Jump to content

Millennials and Military Service


peterbound

Recommended Posts

NPR recently conducted a poll to get the vibe of the current generation coming of age, and the military.  I found the results....interesting. Seems a majority of them support the troops involvement in the war, yet don't want to serve themselves.  This disconnect between the military and the civilian population they are tasked to protect (and maybe die for) is only getting bigger.  That concerns me.  The less you know about the military, the worse you are at voting for and ordering it to action. 

On this very board, when discussing careers, student debt, and the future of some posters i've suggested a commissioning or even just a straight up enlistment (they pay off student loans, give you a job, leadership skills, and a paycheck) only to find most of the responses to be less than enthusiastic.  These responses almost seem disgusted at the very idea of service.  Now, I know this board tends to lean a little to the left, and the idea of the military might be anathema to some of you, but what do you think it is?  Is it the idea of not being your own man/woman?  Is it the fear of responsibility?  Or is it the not wanting to put up with the other bullshit that comes with military service?  

Love to hear your opinion on it. 

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459111960/millennials-want-to-send-troops-to-fight-isis-but-not-serve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not extremely well informed on the relationship between this demographic and the US military, but looking at the numbers, with 62% not wanting to join, and 23% "probably" unwilling to, it leaves you with a 15% considering joining or already joined. If you can consider a sample size of 435 people to be telling, 15% of any region's population wanting to join the army is an enormous fraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think people on this are by and large contemptuous of military service. Sometimes I think that I should have joined. But it's not right for everybody, and it's not a really a solution to the national college problem. Both in terms of budget and military need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like to kill animals, let alone people. I'm willing to do it, but there must be a really good reason. If somebody actually invaded the US, I would probably volunteer, but the wars the US has fought since WWII have generally had only a tenuous link to defense and, more often than not, have made things worse both for us and for the region in which they took place. It does not help at all to join an army when it's not clear that the individual at the very top of the hierarchy has reasonable goals, let alone a strategy or, even worse, when this individual changes for unrelated reasons and both goals and strategy change with him resulting in a colossal mess.

That said, the millennials in the poll do not appear to share my reasoning. The majority (60%) wants the US to send ground troops to the war, they just don't want it to be them. The obvious motivations for such a position are the usual selfish ones and I can't think of too many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip) That said, the millennials in the poll do not appear to share my reasoning. The majority (60%) wants the US to send ground troops to the war, they just don't want it to be them. The obvious motivations for such a position are the usual selfish ones and I can't think of too many others.

How is that ultimately different from wanting to see IS dismantled, but by countries other than our own? I'm assuming you wouldn't be comfortable leaving ISIS unhindered if Russia were to cease combat operations for example, am I right?

Do we leave Russia, France, Jordan and the Kurds to clean up a mess that we're certainly partially responsible for creating?

Let's pretend you're Hillary and you voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution. What's ethical or even consistent about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know much about US troops but the efficiency never stops to amaze me. I mean, the last creation of US army, a so-called-country Kosovo, created by NATO forces against International Law is now the most fertile land for ISIS soldiers in Europe (and in the top 5 in the world). Amazingly how while in one hand the citizens of Kosovo are waving their US flags, with other they are loading the guns to help ISIS. And all of that with NATO base on the ground. It sounds like a bad joke, but alas it isn't.

I do believe that as the civilized world is continuing towards peaceful co-existence, all countries are facing with a certain disinterest in the military business. I will never forget Alan Shore's amazing speech on Boston Legal about US public and war in Afghanistan: "More than 2000 men have died abroad and all American public wants to concern itself is whether Brad and Angelina really are a  couple" So, while the disinterest in military may be understandable, it is undoubtedly wrong not to know what your country is doing, or what the results are of some military actions.

As for millenials, as one of them, I have also a certain disinterest in the army business. By the time finished school, my country ended the mandatory military service and I remember the debates about it. Somehow, it seemed, ladies were more outraged by it. I was listening one of my female friend talking about how guys are no longer guys and so on and on, and when I finally lost the patience, I infamously said that "when my female friends learn how to sow, cook and clean the house, I will do the mandatory military service." Not my proudest moment, I admit but I was sick of being told that I am no man for not wanting to spend a 12-18 months in some God forsaken military camp doing who knows what.

In short, I am all for informing the public of everything military is doing and creating a mindset where knowing about these things is important, but doing a service if I don't want to, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that ultimately different from wanting to see IS dismantled, but by countries other than our own? I'm assuming you wouldn't be comfortable leaving ISIS unhindered if Russia were to cease combat operations for example, am I right?

Do we leave Russia, France, Jordan and the Kurds to clean up a mess that we're certainly partially responsible for creating?

Let's pretend you're Hillary and you voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution. What's ethical or even consistent about that?

It is different because countries other than our own have not repeatedly proven that their strategies in the Middle East lead to disaster. It is also different in that no more Americans will die to see these disastrous strategies implemented. And yes, Clinton et al do not have an ethical or consistent choice here and I do not trust them to so much as make one that at least minimizes the problems from now on -- hence my reluctance to let them do anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was commissioned in the Marine Corps,straight out of college. While there were some rough spots, for me, at least the overall experience was fairly positive. Although the experience may not be for everyone.


I am not particularly a big fan of compulsory military service as I do put a fairly high premium on individual choices. However, I do worry that the lack of military service, by the general population, might create a bit of disconnect between the military and the civilian populations and cause the general civilian population to be disengaged from military issues, and perhaps, cause some to not think about the limits of military power.

Whatever the source of millennials lack of interest in military service, I am not really sure. I don't think it is general contempt or anything. Perhaps, just a lack of general interest, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NPR recently conducted a poll to get the vibe of the current generation coming of age, and the military.  I found the results....interesting. Seems a majority of them support the troops involvement in the war, yet don't want to serve themselves.  This disconnect between the military and the civilian population they are tasked to protect (and maybe die for) is only getting bigger.  That concerns me.  The less you know about the military, the worse you are at voting for and ordering it to action. 

On this very board, when discussing careers, student debt, and the future of some posters i've suggested a commissioning or even just a straight up enlistment (they pay off student loans, give you a job, leadership skills, and a paycheck) only to find most of the responses to be less than enthusiastic.  These responses almost seem disgusted at the very idea of service.  Now, I know this board tends to lean a little to the left, and the idea of the military might be anathema to some of you, but what do you think it is?  Is it the idea of not being your own man/woman?  Is it the fear of responsibility?  Or is it the not wanting to put up with the other bullshit that comes with military service?

Love to hear your opinion on it. 

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459111960/millennials-want-to-send-troops-to-fight-isis-but-not-serve

I bet for some it's the notion of not wanting to support foriegn policies they are unconvinced for the wisdom of. There's also conscientious objector grounds for explanation to why some would oppose being involved in the military. Another reason ( this is tied to the first one) may be that some Americans ((USA) find their elected leaders so distasteful they just can't fall in line with where they are being led, back to the wisdom of the course idea. The idea of a foreign policy of "the worlds policeman" has never been universally embraced by all our citizens and will always have portions of the population that will reject participating in it.

There are of course, other reasons people choose not to serve, my guess would be two large factors could be financial or family obligations/choices or also for the reasons you stated earlier, young people not wanting to let go of their autonomy is probably a factor for sure.

I support leaving the armed services at a size that can be supported by a voluntary force. With a voluntary force at least those involved are the citizens who've made the choice that this is what they want to do. And finally regarding putting forces in harms way, It seems hypocritical to advocate for using forces for any actions that one wouldn't themselves want to take, so by extension if you oppose an action for yourself you shouldn't support it falling to others. In other words, don't be a chickenhawk, if your against a war or policy fine, but don't advocate others fight in one if you wouldn't. The volunteer force the armed services have currently are probably the closest we could come to avoiding that hypocracy, although we still hear and see it ( chickenhawkism) too often in public discourse, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is different because countries other than our own have not repeatedly proven that their strategies in the Middle East lead to disaster. It is also different in that no more Americans will die to see these disastrous strategies implemented. And yes, Clinton et al do not have an ethical or consistent choice here and I do not trust them to so much as make one that at least minimizes the problems from now on -- hence my reluctance to let them do anything at all.

Russia and France both have shitty track records in the ME.

FFS in the first week of operations, the Russians provoked Turkey and dropped dumb bombs.

Whether we send troops or not, Islamist propaganda will blame "Crusaders" and "Infidels" generally for whatever Russia might do.

French Algeria was one of the first instances we have of modern Islamist terror tactics, they failed there at a time they were indisputably more of a power than they are today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I could ever trust anyone enough to kill or be killed* on their behalf, much less a bunch of politicians.

*Or directly aid others to do the same

 

I should say that I "served" in the kindergarten also known as the Norwegian military, because Norway still has compulsory service. I also signed a one-year contract that made me eligible for NATO duty afterwards, but I knew NATO had no need of anti-aircraft artillery units at the time, so it was a money-for-nothing kind of deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking to my Dad about this today when I brought up the RAF and asked him about it because a lot of the men in my family have been in the RAF and he told me he didn't think it was for me, that it was brilliant for him, it made him and he wouldn't try and dissuade anyone from joining the RAF but that as a vgetarian pacifist with strong political opinions i would hate it. He also said i would only be joining up because i didn'y know what else to do and he's right about that  really...except..im not a pacifist and im still deciding on my feelings about the military...im not from the US im from the UK and it would be the RAF i would go for IF i ever did BUT i dont agree with bombing syria or whatever the fuck cameron wnats to do and so right now i wouldnt be a hypocrite by saying i dont support war and i wouldnt be a part of it...but if i ever genuinely supported a war and there genuinely was a world war 3...i cant say whether i would volunteer or not...maybe i would ...my feelings on the military are quite complicated...i dont really know what to think other than have compassion for the soldiers that come back with PTSD and similar and just hoping they get the treatment for it ...ive never had the soldiers = heroes mentality though...because i have never really needed to have that mentality...

Fundamentally tho i just dont want to kill anyone or be trained to kill anyone so i could never seriously join up, im just nit ready for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for "national service" that would typically (but not necessarily) entail a period of mandatory military service. When I was younger I kinda toyed with the idea, as did my brother (he briefly wanted to go to the Royal Military College), but that never really went anywhere. I think the disadvantages inherent in being sent to live in Cold Lake, Alberta or Goose Bay are not exactly trivial. I do think that most of the reluctance stems from the giving-up of control over where you live and so forth. In times past, nationalism and a sense of adventure(ism) seemed to lead people to enrol. Certainly my grandparents generation faced a rather different world in 1939 than we do today - and for my part, I don't have a lot of confidence that our political class is actually getting much of this "right". 

Otherwise, I provide my "service" these days by working in a hierarchical system and frequently spending my nights and weekends looking after sick people from all walks of life for minimal pay. And being on the front lines of Ebola or the next SARS means it's not entirely without some risk either. But I do understand the nature of "sacrifice". I don't think the military is necessarily the place I need to demonstrate it, though. 

We're at a time when most politicians are careerists that have hardly held a non-political job let alone served in the Forces. The only one I can recall recently was the former premier of Nova Scotia Darrell Dexter who was a combat information officer in the Navy. But Trudeau's most stable employment prior to politics was as a drama/supply teacher. He did make this guy defence minister, though. (I'm not sure I agree that anyone in active service should be able to run for office let alone be appointed to this position... he's out of the CF now in any case.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Or is it the not wanting to put up with the other bullshit that comes with military service?  

Obviously not the right demographic, but I was talked out of it by my father when I considered joining (a veteran himself, and who was very openly intending to be career military until his experiences during his two tours of Vietnam completely overturned that plan). During one of our many conversations about it, he said that I would never be able to take orders from someone who I considered dumber than I am and, as it turns out, he was right. Once I got into the workforce, I found out just how allergic I am to dumber people having authority over me, and it gets me in trouble occasionally at work. ;)

Anyway, so I would not discount negative experiences by parents when considering why young people are not especially eager to join up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a true pacifist (there are circumstances under which I would have fought, most notably WWII), but seeing as the fundamental purpose of the military is war, and that war can only ever be a truly horrible last resort, signing up was never something that appealed to me. Having a club foot makes the thing rather moot in practice though.

Two things that have always stuck in my mind:

- The last interview with the last surviving WWI veteran. He talks about seeing a German walking towards him, and them aiming to miss. Most people will instinctively avoid trying to kill another person - and I fall into that category.

- My paternal grandfather joined the Royal Navy in 1929 (i.e. during peacetime). He was there in 1939, and was de-mobilised with the rest in 1945. He threw his medals in the bin after the war, and never talked about his experiences ever again. It's why I don't go to ANZAC Day ceremonies - there is something ghoulish about marking something the actual veterans spent the rest of their lives trying to forget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally the problem with those numbers is the eagerness for the military to still do things, not the lack of willingness to serve.  I don't think a career where you can suffer death/dismemberment as a regular part of the work, or can inflict lifelong psychological trauma without anything even going wrong if the person isn't suited for it, is a career that should be stumbled into. You should join because you want to serve, not because you don't have anything else better to do.

I'd also have major issues completely subordinating myself to other people/the countries agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously not the right demographic, but I was talked out of it by my father when I considered joining (a veteran himself, and who was very openly intending to be career military until his experiences during his two tours of Vietnam completely overturned that plan). During one of our many conversations about it, he said that I would never be able to take orders from someone who I considered dumber than I am and, as it turns out, he was right. Once I got into the workforce, I found out just how allergic I am to dumber people having authority over me, and it gets me in trouble occasionally at work. ;)

Anyway, so I would not discount negative experiences by parents when considering why young people are not especially eager to join up.

That is honestly really really similar to what my Dad said to me this morning :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not extremely well informed on the relationship between this demographic and the US military, but looking at the numbers, with 62% not wanting to join, and 23% "probably" unwilling to, it leaves you with a 15% considering joining or already joined. If you can consider a sample size of 435 people to be telling, 15% of any region's population wanting to join the army is an enormous fraction.

And they never compare it to statistic from past conflicts making it difficult to draw any conclusions about whether this number is even statistically low.

For example, I supported invading Afghanistan but I didn't enlist.

I talked to plenty of recruiters but ultimately the MoS I was offered wasn't something I felt comfortable doing.

I wasn't asked to kill, quite the opposite actually. The idea of communicating with strangers in a war zone was somehow altogether more terrifying to me than the idea of shooting people.

Remember the goober psychologist from the Hurt Locker? That's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet for some it's the notion of not wanting to support foriegn policies they are unconvinced for the wisdom of. There's also conscientious objector grounds for explanation to why some would oppose being involved in the military. Another reason ( this is tied to the first one) may be that some Americans ((USA) find their elected leaders so distasteful they just can't fall in line with where they are being led, back to the wisdom of the course idea. The idea of a foreign policy of "the worlds policeman" has never been universally embraced by all our citizens and will always have portions of the population that will reject participating in it.

There are of course, other reasons people choose not to serve, my guess would be two large factors could be financial or family obligations/choices or also for the reasons you stated earlier, young people not wanting to let go of their autonomy is probably a factor for sure.

I support leaving the armed services at a size that can be supported by a voluntary force. With a voluntary force at least those involved are the citizens who've made the choice that this is what they want to do. And finally regarding putting forces in harms way, It seems hypocritical to advocate for using forces for any actions that one wouldn't themselves want to take, so by extension if you oppose an action for yourself you shouldn't support it falling to others. In other words, don't be a chickenhawk, if your against a war or policy fine, but don't advocate others fight in one if you wouldn't. The volunteer force the armed services have currently are probably the closest we could come to avoiding that hypocracy, although we still hear and see it ( chickenhawkism) too often in public discourse, imo.

DWS,

I think you are missing PB's main point that 60% support ground troops in Syria while only 15% are considering volunteering.  That's quite a gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...