is anybody good at....

[ItalianStereotype]

military philosophy?

i am doing a midterm paper for my military history class (oh god, it is full of survivalists) and i really dont know a whole hell of a lot about it. i need to know why americans have always preferred the citizen soldier over the professional army, how this has fit into american political philosophy and protection of our liberty. it has to be a little more in depth than "because king george was bad." if you can give specific historic examples or book/online references that would be great too.

[ItalianStereotype]

you guys suck :(

[mburbank]

I sorry, man, seriously. I'd help out, but Military history past the inovation of the longbow and stirrups isn't my forte.

I Think (and this isn't backed up with any research whatever at this point) is that with a civillian army, your less likely to have a dedictaed core that might
A.) Become the muscle of a police state
or
B.) Engage in a military coupe.

You want folk who are more invested in some life beyond the military than in it.

[El Blanco]

Also, with a citizen soldier, you theoretically have a fighter with more at stake in the victory. I dunno really tough. Know any generals?

[ItalianStereotype]

im going to have to find some generals i suppose....

well...does anybody know much about US grant and robert e lee?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think Blanco is pretty much right, soldiers who are fighting for their own state and way of life probably have more at stake than say mercenaries.

This was a big topic for Machiavelli, one that he addressed a bit in the Discourses on Livy, and one he touched upon extensively in The Prince. In Italy, I believe they were called the Hoplites. You should brush through the Prince if you haven't already, you'd prolly find some GREAT citation material.

[AChimp]

The Hoplites were Greek. You were basically a farmer, and when your city-state went to war, you picked up your armor and spear (both of which you had to provide yourself, I believe) and marched off with your neighbours.

IMO, militias are cheaper than a regular army and will fight harder because they have more to lose (like Blanco said).

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't think the hoplites were relegated only to Greece....? :/

[punkgrrrlie10]

b/c we have always distrusted gov't and anything they run.

[ItalianStereotype]

well of course, but i need specifics.....

[punkgrrrlie10]

2nd and 3rd amendment?

[ItalianStereotype]

true, true.

but how does the idea of the citizen soldier affect our liberty?

[punkgrrrlie10]

http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/3rd.html#HIII

I don't know if this will help but here ya go.

[AChimp]

Maybe... All the surrounding area used hoplites, too. Technically, Macedonia wasn't part of Greece, but Alexander the Great used hoplites a lot. In no expert in this, but I imagine that when he went a'conquering, a lot of ideas spread.

Of course, once the Roman legionnaire came along, hoplites were rendered hoplessly useless. ;)

[ItalianStereotype]

youre such a dork chimp

[sadie]

hoplites :lol

[Baalzamon]

Hoplites as i know of them where the shield and spear guys that where the precursor to the greek Phalanx. Once the romans got into everything the Legion became the way to go, at least for rome anyway.

[AChimp]

Phalanxes were made up of hoplites. They were good unless you fought someone who was more mobile than you.

:uberdork

EDIT: There was an elite phalanx unit in Ancient Greece made up entirely of gay men sworn to fight to the death. And you know what? They did. :(

Hoplites also frequently marched into war only wearing a helmet, their spear and shield, and occassionally a breastplate and greaves. :eek

[ItalianStereotype]

while i think it is safe to say that chimp is a nerd twice over, i need to focus mainly on american soldiers. hoplites are good to draw comparisons with, but i need more meat for my paper.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You guys know this shit from all your role playing games, don't you. >:

Well, IS, if you want "military philosophy," yet only the basis of American military philosophy, I guess you could go back to the philosophy taken by earlier administrations.

The anti-Federalists, such as Jefferson, were very much AGAINST a large budget draining military. In fact, Jefferson, as well as his Secretary of the treasury Gallatin, played a big part in stripping down our Navy to cut costs. This nearly crippled James Madison as president during the War of 1812.

You should try to reach Rorschach, he'd be a great help w/ this stuff....

[Paul138]

Something you may want to know. The military mind always keeps it's secrets secret. That's just how they think. Take Roswell for instance. The whole thing was a govt. experiment to interpret Soviet fequencies and they kept it a secret when it failed. We all know what that led to. A report about it was released in 1997 or something. Why hide for so long for something so insignificant? Don't ask me why, that's just how they think. Great people, huh?

[ItalianStereotype]

while it is true that the government keeps secrets, that has absolutely nothing to do with my topic.

[GAsux]

I'm with Kev here. What you're talking about sounds like the roots of military philosophy which is far different of course from currently philosophy and doctrine. I doubt finding your neighborhood general will shed much insight into the types of things you're looking for.

Paul,
Please go back to Camp Moron before they realize their headmaster has escaped. From a few simple sentences, it's clear to me that you're about as qualified to make insightful comments about the military as I am about fucking super models.

[Paul138]

Paul,
Please go back to Camp Moron before they realize their headmaster has escaped. From a few simple sentences, it's clear to me that you're about as qualified to make insightful comments about the military as I am about fucking super models.

Y'know, being constructive helps. It's philosophy on secrets has as much to do with how it works. Secrets is what helps it exist. Without them we'd be screwed by foriegn govts.

[ItalianStereotype]

secrets have nothing to do with the citizen soldier, therefore, im not going to use it.

[GAsux]

Capt. Obvious,
I wasn't born yesterday. I'm quite sure that everyone here has at least a quarter of a brain and is well aware of the fact that the military keeps secrets, and that forth the most part it is beneign (although I'm sure there are cases in which there were sinister intentions).

Regardless, military doctrine and philosophy, which are the heart of what's being discussed here are not in the realm of "secrets". Your implication that the military hides it's doctrine and historical philosophy is ridiculous, and makes me seriously doubt your credibility on the subject.

[Zebra 3]

You can find it here. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That doesn't appear to get to deep into "philosophy."

[AChimp]

Thanks for ruining a perfectly good hoplite thread, you assholes. >:

[ItalianStereotype]

we know you are a nerd chimp, there is no reason to show it off >:

[ItalianStereotype]

ok, can anybody tell me any countries that have a universal military service policy, besides israel?

[ItalianStereotype]

ANSWER ME, YOU WHORES! >:

[GAsux]

Are you talking about cumpulsory military service?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think either Sweden or Norway has it. Japan might, too.

[Miss Modular]

Switzerland (I think) has it, too.

[GAsux]

I suppose there are lots of places that have it. Iraq is one.

I saw it first hand in Turkey. Men are required to serve a year with the armed forces. It produced less than satisfactory results. It's hard to feel safe thinking that there is some 18 year old kid who was forced to serve sitting out there on the fence. The Turks would often have "accidents" whereby there weapons would mysteriously discharge, shooting themselves in the feet or legs, and thereby rendering them unable to fulfill their service obligations.

Never the less, any time your talking about conscipts you're going to find a military force that is less that professional.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Never the less, any time your talking about conscipts you're going to find a military force that is less that professional.

Not to get all "theoretical," but at least using Machiavellian logic, your other options are just as bad, if not worse. Sure, you can ask for volunteers, but what if none come along? Secondly, your other option is a paid military. But that means you employ a bunch of capitalists who will turn on you if the money is right (this was particularly a problem in Machiavelli's day).

Not that I'm 100% pro-conscription, I just see the civic merits in it. In Israel it's a part of the political culture, and you can be sure that most hih level politicians have served in a high ranking military position, perhaps have even led a battle charge or two. I find a LITTLE bit more comfort in this than, for example, having a leader who's glad to send our men and women off to die, but when his time came, he joined the coast guard, or national guard, whatever.

EDIT: For as much as I dislike Ariel Sharon, if the PM in Israel held the same entitlements as our President (not sure), you can at least be sure that he would have the military record to be calle "commander-in-chief."

[GAsux]

As you can imagine, I certainly agree with your sentiments with regards to having a commander in chief who's gotten at least a remote taste of what war entails.

I think conscription works well in times of peace. There are certain aspects of such service that would probably do lots of young folks well.

I suppose the point I was getting at is that with a "draft", or forced service, you lose the ability to at least attempt to weed out people with certain negative qualities, and you also find yourself trying to compell folks to fight who may not necessarily have much motivation to do so.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Agreed, sorry, don't know if anything I'm saying makes good sense, one too many brooklyn lagers.