Personally, it’s hard to hear anyone justify war for any reason. I think war is barbaric and I no longer buy the argument that those who participate in war are protecting my freedom unless the freedom they speak of refers to a freedom to invade other people’s lands to strip them of resources so I can maintain the nationalistic, wasteful way of life that I have grown accustomed to. I’d prefer that our leaders pursue an agenda that leads us to share the world’s limited resources rather than kill others for a greater proportion of them. In order to kill citizens of other lands, we have to believe that U. S. citizens are somehow more valuable and entitled than non U.S. citizens. If our leaders do decide to take the country to war, as a matter of course, they should lead their own kids to war first, and not expect the rest of our kids to pay the full cost of their decisions.

I found it interesting that Nathaniel Fick starts out his essay with the word citizen-soldier while describing his admiration for the Greek farmers who traded their plows for swords, but then spends much of the essay trying to convince us that well educated people make better soldiers than citizen farmers, etc. I found other contradictions as well.

He claims he never has to wrestle with discipline problems because his soldiers are volunteers. Perhaps he is a good leader. According to my brothers who served, the military is one of the few places where men feel a strong loyalty and bond with each other.  Good leaders bring out the best in others and if one is treated respectfully, I find it hard to believe that other soldiers, less educated soldiers, would behave much differently than these particular soldiers in regard to discipline problems.  He claims that grunts are no longer relevant but then describes support jobs, like truckdriving and engine repair as jobs that minorities fill. He later says his infantry platoons were made up of men “far more diverse than my class at Dartmouth, and far more willing to act on their principles.” 

He confused me entirely when he described the qualifications and enlistment standards (There has been much news made from the lowering of these standars in order to increase enrollment quotas) and again when he described why a larger force where members serve fewer deployments makes a stronger military after saying earlier that the military requires much more training and education now than before.

Mostly, I react to his essay negatively because I hate the glorification of mass killing when in many other arenas, technology for instance, we view ourselves as part of a global community. I think we are capable of understanding other countries’ priorities and negotiating with them in a way that makes a saner world for all.  I’m intolerant of one who tries to make a good argument for any kind of war.