Can a soldier be Objective?

That was in essence what I was pointing out in post 3... note also, how this ties with those syndromes, the mindset of each, and how they are opposed to each other - each seeking to achieve a different end, even as each seeks to achieve survival... despite Jacobs insisting that these were both needed, and titled her tribalist side 'guardians', Rand pointed out that these are two opposites, and they are by their nature incompatable - and you are seeing the troublings...

Post 21

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:15am

Scott,

First, let's not rely upon Einstein as an authority in this matter. He was a socialist, which goes to show genius in one realm of human endeavor doesn't necessarily translate to any other. ;-) Besides, calling someone mindless for being part of a parade drill is absurd. By that logic participating in any synchronized team activity - let's say a marching band or the 440-relay - is irrational.

And that leads us to the heart of the issue. You wrote ...

I may be wrong, but from what I've heard, the military is an altruistic organization.

Yes, you are wrong. Armed forces are not by definition altruistic in the Randian sense, although any organization can become altruistic. Nothing in Objectivism precludes individuals from joining together for a common purpose. What else is a business after all? So the mere fact that men are organized in a hierarchical structure does not mean they are self-sacrificing altruists.

I will grant that soldiering is a charitable act. This is because a man uses his martial skills for the benefit of others. However, no less an expert on Objectivism than Ayn Rand herself acknowledged that charity is a virtue, although a lesser one. There is nothing irrational in employing yourself fulltime in charitable works. Not everyone needs to profit materially from what they enjoy doing in life. It's a matter of being true to what is best in oneself. Some of us are warriors and want to put our talents to their best and highest use. That may very well mean joining the army.

How is a cop or a fireman any different? Firemen especially have to coordinate in a disciplined fashion and risk their lives to save the lives and property of others. Are they altruists because they aren't in it for the money? Are soldiers, policemen, and firemen altruists because the primary means of pursuing the work they love is joining government agencies? Should a soldier deny himself the opportunity of doing what he wants because circumstances beyond his control do not provide an option other than working for the government? Or does he rationally reckon with the reality that being a warrior in the defense of his country means enlisting in the U.S. armed forces?

That said, any organization can become dysfunctional and make altruistic demands upon its members. (By that I don't mean the rational risk of one's life in defense of his country, but rather being ordered into suicidal combat or to take the normal risk of soldiering for an improper purpose.) That is a risk a soldier in the U.S. armed forces runs. He freely makes a commitment of a period of years of service in an organization that could be perverted in such a way. But life is full of risks. Any of us takes a similar risk with any organization we join. But what else can we do but assess the risks and make our choices in our non-utopian world?

Andy

Post 22

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:29am

Scott:

Recently I heard a high-ranking officer explaining to a journalist that asked why the military didn't select for special honor (make heros) out of men serving in Iraq. The officer explained it was against the culture and ethics for individuals to take credit, only individual responsibility. Team action and honor was recognized and rewarded.

Most of the medals and ribbons that can be awarded for military service are for individual achievement, so that officer is wrong about what the military culture is about. However, it is true that during the past decade or so, there has been a big push to feminize the U.S. armed forces. One dismal effect of that has been to displace the warrior ethic, which includes heroism on the battlefield, with other martial virtues like teamwork that are more compatible with femininity.

So while there is nothing inherently altruistic about the military and its culture, a military organization like any organization can be perverted to irrational and altruistic ends.

Andy

Post 23

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:40am

Robert,

While Objectivism indeed recognises the validity of national defense, Vietnam was not national defense.

Vietnam was a failure, because it was not executed as though it were a campaign in our national defense. The Cold War was a real war that featured bloody theaters in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. It is difficult to see how we could not have expended blood and treasure beyond our borders to contain a threat that truly had the capacity to annihilate us. The real crime is not that we fought in Vietnam, but that we did not fight to win.

I would be happy to write all of this off as history. Unfortunately, Bush is making similar mistakes in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Andy

Post 24

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:10pm

Andy, RE:vietnam

I agree that the cold war and comunisim were real threats (that may be the sloppiest sentence I've ever written) but the point is, wrong target, wrong time, wrong approach.

Much like Bush now Vietnam was a bad place but not a legitimate threat. By wasting time, energy, and lives there it made the US less prepared if it ever were to face a legitimate threat (U.S.S.R. or China), and since it worked out so ineffectively it gave the enemies of capitalism a lot of rhetorical ammunition that was hard to counter for quite a while.

I'm inclined to agree with Mathew here. There isn't really anything wrong with the institution of the Army so much as the tactics and ideas of the millitary's civilian leadership. Until some major changes are made on that level we're going to see more and more cases of wrong target, wrong time, wrong approach.

---Landon

Post 25

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:25pm

     Those who have not been in the military, or, are ideologically anti-military, have no idea what they're talking about re joining it, anymore than those who have never raised children know what they are talking about re 'the proper way' to raise/not-raise children.

     If one has NOT 'walked in the Indian's mocassins,' THINK TWICE about devaluationing 'criticisms;' else one is only advertising that one is chronically ready to...take your pick: 1) insert foot while opening mouth, 2) NOT 'put mind in gear' before opening mouth, 3) expound at the drop of a hat on one's non-experienced situations of others, 4) jumps to conclusions before searching for logical bases, 5)...hell; do I really need to explicate more versions of the same thing?

     It's one thing to criticise the moral justification or logical basis (and, an argument against one is NOT an argument against the other, non?) of an action, behaviour-style, outlook, perspective, way-of-life, belief-system, politic, ideology, or any plain ol' argument-for-'X.'

     But...'logical' criticism of an argument-for-'X' is one thing; implied devaluation of disagreers of it, or any earlier mentioned subjects, is another.

     I fear that I must specify, that all this has NOTHING to do with volunteering during, or even 'for,' Vietnam, Korea, WWII, the Gulf War, or the Battle at Thermopylae. I do hope THAT's clear.

LLAP
J:D

Post 26

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:43pm

What I don't like about the military is the ritual inductions: the head shaving, the close quarters, the lack of privacy, the breaking down of the mind to obedience. Especially the head shaving; I read that is symbolizes that all are equal? It all seems very cult-like and brainwashing related.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 9/28, 3:59pm)

Post 27

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:53pm

The headshaving goes back to Rome. No hair means it can't be grabbed easily and your throat won't be slit as easily.

As to no knowledge on the subject. I respect anyone who makes that decision, at it's best it could lead to great indespesible things... at it's worst I don't think the blame usually falls on individual soldiers.

It's just a decision I choose not to make because I don't want to sacrifice my life on some Trotskyist, altruistic mission into a one horse country while we ignore the bigger fishes.

---Landon

Post 28

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 7:11pm

Andy,

Sorry for the reference to authority (Einstein), but its a popular quote that epitomizes a popular, if simplistic but not unmerited, objection to military culture as anti-individualistic. Which as I said, is surely conducive to individual survival and merited in combat.

No, I don't believe soldiers police, firemen are altruists because of non-pecuniary interests, or because they charitably love what they risk life to defend, or if they're not gung-ho adventurers.

Its because the organizations, and our culture at large, expect individual sacrifice to the collective. Its the difference between being forced to give (taxed) and being offered an opportunity to give or volunteer.

You said, "Most of the medals and ribbons that can be awarded for military service are for individual achievement, so that officer is wrong about what the military culture is about."

I saw the officer on C-SPAN at a press conference. IIRC it was a week or two ago, and he was a Kernel or General. He was responding to why the military didn't pick a "heroe" to praise in front of the press.

You wrote, "However, it is true that during the past decade or so, there has been a big push to feminine the U.S. armed forces."

I'm sure lots of military people were sickened by the glorification of Jessica Lynch (the women who was shot up in an ambush, after many of the convoys soldiers "guns jammed", and were captured. This appears to be the military pandering to political and media values. The media values victims and the pathetic, so they can pretend they are compassionate altruists while in reality, they are looting, power-craving socialists. If not communists. Weakness, vulnerability and dependence are glorified, while strength and independence vilified. The antithesis of martial virtues. Almost any night Larry King on CNN is celebrating a victim.

I recently read an older cousin's memoir on Vietnam, figthing VC & NVA with counter-battery radar on the DMZ.
( http://www.unknowntruths.com/ "Ben Hai 211 Alpha" by George Ragsdale ISBN 0-9745393-8-4 )

Probably a quarter of the book was about disfunctional leadership. Tragically, he died before I could discuss the culture of America circa 1970. I was born in 1965, but after reading several chapters of Rand's "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal" I understand how politicians, professors and the media lost the war and poisoned our culture. He took pride in being a professional soldier, and his integrity in honoring his ideals, even if not being totaly proud of a military culture which leadership would have often sacrificed his life and did kill others for the whim of bureaucrats, and drafted enlisted men which sometimes tried to kill him, as 2000 other officers were fragged in Vietnam.

I'm not a military person, or military brat, but I've read Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, and enjoy Mail Call. I would love to work on military technology. But my experiences with the bureaucracies of the military contractors I have worked for, the corruption and inefficiency, has broken my heart and enthusiasm.

Just as my cousin wrote about the military bureaucracy caring more about careers and pulling rank over accomplishing the mission and the lives of subordinates, being risk-averse rather than winning the war, I found the government contractors and bureaucrats I worked for cared more about getting tax dollars than doing a good job. One can hardly be proud of oneself for wasting taxpayers money doing busy-work.

One of my coworkers told me I was too smart, too idealistic, too perfectionist. I'm not so naive anymore, but I'll have to be more cynical before I can just go along and get along, and dishonor the concept of money. Money as a symbol and exchange of values, "the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men". Not a fraud to make me work for my and my countries injury, for our loss, as a beast of burden, consoled by the worse plight of my fellow peasants who're got it worse. Money is symbols of value, not a fraud to waste and enslave.

IMHO, military service is for adolescents looking for group affiliation, for adventurers. I'm afraid intellectuals will end up disillusioned and bitter. I'm sure if I'd experienced half what several acquaintances and family had, I'd go AWOL but on principle with courage, not in cowardice.

Scott

Post 29

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 7:16pm

Joe,

I've read the boot camp experience is designed to degrade your individual identity. A google search on "boot camp" and indoctrination or mind control would probably be interesting.

But, keep in mind, individualism isn't a survival trait when fighting in the armed forces in battle. Rationality in the context of team action is, but not individualism.

Scott

Post 30

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:02pm

"But, keep in mind, individualism isn't a survival trait when fighting in the armed forces in battle. Rationality in the context of team action is, but not individualism."

Lol. Of course. Wouldn't want an individual to choose his own battles, now would we?

Post 31

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:08pm

Well, I think we know that Ayn Rand was not one who would give idle and baseless compliments, so maybe all of you anti-military people should take a look at the speech she gave at West Point. You can find it in Philosophy: Who Needs It. Ask yourself what she would have even been doing there if she regarded the military the way you speak of it.

Post 32

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:13pm

Andy-

These men were rational. They understood they were defending liberty, even if our government wasn't always doing so. But then they were not serving a government. They were serving the country, their home, that they loved.

And I might add the obvious that they were serving themselves. Rationally and heroically. My glass is raised to your family and to their heroic individualism. It is also raised to them in a deeply felt 'thank you'.

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 9/28, 8:14pm)

Post 33

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:16pm

Joe Maurone, if an individual wants to pick his battles, then what is he doing in the government's military?

Post 34

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:55pm

Remember, he's an "ARMY OF ONE," being all he can be...

Seriously, I've already agreed with you on that matter. But it is concievable that an individual, even an Objectivist, would join the army to protect his country, or even learn the skills. We had a few here (where is Byron Garcia?). Many Objectivist support the war in Iraq, it would make sense that some would enlist to fight terrorism. But again, without labeling myself a Saddamite, I'd still say the only proper army is akin to the 'ad hoc' committee concept and not the military as we have it.

Post 35

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:59pm

Yes - the Ethan Allen gang...

Post 36

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 9:03pm

I will say this, some people who are joining the army don't need to be brainwashed. They are already sheep. I'm thinking of those who get upset because they signed on in peacetime to pay for college, or joined the reserves 1 weekend a month, and shit when they find out THEY HAVE TO KILL PEOPLE! And then write a book complaining about war.
This is what happens when you take away little boy's GI Joes and little green army men.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 9/28, 9:06pm)

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 9/29, 6:15am)

Post 37

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 9:09pm

     When one un-pressuredly/'freely' decides/chooses to enter the military (in the U.S. anyways) nowadays...for whatever personal narcissitic or grandiose primary 'reasons'...IF helping 'to protect' those important to one (as becoming a localized police officer, fireman, etc) is at least one of one's values in the choice, one clearly is placing trust ('objective'/rational/or whatever basis/justification for such) in the whoever-unknown-anonymous directors/supervisors/bosses/etc one is going to be working 'under' at the beginning.

     'Dislikes' re whatever the 'indoctrination' procedures involved in 'basic training' (unless we're talking bona-fide 'brainwashing') I find to be a bit trivial re 'arguments' about the worth thereof. As I said before: what one doesn't know about, one shouldn't argue against. Example: head-shaving. Guess why Bruce Lee, an experienced street-fighter punk before his cinema icon-ness, always had a crew-cut? Answer given in earlier post by another. THINK TWICE.

     Such trust may prove, by one's own, personal, immediate and experiential context/lights, (and, No One Else's) to be not worth continuing, either because of immediate superiors...or higher ups. One then leaves (until the 'draft' comes back.)

     Spare me this crap about "Can a soldier be Objective?" unless one's also going to ask: "Can an employee be Objective (before they become an employer)?"

LL--
J-D

Post 38

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 9:21pm

John, re the headshaving thing: yes, it can have practicality; whatever I think of the military, they do make sure there are practical applications (why else would sailors where bellbottoms in this day and age?). But I was asking if their was any validity to the shaving as being symbolic of loss of individual identity. ( I didn't pull it out my ass, my recollection is that I read it in a book about the Navy Seals, and was inquiring on the validity. Also, Robert Heinlein, who speaks somewhat fondly of his military training, discusses these things in STARSHIP TROOPERS, including the rationale behind the seemingly sadistic behavior of training, so I am aware that these things serve a purpose, some to the benefit of the soldier.)

John: "Spare me this crap about "Can a soldier be Objective?" unless one's also going to ask: "Can an employee be Objective (before they become an employer)?'"

(In H.A.L. voice:) May I suggest you take a stress pill so we can talk this over?"

It's actually a fair question, so I don't understand the attitude. And I think many here would agree. Look at Howard Roark and John Galt. They were objective about the choices of employment, and I will stand up as one who's challenged my employers on ethics.

Post 39

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 9:28pm