Army Values
Posted by cadalyyn 7 years, 9 months ago to Government
Hi all! I'm new here and this is my first post, so go easy on me haha. Recently I was at my boyfriend's basic training graduation and had an interesting thought.
What is an objectivist's view of army values? Since they believe in duty to the country and their fellow soldier, and more like that, I was just curious about what objectivist would think of this. I wasn't sure if because it was their jobs, if that changed anything.
Obviously, I support the military and am thankful for all of their sacrifices. But how well would someone who shares an objectivist view point fit in the military? Again, first post and I don't know a ton about Objectivism, so go easy on me haha.
What is an objectivist's view of army values? Since they believe in duty to the country and their fellow soldier, and more like that, I was just curious about what objectivist would think of this. I wasn't sure if because it was their jobs, if that changed anything.
Obviously, I support the military and am thankful for all of their sacrifices. But how well would someone who shares an objectivist view point fit in the military? Again, first post and I don't know a ton about Objectivism, so go easy on me haha.
That article might help you with the basics of the morality of a standing army.
Given that we (currently) have a volunteer military it is moral to choose to be in it. It is immoral how our country uses the military to invade and encroach on other countries instead of using our military to protect our citizens and the physical nation.
the only earthly life form which is eternal. -- j
.
I can say that the military job is a stretch because of the
change in missions over the past 70 years. . the last war
which was "fought right" was ww2. . korea went to a
stalemate; nam was a total mess, etc. . using the military
for nation-building is ridiculous. . but the subject is values.
the people in the voluntary military are almost all super
and wonderful and dedicated smart folks who deserve
better. . what they get is short shrift, compared with
what they give. . they have solid u.s. values which are
sooooooooo rare in the nation, these days. . objectivists'
values are very similar, strong and rational -- just aimed
at narrower goals. . honesty, integrity, devotion to excellence --
these coincide directly with objectivism. . many objectivists,
however, cannot accept military missions like nation-
building and "illicit wars" like Iraq. . many would have to
resign their commissions, or terminate their enlistments,
over such differences.
my work involved a little over 4 years active, including
southeast asia, in the strategic air command. . after that,
I worked with the civil air patrol in training kids and looking
for downed aircraft stateside. . I accepted the vietnam
mission, since my 3 degrees were financed by the usaf
connection, and my manhattan project engineering
career was supported by it. . training kids was always a
delight. . searching for general aviation crashes was a
legitimate mission. . I stuck with it for 28 years.
see what I mean? . the best of luck always, cadalyyn,
and may the force of rational excellence be with you! -- john
.
That is an excellent point! I hadn't thought of that before. Thank you for pointing it out
lately -- I bet that you will enjoy the group, here! -- j
.
You have posed a good question. I will kick off-
as you observe the idea of sacrifice is contrary to Objectivism but each soldier -in a volunteer army- has freely agreed to a contract containing those values. There is a bit more to it such as that volunteers, let us assume they have Objectivist values, consider that there is a part to play, and this involves obeying orders from officers who have superior knowledge which requires actions to be performed too fast for convincing argument to be made to each individual soldier.
I was speaking to my boyfriend, Steven, about Objectivism recently. Though he has not read any Ayn Rand, he seemed to know a bit about the Objectivism. He is in the army and seems to hold an unpopular view. For example, take this hypothetical question: "A grenade suddenly lands among you and your men, would you jump on it to save everyone else?"
Steven claims he would not. He quotes Patton and says, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." He definitely still holds a "self-preservation" view in war. However, he has told me that the majority of other soldiers he has spoken to about this disagree with his view.
Being former infantry, I can tell you that your fellow soldiers become like family. If a grenade was thrown into your house, would you be thinking about getting away, or about saving grandma and aunt Gladys? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be thinking about trade, or looking at them as a stranger. It's the same in the military. Your buddies are close enough to you that you don't think about it when danger comes. It's not the same as when you're walking down a busy street, and something happens. In that situation, it's everyone for himself. Those who haven't been in the military have no idea about how close the relationships become between comrades in arms. It's difficult to explain, and it's something that's out of the ordinary. The one thing a soldier never forgets are the ones who didn't make it back home. Just one suggestion for you, though. Never look at military service as a "sacrifice." Look at it as an investment, where cost is no object.
whose rules were unusual. . I could have lost my life
in the process, but I was careful and cagey and made
it through. . I do thank servicepeople for their service,
because I see it as a rather risky line of work, and
their volunteering to help -- we hope -- to maintain
my liberty ... as a precious task. . I will never leave
the u.s. because I married her in my youth and will
sustain my devotion. . but I do cry over the loss of
freedom and departure from the nation's founding integrity. -- j
.
Amen BT
Objectively speakiing the hypothetical contained a false premise. Two exceptions it was set up as a booby trap. It was an intentional fragging which still doesn't excuse the fire team, squad, or platoon leader that allowed it.
It does suggest who should have drawn the duty of jumping on the grenade.
At least until Army Personnel in the Pentagon took over and screwed up everything. But then. the REMFs are in the Pentagon the Commander On the Ground be he Officer, Commissioned or Officer, Non-Commissioned is in charge.
REMF does not mean Rear Echelon Mother Feathers but it's close.
As for today...like anything else, situations change. With "transgender equality" (gag) being all the rage...I feel that our military is somewhat off track, but could get back on with just a little nudge from the right folks.
So far as how our military functions, I believe it still does what it's supposed to, but our politicians need to stop playing armchair quarterback and let the professionals do what they were trained to do.
My own take - The more Objectivist I become the less I appreciate the military. But, in the past I had a very high appreciation starting point. I am the first man in my family to not join the military. I am opposed to the application of government force, mainly because it is usually imposed improperly. Not enough room here to flesh this concept out, really. But, in short, I'm tied of things like our Army soldiers guarding opium fields in Afghanistan. I don't like us using drones to blow up weddings, killing children. The concept of the draft goes against Objectivism. The concept of GI, "government issue" doesn't sit well. But...I do have pride of our military. They are the greatest ever compiled. Many of those active in it hold strong, admirable patriotic intentions.
Just recently I saw that they are going to start putting women in front-line, ground-pounder action. I'm opposed to this and think it may be a reaction to the fact that 80% of the boys born in 2032 are projected to fall prey to autism. Hopefully, by then we'll have the robot army up and running.
Hope you find my answer entertaining, if not goofy...
Secondly It's says Military Universal Conscription Act. Universal means everyone and it in no way attempts to comply. Conscription means forced to work against your will.
Myself 24 years Infantry. Draftees on the average or for the most part were more trouble than they were worth. That law is a holdover from the massive Army cannon fodder days. It's retained now as a way of staffing the governments protective echelon or supporting one of their unsupportable wars. It has no valid purpose anymore especially when the military was just cut fifty percent and considering the time it would taike to recruit and train replacements. Those cuts are prima facie evidence of two things. No intentionis to do any major serious combat and not providing national defense at the expense of citizens lives and pocketbooks. The amount cut warranted asome sort of tax cut but of course did not just as the massive cut in dollar buying power or value occasioned an adjustment in COLA. Whee did the money go? Can you spell flush? Same thing if you vote this single party system back into power. Flushed votes, flushed money, flushed lives into the sewer sysem called government.
It just now occurs to me that the Air Force was never brought up despite the fact that the Marines has its own aviation wing.
So I shall decline from opining about "army values" and just bid you a war welcome to the Gulch.
Fairy tales start with once upon a time and end with happily ever after. The Army and Navy's start with Back in the old days (plural takes more than a day to get bragging and story telling rights.) The Air Force never quite gets started and has no ending. the CG is still in it's wading pool, So Back in the old days or old brown boot army and both finish up No Stuff It really happened that way!
The difference between the Army and Navy stories is the Army has a drier sense of humor.
What about the Marines?
The Marines. They have nothing like war, sea, and fairy tale stories, Anything said by the Gunny is Gospel.
There are exceptions but to see if they are authorized....ask a Gunny.
I enlisted (in the USAF) at 20 to avoid the draft and retired 25 years later because I was not promoted to Lt.Col. I really did not understand a lot of what was happening. Looking back now on the military and the world situation I realize that we (the US) have been at war for the whole of my 73 years if you count the cold war. (and you should.)
As our leaders manage it, the US military exists primarily to make congress people plus Boeing, GD, and other defense contractors rich - protecting the homeland occurs because those of us who serve think that is what we are supposed to do and we do it better then any other military in spite of the stupidity our civilian leaders impose upon us. Answer this question and you will see what I mean: "Does the military get the weapons it needs to defend the country or does it get the weapons that bring the most profit to politicians and industrialists?"
Some items are placed off budget and charged to the following one two or more years budgets.
The bills are voted on in each house and then re worked in the House and Senate Budget committees. This is where the term pork comes from.
The Congressional Budget Committee then takes another whack at it and adds even more.
A good deal of it is for narrow very very special interests. The langauge is such that only certain corporations or individuals can qualify. lots of slices of the pie for a zer sum gain ha ha.
There are three budgets. Congressional Budget Office, The Treasuries Office of Management and Budget mostly called CBO and OMB. Since Clinton one for the White House. The totals are all different as are the items in the budgets.
Paying for some items and programs are put off until another year. but built with T Bill proceeds or other income.
Consider the outgoing President does the incoming Presidents first budget. Oct 1st to Jan 20th and then Jan 20th to Sep 30th for the new administration
In the 90's T Bills were sold at special rates with higher interest over shorter terms. Offer enough they will be bought up. The idea was you can perhaps balance a budget by moving the expense to another year. There version of refi.
Skimming the pond scum is not all of it. But if yio looked at the end of the year figures for Bubba C. even with out the overlap his big del budget balancing depended on which budget you were quoting. Times Almanac used to use only the OMB who did the official end product book keeping. These days? Who knows?
Along came a second set of wars in the desert this time and the A10's knocked out more thanks and other assorted bad stuff and did Iron Hand or anti air suppression . That kept the curs at bay but not for long. Same story again. Desert II came along and same thing.
All tis time they had no replacement except another version of the Phantom which couldn't do the job then and still can't. A10's started knocking our convoys, bridges, critical facilities of all kinds. and went scud hunting. Very versatile. Along comes Obutthead and the A10's start to disappear again. STILL not replacement aircraft so the infantry is left without cover - again to this day. Old as they are they are still the best frontal aviation plane in existence AND can do multiple other missions. I think that draft dodger in the White house finally did them in.
So what happens next? Another war or this one escalates of course that 's a given Infantry gets screwed over and a bunch of Mom's start screaming at Congressmen who then play the fool and go after the Air Force who blame Obumbler. No prob Everyone hates him anyway. He also shut down the replacement pialne as well except it looked pretty worthless. Answer? Buy Chinese? Russians shut down there frontal aviation, USAF crapped it's apnts again and except for the Marines the infantry onoly has helicopters. Armored liek the Russkies Hell no think skinned. So....what do to Buy Russian?
You wonder why the Infantry actively hates and despises civilians in general and politicians in iparticular.
The Maroines who had armed their Mohawks jsut kept taking left overs somaybe they have A10's/ There a self contained compelte military in themselves anyway.
What's next. NOW you can bitch about corporartions. Next war big time panic and million and billions are spent rebuilding and rearming and manning. but that takesa on or two up to twenty years.
Man and protect the borders of the country. Crap the US isn't capable of defending it's borders anymore. So how much of the scrap metal contracts were result of donations to the Clinton Foundation or the Obama Legapees Library.?
you win one battle at a time...
I had built worry about the draft from the age of 10 or eleven into such a social anxiety by the time it got after me in 1965, at the age of 25, that I was found to be unfit to be a slave for a couple of years. I did manage to get through a year of mandatory Air force ROTC which was a farce. Never saw a weapon and all the test answers were always read off by the instructor before the tests. Even then there were those who did not pass the tests, too honest to use the given answers. I did grade math papers for the United States Armed Forces Institute and wondered how the war would be won by those who could not even, when corrected, copy the correct answers and would just resubmit the wrong answers and work a week later.
is one of the few legitimate functions of government. Although conscription is a gross violation of the rights of man, a volunteer military force is entirely proper.--
Well, by the nature of military service (I have
been a 4-by-10 Reservist for the Navy, but was
[honorably] discharged for epilepsy; but I went
through boot camp with the regulars, and then went to Radioman,school again with regulars),
being in it means discipline and obedience. You
don't get to wear just any kind of underwear you
want; you can't talk (in boot camp ) just any time
you want; you can't put gedunk (candy, etc.) in
your pillowcase; and all of this has to be accep-
ted. And these facts did not bother me; the main
thing that bothered me is that I was not good at
folding and stowing. Not that I didn't try, but I
suffered from a certain lack of manual dexterity,
and was "set back"(sent to a certain special
unit), where I had to practice folding and stowing
over and over, and after some time was put in
a regular unit again, and could not graduate with
my original company. I recognized that this had
to be done; there was no ill will about it. The CC
(company commander) of my first unit was not
harsh or nasty about it; and when I was sent to
to Division Chief to be told about it, he didn't
chew me out about it at all. He even said, "This
is not a discipline action. You're not a discip-
line problem, [surname]." But what really ag-
gravated me was that during marching, my fel-
low recruits (who had no authority, would mouth
off at me about things like pivot points, and if
we were brought to a halt, would want me to move up (they claimed I as out of alignment), when we had been specifically told that in such
cases we WERE NOT to adjust ourselves.
And I wondered why they were talking (which
was not allowed), and why they got away with
it, and why they didn't just keep their mouths
shut. "Women can't do that," my father told me
after I got home. "I did it," I replied. "You're a
[surname]," he said.
Anyhow, I think that the military should remain
strong and be well-funded, but that they should
not try to pretend that women are men and put
women in combat, as they are not as physically
strong as men; maybe they can fly planes, but
once they get shot down, they probably can't
fight as well, and that could tend to make us
lose a war.
2. I'll submit that some people may benefit from the discipline they're under, but I couldn't hack it.
3. There are some orders a moral person must refuse to follow, and some enemies (of the state) he must refuse to fight. But since you have to give up the power to make those choices when you enlist, I don't believe a moral person can ever join up. (Except possibly during a major war that you know is morally right.) This goes for police service as well as the military.
I was taught about the Uniform Code of Military
Justice in boot camp; and the UCMJ said that we
were subject to the "lawful orders" of our superiors,
the key word there being "lawful". We were even given a test on it, and I remember that be-
ing on it in a multiple-choice question. I also
remember the instructor saying in the class once
something about not being obligated to obey an
order "to commit murder". (I suppose this would
apply to shooting an unarmed non-combatant for
no reason at all, or some such thing). There was
also a specific regulation against setting fire to a
structure in which there was a human being.
I was recently reading about World War II, and the difference between the Japanese militar-
y and ours; that they had had no such concept as the difference between a "legal" and an "illegal" order.