As the nation prepares to welcome home some 45,000 troops from Iraq, most Americans have little or nothing in common with their experiences or the lives of the 1.4 million men and women in uniform. The past decade of war by volunteer soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines has acted like a centrifuge, separating the nation’s military from its citizens. Most Americans have not served in uniform, no longer have a parent who did and are unlikely to encourage their children to enlist.
Never has the U.S. public been so separate, so removed, so isolated from the people it pays to protect it.
Every day, U.S. troops fight and work on all seven continents, but in most ways the nation has moved on to new challenges: the economy and a looming presidential campaign in which the wars bump along at the bottom of a list of public concerns topped by jobs, debt, taxes and health care. Over the past generation, the world’s lone superpower has created–and grown accustomed to–a permanent military caste, increasingly disconnected from U.S. society, waging decade-long wars in its name, no longer representative of or drawn from the citizenry as a whole. Think of the U.S. military as the Other 1%–some 2.4 million troops have fought in and around Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11, exactly 1% of the 240 million Americans over 18. The U.S. Constitution calls on the people to provide for the common defense. But there is very little that is common about the way we defend ourselves in the 21st century.
[i]Never has the U.S. public been so separate, so removed, so isolated from the people it pays to protect it[/i]
A rather self-serving title to help boost (sagging) sales. Although I have no memory of the Korean conflict, I know many of those who were in Korea and they have told me, to a person, they felt very isolated and ignored when they came back.
And who, of the baby boomer generation, can forget the tragic reception that most Vietnam Vets obtained on their return. I talked recently to one at a PTSD conference who told the story of signing his final papers and then being hustled out a back door into a taxi to escape the protesters at the front door of his mustering-out facility in California.
While the great swath of Americans have generally ignored Iraq and Afganistan, the reality is that numerous private organizations and organizations sponsered through the VA have sprung up to meet the special needs of returning vets from both theaters. Any vet or family who thinks they need help in coping with post-return issues can find a plethera of services to help them in the transition.
Hopefully our political leaders have learned a lesson about the toll of repeat deployments and the cost of those tactics on the back end in suicides, divorces, and ruined lives.
Actually, except during the peace time draft in the 50 and 60’s, this has been the norm. It was inherent from 1903 when Root down played the militia and volunteer forces and we truly moved to a volunteer army. And that army was kept small.
The only way to reverse what the Times is complaining off is to reinstate the draft. Just how far do you think that will get?
I would also point out that the imperial Presidents have committed the armed forces without any say so of the American people. We have not had a declaration of war since 1941. Don’t need one you say? Then there is no reason the people should support the President’s private war with his private army.
I agree completely with Br. Michael. While I feel that the U.S. public has generally a very warm and positive attitude towards those serving in the military (very much unlike during the Vietnam era) the fact is that many people view the military as the private tool of presidents to be used when and how they see fit with no real oversight from anybody else. Perhaps they are on a mission to “protect” us or perhap they’re on a mission to carry out whatever foreign policy goal a particular president wants to pursue. Nobody really knows and nobody feels they have any real say one way or the other.
I happened to have marched in the NY City Veterans Day parade on Friday with my dog (long story how that happened) and there were huge, cheering crowds holding up signs saying “Thank you” and similar sentiments. There were veterans from all the U.S. wars from WWII on (a few WWII vets were walking but most were on floats — including a small group of former Navajo Code Talkers). The WWII vets received massive cheers all along the parade route. The other were cheered warmly as well, but most of the “thank yous” seemed to be directed at the WWII vets. I suspect most people understand exactly how these vets really did “protect” them in a way that is far less clear for veterans of later conflicts.
Actually, I expect that author of the article is “speaking for the folks at Time.” I have enjoyed getting to meet and talk with folks that have served or are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I’ve watched my fellow citizens do so as well. On Veterans Day on my run at a local park, I noticed a crowd around a small veterans’ memorial and stopped to discover that they were holding a ceremony. I was impressed at the number of young people there, and the number of parents with children. I didn’t see all that “separation” that the author has chattered about — other than of course the massive distance between the Middle East and America. For instance, when someone I was dog training with recently on his leave went back to Afghanistan, it was a multi-day travel event.
No, the main group that I see that is “so separate, so removed, so isolated” from other citizens, and who have “little or nothing in common with their experiences” and are “increasingly disconnected from U.S. society,” and who are “no longer representative of or drawn from the citizenry as a whole” are the people who write and report for Time.
And it shows in their declining readership.