The University of Maine student newspaper since 1875
About Us
Contact Us
Staff
E-mail Edition
home
News
Opinion
Style
Sports
Archives
Print Edition
Last updated: Thursday, Feb. 9, 1:34 a.m.
Columnists | Opinion

Columnist: Military reduction will not lead to peace in our time

By Michael Shepherd
Posted on Nov. 23, 2009, at 1:32 a.m.

In the Nov. 19 edition of The Maine Campus, Michael W. Gibson wrote a column on our military, urging people not to enlist. According to him, the military will brainwash you, telling you “when to eat, sleep and use the toilet.” Your personal liberties will be taken away.

Gibson disrespectfully ignores the fact that the military is the most diverse employer in the world. Veterinarians, computer experts, journalists, interpreters, lawyers, tailors, graphic designers, chefs, teachers, travel agents, insurance agents and thousands of other professionals come together as one. Undoubtedly these people are not brainwashed. Neither are the troops. They are making a conscious decision to serve their country in a manner that benefits us and them.

The G.I. Bill covers the cost of a college education and other benefits for soldiers, giving back to them after their times of service. It has been expanded to finance books and often assists with housing after the end of service. The military is a legitimate career option for many — from the rich and well-educated to the poor and under-educated. America takes care of its troops after their service.

Our motives in war aren’t always correct. Look at the reasons for our wars in Vietnam and Iraq — communism and weapons of mass destruction, respectively. They were not large risks in retrospect. We have paid and are paying those prices. According to PBS, “440,000 U.S. military personnel were killed in action in the wars of the twentieth century.” Two-thirds of those casualties came from the brutal World War II. It has been said approximately 160 million people were killed worldwide in 20th century conflict. Some say more, some say less.

War is terrible. There are terrifying physical, mental and emotional risks when it comes to serving. They can’t be overlooked. We do need to find other ways of solving our problems through negotiation. But some people can’t be civilly negotiated with. The bin Ladens and the Hitlers are too radical. Many world leaders will not submit to arbitration. The option of war sadly has to be there.

Gibson wrote that “one sure way to end wars is to stop supporting the system that allows them to continue. This means people have got to stop enlisting.”

All wars aren’t instigated by enlisting armies anymore. Terrorist groups, rogue militaries and political leaders have plunged countries into chaos for a long time. Without organized, strong militaries, groups like that will rise to greater power than they have already. If Americans stop enlisting in the service, will world problems vanish and the need for a strong military go away?

This is undoubtedly a boneheaded and overly idealistic thought. The world isn’t calming down. We are the richest and second-largest military on Earth. Our military and government will be influential to large world conflicts for the foreseeable future — whether we fight or not.

Right now, there are ongoing struggles in Yemen, Russia, Thailand, Colombia, Somalia, Pakistan, Mexico and of course Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places. Gibson has a noble goal — the end of war. Most of us want that. But in order to have that, the world will have to agree.

Gibson said “the ultimate purpose of the military is to fight wars, not to promise you college money, job training or leadership roles.” To a point, that is true. But these benefits help people to make the choice to serve in a way that does benefit them. It is a gamble for those who decide to serve in any capacity, but one that has benefited millions of veterans. Hundreds of thousands have heartbreakingly perished.

But surely, Mr. Gibson, you wouldn’t suggest the return of the draft or the implementation of a system of conscription like in most of Africa and much of Asia. If people don’t enlist, that is what may need to happen.

Mr. Gibson, the need for our military won’t go away. World problems aren’t vanishing. Crippling our military is no way to achieve worldwide peace. Your oversimplified strategy of reducing enlisters will work in the exact opposite way of your peaceful intentions until every other country reduces as well.

Michael Shepherd is a columnist for The Maine Campus.

This entry was posted on Monday, November 23rd, 2009, 1:32 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.

«
»
  • Newman

    Bravo! Very well written and thought out response to Michael W. Gibson’s naive article. No one wants war. But there are forces outside the U.S. that want to eliminate our freedoms.

    Mr Gibson should remember that his ability to write such drivel only exists because of the sacrifices of the brave men and women who serve their country in the military. Freedom is not “free” despite what the peaceniks think.

  • Ryan Page

    A very well written piece, but I disagree. Wars can’t be fought if there aren’t those willing to fight them.

    Of course the situation is complex, but ultimately having huge armies, and powerful weapons allows for those that want to, to use them.

  • Danuse Davidova

    Thank you for writing this article. After reading M.W.Gibson’s biased and naive article in the Maine Campus last week, I was determined to write a response. Finding out that someone else had the same urge was great!

    I completely agree with what you said. As a military wife-to-be, I must add that M.W.Gibson’s view of today’s military seems to be based on movies and stories more than experience and/or reality, and that it is obvious from his article that he is not even trying to understand today’s conflicts and wars. To me, he is wholly unqualified to pass judgements on those who choose to protect their country, and offer their lives for ours.

    Thank you again.

    Danuse

  • Jeremy Keith Hammond

    Unlike M.W.Gibson (at least according to Danuse above) I DO come from a military family. My grandfather fought in Normandy during WWII. My uncle was a naval officer.I was born on a military base in Spain to military parents. I have many friends who are enlisted. As a child and into my first couple years at high school my plan was to join ROTC and become a naval officer. I was a war-geek… favorite films included Patton, The Patriot, Rough Riders, etc… I studied military history as well as military life as I intended to pursue it.

    I’d like to think that I am “wholly qualified” to pass judgment by Danuse’s standards.

    With that, I whole-heartily disagree with this, albeit well written article. The military life is not one to be desired, nor are military options appropriate for solving conflict in this day and age.

    Regarding military life – first it’s important to know that “benefits” are not at all guaranteed. This is explicitly written on the enlistment form. By signing it you effectively DO agree to surrender your rights as a citizen. When you “agree” to a 2-4 year commission… that’s it, you simply agree – they can (and do) keep people longer regardless of the individual’s intentions. The education bonuses are not given to everyone who requests them. They’re not given in equal amounts.

    Boot camp is a process that trains you to kill indiscriminately. Friends of mine have come back and met with me to tell me their experience. The most heart ripping thing I was told was that they were immediately prepared to murder and if ordered to would feel compelled to even kill me.

    Sexual abuse of women is extremely higher in the military than in civilian life by even the most conservative estimates. Suicide rates are higher amongst military personnel than civilians. Drug abuse rates are higher. Homeless/unemployment(stateside) rates are extremely higher. Dick Cheney has expressed that the military “is not a career service.”

    Mr. Shepherd, like most military recruiters, likes to cite the diverse career options available for members of the military. Most of the exotic jobs he’s listed make up a minority of those actually conducted. When you join the military – most of the jobs you learn are NOT useful stateside unless you want to enter into limited or competitive fields.

    As for war as a form of conflict resolution. I think we can all agree that it should be used as a last resort. But with a military like ours – it rarely is. There was no negotiation with Saddam or the Taliban – who most certainly WERE open to negotiations (The Taliban were not married to Bin Laden.) Mr. Shepherd himself noted how terrorists and communists in retrospect are/were not threats worthy of such huge military industrialization.

    You don’t need a military larger than the rest of the world’s military forces combined and present in over 100 countries to protect ourselves. It shouldn’t take trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives to take out small terrorist groups. This notion that they’re “terrorist masterminds” is ludicrous. They take up terrorism because it’s EASY. “You there. Put on this heavy vest and walk onto that bus over there.” BOOM. That doesn’t take a PHD. It also doesn’t take a hundred thousand dollar bomb (which blows up civilians) to prevent either.

    I won’t go as far to say abolish the military – but our current threats don’t warrant a military our size. We don’t need to be present in military bases in a majority of the countries while we have so many issues at home to deal with. The military budget can afford to be cut and can afford fewer recruits.

    Obviously – don’t take my word for this. If you are seriously considering the military as a career option – do some research. Know that the recruiter is paid to recruit you – not be a job councilor or your friend. Ask him tough questions and then visit a VA hospital.

  • Jsmith

    Good article.

    There is a saying that seems to fit here, that believing you won’t be in a war if you don’t have an army is like expecting a lion not to eat you because you’re a vegetarian.

    Not joining the military has no effect on what the enemy will do, especially since few of our nation’s enemies since independence have had an “all volunteer” army. Our enemies’ soldiers have not had a choice whether to fight us or not because only their ruler has gotten a vote. Not joining the military only weakens our side. If that’s your objective — that’s OK, we don’t need you right now anyway, and when we do, we’ll draft you whether you want to serve or not (unless you leave the country and your self-respect behind).

    My experiences as a lifelong soldier lead me to dispute every one of Mr Hammond’s unsubstantiated comments. I would suggest that since he has not served personally but seems to believe everything he purports to have been told, he is wholly unqualified to speak on military life. The US military has NEVER taught anyone to kill indiscrimately — in fact, we train the exact opposite. Nor do we preach murder, which is a crime in the military just as it is in civilian life. I’ve never heard an allegation that sexual abuse of women is more widespread in the military than in civilian life, but suspect (if there is any truth at all to the allegation) that it merely reflects a higher incidence of reporting. Suicide rates are similar to the rates for civilians in the same age groups. Drug use in the military quite rare nowadays — perhaps he was referring to the Vietnam era. Since he has provided no sources there’s no way to know what he’s talking about. He also appears unaware that it’s not the military’s job to negotiate. That’s the government’s job — and since the citizens of the US vote for our national leaders, I would submit that the blame lies with either the voters or the politicians, but not with the military. His last allegation is that the military is trained to “shoot first and negotiate later”. This is pure ignorance of military practices — the military is the government’s foremost proponent of “interagency operations” — my field — wherein the strengths of all agencies of the US government, international organizations and nongovernmental organizations are coordinated to benefit people — for example, I was on a task force that built half a dozen schools and three clinics in Panama — certainly a refutation of the ignorance in his post.

    Before you condemn, learn something.

  • Jeremy Keith Hammond

    Your entire post is one giant straw-man argument, putting words into my mouth and making assumptions about me and then refuting the caricature you’ve illustrated. It’s dishonest, and does little to disprove my points.

    The most flagrant example of this is when you say: “His last allegation is that the military is trained to “shoot first and negotiate later”.” I never said that, certainly not verbatim as you’ve implied by the quotation marks. Also my LAST “allegation” was that recruiters have an incentive to be dishonest because their agenda is not in line with that of the potential recruit. Before that, I talked about how reducing the military budget would be a wise choice given our nations financial state. Neither of these have anything to do with “shooting first and negotiating later.”

    Now, if you want some more background information:

    Regarding sexual abuse in the military, there is ample evidence:
    From the NY Times:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17assault.html?_r=1
    From CBS:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/17/eveningnews/main4872713.shtml
    From CNN:
    http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-31/us/military.sexabuse_1_sexual-assault-sexual-abuse-military-service?_s=PM:US
    There are even books on it:
    http://www.amazon.com/Honor-Betrayed-Sexual-Americas-Military/dp/1569803250

    Also, report on drug abuse in the military:
    http://drugabuse.gov/tib/vet.html

    Civilian deaths in warfare are consistently ranked higher than combatant deaths. That is a fact, and not unsubstantiated. I don’t have one link to a single source of data, but if you google reports on civilian casualty rates and compare them to combatants – there is a stark disparity. It is indicative of the indiscriminate nature of warfare. If it’s easier for you to disagree without providing your own data – so be it.

    Also. it’s not so much that soldiers are purposely trained to kill innocent people – I’m not naive – it’s that the tendency to comply with orders unquestioningly is extremely strong. Also the nature of modern warfare removes a lot of soldiers from the targets enough (for good safety reasons) that they can’t make heads or tails between combatants and noncombatants. Not to mention some weapons are so destructive they kill many in their wake. I understand the call to accept accidental deaths as a means to an end – but honestly, the numbers of innocent deaths just fuel the recruitment of our enemies and make them fight with more determination.

    You also accurately point out that: “it’s not the military’s job to negotiate. That’s the government’s job — and since the citizens of the US vote for our national leaders, I would submit that the blame lies with either the voters or the politicians, but not with the military.”

    I’m not unaware of this reality and to say I am is either another dishonest attempt to discredit me, or you’re simply reading between the lines FAR too much. Try again without putting words in my mouth. I don’t blame soldiers for the war – but citizens refusing to enlist would certainly be a point of consideration by those in DC who might choose warfare.

    I don’t think I can convince you of any of this – and that’s not to say you’re an unreasonable person (I’m sure you are, although if taken literally, you are not as you can’t seem to avoid employing logical fallacies. Semantics.) I just mean I’m not well-equipped or patient enough for the debate right now.

    My main objective for anyone reading this article or the subsequent thread is to ensure that anyone who is thinking about enlisting take a good long hard look at their choices ahead of them. That’s not unreasonable to ask.