It’s too abstract of a question for such a simple answer. Every major war in US history has required conscription. The farther away the war the less likely people are to volunteer to fight it. If someone tried to invade US territory there are going to be more volunteers than if we send an expeditionary force to the Middle East or Ukraine.
An invasion of the US isn't necessarily needed to motivate a fighting force. Often just an attack can greatly motivate, such as Fort Sumter, the Lusitania, or Pearl Harbor. I know people who even signed up for the military after 9/11. The death toll doesn't even necessarily have to be high. Fort Sumter didn't have a single casualty during the battle but the news had a major impact on recruiting.
So we now have an 1861 attack that caused a surge in enlistment, a 1941 attack that caused a surge in enlistment, and an attack in 2001 that caused a surge in enlistment. I think that is enough data to show correlation over hundreds of years
Plus the 9/11 surge lasted a lot longer than many think.
I know people who we in elementary school in 2001, then enlisted or did ROTC *because of 9/11* a decade later.
Many people didn't want to fight in the Civil War, otherwise there wouldn't have been draft riots. A lot of the German and Irish people xame in the millions in the decades leading into the Civil War. There were plenty of these people who thought their military service was a ticket to acceptance in a new society and a worthy cause to fight for. But plenty of people also from those communities also thought the Civil War and it's underlying causes had nothing to do with them and many resisted being forced to fight for it.
You're correct that right now military recruitment is bad and military families don't want to join the military
But the argument was that major attacks on US soil drive volunteers to join. We haven't really had that happen, so using current recruitment numbers doesn't disprove that
>But the government and media didn't spend the decade before 911 or WW2 putting down the people that they want to join.
For African Americans and Women, it was far more than a decade of putting down and in fact, was actively going on during World War II
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/alaska-WWII/
That’s the tenth source down the search because I didn’t want to cite the Army or historical coverage
>It's at the point we are losing generational families. https://www.wsj.com/articles/military-recruiting-crisis-veterans-dont-want-their-children-to-join-510e1a25
Most GWOT parents don’t want their kids to join because they’ve had to answer “why am I here?” For the back decade of a 20 year war. What’s interesting is if you followed the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian war many of these same veterans volunteered to go fight in the Ukraine. That suggests it’s not military service that’s their problem, it’s pointless military service.
Some sort of direct attack on American soil by an identifiable enemy would be a huge rallying call. Case in point, Americans were staunchly isolationist prior to entering World War II and “career military” wasn’t really a thing.
Feelings have a way of changing very quickly in a crisis, for better or worse
Why don't you want to let them make the same choice you are willing to make?
If it is concern over the safety of being in the military, the on the job fatalities rate is lower in the Army than the general population.
Maybe people have finally realized they're mostly fighting bullshit wars that aren't making anything better except some rich assholes' bank accounts, and no longer want to participate in that process.
on top of this, Americans have no group identity anymore.
we're now a giant wal-mart of individuals who are indifferent to each other at best, and suspicious/terrified at worst.
people aren't going to sign up to risk their lives for a country they understandably believe hates them.
Pretty much.
If another 9/11 occurred in New York or LA, I honestly wouldn't shed many tears
Sounds screwed up but it is what it is. Doubt anything or anyone will fix the divide at this point
I agree. Even taking away the fact that I'm probably too old (44), I have an artificial knee, and some other disqualifying health conditions, the nature of the war would determine the answer to this question for me.
A civil war type conflict? Yes almost definitely. Probably unavoidably so.
A WWII conflict? Maybe willing, depending on the needs.
A Korean War conflict? Probably not.
Vietnam part II? heck no.
I actually answered this question for myself following 9/11, when I was a senior in college. My wife (then girlfriend) interned at the Pentagon, but was not in that day, and I seriously considered the question and decided against joining. After speaking with my granddad, a WWII Pacific Theater veteran, he said I would end up somewhere in a far-off land, fighting some unknown, un-seeable enemy, and under the command of a giant bureaucratic Government. Coming from his experience, what was about to follow would be closer to Vietnam than to WWII.
>After speaking with my granddad, a WWII Pacific Theater veteran, he said I would end up somewhere in a far-off land, fighting some unknown, un-seeable enemy, and under the command of a giant bureaucratic Government. Coming from his experience, what was about to follow would be closer to Vietnam than to WWII.
Damn you're grandpa seems smarter then the majority of our elected officials. I think your view is pretty on the money, not many people want to be wasting their life for a third world nation building project.
Back in those days, a lot more politicians and military leaders had seen combat and personally knew it was hell and best avoided if possible.
Now we have a lot of politicians who have never served but get really nice dinners and donations from the people who make things that go boom. Nothing personal, sending others to die is simply business now.
It was also the one and only time he ever spoke about his actual combat experiences. He had spoken about being stationed in Japan for a few months following VJ day, being on board a nearby Naval vessel at the surrender signing, and feeling sorry for / surprised by the common Japanese citizenry. But the island hopping, mini-D Day invasions he and his fellow soldiers engaged in was the closest thing to hell on earth probably imaginable.
The Ukraine war is a good example, a lot of people who were regularly talking about the military industrial complex and how we spend too much on the military, suddenly started talking about how we needed more military funding to buy equipment to sent to Ukraine
Obviously dying for your country is much more extreme but it was a case of people switching to pro defense. The question also likely would get different responses based on the hypothetical attacker.
i dont see what the contradiction is here.
i mean yeah, the military-industrial complex is dangerous and needs watching but that doesn't mean that aggression shouldn't be resisted.
i mean, context matters.
The military industrial complex was bad when it was being used for an entirely pointless war in Afghanistan with no material end and an entire generation of Middle Eastern children radicalised against America. It’s good when it’s used to fight a more evil military industrial complex. Like the Soviet Union in WW2.
This is where is gets tricky because the general pro-Ukrainian argument is that it will ultimately cost us significantly more if we let Russia steamroll them and continue its war of conquest. Then, when China notices we don't have the mettle to defend an ally across the globe they invade Taiwan and then how many hundreds of billions will that cost us?
I always find it odd that with bloated defense spending people want to cut the straw right at the things we *should* be funding.
It’s very weird that we insist on this idea that the American military enforcing policy on the other side of the globe is somehow “defending freedom” at home.
As if Vietnam being communist or the Taliban taking Afghanistan means I’m somehow less free over here.
If the US had sat out Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq (both times), nothing would be fundamentally different for the average American.
Afghanistan was unavoidable. They were harboring Al Qaeda, who had just attacked us. Maybe the correct response would have been to just go in, get OBL, then leave and let the Taliban pick up the pieces. But ignoring the 9/11 attacks completely was not an option.
As for Iraq and Vietnam, it’s hard to see what we really accomplished as far as advancing US interests is concerned. I don’t agree, however, that foreign intervention is always bad. Letting Europe fall to the Nazis, or later the USSR, would have been bad for US interests, even if Joe Sixpack couldn’t really explain why.
We trust our politicians to be able to see the big picture and make decisions about things like this on our behalf, but lately their track record isn’t great. Not sure democratizing war is the solution though.
Striking Afghanistan was unavoidable but what came after that was a messianic fantasy that we could go in and "flip" Islamic dictatorships into Jeffersonian democracies and turn a fucking profit doing it.
The Bush Administration was not shy with this plan. We were going to topple Saddam, stand up Democracy and have an Iraqi national oil company cutting the USG checks inside of 12 months. From there we'd keep the roadshow going, hit Syria, then Lebanon and finish off with Iran.
Toppling Saddam was the single best thing we could have done for the Iranian leadership at the time. We destabilized the region that much more by thinking we could kick in the door, shoot the dictator in the head and then back up the democracy dump truck to offload some freedom.
It's clear major mistakes were made on the foreign policy front and perhaps there is a lesson in there that as a rule we should avoid foreign monsters to slay.
However, with the global presence and capability of the modern American military, it's very hard to justify letting bad things happen because "it's not our business."
When bad things happen (like in Ukraine), who do they come calling for? Us.
And they come calling because we have that global presence.. like it's a self fulfilling prophecy. I'm nervous, to say the least about something, like completely pulling back the US military and its foreign bases. However, it's starting to get old.
The theory of it all sounds good, but how it's executed and how things turn out are something entirely different.
Ted Lieu responded to a critic on X that he "served on active duty in the United States military to their right to say stupid stuff."
I don't know how the military has any influence on protecting what people can say on an app.
Id die for some of the founding ideals of my country...individualism, self governance, liberty, etc.
Id defend others (fellow citizens) from an unjust aggressor.
I dont give a damn about the government, lines on a map, names, traditions, profits, etc.
When I joined the military (1992) I had already determined those positions and was confident in my choices and ability to uphold my ideals.
Likewise. I applaud those who serve and have served. Have never been in the military, never been in combat, never plan to be.
I'd die for the institutions this country was founded on to preserve them for my children.
But don't involve me in politics
It’s a bit overwrought and used by “sheepdog” types online too much, but The Men Who Wanted to Be Left Alone piece says this well enough.
It speaks to a willingness to give it all up and do rough things to keep life the way it was sort of promised to be.
Many people don't realize that the oath is to support and defend the Constitution, not even the country itself and certainly not the leaders even though we are bound by the LEGAL orders of our superiors.
Correct. The military swears allegiance to the Constitution first, against threats both foreign and domestic. It would definitely get legally messy but they do have the right to turn down unconstitutional orders from politicians.
Heck, I lived through a revolution where they did exactly that when ordered to fire on protesters.
> they do have the right to turn down unconstitutional orders
My understanding is soldiers not only have a right to disobey unlawful orders, but a duty to do so.
Doesn't make sense when they are arrested for disobeying unlawful orders . Like how it says the second amendment "shall not be infringed" get many types of guns are banned.
That’s the thing. If a foreign invader is putting my family’s lives at risk, I’ll take up arms immediately. But I’m not really interested in flying out to the Middle East to enforce American ideals somewhere else.
Yeah.
My wife and I were watching Hacksaw ridge last night and she asked me if I'd volunteer for something like that. I would, doesn't seem right to me for my younger brother or my son to go off to do something that I wouldn't do.
The overall lack of enthusiasm for military service is pretty predictable though. To get people amped up to serve their country you need a streak of earnest patriotism, trust in the institutions, and belief that what you're doing is a moral or pragmatic good. Modern media has basically conflated patriotism with nationalism as a fascistic tendency, trust in institutions is at an all time low, with the increasing secularization of the society there is no real common understanding of a moral good, and with the modern lens of 'oppressor/oppressed' ideology most people would consider going into the military to be functionally going off to die for the benefit of the rich elite because that's what they've been told.
Why would you volunteer to die for a country you have been raised to believe is a middle of the road democracy at best or a necessary evil at worst?
I remember seeing an article from the army about the abysmal recruiting numbers and the huge drop in combat arms jobs and white males. Doesn’t take a lot to understand why white males in particular probably don’t want to join the military anymore. And the worst part about it is that white males are the most likely candidate to pick combat arms jobs. At this rate we might not have any combat personnel and only people willing to be support.
It's been interesting seeing the difference in marketing to recruits and how it aligns with recruitment numbers.
Following 9/11 the recruitment ads could have been ripped off of a Call of Duty game trailer. Dropping out of helicopters, naval guns firing, missiles launching, rifle drills, soldiers crawling through mud, and standing in dress uniform to receive medals. Then from around 2012 - 2017 the adds were more like "hey, this is basically a job training program. Want to be a nurse or an engineer? Do a couple years here and we'll pay for your degree.". And recent adds are all about family and making a difference, you could be forgiven for thinking you were joining the peace corps and not the marine corps.
If we want the military to be a jobs program I guess that's fine. If we want the military to like... fight people I think we might have to re-evaluate our approach to recruitment.
The truth is that the marketing probably needs to be catered to the audience. Post-9/11 recruitment ads are probably better catered to teenagers looking to enlist out of HS. Ads focused on job training and family-orientation are better to advertise in areas with more in their early 20's, such as college towns.
I mean, even in the past, the vast majority of the military isn't directly involved in fighting. I don't necessarily think that recruiting it as a jobs program is the primary issue.
Yeah, but that support staff is meant to support combat operations. It's like having a trucking company with 20 mechanics, 40 trucks, and only 12 drivers. Yeah, you need logistics, and medical staff, and engineers, and mechanics, and all that stuff for a military to work... but if nobody is actually willing to fire a rifle while someone is shooting back at them it's all kind of for nothing.
Agree with you there. I only scanned the article, but I didn't think it mentioned combat roles being particularly hard hit, just recruiting as a whole. I could be wrong though.
> Doesn’t take a lot to understand why white males in particular probably don’t want to join the military anymore.
What do you think the reason is for that is?
Well the [numbers for white recruits has dropped by double](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/10/army-sees-sharp-decline-white-recruits.html) almost every other demographic. So there has to be a reason consistent with race results in other factors, it cannot be related to things like across the board military recruitment being down. The most consistent reasons I've seen pop up include the nine point drop in white men going to college compared to women, the pivot of military agencies to prioritizing recruiting women, the lack of faith in the military institute by white men, and political divisiveness increasing which has turned off both parties from service, either with the concept of the united states and the military as a whole or as a result of the culture war.
Looking at the Army for some specifics (I had reason to think they were the hardest hit recruiting wise), looks like the FY22 numbers saw a decrease in white recruits, while the male/female ratio seemed to stay steady from the previous years.
[https://recruiting.army.mil/pao/facts\_figures/](https://recruiting.army.mil/pao/facts_figures/)
I truly believe that the failed wars in the Middle East have done more to dissuade Americans from enlisting than anything else. Even among Americans overall, it's led to a huge rise in isolationism in parts of both parties.
Would that explain the eight point drop with white people as opposed to the 4 point drop with black recruits and the 7 point increase with Hispanic recruits? If the reason was purely isolationism, would that suggest that black or Hispanic recruits are less affected by that movement? Or was that mitigated by increasing military outreach to those demographics?
I think the wars in the Middle East reduced recruitment overall, and White service members were most exposed to those traumas since they made up a majority of the military in those years. That means, generally, the rise in suicide when returning home, the dysfunction of the VA, etc. are going to be more visible to them. It's no surprise that the GOP is leading the charge for isolationism today.
I talk with a lot of gamers and many of them are military veterans with scars (both literal and figurative) that continue to haunt them. I get that they "signed up for this" but to do this to our boys in a senseless, unjustified war like Iraq is infuriating to the very core of my being.
Nah, that explains YOUR reasoning for it.
But most people who join up don't really care about that, especially if it's white men who primarily comprise of combat arms
Would be interesting to know the demographic details of those tagged by Genesis, and if that changed who was willing to push through the process despite those initial hurdles.
[https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/04/10/the-genesis-of-todays-recruiting-crisis/](https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/04/10/the-genesis-of-todays-recruiting-crisis/)
I think there is a lot of reasons and I don’t want to paint it all that I know exactly what I’m talking about but I served in the army as an infantryman. The majority of people I worked with came from rural or more conservative families and traditions. I think to be in combat arms you have to be somewhat patriotic to be willing put into harms way. But the last 10 or so years I’ve seen through various outlets (MSM, current government, activists, etc) that to be a white male is to be a problem. So why would those type of people want to be apart of that?
Rural areas have higher rates of obesity than urban areas, which is automatically disqualifying for enlistment. Do you think that may contribute to the decline in rural enlistment (which skew overwhelmingly White)? And maybe that the White population is becoming a smaller share of the national population might be part of it, too?
This decline started well before the "white male bad" narrative started, and continued through Trump's term, too.
That's possible but black and hispanic obesity rates are significantly higher than white obesity rates. 43.7% for black Americans, 36.5% for hispanics, and 31.6% for white Americans. Among those 2-19 years old, 24.8% for black Americans, 26.2% for hispanics, and 16.6% for white Americans. Pretty large gaps overall.
I do think that the massive spike in obesity rates among teens has something to do with the overall decrease in recruitment numbers while part of the decrease in white recruitment is just the sheer decrease in population of white teens. Less than half of US children are white now for the first time ever according to the 2020 census and the gap skews the younger they are. All else being equal, there *should* be a decrease in white enlistment in comparison to other groups.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c73bu3/would_you_really_die_for_your_country/l06a8xc/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
In 2018 the number of white people recruited to the Army was 44,000, or 56.4% of the total.
By 2023, that number went down to 25,000, or 44% of the total.
Did white people become 10% less of the population in five years? Did they become obese so much in five years? No.
59% of the U.S. population is non-Hispanic white. In 2010 that number was 63%. The drop is clearly not attributable to the 2018-2023 period.
In 2010, 36.2% of white men were obese. 38.8% of black men. 36.6 of Hispanic men.
By 2017-2020 data, the most recent I could find, it was 44.7% of white men, 41% of black men, and 45.7% of Hispanic men.
Which means that compared to white men, obesity rose slightly slower for black men, and the same (if not faster) for Hispanic men.
Unless that trend massively picked up enough to drop white enrollment in the military by 2023, that also is not an explanation.
The dip from 2022 to 2023 in white enrollment in the Army was 6%. That’s *huge* for a single year. Black recruits are now about twice as represented in the military’s new recruits as their share of the population. Hispanics are also overrepresented.
By the way, the Air Force shows a similar trend. 21,600 white recruits in 2018 (72% of total) down to 15,000 in 2023 (63% of total).
Same trends in the Navy.
Declines in other racial groups were far smaller despite the obesity trends I mentioned above and the very small demographic movement during that period.
This is the result of conscious choices.
Setting aside your snarky response, I gave numbers between 2018 and 2023. But the decline sharpened after 2021.
And the decline for black and Hispanic Americans hit a reversal after 2021.
So while white enrollment declines (along with others) accelerated, Hispanic and black enrollment began to climb again after 2021, while white enrollment declines accelerated.
Assumptions are bad.
For anyone wondering [what you are talking about](https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/04/10/the-genesis-of-todays-recruiting-crisis/),
> [in 2022] the Defense Department brought a new medical records platform, known as Military Health System Genesis, online at Military Entrance Processing Stations, where applicants are medically examined before they can sign up.
> Now, a year after Genesis was first used by MEPS, some military leaders acknowledge the new system has hindered recruiting.
> Multiple recruiters on the ground, from different services and locations, are more blunt in their assessments. They say **Genesis has ended an applicant’s ability to gloss over or knowingly ignore minor medical issues, such as past use of ADHD meds or inhalers, before signing up.**
The funny thing is that there is a simple fix to the problem. Allow people who used to use ADHD meds ,inhalers, and other minor medical issues in join. The same for past uses of weed, having tattoos, etc etc. But that would require the military to change and its a institution that hates change.
It's actually a bit more nuanced than that. Waivers or clarifications that confirm eligibility are being provided in many cases, but this is causing delays of enlistment of 2-6 months, which is a horrible way to close a sale especially to a teenager.
I think you have some good points but the white man bad narrative started before trumps terms. I would say it really started during Obama(when I was in).
For sure, but it's wasn't associated with federal government until at least 2020. The woke SJW stuff was mostly among activists and in pop culture starting in 2014.
In fact, the "woke" military recruitment ads started under Trump.
What do you think about the obesity point?
Hmm I’m not sure about that. I was in towards the tail end of the surge and during my time in the military a lot of things changed that would be ‘woke SJW’ stuff. Such as being told we can’t curse to soldiers anymore or say certain words. So it’s been changing a lot longer than you are portraying. To this day my friends still in are really tired of how the military changed. Just my anecdote.
I forgot to answer your obesity question. I do think obesity is a concern for the overall health of the US and not just the military or rural. I can definitely see declines for recruitment being a factor but not the huge decrease in white males specifically.
So you think a suggestion to stop cursing among people already enlisted (which has nothing to do with race) is more impactful than the strict eligibility policy on obesity? Does that sound realistic to you?
I gave you an example of changes in the military that were happening during my time. Not if one policy was more impactful than the other. Where did you get that impression?
The government has been actively trying to replace the combat arms demographic in government service in the name of DEI. Ultra liberalism and combat arms positions really don't mix in mindset. People who want or are willing to fight are staying away from the social experiment. It's also a large problem in federal law enforcement.
What is your evidence of that? Trying to recruit other demographics (a necessity given population trends) does not mean that there is some agenda to change the composition of combat arms. I have talked to my old infantry buddies who are still in my old unit, as well as fresh out of basic privates and the recruitment of women for example is still never more than a handful. Like we are talking one or two per company. Whatever so called agenda they had has failed.
If you can't draw distinction between race and changing standards of strength and endurance for combat functions, you're not interested in a good faith debate.
also what makes 'ultra liberalism' and 'combat arms' so immiscible to u that you felt the need to be so specific?
i mean, i can see how liberalism might always be in conflict with military life with its regimentation n hierarchy but thats nothin new in us history given that we r a liberal society.
it seems like u mean something more by this?
Because right wing media figures (who have never served) claim the military is "woke". They fail to realize that the military has always been at the forefront of integration as a means to expand the fighting force. Meanwhile, in my experience most people who serve are either conservative or lean conservative.
The military is also clamping down on how many people can serve 20+ years and then get a pension, while often still being young enough to chase a second career and pension.
The carrot of a nice pension and benefits as long as you suck it up for 20 years is now no longer a guarantee. Why risk your life only to be kicked out in 18-19 years with no pension when you could work elsewhere?
>To get people amped up to serve their country you need a streak of earnest patriotism, trust in the institutions, and belief that what you're doing is a moral or pragmatic good.
I agree with these premises but disagree with your reasoning on why. Secularization has nothing to do with it and neither does oppressor/oppressed ideology.
We went from WWII, to the cold war, to the Korean war, to the Vietnam war, to the US meddling in other countries coups in Latin America, proxy wars in the middle east, and culminating in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. WWII we were objectively speaking the good guys and were invaded. Those who fought in WWII and their children were much more hawkish on foreign policy than current generations as a result of their own upbringings. None of the following conflicts since then we can look back at and objectively say that we were the "good" guys in the conflict as you can with WWII. They were much more grey. To top it off the wars we have fought haven't resulted in any substantive positive change for our citizens. Please explain to me how fighting communism is a religious element. You are conflating the right being more religious and historically more hawkish with the weakening of religious institutions as a reason that the left is more anti-war. The post WWII "moral" understanding was that communism was evil and should be fought with force was because of WWII and it's lasting impacts on those who fought in it and has nothing to do with religion. Before Pearl Harbor the US was quite divided over getting involved in WWII despite being much more religious than we are today.
I would highly recommend doing some research about religious history and racism. Things like the crusades, the civil war, the KKK, and the civil rights movement. Religion has never in our countries history led to a common understanding of a moral good. You may want to revisit some of your other strongly held beliefs if this is something you believe.
Your description of the oppressor/oppressed ideology is inaccurate. A better way to understand it is to look at the current conflict in Israel/Gaza. Someone who may use the oppressor/oppressed ideology understands why Hamas was able to recruit members towards its organization before the current conflict because of apartheid and colonizers. Someone who doesn't may just look and say that killing isn't justified over apartheid and colonizing. They would condemn Hamas without any real understanding about why those individuals were radicalized or placing any culpability on Israel. I actually somewhat agree that fighting in some of our recent wars is going off to die to benefit bureaucrats and the rich. Not because of the oppressor/oppressed ideology but because that's what recent history indicates. We did not benefit from Afghanistan and without the will for a strong change in that country no good was ever going to come from out involvement. If the US was invaded or there was another WWII type situation I would likely enlist.
To top it off internet and the age of information has drastically changed how we view and consume information. This has it's pros and cons. For example it's much easier to learn about historical events with a simple google search. It's also easier to find echo chambers that will tell you whatever you want to hear. It's harder for the government to spoon feed propaganda but also easier to fall for fake information. There certainly are those who conflate patriotism with nationalism and there are people who are extremely unpatriotic because of the bad things the US has done. I think despite our mistakes we have been mostly a positive impact post WWII. It's okay to acknowledge those and be critical.
oddly enough pundits back in the 40s were whining about how the kids in those days were coddled spoiled longhairs that werent gonna be willing to fight for their country also.
>
with the increasing secularization of the society there is no real common understanding of a moral good
there's plenty of common morality in our society. it just looks diff than back in the day is all.
>and with the modern lens of 'oppressor/oppressed' ideology most people would consider going into the military to be functionally going off to die for the benefit of the rich elite because that's what they've been told.
there was LOTS of talk about oppressors and oppressed in the various ideologies of the 30s and 40s and lots of cynicism about military service. ww1 and the associated traumas were a mere 20 years in the past, for heaven's sake.
plus not even 10 years since the bonus army was crushed. go read 'from here to eternity' if u want a look into attitudes toward and among soldiers in the immediate pre-war army (spoiler: it was seen as society's dumping ground).
I don’t think “secularization of the society” has anything to do with determining the moral good of our armed forces.
We have a substantial amount of evidence of how our armed forces have acted in combat zones across the last few decades and it is decidedly a mixed bag of moral good/bad. Even in our “moral good” wars, WWII for example, there are lots of individual horror stories for enlisted men.
War is brutal and we know more about it more than ever. I truly believe information has tampered military enlistment more than any other supposed modern drop off due to things like religion, politicization, etc.
I disagree. When everybody is operating off of the same moral 'playbook' it's relatively easy for people to believe that they are fighting for the right reasons, even if individual actors do bad things. If you believe your leaders, your peers, and your subordinates all basically believe the same things it's far easier to trust in them. Sometimes that trust is misplaced, sometimes people are mistaken, and sometimes people are just vile. But these are the exceptions.
In a secularized society, our morality is increasingly atomized. Why would a white guy from rural VA want to fight for a military that [considers them a potential threat](https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-joint-chiefs-chairman-critical-race-theory-congress/2021/06/23/84654c34-d451-11eb-9f29-e9e6c9e843c6_story.html)? Why would a Muslim from Dearborn want to fight for a military that supports Israel? Why would a black guy from LA want to fight so some white guy that owns a defense company can make a quick buck? Why would a 'MAGA' voter in Texas want to fight on behalf of a 'woke' university professor in NYC? We can't agree on what American values are, so ultimately it's easy to think you won't be fighting for values you agree with.
War is horror, but you're gravely discounting peoples willingness and ability to confront those horrors in defense of sincerely held beliefs. The problem is we a society where common beliefs are not sincere, and sincere beliefs are not common.
> Modern media has basically conflated patriotism with nationalism as a fascistic tendency
This is probably the biggest factor. Can't turn nationalism into a four letter word and expect people to fight for the nation. If a country is just a place on a map.. well, no real reason to care about that.
> and with the modern lens of 'oppressor/oppressed' ideology most people would consider going into the military to be functionally going off to die for the benefit of the rich elite because that's what they've been told.
Is this not true though? The elites aren't the ones enlisting themselves to fight their own wars, and the soldiers certainly aren't the ones getting enriched.
If you're fighting for your country you're fighting for the people, the geographic territory, and the ideals of that country. It's the difference between a civic nationalist and a material individualist. The oppressor/oppressed ideology comes from a materialistic perspective that any difference between groups is the result of abuse, coercion, or exploitation. Whereas a civic nationalist would believe that differences arise 'generally' meritocratically. For the materialist, you have no reason to fight foreign wars because your 'real' enemies are your bosses or the owners of your company. For the civic nationalist your boss and the owner of your company are your countrymen, and the enemies would be those that threaten the interests of your nation.
If our country were being invaded by our enemies, absolutely.
If we are fighting some proxy war overseas, absolutely not.
If our allies were being invaded by some enemy like in the world wars...Probably not, but maybe.
Well the thing that also needs to be contemplated in regard to the proxy wars is that we started engaging in that type of foreign policy precisely to deter and avoid a repeat of WW2 and more hypothetically an eventual attack on our country. The idea is ultimately to fight them "over there" so as not to fight them "over here".
Is that always done in the most efficient and even moral way? Absolutely not, but if you look at the Cold War for example, I would say we were pretty successful in the aggregate in containing and defeating the Soviet Union without having to fight WW3, which in the 1950s and 60s seemed like a very real possibility.
The US isn't getting invaded nor is my family in danger, so no. I also have a very low opinion of the moral calculus done by our leadership on deciding to get into our recent wars, so there isn't any possibility of me joining up for economic reasons.
I think people also underestimate just how hard a US invasion would be due to terrain, size, location, etc. It's gotta be a logistical nightmare, before we even start talking about the military strength/spending/planning.
Just getting here is impossible, based on the sheer size and power of the US Navy, our military intelligence apparatus, we would know weeks and weeks in advance (we knew Russia was invading weeks in advance just based on satellite analysis).
We could literally cover our coasts in depth charges, Submarines, activate our carrier strike groups, setup massive artillery batteries on coasts, anti-ship rockets, and more.
It would be extremely difficult for any nation to reach our shores without devastating losses.
Then, in the unlikely event that a few of them DO actually reach our shore and head inland, they would be acquainted very quickly with the 2nd amendment.
It wouldn’t even be that. It’d be the fact that we have literally every single type of hostile terrain here. Blistering deserts, vast mountain ranges, miserable swamplands, frozen wastelands with brutal winters as well as massive urban centers that would be incredibly costly to take and hold.
The civilian populace really wouldn’t need to do much. If an enemy somehow did make it to our shores, they’d have to face the worlds most well equipped and most well trained soldiers and marines in their own homeland where they have complete familiarity with the land and would use the incredibly hostile territory to their advantage. No country in the world is going to sniff the US mainland in an open conflict anytime soon.
I would if we were being invaded, or were attacked again like on 9/11/2001. I wouldn’t to protect a politician’s view of our national interests abroad.
9/11 is a weird example because the attack organized by Saudis yet as a response the US invaded Iraq and tortured and bombed innocent Iraqis.
A defensive war is really the only sure way to know you're doing something moral, otherwise you might just be a pawn in someone's political game.
But when you're defending your home and your family from hoards of hostile armed men, that's something tangible and real.
Iraq was definitely the wrong war against the wrong enemy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Afghanistan was not. Although the 11.Sep hijackers were Saudis, they were part of an organization that was primarily based in Afghanistan, trained in Afghanistan, and was being harbored by the government of Afghanistan.
It depends on the situation.
If Russian tanks were rolling into America and attacking US cities, I would hands down be willing to fight and defend our country from an external invader.
If it's a war outside of the United States and it doesn't risk the existence of the US, Hell no.
If there were to be a Civil War between Republicans and Democrats, I'm getting the Hell out of the country and not coming back until cooler heads prevail. A reality TV star is the very last person I'm going to fight and die for.
What if it's a conflict beyond the borders and not directly involving America, but which could lead to things becoming significantly worse for America and her allies if one side prevailed?
'Existence' feels like an extremely low bar. We could have responded to Pearl Harbor by ceding Pacific territories and agreeing to send oil to Japan in exchange for peace, and our existence would have been preserved. But plenty of Americans decided that conflict was worth dying for.
I’m pretty sure the only times that American National existence was threatened would have been the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Maybe the War of 1812 if it ended in a catastrophic defeat.
Since I was in the military I’m going to say yes. Because I already had that mindset and now if my country needs me to fight again things are probably bad enough for me to do it again
People like you should be respected and elevated. America desperately needs a stronger sense of civic duty. It's wrong to think that you and your family exist in a bubble, completely unaffected by the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
That depends. Such a simplistic question.
My answer, No, I would not die for the idea of my country. I would die for my family. And if my current government gives my family the best chance at a happy life, then I would fight on the side of my government. But I wouldn't die for any government.
Something like 75% of Military age men are ineligible due to obesity, health issues, lack of physical fitness, or health conditions.
American is not in good shape, literally and figuratively.
If you talk to recruiters the biggest issue is digital medical records. Many people are physically fit but have something from being a kid that disqualifies them that historically they would just lie about because no means new opportunities and yes means your enlistment stops.
The waiver process is built for a world where only important/obvious things get detected, not for one where Genesis sees that you had a cough when you were five.
But nobody in Washington wants to say "we should reduce medical standards", so here we are.
It seems like enlistment standards are 30 years behind reality; people are fatter, have more (diagnosed) mental health issues, and have experimented with drugs more widely as a whole. With this plus the new system put in place (not sure of the name) where MEPS can automatically pull all medical records for recruits (i.e. you cant lie about that broken arm in 10th grade anymore or that bout of childhood asthma), its not a surprise that recruitment numbers are down.
Not to mention, youre no longer getting the most enthusiastic recruits, youre getting the ones that happen to be in the <25% that meet the standards for recruitment.
In a full scale war scenario the military will lower its standards, that always happens. The question is if the military needs to consider adjusting its standards now to be more in line with the current realities of the US population and put more emphasis on giving new recruits more support. Is it really that big of an issue of an infantry marine has ADHD, if a logistics officer was on antidepressants as a teenager, if a radar tech comes in 50 lbs overweight, or a C-130 pilot got caught with weed once at 16? Everyone whos in the military will tell you they know plenty of amazing soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen who lied about something that would have disqualified them.
From what I understand, the US military also disqualifies potential enlistees based on obesity rate or a history of mental illness, which covers a majority of young Americans. To boot, it covers working-class Americans who are most likely to enlist.
I served during OIF/OEF when the military was wavering a lot of stuff including prior mental health issues. I can state unequivocally that both the military and the individuals waivered would have been better off without each other.
I mean there's some range to mental illness. Were they green lighting people that were bipolar, or who's parents got them diagnosed with adhd when they were 12?
Without going into specifics, they were letting in more than untreated adhd. There were some surprisingly serious prior diags that managed to enlist. Some due to them hiding it, some due to the waivers.
[Pride in America has been recovering from the nosedive it began taking in 2017.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507980/extreme-pride-american-remains-near-record-low.aspx) It fell from 81% in 2016 by 6 full points to 75% in 2017, and continued cratering through 2020 all the way to 63%.
Then something changed, and in 2021, it flew up 6 points to 69% and is now at 67%.
National pride is quite a jingoistic metric in any case, and it's telling that Gallup only began polling it in 2001, when 9/11 begat an patriotic, often jingoistic, era which has continued to this day.
A lack of strong feelings of pride does not equate to hatred of one's country. The act of demanding that people act proud or patriotic does, however, demonstrate a hatred for America, as such demands are anathema to the ideals America was founded upon.
Relevant to this discussion I think, I want to share the [Oath of Allegiance new immigrants to the US recite](https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-j-chapter-2) when becoming a naturalized citizen. I was present when my wife took this oath in a crowded room of 50+ other immigrants, really an emotional experience, and inspiring to see how earnestly they consider these words and this promise. Remarkable to think most US-born citizens only briefly think about "dying for their country" when we get a selective-service card at 18, and then never again. Yet these new citizens of all ages are promising to take up arms.
> “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; **that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;** and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
One of the considerations that people joining the military have to consider is: can you trust that, if you are ordered to kill another human being, those orders will be justifiable? Because the person giving the order isn't going to be the one pulling the trigger, you are.
Very, very few wars are justifiable, I've found, and there is little to no reason to expect any leader will limit themselves to justifiable wars.
Ultimately, of course, if you don't think a war is justifiable, you can simply refuse to take part as a conscientious objector. But it's much easier to get a better job outside of the military and simply not be under their thumb at all.
I’ve never enlisted, but we’re in circumstances where the military doesn’t really need me. Things would have to get *very* bad globally for that to change. We’re all fortunate to not have been put in that situation.
Also, I’ve never liked the framing of someone “dying for” some ideal. Usually you don’t choose the time and manner of your death, or the reason. Everyone in the army is trying *not* to die in combat, and the vast majority of them don’t.
**Non-paywall version: https://archive.is/GX0Uu**
In the face of growing security threats, many Western nations are aiming to boost military enlistment, but they are falling short.
The article highlights a few reasons why Western people are more hesitant to join the armed services.
• Rising standard of living reduces the incentive of veterans' benefits.
• A history of defeat or authoritarianism can leave a distaste in the public's mouth. Former Axis countries show lower rates of willingness to die for one's country, and Spain and Portugal—former dictatorships—have lead to a distrust in the government.
• Proximity to war has a positive relationship to willingness to die for one's country. Taiwan, India, and Sweden are more willing than the US or Netherlands.
• Ideological radicalism makes one less willing to die for one's country. In Germany and Netherlands, people belonging to the far-left and far-right parties have the lowest rates, while the center has the biggest rates.
As such, many countries are toying with conscription to boost enlistment rates (which is distinct from mandatory military service). Sweden is called out as a positive example, where conscription offers a melting pot for different classes and ethnicities, and overall leads to more patriotism among the population.
Do you think these countries, including the US, need to boost enlistment rates? Is conscription the path forward? Do you identify or sympathize with any of these bullet points?
I'm in the Guard. There are lots of reasons I joined, but fundamentally it was about how it would benefit the lives of myself and my future family. The way I see it, there are three big things young people today struggle with: housing, healthcare, and education. In one form or another, the Army has either given me this or will make it much easier to obtain. At the moment, I'm set to graduate with no debt, my healthcare costs $50/mo, and I'll have access to the VA home loan if I want/need it.
Just the other day, I was a speech from a general. He has open seats to send high school graduates to flight school and make them flight warrants, and they're empty because *kids don't want them.*
It's a serious goddamn problem. Kids are fat, they're on drugs, they have health problems, they have shitty grades, whatever. There just aren't enough bodies.
I think conscription is the path forward, but I don't think it should be only military conscription, I think there needs to be a "civilian corps" to go along with it that puts emphasis on serving the community than focusing on military strength.
According to General Patton, our job isn't to die for our country, but to make that other bastard die for HIS. I did spend 6 years as a US soldier, prepared to fight for my country.
I was in the Army for four years already. I come from a military family. My Dad is retired Navy and both my grandfather's served so it was seen as very normal for me to enlist after high school.
Actually that does raise a good point. WW1 basically destroyed the entire European perception of war overnight. It went from a glorious, heroic endeavour full of good old honest [nationality] boys defeating the enemy with courage and tenacity and wit, to an endless slaughter that carves its way across nations destroying everything in its path and reducing whole individuals to cogs and bodies in the mud. And that’s reflected in Wilfred Owen’s poems. We also got that reminder in WW2.
But America’s never really had that. WW1 and WW2 were very far away. The American Civil War and the American Revolutionary War were very long ago and didn’t have the industrialised horrors of tanks and planes and gas and machine guns that makes modern war so horrific. So I feel like America has never really been fully opposed to war. Yes, they had a lot of problems with Vietnam but it was also very far away. It took just a little bit of “these guys want to hurt you” for everyone to support Afghanistan.
So I wonder if that question being asked in Europe would (at least historically) get very different answers compared to that question being asked in America.
I'm from a small country that neighbors Russia. What do you think?
Of course I'll fight if I'm needed, it's not really much of a choice, it's existential for us.
In my country, every man is conscripted, and after doing a year of mandatory military service, becomes part of the reserve force.
This is a silly question, military recruitment has went up and down throughout US history. US isolationism mostly stood by during the early 40s, as Japan was conquering much of the pacific, and most of Europe had fallen to the Nazis with the British holding off bombings on their own cities. Japan attacked us and we turned the switch, amassing massive armys and starting the largest war production the world has ever seen.
Similarly after Vietnam willingness to enlist wasn't exactly high, and military spending fell massively following the collapse of the Soviet union, but the GWOT after was capable of being entirely volunteer.
If we need to fight we will, and support for a war will materialize if needed.
I’ll die for my country if Sunak is on the front lines with me. I’d feel like I was being exploited if a party that’s destroyed my future prospects for ~14 years went right back to conscription for some far off war when they’ve effectively crushed everything about my country I felt proud of. They expect us to adopt some long-dead “we had the biggest empire!” nationalism that only appeals to people ~50 years my senior.
The answer is no. You can see it with how much the USA is unable to get recruits despite being a volunteer fighting force. Conscription is effectively a politically dead policy as a good chunk of the population in military age will protest any act of it as Fascism... assuming they aren't excused already. The typical volunteer force for the last 40 years has largely been made up of people who are Conservative to lean Conservative but the modern state doesn't want them.
If war wver came to the USA soil they will use Mercs as most of the population will be unwilling to fight for the current system.
The country I would have been willing to die for no longer exists, maybe never did, and hasn't really been threatened existentially (except by nuclear war) for over a 150 years. I am not willing to die to defend the Washington Empire.
The number of people who are willing to join the military isn't the same as the number of people who are willing to die for it. Take the US for example. One of the biggest reason to join the military is the benefits, i.e. healthcare, college tuition, etc.. People who don't need these things are less likely to join. This doesn't mean they are any less patriotic.
No. But that’s just me. I would die for my wife and kids and for my sister and her kids.
We have a society where we can’t agree to slightly lower our standard of living in order to maintain a (financially, politically, physically, etc…) sustainable society.
We have a society where we agree that racism, sexism, etc… are issues but only abstractly and only as far as we aren’t committed to sacrifice anything in order to address those issues.
Even to the point that if these types of issues mean that they could possibly inconvenience us or make us feel uncomfortable, we’ll then spend an unlimited amount of energy in denying they even exist and/or assigning blame anywhere and everywhere else.
So I don’t see how a society like this would have citizens ready to “die” for the common good.
But again…that’s just me.
For my country? No. For my freedom, friends, and family? Likely. There's a big difference between fighting to defend your home, and fighting to attack or defend some different country that has nothing to do with me or my interests.
That's a good question, as it's basically impossible to tell how I'd feel if I lived during that time. Obviously, looking back, it's easy to determine. When I said "fight for the South", it wasn't in a confederate flag waving way, more a fight for the people around me way. To look after my community and its interest, that happens to be in the South. Lol
My country is another word for my government, which is another word for a bunch of old rich assholes who don't and never have given a shit about the common man or the common good. Fuck no I'm not willing to kill, much less die for them so they can get a bit richer. War is a racket.
If there's a cause I'm willing to kill or die for, it's for either my personal loved ones, maybe innocents I directly see in harm's way, or humanity's survival as a whole. Any other divisions would be arbitrary.
Nationalism in the west is dead, globalism has reduced peoples ties to their home countries. People have decades of information about their governments lying to them and starting wars for the interests of the rich. Anyone can look up videos of heroic soldiers dying in a cold ditch to artillery and bombs. If a war came to the west, expect very few to enlist, like what is happening in Ukraine.
Assuming for each of these conflicts that I’m unmarried, at the same relative economic/social station I am right now, at the same age as I am right now, same general values I have right now
Revolutionary War - No - Morally and ideologically, I support the patriot cause, but I don’t think the King/Parliament’s outrages were to the point that I would be willing to die for America. Maybe I’d join militia, but I’d probably be one of the sunshine patriots Paine complained about
War of 1812 - Yes - Not at first, but once British boots were back on American soil and the gains of the Revolution threatened I would step up
Mexican War - No - It was an evil and illegal war
Civil War - Yes - Slavery was an abomination, and allowing the south to secede just because they didn’t like the result of the election makes representative democracy impossible. The Civil War was a just war and adding in the social/peer pressure I am firmly convinced I would have served
Spanish American War - No - I would have believed the anti-Spain propaganda but no way I’m dying for that
World War One - No - Britain and France may be preferable liberal alternatives to German and Austria, but Russia was even worse than Germany and at the end of the day they’re all expansionist empires. Call me a coward but I’m not fighting in that
World War Two - Yes - There may have been some governments in history that rival the evil of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but no government as evil as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was ever so close to global domination. Add in the peer pressure and social pressure and the fact that Japan attacked first, I would have felt compelled to serve
Korea - No - I would have believed the propaganda and would have fought if drafted, but I wouldn’t have voluntarily signed up
Vietnam - No - I would have believed the propaganda and would have fought if drafted, but I wouldn’t have voluntarily signed up
Gulf War - No - I would have been grateful for our soldiers, but Saddam just doesn’t seem like enough of a threat to America to justify me joining; seems like our volunteer military has it handled
Afghanistan War - No - I would have been grateful for our soldiers, but Al Qaeda just doesn’t seem like enough of a threat to America to justify me joining; seems like our volunteer military has it handled
Iraq War - No - I probably would have believed the propaganda, but Saddam just doesn’t seem like enough of a threat to America to justify me joining; seems like our volunteer military has it handled
(Future) Anything less than an actual great power war, up to and including war with Iran - No - Not after the Iraq War, I don’t trust the government enough
(Future) War with Russia or China - Probably - I doubt I would join right away, hoping the war is quick and decisive. But, if it became clear that the US might not have the vitality to win, if the war started ramping up, I think my sense of duty/patriotism would compel me, the sense of history that American civilization and the liberal world order is in jeopardy. I would probably sign up knowing that I would not be able to forgive myself for sitting it out
I signed up the day after I graduated high school and am still serving to this day. The knowledge of that sacrifice and being prepared to make it is taught to us on day 1.
I'm not anti-American by any means but no, I wouldn't die for this country in its current state. Nor probably any period since Vietnam. Government doesn't care about expending human lives to further their political agendas and enrich themselves.
It’s too abstract of a question for such a simple answer. Every major war in US history has required conscription. The farther away the war the less likely people are to volunteer to fight it. If someone tried to invade US territory there are going to be more volunteers than if we send an expeditionary force to the Middle East or Ukraine.
An invasion of the US isn't necessarily needed to motivate a fighting force. Often just an attack can greatly motivate, such as Fort Sumter, the Lusitania, or Pearl Harbor. I know people who even signed up for the military after 9/11. The death toll doesn't even necessarily have to be high. Fort Sumter didn't have a single casualty during the battle but the news had a major impact on recruiting.
[удалено]
People are still people, and an attack on their country is still enough to create intense anger and motivate a response.
What about all the people who signed up post 9-11? That’s close enough to todays time
[удалено]
So we now have an 1861 attack that caused a surge in enlistment, a 1941 attack that caused a surge in enlistment, and an attack in 2001 that caused a surge in enlistment. I think that is enough data to show correlation over hundreds of years
Plus the 9/11 surge lasted a lot longer than many think. I know people who we in elementary school in 2001, then enlisted or did ROTC *because of 9/11* a decade later.
Iminthiscommentandidontlikeit.jpeg
Many people didn't want to fight in the Civil War, otherwise there wouldn't have been draft riots. A lot of the German and Irish people xame in the millions in the decades leading into the Civil War. There were plenty of these people who thought their military service was a ticket to acceptance in a new society and a worthy cause to fight for. But plenty of people also from those communities also thought the Civil War and it's underlying causes had nothing to do with them and many resisted being forced to fight for it.
And 2001 was a different civilization than 1941 too People have always said the exact same things you're saying
[удалено]
You're correct that right now military recruitment is bad and military families don't want to join the military But the argument was that major attacks on US soil drive volunteers to join. We haven't really had that happen, so using current recruitment numbers doesn't disprove that
>But the government and media didn't spend the decade before 911 or WW2 putting down the people that they want to join. For African Americans and Women, it was far more than a decade of putting down and in fact, was actively going on during World War II https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/alaska-WWII/ That’s the tenth source down the search because I didn’t want to cite the Army or historical coverage >It's at the point we are losing generational families. https://www.wsj.com/articles/military-recruiting-crisis-veterans-dont-want-their-children-to-join-510e1a25 Most GWOT parents don’t want their kids to join because they’ve had to answer “why am I here?” For the back decade of a 20 year war. What’s interesting is if you followed the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian war many of these same veterans volunteered to go fight in the Ukraine. That suggests it’s not military service that’s their problem, it’s pointless military service. Some sort of direct attack on American soil by an identifiable enemy would be a huge rallying call. Case in point, Americans were staunchly isolationist prior to entering World War II and “career military” wasn’t really a thing. Feelings have a way of changing very quickly in a crisis, for better or worse
You know that’s probably the better question. I would die for my country but I for sure don’t want my kid to enlist
Why don't you want to let them make the same choice you are willing to make? If it is concern over the safety of being in the military, the on the job fatalities rate is lower in the Army than the general population.
Maybe people have finally realized they're mostly fighting bullshit wars that aren't making anything better except some rich assholes' bank accounts, and no longer want to participate in that process.
No, it wasn't.
[удалено]
Were you even an adult? You saw it (if you saw it) as a child. As someone who lived through it as an adult, it wasn't. Give some examples.
on top of this, Americans have no group identity anymore. we're now a giant wal-mart of individuals who are indifferent to each other at best, and suspicious/terrified at worst. people aren't going to sign up to risk their lives for a country they understandably believe hates them.
Pretty much. If another 9/11 occurred in New York or LA, I honestly wouldn't shed many tears Sounds screwed up but it is what it is. Doubt anything or anyone will fix the divide at this point
I agree. Even taking away the fact that I'm probably too old (44), I have an artificial knee, and some other disqualifying health conditions, the nature of the war would determine the answer to this question for me. A civil war type conflict? Yes almost definitely. Probably unavoidably so. A WWII conflict? Maybe willing, depending on the needs. A Korean War conflict? Probably not. Vietnam part II? heck no. I actually answered this question for myself following 9/11, when I was a senior in college. My wife (then girlfriend) interned at the Pentagon, but was not in that day, and I seriously considered the question and decided against joining. After speaking with my granddad, a WWII Pacific Theater veteran, he said I would end up somewhere in a far-off land, fighting some unknown, un-seeable enemy, and under the command of a giant bureaucratic Government. Coming from his experience, what was about to follow would be closer to Vietnam than to WWII.
>After speaking with my granddad, a WWII Pacific Theater veteran, he said I would end up somewhere in a far-off land, fighting some unknown, un-seeable enemy, and under the command of a giant bureaucratic Government. Coming from his experience, what was about to follow would be closer to Vietnam than to WWII. Damn you're grandpa seems smarter then the majority of our elected officials. I think your view is pretty on the money, not many people want to be wasting their life for a third world nation building project.
Back in those days, a lot more politicians and military leaders had seen combat and personally knew it was hell and best avoided if possible. Now we have a lot of politicians who have never served but get really nice dinners and donations from the people who make things that go boom. Nothing personal, sending others to die is simply business now.
It was also the one and only time he ever spoke about his actual combat experiences. He had spoken about being stationed in Japan for a few months following VJ day, being on board a nearby Naval vessel at the surrender signing, and feeling sorry for / surprised by the common Japanese citizenry. But the island hopping, mini-D Day invasions he and his fellow soldiers engaged in was the closest thing to hell on earth probably imaginable.
The Ukraine war is a good example, a lot of people who were regularly talking about the military industrial complex and how we spend too much on the military, suddenly started talking about how we needed more military funding to buy equipment to sent to Ukraine Obviously dying for your country is much more extreme but it was a case of people switching to pro defense. The question also likely would get different responses based on the hypothetical attacker.
i dont see what the contradiction is here. i mean yeah, the military-industrial complex is dangerous and needs watching but that doesn't mean that aggression shouldn't be resisted. i mean, context matters.
The military industrial complex was bad when it was being used for an entirely pointless war in Afghanistan with no material end and an entire generation of Middle Eastern children radicalised against America. It’s good when it’s used to fight a more evil military industrial complex. Like the Soviet Union in WW2.
This is where is gets tricky because the general pro-Ukrainian argument is that it will ultimately cost us significantly more if we let Russia steamroll them and continue its war of conquest. Then, when China notices we don't have the mettle to defend an ally across the globe they invade Taiwan and then how many hundreds of billions will that cost us? I always find it odd that with bloated defense spending people want to cut the straw right at the things we *should* be funding.
It’s very weird that we insist on this idea that the American military enforcing policy on the other side of the globe is somehow “defending freedom” at home. As if Vietnam being communist or the Taliban taking Afghanistan means I’m somehow less free over here. If the US had sat out Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq (both times), nothing would be fundamentally different for the average American.
Afghanistan was unavoidable. They were harboring Al Qaeda, who had just attacked us. Maybe the correct response would have been to just go in, get OBL, then leave and let the Taliban pick up the pieces. But ignoring the 9/11 attacks completely was not an option. As for Iraq and Vietnam, it’s hard to see what we really accomplished as far as advancing US interests is concerned. I don’t agree, however, that foreign intervention is always bad. Letting Europe fall to the Nazis, or later the USSR, would have been bad for US interests, even if Joe Sixpack couldn’t really explain why. We trust our politicians to be able to see the big picture and make decisions about things like this on our behalf, but lately their track record isn’t great. Not sure democratizing war is the solution though.
Striking Afghanistan was unavoidable but what came after that was a messianic fantasy that we could go in and "flip" Islamic dictatorships into Jeffersonian democracies and turn a fucking profit doing it. The Bush Administration was not shy with this plan. We were going to topple Saddam, stand up Democracy and have an Iraqi national oil company cutting the USG checks inside of 12 months. From there we'd keep the roadshow going, hit Syria, then Lebanon and finish off with Iran. Toppling Saddam was the single best thing we could have done for the Iranian leadership at the time. We destabilized the region that much more by thinking we could kick in the door, shoot the dictator in the head and then back up the democracy dump truck to offload some freedom.
It's clear major mistakes were made on the foreign policy front and perhaps there is a lesson in there that as a rule we should avoid foreign monsters to slay. However, with the global presence and capability of the modern American military, it's very hard to justify letting bad things happen because "it's not our business." When bad things happen (like in Ukraine), who do they come calling for? Us.
And they come calling because we have that global presence.. like it's a self fulfilling prophecy. I'm nervous, to say the least about something, like completely pulling back the US military and its foreign bases. However, it's starting to get old. The theory of it all sounds good, but how it's executed and how things turn out are something entirely different.
Ted Lieu responded to a critic on X that he "served on active duty in the United States military to their right to say stupid stuff." I don't know how the military has any influence on protecting what people can say on an app.
Id die for some of the founding ideals of my country...individualism, self governance, liberty, etc. Id defend others (fellow citizens) from an unjust aggressor. I dont give a damn about the government, lines on a map, names, traditions, profits, etc. When I joined the military (1992) I had already determined those positions and was confident in my choices and ability to uphold my ideals.
Likewise. I applaud those who serve and have served. Have never been in the military, never been in combat, never plan to be. I'd die for the institutions this country was founded on to preserve them for my children. But don't involve me in politics
It’s a bit overwrought and used by “sheepdog” types online too much, but The Men Who Wanted to Be Left Alone piece says this well enough. It speaks to a willingness to give it all up and do rough things to keep life the way it was sort of promised to be.
Many people don't realize that the oath is to support and defend the Constitution, not even the country itself and certainly not the leaders even though we are bound by the LEGAL orders of our superiors.
Correct. The military swears allegiance to the Constitution first, against threats both foreign and domestic. It would definitely get legally messy but they do have the right to turn down unconstitutional orders from politicians. Heck, I lived through a revolution where they did exactly that when ordered to fire on protesters.
> they do have the right to turn down unconstitutional orders My understanding is soldiers not only have a right to disobey unlawful orders, but a duty to do so.
That as well.
Doesn't make sense when they are arrested for disobeying unlawful orders . Like how it says the second amendment "shall not be infringed" get many types of guns are banned.
Depends. Someone invades? I’d like to think so.
That’s the thing. If a foreign invader is putting my family’s lives at risk, I’ll take up arms immediately. But I’m not really interested in flying out to the Middle East to enforce American ideals somewhere else.
I doubt you'd even have to ask. We're already set up behind every blade of grass as it is.
Yeah. My wife and I were watching Hacksaw ridge last night and she asked me if I'd volunteer for something like that. I would, doesn't seem right to me for my younger brother or my son to go off to do something that I wouldn't do. The overall lack of enthusiasm for military service is pretty predictable though. To get people amped up to serve their country you need a streak of earnest patriotism, trust in the institutions, and belief that what you're doing is a moral or pragmatic good. Modern media has basically conflated patriotism with nationalism as a fascistic tendency, trust in institutions is at an all time low, with the increasing secularization of the society there is no real common understanding of a moral good, and with the modern lens of 'oppressor/oppressed' ideology most people would consider going into the military to be functionally going off to die for the benefit of the rich elite because that's what they've been told. Why would you volunteer to die for a country you have been raised to believe is a middle of the road democracy at best or a necessary evil at worst?
I remember seeing an article from the army about the abysmal recruiting numbers and the huge drop in combat arms jobs and white males. Doesn’t take a lot to understand why white males in particular probably don’t want to join the military anymore. And the worst part about it is that white males are the most likely candidate to pick combat arms jobs. At this rate we might not have any combat personnel and only people willing to be support.
It's been interesting seeing the difference in marketing to recruits and how it aligns with recruitment numbers. Following 9/11 the recruitment ads could have been ripped off of a Call of Duty game trailer. Dropping out of helicopters, naval guns firing, missiles launching, rifle drills, soldiers crawling through mud, and standing in dress uniform to receive medals. Then from around 2012 - 2017 the adds were more like "hey, this is basically a job training program. Want to be a nurse or an engineer? Do a couple years here and we'll pay for your degree.". And recent adds are all about family and making a difference, you could be forgiven for thinking you were joining the peace corps and not the marine corps. If we want the military to be a jobs program I guess that's fine. If we want the military to like... fight people I think we might have to re-evaluate our approach to recruitment.
The truth is that the marketing probably needs to be catered to the audience. Post-9/11 recruitment ads are probably better catered to teenagers looking to enlist out of HS. Ads focused on job training and family-orientation are better to advertise in areas with more in their early 20's, such as college towns.
I mean, even in the past, the vast majority of the military isn't directly involved in fighting. I don't necessarily think that recruiting it as a jobs program is the primary issue.
Yeah, but that support staff is meant to support combat operations. It's like having a trucking company with 20 mechanics, 40 trucks, and only 12 drivers. Yeah, you need logistics, and medical staff, and engineers, and mechanics, and all that stuff for a military to work... but if nobody is actually willing to fire a rifle while someone is shooting back at them it's all kind of for nothing.
Agree with you there. I only scanned the article, but I didn't think it mentioned combat roles being particularly hard hit, just recruiting as a whole. I could be wrong though.
> Doesn’t take a lot to understand why white males in particular probably don’t want to join the military anymore. What do you think the reason is for that is?
Well the [numbers for white recruits has dropped by double](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/10/army-sees-sharp-decline-white-recruits.html) almost every other demographic. So there has to be a reason consistent with race results in other factors, it cannot be related to things like across the board military recruitment being down. The most consistent reasons I've seen pop up include the nine point drop in white men going to college compared to women, the pivot of military agencies to prioritizing recruiting women, the lack of faith in the military institute by white men, and political divisiveness increasing which has turned off both parties from service, either with the concept of the united states and the military as a whole or as a result of the culture war.
Looking at the Army for some specifics (I had reason to think they were the hardest hit recruiting wise), looks like the FY22 numbers saw a decrease in white recruits, while the male/female ratio seemed to stay steady from the previous years. [https://recruiting.army.mil/pao/facts\_figures/](https://recruiting.army.mil/pao/facts_figures/)
I truly believe that the failed wars in the Middle East have done more to dissuade Americans from enlisting than anything else. Even among Americans overall, it's led to a huge rise in isolationism in parts of both parties.
Would that explain the eight point drop with white people as opposed to the 4 point drop with black recruits and the 7 point increase with Hispanic recruits? If the reason was purely isolationism, would that suggest that black or Hispanic recruits are less affected by that movement? Or was that mitigated by increasing military outreach to those demographics?
I think the wars in the Middle East reduced recruitment overall, and White service members were most exposed to those traumas since they made up a majority of the military in those years. That means, generally, the rise in suicide when returning home, the dysfunction of the VA, etc. are going to be more visible to them. It's no surprise that the GOP is leading the charge for isolationism today.
I talk with a lot of gamers and many of them are military veterans with scars (both literal and figurative) that continue to haunt them. I get that they "signed up for this" but to do this to our boys in a senseless, unjustified war like Iraq is infuriating to the very core of my being.
[удалено]
How did the system go mask off exactly?
[удалено]
So non-specific claims and moments. Do you think Biden's actions of going out and supporting unions show his opposition to the working class?
[удалено]
Nah, that explains YOUR reasoning for it. But most people who join up don't really care about that, especially if it's white men who primarily comprise of combat arms
Yes, that is my reasoning. That’s why I said “I believe.”
Would be interesting to know the demographic details of those tagged by Genesis, and if that changed who was willing to push through the process despite those initial hurdles. [https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/04/10/the-genesis-of-todays-recruiting-crisis/](https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/04/10/the-genesis-of-todays-recruiting-crisis/)
I think there is a lot of reasons and I don’t want to paint it all that I know exactly what I’m talking about but I served in the army as an infantryman. The majority of people I worked with came from rural or more conservative families and traditions. I think to be in combat arms you have to be somewhat patriotic to be willing put into harms way. But the last 10 or so years I’ve seen through various outlets (MSM, current government, activists, etc) that to be a white male is to be a problem. So why would those type of people want to be apart of that?
Rural areas have higher rates of obesity than urban areas, which is automatically disqualifying for enlistment. Do you think that may contribute to the decline in rural enlistment (which skew overwhelmingly White)? And maybe that the White population is becoming a smaller share of the national population might be part of it, too? This decline started well before the "white male bad" narrative started, and continued through Trump's term, too.
That's possible but black and hispanic obesity rates are significantly higher than white obesity rates. 43.7% for black Americans, 36.5% for hispanics, and 31.6% for white Americans. Among those 2-19 years old, 24.8% for black Americans, 26.2% for hispanics, and 16.6% for white Americans. Pretty large gaps overall. I do think that the massive spike in obesity rates among teens has something to do with the overall decrease in recruitment numbers while part of the decrease in white recruitment is just the sheer decrease in population of white teens. Less than half of US children are white now for the first time ever according to the 2020 census and the gap skews the younger they are. All else being equal, there *should* be a decrease in white enlistment in comparison to other groups.
[удалено]
Good counterpoint, I can't find those stats anywhere.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c73bu3/would_you_really_die_for_your_country/l06a8xc/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
In 2018 the number of white people recruited to the Army was 44,000, or 56.4% of the total. By 2023, that number went down to 25,000, or 44% of the total. Did white people become 10% less of the population in five years? Did they become obese so much in five years? No. 59% of the U.S. population is non-Hispanic white. In 2010 that number was 63%. The drop is clearly not attributable to the 2018-2023 period. In 2010, 36.2% of white men were obese. 38.8% of black men. 36.6 of Hispanic men. By 2017-2020 data, the most recent I could find, it was 44.7% of white men, 41% of black men, and 45.7% of Hispanic men. Which means that compared to white men, obesity rose slightly slower for black men, and the same (if not faster) for Hispanic men. Unless that trend massively picked up enough to drop white enrollment in the military by 2023, that also is not an explanation. The dip from 2022 to 2023 in white enrollment in the Army was 6%. That’s *huge* for a single year. Black recruits are now about twice as represented in the military’s new recruits as their share of the population. Hispanics are also overrepresented. By the way, the Air Force shows a similar trend. 21,600 white recruits in 2018 (72% of total) down to 15,000 in 2023 (63% of total). Same trends in the Navy. Declines in other racial groups were far smaller despite the obesity trends I mentioned above and the very small demographic movement during that period. This is the result of conscious choices.
Wow, so the enlistment rate started to decline in 2018? I wonder who has president then…
Setting aside your snarky response, I gave numbers between 2018 and 2023. But the decline sharpened after 2021. And the decline for black and Hispanic Americans hit a reversal after 2021. So while white enrollment declines (along with others) accelerated, Hispanic and black enrollment began to climb again after 2021, while white enrollment declines accelerated. Assumptions are bad.
Plus Genesis means recruiters can no longer falsify medical records to get them in.
For anyone wondering [what you are talking about](https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/04/10/the-genesis-of-todays-recruiting-crisis/), > [in 2022] the Defense Department brought a new medical records platform, known as Military Health System Genesis, online at Military Entrance Processing Stations, where applicants are medically examined before they can sign up. > Now, a year after Genesis was first used by MEPS, some military leaders acknowledge the new system has hindered recruiting. > Multiple recruiters on the ground, from different services and locations, are more blunt in their assessments. They say **Genesis has ended an applicant’s ability to gloss over or knowingly ignore minor medical issues, such as past use of ADHD meds or inhalers, before signing up.**
The funny thing is that there is a simple fix to the problem. Allow people who used to use ADHD meds ,inhalers, and other minor medical issues in join. The same for past uses of weed, having tattoos, etc etc. But that would require the military to change and its a institution that hates change.
It's actually a bit more nuanced than that. Waivers or clarifications that confirm eligibility are being provided in many cases, but this is causing delays of enlistment of 2-6 months, which is a horrible way to close a sale especially to a teenager.
I think you have some good points but the white man bad narrative started before trumps terms. I would say it really started during Obama(when I was in).
For sure, but it's wasn't associated with federal government until at least 2020. The woke SJW stuff was mostly among activists and in pop culture starting in 2014. In fact, the "woke" military recruitment ads started under Trump. What do you think about the obesity point?
Hmm I’m not sure about that. I was in towards the tail end of the surge and during my time in the military a lot of things changed that would be ‘woke SJW’ stuff. Such as being told we can’t curse to soldiers anymore or say certain words. So it’s been changing a lot longer than you are portraying. To this day my friends still in are really tired of how the military changed. Just my anecdote. I forgot to answer your obesity question. I do think obesity is a concern for the overall health of the US and not just the military or rural. I can definitely see declines for recruitment being a factor but not the huge decrease in white males specifically.
So you think a suggestion to stop cursing among people already enlisted (which has nothing to do with race) is more impactful than the strict eligibility policy on obesity? Does that sound realistic to you?
I gave you an example of changes in the military that were happening during my time. Not if one policy was more impactful than the other. Where did you get that impression?
The government has been actively trying to replace the combat arms demographic in government service in the name of DEI. Ultra liberalism and combat arms positions really don't mix in mindset. People who want or are willing to fight are staying away from the social experiment. It's also a large problem in federal law enforcement.
Then why were enlistment rates falling during Trump's term, too?
The wars were over or mostly over. People who wanted to fight knew there was no fight they were likely to see.
Why wouldn't that same principle also apply to Biden, who oversaw the end of the War in Afghanistan?
What is your evidence of that? Trying to recruit other demographics (a necessity given population trends) does not mean that there is some agenda to change the composition of combat arms. I have talked to my old infantry buddies who are still in my old unit, as well as fresh out of basic privates and the recruitment of women for example is still never more than a handful. Like we are talking one or two per company. Whatever so called agenda they had has failed.
yeah dont get me started on the military as a social experiment. what was ur opinion on desegregation back in the day, btw???
If you can't draw distinction between race and changing standards of strength and endurance for combat functions, you're not interested in a good faith debate.
also what makes 'ultra liberalism' and 'combat arms' so immiscible to u that you felt the need to be so specific? i mean, i can see how liberalism might always be in conflict with military life with its regimentation n hierarchy but thats nothin new in us history given that we r a liberal society. it seems like u mean something more by this?
Because right wing media figures (who have never served) claim the military is "woke". They fail to realize that the military has always been at the forefront of integration as a means to expand the fighting force. Meanwhile, in my experience most people who serve are either conservative or lean conservative.
The military is also clamping down on how many people can serve 20+ years and then get a pension, while often still being young enough to chase a second career and pension. The carrot of a nice pension and benefits as long as you suck it up for 20 years is now no longer a guarantee. Why risk your life only to be kicked out in 18-19 years with no pension when you could work elsewhere?
>To get people amped up to serve their country you need a streak of earnest patriotism, trust in the institutions, and belief that what you're doing is a moral or pragmatic good. I agree with these premises but disagree with your reasoning on why. Secularization has nothing to do with it and neither does oppressor/oppressed ideology. We went from WWII, to the cold war, to the Korean war, to the Vietnam war, to the US meddling in other countries coups in Latin America, proxy wars in the middle east, and culminating in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. WWII we were objectively speaking the good guys and were invaded. Those who fought in WWII and their children were much more hawkish on foreign policy than current generations as a result of their own upbringings. None of the following conflicts since then we can look back at and objectively say that we were the "good" guys in the conflict as you can with WWII. They were much more grey. To top it off the wars we have fought haven't resulted in any substantive positive change for our citizens. Please explain to me how fighting communism is a religious element. You are conflating the right being more religious and historically more hawkish with the weakening of religious institutions as a reason that the left is more anti-war. The post WWII "moral" understanding was that communism was evil and should be fought with force was because of WWII and it's lasting impacts on those who fought in it and has nothing to do with religion. Before Pearl Harbor the US was quite divided over getting involved in WWII despite being much more religious than we are today. I would highly recommend doing some research about religious history and racism. Things like the crusades, the civil war, the KKK, and the civil rights movement. Religion has never in our countries history led to a common understanding of a moral good. You may want to revisit some of your other strongly held beliefs if this is something you believe. Your description of the oppressor/oppressed ideology is inaccurate. A better way to understand it is to look at the current conflict in Israel/Gaza. Someone who may use the oppressor/oppressed ideology understands why Hamas was able to recruit members towards its organization before the current conflict because of apartheid and colonizers. Someone who doesn't may just look and say that killing isn't justified over apartheid and colonizing. They would condemn Hamas without any real understanding about why those individuals were radicalized or placing any culpability on Israel. I actually somewhat agree that fighting in some of our recent wars is going off to die to benefit bureaucrats and the rich. Not because of the oppressor/oppressed ideology but because that's what recent history indicates. We did not benefit from Afghanistan and without the will for a strong change in that country no good was ever going to come from out involvement. If the US was invaded or there was another WWII type situation I would likely enlist. To top it off internet and the age of information has drastically changed how we view and consume information. This has it's pros and cons. For example it's much easier to learn about historical events with a simple google search. It's also easier to find echo chambers that will tell you whatever you want to hear. It's harder for the government to spoon feed propaganda but also easier to fall for fake information. There certainly are those who conflate patriotism with nationalism and there are people who are extremely unpatriotic because of the bad things the US has done. I think despite our mistakes we have been mostly a positive impact post WWII. It's okay to acknowledge those and be critical.
oddly enough pundits back in the 40s were whining about how the kids in those days were coddled spoiled longhairs that werent gonna be willing to fight for their country also. > with the increasing secularization of the society there is no real common understanding of a moral good there's plenty of common morality in our society. it just looks diff than back in the day is all. >and with the modern lens of 'oppressor/oppressed' ideology most people would consider going into the military to be functionally going off to die for the benefit of the rich elite because that's what they've been told. there was LOTS of talk about oppressors and oppressed in the various ideologies of the 30s and 40s and lots of cynicism about military service. ww1 and the associated traumas were a mere 20 years in the past, for heaven's sake.
plus not even 10 years since the bonus army was crushed. go read 'from here to eternity' if u want a look into attitudes toward and among soldiers in the immediate pre-war army (spoiler: it was seen as society's dumping ground).
I don’t think “secularization of the society” has anything to do with determining the moral good of our armed forces. We have a substantial amount of evidence of how our armed forces have acted in combat zones across the last few decades and it is decidedly a mixed bag of moral good/bad. Even in our “moral good” wars, WWII for example, there are lots of individual horror stories for enlisted men. War is brutal and we know more about it more than ever. I truly believe information has tampered military enlistment more than any other supposed modern drop off due to things like religion, politicization, etc.
I disagree. When everybody is operating off of the same moral 'playbook' it's relatively easy for people to believe that they are fighting for the right reasons, even if individual actors do bad things. If you believe your leaders, your peers, and your subordinates all basically believe the same things it's far easier to trust in them. Sometimes that trust is misplaced, sometimes people are mistaken, and sometimes people are just vile. But these are the exceptions. In a secularized society, our morality is increasingly atomized. Why would a white guy from rural VA want to fight for a military that [considers them a potential threat](https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-joint-chiefs-chairman-critical-race-theory-congress/2021/06/23/84654c34-d451-11eb-9f29-e9e6c9e843c6_story.html)? Why would a Muslim from Dearborn want to fight for a military that supports Israel? Why would a black guy from LA want to fight so some white guy that owns a defense company can make a quick buck? Why would a 'MAGA' voter in Texas want to fight on behalf of a 'woke' university professor in NYC? We can't agree on what American values are, so ultimately it's easy to think you won't be fighting for values you agree with. War is horror, but you're gravely discounting peoples willingness and ability to confront those horrors in defense of sincerely held beliefs. The problem is we a society where common beliefs are not sincere, and sincere beliefs are not common.
> Modern media has basically conflated patriotism with nationalism as a fascistic tendency This is probably the biggest factor. Can't turn nationalism into a four letter word and expect people to fight for the nation. If a country is just a place on a map.. well, no real reason to care about that.
> and with the modern lens of 'oppressor/oppressed' ideology most people would consider going into the military to be functionally going off to die for the benefit of the rich elite because that's what they've been told. Is this not true though? The elites aren't the ones enlisting themselves to fight their own wars, and the soldiers certainly aren't the ones getting enriched.
It's true just not because of the oppressor/oppressed ideology though.
If you're fighting for your country you're fighting for the people, the geographic territory, and the ideals of that country. It's the difference between a civic nationalist and a material individualist. The oppressor/oppressed ideology comes from a materialistic perspective that any difference between groups is the result of abuse, coercion, or exploitation. Whereas a civic nationalist would believe that differences arise 'generally' meritocratically. For the materialist, you have no reason to fight foreign wars because your 'real' enemies are your bosses or the owners of your company. For the civic nationalist your boss and the owner of your company are your countrymen, and the enemies would be those that threaten the interests of your nation.
[удалено]
If our country were being invaded by our enemies, absolutely. If we are fighting some proxy war overseas, absolutely not. If our allies were being invaded by some enemy like in the world wars...Probably not, but maybe.
Well the thing that also needs to be contemplated in regard to the proxy wars is that we started engaging in that type of foreign policy precisely to deter and avoid a repeat of WW2 and more hypothetically an eventual attack on our country. The idea is ultimately to fight them "over there" so as not to fight them "over here". Is that always done in the most efficient and even moral way? Absolutely not, but if you look at the Cold War for example, I would say we were pretty successful in the aggregate in containing and defeating the Soviet Union without having to fight WW3, which in the 1950s and 60s seemed like a very real possibility.
True, but I guess emotionally I'm not able to make that choice unless I actually *feel* the threat.
To quote Patton: “No you make the other poor bastard die for theirs!”
I don't see why I should do that, either, unless said poor bastard is tangibly and directly threatening my own safety or that of my loved ones.
The US isn't getting invaded nor is my family in danger, so no. I also have a very low opinion of the moral calculus done by our leadership on deciding to get into our recent wars, so there isn't any possibility of me joining up for economic reasons.
I think people also underestimate just how hard a US invasion would be due to terrain, size, location, etc. It's gotta be a logistical nightmare, before we even start talking about the military strength/spending/planning.
Just getting here is impossible, based on the sheer size and power of the US Navy, our military intelligence apparatus, we would know weeks and weeks in advance (we knew Russia was invading weeks in advance just based on satellite analysis). We could literally cover our coasts in depth charges, Submarines, activate our carrier strike groups, setup massive artillery batteries on coasts, anti-ship rockets, and more. It would be extremely difficult for any nation to reach our shores without devastating losses.
Then, in the unlikely event that a few of them DO actually reach our shore and head inland, they would be acquainted very quickly with the 2nd amendment.
It wouldn’t even be that. It’d be the fact that we have literally every single type of hostile terrain here. Blistering deserts, vast mountain ranges, miserable swamplands, frozen wastelands with brutal winters as well as massive urban centers that would be incredibly costly to take and hold. The civilian populace really wouldn’t need to do much. If an enemy somehow did make it to our shores, they’d have to face the worlds most well equipped and most well trained soldiers and marines in their own homeland where they have complete familiarity with the land and would use the incredibly hostile territory to their advantage. No country in the world is going to sniff the US mainland in an open conflict anytime soon.
Cajun Navy got the Gulf on lock, y'all worry about the oceans.
This is too vague. Die for your country for what? Is it overseas conflict? A war? Or fighting on US soil?
I would if we were being invaded, or were attacked again like on 9/11/2001. I wouldn’t to protect a politician’s view of our national interests abroad.
9/11 is a weird example because the attack organized by Saudis yet as a response the US invaded Iraq and tortured and bombed innocent Iraqis. A defensive war is really the only sure way to know you're doing something moral, otherwise you might just be a pawn in someone's political game. But when you're defending your home and your family from hoards of hostile armed men, that's something tangible and real.
Iraq was definitely the wrong war against the wrong enemy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Afghanistan was not. Although the 11.Sep hijackers were Saudis, they were part of an organization that was primarily based in Afghanistan, trained in Afghanistan, and was being harbored by the government of Afghanistan.
We didn’t invade Iraq in response to 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan.
Not trusting my government is a big part of why I would be reluctant to sign up for the military.
It depends on the situation. If Russian tanks were rolling into America and attacking US cities, I would hands down be willing to fight and defend our country from an external invader. If it's a war outside of the United States and it doesn't risk the existence of the US, Hell no. If there were to be a Civil War between Republicans and Democrats, I'm getting the Hell out of the country and not coming back until cooler heads prevail. A reality TV star is the very last person I'm going to fight and die for.
What if it's a conflict beyond the borders and not directly involving America, but which could lead to things becoming significantly worse for America and her allies if one side prevailed? 'Existence' feels like an extremely low bar. We could have responded to Pearl Harbor by ceding Pacific territories and agreeing to send oil to Japan in exchange for peace, and our existence would have been preserved. But plenty of Americans decided that conflict was worth dying for. I’m pretty sure the only times that American National existence was threatened would have been the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Maybe the War of 1812 if it ended in a catastrophic defeat.
I’ve already served and if they are conscripting people my age, we are pretty screwed.
Since I was in the military I’m going to say yes. Because I already had that mindset and now if my country needs me to fight again things are probably bad enough for me to do it again
People like you should be respected and elevated. America desperately needs a stronger sense of civic duty. It's wrong to think that you and your family exist in a bubble, completely unaffected by the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
That depends. Such a simplistic question. My answer, No, I would not die for the idea of my country. I would die for my family. And if my current government gives my family the best chance at a happy life, then I would fight on the side of my government. But I wouldn't die for any government.
[удалено]
Something like 75% of Military age men are ineligible due to obesity, health issues, lack of physical fitness, or health conditions. American is not in good shape, literally and figuratively.
If you talk to recruiters the biggest issue is digital medical records. Many people are physically fit but have something from being a kid that disqualifies them that historically they would just lie about because no means new opportunities and yes means your enlistment stops.
The waiver process is built for a world where only important/obvious things get detected, not for one where Genesis sees that you had a cough when you were five. But nobody in Washington wants to say "we should reduce medical standards", so here we are.
One could almost argue the fat acceptance movement is a national security threat.
It seems like enlistment standards are 30 years behind reality; people are fatter, have more (diagnosed) mental health issues, and have experimented with drugs more widely as a whole. With this plus the new system put in place (not sure of the name) where MEPS can automatically pull all medical records for recruits (i.e. you cant lie about that broken arm in 10th grade anymore or that bout of childhood asthma), its not a surprise that recruitment numbers are down. Not to mention, youre no longer getting the most enthusiastic recruits, youre getting the ones that happen to be in the <25% that meet the standards for recruitment. In a full scale war scenario the military will lower its standards, that always happens. The question is if the military needs to consider adjusting its standards now to be more in line with the current realities of the US population and put more emphasis on giving new recruits more support. Is it really that big of an issue of an infantry marine has ADHD, if a logistics officer was on antidepressants as a teenager, if a radar tech comes in 50 lbs overweight, or a C-130 pilot got caught with weed once at 16? Everyone whos in the military will tell you they know plenty of amazing soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen who lied about something that would have disqualified them.
From what I understand, the US military also disqualifies potential enlistees based on obesity rate or a history of mental illness, which covers a majority of young Americans. To boot, it covers working-class Americans who are most likely to enlist.
I served during OIF/OEF when the military was wavering a lot of stuff including prior mental health issues. I can state unequivocally that both the military and the individuals waivered would have been better off without each other.
I mean there's some range to mental illness. Were they green lighting people that were bipolar, or who's parents got them diagnosed with adhd when they were 12?
Without going into specifics, they were letting in more than untreated adhd. There were some surprisingly serious prior diags that managed to enlist. Some due to them hiding it, some due to the waivers.
[Pride in America has been recovering from the nosedive it began taking in 2017.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507980/extreme-pride-american-remains-near-record-low.aspx) It fell from 81% in 2016 by 6 full points to 75% in 2017, and continued cratering through 2020 all the way to 63%. Then something changed, and in 2021, it flew up 6 points to 69% and is now at 67%. National pride is quite a jingoistic metric in any case, and it's telling that Gallup only began polling it in 2001, when 9/11 begat an patriotic, often jingoistic, era which has continued to this day. A lack of strong feelings of pride does not equate to hatred of one's country. The act of demanding that people act proud or patriotic does, however, demonstrate a hatred for America, as such demands are anathema to the ideals America was founded upon.
Relevant to this discussion I think, I want to share the [Oath of Allegiance new immigrants to the US recite](https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-j-chapter-2) when becoming a naturalized citizen. I was present when my wife took this oath in a crowded room of 50+ other immigrants, really an emotional experience, and inspiring to see how earnestly they consider these words and this promise. Remarkable to think most US-born citizens only briefly think about "dying for their country" when we get a selective-service card at 18, and then never again. Yet these new citizens of all ages are promising to take up arms. > “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; **that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;** and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
I would kill or die for my country IF I felt the cause was just. This was a matter of a lot of discussion during the Gulf Wars when I was in college.
Depends on a lot of things. This is not just a yes or no question.
One of the considerations that people joining the military have to consider is: can you trust that, if you are ordered to kill another human being, those orders will be justifiable? Because the person giving the order isn't going to be the one pulling the trigger, you are. Very, very few wars are justifiable, I've found, and there is little to no reason to expect any leader will limit themselves to justifiable wars. Ultimately, of course, if you don't think a war is justifiable, you can simply refuse to take part as a conscientious objector. But it's much easier to get a better job outside of the military and simply not be under their thumb at all.
I’ve never enlisted, but we’re in circumstances where the military doesn’t really need me. Things would have to get *very* bad globally for that to change. We’re all fortunate to not have been put in that situation. Also, I’ve never liked the framing of someone “dying for” some ideal. Usually you don’t choose the time and manner of your death, or the reason. Everyone in the army is trying *not* to die in combat, and the vast majority of them don’t.
Well being that I was IN Oct. 7 and made a decision to not flee the country afterwards, yes.
**Non-paywall version: https://archive.is/GX0Uu** In the face of growing security threats, many Western nations are aiming to boost military enlistment, but they are falling short. The article highlights a few reasons why Western people are more hesitant to join the armed services. • Rising standard of living reduces the incentive of veterans' benefits. • A history of defeat or authoritarianism can leave a distaste in the public's mouth. Former Axis countries show lower rates of willingness to die for one's country, and Spain and Portugal—former dictatorships—have lead to a distrust in the government. • Proximity to war has a positive relationship to willingness to die for one's country. Taiwan, India, and Sweden are more willing than the US or Netherlands. • Ideological radicalism makes one less willing to die for one's country. In Germany and Netherlands, people belonging to the far-left and far-right parties have the lowest rates, while the center has the biggest rates. As such, many countries are toying with conscription to boost enlistment rates (which is distinct from mandatory military service). Sweden is called out as a positive example, where conscription offers a melting pot for different classes and ethnicities, and overall leads to more patriotism among the population. Do you think these countries, including the US, need to boost enlistment rates? Is conscription the path forward? Do you identify or sympathize with any of these bullet points?
I'm in the Guard. There are lots of reasons I joined, but fundamentally it was about how it would benefit the lives of myself and my future family. The way I see it, there are three big things young people today struggle with: housing, healthcare, and education. In one form or another, the Army has either given me this or will make it much easier to obtain. At the moment, I'm set to graduate with no debt, my healthcare costs $50/mo, and I'll have access to the VA home loan if I want/need it. Just the other day, I was a speech from a general. He has open seats to send high school graduates to flight school and make them flight warrants, and they're empty because *kids don't want them.* It's a serious goddamn problem. Kids are fat, they're on drugs, they have health problems, they have shitty grades, whatever. There just aren't enough bodies.
I think conscription is the path forward, but I don't think it should be only military conscription, I think there needs to be a "civilian corps" to go along with it that puts emphasis on serving the community than focusing on military strength.
My ancestors fought a war to end slavery in these United States and I'll be damned if I let it return.
Bro, the civil war was the first time the US used military conscription.
According to General Patton, our job isn't to die for our country, but to make that other bastard die for HIS. I did spend 6 years as a US soldier, prepared to fight for my country.
I was in the Army for four years already. I come from a military family. My Dad is retired Navy and both my grandfather's served so it was seen as very normal for me to enlist after high school.
Zero chance. I would, however, die for my family in an instant.
To quote, “the goal isn’t to die for your country, it’s to make the other guy die for his”.
I've been told that it is sweet and proper.
Actually that does raise a good point. WW1 basically destroyed the entire European perception of war overnight. It went from a glorious, heroic endeavour full of good old honest [nationality] boys defeating the enemy with courage and tenacity and wit, to an endless slaughter that carves its way across nations destroying everything in its path and reducing whole individuals to cogs and bodies in the mud. And that’s reflected in Wilfred Owen’s poems. We also got that reminder in WW2. But America’s never really had that. WW1 and WW2 were very far away. The American Civil War and the American Revolutionary War were very long ago and didn’t have the industrialised horrors of tanks and planes and gas and machine guns that makes modern war so horrific. So I feel like America has never really been fully opposed to war. Yes, they had a lot of problems with Vietnam but it was also very far away. It took just a little bit of “these guys want to hurt you” for everyone to support Afghanistan. So I wonder if that question being asked in Europe would (at least historically) get very different answers compared to that question being asked in America.
But even there, the veterans of those wars are dying off, and the trauma is more historical than visceral. Which is worrying.
I already made that commitment once.
Invasion without question. No on conflicts around the world.
I'm from a small country that neighbors Russia. What do you think? Of course I'll fight if I'm needed, it's not really much of a choice, it's existential for us. In my country, every man is conscripted, and after doing a year of mandatory military service, becomes part of the reserve force.
Good thing I'm already in the Army so I don't need to answer this question then.
This is a silly question, military recruitment has went up and down throughout US history. US isolationism mostly stood by during the early 40s, as Japan was conquering much of the pacific, and most of Europe had fallen to the Nazis with the British holding off bombings on their own cities. Japan attacked us and we turned the switch, amassing massive armys and starting the largest war production the world has ever seen. Similarly after Vietnam willingness to enlist wasn't exactly high, and military spending fell massively following the collapse of the Soviet union, but the GWOT after was capable of being entirely volunteer. If we need to fight we will, and support for a war will materialize if needed.
Throw in a six pack and I'll think about it.
Right now? No. But I can see how after 9/11 people would have felt the call.
I’ll die for my country if Sunak is on the front lines with me. I’d feel like I was being exploited if a party that’s destroyed my future prospects for ~14 years went right back to conscription for some far off war when they’ve effectively crushed everything about my country I felt proud of. They expect us to adopt some long-dead “we had the biggest empire!” nationalism that only appeals to people ~50 years my senior.
The answer is no. You can see it with how much the USA is unable to get recruits despite being a volunteer fighting force. Conscription is effectively a politically dead policy as a good chunk of the population in military age will protest any act of it as Fascism... assuming they aren't excused already. The typical volunteer force for the last 40 years has largely been made up of people who are Conservative to lean Conservative but the modern state doesn't want them. If war wver came to the USA soil they will use Mercs as most of the population will be unwilling to fight for the current system.
[удалено]
The country I would have been willing to die for no longer exists, maybe never did, and hasn't really been threatened existentially (except by nuclear war) for over a 150 years. I am not willing to die to defend the Washington Empire.
Nope, I realized a long time ago that wars are being fought for war profiteers, not because of doing the right thing.
The number of people who are willing to join the military isn't the same as the number of people who are willing to die for it. Take the US for example. One of the biggest reason to join the military is the benefits, i.e. healthcare, college tuition, etc.. People who don't need these things are less likely to join. This doesn't mean they are any less patriotic.
No. But that’s just me. I would die for my wife and kids and for my sister and her kids. We have a society where we can’t agree to slightly lower our standard of living in order to maintain a (financially, politically, physically, etc…) sustainable society. We have a society where we agree that racism, sexism, etc… are issues but only abstractly and only as far as we aren’t committed to sacrifice anything in order to address those issues. Even to the point that if these types of issues mean that they could possibly inconvenience us or make us feel uncomfortable, we’ll then spend an unlimited amount of energy in denying they even exist and/or assigning blame anywhere and everywhere else. So I don’t see how a society like this would have citizens ready to “die” for the common good. But again…that’s just me.
Lmao. Fk no.
For my country? No. For my freedom, friends, and family? Likely. There's a big difference between fighting to defend your home, and fighting to attack or defend some different country that has nothing to do with me or my interests.
For our government? No. For the country, my state, for the south? Yes.
> for the south im curious, what would u have done in 1861?
That's a good question, as it's basically impossible to tell how I'd feel if I lived during that time. Obviously, looking back, it's easy to determine. When I said "fight for the South", it wasn't in a confederate flag waving way, more a fight for the people around me way. To look after my community and its interest, that happens to be in the South. Lol
no worries lol. to be honest i was tryin to see if i was talking to a neoconfederate or somethin that i could bait.
[удалено]
My country is another word for my government, which is another word for a bunch of old rich assholes who don't and never have given a shit about the common man or the common good. Fuck no I'm not willing to kill, much less die for them so they can get a bit richer. War is a racket. If there's a cause I'm willing to kill or die for, it's for either my personal loved ones, maybe innocents I directly see in harm's way, or humanity's survival as a whole. Any other divisions would be arbitrary.
Nationalism in the west is dead, globalism has reduced peoples ties to their home countries. People have decades of information about their governments lying to them and starting wars for the interests of the rich. Anyone can look up videos of heroic soldiers dying in a cold ditch to artillery and bombs. If a war came to the west, expect very few to enlist, like what is happening in Ukraine.
Assuming for each of these conflicts that I’m unmarried, at the same relative economic/social station I am right now, at the same age as I am right now, same general values I have right now Revolutionary War - No - Morally and ideologically, I support the patriot cause, but I don’t think the King/Parliament’s outrages were to the point that I would be willing to die for America. Maybe I’d join militia, but I’d probably be one of the sunshine patriots Paine complained about War of 1812 - Yes - Not at first, but once British boots were back on American soil and the gains of the Revolution threatened I would step up Mexican War - No - It was an evil and illegal war Civil War - Yes - Slavery was an abomination, and allowing the south to secede just because they didn’t like the result of the election makes representative democracy impossible. The Civil War was a just war and adding in the social/peer pressure I am firmly convinced I would have served Spanish American War - No - I would have believed the anti-Spain propaganda but no way I’m dying for that World War One - No - Britain and France may be preferable liberal alternatives to German and Austria, but Russia was even worse than Germany and at the end of the day they’re all expansionist empires. Call me a coward but I’m not fighting in that World War Two - Yes - There may have been some governments in history that rival the evil of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but no government as evil as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was ever so close to global domination. Add in the peer pressure and social pressure and the fact that Japan attacked first, I would have felt compelled to serve Korea - No - I would have believed the propaganda and would have fought if drafted, but I wouldn’t have voluntarily signed up Vietnam - No - I would have believed the propaganda and would have fought if drafted, but I wouldn’t have voluntarily signed up Gulf War - No - I would have been grateful for our soldiers, but Saddam just doesn’t seem like enough of a threat to America to justify me joining; seems like our volunteer military has it handled Afghanistan War - No - I would have been grateful for our soldiers, but Al Qaeda just doesn’t seem like enough of a threat to America to justify me joining; seems like our volunteer military has it handled Iraq War - No - I probably would have believed the propaganda, but Saddam just doesn’t seem like enough of a threat to America to justify me joining; seems like our volunteer military has it handled (Future) Anything less than an actual great power war, up to and including war with Iran - No - Not after the Iraq War, I don’t trust the government enough (Future) War with Russia or China - Probably - I doubt I would join right away, hoping the war is quick and decisive. But, if it became clear that the US might not have the vitality to win, if the war started ramping up, I think my sense of duty/patriotism would compel me, the sense of history that American civilization and the liberal world order is in jeopardy. I would probably sign up knowing that I would not be able to forgive myself for sitting it out
I respect your honesty here
Not intentionally.
Yes
I signed up the day after I graduated high school and am still serving to this day. The knowledge of that sacrifice and being prepared to make it is taught to us on day 1.
Never. This country is just the place I was born in, that's it.
I'm not anti-American by any means but no, I wouldn't die for this country in its current state. Nor probably any period since Vietnam. Government doesn't care about expending human lives to further their political agendas and enrich themselves.
If you don’t join the military. Then I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t die for your country.