how much that will help. Vets like Drake don't seem to think someone playing soldier in safety for a couple of years will give them any idea of what it's like to be in combat. Without that, will citizens and their politicians be any less willing to engage in new wars?

 

[drinkmorejava]

I agree that all people should have a stake in our military actions. That being said, I guess I worry more about the fact that the military draws so heavily from the lower classes. It has always bothered me that the people who get the least from our system are the most likely to die defending it.

I did find it funny that they mentioned marriage rates though. The reason why those are high and climbing is pretty obvious, there is a large financial incentive to get married if you are an E-4 or below.

I thought the military over represented higher income groups. Source is the heritage foundation, but I've been reading things about this for a while

 

[fskimospy]

I thought the military over represented higher income groups. Source is the heritage foundation, but I've been reading things about this for a while

The first thing that jumps out to me there as a big no-no is making conclusions from only two years of data. Plenty of additional years of data are available, so why didn't they use them? Because it wouldn't have supported their point.

I believe that this study does a better job of examining who joins the military, and it finds a statistically significant relationship between family income levels and military service.

http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=soc

That being said, if I'm not mistaken data does show that the absolute bottom of the income scale is underrepresented. This wouldn't surprise me as many of those people aren't able to qualify for military service.

 

[Whiskey16]

Sorry, only time for a quick reply:

It has always bothered me that the people who get the least from our system are the most likely to die defending it.

Careful with that all too common meme.

To state such is to blanket all conflicts that the USA enters as that of "defence."

That is soundly untrue in consideration to the numerous wars of choice and aggression since the foundation of the USA.

Such a blanketing meme is common in order to save face when nationalistic shame is intolerable, lending the application of an hyperbolic jingoism to project an altruistic identity that's whack with reality.

....just a brief observation on the OP and the disproportionate political leanings of US service members from that of the general populace -- I recall often witnessing and hearing that the common news station that is aired on bases and ships is that of FOX news. To generally be exposed to that without a clear option for choice is certainly a form of political conditioning.... :\ From an operational standpoint this can have some sense to keep a wartime military in the dark from expected policy and operational investigative critiques by objective and professional journalists.

 

[drinkmorejava]

That being said, if I'm not mistaken data does show that the absolute bottom of the income scale is underrepresented. This wouldn't surprise me as many of those people aren't able to qualify for military service.

The study gives the model coefficients, but does not give the sum of the squares, so it's hard to determine the significance of any of the factors. Given the coefficient values, I can only conclude that family income is a very small factor. The negative correlation shows that lower income groups are more represented, but again almost insignificant.

All of the models were also built with 1988-2000 data. I'd be very surprised if the demographics haven't shifted since.

I honestly haven't looked at the heritage study...it was just the first thing that supported what I had thought, but given the magnitudes we're walking about, neither supports a practically significant correlation with income.

 

[werepossum]

The first thing that jumps out to me there as a big no-no is making conclusions from only two years of data. Plenty of additional years of data are available, so why didn't they use them? Because it wouldn't have supported their point.

I believe that this study does a better job of examining who joins the military, and it finds a statistically significant relationship between family income levels and military service.

http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=soc

That being said, if I'm not mistaken data does show that the absolute bottom of the income scale is underrepresented. This wouldn't surprise me as many of those people aren't able to qualify for military service.

That doesn't match the last few years for a couple reasons. First are the wars; poor people traditionally join the military to have a job and even more, for the educational benefits. That goes waaay down in war time because those educational benefits pale compared to the possibility of being in the fighting army rather than the learning things army. War time brings out more patriotic people, which tends to be more middle and even upper classes. Another factor is the increased availability of government cheese educational benefits; why sign up with Uncle Sam to go to college when Uncle Sugar's offering a similar deal with no head shaving or potato pealing?

Something else that may lower family income is that military service tends to run in families. If your dad is an E7 and your mom a homemaker in base housing your family income is going to suck, but you certainly aren't lower class.

And one final factor is first and second generation immigrants, many of whom serve. Those who came to this country legally (and some here illegally) may be intensely patriotic and serve to pay back their new country, but many immigrants have low usable job skills and consequently earn little.

 

[Craig234]

There is a danger to an overly powerful military, just as there is to one too small.

If our military was too small, I'd be advocating we increase it. Having a military something like 20 times biggest our nearest 'less than friendly' other nation and nearly as big as the rest of the world, both allies and others, combined, well, the 'too small' part is not our issue.

Thomas Jefferson warned strongly against even having a standing army - he said that it was incomatible with democracy.

Many people have observed that when leaders have a big military they're making the political and financial investment to maintain, there's a temptation to use it to solve 'political problems' and simply to 'pursue our interests'. There are always groups of bussinessmen for whom military action or threat can 'solve a problem'.

In the 1930's, the then-highest decorated American in history, Genral Smedley Butler, had decades of service around the world - but looking back, he reached the conclusion that his many conflicts had not been to 'protect our country from threats', but merely to serve as 'the armed henchmen for interests'. As he put it:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

There is a problem when the military's own institutional interests can come into conflict with the interests of 'the people'. When FDR created the Pentagon he wanted it to be a temporary building for WWII, because he felt having that much concentration of the military brass close to the civilian government was not healthy for the pressures it would create on that leadership to resist military interests - which is the exact situation we see has happened with the 'nearly impossible to cut military budget'.

These defense interests corrupt the military officers with the revolving door of post-military positions waiting for them, and Congress by building systems in all 50 states.

Smedly had another quote about the military which speaks to how it's difference from the role of citizens in a democracy:

My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military.

Few uses of the military are for humanitarian reasons. Pretty much all uses of the military are propagandized as being for humanitarian reasons.

The book 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man' is useful for explaining decades of history, as the US promoted its corporate interests by creating plans pushed on third world countries which would extract their wealth for the benefit of our corporations - leaving a lot of poverty for their people while making our rich richer. He discussed how the first sales pitch was to make it look good for them and give a cut to the leader who approved it; if that didn't work, 'jackals', the CIA, would create political pressure if not try to defeat or assassinate uncooperative leaders, and in cases where that didn't work either there was the last resourt military option.

Meanwhile, a cheap work force of soldiers is maintained by appealing to a combination of patriotism and the economically desparate to do as they're told, waving a flag.

I think Mullen's comments are very useful.

The Unisted States has become a largely militarized nation since WWII, which is not very compatible with democracy or our historic values.

'The United States will never start a war' was a policy promised by John Kennedy broken (again) in cases such as Iraq.

There are always pressures on a nation to be more powerful at the expense of others. Japan and Germany certainly felt them. Britain did before them.

It's been argued that Britain had to make a choice whether to be an empire or a democracy, and they chose to save their democracy by gving up empire.

The US has unwittingly stumbled into the role of the dominant power in the world, not wanting to be a ruthless dictator but feeling the pressures and making compromises.

Our strongest military by far in global history fits into those pressures.

It's reported that as Colin Powell, when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Clinton, resisted the use of the military, Madeline Albright said to him, 'what good is your big, shiny military if we can't use it for anything?' That quote summarizes the temptations I mentioned earlier.

Adding to those pressures, the use of the military answers the question, 'why do we need to be spending so much on the military?' Perversely, using it justifies having it.

One of the facts, it seems to me and some evidence suggests, for Bush wanting war with Iraq was his recognition after losing the popular vote and very controversially obtaining the presidency, was that a 'war president' gets a big boost in popularity ratings - it would simply help him politically. The fact his popularity ratings did jump dramitcally from 'very low with strong indications of a one term presidency' to much higher levels when we invaded Iraq confirms the incentive.

I'd like to see the US become less militarized; to have a plan for global peace which relies on a reasonable amount of safety while respecting other nations' safety as well and not relying on utter gobal dominance for only us; restoring the draft created additional political pressures not to have unneeded wars and adds justice; I'd like to find ways to bring the massive defense industry under control for us to spend to meet defense needs rather than defense welfare.

It's pretty honest for Mullens to make the controversial comments he did, just as it was for Eisenhower to give his Cross of Iron speech 60 years ago. I'll end with an excerpt.

The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.

First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.

Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only ineffective cooperation with fellow-nations.

Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing isinalienable.

Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.

And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.

In the light of these principles the citizens of the United States defined the way they proposed to follow, through the aftermath of war, toward true peace.

This way was faithful to the spirit that inspired the United Nations: to prohibit strife, to relieve tensions, to banish fears. This way was to control and to reduce armaments. This way was to allow all nations to devote their energies and resources to the great and good tasks of healing the war's wounds, of clothing and feeding and housing the needy, of perfecting a just political life, of enjoying the fruits of their own free toil...

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

 

[fskimospy]

That doesn't match the last few years for a couple reasons. First are the wars; poor people traditionally join the military to have a job and even more, for the educational benefits. That goes waaay down in war time because those educational benefits pale compared to the possibility of being in the fighting army rather than the learning things army. War time brings out more patriotic people, which tends to be more middle and even upper classes. Another factor is the increased availability of government cheese educational benefits; why sign up with Uncle Sam to go to college when Uncle Sugar's offering a similar deal with no head shaving or potato pealing?

Something else that may lower family income is that military service tends to run in families. If your dad is an E7 and your mom a homemaker in base housing your family income is going to suck, but you certainly aren't lower class.

And one final factor is first and second generation immigrants, many of whom serve. Those who came to this country legally (and some here illegally) may be intensely patriotic and serve to pay back their new country, but many immigrants have low usable job skills and consequently earn little.

If you think the educational benefits available to veterans and non veterans are even remotely similar I can only ask that you provide the figures from which you derived that. In reality the two aren't even close.

There is no way to refute anything else you wrote because it is all just personal opinions without facts to back it up. I provided you with a study that shows a statistically significant inverse relationship between income and military service. If you don't want to accept this conclusion that is your business.

 

[ivwshane]

The reason there seems to be a disconnect between the general population and military personnel, in my opinion, is because we are involved in wars that a) we don't care about because it's not affecting the homeland and not enough soldiers are dying b) people don't see the benefit of these wars or any negative consequences if we don't have them.


My opinion is that a military that doesn't have the full backing of its people (via enthusiasm, support, or through sacrifice) then they probably shouldn't be doing whatever it is they are doing.

Add to the fact that the conflicts we are currently in are being fought by a good chunk of soldiers who are paid mercenaries. That means, again in my opinion, people who have a vested interest in these conflicts are doing so for financial reasons.

 

[Craig234]

Actually, I'm surprised that the government hasn't stumbled onto a policy that I think would be very dangerous, but very effective.

That policy is: use foreigners for our military, providing them a 'path to citizenship'.

The benefits:

- It would provide an almost unlimited source of manpower, while relieving the politicians of the main restrain on the use of our military, the casualties amond US families.

- It would prevent all the sad stories and media with a downside to the war, providing instead only any 'victories' for 'us'. No more or far fewer news reports listing 'casualties from the area you live in' and 'gold star families', but still with the string of whatever victories there are to talk about.

- Troops who can't complain much, and who are not unhappy with the controversially low pay. Perhaps saving costs on the 'GI benefits' after service as well.

- Even on the immigration issue, getting a lot of generally loyal people (with their families) who we know are 'able bodied' labor to help meet our labor needs.

- Soldiers who would tend to have fewer opinions than US citizens about the right and wrong of what they're told to do.

In short, it would make the situatoin even more one of where the US citizens have little concern about 'the military' and its use - something policymakers might love.

Having to justify the loss of US lives in any use of force seems to be almost the only constraint they now have.

Rome found this to be an effective tactic - conquer a tribe, give them citizenship if they serve Rome, add them to the army - as long as they kept the military discipline up.

It's not totally different than what we've tried to do when we train South Vietnamese troops, Iraqi troops, Afghan troops, South American troops who fight for 'our interests'.

I think it's wrong on all kinds of levels, but am surprised it hasn't been done.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Good point. I'd be curious to know how many members (in the field) of our outsourced military contractors like Blackwater were/are not US citizens.

 

[Craig234]

Good point. I'd be curious to know how many members (in the field) of our outsourced military contractors like Blackwater were/are not US citizens.

I really don't know, but I did hear a lot about their poaching from the US military - they seemed all about getting tax dollards, and then supporting the policians with that money.

Politicians did get some of the benefits, though - contractors killed were rarely counted in casualty lists, saving the political fallout.

I suspect that the private forces were also a lot more able to avoid the constraints and accountability the US military had.

 

[cwjerome]

It does worry me that the majority of the populace lacks even my weak understanding. I suspect that's one reason why citizens aren't demanding better care for their vets, including mental health services. We need to acknowledge the full costs of feeding people into the meat grinder even if they come back physically intact. I'd like to see some of the money currently earmarked for 300 tanks that we don't need redirected into supporting our returning vets, to finish paying what we owe them.

It is a bit worrisome. Although respect for and the image of the military is very high, there’s a wall there. Most people generally agree, in a nebulous way, that military people do go through a lot and sacrifice quite a bit. But they also generally accept this as “just doing their job,” and don’t make any meaningful connection to this mentally, physically, economically, or otherwise. There is little shared experience, even at an abstract level, to connect these two worlds.

Is amateur service the answer? I'm not sure how much that will help. Vets like Drake don't seem to think someone playing soldier in safety for a couple of years will give them any idea of what it's like to be in combat. Without that, will citizens and their politicians be any less willing to engage in new wars?

I’d like to believe that some sort of broad-based part-time voluntary and/or paid service of some sort might help. I am not sure what these might look like, but different types of outreach programs and organizations might help bridge the gap and get more people involved. In the Reserves there is a wide range of people, some who are always looking for trainings, orders and deployments, and others who do the bare minimum one weekend a month and two weeks a year. Maybe there could be a level where people show up one weekend a quarter and one week a year with other incentives just to bring more people in. Maybe there could be a Reserve program for people just out of high school that is only for 2-3 years with zero threat of deployment. Maybe there could be DoD-private partnership orgs that bring people in to familiarize civilians and let them work and play with local units on occasion…or similar programs that try and create or further military-civilian relationships in the business, college, or other realms.

I haven’t thought too much about this but I’m sure there are certain ideas that might help bridge the divide in some way. I don’t think you necessarily have to give someone a rifle and plop them into combat to help more civilians connect with the military and vice versa. That vice versa is just as important because the 1% military is losing touch with “real” America in many ways. This is a good article that shows a little of the feeling many military people get, and I’m positive it’s gotten much worse since the story was published.

 

[cwjerome]

There is a danger to an overly powerful military, just as there is to one too small.

[...massive SNIP...]

This isn’t really a topic for how much money is spent on the defense budget or how the military may have been used for economic/commercial gains. It’s more about the attitudes and experiences of military and civilians, and how they are diverging.

 

[cwjerome]

The reason there seems to be a disconnect between the general population and military personnel, in my opinion, is because we are involved in wars that a) we don't care about because it's not affecting the homeland and not enough soldiers are dying b) people don't see the benefit of these wars or any negative consequences if we don't have them.

This is partly true. The fact that a volunteer military and other factors (including the wars) has basically created a niche “warrior class” of people that is smaller and more insulated than at any other time in contemporary history is a huge factor. But the fact that nearly everyone else outside this niche feels nothing is huge. Why should they care, it doesn’t affect them in the least. Has anyone had to sacrifice one thing? Has society had to pitch in anything (besides bumper stickers)? 6000 deaths, hell more than that dies every day in this country. Who cares, it’s not even noticeable. Perhaps the biggest failure is how we actually lowered taxes while trying to fight a war. That’s just mindboggling on many levels, including the basic concept that we think we can do whatever we want without costs.

Add to the fact that the conflicts we are currently in are being fought by a good chunk of soldiers who are paid mercenaries. That means, again in my opinion, people who have a vested interest in these conflicts are doing so for financial reasons.

This is not true in the least. Although their use peaked in Iraq 2004-2005, “paid mercenaries” are an extremely tiny fraction of the fighting force that mainly provide security for civilians or VIPS.

 

[ivwshane]

This is partly true. The fact that a volunteer military and other factors (including the wars) has basically created a niche “warrior class” of people that is smaller and more insulated than at any other time in contemporary history is a huge factor. But the fact that nearly everyone else outside this niche feels nothing is huge. Why should they care, it doesn’t affect them in the least. Has anyone had to sacrifice one thing? Has society had to pitch in anything (besides bumper stickers)? 6000 deaths, hell more than that dies every day in this country. Who cares, it’s not even noticeable. Perhaps the biggest failure is how we actually lowered taxes while trying to fight a war. That’s just mindboggling on many levels, including the basic concept that we think we can do whatever we want without costs.



This is not true in the least. Although their use peaked in Iraq 2004-2005, “paid mercenaries” are an extremely tiny fraction of the fighting force that mainly provide security for civilians or VIPS.

I said mercenaries but I meant contractors which also include mercenaries.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not sure we want to 'bridge the divide' exactly - and to the extent we do, I want the military to be more like civilians, not the other way around.

However much a service member is motivated by patriotism or wanting to help, I think the healthy attitude about the military is to remember it is ALWAYS a 'necessary evil', needed only because of 'threats', a bit the way police are overhead needed because of criminals, but that they are an expense, they take people out of the normal productive workforce, they make them suffer to varying degrees, that war is sometimes abused, that war is not something glorious and not a sport but a necessary, horrible evil.

We can thank our service members - while hating the war they are ready to fight.

Funny thing is, a lot more veterans say things similar to this in my experience while a lot of politicians who aren't at risk are the happier grandstanding warmongers.

 

[Craig234]

This isn’t really a topic for how much money is spent on the defense budget or how the military may have been used for economic/commercial gains. It’s more about the attitudes and experiences of military and civilians, and how they are diverging.

I understand. I think a point that's relevant about the size is just that the bigger the military is, the more this divide tends to be between military and the country.

 

[Fern]

The first thing that jumps out to me there as a big no-no is making conclusions from only two years of data. Plenty of additional years of data are available, so why didn't they use them? Because it wouldn't have supported their point.

Who cares who was joining during Vietnam etc?

What's more important is who is joining now.

His info looks more current, thus more relevant.

One may equally ask 'why use old data?". Is it because it supports their point?

I believe that this study does a better job of examining who joins the military, and it finds a statistically significant relationship between family income levels and military service.

http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=soc

That being said, if I'm not mistaken data does show that the absolute bottom of the income scale is underrepresented. This wouldn't surprise me as many of those people aren't able to qualify for military service.

This data regarding income/social class appears to be from 1998. See pdf page 11/23 and report page 176.

I saw no tables etc to support the contention that middle and lower class are over represented, only statements claiming such. See pdf pages 13/23 and 20/23, report pages 178 and 185.

I also noted that the study itself quotes that "In terms of
social class, Kane (2006) found that people who serve in the military come from more well-off neighborhoods than those who have not joined the military
although the economic elite are underrepresented in armed service". See pdf page 2/23

"Economic elite" does not appear to be defined.

And this data seems to support werepossum's contention that in war time the poor tend not to enlist. Pre 9/11 enlistment among poor was higher, post 9/11 not at all.

Fern