4 ms·

More than fair and forces a more real and deep skin in the game for those more hawkish around defend their own land. ::marginally-related:: For the US folks, h

by braza 2y ago

More than fair and forces a more real and deep skin in the game for those more hawkish around defend their own land. ::marginally-related:: For the US folks, how you feel with this kind of discrepancy around people hawkish around military involvement but not directly having that kind of skin in the game? In some point in past I was living in Wyoming and saw all the poles around the main avenue with a lot of young military folks in KIA/MIA pictures as some way of remembrance and at the same time guys in talking heads show asking for more military personnel in the same conflict. (PS: No horse in the race in this current conflict).

maskil 2y ago
The Hareidi parties are actually the least hawkish in the current government, and historically were equally willing to prop up left wing governments. "Security" related issues are not on their agenda.
- jfengel 2y ago
  You're correct; they are mostly neutral on those issues. But note that "least hawkish in the current government" is an extremely low bar to cross.
alistairSH 2y ago
The whole ultra-orthodox situation is weird to me - not only did they get out of compulsory military service, they also receive massive welfare benefits that apparently aren't generally available (few of them work - they spend all their time studying). But, I don't know anything beyond what I'm reading in US-based newspapers, so maybe there's more to it. As for the situation in the US - I definitely hate that hawkish politicians rarely have any skin in the game. I might have a warped view living in DC, but the senior officer corp is often made up of generational military. And the enlisted soldiers are very often from disadvantaged areas. Having a volunteer military is a good thing, but it feels like (no data to back this up) we're well along the path of creating a military "caste" or two. If anybody has data about the family histories of current enlisted soldiers and officers, I'd be interested to see if my thought bares out.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  It's worth noting that back in the medieval ages, most of the nobles (sometimes even the king) would be on the frontlines with the peasants, men-at-arms, and everyone in between. The ruling class could win and more importantly lose everything including their lives in an instant every time they went to war. Contrast now where the politicians declaring wars and the generals commanding them seldom leave their gilded halls and fortified bunkers deep in the homeland. Wars are easier to wage when you don't have to stick your own neck out. The advent of unmanned warfare will probably make this worse before it can get better.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    > ...back in the medieval ages... You can just go back to the WWII era, and leading American families were pulling strings to make sure their younger sons were serving in the military - with a strong preference for front-line combat positions. Look at Joseph / John / Robert / Edward Kennedy. George Bush Sr. was one of the youngest combat pilots in the U.S. Navy. All four of President Roosevelt's sons served in WWII; as did his only son-in-law. Etc., etc.
- KittenInABox 2y ago
  There was actually a study in 2017 about this... "The authors conclude the implications are mixed. On the positive side of the ledger, they report that the United States now possesses a more ready and professionalized military than ever before. On the negative side, this force consists of a dwindling percentage of the population, who are more isolated from mainstream American society than ever before. As a growing percentage of service members and officers are coming from military families themselves, the choice to join the military is becoming more akin to a decision to join the family business. The result is greater divisions between the “Warrior Caste” and the civilian population than the numbers would indicate if taken at face value. " https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/1428887/deconstructing-the-warrior-caste-the-beliefs-and-backgrounds-of-senior-military/ https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/1428887/deconstructi...
  - alistairSH 2y ago

by braza 2y ago

maskil 2y ago

The Hareidi parties are actually the least hawkish in the current government, and historically were equally willing to prop up left wing governments. "Security" related issues are not on their agenda.

jfengel 2y ago
You're correct; they are mostly neutral on those issues. But note that "least hawkish in the current government" is an extremely low bar to cross.

alistairSH 2y ago

The whole ultra-orthodox situation is weird to me - not only did they get out of compulsory military service, they also receive massive welfare benefits that apparently aren't generally available (few of them work - they spend all their time studying). But, I don't know anything beyond what I'm reading in US-based newspapers, so maybe there's more to it. As for the situation in the US - I definitely hate that hawkish politicians rarely have any skin in the game. I might have a warped view living in DC, but the senior officer corp is often made up of generational military. And the enlisted soldiers are very often from disadvantaged areas. Having a volunteer military is a good thing, but it feels like (no data to back this up) we're well along the path of creating a military "caste" or two. If anybody has data about the family histories of current enlisted soldiers and officers, I'd be interested to see if my thought bares out.

Dalewyn 2y ago
It's worth noting that back in the medieval ages, most of the nobles (sometimes even the king) would be on the frontlines with the peasants, men-at-arms, and everyone in between. The ruling class could win and more importantly lose everything including their lives in an instant every time they went to war. Contrast now where the politicians declaring wars and the generals commanding them seldom leave their gilded halls and fortified bunkers deep in the homeland. Wars are easier to wage when you don't have to stick your own neck out. The advent of unmanned warfare will probably make this worse before it can get better.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  > ...back in the medieval ages... You can just go back to the WWII era, and leading American families were pulling strings to make sure their younger sons were serving in the military - with a strong preference for front-line combat positions. Look at Joseph / John / Robert / Edward Kennedy. George Bush Sr. was one of the youngest combat pilots in the U.S. Navy. All four of President Roosevelt's sons served in WWII; as did his only son-in-law. Etc., etc.
KittenInABox 2y ago
There was actually a study in 2017 about this... "The authors conclude the implications are mixed. On the positive side of the ledger, they report that the United States now possesses a more ready and professionalized military than ever before. On the negative side, this force consists of a dwindling percentage of the population, who are more isolated from mainstream American society than ever before. As a growing percentage of service members and officers are coming from military families themselves, the choice to join the military is becoming more akin to a decision to join the family business. The result is greater divisions between the “Warrior Caste” and the civilian population than the numbers would indicate if taken at face value. " https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/1428887/deconstructing-the-warrior-caste-the-beliefs-and-backgrounds-of-senior-military/ https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/1428887/deconstructi...
- alistairSH 2y ago