# What is the Purpose of the Military?



## Marauder06 (Jul 25, 2012)

A thread by Spider6 and a conversation I had this afternoon made me think about the purpose (or mission) of a nation's armed forces.  This ties in closely to what a military should be prepared to do (which matters in terms of training, equipping, and most of all funding).

So, utilizing whatever sources you choose, including your own opinion, and in as many or as few words as you think are necessary, what do you think the purpose of a nation's military is?

Here is source to get you started if you need one:

http://www.army.mil/fm1/chapter2.html


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 25, 2012)

To defend a state and execute foreign policy with force.


----------



## CDG (Jul 25, 2012)

To be a human petri dish for social experiments?


----------



## Spider6 (Jul 25, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> To defend a state and execute foreign policy with force.


 
Marauder06:  Agree with the above sir from Spitfire V.  I'm struggling with the best way to accomplish that task and purpose.  Using the KISS principle I say we go back to that wonderfully simple skill set of killing people and breaking things.  We haven't been very successful in predicting the next conflict.  I think I heard that in 25 attempts we hadn't gotten it right once.  I think that was Donald Rumsfeld.

With task and purpose defined, I'm curious as to what our task / org should look like.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 25, 2012)

That should all relate back to the aims of the foreign policy itself, shouldn't it?


----------



## tmroun01 (Jul 25, 2012)

Protect it's nations interest.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jul 25, 2012)

tmroun01 said:


> Protect it's nations interest.


Who gets to define "nation's interest"?


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 25, 2012)

IMO that's all tied into foreign policy. I think I can tie in anything you guys say back to FP, actually


----------



## tmroun01 (Jul 25, 2012)

IMO It does tie back to FP, but that shouldn't matter to the military. The military is not the foreign policy creators, they are the foreign policy executors. As far as where should the foreign policy come from...that's a bit long to type out on an iPad...


----------



## 104TN (Jul 25, 2012)

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 26, 2012)

tmroun01 said:


> IMO It does tie back to FP, but that shouldn't matter to the military. The military is not the foreign policy creators, they are the foreign policy executors. As far as where should the foreign policy come from...that's a bit long to type out on an iPad...


 
Yes but the aims of the foreign policy dictate how the conflict in question is prosecuted.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jul 26, 2012)

To provide somewhere for fat chicks to find lovin'.

Seriously though I'm going to say to provide the state with a means to enforce its will and protect its interests when diplomatic means fail.

I say this because the epic Conan quote was already used.


----------



## tmroun01 (Jul 26, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> Yes but the aims of the foreign policy dictate how the conflict in question is prosecuted.



Maybe I'm not understanding. Are you saying that the foreign policy dictates whether the military is used (hypothetically)  to topple a regime or as a peace keeping force?


----------



## Spider6 (Jul 26, 2012)

tmroun01 said:


> Maybe I'm not understanding. Are you saying that the foreign policy dictates whether the military is used (hypothetically) to topple a regime or as a peace keeping force?


 
I think your both right. Additionally the military does produce "strategic estimates" for the State Dept. I'm torn on the value placed on these. I have never had to brief a member of the State Dept and wonder how that would be received. On the other hand we are the folks on the ground dealing with the situation!


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 26, 2012)

Here's the first cut on what the purpose of the military is to me:  



> The purpose of the US military is to secure the vital national interests of the nation, as directed by the President, and to ensure the preservation of the nation and the security of its inhabitants, in accordance with the spirit of our Constitution.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 27, 2012)

tmroun01 said:


> Maybe I'm not understanding. Are you saying that the foreign policy dictates whether the military is used (hypothetically) to topple a regime or as a peace keeping force?


 
I had wondered later if I wasn't clear enough so my apologies. But yes, that's essentially what I'm saying. The strategic aim of the conflict (whatever that may be) determines how the military goes about their business (in a strategtic sense of course).


----------



## 0699 (Jul 27, 2012)

Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.


----------



## goon175 (Jul 27, 2012)

To provide hollywood with good storylines and supporting actors.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 27, 2012)

goon175 said:


> To provide hollywood with good storylines and supporting actors.


 
I was referring to the mission of the entire military, not just the SEALS.  ;)


----------



## goon175 (Jul 27, 2012)

haha touche sir!


----------



## CDG (Jul 28, 2012)

Marauder06 said:
			
		

> Here's the first cut on what the purpose of the military is to me:
> 
> The purpose of the US military is to secure the vital national interests of the nation, as directed by the President, and to ensure the preservation of the nation and the security of its inhabitants, in accordance with the spirit of our Constitution.​


​ 


0699 said:


> Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.


 
I agree with both of these, but I agree with 0699 a little more. I think the "as directed by the President" part could one day be a serious problem.  The Constitution and the rights it grants to the citizens of this country must be defended at all costs.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 29, 2012)

All the above answers are very good, looking externally.  Internally, I think that the military (Im speaking strictly in terms of America's military here) serves as the best government-funded social project we have.  I would call it a "social project" moreso than a "job" because military service really goes beyond the boundaries of what we could consider normal employment.  For example, a typical employment offer would list your wages, hours, and expected duties in easy-to-read print.  You may have an employment interview which can last anywhere from an hour to a few days.  Your enlistment contract will tell you the pay grade that you will come in at (from which you can determine what your wages are), and your job code (from which you can typically infer what your *potential* duties will be, in theory.  We know that, in practice, the duties incurred by military service are far and above just that of your MOS).  Your military employment interview goes on for weeks.  In some MOS', it literally never ends.  All similarities between the two essentially stop there.

But really, Im getting off-track.  I've established that the military is so much more than a job.  Internally, the benefits of military service are far and above any other social program the US offers.
-The new GI bill literally pays you to go to college
-Free medical and dental care for as long as you're in (and for some long-serving members, for life)
-Guaranteed retirement
-Free room, board, and meals (In the case of most enlisted.  A housing allowance and meal stipend for others)
-Free travel (space-A)
-Professional job training.  In some cases, extremely advanced training only available to certain sets of the private sector (Im looking at nuke technicians, SATCOM guys and the new CYBERCOM types specifically).
-The current state of the military-industrial complex (I know this is usually something of a slur, but I'll just use it for lack of a better term) means that a lot of vets can parlay their service and training knowledge into very high paying jobs almost as soon as they leave.

Then, of course, there's also the intangible effects of service: Discipline, physical fitness, pride, esprit de corps and a litany of other qualities you can attribute to serving. 

What all this boils down to is that lots of vets get a killer deal for serving (if they take the opportunity to leverage their benefits), while America gets a strong national defense and contributes to the private sector through increased military R&D (The internet and GPS, for example, were defense projects before they hit the civilian market) and potentially more capable workforce (many companies prefer hiring vets because of the intangibles listed above).  Meanwhile, vets can go to college without incurring the crippling debt that most civilians have to take on in order to afford a university degree these days.  Vets with undergraduate degrees can also get advanced degrees at no cost to themselves.  This allows for greater upward social mobility in our increasingly stratified society.

So really, having a standing military is a win for all those involved.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jul 29, 2012)

Spider6 said:


> ...Using the KISS principle *I say we go back to that wonderfully simple skill set of killing people and breaking things*...


 
I agree with many of the things previously written but wanted to highlight something the MAJ said, and focus on where we are today with regards to the military.

If we go back and look at the focus of the military branches prior to the creation of the Department of Defense we will find that their single purpose - though many could argue disjointed and unfocused at times - was to wage offensive war against our enemies, the enemies of our nation and constitution. After the creation of the Department of Defense there seems to have not only been a shift of powers across the branches of the military to a central office with the realignment [1] but a shift in mindset from one of offense to defense in nature. Many will argue the name change was simple semantical but I would offer that it weakened our resolve as a nation as a whole and the military in particular.

With the name change and mindset comes a greater acceptance of careerism and together these have taken us from a "break shit and kill people" focused military to an "understanding and acceptance of differences through forced sensitivity training" focused military; this leads to mentally [2] and physically weak service members.  Today we even see this weak mindset in the Army's own AT/FP training, where they suggest we cower and hide waiting for someone else to save us instead of doing something about the threats as they appear [3].  

From lowered basic training standards and not smoking shitbags or wall-to-wall counseling them to the lack of chaptering of privates and other non-hackers it is clear that there is a shift in the foundation of our military. Being mentally and physically strong enough to "do the damn thing" is not as important as how lil Johnny feels about being made fun of for being a fat slob who played video games when his chunky ass should have been playing BB gun wars in the woods.

War is offensive by nature and a military whose purpose is to protect a nation should not have a defensive mindset.

[1] Cambone, Stephen A. "The National Security Act of 1947– 26 July 1947." A New Structure for National Security Policy Planning. Washington, D.C.: CSIS, 1998. 228-32. Print.
[2]  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/military-my-little-pony-fan-club/
[3] https://atlevel1.dtic.mil/at/


----------



## x SF med (Jul 29, 2012)

Damn, bro... I wish I could like your post twice or three times.


----------



## AWP (Jul 29, 2012)

x SF med said:


> Damn, bro... I wish I could like your post twice or three times.


 
 I don't know....citing sources without using MLA format? Does LL know about this not to mention your acceptance of said practice?


----------



## x SF med (Jul 29, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> I don't know....citing sources without using MLA format? Does LL know about this not to mention your acceptance of said practice?


 
I, like my brother Crip, prefer the APA format for citation...  now go back to being a good AWP and breaking the internets for the people you work with, ok?  (and don't give me any shite about "you should have used 'the people with whom you work'"...  Orwell, in Politics and the English language even says to break any of the mentioned rules if they are barbarous and or awkward...)


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 29, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> I don't know....citing sources without using MLA format? Does LL know about this not to mention your acceptance of said practice?


Him citing his sources makes it that much easier to cut/paste it into my next paper for school.  ;)


----------



## AWP (Jul 29, 2012)

To eat a little crow, and show you how much attention I'm paying in school, we use APA format.

Ouch. I feel like such a Nickelback fan.


----------



## Spider6 (Jul 29, 2012)

Thanks Crip........almost made too much sense!


----------



## x SF med (Jul 29, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> To eat a little crow, and show you how much attention I'm paying in school, we use APA format.
> 
> Ouch. I feel like such a Nickelback fan.


 
this should get some hate, or a derisive and snide chuckle...  but you are an AWP, so we're sending your cookies and coffee to pardus so he can give them to wounded soldiers at the hospital...  yes, WCMn cookies...  this is one case where the revenge served fresh out of the oven is best...


----------



## x SF med (Jul 29, 2012)

Um, Free... no, really, we sent your cookies to pardus... and your coffee... sorry... btw, the cookies were the best the boss lady has done in a long time and the coffee was Peet's... the stuff you really liked last time we sent the same brand... I feel really bad about that, you being wrong and having no comfort food to make up for it...

Ask him in a week or so when it shows up.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 29, 2012)

x SF med said:


> this should get some hate, or a derisive and snide chuckle... but you are an AWP, so we're sending your cookies and coffee to pardus so he can give them to wounded soldiers at the hospital... yes, WCMn cookies... this is one case where the revenge served fresh out of the oven is best...


"Just deserts" for that whole avatar thing, I say.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 29, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> "Just deserts" for that whole avatar thing, I say.


 
Touche, Sir.   What eloquent NCO or CW5 came up with it for you to steal?


----------



## LOOON (Jul 30, 2012)

All I can say on the subject is this: Don't piss off the military. We are going to need them to overthrow the government.


----------

