Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I just read a story in the LA times (Linked from Yahoo news) basically the point it was trying to make was that a disconnect has grown in the last twenty years or so between civilians and military. With more and more base closings the military is forced onto a handful of "Super" bases and for all intents and purposes never leaves those bases except to go on leave and to war. The biggest thing that struck me and I never realized it was the numbers of servicemen/woman with a family member serving or who had served.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/23/the-military-civilian-gap-fewer-family-connections/

I just found that link and it has some of the numbers I was talking about.

Regardless This got me thinking, who else in my family is/has served. I have 2 Grandfathers who served, I have 1 uncle who served, my Brother, and myself are Marines, My Wife is Coast guard, My Niece and Nephew are Army.....This staggered me to think of how many of my family are or have served. Even more ridiculous, with the exception of my uncle, all of us have served in a time of war, and with the added exception of my wife, all of us have served in combat, Germany, Pacific Islands, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Does America have a Warrior class now?

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I just read a story in the LA times (Linked from Yahoo news) basically the point it was trying to make was that a disconnect has grown in the last twenty years or so between civilians and military. With more and more base closings the military is forced onto a handful of "Super" bases and for all intents and purposes never leaves those bases except to go on leave and to war. The biggest thing that struck me and I never realized it was the numbers of servicemen/woman with a family member serving or who had served.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/23/the-military-civilian-gap-fewer-family-connections/

I just found that link and it has some of the numbers I was talking about.

Regardless This got me thinking, who else in my family is/has served. I have 2 Grandfathers who served, I have 1 uncle who served, my Brother, and myself are Marines, My Wife is Coast guard, My Niece and Nephew are Army.....This staggered me to think of how many of my family are or have served. Even more ridiculous, with the exception of my uncle, all of us have served in a time of war, and with the added exception of my wife, all of us have served in combat, Germany, Pacific Islands, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Does America have a Warrior class now?

America has had a warrior class for some time. Many senior officers have children in ROTC or at the service academies - some even have soldiers serving right now. More and more I see soldiers marrying soldiers and children following their fathers and mothers into the service. This isn't a new concept really. You may want to look at the President's Commission on the all-volunteer force. This document was the original study that convinced Nixon to abolish the draft. Many of the problems facing the professional army are raised as potential problems in that document.

The issue is not "Does America have a warrior class," but "What does having a warrior class mean for the country?"

This is also not limited to the US, many nations have, or have had, such a state of affairs. The US has certainly had "military castes" in the past.

It's simply a facet of the nature of the military as a career choice as opposed to a mandatory term of service. Any large, professional organization or major economic sector will tend to do the same thing (you can look at Wal-Mart or McDonalds and see lots of families where three generations worked there at some point)

It's not that big of an issue until it starts carrying significant privileges and entry for outsiders/newcomers becomes barred.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Does America have a Warrior class now?

In some ways, America has always had a "Warrior class". Mostly, it had been confined to the officers, in the sense of people making a career of it, etc.

The Patton family is one that particularly stands out to me. IIRC, Patton "sr" of WW2 fame (he was actually a Jr, but his father wasn't the famous one) had an outstanding career, while Patton IV, who served in Vietnam wasn't as "illustrious".

The Abrams family, according to Wikipedia were the second family of officers to have the notoriety of having a son command the same unit as his father.




I think for us enlisted types, it's a bit different, even if we can make the same claim as Lieutenant Dan of having had a family member die in every conflict America has ever fought in.

Somebody has to draw genitalia in the bathroom stalls of America's military installations...it's a tradition that's passed on from father to son.

On a more serious note, this isn't confined to the US, but the US has a particularly well-earned reputation in this regard.

Choice of career is often influenced by careers of family members for various reasons. You can easily see examples of political clans, medical clans, farming clans and so on.

Any family ties to various jobs are probably more a situation that people in our societies only really come into contact with a small number of people and mainly around the job they do.

So its really more a case of society being segmented and stagnant over generations in that people from families are all bred from people in their jobs niche. There'll probably be a growing trend toward this too as jobs continue to take over peoples lives, limiting opportunities to meet other types of people further.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Choice of career is often influenced by careers of family members for various reasons. You can easily see examples of political clans, medical clans, farming clans and so on.

Yep.

My dad's father served in the Navy in WWII as a Seabee and after he got out he became a plumber. My dad and his three brothers joined the pipe trades (my old man is a pipefitter, two of his brothers are plumbers, and their other brother was a welder). My brother and I both became pipefitters as well. However, we are the only ones from this current generation and most likely the last as I have two girls and my brother has no kids (and probably won't ever have them). Also, my great grandfather, grandfather, and all my uncles were all firefighters.

My mom's dad was in the Army Air Corps in WWII and his three sons went on to serve as well. Two served combat tours in Vietnam, one in the Air Force and the other in the Army, while a third joined the Army (82nd Airborne) toward the end of the war, but the war ended before he could be deployed.

I wonder if there is any significant difference regarding enlistment rates of the children of draftees vs. the children of those how voluntarily served.
Both of my grandfathers served in WWII (drafted) and none of their children enlisted.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I wonder if there is any significant difference regarding enlistment rates of the children of draftees vs. the children of those how voluntarily served.
Both of my grandfathers served in WWII (drafted) and none of their children enlisted.

I don't recall seeing anything like that, but I have seen that something like 80% of all successful basic training (Boot Camp, Air Force band camp, whatever your chosen branch calls it) come from mid- to upper- middle class families.

I have also seen a correlation between military service and good "middle class" jobs later in life.


From the few "draftees" that I have talked to (I really had no way to verify, just that the guys I talked to claim to have been drafted in Nam), all of them ended up loving their service time, even if it was only 3-4 years with a rotation or two in to Nam. Of course, they all loved it for the same reason: the boys they were in the gak with.

My Family is the exact opposite right now of the OP. my grandpa was navy, as was my uncle. but of the 20+ of my family, no one has considered military except me, and I wasnt serious.

I have honestly found americas relationship to the military quite odd in how well they are treated. Im not talking about discounts, Finacial aid or things like that, tangible benefits.
But how civilians treat the military. How I often see "You cant criticize him, he is a vet" when said persone is a shown donkey cave. or how in political debate we give more credence to those who have military honors than those who do not.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I have honestly found americas relationship to the military quite odd in how well they are treated. Im not talking about discounts, Finacial aid or things like that, tangible benefits.
But how civilians treat the military. How I often see "You cant criticize him, he is a vet" when said persone is a shown donkey cave. or how in political debate we give more credence to those who have military honors than those who do not.

I think a good bit of that is because we tend to romanticize war here in America. Particularly since no war has really taken place within (mainland) America within living history, so the populace in general only gets to experience what war is like through the eyes of Hollywood. And Hollywood likes to make movies about heroes fighting the bad guys and giving everything they've got to protect America. They don't make movies about the soldiers who work on the base maintaining the equipment and getting drunk every Friday night with their buddies. So, in short, we're trained to subconsciously see a hero every time we see a veteran.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
. or how in political debate we give more credence to those who have military honors than those who do not.

I personally can see a very good reason for this. IMO, those who serve in congress who have worn a uniform will know better than those who have not, what war is like, and should (in theory) be much less keen to deploy military troops. Sadly, over the past 20-30 years, the number of veterans in congress has significantly declined in favor of career politicians.

So, only Vets should be allowed in congress than?
Sounds like star ship troopers to me
But no, im talking about any debate. Just because you served does not make your opinion more or less valid. Like when i saw a video about gun rights. and it was a vet who basically said "I fought for your freedom, so dont take my guns" or the lovely "They fought for your right for free speech, so dont criticize them"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, only Vets should be allowed in congress than?
Sounds like star ship troopers to me
But no, im talking about any debate. Just because you served does not make your opinion more or less valid. Like when i saw a video about gun rights. and it was a vet who basically said "I fought for your freedom, so dont take my guns" or the lovely "They fought for your right for free speech, so dont criticize them"

No, I'm not saying that... I guess what I'm saying is that there really should be a better balance between the "career" or even "hereditary" politician, such as the Rockefeller types who haven't served anyone or anything but themselves, and vets who continue serving the country by way of congress.


And your second point... yeah, I completely agree and strive to NEVER say anything like that, hell I can't stand the vets who think they need to wave that flag in front of people for the purpose of getting special treatment in an argument. Stupid is a universal language, and it definitely springs up from time to time in any side of any argument.

It's prevalent in the UK, especially with the senior regiments, most so for officers but also for other ranks too.
In fact it is almost expected that the eldest son of a guards officer joins the regiment, its a throwback to feudal service. Same with the Gurkhas.

Both my grandfathers, my father, and myself.

I don't know if I'll push my children towards it, but they will understand that it is not an option to b ashamed of. None of this "people only join it because their poor" crap that you see thrown around some of the more seedier parts of the internet.

That sounds like a good way to approach it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I have also seen a correlation between military service and good "middle class" jobs later in life.

Military service is one of the single best things you can have on your resume, especially for mid-level positions that require a high tolerance for repetition.

 dogma wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I have also seen a correlation between military service and good "middle class" jobs later in life.

Military service is one of the single best things you can have on your resume, especially for mid-level positions that require a high tolerance for repetition.

Depends. I know a lot of combat vet soldiers who can't find a job outside of the military that doesn't involve becoming a police officer. Lots of people out there are afraid of the mystical boogeyman called PTSD.

 djones520 wrote:
Both my grandfathers, my father, and myself.

I don't know if I'll push my children towards it, but they will understand that it is not an option to b ashamed of. None of this "people only join it because their poor" crap that you see thrown around some of the more seedier parts of the internet.

I think to the latter part. Part of it is the military will accept anyone(Obvious standards beside such as ability)
It isnt a career path that requires a resume, prior work experience or anything like that.

And then there are those who oppose the military because they think it is only for people to go fight for other peoples wars. The black militants around UCSC constantly spew forth stuff like the military is run by the white man, its made to give minorities hope and then get them killed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


No, I'm not saying that... I guess what I'm saying is that there really should be a better balance between the "career" or even "hereditary" politician, such as the Rockefeller types who haven't served anyone or anything but themselves, and vets who continue serving the country by way of congress.

Well, I hesitate to say the being a combat veteran will make you a better politician or more likely to be more for the troops.

 djones520 wrote:

Depends. I know a lot of combat vet soldiers who can't find a job outside of the military that doesn't involve becoming a police officer. Lots of people out there are afraid of the mystical boogeyman called PTSD.

Yeah, that's very true, and rather interesting as I would think police departments would be the employers most afraid of PTSD.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


No, I'm not saying that... I guess what I'm saying is that there really should be a better balance between the "career" or even "hereditary" politician, such as the Rockefeller types who haven't served anyone or anything but themselves, and vets who continue serving the country by way of congress.

Well, I hesitate to say the being a combat veteran will make you a better politician or more likely to be more for the troops.

Sadly, I think that in today's environment, you may be right.... Military folks tend to have a mindset of "get it done", which means we ain't really got time for partisan politics and that kind of gak.... Today, it's all about what [insert news outlet here] will say about you. It's less about getting things done, and more about either getting re-elected, or getting that lobby job for triple the pay (and still keeping the benefits of being in congress)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Depends. I know a lot of combat vet soldiers who can't find a job outside of the military that doesn't involve becoming a police officer. Lots of people out there are afraid of the mystical boogeyman called PTSD.

Yeah, that's very true, and rather interesting as I would think police departments would be the employers most afraid of PTSD.

It's been my own experience that the guys who speak the most of "employers are afraid of PTSD" are the ones who probably didn't pay very close attention to the ACAP (or service equivalent if you're AF, USMC or USN, etc) briefings regarding how to properly write a resume.

for instance, in reality, I conducted intelligence ops under fire in a combat zone.... in resume speak, "was able to maintain 100% operation readiness for assigned equipment in a fast paced, high stress environment" and even then, "operation" may not even be the best word to use there

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Depends. I know a lot of combat vet soldiers who can't find a job outside of the military that doesn't involve becoming a police officer. Lots of people out there are afraid of the mystical boogeyman called PTSD.

Yeah, that's very true, and rather interesting as I would think police departments would be the employers most afraid of PTSD.

Maybe they fully understand it being they can/do have PTSD to. Difference is we (military) can spend over 360 plus days in a high stress environment where the possibility of getting opted out is constant but we "Embrace the Suck" and it becomes part of our lives. Unlike majority of LEO's who gets involve in lead throwing. All it takes a Significant Emotional Event to acquire PTSD

I had a professor who wanted to study military bases and their effect on families. Such as how they differ from regular families.
She go road blocked every chance they could to prevent her from researching. She said after some pressure, she c got her grant changed to research something different.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
"You cant criticize him, he is a vet"

I've never heard that said.

I have. I have seen it many times on the net. When I go to bars some people get into a fights, it sometimes involve military personnel and their friends pull that line out.
I have seen it

 kronk wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
"You cant criticize him, he is a vet"

I've never heard that said.

This idea has been floating about for some time. It got considerably worse with the inflation of hyper-patriotism after 9/11. The last national news story (and here on Dakka) that I can recall where this trope was used was the arrest of the Marine in Mexico; the guy knowingly broke the law but since he was a veteran it didn't matter, Obama need to break international law and violate the sovereignty of Mexico and rescue him from prison. Any attempt to explain that he was a criminal was shouted down because of his military service; he was hero with PTSD.

So no, the line, "You can't criticize him because he's a vet!" might not be used in the those exact terms, the idea of that is definitely there (you're anti-American if you criticize veterans of the military). It's been happening with the police as of late too.

I blame Diocletian for this!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
"You cant criticize him, he is a vet"

I've never heard that said.

This idea has been floating about for some time. It got considerably worse with the inflation of hyper-patriotism after 9/11. The last national news story (and here on Dakka) that I can recall where this trope was used was the arrest of the Marine in Mexico; the buy knowingly broke the law but since he was a veteran it didn't matter, Obama need to break international law and violate the sovereignty of Mexico and rescue him from prison. Any attempt to explain that he was a criminal was shouted down because of his military service; he was hero with PTSD.

So no, the line, "You can't criticize him because he's a vet!" might not be used in the those exact terms, the idea of that is definitely there (you're anti-American if you criticize veterans of the military). It's been happening with the police as of late too.

My point. Like I said, I think the military should get tangible benefits such as the aformention healthcare, Gi bill and more.
But when you start treating them special in the eye of the law, when you start waving it around like it gives you the right to say what you want without backlash or do what you want, you crossed a line.