You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Great Cultural Revolution
The Regime Hates the ‘Warrior Caste'
2024-05-06
[TK] Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth is concerned about the risk of "developing a warrior caste" as, stubbornly, the majority of military recruits come from military or veteran families. In a recent hearing in front of the House Armed Services Committee, Secretary Wormuth warned of the possibility that the Army would become "more and more distant" from the population it swears to defend. Secretary Wormuth insisted "that’s something you want to guard against," but did not manage to give a reason why.

The military must exist based on hierarchical values that are—justifiably—unknown to a democratic society built on liberalism. Service in the military requires a life of sacrifice and order that runs counter to a civilian American upbringing. Adultery, for example, is against military law; you must seek approval to go on vacation; and you will lose your job if you gain too much weight. Such limitations on personal freedom are presumably objectionable to many Americans, and to society writ large. The military requires different lifestyles of its members, so we should be grateful that a caste of veterans’ descendants stand ready to serve.

In his 1957 book The Soldier and the State, Samuel P. Huntington defined the proper balance between a democratic society and a military that must exist based on contrary principles. Huntington paints a compelling picture of an American military forged between 1860 and 1940 that was built, not on "citizen soldiers," but on professional officers who saw themselves as set apart, or you could say "distant," from the society they existed to defend. William T. Sherman disdained any political involvement from officers, even to the point where he did not vote.

Having never served in uniform herself, Secretary Wormuth has spent decades cycling back and forth between bureaucratic outposts and think tank roles. She has evidently spent little time considering the military as a profession. Civilian leadership is necessary to promote trust in military leaders to manage training, tactics, and policies that make the fighting force lethal, so Secretary Wormuth need not have worn the uniform.

But her inability to comprehend the role of the military profession in society is a common but dangerous failure among defense leaders in both Democratic and Republican administrations. The military does not exist to reflect or mirror society, but to fight bloody wars on behalf of the nation. The culture and values required for this grave responsibility are, thankfully, not something one finds in most of the American population. We have a "military caste" that bears the burden of American warfighting. Public policy should embrace this reality, not wish it were not so.
Posted by:Besoeker

#9  If a new draft were to be implemented, how often would you hear the mantra “My Body, My Choice!?

Draft every trans person demanding better than equal rights. Let ‘em earn it.
Posted by: Ulealing Stalin3479   2024-05-06 14:03  

#8  ^ we use to have a small standing army only expanded during wars. Even after WWII we demobilized only to reinstitute the peacetime draft in 1948. The justification was the Soviet threat. When the Wall came down, that mission was over and we should have drastically downsized the active component and drawn back to our own interests. Instead the MIC supported by the general officer corps resisted it to support playing the world's policeman. Something that fed right into the old Russian paranoia.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2024-05-06 12:29  

#7  You could always renew the draft but be prepared for resistance and civil unrest in the case of unpopular wars like Vietnam. I believe that's how Lyndon Johnson lost his job. I hate to bring up Switzerland but, IIUC, they have universal conscription but never get into any wars. Nobody ever attacks them because getting up those mountains where the entire populace is shooting down at you might be too tough. The population goes along with it because they trust their leaders not to get them involved in foreign adventures where they have nothing at stake. That's a bit more than we can say.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2024-05-06 11:58  

#6  Re warrior caste: remember McCain?
Posted by: Grom the Reflective   2024-05-06 10:20  

#5  Wormuth Has down an outstanding job of thwarting the continuation of the warrior caste.
Posted by: Super Hose   2024-05-06 10:05  

#4  They have no problems with Praetorian Guards. They have big problems with armed people, the populous or the uniformed, who hold the Constitution to be worth defending to the last full measure of devotion.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2024-05-06 07:39  

#3  They have achieved a geo-political understanding and knowledge of foreign regions and peoples that oftentimes conflicts with ruling aristocracy goals and objectives.

Posted by: Besoeker   2024-05-06 07:21  

#2  ^^ Plus they're just 'icky' because they know how to use assault rifles.
Posted by: Mullah Richard   2024-05-06 07:13  

#1  Those from the military who may aspire to high political office are too often removed or destroyed. They understand the realities and consequences of war and insist on victory. They can easily become a control problem and impede the Military Industrial Complex hunger for Forever Wars.
Posted by: Besoeker   2024-05-06 06:12  

00:00