So I'm a bit late to this, as there have been a few threads about this since it first rolled out.
But a while ago the US Army released a series of recruitment ads clearly designed to appeal to the latest generation and hop on the train of social justice. It's a cringey commercial, the kind that armed forces put out when they are hungry for manpower and can't rely on the usual economic downturn to drive recruitment. It's not the first time an American military branch has tried to reach out with bizarre advertising, like the Marines showed back in the 1990s.
But in today's age of social media it caught on and drew immediate comparisons to Russian advertisements for their own armed forces. For a very specific part of the internet full of tradcaths, ethno-nationalists, and neo-feudalists who hearken back for a time where strong, noble Kings ruled over us all, and the Church was sacrosanct (let's just ignore the history of monarchy's broken chromosomes, inbreeding, and the violence and corruption of the medieval church), Russia is something of a wet dream. It's a land where the population overwhelmingly rejects LGBTQ+, migrants, and embraces social conservatism and a seemingly pro-masculine national self-image. to them, this commercial comparison only serves to validate that ideal; Russia is a land that has rejected the decadence of western democracies with their feminism, acceptance of homosexuality, and instead embraced their national and cultural heritage to become a socially conservative, Christian state.
Russia in reality is a multi-ethnic country who's opposition to homosexuality has nothing to do with religion, but rather with prison culture, and who's national culture and politics are so completely alien to Americans that there's not a single person among the so-called "traditionalists/nationalists" in the American alt-right that would survive within Russia. Russia is led by opportunist who would band the church in an instant if he thought it would help keep him in power, and Russians actually have a more positive view of Muslims than anyone else in Europe besides the UK. But I'm actually not here to talk about Russia specifically, I'm here to talk about the US Army commercials.
There is something said in the Army commercials that did catch my notice, and something that did concern me. Janeen, one of the less mentioned commercials, mentions it off hand- "I grew up in an Army family".
This is actually mentioned a few other times in the other series of commercials. Family members who served; friends and relatives who served.
That's something I share; my father served in the Air Force, and his dad was in the Navy. Currently I'm serving in the Army, and one of my cousins was in the Marines. His dad also served.
Notice a trend?
In 2019, 79% of Army recruits had a family member who served. 30% said it was a parent. All this for a nation where less than 1% of the population actually serves in the Armed Forces.
This is, in a few words, deeply troubling.
Before we go further, a few things. The US military is an all-volunteer force. Virtually everybody who is serving currently did so out of their own free will. A tiny minority (and I mean a handful) are people who had to fulfill military service in exchange for citizenship, or were given the choice between jail and military enlistment. Their numbers are pretty small so it's not really worth mentioning in the long run.
Russia, by comparison, employs conscription, the act of forcibly drafting people into the military. Conscription was a common element of the Cold War, and the United States employed it up until after the Vietnam War. It's still technically there, but no longer employed. South Korea, Israel, and Finland are two other nations where conscription is used. There is a world of debate over which system is better; on average, volunteers tend to make better soldiers than conscripts. But conscription largely eliminates problems of manpower and staffing, something all-volunteer forces constantly have to battle.
Conscription is often unpopular owing to the fact that you are forcing people to fight and threatening jail if they don't. Russia, despite its long history of conscription, passed a number of laws in the past decade that limited the length of service of conscripts to just a year, and Russian law stipulates that Russian conscripts can not be deployed outside of Russia.
Since professional volunteers eliminate the complex moral issues of conscription, and often make for better soldiers, the issue of manpower is usually the biggest problem associated with using only volunteers. But there is one bigger problem that flies under the radar, especially for a younger country like the United States, with professional armies.
They're bad for political stability.
The downfall of ancient Rome can be traced back to the Marian Reforms. Now, common perceptions of the Marian Reforms is that they transformed the old, Roman Republican army, into a truly professional fighting force that would go on to conquer the known world. In reality, the Marian Reforms changed little in the makeup of the Legion. There was no discernible change in tactics (not that the Roman Army back then was much for tactical innovation), equipment, or doctrine (which didn't really exist back then, but whatever). But there was one massive change; the Roman army ceased being a citizen-militia and became a professional force of volunteers. The Marian reforms also meant that instead of the soldiers themselves providing their own equipment, their generals did so. And also paid them, too.
Over time, the Legions grew more loyal to their commanders than the nation they were supposed to be serving. It was the rebellions of Legions and their generals that brought about so many of Rome's civil wars; Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Brutus, Octavian, Antony. More Roman Emperor's had their throat slits by Roman blades than by Persian, Greek, Celtic, Gallic, German, or Iberian swords. The Roman Army became a major source of disruption and instability within Rome, and did more to contribute to the Empire's decline than any barbarian tribe or warlord.
Now, I am generally unsympathetic to attempts to compare America to Rome; Roman culture bears no practical relationship to American culture or society. But the issue here isn't one of cultural comparisons, it's simply an observation of what effect a professional military can have on society.
And it's not just Rome. During the 1930s, the French Government was terrified of the effect a fully professional army would have on the delicate politics of the Third Republic. After the chaos and scandal of the 1800s for France, who could blame them? But the result was for France to severely limit the training time and enlistment length for French soldiers, and French Generals, wary of employing their hastily trained troops in a war of rapid maneuver and action, developed a doctrine that emphasized slow, steady movements and operations. The result was the painfully slow moving French command was unable to respond to the German breakthrough in 1940, and what was supposed to be the most powerful Army in the world fell apart in six weeks.
While the French response to their dilemma doomed their nation, it was based on a very real, practical problem associated with professional armies. Left to their own devices, they develop their own subcultures and become separate from the rest of society. While no military is by any means a monolithic entity, they are bonded by a common element that quite literally no one else in the general population shares. Sebastian Junger in his book Tribe lays out the facts simple; America's armed forces are segregated from the rest of society. They are constantly reminded of their distinction and uniqueness; things like letting service members and veterans board planes early, discounts at stores, all these are done with the purest intentions in mind but ultimately just reinforce the same idea; if you're in the military, you are different.
Now, this isn't meant to be alarmist; the US armed forces are not a trigger squeeze away from going rogue and seizing control of the country. But we also are a young nation. The British, French, Danish, Norwegian, Spanish, Swedish, and Portuguese Armies are older than the United States. We have not yet had any time to really witness the influence a professional military force can have on society and politics.
A military by nature must reflect the nation it is serving. An army that represents only a political elite, or just reinforces existing social divisions within society, is one that is destined for trouble. In 1991 Iraq's general staff lined the bulk of their infantry divisions along a defensive line with the Kuwaiti border, stacking their armored and mechanized divisions further back under the hope that the line infantry would hold their own in static defensive positions and allow for mechanized reserves to conduct a counter-attack to any Coalition forces that broke through.
But Iraq's infantry divisions manning the front line were largely composed of Shia Muslims that had for years suffered under Saddam's leadership, and when the fighting started most of them surrendered after minimal resistance. In the 1980s the South African Defense Force was thrown back by a Cuban-Angolan offensive that inflicted heavy losses on the South Africans; too much for a nation who's army was largely limited to white Afrikaans who were the minority in their society. South Africa was forced to settle for a ceasefire and the nation rapidly underwent social upheaval and change.
The United States military doesn't suffer from the same religious and racial/ethnic divide as either Iraq or South Africa did, but there is a social divide; between those with a family history of military service, and those who don't. If left unchecked, military service will ultimately become a caste of its own, separate from the rest of the society it is supposed to defend.
Now, one might argue that it's not a particularly bad thing. After all, the US military swears loyalty to the Constitution. And the US military in many ways embodies the traits and values many Americans consider sacrosanct and healthy.
The citizens of the Empire of Japan also thought their armed forces properly represented them, and when left to their own devices the Japanese military embarked on a war that ended with two nuclear weapons being dropped on Japan. Armed forces, left to their own devices, make for exceptionally poor strategists.
Now again, I don't want to be alarmist; the US is not at threat of starting a war on behalf of a rouge general or anything. Nor is there any credible chance of the current armed forces attempting to seize power, or anything like that. The US armed forces are, for the most part, pretty run-of-the-mill and apolitical. But once more, we are a young nation. Our all-volunteer professional army began in the 1970s. Our politics since then have seemingly only grown more divided and heated. The 2020 Election resulted in countless court cases, open calls for martial law, and an attempting storming of the capital to prevent the EC votes from being ratified. The US Armed Forces stayed out of the whole affair as much as possible. What happens if, fifty years down the road, an increasingly isolated armed forces decides they don't like the incoming President's plan to cut the defense budget, or reduce troop numbers? Is that likely? Who knows. If I could predict the future I would be a millionaire. But it's a question that, fundamentally, needs to be asked in the interest of our democracy and Republic.
This isn't a call to disband the armed forces, or bring back the draft, or anything really radical. All that really needs to be done is to shift focus away from recruiting extensively from military families. After the draft the military closed down a lot of bases north of the Mason-Dixon Line; northern bases with their long winters weren't available for training. Many major installations are located far away from major urban centers, meaning much of the populace isn't in close contact or familiar with the armed forces. We have created a loop where the military grows more and more distance from the people they are supposed to serve, isolated within their bases, recruiting from the same families across generations, surrounded by walls of liquor stores, tattoo parlors, and cleaners. It's turned the military into a family business.
Literally.
But a while ago the US Army released a series of recruitment ads clearly designed to appeal to the latest generation and hop on the train of social justice. It's a cringey commercial, the kind that armed forces put out when they are hungry for manpower and can't rely on the usual economic downturn to drive recruitment. It's not the first time an American military branch has tried to reach out with bizarre advertising, like the Marines showed back in the 1990s.
But in today's age of social media it caught on and drew immediate comparisons to Russian advertisements for their own armed forces. For a very specific part of the internet full of tradcaths, ethno-nationalists, and neo-feudalists who hearken back for a time where strong, noble Kings ruled over us all, and the Church was sacrosanct (let's just ignore the history of monarchy's broken chromosomes, inbreeding, and the violence and corruption of the medieval church), Russia is something of a wet dream. It's a land where the population overwhelmingly rejects LGBTQ+, migrants, and embraces social conservatism and a seemingly pro-masculine national self-image. to them, this commercial comparison only serves to validate that ideal; Russia is a land that has rejected the decadence of western democracies with their feminism, acceptance of homosexuality, and instead embraced their national and cultural heritage to become a socially conservative, Christian state.
Russia in reality is a multi-ethnic country who's opposition to homosexuality has nothing to do with religion, but rather with prison culture, and who's national culture and politics are so completely alien to Americans that there's not a single person among the so-called "traditionalists/nationalists" in the American alt-right that would survive within Russia. Russia is led by opportunist who would band the church in an instant if he thought it would help keep him in power, and Russians actually have a more positive view of Muslims than anyone else in Europe besides the UK. But I'm actually not here to talk about Russia specifically, I'm here to talk about the US Army commercials.
There is something said in the Army commercials that did catch my notice, and something that did concern me. Janeen, one of the less mentioned commercials, mentions it off hand- "I grew up in an Army family".
This is actually mentioned a few other times in the other series of commercials. Family members who served; friends and relatives who served.
That's something I share; my father served in the Air Force, and his dad was in the Navy. Currently I'm serving in the Army, and one of my cousins was in the Marines. His dad also served.
Notice a trend?
In 2019, 79% of Army recruits had a family member who served. 30% said it was a parent. All this for a nation where less than 1% of the population actually serves in the Armed Forces.
This is, in a few words, deeply troubling.
Before we go further, a few things. The US military is an all-volunteer force. Virtually everybody who is serving currently did so out of their own free will. A tiny minority (and I mean a handful) are people who had to fulfill military service in exchange for citizenship, or were given the choice between jail and military enlistment. Their numbers are pretty small so it's not really worth mentioning in the long run.
Russia, by comparison, employs conscription, the act of forcibly drafting people into the military. Conscription was a common element of the Cold War, and the United States employed it up until after the Vietnam War. It's still technically there, but no longer employed. South Korea, Israel, and Finland are two other nations where conscription is used. There is a world of debate over which system is better; on average, volunteers tend to make better soldiers than conscripts. But conscription largely eliminates problems of manpower and staffing, something all-volunteer forces constantly have to battle.
Conscription is often unpopular owing to the fact that you are forcing people to fight and threatening jail if they don't. Russia, despite its long history of conscription, passed a number of laws in the past decade that limited the length of service of conscripts to just a year, and Russian law stipulates that Russian conscripts can not be deployed outside of Russia.
Since professional volunteers eliminate the complex moral issues of conscription, and often make for better soldiers, the issue of manpower is usually the biggest problem associated with using only volunteers. But there is one bigger problem that flies under the radar, especially for a younger country like the United States, with professional armies.
They're bad for political stability.
The downfall of ancient Rome can be traced back to the Marian Reforms. Now, common perceptions of the Marian Reforms is that they transformed the old, Roman Republican army, into a truly professional fighting force that would go on to conquer the known world. In reality, the Marian Reforms changed little in the makeup of the Legion. There was no discernible change in tactics (not that the Roman Army back then was much for tactical innovation), equipment, or doctrine (which didn't really exist back then, but whatever). But there was one massive change; the Roman army ceased being a citizen-militia and became a professional force of volunteers. The Marian reforms also meant that instead of the soldiers themselves providing their own equipment, their generals did so. And also paid them, too.
Over time, the Legions grew more loyal to their commanders than the nation they were supposed to be serving. It was the rebellions of Legions and their generals that brought about so many of Rome's civil wars; Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Brutus, Octavian, Antony. More Roman Emperor's had their throat slits by Roman blades than by Persian, Greek, Celtic, Gallic, German, or Iberian swords. The Roman Army became a major source of disruption and instability within Rome, and did more to contribute to the Empire's decline than any barbarian tribe or warlord.
Now, I am generally unsympathetic to attempts to compare America to Rome; Roman culture bears no practical relationship to American culture or society. But the issue here isn't one of cultural comparisons, it's simply an observation of what effect a professional military can have on society.
And it's not just Rome. During the 1930s, the French Government was terrified of the effect a fully professional army would have on the delicate politics of the Third Republic. After the chaos and scandal of the 1800s for France, who could blame them? But the result was for France to severely limit the training time and enlistment length for French soldiers, and French Generals, wary of employing their hastily trained troops in a war of rapid maneuver and action, developed a doctrine that emphasized slow, steady movements and operations. The result was the painfully slow moving French command was unable to respond to the German breakthrough in 1940, and what was supposed to be the most powerful Army in the world fell apart in six weeks.
While the French response to their dilemma doomed their nation, it was based on a very real, practical problem associated with professional armies. Left to their own devices, they develop their own subcultures and become separate from the rest of society. While no military is by any means a monolithic entity, they are bonded by a common element that quite literally no one else in the general population shares. Sebastian Junger in his book Tribe lays out the facts simple; America's armed forces are segregated from the rest of society. They are constantly reminded of their distinction and uniqueness; things like letting service members and veterans board planes early, discounts at stores, all these are done with the purest intentions in mind but ultimately just reinforce the same idea; if you're in the military, you are different.
Now, this isn't meant to be alarmist; the US armed forces are not a trigger squeeze away from going rogue and seizing control of the country. But we also are a young nation. The British, French, Danish, Norwegian, Spanish, Swedish, and Portuguese Armies are older than the United States. We have not yet had any time to really witness the influence a professional military force can have on society and politics.
A military by nature must reflect the nation it is serving. An army that represents only a political elite, or just reinforces existing social divisions within society, is one that is destined for trouble. In 1991 Iraq's general staff lined the bulk of their infantry divisions along a defensive line with the Kuwaiti border, stacking their armored and mechanized divisions further back under the hope that the line infantry would hold their own in static defensive positions and allow for mechanized reserves to conduct a counter-attack to any Coalition forces that broke through.
But Iraq's infantry divisions manning the front line were largely composed of Shia Muslims that had for years suffered under Saddam's leadership, and when the fighting started most of them surrendered after minimal resistance. In the 1980s the South African Defense Force was thrown back by a Cuban-Angolan offensive that inflicted heavy losses on the South Africans; too much for a nation who's army was largely limited to white Afrikaans who were the minority in their society. South Africa was forced to settle for a ceasefire and the nation rapidly underwent social upheaval and change.
The United States military doesn't suffer from the same religious and racial/ethnic divide as either Iraq or South Africa did, but there is a social divide; between those with a family history of military service, and those who don't. If left unchecked, military service will ultimately become a caste of its own, separate from the rest of the society it is supposed to defend.
Now, one might argue that it's not a particularly bad thing. After all, the US military swears loyalty to the Constitution. And the US military in many ways embodies the traits and values many Americans consider sacrosanct and healthy.
The citizens of the Empire of Japan also thought their armed forces properly represented them, and when left to their own devices the Japanese military embarked on a war that ended with two nuclear weapons being dropped on Japan. Armed forces, left to their own devices, make for exceptionally poor strategists.
Now again, I don't want to be alarmist; the US is not at threat of starting a war on behalf of a rouge general or anything. Nor is there any credible chance of the current armed forces attempting to seize power, or anything like that. The US armed forces are, for the most part, pretty run-of-the-mill and apolitical. But once more, we are a young nation. Our all-volunteer professional army began in the 1970s. Our politics since then have seemingly only grown more divided and heated. The 2020 Election resulted in countless court cases, open calls for martial law, and an attempting storming of the capital to prevent the EC votes from being ratified. The US Armed Forces stayed out of the whole affair as much as possible. What happens if, fifty years down the road, an increasingly isolated armed forces decides they don't like the incoming President's plan to cut the defense budget, or reduce troop numbers? Is that likely? Who knows. If I could predict the future I would be a millionaire. But it's a question that, fundamentally, needs to be asked in the interest of our democracy and Republic.
This isn't a call to disband the armed forces, or bring back the draft, or anything really radical. All that really needs to be done is to shift focus away from recruiting extensively from military families. After the draft the military closed down a lot of bases north of the Mason-Dixon Line; northern bases with their long winters weren't available for training. Many major installations are located far away from major urban centers, meaning much of the populace isn't in close contact or familiar with the armed forces. We have created a loop where the military grows more and more distance from the people they are supposed to serve, isolated within their bases, recruiting from the same families across generations, surrounded by walls of liquor stores, tattoo parlors, and cleaners. It's turned the military into a family business.
Literally.
