Where will the warriors go? *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Mar 04 2009 at 9:05 am | Filed under: Military
In one of my email lists, one of the correspondents, who is ex-military, voiced his concern that, if America collapses per Obama’s plan, enlistments and re-enlistments in the military will collapse too. After all, why should a young man or woman enlist if there’s nothing left to fight for. His question was well-timed, because a visit to Goodwill yesterday (where I, the ultimate cheapskate, love to buy books) left me thinking along those same lines.
One of the books available was Generation Kill
As it was, though, that book jacket got me thinking. First, I thought about George Orwell’s famous quotation that “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” Given that there are men who are warriors to the bone, we should all be grateful that they are willing to take on the jobs that the weak, effete, lazy, scared, inept and ideologically opposed among us are unwilling to do. I also thought, thank God these men are on my side and not on someone else’s.
My friend’s question this morning, about whether there’ll be anything left for these men to join, forced me to expand upon my thought process.
If we no longer give these men a moral Army in which to fight, if we no longer provide them with an outlet for their warrior spirit, where will that spirit go? Instead of willingly donning a uniform to fight abroad to keep Americans safe at home, will these same men become the predators in our land? In the latter case, they won’t be driven anymore by a positive ideology, but they’ll still have that craving for battle and excitement that will have to have some outlet. And the 19 year old who earns medals for exemplary bravery in combat, deprived of a meaningful outlet for that energy, could very well become the gang leader preying on innocents in some American city.
UPDATE: A couple of my milblogger friends have expressed concern that I’m implying that Americans who serve in the military are killers who will kill wherever they go. I clearly expressed myself badly if that’s what my friends thought. Here’s the response I gave to them, in which I try to make my point more clearly:
I don’t mean to imply that guys in the military are mindless killers, who will kill no matter the venue or circumstances. I do think, though, that young men need a place to take their entirely appropriate male energy. A society that closes those avenues is creating problems for itself. If the military becomes useless because it no longer stands for anything, the young men have to go somewhere. A lot of them will just work — assuming there is an economy in which to do so. But if there’s no work, nothing to fight for, and nothing to lose, all of you’ve get is a lot of natural testosterone floating around, looking for something to do. And that’s when trouble can happen, not because these guys are bad, but because we’ve shut them down at every turn.
In other words, I’m not talking anymore about the military and the young men (and women) who serve in it. I’m talking more broadly about a culture that ignores male needs. Incidentally, I think the fact that so many young men today engage in mindlessly dangerous activities, such as cliff jumping and other extreme sports, is because they need precisely that adrenalin-rushing outlet. In the old days, those guys would have been naturals for military service, but they’ve been raised in homes that characterize the military as irredeemably evil, so they take that same verve, and energy, and bravery, and jump off a cliff. Likewise, I think the proliferation of computer war games is another sign that the energy is there but that, culturally, the doors are shut for so many boys and men.
Email This Post To A Friend
31 Responses to “Where will the warriors go? *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you for that post, Book.
If you truly want a wonderful book about the military, I strongly recommend “Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts” by Robert Kaplan (of the Atlantic Monthly). Kaplan is a Liberal that imbedded with U.S. forces all over the world in all services. He describes imbedding with soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, with Special Forces in the Sahara, with a missile destroyer in the Indian Ocean, a nuclear submarine in the Pacific and a B-2 bomber out of Guam, among other experiences. His admiration for the people with whom he imbedded in the military is awesome.
>> And the 19 year old who earns medals for exemplary bravery in combat, deprived of a meaningful outlet for that energy, could very well become the gang leader preying on innocents in some American city.
Book,
My thought is that a well-reasoned soldier, who truly does love his nation (and Republic) understands that from time to time, leaders and parties will come into power with whom he disagrees. And you stick that time out. You survive it. Because sooner or later, your patriots will be back in power again.
However: The damage could become so great that the country collapses. In fact, history proves that that always happens at some point. Though which crisis can be recovered from, and which leads to collapse, is hard to see while it’s happening.
I expect that the best of the soldiers, in the case of collapse, become powerful within a resistance movement. I can’t see them discarding their core of honor and duty for leading an inner-city gang. These gangs don’t have honor, they’ve got no conception of duty. They all run drugs, they all threaten the people of their communities. Hard to see an honorable soldier being involved in all of that.
Your run-of-the-mill soldier, who adapts to life in the military by following its example, without truly adopting it as his internal code, can possibly move instead into a gang-life by simply adopting its code. But the praise-worthy, admirable soldiers… I just can’t see it.
With all due respect, I don’t think your friend is correct. If the economy collapses, the armed forces will have an easier time recruiting, for they will provide a job for people. Questions then arise as to what type of people will be recruited, and how (and where) will the armed forces be used.
I don’t think that her friend is really refering to just the economy. He’s refering to capitalism, our system of government, our communal moral values. Considering where the military gets most of its recruits, particularly officers, I can see where he is coming from. Officers and soldiers swear an oath to defend the Constitution, and if it gets to the point where it is doubtful that our government still holds to it, it has the potential to create real unrest. It won’t happen all at once, but it would be in the back of everyone’s mind, and all it might take would be one questionable order from on high to really demolish the unity.
There’s an old sea story in the Marine Corps about a Lieutenant who inspected his Marines in the field, and afterward told the “Gunny” that the men smelled bad. The Lieutenant suggested the solution would be to change their underwear. So the Gunny responded, “Aye aye sir, I’ll see to it immediately!” The Gunny went straight to the squad. “The lieutenant thinks you guys smell bad, and wants you to change your underwear. Smith, you change with Jones, McCarthy, you change with Witkowsky, and Brown, you change with Schultz. Now get to it!”
THE MORAL: A candidate may promise ‘change’ in Washington , but don’t count on things smelling any better.
>>But the praise-worthy, admirable soldiers… I just can’t see it.>>
But you’re starting at the end of the circle…you’re probably correct in this statement, but the young men who sign up for the military – most today probably have a counter-cultural upbringing and frame of reference, but they’re still young and probably vulnerable to propaganda. If they are conditioned to a different frame of reference, I could see them going “wrong”. The question is, of course, who’s going to be doing the training and propagandizing. The left isn’t exactly known for it’s militaristic training.
I’m more inclined to think that they’ll be involved in the resistance somehow, Not sure how. I’ve proposed it in other places and been somewhat “slapped down”. The thing that works in our favor is the speed with which Obama has implemented his agenda – no time to remove commanders who are “resistant” and replace them with politically compliant commanders.
>>the armed forces will have an easier time recruiting, for they will provide a job for people>>
How will they be paid? Do you really think they’ll end payments to Medicaid and SS before they defund the military???
If I were an Obamaist (not to worry, I’m too smart and I don’t hate America enough) I would engineer the collapse of the economy to force young men into the services. But I’d make sure that I recruited clueless, aimless lowlifes whom I could manipulate into becoming a corps like the SA or SS—obedient, bloodthirsty men who will do whatever is necessary to protect hope and change if an armed resistance forms in opposition.
Timing will be crucial here. As others have rightly pointed out, the government is not the United States or its constitution. If at some point Obama oversteps his constitutional bounds he may well face rebellion within the military ranks. The question will be how fierce and extensive it will be. Since there are more Powell-like wusses at the top of the U.S. military hierarchy than there are warriors, an Obamafied military command would probably move as swiftly and viciously as possible to quell it.
There is no good scenario here. Our only prayer is that the military will hold out better than our other now almost thoroughly co-opted institutions (Congress, the Supreme Court, the academy, the media and the “mainstream” churches).
Greetings:
There are certain parallels between Bookworm’s initial premise and my own life story. I grew up in the Bronx in the ’50s and the ’60s. I played basketball in high school and my first (and almost last) year of college, which as my WWII-graduate father used to say kept me “tired and out of trouble”. After I failed out of college, there was a certain amount of allure from the local organized criminal element in our neighborhood from which I was rescued by the Selective Service Administration.
Hopefully, this first paragraph conveys a couple of important ideas of mine. One is that I grew up in a culture that had been successful in its WWII effort and that most of the menfolk had participated in that effort. The other is that the existence of the military draft clearly established the responsibility of menfolk to participate in the defense of their country and its goals. Thus, there was both a personal and societal affirmation of what George Orwell so pithily observed.
Unfortunately, things were to change significantly. The all-expense paid trips to sunny South Viet Nam drew a much smaller percentage of the male population. And, not long after, the Congress delivered the menfolk from the crushing burden of the military draft. Thus, in at least these two aspects, a large part of the population had a much different experience of, how should I say it, “things military.” In a kind of “damning with faint praise” scenario, significant parts of the male population were “educated” away from their primal responsibility of protecting the family, tribe, country, toward a concept of “this, too, can be outsourced” via both the nonfeasance of lack of interpersonal contact and the malfeasance of those who were to take control of our educational system.
Thus, we find ourselves today a society that is running not only a fiscal deficit but also a military deficit. The major negative outcome from our “all volunteer” armed forces is that our military is sorely understaffed. If it were not for the introduction of a large percentage (10-15%) of womenfolk into the military, primarily in response to a feminist agenda of dubious military advantage, our armed forces would be in even worse shape. We are struggling and will continue to struggle to keep some 200,000 troops active in the two current primary theaters of war. Yet, any mention or discussion of a re-instated military draft is anathema. This kind of thinking is neither clear nor strategic.
One of the advantages that I see in the military draft is similar to putting a percentage of your paycheck in your savings account (however anachronistic that concept may be). Near universal military service provides a reservoir of military ability; a population that has been both desensitized from its civilian ways and expectations and, at least somewhat, skilled in the military arts. In my youth, even those who were drafted, technically, had a six-year obligation, only two of which, thankfully, were usually active duty. (If I remember correctly, two more years were regular reserve, which might require monthly meetings, and two more years were inactive reserve.) Nowadays, this advantage has been foresworn.
Now, I would like to address the “warrior ethos” aspect. When I was doing my military service, it was commonly believed that each combat troop (infantry, artillery & armor) required eight or nine support troops (clerks & jerks, if you will allow me some reminiscent humor). My point here being that military does not necessarily equal warrior, not that there’s anything wrong with that. Even within the combat arms there will be a range along the warrior ethos bell curve. I think that most people are unfamiliar with how combat groups sort themselves out sociologically. In my infantry company, if you had the “goods in the woods” you would probably walk a good bit of point (go first toward the enemy). If you weren’t much of a rifleman, you would probably find yourself in the mortar platoon carrying mortar rounds. I have no reason to believe that there isn’t an infantry Pareto Effect, where 80% of the kills are done by 20% of the troops. There, in my experience, is also what I used to call the “basketball” effect; it’s hard to tell who is going to have a big game ahead of time. Bottom line, I think that there is probably a lot of variation in this “warrior ethos.” But, I also believe that it is somewhat “amp-ed” up due to better combat training, our all volunteer force, and our current conflicts.
When I returned from Southeast Asia in 1970, one of the things that struck me was the portrayal of Vietnam veterans on TV. It seemed that the large majority of them were some kind of evil-doers. This was very much different from the portrayals of WWII or even Korean veterans. I attributed it to anger about the VN war and the lack of personal familiarity with VN, or any other, veterans. My father served in the Pacific and I remember my mother telling me how he had had violent dreams that would wake and scare her. But, she also told me, he never hurt her and that the dreams dissipated over time. I think that the farther removed large parts of our population become from our soldiers and veterans the more believable blurbs like that from the “Generation Kill” book jacket will become. This, too, will be to our detriment.
“Our only prayer is that the military will hold out better than our other now almost thoroughly co-opted institutions (Congress, the Supreme Court, the academy, the media and the “mainstream” churches).”
That sets the bar pretty low, Charles. I retain great faith in our military (on the whole, keeping in mind the military is composed of individuals who are as diverse as the nation they serve) and in the greater mass of Americans who aren’t part of the political and chattering classes, aren’t media elites or academic leftists or fashionably stupid artists, aren’t middle class Stepford Democrats or members of those liberal protestant churches who have turned the Blood of Christ into Milk of Magnesia to sooth their weak pharisee souls and plump bellies. I think America has a tough, stubborn hide that will resist Obamafication.
11B40 #8:
>> I think that the farther removed large parts of our population become from our soldiers and veterans the more believable blurbs like that from the “Generation Kill” book jacket will become.
Zhombre #9:
>> I think America has a tough, stubborn hide that will resist Obamafication.
I’ll go with 11B40 over Zhombre on this one. I base that on the idea that people respond to their environment; and on the main example of that: What happened to the inner-city black communities because of LBJ, the Democrats, and the “War on Poverty”, which in thirty years – only two generations – destroyed almost everything admirable that they’d had. Their leaders, their parents, their schools… EVERYONE bought into it, and it was a one-way road to oblivion. And they have paid a terrible price.
Young men who would have gone into the military… if they don’t choose the military, what in God’s name is left for them to choose that will provide them positive options for learning an honorable manhood? Book was speaking of the aggressive, action-oriented, risk-taking, prideful young man. If the military is not an option, there isn’t another honorable one out there that I can see.
Book’s friend said:
>> After all, why should a young man or woman enlist if there’s nothing left to fight for.
I misunderstood the question. Those in the military won’t return to join gangs. But those who might have joined the military, and been fortunate, may well turn to gangs. And be unfortunate. Unfortunate for themselves, and the rest of us as well.
To continue. . .
I just spoke with my cousin in Texas, an ex-Green Beret who is advising me on what pistol I should buy and begin learning how to use.
Our conversation soon focused on what the climate is in the military these days after the ascension of Obama. He said that large numbers of troops will not re-enlist because they will not serve under a Marxist. When I told him that that would open the door for the armed forces to be populated by co-opted thugs, he pointed out two things:
1. Thugs don’t take to training or discipline too well, so the quality of the armed forces will deteriorate quickly. Great news for Russia, China and Iran; bad news for Obama if he sees using the army to police the United States.
2. Those who will be leaving the military are heavily armed, highly trained and capable of rapid organization and mobilization. He thinks the South would be the most likely place where armed resistance would arise (ironic, no?), helped along by a surprisingly large contigent of disaffected Californians.
The Crazy Eddy factor here is the borders. Obama is going to let them collapse—all the better to recruit new Democrats under an amnesty. But the problem with letting large numbers of sans coulottes saunter in is that it will be an open invitation for the Mexican drug cartels to begin routine incursions into the States. A U.S. army composed of dregs could be easily bribed to look the other way whenever our borders are violated.
The sickening thing is that Obama, Pelosi, Fwank, etc., cannot see that if the U.S. fails, there is no other place to go. Talk about sawing off the limb you’re sitting on!
I commend to you this post:
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000129.html
A brief excerpt:
“If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath–a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.”
I have served in the military as have almost all my friends. The US armed forces do an excellent job at culling the wolves.
I recommend reading this essay in full.
So, Charles…what did your Texas cousin recommend (firearms, I mean)?
Danny:
He said 45mm handguns were the most effective in terms of close-in protection and stopping power. He sent me a list of pistols available from a collector he’s known for years. The guy’s getting on in age and shedding many virtually new arms for reasonable prices.
We’ll see—I’m just at the beginning of my learning curve. I’ll hunt around to find something I can afford and that has readily available ammunition, then head over to the firing range to learn how to use it.
In the meantime I’m scouting out locations in Utah as a possible new home for my wife and me. It turns out the gurgling sound that’s getting louder every day isn’t the rainwater from a current series of badly needed storms—it’s the sound of California heading down the crapper.
I’ll take Mormons over upper middle-class liberals any day of the week.
Continuing the military theme………
My Father Asks For Nothing
http://sippicancottage.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-father-asks-for-nothing.html
From a guest post by Jack Dunphy at http://patterico.com/
@CM 14- If you’re heading for Utah and are going to avoid the city I think it might be good to invest in a ranch rifle. I myself have a Ruger Mini-14 that fires .223 rounds back home. Perfect for coyotes! Another thing, though it probably doesn’t really apply to you, but it seems to me that someone who knows what they’re doing has a rifle/shotgun rather than a pistol. At least, thats what I would think if I was a burglar.
CollegeCon:
Thanks for your advice. I hear what you say about a rifle/shotgun. I think I’ll end up with both a pistol and a rifle, but want to learn the smaller arm first, then move up, I hope confidently, to the bad boy.
Charles, you probably know this but it’s a good idea to find a range that rents guns or a friend who’ll let you try his out before you make a decision on what to buy.My husband was positive he wanted a Glock and ended up with a Springfield 1911 after firing several models. There can be a big difference in how it feels in your hand, amount of recoil and how well you can shoot it. (My husband can’t hit anything with a .40, he has really nice groupings with his .45. I hate the .45 and prefer a 9mm. He wanted to buy me a Kel Tec because it’s such a small, light-weight gun he thought it would be great for me to carry. But because it’s so light it doesn’t absorb much of the recoil and kicks like a mule.) As for ammo, reloading is a nice hobby (but your wife might freak out even more vociferously than I did).
Charles – I agree with your cousin regarding the .45. I highly recommend the Kimber Ultra-Carry (light, easy to conceal, highly accurate and minimum recoil).
“I’ll take Mormons over upper middle-class liberals any day of the week.” – speaking as a non-Mormon Episcopalian who has spent much time in Utah and has made many Mormon friends, I think that you will be hard pressed, in general, to find better neighbors.
Oh yeah, one more thing: listen to Quisp’s good advice.
Regarding the quality of recruits when the economy tanks…. I enlisted in 1984. I had been unable to find any job that would enable me to live on my own, and joined the AF out of desperation. When I say desperation, it took my girlfriend a year to persuade me not to reject the idea out of hand. The military was just then recovering from Vietnam and the Carter years, and I had been brainwashed by the media.
I was surprised to find the average recruit had at least average intelligence, and as I advanced through my career, I met many brilliant people. As a group they were easily superior to the man on the street. I later learned AF recruits from the early 80s had an average reading level equal to the 11th grade – far above the national average.
As to a warrior culture, the AF didn’t encourage that in the enlisted forces, although it seems to be starting now. I don’t see any substance in the resistance idea, unless social order completely breaks down. To complete a military career requires that one learn to obey authority.
As to a military composed of dregs, the services can decide what their enlistment requirements are, and will be able to control who makes it through training, or not. The turning point will come when someone wins a lawsuit on the basis that a discharge violates their right to serve.
Charles, good luck and have fun shopping. I agree that you should try as many different guns as possible before spending. And read as much as you can. I like a 1911 in .45 caliber, but there is an ergonomically wide selection of pistols available now, so find something comfortable and FUN to shoot. If you have fun, you will inevitably become highly proficient.
Jose (#21)
>> As to a warrior culture, the AF didn’t encourage that in the enlisted forces, although it seems to be starting now. I don’t see any substance in the resistance idea, unless social order completely breaks down. To complete a military career requires that one learn to obey authority.
I’m not military. I agree that in the military one must learn to obey authority. But as you rise within the command heirarchy, isn’t it true your own responsibilities increase as well, and you have command authority within your sphere… and you must also learn to exercise authority? Or is that only true for officers? In a top-to-bottom heirarchy, the vast majority of the military is likely low-level soldiers who have little to no responsibility for exercising authority. (Is that a true statement?)
I’m interested in what our military commenters would say.
Even in a scenario of collapse, I see violent resistance as being a long way away. What we’re more likely to see is a complete collapse of respect for civilian authority and civilian law.
Hopefully all the following is not just diarrhea of the mouth…
But to follow up on the idea of the collapse of civilian authority, and how we might avoid it…
In enforcement, the police will more and more simply enforce the status quo that keeps “the ruling political class” in power – and as a result, the police will become utterly despised by most of the people. (Have you had a home or car burglary in the last two decades? Exactly how helpful in containing or solving such crimes has YOUR police dept been? Here in Dallas, they’re worse than useless. Thieves have a completely free hand, as do their fences. The police do NOTHING.)
The breakdown of civilian authority will lead more and more “marginal people” to become predators on their communities. Communities that do not want to simply collapse into anarchic misery will organize for self-protection, which the police will HATE.
In economics, the black market will expand explosively. Attempts by the police to enforce the status quo will more and more, over time, be met with violent resistance.
In other words, there will be decades of rising misery as civilization devolves due to the breakdown of civilian authority. “What went wrong?” will be the complaint.
Socialists of course will have no answer.
The usual libertarian response, focused on individual freedom, with NO corresponding emphasis on individual responsibility, will have no answer.
The social conservatives, focusing on individual responsibility, with NO corresponding emphasis on individual freedom, will have no answer.
Unless we find a way to come together to head this whole mess off. The liberal left can’t do it, because their collectivism runs counter to all of human nature itself. We on the conservative side seem to be capable of promoting only part of the solution. I think the solution lies in the proper mix of individual freedom and individual responsibility… which is why I’ve been hollering that libertarians and social conservatives need to find a way to meet each other in the middle, in that area of what I’m calling the “proper mix” of individual freedom and individual responsibility.
If you abdicate on individual freedom, you still end up enslaved to your government. It might not be collectivist, but you will still exist solely to serve your government. If you abdicate on individual responsibility, your civilization collapses around you, in a descent into anarchy of one form or another.
Libertarians will have to accept that civilization is not inevitable; in fact it is fragile and requires its people to behave responsibly, and human nature requires therefore that laws enforce responsible behavior. For civilization to thrive, we require laws regulating social behavior and promoting civilization, supporting civilization. Social conservatives have always known this. They’ve known that human nature means we are not angels, that there are differences between men and women, that raising children to become responsible adults within that civilization is the most important responsibility of all adults. That freedom leads inevitably to anarchy unless responsibility is deliberately demanded.
Social conservatives will have to accept that a civilization without human freedom is not a civilization worth living in. Therefore the minimum amount of laws that regulate human behavior in accordance with human nature, while granting as much freedom as possible without harming the flowering of civilization, creates the best society and civilization. That change is inevitable over time, and resisting change itself is useless. Wisdom requires making the correct choices, allowing for change… and perhaps both sides may need to accept that there is a wise PACE of change as well, that human nature requires gradual change, not constant revolutionary change nor zero change.
In the long run, we’ll see.
This is an interesting question concerning the loyalty and obedience of the armed forces. David Weber’s Insurrection hit upon it. Other novels such as John Ring’s Posleen series (the primary plot one) covered it, but not in depth nor did it have much explanation/context; it simply portrayed the actions of a military commander that had to deal with a chain of command that was traitorous yet still fight a war ongoing. The Raj Whitehall series posited a similar tension between the civilian leader and his primary general, who if he kept winning victories, might get called back to Capital and executed. Popular generals are dangerous, you know. The same tension existed between Emperor Justinian and Belisarius, somewhat mentioned in the Eric and Drake’s Belisarius series, but the timeline was changed and thus so was the tension for the most part.
Stark’s War series by John G. Henry posits a rebellion by a sergeant after his chain of command orders suicidal attacks against entrenched positions that destroyed an entire division, until Stark cut the general officers out of the loop and took command, via future C3 systems, of the battle.
The point of all this is that if you read enough science and military fiction, such things are not a foreign or alien experience/situation as the one we are describing. But why that is relevant can be made clear in a few words.
The military, especially the commanders, mobilize through leadership and obedience to orders from their chain of command. In a situation where they doubt their leaders, they will turn to their NCOs or trusted commanders. But those NCOs and trusted commanders will be loyal to the United States and the concept of civilian rule or the validity of the chain of command. You see, an officer cannot counter-mand the orders of his superiors without his own people starting to rebel against the officer’s own orders. If the military stages a coup against the government, then any fractious elements inside the US will take that as a precedent and use it to mobilize more internal dissension, forcing a backlash in terms of martial law. Military general officers know this, and this is one of the reasons why they won’t take command of the United States Presidency, like a Praetorian Guard.
But, if the military commanders refuse to do this and they refuse to obey the orders of their lawful (but not Constitutional) superiors (Obama), then what is left? What is left is that the body of the Army and Marines will do nothing except stall, up until a military commander they trust gives the order to mobilize for operations against X target inside the United States.
A way they can do this and still remain in command by civilians is to escort and protect an American grassroots rebellion against the DC/state government. When Governors or Presidents call for their military branches to “suppress” dissidents and keep them from calling for such trite things as “fair elections”, the Marines and Army can self-mobilize to protect those civilians, the same way they mobilized to protect the Iraqi civilians in 2005.
But until a civilian leader that the military can trust and back arises, the military’s hands are tied. The mil’s best leaders, like Petraeus, recognize the dangers of overthrowing civilian rule so they will do everything they can short of doing just that. But if the President gives him an order, Petraeus has no choice but to accept it or resign. He may try his best to make sure that order is executed correctly and successfully, but that is only feasible within certain limitations: limitations that will be set by Obama, not Petraeus.
There are many different scenarios that can become existent here, depending on whether hot spots are centered around domestic locales or foreign locales.
John Ringo and Weber’s book “March to the Stars” describes how the military can be suborned so that such people are loyal to evil men because the evil men pay them their salaries.
As the economy tanks, military recruitment will go up. However, the pool of experienced military people will go down, because they won’t put their lives on the line under inept leadership and worse, retarded orders that tell them to maintain and create another Vietnam. This usually balances it out after awhile, with no critical change in the military’s combat ability. But Obama will break the Army and Marines, something they accused Bush of doing, via creating what is known as the “Peace Dividend”. Those in the military that saw cuts under Clinton and a Republican administration balancing the budget understand very well what a Peace Dividend leads to. The Dems cut funding to the South Vietnamese, partially because they wanted to see more foreigners die, partially because they hated the military, and partially because they hated Nixon and his VP, Ford, but primarily because the money spent on the South Vietnamese could be better spend on their “budgets”. That was worth the lives of a few million poor to the Dems. Heck, it was cheap as hell a deal for them. The fact that this cost others everything, well, since when did a Madoff or mass murderer care about that? That was their “Peace Dividend”, you see. They needed it to buy more votes and to stay in power. Just as they are doing now. But even the REpublicans will make cuts, although for different reasons, because every politician thinks the last war is always the final war, except for some very rare exceptions to the rule.
As the Peace Dividend goes into effect, what you will see is a concomitant lowering of standards in the military. Especially if Michelle Obama starts instituting “fairness” doctrines on military families and expenditures. Lower maintenance, lower training standards, lower everything. Combine this fact with the influx of new recruits coming from a crashed economy and what you will get is a very interesting result. Now this can be sustainable in peace time, but in active operations, it is a complete and unmitigated disaster. You cannot sustain operations while losing your best, having to train green recruits up to standard, and then having your budget slashed, your combat power politically limited by ROE and Executive Orders, and various other shenanigans that will occur under the Dems.
It cannot be sustained because too many people will die. It’s sustainable in peace time cause the rot is covered up by “Readiness Reports” and that jazz that looks good on paper but is really a paper tiger.
The finely oiled military machine President Bush left to America and to his successor is going down the toilet once Global Conflict starts anew and Obama starts “transforming” things. That is not going to be a pretty sight.
As for ammo, reloading is a nice hobby (but your wife might freak out even more vociferously than I did).
*chuckles*
The pistol is for shorter range and the rifle is for longer range. Since the pistol is easier to draw and shoot in tight corridors, this makes it nice for CQB battle, whereas rifles can be long and the requisite aiming time longer unless you are able to shoot from the hip (some can do that, although they tend to be elite marksmen).
If you are out in Utah and there’s nothing around blocking your visibility, then rifles and .50 cal sniper rifles are the thing.
Danny, CollegeCon, Yamarsakar and Quisp, than you all for your advice—it’s deeply appreciated. I’ll be as thoughtful as you all request and will let you know my progress.
Charles, I believe Book thought about getting a gun, but California social workers and Marin social lites perhaps discouraged her. If you are moving to Utah, that shouldn’t usually be a problem.
On topic for the thread, off topic for the thread “drift”….
http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com/
Ymarsakar, I’ve met Book and she’s one tough customer. I doubt that there’s a social worker in all of creation that could talk her out of anything. I suspect she put off buying one to keep Mr. Bookworm from plotzing.
Even if I don’t move to Utah, I still plan to take advantage of my Second Amendment right to protect myself—from my own government if need be.
“…Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path.”
Another excellent essay on the topic can be found at blackfive.net, under the title “I Only Hang With Sheepdogs,” in which the blogger reprints Dave Grossman’s famous “On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves.”
A sobering observation was made at a round table on the military-civilian divide that I attended last year, at which various veterans and active-duty military men and women discussed the sheepdog metaphor: All agreed that we have, today, a situation in which many Americans are not only sheep but sheep who fear and hate sheepdogs.
We have one part of society (for shorthand, the East- and-West coast elites who attend ivy-league colleges and have careers in academia, journalism and the “creative” arts) who do not volunteer to serve, who do not know anyone who serves, and who do not respect those who do.
Then we have another part of society (stereotyped as the Sarah Palin/NASCAR/Country Music rubes) who do serve and who are growing increasingly frustrated with and contemptuous of the coastal elites who look down on them, seeing them as cowardly and effete hypocrites who are willing to use them when convenient but who would never themselves dirty their hands with the messy business of national defense. (Why have we read so many stories of immigrants getting fast-tracked to citizenship through military service? Because too few native-born Americans are willing to volunteer. Why is ROTC so unwelcome on many campuses? Because your typical academic hates the military–at the same time that he or she eagerly embraces this week’s Hezbollah spokesman.)
As more than one round table participant pointed out, our society is splitting into those who serve and those who do not. This is not a healthy situation. A republic depends on a population in which everyone accepts all the burdens of citizenship. We can get along for awhile, but we run the risk of developing a permanent military class which is largely separate from the rest of society, and that is an extremely dangerous situation. If those who serve see themselves as separate, and the ruling class agrees, then our democracy is in danger of becoming unstable.
Drawing on the sheepdog metaphor, one of the panelists said that sheepdogs don’t ask for much, just a little respect. So what happens when the sheep abuse the sheepdogs? The sheepdogs can shrug it off for awhile, but sooner or later they may take one of three paths: First, they may see themselves as no longer fighting for America but only for their part of it. Second, they may give up. Or third, they may turn on the sheep.
None of those possibilities are good. Nobody wants to tear America apart–except for leftists, Useful Idiots, and other enemies. Call them the “God Damn America” crowd.
Something to think about.
pst314 #30:
>> None of those possibilities are good. Nobody wants to tear America apart–except for leftists, Useful Idiots, and other enemies. Call them the “God Damn America” crowd. Something to think about.
Something else to think about, a thought exercise:
Suppose we went ahead and, at 6pm tonight, we gave the liberals absolutely EVERYTHING they want from us. Everything!
By 8 am tomorrow morning, they will have come up with a list of a thousand new demands. Every single new demand, critical! The denial of any one of them, a travesty of justice!
There is no end to it. They are congenitally incapable of stopping.
Every once in a while they actually have a point. (And every once in a while, five dice roll a Yahtzee, too. Every once in a while, you’re dealt a royal flush.) This usually occurs, slowly over time, as the country changes, and the majority of people come to have a view that matches a desired change.
Liberals are anti-God (unless God is an amorphous force of nature, ie, Mother Gaia, who perhaps does some quantum-mechanical thingie or Jungian Synchronicity-thingie that they praise as mystical. God not as an eternal and omniscient entity; rather this is God as a deaf, dumb, and blind force of nature that somehow, usually via a pseudo-scientific quantum Law of Love, manages to accomplish Good Things. Via Superstring Tremolo Good-Good-Good-Good-Vibrations, I guess.)
Due to this, they cannot accept that what happens after they die has any meaning, and therefore they *require* that all change must happen NOW, because it must occur within their lifetime. And so every change that they desire must be shoved down the throats of all Americans, want it or not, time for it or not.