minorkeys comments on On Warrior Ethos

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 month ago* (11 children)

The people who become military when it is not wartime are psychos, believers and the desperate. The vast majority of people who are best at making war seem to choose to do other things with their time when it isn't wartime.

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

E: And the results are in.

I specifically said “with troops deployed abroad,” giving everyone who has reacted here (A) the option to read that far and (B) the chance consider why that qualifier might be significant, knowing the knee jerk was likely but that it would demonstrate how used to the idea of a warrior class and risk-free acceptance of American imperialism we truly are.

If you are an American reading this, please ask yourself…

Is it OK that the risks endured in military service are only optional for the well-off and those who have other options, yet an “opportunity” for social mobility (a way out of poverty) to the least privileged?
Is it just that people overseas should fear American boots on their soil while you feel none and feel entitled to balk at the “shitty idea” of you or those you care about being selected to fill those boots?
Can you wash your hands of responsibility for American actions abroad simply by claiming pacifism or conscientious objection?

US imperialism can only continue as long as all those who would object to violence can simply choose economic participation instead, enjoying the spoils at a safe distance while imagining their hands clean.

—— end of edit, original comment below ——

It’s part of why I think random conscription should be kept as the primary if not only means of military enlistment for any country with troops deployed abroad.

But the other part is why I think this policy should be constitutional and considered utterly sacred…

If combat is required, that is far too important a job to be left to the combative.

This might seem like a cruel policy but that’s because war is the cruel policy, even if it becomes necessary. Citizens should not be as emotionally sheltered from that truth as they are.

This is the moral argument for conscription or mandatory service in many nations, that it’s a deterrent to war when civilian voters are not free to compartmentalize it.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] sartalon@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Random conscription is a terrible idea for a non-wartime army.

I always loved the idea of mandatory service. Everyone has to serve two years to get full "citizenship status", (what that means is definitely debatable).

But not necessarily military service. Your two years could be spent in a number of ways supporting the public good. Like the CCC from Roosevelt, or supporting firefighting, assisting with elderly care, all kinds of things could benefit.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments