How the Military Isolates Itself - And Hurts Veterans by Phillip Carter and David Barno, Washington Post.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, the wire ringing our bases divided two starkly different worlds. Inside the wire, life revolved around containerized housing units, cavernous dining facilities, well-appointed gyms and the distant but ever-present risk of a falling rocket or mortar round. Outside the wire, Afghans and Iraqis tried to live their lives amid relative chaos. They didn’t fully understand what we were doing there. And when we ventured out, we struggled to navigate their world.
The wire defines a similar divide in the United States. Inside, troops and their families live and work on massive military bases, separated geographically, socially and economically from the society they serve. Outside, Americans live and work, largely unaware of the service and sacrifice of the 2.4 million active and reserve troops. Discussions of the civil-military divide often blame civilians. But the military’s self-imposed isolation doesn’t encourage civilian understanding, and it makes it difficult for veterans and their families to navigate the outside world…
Thoughts?
Comments
Gen Barno is only trying to fix one thing... The amount of $$$ in his bank account. If this was a good idea why didn't he implement it when in command? Another case of the spine that shows up after you retire. The average US citizen does not feel the strain of war, and does not care or want to either. Military service is and can be a thankless job. If you need awards, pats on the back, thank you's etc. then get out. The Salvation Army has billets open.
Scott---you are correct the actual hidden agenda is the downsizing of the force, slowing of pay scales/promotions, elimination of the commissaries, and reduction of health costs by redoing Tri-Care. Retirement reforms are also being looked at as well---this was looked at in 1993 but tabled---do not think it is being tabled this time.
If you heard the ACoS recently---he openly stated for reporters that if the sequester is not off the table by 1 Nov he will start planning for reductions to 390K-it was not pulled and will not be pulled any time soon based on the current supporters of the sequester-all comments coming out of DoD/SecDef now mirror that thinking.
A wave of DAC RIFs are going to be wide and deep as well-temp positions cut, Term positions cut, retirements not being backfilled, DAC recruitment is in a full stop with agencies returning their employment certs to OPM, and rumored CS probationary personnel not being accepted at the end of the one year probation period etc.
Bill M - concur. This article is entirely without historical context. Our bases have been traditionally far more open and far more divided from society than they are now. The absolutely tiny, professional military of the late 1800s, early 1900s, and interwar years are a testimony to the fact that the military was isolated, in the middle of nowhere, in those times poorly paid, little known by civil society, and yet nowhere were people pining about a civil-military divide.
That we ought to readdress the manner in which our all volunteer force is compensated is another matter entirely.
When the issue of civil-military relations is brought up by professional journals or in leadership discussion, the worry is not a divide, but how to manage the impact of the constantly shifting Zeitgeist of civil society on the military.
Like everything else, the civil-military relations subject has become code for an agenda of some sort. Ruminations about the draft have little to do with relations, and more to do with pro or anti-war sentiments. The impact of the military on society or vice versa, has more to do with couching arguments on various social justice than with any actual benefits for either party. Frankly, the code behind this article is about suggesting saving money in personnel costs. A worthy debate that should be able to stand on its own merit aside from the civil-military divide red herring.
Does anyone in uniform agree with the arguments presented in this article? Opening our bases for non-DOD personnel to use our gas stations, gyms, and golf courses, and taking away the commissaries so service members will always have to leave base to shop (99% shop off base some of the time anyway) will supposedly result in our military more effectively integrating with civil society and in turn it will make it easier for our vets to get jobs?
Our bases weren't always closed and I don't recall us being better integrated when they were open. Furthermore due to the nature of our work we need our own culture, which is not unlike other professions ranging from firemen to Google. I think too much is made of the so called civil-military divide, since it only tends to impact those of us who are lifers. The author noted that 80% of service members get out before they hit 20 years (as it should be), and I suspect most get out with less than 4 years of service. Are they really that divided from the society they hail from after a tour in the military?
What is the real problem that LTG (Ret) Barno is trying to fix? I keep hearing about the divide, but for the most part I see it as a healthy divide. Hopefully we don't want to militarize our society or overly civilianize our military. If we're out of balance (too divided) please clarify how and the risks associated with it.
Saw a link to this site on The American Conservative (scroll down):
<blockquote>I have been in the army now for just over five years and I am currently on my second deployment to Afghanistan. My copy of HONY finally made it to my tiny base in the mountains of Afghanistan. I don’t think anyone has ever been this happy while stationed over here. Your pictures are always the high light of my day. Sending you my thanks and love from across the world.</blockquote>
http://www.humansofnewyork.com/
Okay, SWJ types. It's time to take a break from all this.