7 ms·

They join the military for a variety of reasons, which may or may not have involved any feelings about any conflict at hand much less the media. The reason they

They join the military for a variety of reasons, which may or may not have involved any feelings about any conflict at hand much less the media. The reason they go to war, however, is because of old men.

coolsunglasses 11y ago
>is because of old men. This is a typical modernist redaction of the will to violence that is common to young men. Past societies found ways to incorporate, normalize, redirect, celebrate that will - now we pathologize it. This is because we think we can mutate the human condition into something better.
- _delirium 11y ago
  I don't think that's accurate, if we're discussing what actually motivates military deployments. There are exceptions, but in most wars the enlisted men themselves have not been the ones chomping at the bit to be sent to war. Rather, they were sent by older men serving in government, who did not themselves participate in the fighting, often over considerable dissent from the rank and file. In some cases, such as the U.S.'s participation in Vietnam, the wars were exceedingly unpopular among the young people actually sent to fight them.
  - coolsunglasses 11y ago
    >if we're discussing what actually motivates military deployments Sure, but don't try to weave a narrative around the idea that old men are the only ones eager for war. >Vietnam Poor timing, poorly managed, generally a waste of time, and therefore unpopular, yes.
  - 67726e 11y ago
    I don't think that's an entirely accurate depiction, given the article. I believe this is strictly in a modern context, and given that every soldier, sailor, Marine, and airman is a volunteer, it misses the point. We can point at Cheney and Rumsfeld and Halliburton, but as the article states, this robs every service member of his or her agency. The reason every one of my friends from high school went to war is because they wanted to. Some wanted to serve their country, defend it's freedoms. Some wanted to spill blood. I very nearly went down that path myself, and some nights I wonder why I didn't. Sometimes I think it's not too late. Perhaps they were hypnotized and lack free will, maybe our NJROTC instructors indoctrinated them in a way that didn't have an affect on me. Why is it so pervasive? I'm young, make a killing writing software - something I've loved doing since a young age - and yet I can't help but think I should enlist (I simply lack the desire to complete my degree, so getting a commission is not a reality). I lust for the thought of besting other young men, I want to win, I want to be the one standing when the dust settles. Maybe it will sate that appetite, maybe it will give me some appreciation for the world that I lack. Who is to say? I don't feel the desire to go out and slay my fellow man, except in that one specific context. I shared the article because it rang very close the home, and I suspect it would for each and every one of my friends.
    - _delirium 11y ago
      If someone joins during a war, I agree, they are usually doing that of their own accord, modulo a few people who maybe felt they had no other economic/etc. choice. But that's not that many people, which is why the U.S. military started having recruiting problems after they launched the Iraq and Afghanistan wars: many people who had previously signed up now regretted it, and the supply of new volunteers dwindled. My own experience with classmates is quite different, but it sounds like it's a few years prior, so it might already be out of date. Around when my friends and I graduated high school (~1999-2000) the military was seen as a reasonable career path with a primarily deterrent and strategic role, and a fairly low chance of offensive deployment. And the reserves were seen as a last-ditch force that would effectively only be called up if the U.S. or a NATO ally were invaded. Many of my classmates who entered around then signed on for this mission, and didn't agree with subsequent decisions made by the political branches to change their role. The "stop-loss orders" of 2002–03, in which they were not allowed to discharge at their originally agreed discharge date, and the calling up of the reserves for something that did not really fit the prior understanding of how reserves would be used (both done as desperate measures to make up for volunteer numbers absolutely tanking), were particularly unpopular, and at that point many no longer felt like they were still volunteers. I feel myself like I dodged a bullet by not going that path (I had talked to a recruiter in 1999, who painted a fairly appealing story about technical careers in the military).
      - 67726e 11y ago
        We certainly have a time difference, I was born in '93, so we all came of age throughout the war, and by the time we graduated (2011) and could enlist, the war had raged and begun to wane. The cards had fallen, and anyone with half a brain could look at the facts for what had happened. My view of the US, by that point, had morphed from that of a patriot to that of a dissident. Given the NSA revelations, I could almost say I have a hatred for our government, but the military seems to represents something else. To this day I feel bad for those who fought in Iraq (2003), because I think many (most?) were duped. Yet that urge remains. Perhaps the years of recruitment tools disguised as video games and the notion of the "warrior" were just far too ingrained in my head, but I entered high school (in fact, I started in middle school in a pre-JROTC program to get a head start over the others) dove head first into the NJROTC program with the intent to get a head start on enlistment. I ate that shit up! Ultimately, after a series of (un)fortunate events, I walked out of high school with a jaded outlook and a full-ride scholarship, so enlistment wasn't in the cards. I don't quite know just what it is that keeps enticing me, maybe it's a desire for a fresh start, maybe I'm a bloodthirsty baby-killer, or maybe it's biological. It's probably a mix of many things, but I can't help but think there is a desire to prove oneself as a man. I'm very introspective, but I just cannot put my finger on what it is.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Past societies found ways to incorporate, normalize, redirect, celebrate that will - now we pathologize it. Any examples? Blood sport and dueling comes to mind, though I am skeptical of their desirability. Perhaps the latter might be reinstated as a voluntary contract for consenting adults, but it's treading a fine line.
  - coolsunglasses 11y ago
    Consider the cultural norms of old European sword nobility. Soldiers, particularly those that saw combat, aren't treated at all in the same way today as they were 100, 500, 1000 years ago. Pre-axial religions were more to my point than axial-age, universalizing faiths like Christianity, Buddhism, Islam. For example, human and animal sacrifice. A different example not centered on violence: carnival. >though I am skeptical of their desirability. Perhaps the latter might be reinstated as a voluntary contract for consenting adults, but it's treading a fine line. That's fine, but you need to realize that this viewpoint is about an ideal societal arrangement and doesn't accord with the entire range of human desire.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      I'd wager that there was also a higher per capita distribution of soldiers back then. That there was a consistent ethos as to their treatment is dubious. It's interesting you mention a century ago. Here is a prime example of the good treatment soldiers received back then, on top of the involuntary experimentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army Human sacrifice certainly might be an ideal arrangement. Though I'm not sure which meaning of ideal - one of optimal efficiency, or one of opposition to reality. If young men really are so bloodthirsty and violent and this should be celebrated, voluntary blood sport is probably the best bet. Ultimately, avoidance of gratuitous death is a good thing.
  - Symmetry 11y ago
    Or if you go back further raiding, blood feuds, and that sort of thing. The formation of states with their monopolies on violence was a huge change in the human condition. We certainly gave up something fundamental to the human condition when we decided that personal vengeance was anathema. But still, I think it was a good trade.
- didibus 11y ago
  You talk of past societies as if they were less at war. I'm not sure you should use the argument of the romanticized past. Pretty sure it would fall under one of those common fallacy: "Golden Age Fallacy" or "Appeal to tradition fallacy".
ekianjo 11y ago
> because of old men Erm, Because of old, blood-thirsty politicians. Do not basket all peace-loving old men along with them, please.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  All cows are animals, not all animals are cows. Most of the war mongering politicians are in fact old men.

coolsunglasses 11y ago

>is because of old men. This is a typical modernist redaction of the will to violence that is common to young men. Past societies found ways to incorporate, normalize, redirect, celebrate that will - now we pathologize it. This is because we think we can mutate the human condition into something better.

_delirium 11y ago
I don't think that's accurate, if we're discussing what actually motivates military deployments. There are exceptions, but in most wars the enlisted men themselves have not been the ones chomping at the bit to be sent to war. Rather, they were sent by older men serving in government, who did not themselves participate in the fighting, often over considerable dissent from the rank and file. In some cases, such as the U.S.'s participation in Vietnam, the wars were exceedingly unpopular among the young people actually sent to fight them.
- coolsunglasses 11y ago
  >if we're discussing what actually motivates military deployments Sure, but don't try to weave a narrative around the idea that old men are the only ones eager for war. >Vietnam Poor timing, poorly managed, generally a waste of time, and therefore unpopular, yes.
- 67726e 11y ago
  I don't think that's an entirely accurate depiction, given the article. I believe this is strictly in a modern context, and given that every soldier, sailor, Marine, and airman is a volunteer, it misses the point. We can point at Cheney and Rumsfeld and Halliburton, but as the article states, this robs every service member of his or her agency. The reason every one of my friends from high school went to war is because they wanted to. Some wanted to serve their country, defend it's freedoms. Some wanted to spill blood. I very nearly went down that path myself, and some nights I wonder why I didn't. Sometimes I think it's not too late. Perhaps they were hypnotized and lack free will, maybe our NJROTC instructors indoctrinated them in a way that didn't have an affect on me. Why is it so pervasive? I'm young, make a killing writing software - something I've loved doing since a young age - and yet I can't help but think I should enlist (I simply lack the desire to complete my degree, so getting a commission is not a reality). I lust for the thought of besting other young men, I want to win, I want to be the one standing when the dust settles. Maybe it will sate that appetite, maybe it will give me some appreciation for the world that I lack. Who is to say? I don't feel the desire to go out and slay my fellow man, except in that one specific context. I shared the article because it rang very close the home, and I suspect it would for each and every one of my friends.
  - _delirium 11y ago
    If someone joins during a war, I agree, they are usually doing that of their own accord, modulo a few people who maybe felt they had no other economic/etc. choice. But that's not that many people, which is why the U.S. military started having recruiting problems after they launched the Iraq and Afghanistan wars: many people who had previously signed up now regretted it, and the supply of new volunteers dwindled. My own experience with classmates is quite different, but it sounds like it's a few years prior, so it might already be out of date. Around when my friends and I graduated high school (~1999-2000) the military was seen as a reasonable career path with a primarily deterrent and strategic role, and a fairly low chance of offensive deployment. And the reserves were seen as a last-ditch force that would effectively only be called up if the U.S. or a NATO ally were invaded. Many of my classmates who entered around then signed on for this mission, and didn't agree with subsequent decisions made by the political branches to change their role. The "stop-loss orders" of 2002–03, in which they were not allowed to discharge at their originally agreed discharge date, and the calling up of the reserves for something that did not really fit the prior understanding of how reserves would be used (both done as desperate measures to make up for volunteer numbers absolutely tanking), were particularly unpopular, and at that point many no longer felt like they were still volunteers. I feel myself like I dodged a bullet by not going that path (I had talked to a recruiter in 1999, who painted a fairly appealing story about technical careers in the military).
    - 67726e 11y ago
      We certainly have a time difference, I was born in '93, so we all came of age throughout the war, and by the time we graduated (2011) and could enlist, the war had raged and begun to wane. The cards had fallen, and anyone with half a brain could look at the facts for what had happened. My view of the US, by that point, had morphed from that of a patriot to that of a dissident. Given the NSA revelations, I could almost say I have a hatred for our government, but the military seems to represents something else. To this day I feel bad for those who fought in Iraq (2003), because I think many (most?) were duped. Yet that urge remains. Perhaps the years of recruitment tools disguised as video games and the notion of the "warrior" were just far too ingrained in my head, but I entered high school (in fact, I started in middle school in a pre-JROTC program to get a head start over the others) dove head first into the NJROTC program with the intent to get a head start on enlistment. I ate that shit up! Ultimately, after a series of (un)fortunate events, I walked out of high school with a jaded outlook and a full-ride scholarship, so enlistment wasn't in the cards. I don't quite know just what it is that keeps enticing me, maybe it's a desire for a fresh start, maybe I'm a bloodthirsty baby-killer, or maybe it's biological. It's probably a mix of many things, but I can't help but think there is a desire to prove oneself as a man. I'm very introspective, but I just cannot put my finger on what it is.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Past societies found ways to incorporate, normalize, redirect, celebrate that will - now we pathologize it. Any examples? Blood sport and dueling comes to mind, though I am skeptical of their desirability. Perhaps the latter might be reinstated as a voluntary contract for consenting adults, but it's treading a fine line.
- coolsunglasses 11y ago
  Consider the cultural norms of old European sword nobility. Soldiers, particularly those that saw combat, aren't treated at all in the same way today as they were 100, 500, 1000 years ago. Pre-axial religions were more to my point than axial-age, universalizing faiths like Christianity, Buddhism, Islam. For example, human and animal sacrifice. A different example not centered on violence: carnival. >though I am skeptical of their desirability. Perhaps the latter might be reinstated as a voluntary contract for consenting adults, but it's treading a fine line. That's fine, but you need to realize that this viewpoint is about an ideal societal arrangement and doesn't accord with the entire range of human desire.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    I'd wager that there was also a higher per capita distribution of soldiers back then. That there was a consistent ethos as to their treatment is dubious. It's interesting you mention a century ago. Here is a prime example of the good treatment soldiers received back then, on top of the involuntary experimentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army Human sacrifice certainly might be an ideal arrangement. Though I'm not sure which meaning of ideal - one of optimal efficiency, or one of opposition to reality. If young men really are so bloodthirsty and violent and this should be celebrated, voluntary blood sport is probably the best bet. Ultimately, avoidance of gratuitous death is a good thing.
- Symmetry 11y ago
  Or if you go back further raiding, blood feuds, and that sort of thing. The formation of states with their monopolies on violence was a huge change in the human condition. We certainly gave up something fundamental to the human condition when we decided that personal vengeance was anathema. But still, I think it was a good trade.
didibus 11y ago
You talk of past societies as if they were less at war. I'm not sure you should use the argument of the romanticized past. Pretty sure it would fall under one of those common fallacy: "Golden Age Fallacy" or "Appeal to tradition fallacy".

ekianjo 11y ago

> because of old men Erm, Because of old, blood-thirsty politicians. Do not basket all peace-loving old men along with them, please.

jacquesm 11y ago
All cows are animals, not all animals are cows. Most of the war mongering politicians are in fact old men.