Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Answer this: who fights in he American army?

Who are they?

Why are they there?

What would they be doing otherwise?

by Upstate NY on Fri Sep 5th, 2008 at 11:01:13 PM EST
I asked questions first.

who fights in he American army?
All sorts of people. From South Americans, who want an American citizenship over ghetto people, who think an army service will give them opportunities, to people like the sons of John McCain and Sarah Palin, who do it out of conviction, that fighting for their country is a great thing.

Why are they there?
For different reasons, as already pointed out. Oppotunities and nationalism both play a role.

What would they be doing otherwise?
I don't know. But it is irrelevant for the question if they do a great honourable question for their country. If they are slaves, it would be the most important thing to liberate them, not to laudate them for what they are doing.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 08:07:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
All sorts of people. From South Americans, who want an American citizenship over ghetto people, who think an army service will give them opportunities, to people like the sons of John McCain and Sarah Palin, who do it out of conviction, that fighting for their country is a great thing.

Urban blacks are actually very underrepresented in the military. The biggest overrepresentation is among small town and rural whites.

by MarekNYC on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 10:43:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can I see where you're getting that stat from?

I just read a report that says exactly the opposite. The military has far more blacks and hispanics than are in the general population by percentage. Whites are underrepresented.

by Upstate NY on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 10:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Blacks are currently roughly the same percentage they are in the general population, ditto for whites. But among blacks urban ones are underrepresented, non-urban ones (i.e. mainly rural, southern) are overrepresented. This sort of urban/non urban pattern is typical of whites as well. In general the last few years have seen a collapse in black enlistment in the Marines and Army.
by MarekNYC on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 11:11:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oops, I'm wrong. I looked up the figures and at first didn't notice that they concerned new members rather than all existing members. Going to the DOD website, yup, blacks are still overrepresented as of two years ago, though that's declining courtesy of the shift in enlistment. Whites are basically at their population levels as far as I can make out (The stats are problematic since they don't break out non-Hispanic whites. Whites total is underrepresented, but so are hispanics)
by MarekNYC on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Get this. The DOD website measures how many high school graduates of each race join the Army.

But you don't have to be a high school grad to enlist.

In many American cities, only 50% of African-American students graduate High School.

I'm HIGHLY suspicious of that DOD website.

by Upstate NY on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 03:22:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They also have an annual report on the make up of the armed forces, which simply counts by race and compares to the 18-40 age group in the civilian population.
by MarekNYC on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 03:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wonder though, given their other fooling, if there is some omission there.
by Upstate NY on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 07:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The fact that poor kids, minority kids, and kids without higher education are by far overrepresented in the US military tells me that enlisting because it's honorable is the last thing on these kid's minds.

For them, this is an avenue out of poverty. Look at the stats. When we're not in war, enlistment rises very high. In the last 6 years, enlistment has cratered. Why? one would assume that honorable service to country in a  time "of need" would draw more enlisters. Instead, the opposite is true. When the military is there to provide training, however, and not require combat from enlisters, then enlistments skyrocket.

What do we deduce from this?

by Upstate NY on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 10:52:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The diary isn't about the causes, why peope join the army, but about the narrative of military service. You don't say anthing about if you agree with painting soldiers as doing an honourable service to the country or not. Just that they may be desparate. Are the prostitutes, which are brought to Germany by eastern European sex traffickers, doing an honourable service to my country? Is being a prostitute a good cause to elect a person president? Is it, that whenever you want to critisise a former prostitute, that you have first to mention her great sacrifice, and how much you appreciate it? Well, unless you were either the guy pimping her or the guy using her service, I don't think so.

I do believe, that this narrative serves as distraction from the justification of wars, that it is potentially dangerous for the liberty of America, and that it helps to keep an overly large military in place, which not only sucks up resources, which could be better used elsewhere and which animates other countries to join at least partially into an arms race, but makes it as well more attractive and normal to actually use it.

Hey, the arms race maybe nice, European industry makes a lot of money with selling arms, but I would prefer, they would sell something useful.

Maybe it is typical German, but I do not 'support the German troops' in Afghanistan. And the minister of defense is pissed about that. They can be there, if they want, but if they die, I care as much as I would care for a victim of a traffic accident; and if they were tortured (not happened so far, seems only 'friends' do that) I would care as much as I care for people who suffer from cancer, or another painful illness. They are (and in case of Germany they really are) voluntarily there, while 80% of the German population doesn't want them there. Since 5 years troops are in Afghanistan, and since then never a convincing explaination was given why.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 11:32:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jung's argumentation is just insane.

Bei den Bürgern herrsche oft nicht das Bewusstsein, dass der Einsatz der deutschen Soldaten ihrer eigenen Sicherheit in Deutschland diene

Hell yeah.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 12:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Someone said the other day that google translation is better for the major languages. I figured this would be a perfect sentence to test that ;)

The citizens often do not conquer the awareness that the use of German soldiers of their own security in Germany serves

Real translation: Many citizens fail to understand that the deployment of the German soldiers is in the interests of their own security.

by MarekNYC on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 12:29:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Instead of "fail to understand", I'd put "aren't aware".

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 02:52:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you serious? What's the connection to the diary?

The connection is that the so-called narrative doesn't fool many other than the kids that come from military families. It's not a powerful narrative. You're seeing it now because McCain is a POW, but in general, no one buys it. Kids go to the military because they are poor. They don't go to become heroes.

As for the country at large, people honor the service of soldiers. In America, war heroes are not those who fight in combat. It's reserved for those who are wounded and/or save other soldiers during combat. The difference is important because, one, simply serving is honored especially since affluent youngsters tend to look down on military service (and in fact this form of hypocrisy has been used against the right because those who support the war refuse to enlist). It's acknowledged that the poor are doing a service for the rich. That's the so-called "honor" right there. The heroic is reserved for people who almost die and/or saved others. Killing a good amount of Iraqis may be heroic inside the military, but I've never heard a soldier brag about kills, or be considered a hero for that.

In other words: McCain's POW status makes him a hero to many Americans.

Again, if the narrative were actually powerful, then in a time of war, people from all social strata would enlist. They don't. The exact opposite happens. the rich stay home and the poor opt out.

Unlike many other countries, however, the US has a volunteer army that requires a long term commitment. If you signed up before 9/11, you're probably still on the hook.

by Upstate NY on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 03:20:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What you say is not in contradiction to the diary.

What I take from this comment is that you think people honor the service of soldiers. And justify it with [i]t's acknowledged that the poor are doing a service for the rich.
Prostitutes, I brought up before, are as well servicing the rich, or do you think people who just make it, go to prostitutes? I don't honour them.

If people pity soldiers, say should express their compassion, not thank for an honourable service. The soldiers believe for sure, that when you say honour, you mean honour. In Germany no veteran (majority of men) would ever use his uniform to come to a public event. Because we don't honour veterans. As well not those of the possibly justifiable missions in former Yugoslavia, or Afghanistan (and there it is just the peacekeeping mission, not the original attack).

I think it is ridiculous to assume that saying honour is to acknowledge, that the soldiers are doing their service for the rich. It doesn't fit - a majority of Americans thinks this and still reasonable voices can be painted as anti-Americans, or un-Patriotic people, when they don't drum the war drums. Or do average (and as well the average progressive) Americans think, that America = the rich?

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 05:00:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll try to clarify again what I'm saying.

Honor is gov't propaganda.

No one believes it.

If they did, they would enlist when the country goes to war. The evidence shows that they don't.

Instead, they honor veterans out of their own guilt for not really believing the bogus propaganda.

by Upstate NY on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 07:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
political elite propaganda. Most Democratic, Republican politicians and TV pundits buy into it.

And if they wouldn't believe, that much of the electorate believes it, they probably would answer much harsher, when this propaganda is abused, e.g. when Bush sends general Petrayus into the political arena, to profit from the military nimbus. But they do fear backlash. Or in the run up of the war in Iraq, or the damage the Democrats feared, what would be the reaction in the population, when they would vote only for enough money to withdraw the troops, leaving the heavy material behind, but not for an ongoing war, or....

Of course that's just indirect evidence, maybe the typical American thinks completely different, and the political elite just believes they are doing effective propaganda (in a strangely bipartisan agreement). But what evidence have you for that?
While I know of course only a little part of the US media, I can't believe you would get such an impression by watching CNN, MSNBC, FOX, read the NYT, Washington Post, or follow any debate of presidential candidates during primary season.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 08:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I suggest you visit one of the homecoming celebrations of American troops returning from Iraq. The military community totally believes that they are saving the country and the world, and that they are heros for doing so. "Honor" may be just propaganda, but there are plenty of people who believe it.

I think it's largely because of the sterile depiction of war in American media. No casualties are shown--some soldiers are alive and some are dead and gone, but the tens of thousands of wounded are invisible.

by asdf on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 08:53:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why would I need to visit it?

I see it everyday. 2 minutes from my house.

I gave you the stats.

If people believed the propaganda, they'd live it.

But they don't. How else can you explain the extreme contradiction between support for the war and refusal to enlist? The fact is, if we had a draft, then and only then would you see Americans come to grips with what it REALLY means to go to war. As it is now, the burden is carried by the poor and uneducated. That's why the propaganda still dominates. The propaganda is not meant as a recruiting tool for young soldiers. It's there to be used as a political cudgel to question people's patriotism.

You want proof? If we really honored military heroism, then John Murtha and John Kerry would not be cast as cowards.

The homecoming parades are attended by 100s of friends, not thousands of citizens. Big difference.

by Upstate NY on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 10:05:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If they did, they would enlist when the country goes to war. The evidence shows that they don't.

And you can die when you go to war or becoming seriously wounded. People my be afraid, but admire the brave of other, more 'cool' people.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 09:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If it's just fear, then why do white educated affluent people stay home?

Are you saying that fear is a trait of certain races, social classes, etc.?

by Upstate NY on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 10:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I mostly agree with you, but a couple minor caveats. First of all this is a relatively new thing, basically starting with Vietnam. Secondly, the children of elites are strongly expected to go to college immediately after high school. The military is generally  set up either for non-college grad enlistees, or college grad officers. In the old big expansions of WWI and WWII college grad draftees and volunteers were in fact generally made officers. There's two ways to become an officer - the service academies or ROTC. They army has cut down on ROTC programs in Blue areas and in top private universities and colleges, while expanding them in the big public universities  of the Red states. That means that you often need to make significantly more effort to be in the ROTC if you go to the sort of place where the children of the elite disproportionately end up. Thus in NYC there are no ROTC programs in Manhattan or Brooklyn, nor are there any at any of the CUNY campuses. The only ones are one up in the Bronx (Fordham) and one in Eastern Queens (St. Johns). If you're an NYU or Columbia student, enjoy the over one hour each way commute to every ROTC class. Similar problems for three of the four top CUNY campuses (Brooklyn College plus Hunter and CCNY in Manhattan, Queens College isn't that far from St. Johns)

But like I said, I think you are mostly right on this.

by MarekNYC on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 at 12:16:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I completely agree with you on the officer class.

I taught at a university with a ROTC program (U. of Rochester) and had long talks with my officer candidates. That is a slightly different story, as you say.

by Upstate NY on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 at 03:35:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course other factors than fear play a role. But what you say is, that it is impossible to think honestly military service is honourable, when you don't enlist. Do you really believe that?

You say those who don't enlist and say it is honourable are hypocrits and liers. I say they are consistently wrong. And I think this is much more dangerous. Liers (and we don't speak here about a few super rich, but about most of the middle class) may know when stop, stupid people don't.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 at 10:01:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I am saying that if they truly believed the country needed to be defended with military means, then they would enlist.

You're leaving out the political aspect of this. The GOP has been long affiliated with the military, and they use military propaganda as a political cudgel. This is incentive enough for someone to be a hypocrite, rather than merely "wrong."

They are so proven wrong on Iraq (80% of AMERICANs are now against it) but these elites will stick to being WRONG because of the political value of the propaganda. That tells me that they don't care whether they are right or wrong. They'll stick to the "honorable" line.

If military service were truly "honored" then wouldn't those who favor militarism take care of the soldiers who come home wounded?

Are you aware that our health care for veterans is a disaster? You're better off being poor and uninsured than you a soldier.

by Upstate NY on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 at 03:40:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The GOP has been long affiliated with the military, and they use military propaganda as a political cudgel. This is incentive enough for someone to be a hypocrite, rather than merely "wrong."
For the polit clowns it is a reason to be a hypocrit but only if their are people believing it, for the general population not. Somebody has to believe it, so that the propaganda works. And AFAIK McCain has a son, who fought in Iraq and Palin has a son, who is soon to go to Iraq. That's untypical, I know, but a little bit of believe must be in them.

They are so proven wrong on Iraq
Yes, and telling, that one is against this war, or was against it from the beginning isn't something considered 'unpatriotic' anymore, or? Sure, the Republicans play the "Obama is for losing in Iraq" game, this may help to consolidate their most extremist base, but will hardly work to gather independents.
It did work in the run up of the war in 2002. Many say, the then recent memory of 9/11 has boosted that. For sure many Americans after 9/11 did think, the country needed a strong answer (~90% approval to Bush in the beginning of the Afghanistan war); was there a mass enlistment of middle class people with good job chances after 9/11?

If military service were truly "honored" then wouldn't those who favor militarism take care of the soldiers who come home wounded?
The polit clowns use it as propaganda, and they tell they would care well for the veterans. Low information voters might think McCain as a veteran himself will care more for the veterans than Obama.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 at 04:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
American culture is politicized. People take sides and talk politics. The only people I encounter who talk about heroism and the military are inevitably white educated Republicans who have never enlisted.

McCain comes from a military family in the officer class, so it's an expected thing that his son would join. McCain's Dad and grandad were also officers. Officer class is indeed, educated, more affluent, more white. I'm talking about the grunts, not the officers.

A huge number of the soldiers over in Iraq right now are part of the National Guard. These are so-called weekend warriors who earn an extra paycheck. I knew lots of NG people growing up and I would not say they joined for militaristic reasons.

Lastly, after 9/11, enlistment dropped among ALL classes.

by Upstate NY on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 at 08:14:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Have you talked to veterans or families of serving soldiers recently? Judging by my canvassing, plenty of them speak that way as well. My last sting was right next to a huge military base (Fort Belvoir) and not so far from the Pentagon.  Mainly not affluent - in fact that seems to be rather rare.

 While I agree with you on who joins up, I think they are a somewhat self-selected group from the poor and middle income population. Most wouldn't have joined if they didn't see it as a way out of a dead end life, but the patriotism stuff tends to be a secondary reason, indeed it's what distinguishes them from their peers who don't enlist.

by MarekNYC on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 at 08:25:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A large part of my experience growing up was a family business that catered (literally, served food) to a local National Guard. Now, I know that's not the army, but I have also spoken with soldiers who are currently serving, at least those who take advantage of the GI Bill.

I think that once they're in and have been through boot camp, then yes, I agree, they have bought in to the lore.  By the way, I'm not saying that all of them have disowned that macho bullshit. It definitely plays into some enlistments.

The recruiters talk an excellent game: opportunity, training, free school, etc. Money.

by Upstate NY on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 at 11:54:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd also say it's not about who asked the questions first, but which questions should be asked first.
by Upstate NY on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 10:54:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series