Article on the growing divide between Military and Civilians

[Schone23666]

A surprisingly well-written article by the L.A. Times is out, titled "SPECIAL REPORT U.S. MILITARY AND CIVILIANS ARE INCREASINGLY DIVIDED", which can be read here:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-warrior-main-20150524-story.html#page=1

It is an issue worth discussing, about the pros and cons of an "all-volunteer" force as opposed to a conscripted one, and how that might begin to generate a growing gap between military and civilian families. I'd like to know if other countries around the world that have gone from a conscript to volunteer military force have begun to experience any similar issues as well.

And yes, again, kind of eerie how that could play out into a MilGov vs. CivGov scenario in T2K. That is in spite of a lot of conspiracy mongering on both the political Right and Left, that has yet to happen in real life (of course I certainly prefer it wouldn't.)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In Australia, the divide isn't particularly wide but we are in a very different situation to many countries. Here we never had the garrison towns that you find in the UK for example and we never had the number of families living in areas on military bases specifically set aside for families.

Military housing here was affected by two things: -
1. There was never enough population to have the size of army that most northern hemisphere nations had, so therefore we didn't need to specifically cater to suburb sized housing on military bases.
2. We were far enough away from most potential enemies that the security/readiness/etc. benefits of keeping military families living in base housing was not worth the expense. Most families lived in civilian suburbs near to bases in housing that was owned or controlled by the Defence Housing department. Barracks style housing was provided on base for unmarried personnel but married personnel often lived off base and more so if they had children.

What these two points mean is that defence personnel were already living in the local community. Unlike nations such as India that provide schools specifically for the children of military personnel, we all attended the schools in our local area and mixed with children of non-military families.
The military here does not provide the ability for former service personnel to get free or subsidized medical/pharmaceutical assistance from base medical posts/hospitals because the government doesn't get enough revenue to allow it so again, former military people are mixing with non-military people in almost every avenue of life including going to the doctor!

The other aspect about Australia is that our army in particular has always been a small core of regular personnel (to keep & maintain skills and abilities as current as possible during peace time) filled out with "citizen soldiers" during wartime. Either it was by volunteers or draftees but either way, we have not maintained a large standing army in peacetime (because we simply could not afford it). In this regard, I think there's more connection between military and civilian here than what it seems to be like in the US.

[Schone23666]

Thanks StainlessSteelCynic (Hey, why such a cynic? :p ). What you wrote would be expected in Australia as you do have a much smaller populace, and with that, a smaller tax base than in the United States.

I think the issue in the United States is that with the all-volunteer force, it seems rather a case of problems with our own success, if you could call it that. Nobody liked the draft (and still don't), with some decrying what they saw as a militarization of the populace and others unhappy with the quality of conscripts who in some cases at least didn't have the same level of professionalism or enthusiasm as a volunteer force.

The problem with a volunteer force is that you draw from a much smaller segment of the overall populace, thus the term "shared sacrifice" becomes hollow. As one servicemember stated in the article "Thank you for your service" sounded to him like "Thanks for volunteering so me and no one else in my family had to go." Add to that where you have an increasing situation where most of the populace in the U.S. only know of what the various servicemen/servicewomen typically do and go through on a regular basis only through movies and TV (with mixed results), thus getting increasingly skewed images of what the U.S. military does ranging from a right-wing hyperbolic form of patriotism to a left-wing condemnation of almost anything related to the U.S. military in general, but I'll avoid getting too much into the typical hot-button political side of things and leave it at that.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Unfortunately it's one of those situations were you can't afford to ignore the political side of it, specifically the socio-political aspect. The "Thank you for your service" thing strikes me as being totally socio-political in nature as we have seen the governments and media encouraging citizens to say it. More so because it helps pacify any potential dissent about whatever war we might be in at the moment than for any true care from the government or media about service personnel. It didn't spring into life from the community as a way to show gratitude, it was very much an orchestrated event.

But this is also the part that really illustrates the divide between former & serving military and civilians. With the "Thank you..." being repeated so often by politicians and media talking heads and others who have rarely (if ever) set foot near a military base, it starts to feel like nothing more than an empty platitude.
I can very much understand any military personnel taking "Thank you for your service" as really meaning "Thanks for doing the shitty things I don't want to do".

On the very few times it's been said to me I found myself doubting the sincerity of the speaker because it very much seemed that they were saying it because they seemed to feel it was expected of them - they didn't really appear to care about whatever I might have done during my time in, but they felt they should say something because it's the politically correct thing to do at the moment.




And here's you doubting my cynicism :p :D

[Schone23666]

PAH! My cynicism is bigger than yours! :D :devil5:

[Askold]

Conscription might not work for every country but particularly in Finland (with large territory and small population) it does offer several benefits. One of which is that the "military" and the "people" are not divided.

There was an hypothetical conversation about a revolution in Finland and the thing is that IF you get enough people to support your cause to be able to defeat the police and the military then you don't actually have a reason to start a revolution. You already have enough supporters to go into politics and will probably get to be the biggest party. (The major parties each have about 20% of the votes.)

[Webstral]

I think this is a very real problem for the United States. I won’t speak for other nations because I lack familiarity with their circumstances. I agree completely that there is a segment of society that looks upon us the same way as they would guard dogs—or as the people who clean Port-o-Johns. I wouldn’t restrict this to the very wealthy. I think almost everybody looks on us with the same appreciation, yet distaste, as they do the guy who roots their sewer line after a backup. Most of my friends in the civilian world know one man who has been to OEF or OIF: me.

I say “us” as a man very much separated from the Army. I have 7 years in, including one deployment to the sand box, but it’s been 9 years since I got home and got out. Still, I consider myself one of the brothers in green for life in outlook, if not in uniform.

I don’t think anybody wants a conscript Army. The professionals don’t want it. God knows the civilian populace doesn’t want it. Yet the problem of alienation between civilians and the military probably is too great already. Something has to be done to improve the nation’s familiarity with military life.

My favorite solution is Heinlein’s. If franchise is attached to service, then the issue of conscription is bypassed. “Drop out whenever you want, [expletive deleted]!” says the drill sergeant. Of course, this is a thoroughly impractical notion. A Congress that is 95% non-serving would never support service-for-franchise unless they and their principal donors were grandfathered. Philosophically, there’s also the problem of correlating political power with a willingness to kill people. While I think a willingness to sacrifice oneself for the well-being of the State is reasonable basis for franchise, the flip side of that coin is a willingness to take life at the behest of the State. It’s a tough one that can’t be covered quickly or easily.

Barring a low-tech version of Starship Troopers, I think the next best solution is very deep reserves. The reserve components of all of the branches of service could stand to be tripled in number, I think. Armories are much more widely dispersed than the mega-bases like Bragg, Benning, Hood, Virginia Beach, San Diego, etc. The problem of attracting volunteers may be presenting its own solution as college tuition races for the stratosphere. I have long believed that the reserve components probably ought not to contain more than a token combat arms presence, given the disparity between the demands of combat and the amount of training time reservists get. National Guard and Reserve formations that are almost entirely combat support and combat service support would be operating in a modality that is more forgiving of a learning curve and which is more aligned with the needs of the states in terms of managing natural disaster response.

Getting Americans in the 18-to-24 age bracket to enlist means overcoming the near certainty of deployment during a 6-year enlistment OR having them change their minds about whether this is acceptable. Ensuring that the National Guard and Reserves are almost entirely combat support and combat service support ought to help, though I note that the Army Reserve already is CS/CSS and isn’t turning away recruits. What would really be helpful is for a mass of enlistments during a lull in deployments, followed by political activism on the part of the reservists at the start of the next cycle. Job security being the most important thing to legislators, they might be more averse to voting for war if they think a large contingent of citizen-soldiers is going to vote for the other guy in less than 2 years. Right now, the folks on the rolls can be ignored. If their numbers effectively doubled and were more widely distributed, the House of Representatives might find itself obliged to reassess the value of campaign contributions from defense contractors versus the votes of a much larger body of reservists and their friends and families. We would have a greater capacity to meet crises and a lesser inclination to fabricate them as a result.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And thanks to Webstral's post, we can see just how deeply entwined politics is in certain aspects of the US military. So again I'll say, you can't really separate the politics too far from this one.

As a hypothetical question - in two parts although all for the one answer.
Do you think the divide between civilian and military could be reduced (even if just a little), if the military had smaller but more bases rather than a small number of large bases? Included in the smaller bases option would be to mix military housing in with civilian housing in civilian suburbs rather than have large suburbs of purely military housing (regardless of whether it's on base or nearby).
In theory, more bases & housing spread around the nation would mean more military personnel get to mix with civilian counterparts.

Unfortunately due to the government's fervent belief that centralization saves them money (and there's no doubt that it does) by concentrating everything in as few areas as possible, this hypothetical is not likely to be implemented but as a few extra points of consideration in favour of decentralization: -
1. With a few mega-bases, one natural disaster or military strike etc. etc. can put many more assets out of commission in "one hit" so to speak, (this isn't just limited to the military, it applies to electrical distribution networks, hospitals, ports, warehouses and so on and so on). This is the major weakness of centralization, one hit can potentially be a killer.
2. More, although smaller, bases spread around the nation increase the number of people needed to work on those bases so you also reduce the unemployment rate somewhat (although this will be too expensive for the bean counters even if more workers/less unemployed means more tax income).
3. Although not needing much consideration for smaller nations, for larger countries like Australia, Canada, China and obviously the USA, a number of smaller bases spread around the nation increases the security potential of the military compared to having most of the military holed up in a few mega-bases. How do you measure such an effect though and I'm sure it's something that's too esoteric for the bean counters to truly understand or care about?
4. Linked somewhat to point 3. is something of varied benefit - transportation. If you have a few large bases in central areas, the transport can all be combined to ship large numbers of items/personnel etc. etc. but with a larger number of smaller bases around the country, some bases may actually have a shorter distance to travel to embarkation points and thus cost less to transport. A potential although probably marginal benefit in the long term?

As a total aside, I also have the belief that the cost-saving measure of cutting back/cancelling of, military open days, flying displays etc. etc. has had a negative impact on the military-civilian divide. If the civvies don't see what you do, they tend to think you're doing nothing and wasting their taxes. Open days and the like don't stop that train of thought for everyone but it does get some civvies more interested in what the military is doing and by actually talking (connecting socially) to military personnel, even perhaps makes them more sympathetic.

[ArmySGT.]

Ending base housing and moving all ranks off post along with all the elementary, middle, and high schools to mingle the military population with the civilian population.

Moving all the college classes off post.... most posts have college courses that soldiers can take weekends and evenings to increase their promotion potential. Their classmates likewise are all soldiers. Sending the soldiers off post into state colleges and mixing them with civilians would be good for both of them.

Make ROTC something applicable to other physical .gov jobs like park rangers or wild life biologists to attract .civ participants and those left of center.

Up the enlistment age to 21. If we can't trust them to make good decisions with alcohol and handguns in the .civ domain; then it stands to reason that some of that embarrassment from company level leadership would be eliminated by maturity too.

Trades skills can be taught and learned in civilian schools. Boilers, carpentry, welding, pipe fitter..... mingle them with the civilian tradesmen and get rid of some of the stagnant fossilized redundant .mil schools.

Open military bases to civilian shops and stores..... Bring more variety and product into a zoned for shopping district.

Bring civilians on post in training programs that the military does well . Land navigation, rappelling, small boats, small arms competition. Some people pay truck loads of money for these taught by former soldiers.

Civil - Military cooperation in domestic and foreign humanitarian operations. The military tends to operate in parallel, but not interoperably.

Train on National Forest and Bureau of Land Management areas in a gradually increasing manner so that the .civ population sees the soldiers first hand in road march and training.

Domestic good will deployments like infrastructure or health programs. .mil co-operation usually entails support of law enforcement or regulatory activities. A six month deployment building roads, water projects, and schools in under served areas or medical missions to rural areas like the interior of Alaska or the four corners regions.

Tours of Duty to public schools for mid career NCOs at high schools to teach civics and mentor youth activities.

[swaghauler]

Ending base housing and moving all ranks off post along with all the elementary, middle, and high schools to mingle the military population with the civilian population.

Moving all the college classes off post.... most posts have college courses that soldiers can take weekends and evenings to increase their promotion potential. Their classmates likewise are all soldiers. Sending the soldiers off post into state colleges and mixing them with civilians would be good for both of them.

Make ROTC something applicable to other physical .gov jobs like park rangers or wild life biologists to attract .civ participants and those left of center.

Up the enlistment age to 21. If we can't trust them to make good decisions with alcohol and handguns in the .civ domain; then it stands to reason that some of that embarrassment from company level leadership would be eliminated by maturity too.

Trades skills can be taught and learned in civilian schools. Boilers, carpentry, welding, pipe fitter..... mingle them with the civilian tradesmen and get rid of some of the stagnant fossilized redundant .mil schools.

Open military bases to civilian shops and stores..... Bring more variety and product into a zoned for shopping district.

Bring civilians on post in training programs that the military does well . Land navigation, rappelling, small boats, small arms competition. Some people pay truck loads of money for these taught by former soldiers.

Civil - Military cooperation in domestic and foreign humanitarian operations. The military tends to operate in parallel, but not interoperably.

Train on National Forest and Bureau of Land Management areas in a gradually increasing manner so that the .civ population sees the soldiers first hand in road march and training.

Domestic good will deployments like infrastructure or health programs. .mil co-operation usually entails support of law enforcement or regulatory activities. A six month deployment building roads, water projects, and schools in under served areas or medical missions to rural areas like the interior of Alaska or the four corners regions.

Tours of Duty to public schools for mid career NCOs at high schools to teach civics and mentor youth activities.

ALL OF THIS WOULD BE GOOD. Give reservists/NG Tricare, or whatever the military health insurance is now, at reasonable cost as an incentive to stay in the reserves/NG long term. Close down the current VA system, turning the hospitals into long term care or rehab facilities and allowing all DAV's to go to the hospital of THEIR choice. This helps local hospitals and reduces VA overhead (and also helps with the staff shortages currently happening). Give anyone who trains in a military skill with a civilian counterpart the civilian rating automatically (like 88Mikes automatically getting a CDL A upon graduation from MOS training) to encourage joining the reserve/NG for job training. Have more individual voluntary reserve/NG deployments to help reserve members actually gain experience in a combat/deployment environment. Allow these reserve/NG soldiers to stay on the reserve/NG unit's rolls (since they will be returning to the unit) so the unit isn't punished for being "under strength" while the individual soldiers deploy.

The greatest thing the US did in the 80's was open up "exclusive schools" like Airborne, Air Assault, Ranger, and Sniper Schools to qualified soldiers in "ordinary" military units (including Reserve/NG units) in order to disseminate those skills down through the ranks. This definitely raised the performance of the units that those soldiers returned to.