![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Military and America
Jul. 2nd, 2012 02:55 pmMyke Cole, guest-blogging on Jim Hines' place, has an interesting post on what the lack of widespread military service means to America. Myke, who's also a science fiction writer, ties that thought into why military SF is such a popular genre. Herewith are a few thoughts on Myke's essay.
Historically, AKA, prior to WWII, most Americans did not serve in the military. They may have had some limited exposure via the militia or later National Guard, but generally speaking, few Americans had served or knew anybody who had served. In fact, especially in the era from 1865 to 1941, service in the active-duty military was seen as a last-ditch job. There were many people in the military who were told by a judge "join the Army or go to jail."
This changed during WWII, largely due to the draft. Although there was a wave of volunteers after Pearl Harbor, the large US military was mostly draftees. I should note that at least some of the volunteers (like my grandfather, who signed up for the Navy) did so because they'd rather not be drafted for the Army. After WWII, the emerging need to fight the Cold War kept the draft alive, although the draft was never particularly popular. An unpopular war, made possible by the draft, finally killed the draft, and forced a downsizing of the US military.
Myke, in his essay, talks about the "citizen-soldier." This concept came about because of the peculiar way America went to war. When the US went to war, and here I'll include the Cold War (which, with Korea and Vietnam, wasn't really very cold), citizens were drafted, trained, and shipped out. After the war was over, said citizens were quickly un-drafted and sent home. During the intervening periods, the "citizen-soldier" concept was quietly shelved.
These interwar periods were not nearly as peaceful as we tend to remember. During the 19th Century, the Army was continually at war with Indians. Once the Indian Wars were over, the military got dragged into a lot of "brush-fire" wars, fighting and dying in places like the Phillipines, Haiti and Nicaragua. In short, we've fought a lot of wars where few Americans were directly affected.
Not only that, but if you look at relative numbers, the number of Americans in the military is higher, as a proportion of population, than it has been at other "interwar" (AKA, "not World War") eras. Consider the following table:
year Military US Population % in Military
1860 16,000 31,000,000 0.052%
1865 1,000,000 31,000,000 3.226%
1916 175,000 92,000,000 0.190%
1945 12,000,000 132,000,000 9.091%
1965 4,000,000 179,000,000 2.235%
2010 1,400,000 300,000,000 0.467%
I think, then, that a lot of what Myke is seeing is what usually happens to the US military - after a war, we downsize from a large draftee force to a small, professional force. This professional force then goes off and fights, leaving the American public largely unaffected. Speaking as an ex-military type myself, I'm not particularly happy about that, but it seems to be a trend.
Historically, AKA, prior to WWII, most Americans did not serve in the military. They may have had some limited exposure via the militia or later National Guard, but generally speaking, few Americans had served or knew anybody who had served. In fact, especially in the era from 1865 to 1941, service in the active-duty military was seen as a last-ditch job. There were many people in the military who were told by a judge "join the Army or go to jail."
This changed during WWII, largely due to the draft. Although there was a wave of volunteers after Pearl Harbor, the large US military was mostly draftees. I should note that at least some of the volunteers (like my grandfather, who signed up for the Navy) did so because they'd rather not be drafted for the Army. After WWII, the emerging need to fight the Cold War kept the draft alive, although the draft was never particularly popular. An unpopular war, made possible by the draft, finally killed the draft, and forced a downsizing of the US military.
Myke, in his essay, talks about the "citizen-soldier." This concept came about because of the peculiar way America went to war. When the US went to war, and here I'll include the Cold War (which, with Korea and Vietnam, wasn't really very cold), citizens were drafted, trained, and shipped out. After the war was over, said citizens were quickly un-drafted and sent home. During the intervening periods, the "citizen-soldier" concept was quietly shelved.
These interwar periods were not nearly as peaceful as we tend to remember. During the 19th Century, the Army was continually at war with Indians. Once the Indian Wars were over, the military got dragged into a lot of "brush-fire" wars, fighting and dying in places like the Phillipines, Haiti and Nicaragua. In short, we've fought a lot of wars where few Americans were directly affected.
Not only that, but if you look at relative numbers, the number of Americans in the military is higher, as a proportion of population, than it has been at other "interwar" (AKA, "not World War") eras. Consider the following table:
year Military US Population % in Military
1860 16,000 31,000,000 0.052%
1865 1,000,000 31,000,000 3.226%
1916 175,000 92,000,000 0.190%
1945 12,000,000 132,000,000 9.091%
1965 4,000,000 179,000,000 2.235%
2010 1,400,000 300,000,000 0.467%
I think, then, that a lot of what Myke is seeing is what usually happens to the US military - after a war, we downsize from a large draftee force to a small, professional force. This professional force then goes off and fights, leaving the American public largely unaffected. Speaking as an ex-military type myself, I'm not particularly happy about that, but it seems to be a trend.
