As Fewer Americans Serve, Growing Gap Is Found Between Civilians and Military

[alp227]

Source: NYT

A smaller share of Americans currently serve in the Armed Forces than at any other time since the era between World Wars I and II, a new low that has led to a growing gap between people in uniform and the civilian population, according to a new survey.

At any given time in the past decade, less than 1 percent of the American population has been on active military duty, compared with 9 percent of Americans who were in uniform in World War II. As a result, there is a growing generation gap, with younger Americans far less likely than older ones to have a family member who served.

The survey, by the Pew Research Center, found that while more than three-quarters of Americans over the age of 50 had an immediate family member who had served in the military, among Americans ages 18 to 29, the share was only a third. About 6 in 10 of those ages 30 to 49 have a family member who served. Part of the difference is years. Older people are more likely to have a spouse or a grown child, giving them more opportunities to have a family member who served. But the age gap persists, even when controlling for this, according to the survey.

The result is a military far less connected to the rest of society, a condition that some academics have said might not bode well for the future of military-civilian relations (the military is run by civilians). Others have warned that less connection between the military and the rest of society could lead to less-informed decisions about whether to go to war, because conflicts and the people who fight them are not part of most people’s everyday lives.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/civilian-military-gap-grows-as-fewer-americans-serve.html

[mwrguy]

1. Let's make it even fewer!

Gut the DOD like a trout.

[bloomington-lib]

2. Create a war tax. That shoud help the less-informed decisions about going to war

[Confusious]

4. I think there should be an amendment

that says 'if the president orders the army, navy or marines into combat anywhere, the draft will be reinstated'

A war tax would be good too. On the rich and corporations.

Nobody will want to go to war then. Not the public, nor the 1%, nor the corporations.

[caraher]

5. It might be enough to insist that every war be paid for

Imagine if we weren't allowed to finance adventures abroad by borrowing and keeping the expense out of the regular budget. Raise taxes to pay for bombs? That would make some folks think twice even more than a draft, oddly enough.

I also think we should return to the Constitution's stipulation that Congress make declarations of war. And along with it, don't allow much wiggle room for military action to be considered not a full-fledged war to evade the need for a declaration.

(It's weird that the article in the OP makes the comparison of fraction serving to WWII. We'd better not have as many people in the military as we did then!)

[They_Live]

7. War should at the very least

be included in the budget.

[LuvNewcastle]

6. Great idea!

It should be illegal for the government to wage war while giving tax cuts. That is one of the major reasons why we're in this mess.

[No Elephants]

3. Military is trained not to be connected to civilians, personified by Jody.

"Jody's doing your mama, too.

Go to your left, your right your left."