Yeah Parsan and Postman. My circle are officers, so I can't extrapolate for the OR... Well, my brother was a sailor in the navy but he was afraid of water... I can't count him as typical To address Cheese on what purpose? It saddens me that your comment seems so cynical. There are many answers. I'm going to throw in a few from the Aussie perspective. Mateship. Being there for your mates. Doing your bit. Having their backs. Sharing hardship. Being part of a close and effective team. Family. Our defense family is extremely tightnit. The ADF draws people in, it cares and provides. It becomes an additional family. It breeds inclusivity. There is an inside, and an outside. Duty and Service. We have Unrestricted Service. No one joins our military thinking they can pick and choose when fight. Out of a sense of duty, they sign the line knowing that service may bring death (a much higher cost than a civilian trade). Loyalty to Country. Loyalty is one of those beautifully absolute concepts. You can't only be loyal when it suits you - if you are, it isn't loyalty. Absolute loyalty, in the face of personal doubt. In the face of objection. Loyal even when it's easier not to be. Patriotism is not yet dead. There are still people out there motivated by the desire to serve their country and sacrifice all. By rendering/generalizing recruits as low socioeconomic and without choice, you are in effect denying them higher callings and allying them with the very same military-industrial complex that you loathe.
Well, much of what Daphnia says of the military is true. However, there is research that shows (Lutz 2008 Who joins the military?) how lower family income is a strong statistical predictor of enrolment in the US military. That said, other research noted that military service was often used as a jumping point towards a better socio-economic status, acquiring citizenship, etc.
@daph, I thought you might have been suggesting that the wars our countries are involved in are justified, and so answering the call to go fight them is a higher purpose. That's why I asked what you meant about higher purpose, rather than jump down your throat about how illegal these wars are. But that's not what you meant, so I won't jump down your throat However, I do agree with the reasons you said. I think those are all very noble reasons to join the military, and I'm sure many folks do join for those reasons.
What ashvar said is true. Most kids join (and stay) for the economic benefits. Yes, there are exceptions, but the vast majority do join to upgrade their socioeconomic status.
The forces have become a huge economic kinda thing, it's an escape for kids in poverty and helps give them opportunity to thrive. While I don't support war, I support the military and think it's important that we continue to fund it because it is helping many kids who were born into unfortunate situations. But I do think we should get rid of the draft
God I wish that statement wasn't true. I would never enlist again in today's environment with our current government. But I do in some large part agree with you. I don't think any of us can be as proud of our nations involvements in conflicts, as much as the service personal may be well intentioned, and the vast majority are extremely well intentioned. The accusations that many are dumb school drop outs is far from the truth in my experience. But yes the armed forces offer career choices and training that would otherwise be denied to some. This in no way detracts from the skill, camaraderie and desire to serve a greater good. Soldiers are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their nation. They do it for their country and the people of their nation, because they want to provide a safe stable environment for their people to prosper and thrive in. Pride in conflicts, where back in WW1 and WW2 and purely from the uk side from the Falklands are far more understandable. The conflicts since and between however. There has on a political side of things been far too much of rush in and walk away without stabilising a region. Often the intent to do good has resulted in harm and a total lack of stability. More recently with nations ill equipped to deal with the withdrawal of forces. This is far from the fault of soldiers. This is political and economical aims that often don't reflect the best interest of a nation outside of what can be gained. Would I serve again when I did. Yes. Would I now. Probably not. Not for this government. Far too many false conflicts motivated by profit these days. In no way do I detract from the sacrifice of our armed forces personal. I have the utmost respect for every service personal of most nations. The Americans and Uk forces I served with have my utmost respect and admiration. They were truly exceptional. But even now I cannot condone the attitude of governments and military use that has not considered fully the ability of a nation to rebuild and stabilise afterwards. Whilst now we are forced to act in the interest of global stability, some of that unrest is of our own making and a lack of foresight from prior governments. Much more could be done to encourage global co-operation and responsibility. Common enemies should be used as a means to build relationships between nations rather than the current attitude that is further destabilising world security. For example the Russian and Americans pushing each other rather than running combined operations to secure a region. The political nonsense is destabilising regions, rather than doing what armed forces should. Securing and maintaining peace.
...strange noone mentioned that in their yelp reviews and they got 4 stars? (musta been an off day) iPhone
Ah......... Then I'm pretty fortunate to represent ummmmm Singapore. Haha We have conscription. Yay! Every Singaporean son has to join National Service. Permanent Resident? Yeah! If you're the son of a PR you're eligible for National Service. And not going means your dad/mum/siblings loses his PR, and if your family works for a government or stat board they get bumped to 1st point to lose their jobs, or if they important they don't get increments and bonuses and promotions. It's a family affair. Bwahahahahahahahahah! But one things going for you, the Singapore Armed Forces don't fight. It's a peace time force to prevent wars. Always having good war machines, just not at the cutting edge of science. Yes yes yes we are close to our allies, both American and Israelis. And of course the entire plethora and myriad of other allies. If you are a girl/lady/woman/female and volunteer for National Service, you become a Citizen. How cool is that?! 6-years of service and bam you're a citizen. For males/men/boys if you volunteer to become a Full Time Armed Forces personnel and not just serving National Service, your pay is equivalent to an Executive outside. And you also get a bulk bonus, sometimes at the beginning and always at the end. Some of my friends received S$40,000 at the beginning and almost all received a severance pay of any where between S$20,000 (for a corporal) to S$100,000 (for a Captain, MasterSergeant, etc) So, it's a holiday job with cash incentives. Just the thing for bored people with nothing to do. Lol Camaraderie, Family, and such. Yes! I'm still friends with my mates from the army. Still keep in touch and sometimes have coffee with them. That's what friendship and family is. We go through thick and thin with them.
That sounds awesome, Male. I think we should implement conscription here. I bet we would go to war a LOT less often.
I wish that the US required all males and females to serve after highschool...of course the obvious medically restricted or family needs would be exempt....I personally feel that what you learn in those first formidable years away from home set the tone. Discipline, loyalty, honor, commitment, sacrifice..... I do understand that not all will walk away better from this experience, but I think that the majority would. I also think it would give a good skill set to those who may have been otherwise "useless" to society. Either during their commitment or after, they can attend college if they want to better themselves.
The toppling of saddam hussain gave power to a mostly secular nation thus handing power to the shia causing a sunni uprising which strengthened al queada who isis broke ranks from guided by ex saddam regime generals. Justly the the crackdown of the assad regime on protestors gave rise to rebels again sunni dissented against assad because he is shia which explains there relationship with iran, now the rebels are mostly linked with isis another branch of the US government funded opposing rebel forces and neither the CIA or pentagon have ceased funding opposing forces. European countries have began pulling out there support of saudi arabia when it came to light that they where bombing infrastructure and the al queada insugency they where requested to combat have grown stronger, add on to this yemen and saudi arabias conflicting religious beliefs and saudis definition of terrorism and it's almost black and white, the US back them with billions in contract deals. Their middle eastern policy is a walking calamity and makes them look more like warlords than peace keepers. The US play in to the hands of isis at least for the time being but eventually like al queada resorted to guerrilla warfare over open warefare isis might start putting more organisation outside syria and iraq rather than in it, attacks becoming more frequent. Many experts predicted the events that had taken place before they did even politicians but onces again the americans chose ignorance over rationality. This isn't everyone just the majority and the majority the world doesn't need to catch up to the US the US needs a collar on it because it is far too powerful to be making the mistakes it has been on such large scales. It's still unbelievable it isn't being held as accountable as it should be.
I would have to agree. At the moment congress can send troops wherever and not give a rats ass because odds are they know nobody in the military who'd actually be at risk. The moment they have sons/daughters/nieces/nephews who'd be on the ground is the moment they think more carefully about whether or not war is really needed.
I personally am not a big fan of women in combat roles. Not saying they can't do the job....my stance is more that it's a liability. In war, bad things happen that I don't want to list in a 9+ game. Having a female creates an opportunity that men would feel obligated to go above and beyond to protect. Where as male "battle buddies" would understand that there is an inherit risk we took when we signed up...
It certainly makes politicians think a little harder. I did my military service as a conscript. But I think that there is a stronger correlation between geopolitical situations and war than conscription and war. Between 1900 and 1990 most european countries had conscription and during the first 45 years of that period... well. After we just faced off against another humongous set of conscripts. Israel has conscription and its army is an almost perennial state of warfare. I also think that the positive sides of the professional armed forces mostly depend on the fact that most of those who go there want to be there. Conscripts are not interested, generally not in great shape, and overall just waiting to get out. The result is less brilliant that what you got during your professional time in.