Why do we live in such a Militaristic Society? And is there anything we can do to change it?

[NNN0LHI]

http://robwbright.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/americas-militaristic-society-and-goverment/

America’s Militaristic Society and Government

by Fred Reed

I wonder whether the United States hadn’t ought to re-ponder the place of the military in society and in the world. There is not the slightest chance that this will happen, but wondering has not yet been forbidden. It appears to me that bureaucratic clotting set in years back, and is now having its effect in spheres martial. A robust economy can afford frivolities that one in derobustion cannot. And that is where America is.

The US military is the military of World War II, but with better technology. The Navy still consists of carriers surrounded by ships intended to protect the carriers. The heart of the army is still armored and infantry divisions with artillery and close-air support. The Air Force too. All are designed to fight enemies like themselves. However, there are no enemies like themselves, and WWII forces do not well fight the enemies they do have, such as ragtag dispersed guerrillas, because they are not intended to fight them.

Why a World War II military? Because of institutional inertia, because men delight in fast, powerful things that make loud and stirring noises, because the ships and tanks and submarines are magnificent. Relinquishing them is too painful to contemplate. Instead of changing its forces to suit present needs, the Pentagon keeps them as they are and tries to use them where they do not work well.

WWII militaries are intended to destroy expensive point targets and to conquer crucial territory. For example, they try to destroy the enemy’s aircraft and conquer his cities. This America does very well indeed. The difficulty is that dispersed guerrillas do not have any expensive point targets, crucial territory, or cities. The Pentagon is using baseball bats to fight mosquitoes. The absurdity of using a B1 intercontinental bomber for close air support is manifest. But you’ve got the plane, the pilots don’t want to miss the war, and so you find something for them to bomb.

A current American weakness is that it has a small army. Controlling large countries full of dispersed enemies requires large armies. America’s is a small army because it is an All Volunteer army. Not many young men want to be soldiers. The Pentagon likes the All-Vol for two reasons. First, volunteer soldiers are much better than unwilling short-term conscriptees. Second, the public doesn’t care if volunteers get killed. After all, they volunteered. They come from blue-collar families. These regard the death of a son as a noble sacrifice rather than a human sacrifice for large commercial firms. And they have little political influence anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

This guys spelling isn't too great but I think he may be onto something.

[Ron Green]

1. As long as we have the Sky-God rather than the Earth-God we're stuck with it.

Empire came from the idea that we're not in a nurturing and renewable situation, but that it's a one-shot, top-down, kickass deal. As long as that's the case, boys won't figure out what it is to be a real man until it's too late.

[NNN0LHI]

3. I wish I could learn to say that much in two sentences

I keep trying but I can never get my thoughts that straight.

Don

[The2ndWheel]

9. The Parable Of The Tribes

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC07/Schmoklr.htm

The new human freedom made striving for expansion and power possible. Such freedom, when multiplied, creates anarchy. The anarchy among civilized societies meant that the play of power in the system was uncontrollable. In an anarchic situation like that, no one can choose that the struggle for power shall cease. But there is one more element in the picture: no one is free to choose peace, but anyone can impose upon all the necessity for power. This is the lesson of the parable of the tribes.

Imagine a group of tribes living within reach of one another. If all choose the way of peace, then all may live in peace. But what if all but one choose peace, and that one is ambitious for expansion and conquest? What can happen to the others when confronted by an ambitious and potent neighbor? Perhaps one tribe is attacked and defeated, its people destroyed and its lands seized for the use of the victors. Another is defeated, but this one is not exterminated; rather, it is subjugated and transformed to serve the conqueror. A third seeking to avoid such disaster flees from the area into some inaccessible (and undesirable) place, and its former homeland becomes part of the growing empire of the power-seeking tribe. Let us suppose that others observing these developments decide to defend themselves in order to preserve themselves and their autonomy. But the irony is that successful defense against a power-maximizing aggressor requires a society to become more like the society that threatens it. Power can be stopped only by power, and if the threatening society has discovered ways to magnify its power through innovations in organization or technology (or whatever), the defensive society will have to transform itself into something more like its foe in order to resist the external force.

I have just outlined four possible outcomes for the threatened tribes: destruction, absorption and transformation, withdrawal, and imitation. In every one of these outcomes the ways of power are spread throughout the system. This is the parable of the tribes.

[leftstreet]

2. Stop funding it

...when the military has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber....

[ixion]

4. I fully support the demilitarizaton of society...

:woohoo:

[stray cat]

6. Kill everyone would be one way to accomplish it - not sure how else?

[BeFree]

5. WCR, Now!

We need War Care Reform - WCR.

Clinton did begin that reform by lowering DoD budgets.

[liberal N proud]

7. The United States is the latest Global Empire.

Once there was Rome
Then there was Great Britain
Now there is the United States, Although the US does not have colonies it is a global empire no less.

All ruled by military might.


What do you suppose the eventual outcome of this empire will be?

[aquart]

8. Yes. End the volunteer army. Re-institute the draft.

I can see all of you running right out to do that.

[Caliman73]

10. I don't think we are a militaristic society.

The author's last paragraph as presented by the OP contradicts the claim of militarism. Historically militaristic countries such as Germany and Japan did not have problems raising armies for the purposes of expansion. The military might raised by the US has usually been accomplished in 2 ways, by convincing people that there is a threat to the nation, and more recently, by employing technology and automation.

If anything we are an apathetic and reactionary society in which there exists a very powerful group of people who are using the military as a means to secure profits for themselves. If we were militaristic then our armed forces would be swelling with volunteers. As such it is small and has had difficulty reaching its necessary levels because most people of service age do not want to volunteer to fight in wars unnecessary to the survival of the nation.

War at this point is about power. We do not fight for survival. The military means money for subsistence to soldiers (though not much) and major profits for contractors. It means a way of securing resources, which at the end of the day equals money and power for those who run our economy. Our society in general does not benefit from war, only certain individuals gain any real advantage through it, therefore I think that we do not meet the criteria of a militaristic society.

edit to add:

We do need to stop those people who profit from war though. I agree with other posters who are saying that we need to end the all volunteer army. A sure way to decrease the desire or apathy that leads to war is to make EVERYONE including the rich have to suffer in them. I say 1, that the War Powers Act be repealed, 2, that only a very small civil defense force be allowed to exist such as the special forces, MEF, and Airborne, which could defend of project power against REAL threats, and 3, that the remainder of the military be made up of conscripts with NO EXEMPTIONS save for medical or conscientious objection.

If the Cheneys, Rumsfields, Bush Jr.'s, and Rove's of the world knew that they were going to have to actually fight rather than cheer as others went off to die, they wouldn't be so hard-on about going off to war.

[Jamastiene]

11. Quit buying the nationalism lies and

look at other people in the world as equals instead of others. Elect leaders who do the same.

[WT Fuheck]

12. If we had guns, we could fight...

but we'd need uniforms, and we'd need to learn to march...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Don't vote for hawks..no matter how scary they dress up the bogeymen.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[rocktivity]

14. We live in a militaristic society because it's so profitable to those running it.

Which was why George "I Am A War President" Bush was so gung-ho about turbo-charging it. And it's funny you should mention WWII, because that's precisely when our war machine first started turning.


rocktivity

[dhpgetsit]

15. Since we moved away from hunter/gatherer society, we have become more warlike.

Warlike cultures have conquered and eradicated more peaceful ones century after century. Thus, warlike cultures have come to dominate humanity.