The Warrior Caste Revisited

By Greyhawk

A May, 2008 follow up to an even earlier story...

*****

WESTMORELAND: O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!
-- Shakespeare, Henry V

November, 2003 - the MilBlogs Ring was brand new, but I was surprised at the number of folks who'd joined. There might have been two dozen milbloggers operating at the time, and at least 20 had already linked up. Active duty, Guard and Reserve, guys who'd been to Iraq, guy's who'd go there and Afghanistan later, spouses, and veterans. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines were all "represented" in those small numbers.

One purpose of the MilBlogs Ring is to promote awareness of the individuality and humanity of the members of the US Armed Forces. Members are aware of the liklihood of difference of opinions between fellow members, and although we may not agree with each other on everything we say we will fight for the rights of each other to say it.

We mean that literally.

In hindsight, I shouldn't have been surprised. While individuals start blogging for individual reasons and have individual stories to tell, military folks are already bound by virtue of service, understand what it means to be part of something, and instinctively grasp the concept that the total exceeds the sum of the parts.

The United States was founded with a militia tradition of citizen-soldiers, and a cultural aversion to the excesses of the peacetime standing army of England's King James II. A national army was raised during the American Revolution, but in 1783, after the United States won independence, the Congress discharged the Continental Army that had defeated the British, except for 80 soldiers retained to guard the military stores at West Point and Fort Pitt, plus a proportionate number of officers, none above the rank of captain. This congressional action set a precedent for a military force, composed exclusively of men, that was to be mobilized during wartime through calling up the militia, recruiting volunteers, and occasional conscription, and was to be demobilized during peacetime. This pattern persisted until the mid-20th century
-- America’s Military Population, by David R. Segal and Mady Wechsler Segal

Back in those early days of milblogs, Blackfive had written a post called The Warrior Caste, initially inspired by other milbloggers:

Recently, Doc Russia mentioned it to me when I left a comment at his blog. LCDR Smash had a post in response to Professor Atlas' editorial about the widening divisions between civilians and the military. Those who continue to serve have less in common with those who don't, and this gap widens with every generation.

Sadly, most of those links are no longer available. If Professor Atlas' editorial exists anywhere on the web now, I can't find it.

For most of U.S. history, less than 1 percent of the population served in the military, except for brief periods when the country was at war. There were notable surges in the relative size of the force during the first half of the 19th century for the War of 1812 and the Mexican War of 1846-1848, but the annual military participation ratio (MPR)-the percentage of the total resident population serving in the active-duty military4-did not approach 3 percent of the population until the U.S. Civil War in the mid-1860s. More than 1 million men, mobilized largely by militia call-ups and conscription, served under arms between 1861 and 1865. The MPR then declined again until the First World War, when almost 3 percent of the population-almost 3 million men-served. Again, mobilization involved calling up the militia, supplemented by selective conscription.
-- Segal and Segal

I had just read the Stars and Stripes story on Jonathan Falaniko and his father, and seeing the connection I made my own post on the topic. As you can see from the trackbacks there and at Blackfive, many other milbloggers joined the discussion. The Ring was off and running.

The pattern of surge and decline in the size of the armed forces changed when the country mobilized for World War II. About 16 million people were brought into the armed forces in the 1940s, including more than 200,000 women. The men were largely conscripts (10.1 million); women were not subject to the draft, and all women in uniform were volunteers. The World War II armed forces represented about 12 percent of the population and included about 56 percent of the men eligible for military service on the basis of age, health, and mental aptitude.-- Segal and Segal

Atlas' op-ed might be long gone from the web, but I'm familiar with the message. There have been many like it since. A small number are fighting for the few. The gulf is widening between military and non. Some go farther: There is a class distinction between those who serve and those who don't. Those who don't are unworthy of the sacrifice of those who do. If only we had a draft people might protest this war more! Americans aren't suffering enough!!!





Actually, while keeping Americans from suffering might not be the chief reason most people join the military, it is a measure of our success. We're actually damn good at it. Read through the comments on all those inter-linked Warrior Caste (not Class) posts and you'll not find one complaining about how under appreciated they are. Likewise you'll find none who look down on civilians as some sort of unworthy recipient of our largesse.

There may be fewer people now related to active duty service members than there were in the (anomolous) 1945, but as has been true throughout our history, everyone in the military is related to someone who isn't.

WESTMORELAND: O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING: What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
-- Shakespeare, Henry V

And there is nothing new under the sun.

2008-05-25 16:13:29

Posted by Greyhawk / May 24, 2009 4:51 PM | Permalink