The soldier mythos

[thedrifter]

The soldier mythos

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 28, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


Since the American soldier is a necessary, and increasingly important, part of The Empire, I think it's worth discussing who he or she is. I don't think the reality matches the myth.

There are many parallels – indeed, increasingly many – between Rome and the United States. One interesting parallel regards the military. In both Rome and America, the actual origin (as well as the founding and maintaining myth) of the army was the "citizen soldier," who would drop his plow and take up his weapons to defend his – and his neighbor's – property when threatened by alien forces. Indeed, in early Rome, only landowners were even allowed to serve in the army.

As time went by, wars became more constant, provinces in need of garrisons more numerous, and borders needing defense lengthier. By the late Republic, the Romans were forced to drop the requirement that one be a landowner, or even a citizen. By the second century, the legions were a wholly mercenary force recruited mostly from barbarians, their loyalties secured by donatives.

In the case of America, we went from the mythic stage to a draftee army, to the current professional army. I was much opposed to the draftee army, because not only did it amount to involuntary servitude, but it gave the government an almost unlimited pool of cannon fodder for whatever adventures they might decide to undertake.

Further, the draft reduced the financial burden of war by transferring some of the manpower costs from itself to draftees. But there was a positive aspect to it. The unenviable prospect of having to "serve" tended to politicize a lot of youth against war, when they otherwise wouldn't have given a damn. And the same became true of parents – at least once the body bags started filling up.

Now, although the Selective Service system still exists (and likely always will as long as the U.S. government exists), we have a professional army, composed entirely of volunteers. I liked that – in principle, anyway – for several reasons. One is that, obviously, nobody is forced to join. For another, it should be a more efficient organization, staffed by more motivated people who aren't automatically going to bail when their sentence is up.

But there's a downside. For one, the services are drawing from the dregs of society, largely people who feel they don't have any other options for gainful employment, or any better way to draw themselves up. Many young soldiers have joined simply to improve themselves, to learn some useful trade, and get money to go to college. Of course, being lower middle class is not a crime. And the fact they took action to improve their status speaks well for them. But they're not the same people who traditionally comprised the U.S. Army.

As Confucius said (and he tends to be very underrated as a sage, since so many of his aphorisms are, embarrassingly, found in fortune cookies): "Good steel is not used to make nails, and good men should not become soldiers." In all societies, across time and space, soldiers – even while they're romanticized in wartime – have always been viewed as the lowest form of human life, basically thugs, thieves and butchers in the employ of the state.

It's doubly unfortunate, therefore, that the representation of blacks and Hispanics in the armed forces is about double what it is in society as a whole. Besides the aforementioned refugees from trailer parks, ghettos and barrios, most of the rest appear to be kids who have an extra Y chromosome. In any event, most of them are outsiders – ethnically, socially and educationally.

One thing the Romans discovered is that professional soldiers tended to be much more loyal to the military, and each other, than to the civilians far away at home. In America's case, that's ominous when the government is disregarding the Posse Comitatus Act, and deploying the military against domestic threats.

One thing that really annoys me is to hear pundits opine about Americans "sending their sons and daughters into harm's way" to foreign lands. That was factual in an earlier day, but now it's pure baloney. If you don't want your kid running around some hellhole he can't even find on the map, killing the natives, then recognize he's doing it voluntarily. Some jingoists say the military instills "patriotism," and teaches a kid good habits, like saying "Yes, Sir" and "Yes, Ma'am," and shining his shoes. But he may well pick up lots of bad habits, too, if Timothy McVeigh is any example.

As for me, I was quite willing to "serve" when I was in college in the '60s, although mainly because I saw it as an opportunity for subsidized foreign travel and adventure. Like many young testosterone-charged males, the slogan "Visit exotic foreign lands, meet interesting natives. And kill them" had a certain cache, gained from watching too many John Wayne movies. In fact, I was signed up for the Marine's PLC program (how stupid do you have to be to want to be a Marine lieutenant in Vietnam?).

Fortunately, as it turned out, I drew aces back to back: No. 365 out of 366 in the 1968 draft lottery, plus a medical classification of 1-Y due to a severe auto accident in Switzerland the year before. I decided not to challenge fate, when many would have killed for my good luck. But I still toyed with the idea of joining the French Foreign Legion for a few years, until I reached a fork in the road, and turned right instead of left.

Interestingly, the government is now floating trial balloons about reinstituting the draft, but less for cannon fodder than skilled personnel, particularly those with medical qualifications. Maybe the invasions of Iran, or Syria, or Saudi Arabia are more imminent than I thought.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legendary speculator Doug Casey logs 150,000 miles a year, trekking through jungles, deserts and high mountain passes, while his readers sit home and collect returns of 400 percent, 4,170 percent, even 10,060 percent. He is the author of the best-selling "Crisis Investing" and "The International Man." He also edits the newsletter International Speculator.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=34305


Sempers,

Roger

[MillRatUSMC]

Let's put a face on the author of that article.

One question his expertise on the subject.
Is he any better than some of our Officers?
The last three Commandants of the Marine Corps had more knowledge than this "expert".
He correct on one subject, like Roman, the military getting seperated from the Nation.
Dregs of society?
Yes,Sir or Yes Ma'am...many are brought up that way, some will tell you to go to xell.
I resent his painting the canvas with a broad stroke of the paint brush.
He pools everyone in the military as "dregs of society", yet he thinks himself as one of "the bright and one of the best".
I beg to to difer, he not good enough to carry the lowest Private's shoes.
Education don't make the man...
As Roman went because many want others to carry the load, so will we go if fools such as this.
Have their way.
If the the Barbarians are at the gate, will he be around?
I doubt it, best thing he could is leave if all he can do is cry about the "mythos of the soldier".
General George Washington, General Robert E. Lee General Joshua L. Chamberlain, General O.P Smith USMC, General Lewis B. Puller USMC, General Victor Kurlak, and many more that I could be here all day..."dregs of Society"?
NO WAY, these were or are some of the best in this Nation bar none.
Mr Doug Casey can go to hades...

Semper Fidelis
Ricardo