Comments on: Quiet Home Front http://www.philipklein.com/2005/07/quiet-home-front/ Just another WordPress weblog Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:16:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anonymous http://www.philipklein.com/2005/07/quiet-home-front/comment-page-1/#comment-535 Anonymous Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:57:21 +0000 http://www.philipklein.com/?p=741#comment-535 Wow, I could not agree more, with both the post and the comment. It's fascinating what Jerry's history professor says about the post-modern nation state. Another interesting resource for this topic is the philosopher Michael Sandel. What do you think of mandatory military service, like what they require in Israel? Wow, I could not agree more, with both the post and the comment. It’s fascinating what Jerry’s history professor says about the post-modern nation state. Another interesting resource for this topic is the philosopher Michael Sandel. What do you think of mandatory military service, like what they require in Israel?

]]> By: Jerry http://www.philipklein.com/2005/07/quiet-home-front/comment-page-1/#comment-534 Jerry Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:14:51 +0000 http://www.philipklein.com/?p=741#comment-534 One of my history professors said that the modern age of the nation-state began with the institution of the levee en masse in August of 1793. With the institution of conscription, wars engaged entire nations, not just armies; thus, the major conflicts of the twentieth century owed much to a pattern developed in the eighteenth. If this is true, then one might say the nation-state passed into its post-modern phase in July of 1973, when the draft bill expired and the United States began transitioning to an all-volunteer force. While ending the draft was a politically brilliant move by Nixon, it also boded ill for the health of the democratic nation-state. When they didn't have to worry about being forced into the service themselves, many ordinary Americans stopped caring about what their military was being asked to do in their name. This, then, is the post-modern world we are living in: as Andrew Bacevich writes, serving one's country has become "strictly a matter of personal choice," little more than a drab option in a dizzying array of bright potential careers. Given that fact, should it surprise anyone that there is such a rift between the civilian world and the military one? Or that the military is being stretched to the breaking point, whipped nearly to death by its civilian taskmasters with nary a protest from the public that is supposed to be overseeing everything? One of my history professors said that the modern age of the nation-state began with the institution of the levee en masse in August of 1793. With the institution of conscription, wars engaged entire nations, not just armies; thus, the major conflicts of the twentieth century owed much to a pattern developed in the eighteenth. If this is true, then one might say the nation-state passed into its post-modern phase in July of 1973, when the draft bill expired and the United States began transitioning to an all-volunteer force.

While ending the draft was a politically brilliant move by Nixon, it also boded ill for the health of the democratic nation-state. When they didn’t have to worry about being forced into the service themselves, many ordinary Americans stopped caring about what their military was being asked to do in their name.

This, then, is the post-modern world we are living in: as Andrew Bacevich writes, serving one’s country has become “strictly a matter of personal choice,” little more than a drab option in a dizzying array of bright potential careers. Given that fact, should it surprise anyone that there is such a rift between the civilian world and the military one? Or that the military is being stretched to the breaking point, whipped nearly to death by its civilian taskmasters with nary a protest from the public that is supposed to be overseeing everything?

]]>