Civil-Military Divide

[Marauder06]

I don't post many links to my Facebook page, but I linked this one:

http://vets.syr.edu/the-bachelor-versus-the-war/

It's an op-ed by a student veteran concerning the growing civil-military divide in our country. Most of us who have served have seen it, but it is really obvious to me as for the first time in my entire life I'm in a community that is not made up of military families. Many of my classmates, who are highly educated and very well-traveled, have told me that I am the first active-duty combat veteran t hat they have ever talked to. That was astonishing to me after 12+ years of a nation at war until I realized that there are more people employed by Wal-Mart inside the US than are on active duty CONUS. Moreover, the nation is not at war, the military is. Because so few of us have served, because those who serve are ensconced in military bases and in insular communities, and because the wars barely affect the lives of average Americans, the wars and their consequences aren't "real" to most of the US.

I used to be OK with this. The nation needs to focus on things other than warfare. Our economy, for one thing. But with so few people in government, industry, and the rest of US society making the choice to serve, and with military service becoming more and more of a "family affair" (as just one example, my father was in the Army, as was his father, as was my maternal grandfather, several uncles, and oh yeah my wife). This runs the risk of creating a military caste, which bears the burden for implementing the decisions of the American people, who are becoming more and more disassociated from the military all the time. This is bad for a number of reasons.

Many of you know we are planning a big conference on this topic for next November. In the meantime, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the civil-military divide. Does it even exist? If so, what is it? How have you seen it manifested? What do you think should be done about it?

 

[Dame]

There is somewhat of a divide based on the factors you've stated. However, I must disagree with the statement "with so few people in government, industry, and the rest of US society making the choice to serve..." Due to the economy being a complete shambles many more people are attempting to enlist for the steady employment and benefits. Unfortunately, I can tell you of three 20-somethings, in just my personal circle, who were rejected at MEPS due to medications they may no longer even take. We as parents try to make sure any illness is treated while our children are young and may possibly grow out of whatever condition it is that requires treatment (childhood asthma or allergies for example). But if you are honest about that, you are rejected outright from serving in any branch, in any capacity. So guess where they end up? In the Coast Guard Auxiliary. They truly want to do their part.

 

[reed11b]

Stop PCSing everyone randomly every few years. Allow the military to become part of the communities they serve in. After so many BRAC actions does the HR commands way of doing things even make sense anymore?
I would also argue the increased use of the NG has counter-balanced the lack of draft as far reducing the civilian-military divide. While I think that combat arms should be in the reserves and the NG should be structured based on the needs of the state they serve, as long as combat units remain in the NG, deploying NG on a regular basis will help.
Lots of other thoughts, I'll try and get them coherent.
Reed

 

[Scotth]

From my grand parents brothers and sisters thru 7 aunts and uncles, on my Mom's side of the family, through all of my cousins I was the only one to ever serve in any branch of the military until my niece joined. So basically one person in three generations who served. Of coarse my niece had to go and fuck up the three generation rule.

On my niece's Dad side of the family which was equally large, she had one uncle that married into the family and she had one cousin who joined but was quickly booted over multiple bad urine test results. On that side they had two people who really served in 3 generations.

You can look at other families that will have multiple people serving per generation but that is becoming the abnormal unfortunately. The desire to serve isn't there because people never see it growing up. The DNA of military service is almost being bread out of most families these days.

 

[Dame]

You can look at other families that will have multiple people serving per generation but that is becoming the abnormal unfortunately. The desire to serve isn't there because people never see it growing up. The DNA of military service is almost being bread out of most families these days.

Scotth, Again I have to say it has more to do with who they will accept based on very old standards at MEPS. Both my father and Mike's father served. I tried to go AF but was too short for the academy standards at the time. My oldest was rejected for meds he hadn't been on in over a year. I would love to see some updating of those standards but they have more folks enlisting now so loosening them isn't really necessary.

 

[goon175]

80% of the people I run into treat the military like second class citizens who are more than deserving of their pity. "Thank you for your service in Iraq, it's too bad you couldn't get into college". It is not seen as a noble profession that one aspires to be a part of, it is seen as a last resort for those that couldn't make it anywhere else.

 

[Marauder06]

80% of the people I run into treat the military like second class citizens who are more than deserving of their pity. "Thank you for your service in Iraq, it's too bad you couldn't get into college". It is not seen as a noble profession that one aspires to be a part of, it is seen as a last resort for those that couldn't make it anywhere else.

"You're in the Army... and you got into Yale?" :-/

 

[chaarsadobeest]

Pardon my negativity, but an enormous chunk of the Soldiers (dare I say majority) who I have encountered joined because they did not have anywhere else to go. The concepts of duty, service, patriotism, etc. were not considered in their decision, often to their own admission.

 

[goon175]

Maybe I just attract a more quality applicant, I don't know, but in my experience very few join out of desperation. The ones who are looking to join out of desperation are usually the ones that are not eligible for service.

 

[Marauder06]

I have been in 18 years and I don't think I can can recall more than an handful that joined because they were out of other options.

 

[SkrewzLoose]

Scotth, Again I have to say it has more to do with who they will accept based on very old standards at MEPS. Both my father and Mike's father served. I tried to go AF but was too short for the academy standards at the time. My oldest was rejected for meds he hadn't been on in over a year. I would love to see some updating of those standards but they have more folks enlisting now so loosening them isn't really necessary.

That's 2 (personal) examples out of how many that try to join every year? I'd say that's far more the exception than it is the rule. And the standards might need to be updated, but they do NOT need to be loosened at MEPS or in the military Navy, since I'll speak just from what I see. Every day I see at least a dozen people in uniform and think to myself, "how the fuck did they get in/are they still in"? Who knows, maybe they think the same thing about me.

As for the divide, I'll offer my speculation. It seems that a majority of the teen-30something crowd is apathetic about things that don't directly impact them somehow. They just don't care. They're not volunteering, they're not going to basic training, they're not standing watch, they're not going out on patrol, they're not chipping paint, they're not flying planes or helos, they're not shooting bad guys in the face, etc... Ask someone in that age group if any of the following names ring a bell: Chesty Puller, Hap Arnold, Gen. McChrystal, Adm. McRaven, Gen. Schwarzkopf, Michael Murphy, Dakota Meyer, Sal Guinta, etc. Probably a bunch of blank stares. Add on top of that the desire to be spoon fed everything. Look at the recent batch of new members here. They come here (and I would suspect other sites as well) and expect information to be handed out while putting forth no effort to find it on their own. One of the new guys even titled his thread somewhere "Teach Me".
That's all I have for now and again, the second part is purely speculation.

 

[SkrewzLoose]

Maybe I just attract a more quality applicant, I don't know, but in my experience very few join out of desperation. The ones who are looking to join out of desperation are usually the ones that are not eligible for service.

That's because you go around to high schools telling kids you don't fucking want them if the Army is their last option.

 

[goon175]

Might be some truth to that...haha

 

[Worldweaver]

Here's an insightful look into the opinions of a growing number of general public.
"For more than a decade, Congress and the Pentagon have spent money on the nation's 1.3 million active-duty troops and their families. Salaries and benefits soared far above civilian compensation, military bases and housing were refurbished, support services like day care, family counseling and on-base college courses were expanded.
Now comes the reckoning. These personnel costs, necessary and warranted for those bearing the burden of war, are threatening to wreck the military, squeezing the accounts meant to fix or replace gear worn from a decade of war, for research and development, and for new missions in, say, Africa.
But the data is clear. Since 2001, total military compensation, including pay and benefits, grew by 20.5 percent, while comparable private-sector civilian pay did not increase at all, according to a broad Pentagon review of pay and compensation released last year. The cost of military compensation rose steeply even though the size of the active-duty force grew by only 3 percent during that period.
Part of the reason was that Congress mandated that military personnel should get an annual pay raise 1 to 1.5 percent higher than the Employment Cost Index, which measures civilian earnings."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/defense-budget-cuts_n_2584099.html
I enjoyed reading this rebuttal on Rangerup. Pay special attention to the original title of Mr. Woods article. http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/the-luxury-of-being-wrong/
"This lamentable array of words, a cheap literary hook designed to ensnare fiscally paranoid readers by construing military members as trough-feeding elites defensively crouched over burgeoning piles of cash, was inexplicably changed Tuesday. But not before Mr. Wood managed to rack up nearly 40,000 votes of approval on Facebook. And not before he managed to cultivate an ugly and undeserved myth that can only harm the soul of a nation: the myth that America’s fighting men and women are some sort of high-on-the-hog mercenary force"

 

[DA SWO]

Here's an insightful look into the opinions of a growing number of general public.
"For more than a decade, Congress and the Pentagon have spent money on the nation's 1.3 million active-duty troops and their families. Salaries and benefits soared far above civilian compensation, military bases and housing were refurbished, support services like day care, family counseling and on-base college courses were expanded.
Now comes the reckoning. These personnel costs, necessary and warranted for those bearing the burden of war, are threatening to wreck the military, squeezing the accounts meant to fix or replace gear worn from a decade of war, for research and development, and for new missions in, say, Africa.
But the data is clear. Since 2001, total military compensation, including pay and benefits, grew by 20.5 percent, while comparable private-sector civilian pay did not increase at all, according to a broad Pentagon review of pay and compensation released last year. The cost of military compensation rose steeply even though the size of the active-duty force grew by only 3 percent during that period.
Part of the reason was that Congress mandated that military personnel should get an annual pay raise 1 to 1.5 percent higher than the Employment Cost Index, which measures civilian earnings."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/defense-budget-cuts_n_2584099.html
I enjoyed reading this rebuttal on Rangerup. Pay special attention to the original title of Mr. Woods article. http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/the-luxury-of-being-wrong/
"This lamentable array of words, a cheap literary hook designed to ensnare fiscally paranoid readers by construing military members as trough-feeding elites defensively crouched over burgeoning piles of cash, was inexplicably changed Tuesday. But not before Mr. Wood managed to rack up nearly 40,000 votes of approval on Facebook. And not before he managed to cultivate an ugly and undeserved myth that can only harm the soul of a nation: the myth that America’s fighting men and women are some sort of high-on-the-hog mercenary force"

Those pay raises were required because we were at war with a volunteer Army.
Those pay raises would not have been required had more American's volunteered when times were good.

Some of those pay raises go away real soon; Combat Pay (this needs overhaul). TSGLI (I may have an incorrect acronym). and a few others.

Some of these have gone away: Tax free pay has been reduced to days actually in the war zone.

 

[Marauder06]

Those pay raises were required because we were at war with a volunteer Army.
Those pay raises would not have been required had more American's volunteered when times were good.

Some of those pay raises go away real soon; Combat Pay (this needs overhaul). TSGLI (I may have an incorrect acronym). and a few others.

Some of these have gone away: Tax free pay has been reduced to days actually in the war zone.

I agree. And the last bit should have happened a loooong time ago. All the old policy did was to encourage rampant abuse of the system.

 

[DA SWO]

I agree. And the last bit should have happened a loooong time ago. All the old policy did was to encourage rampant abuse of the system.

Yes. Funny thing, when I was flying in/out of El Salvador we got $0.00 combat pay because we did not spend 7 consecutive days on the ground.

When did the 1 day=pay start? Bosnia?

I think the 7 days for pay (not necessarily consecutive) would have eliminated the abuse we saw from the AF and Army (Navy) in Bosnia, Kosovo, and CentCom AOR's.

We also need a 3 tiered combat pay system. Guys/gals in Afghanistan with a real threat get top level.

Folks in Kuwait (3rd Army types for the most part) get the next level, and missions in Bosnia/Kosovo get a minimum level of pay.

 

[Ranger Psych]

I thought there was already that with Hazard pay and combat tax exclusion. Figure out what pays more and have that be the "in the shit" bit

 

[Tropicana98]

"You're in the Army... and you got into Yale?" :-/

Honestly, it doesn't even go that far "You're in the Army and you have a degree?!?!?!" is sufficient enough to raise eyebrows.

 

[james skeans]

I think the problem may be some civilians may see people in the Armed Forces as a threat--something like if Marshall Law was declared the soldiers may be the ones that lock them up. I think they see an arm of the U.S. government that may one day be used against them.But i know in my heart that soldiers are Americans just like civilians,with families here in the States, and are no different than civilians other than being trained and most have seen the horrors of war.I think in my heart that if a time comes, most Armed Forces personnel would remember their oath to the Constitution and not to the president--and would be against any kind of war with the American civilian people.Thank you for your service as well