The Growing Military-Civilian Divide
| Sgt. Amber Smith / U.S. Department of Defense
Throughout the history of the United States, wars have been fought in different places, for different reasons, and (most significantly) by different types of people. A quick examination of the many U.S conflicts finds that the groups bearing the burden of said conflict have changed drastically over time. It is important that we examine the changes in the composition of the armed forces as well as the effects a ‘drifting’ military has on both the American public and the military.
Currently, the United States is struggling to fill its recruitment requirements. This is due to a multitude of reasons, but, simply put, many Americans simply aren’t physically capable of serving. Three quarters of those between the ages of 17-24 are disqualified. The disqualifications are mainly due to lack of education, drug use, criminal background, or—the leading reason— being too fat.
Physical restrictions are not the only problem. Many young Americans are simply unwilling to serve in the armed forces. According to a Harvard study, only 15 percent of those polled in 2015 said that they were willing to serve. Suffice it to say, each branch is having its fair share of problems with regards to retention and recruitment of troops, but the Army is feeling the worst of it as they are unable to recruit enough new soldiers.
As a nation, our citizenry has historically been engaged in U.S. conflicts. During the Spanish-American war, our military was heavily comprised of citizens who would serve a short amount of time, then return to their lives on the farm or in the city. Just prior to the 20th century, the U.S. sought to prepare for the conflict in Asia-Pacific and the Caribbean by expanding to a permanent fighting force—one where service members permanently train, prepare, and deploy.
The Second World War was the last time the entire country was involved in a war. Men were either fighting or working in areas of defense. To compensate for their absence, women filled their places in factories and construction. Families accepted rationing while simultaneously building ‘defense gardens.’ The entire American society was fully involved in fighting wars, as well as welcoming Americans back from conflict because everyone either served or personally knew someone who served.
The transition towards a more secluded military began during the Korean War. This was the first conflict where the American public was not affected, as the conflict did not require the cooperation of all citizens and only a limited number of troops were required. As a result, many Americans today are unaware that this conflict occurred, let alone when it did.
The true catalyst for division between the U.S. military and civilians began with the Vietnam War and the associated hatred of the draft. This was the first conflict where Americans were able to see the horrors of war through their televisions, resulting in an increasingly negative public opinion on U.S involvement in the Vietnam war.
Top military and political leaders needed more troops for the type of war they wanted to fight, resulting in the draft. This became one of the most controversial wars in U.S. history, due to the use of the draft which required Americans to fight, and often die, in a conflict many disagreed with. The turmoil of the war resulted in the abolishment of the draft.
In removing the draft, the U.S. military transitioned into the professional volunteer-based force it is today. The largest challenge behind a volunteer force is that when the U.S. is suddenly in a conflict where it needs to expand its force, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, standards must be lowered. During the surge of Iraq, the U.S. Army lowered recruiting standards and kept poorly performing soldiers, producing a lower quality fighting force as seen in Jim Frederick’s Blackhearts.
The lower quality in troops comes about as training time is cut, recruits have less moral solidarity, and those with criminal records are allowed in. This combination leads to the current military being distant in comparison to its predecessors, while also growing farther still from the civilians it serves today. The result is a force that is secluded from both veterans and the general population.
While it may be a testament to the abilities of our nation’s military that citizens remain separated from current conflicts, the many negatives of the increasing divide between the military and public cannot be ignored. By outsourcing its warfighting, the U.S. is relying on a small portion of the population to wage remote wars on behalf of a society that often seems to forget it exists. This dependence induces heavy amounts of stress. This results in an increase of the symptoms of the stress of constant conflict: spikes in high-risk behaviors (such as drug and alcohol abuse), divorce, and suicide rates. By depending so much on a dwindling class of warriors, we are placing unnecessary stress and burdens on them.
U.S. troops are stationed in only a handful of states, with bases typically located in sparsely populated areas providing enough land for training. Additionally, over a quarter of a million service members currently serve outside the continental United States. When you add in long hours, frequent field exercises, and back-to-back deployments, you can easily see a military physically separated from the population it serves.
The military is not the only group separated, so is the American public. The war in Afghanistan is the longest in U.S. history, but goes largely neglected by Americans. During 2010, the deadliest year of the war, nearly five hundred American troops died in Afghanistan, while only one in six Americans reported that they followed the war closely, given that it took up only five percent of news coverage. This results in a population that is generally unaware of current conflicts.
The combination of a physically separated military and a media that spends so little time on current conflicts results in a population that is simply ignorant about current military actions. This in turn leads to a civilian population increasingly willing to send the armed forces into conflict, because they themselves do not feel any of the consequences. This creates perhaps the worst consequence of outsourcing warfighting to a separated class: they will continue to be seen as a more viable option in resolving conflicts, especially conflicts geographically distant from the U.S.
While also inherently against serving, young Americans are hesitant to provide opinions on what the military should do or where it should go. Americans are growing more misinformed and disinterested in military, as more have been responding that they do not know enough to have an opinion. While fewer Americans serve in the military than ever before (less than 1% of all U.S. adults), the American public fails to see the burden borne by troops—such as high stress, physical seclusion from the public, long deployments, and service in general—as unfair; a large portion of Americans view this as just “part of being in the military.”
Now, a professional volunteer force is not something to be ashamed of, nor is it the variable that should be changed in our system. That is why many in politics look towards mandatory service requirements, ranging from six months to four years. Calls for this system are in vain, as they go against the principles Americans have believed in since the 1960s. Rather, we can look at solutions for three of the most influential groups in this paradigm. Those groups are the media, the American public, and service members/veterans.
The media has the most influential role, because it acts as the bridge between service members and the American public. The media decides what news is shown, what statistics are released, how much airtime is spent, and how much the American public knows about the military’s mission and operations. The media has the responsibility to report what happens truthfully and without malicious intent. By keeping the American public informed, the media serves its vital purpose within this republic. Personally, I would hope to see this lead to an American public so informed of the atrocities of war that avoiding conflict becomes preferable.
The American public is not the enemy in this article. They serve an important role of supporting service members in their complex lives. The American public should seek out information about current military involvements, both from the news and primary sources. Service members should not be seen as an alienated class who are beyond assimilating into society. Instead, cooperation is necessary to support the well-being of both parties.
American service members and veterans often take the hostile route to solving the military-civilian divide. They feel disenfranchised by the very citizens who sent them to war, no matter what they do when they return home. The one thing I ask service members and veterans to do is to understand that the American public simply does not know what it doesn’t know. When they thank you for your service on Memorial Day, don’t get mad at them for “not knowing what the holiday is about.” When the American public extends their arms out to service members and veterans, the one thing that does not help the growing divide is to spit in their faces and reject their offers.
Closing the gap will be a slow and tedious process that will require cooperation between all parties. The result will be a society that knows what its military does and ensures that service members and veterans remain a part of our society, which shouldn’t seem like such a lofty goal after all.