More on the military-civilian divide
The Washington Post Magazine has a decent piece on the subject of the (increasing) gap between the military and civilian worlds. I posted about this topic, after seeing some similar articles, last December.
The article rehashes some facts: For example, this book, "AWOL: The Absence of America's Upper Class From Military Service," pointed out that Yale's class of 1956 saw 400 grads - out of 750 - go into military service. The Post's article cites the same statistic, and notes that this year, one (1) Yale grad will join the Army.
Granted, there was a draft in '56, but still.
Another interesting factoid: One percent of Americans is currently in the military.
Actually, it's less than 1 percent. But either way, it's quite convenient for the rest of us. One is tempted to quote Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men," but one digresses.
Anyway, not much new, but still personally quite interesting. The Post article is by Kristin Henderson, apparently the author of "While They're at War." Haven't read it.
Post script: Of course, if we weren't conducting expeditionary missions and occupations around the globe, we wouldn't need as large of a military. Regardless, the trend of this "divide" is real and has implications for the functioning of our democratic republic, as Miguel points out in the comments.
And for the record, I support a European-style conscription (even though it's being phased out in most European countries), with options of the military, Peace Corps, National Parks, or other public services.
The article rehashes some facts: For example, this book, "AWOL: The Absence of America's Upper Class From Military Service," pointed out that Yale's class of 1956 saw 400 grads - out of 750 - go into military service. The Post's article cites the same statistic, and notes that this year, one (1) Yale grad will join the Army.
Granted, there was a draft in '56, but still.
Another interesting factoid: One percent of Americans is currently in the military.
Actually, it's less than 1 percent. But either way, it's quite convenient for the rest of us. One is tempted to quote Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men," but one digresses.
Anyway, not much new, but still personally quite interesting. The Post article is by Kristin Henderson, apparently the author of "While They're at War." Haven't read it.
Post script: Of course, if we weren't conducting expeditionary missions and occupations around the globe, we wouldn't need as large of a military. Regardless, the trend of this "divide" is real and has implications for the functioning of our democratic republic, as Miguel points out in the comments.
And for the record, I support a European-style conscription (even though it's being phased out in most European countries), with options of the military, Peace Corps, National Parks, or other public services.
Labels: military civilian divide, military civilian gap, military service, veterans
posted by bp at
11:58 AM
1 Comments:
One of the bigger problems, as others have pointed, is that there's also divide between those who do go and those who don't (particularly when it comes to career soldiers). It seems that there are families who have generations of military service, and familes (most of the population) that don't. Over time, that could create a whole subclass of "warrior-citizens" separate from the rest of the population.
By
Miguel Centellas, at 2:48 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home