Response for September 24
In Chapter 5 of Skin in the Game: Poor Kids and Patriots, Major General Dennis Laich describes all of the downsides of the American military having an All Volunteer Force (AVF). Laich states that there is "deep concern over the issue of suicide not only in the active force but also among veterans." (pg. 98) He states that there was a rise in service member suicides from 2011 to 2012 despite the efforts made by the Department of Defense to try and combat this issue and before 2008, the suicide rate for the active military was far below the general population. Does this have any connection to an AVF? Since the military draft ended in 1973 there weren't any spikes in active military suicide for almost forty years, so I think there is another underlying cause for this epidemic. I don't see a correlation in that aspect, but he does bring up a good point later on down the page. "One of the major problems to overcome is the stigma of asking for help in a macho military environment where doing so is seen as a sign of weakness." With such a big emphasis on being tough both mentally and physically in the military it is easy to see why active members commit suicide. They don't feel like they can vent their problems to anyone in risk of seeming weak. This causes built up depression with the thought of there is no better option than to end my life. I don't think this is caused by the AVF, but the way the military handles their members. It is a necessary evil though because you have to be strong both mentally and physically to do what it takes to be in the military, especially a combat unit.
“Was it legitimate, critics asked, to sell the army as money for college or as job training or as a source of health coverage for one’s children when those erstwhile students or skilled employees or parents would also be soldiers, subject to orders that would override other obligations and other roles, and that could even end their lives?”
ReplyDeleteThis question of legitimacy really struck a chord with me, particularly regarding the comment about these volunteer parents. Can and should the army present itself as some grand opportunity for parental benefits, such as health care and education benefits for the children of service members, when it knowingly takes parents away from their children and disrupts and potentially even harms familial relationships? As the “Warrior Ethos” reading notes, many men and women found helpful benefits and opportunities in the army during times of peace, but peace was never guaranteed. When it comes time for deployment, these parents could be forced to make certain decisions and fulfill obligations that can and would override their other responsibilities, even the responsibility of parenthood. We know that as the AVF grows, volunteers tend to be older, married with children, and their enlistment terms have only grown longer. The reading later mentions how “During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, parents were repeatedly separated from their families, and many single parents and those married to members of the armed forces had to activate the family care plans they had filed, leaving their children with family members or friends who had agreed to serve as ‘long term care providers’ in case of deployment.” In addition to this disruption of families, the Laich reading notes that military service places a heavy strain on the families of returning service members. The separation for training long deployments disrupts traditional family support networks, and traumatic wartime experiences heavily increases the likeliness for soldiers to demonstrate aggression, domestic violence, and familial abuse towards their partners and children. Do the benefits the army provides outweigh these costs? Can we ask these servicemen and women to consider their obligation to the Army more pressing than their obligation to their families, and in particular, to their children?
In the passage by Beth Bailey, there is a constant struggle of trying to get more people to voluntarily enlist. The standards the military uphold for trying to keep a strong, smart military aren't realistic in an all volunteer system. They demanded a high school diploma, no use of anti-depressants or anything of that sort, no severe criminal record and no mild obesity. The hopes of pulling a strong voluntary military from those left over wasn't realistic. The higher class young people were what the recruiters wanted but most were on the tract to high paying, powerful jobs. Military service wasn't needed for them to have opportunity and didn't seem like an obligation because the generations before them escaped the draft. The appeal wasn't fully there either. The military seemed like a well oiled "we'll make a man out of you" machine that just pumped out long-term issues. The rate of suicide, PTSD, domestic abuse cases, homelessness and many other issues wasn't exactly a benefit to most people that came along with military service. So was the military an opportunity for all or was it just for the poor? We covered the question of "Was the military for an opportunity for African Americans and Latinxs or was it a last resort?" However, we have never really questioned the way the class system is used in depth. Yes, the wealthy can escape the draft and steer away from military service but does that make it okay that the poorer groups are called upon more? Is the AVF an equal system?
Delete- Riley
DeleteWhile reading “THE WARRIOR ETHOS” a few points caught my eye. One main point that caught my eye was how military planners saw major problems with army war-fighting capabilities. How were we winning wars and labeled as the most powerful/strategic army if we were having problems with our war-fighting capabilities. Shinseki’s goal was to create and army that was agile, flexible, and versatile. My question was, Hasn’t our Amy always been agile, flexible, and versatile? The plan created a lot of debate, but was supported by Clinton’s secretary of army. One point that really caught my eye was how many normal people started to distance themselves and not appreciate service as much. Teacher, Counselors, coaches, and parents weren’t approaching kids about service. The All Volunteer service was in jeopardy. It needed fixed and the recruiting needed to change. The United States needed more troops and needed a new way to recruit troops. The recruiting slogan/approach was dependent on what our army was doing. In time of war the recruiting was focused on how the Army would benefit you in your personal life. In times of war they tried to show the important parts you can take in war. They couldn’t hide the fact of warfare. The question began to raise about race after the recruiting got changed. Many Blacks, and Hispanics believed that they were getting attacked more. It rose the question about race, class, and equity. The All volunteer service was needed. In times of war or global crisis we need everyone on board.
ReplyDelete“Why does America tolerate 200,000 homeless heroes?” (pg. 102)
ReplyDeleteLaich’s question here from Skin in the Game: Poor Kids and Patriots certainly packs a punch. Though it may be harshly articulated, it does make a very valid and necessary point; with all of the honor and respect supposedly granted to American veterans, why are they disproportionately visible on the streets? Reading that veterans make up a quarter of the American homeless population blew my mind. For a country that prides itself so explicitly on its military, it’s ironic to know how shamefully unconcerned it is with its “heroes” after their service is complete. “Heroes,” in this case, is a hollow term; how can we say we treat them as heroes if the data reveals that they are more highly susceptible to the loss of basic human opportunities and guarantees? As Laich continues to point out, the AVF has been at least marginally responsible or linked to rising PTSD, suicide, and unemployment rates among veterans as well, which are all probable seeds of homelessness. An “all volunteer force” built by targeting marginalized and often unqualified Americans is no volunteer force at all, and the statistics to back up the increasing unpleasantness of the aftermath for these individuals - that is, the mental health problems, the strains in family relations, the lack of job preparation, the underwhelming response of the Veterans Administration system to claims made by service members, and so on - are plentiful. Can the AVF really claim to be effective when its “volunteers” are so noticeably hurt by the system it has put in place?