The U.S. Military – Pampered, Safe And Very Scared

October 19, 2017

The U.S. military is a socialist paradise:

Service members and their families live for free on base. People living off base are given a stipend to cover their housing costs. They shop in commissaries and post exchanges where prices for food and basic goods are considerably lower than at civilian stores. Troops and their families count on high-quality education and responsive universal health care. They expect to be safe at home, as bases, on average, have less violence than American cities of comparable size. And residents enjoy a wide range of amenities—not just restaurants and movie theaters but fishing ponds, camp sites, and golf courses built for their use.

Of course, some bases are better than others. But even the most austere provides a comprehensive network of social welfare provisions and a safety net that does not differentiate between a junior employee and an executive.

For those who stay on, the military provides a generous retirement pay.

"But life in the military is dangerous!"

Not so.

According to a 2012 study by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center (AFHSC) the risk to ones life is lower for soldiers than for civilians:

In the past two decades (which include two periods of intense combat operations), the crude overall mortality rate among U.S. service members was 71.5 per 100,000 [person-years]. In 2005, in the general U.S. population, the crude overall mortality rate among 15-44 year olds was 127.5 per 100,000 p-yrs.

The huge difference is quite astonishing. The death rate for soldiers would still have been lower than for civilians if the U.S. had started another medium size war:

If the age-specific mortality rates that affected the U.S. general population in 2005 had affected the respective age-groups of active component military members throughout the period of interest for this report, there would have been approximately 13,198 (53%) more deaths among military members overall.

Those working in the U.S. military, even when the U.S. is at war, have a quite pampered life with lots of benefits. They have less risk to their lives than their civilian peers. But when some soldier dies by chance, the announcements speak of "sacrifice". The fishermen, transport and construction workers, who have the highest occupational death rates, don't get solemn obituaries and pompous burials.

There may be occasions where soldiers behave heroic and die for some good cause. But those are rather rare incidents. The reports thereof are at times manipulated for propaganda purposes.

The U.S. military spends more than a billion per year on advertisement. It spends many uncounted millions on hidden information operations. These are not designed to influence an enemy but the people of the United States. In recent years the U.S. military and intelligence services have scripted or actively influenced 1,800 Hollywood and TV productions. Many of the top-rated movie scripts pass through a military censorship office which decides how much 'production assistance' the Department of Defense will provide for the flick.

A rather schizophrenic aspect of its safe life is the military's fear. Despite being cared for and secure, the soldiers seem to be a bunch of scaredy-cats. The military's angst is very ambiguous. It meanders from issue to issue. This at least to various headlines:

Members of the U.S. military live quite well. They are safe. Their propaganda depicts them as heroes. At the same time we are told that they are a bunch of woosies who fear about anything one can think of.

I find that a strange contradiction.

/snark

Posted by b on October 19, 2017 at 16:32 UTC | Permalink

Comments

You are quite right that Mexico and Central America would not consider the US isolationist. Simon Bolivar pegged it: “The United States appear to be destined by Providence to plague America with misery in the name of liberty.” The Us was only isolationist when considering European conflicts. The aggression was mainly directed at Central and South America after the ethnic cleansing and near genocide of the Native Americans. This enabled the US to have a small standing army for its size relative to European countries. WW1 was the first time that the US got entangled in European wars. Part of Wilson’s platform to get reelected was – he kept us out of war. It did take Pearl Harbor before the US became actively involved in the combat of WW2. I should have said there has been a definite change in the style of American aggression since it took over the World Empire from Britain after WW2. There is definitely a much more militaristic flavor in American culture which is increasing.

Posted by: gepay | Oct 20 2017 23:11 utc | 101

Whether any nation agrees or disagrees; no matter that it is illegal by the UN Charter or by NATO, The AUMF drafted before 911, but also because of 911, is carte blanche to be at war forever in any country – as aggressor – to the ends of the earth – to chase down terror and ists. Plus torture.

Posted by: fast freddy | Oct 20 2017 23:57 utc | 102

Sorry this is so long. Couldn’t say it any more concisely. : )
Calling what the Pentagon/MIC has created “the military” and individuals “soldiers”, etc. is a fallacy of conflation similar to calling the guy with a lab coat that does titrations at the local Kraft plant and Isaac Newton a “scientist” both.
So somehow the US military is equivalent to the Legions of Rome, or the Wehrmacht and SS panzer formations or Napoleon’s Grand Armee? Hmmm, not so much.
I have been a soldier in a small but professional western army that has earned a historical reputation for no-nonsense battlefield competence against serious adversaries like the Turks, the Kaiser’s army, Afrika Corps and the Japanese. The Vietnamese also, very tough. resourceful fighters. In this army that has operated alongside US forces many times the consensus opinion (and this goes back to at least WW2) is that the “Yanks” were poor soldiers. Unprofessional, ill-disciplined, ill-trained in the basic soldiering skills, badly led. Lacking in the real martial virtues of steadiness under fire, audacity and vigour in attack, doggedness and endurance in adversity. The informed opinion of the senior sergeants, warrant officers and officers of field rank, professionals with careers going back as far as WW2 was that they wanted as little as possible to do with US forces when on joint operations. That the Yanks were profligate with often useless or counterproductive firepower (2nd LTS calling in million dollar airstrikes), ignorant of infantry minor tactics, lacking even rudimentary field skills (music and smoking on patrol), ineffective in taking and holding ground and presenting a serious risk of death by “friendly fire” if they were “supporting” you. Lacking in initiative at all ranks.
Also commonly observed was that they were soft and pampered, unable to operate without frequent return to bases with comparatively luxurious amenities, preferring airlifts to less obtrusive foot patrols, wasteful of rations, equipment and ammo. Scared of the dark, you might say.
But ever swaggering and boastful, seen to believe their own bullshit. Not heroes, nor even soldiers you could respect for their professionalism. With, of course, some honourable exceptions to what “the system” produced. But then the US power has never been its “military” but economic. Its wealth. The US military is primarily a crude instrument to spread chaos and simple destruction by application of profligate and expensive firepower. It is not about maneuver, tactics or “soldiering” in any meaningful sense. And its politician-generals are perfect for directing such an organisation.
For the views of a US soldier who was something if an exception to this pattern see David Hackworth, “About Face”.

Posted by: Camillus | Oct 21 2017 0:08 utc | 103

If what you say is true, is it not ironic that the military is a socialist enclave supported by a capitalist society? Why the heck is everybody on the right so damned afraid of anything socialist?
If Military socialism has not led to an overthrow of our government by the uniformed proletariat, then it is hard to see what there is to fear from socialism. After all, nearly all federal agencies support socialist programs like pensions, medical care, farm cooperatives, free education, etc.
…
Posted by: Tomonthebeach | Oct 20, 2017 11:47:21 AM | 72
It is indeed ironic, in a skating on thin ice kind of way. But one only need contemplate the right’s ‘fear’ of socialism for a moment or two to fully appreciate the reason. The crux of the matter is that socialism is the ultimate expression of benign Democracy. It doesn’t matter whether socialism is ‘imposed’ by a ‘dictator’ or adopted as a popular principle, it is demonstrably and unequivocally FOR THE PEOPLE.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 21 2017 4:04 utc | 104

Boyo@92 – “… is this some USA Spec Ops boys pretending to be Kurds? They have a green flag and red star flag on their upper arms?
Not exactly. First of all, this was a propaganda video/set of photos supposedly from around Fatisa taken in May of 2016 and intended for western consumption. We called it the Truck #6 video. It was about an hour north of Raqqa when the SDF was moving in.
Delil Souleiman is an independent photographer based in Qamishli – he provides lots of Kurd/YPG photos to AFP (French Press Agency). Kurdistan24 (a Kurdish knock-off of France24) based in Erbil was the source of the video. It’s the one piece of media that the Barzani clan doesn’t own or control in Iraqi Kurdistan. Somehow (SDF Ministry of Propaganda backstage passes?) both were able to tag along on Euphrates Shield and got the first images of what supposedly are some kind of US SF. The spandex balaclava dudes are dressed in Kurdish Special Forces outfits. They look more like Rita Katz’s head-choppers to me, but what do I know?
The YPG/YPJ patches are not intended as a deception. SF guys will wear patches of the forces they train to build a sense of comradery. Sgt. HATE has a yellow YPG People’s Protection Unit patch on one arm, and a green YPJ (Women’s Protection Unit) on the other. These same guys appear in later videos. I doubt they’re US SF. I would guess they’re mostly Constellis (Blackwater, Xe, Academi, whatever…) mercs protecting the one or two US advisers and maybe their Constellis bosses or spooks – who are riding in the air-conditioned, dust-free cab. The US would not likely permit random AFP guys to release clear images of US SF. Looks like everyone just got their uniforms back from the laundry, too. Even the black balacavas are spotless. Amazing.
The photos/video were released immediately prior to Obama’s announcement that he would add 200 more US SF advisers to the 50 already in Syria at the time. The numbers were a complete lie as always – we had many more US military there ‘temporarily’. I suppose the images were to nail the narrative for the sheeple that ‘boots on the ground’ in Syria was already a done deal and completely legal, so don’t even bother questioning it anymore. The MSM certainly never did after that.
The minor stink raised later about the patches came from our NATO ally Turkey. They were pissed that the supposed US soldiers were wearing patches of forces that Turkey considers part of the PKK and terrorists. The US military blubbered about the patches not being authorized and ordered them removed, yet they continued to appear in later videos/photos of these guys. The Constellis mercs probably continued to wear them on purpose to piss of CENTCOM. Well, I would have…

Posted by: PavewayIV | Oct 21 2017 4:21 utc | 105

Camillus@103 – Thanks for your detailed perspective. Always interesting to hear what other forces think of our US military – good or bad.
“…But ever swaggering and boastful, seen to believe their own bullshit…”
That’s by design. The US spends a lot of time and effort (and money) to make sure everyone here believes the bullshit, especially military-aged men. We must have thousands of PSYOPS experts working on the US population 24×7. I have to say that it seems to be working pretty well so far.
The US military has increasingly relied on cheesy propaganda and flag-waving to keep our all-volunteer military ranks filled for Iraq and Afghanistan. And that’s after federalizing the individual states’ National Guard and tapping them and the Reserve units, which still leave us short. We keep re-deploying soldiers until they crack. There are no rear-area jobs to give combat troops a break – that’s all done by contractors now. I think the draft (to include women this time) will be next for producing enough troops for our Iranian war. Impoverished, jobless US civilians are getting hard to recruit and mercs are so damn expensive!
“…But then the US power has never been its “military” but economic. Its wealth…”
Which is why we’ll soon be powerless. The entire Iraqi and Afghani wars were done on credit – we borrowed every last dime and manipulated interest rates lower to bear the enormous debt. That trick will eventually run its course, and the US will have to fire up the printing presses just to make interest payments. The US public has no clue at all. I think the Weimar Republic tried this scheme to pay down war debt. I remember that not turning out too well for them…
“…The US military is primarily a crude instrument to spread chaos and simple destruction by application of profligate and expensive firepower…”
Well, you’ll at least have to concede that we’re damn good at that part. It’s well over three-quarters-of-million dollars for an airstrike in Syria or Iraq using a single precision munition. Do you realize how many individual terrorist wellheads and pump jacks in Deir EzZor province the US has destroyed via airstrikes, one at a time?

Posted by: PavewayIV | Oct 21 2017 5:23 utc | 106

Wonder what you get if you factor in death rates or longevity after discharge? High suicides among ex-soldiers and perhaps poor health among veterans? After all when you look at deaths and mortality its not fair comparing a group of largely young people with the overall population. The average age of those serving would be far lower than the average age of the general population, which would skew any comparisons.

Posted by: Douglas | Oct 21 2017 11:25 utc | 107

Not mentioned above ? didn’t read all ..
1) The all-volunteer force and outsourcing to contractors (would be wonderful to read a thorough study on that!) show that citizen defense, loyalty, commitment, is zero. Only ‘acceptable’ pay / benefits can seduce enlistees, it’s a job like another, with supposed ‘high risk’ but insurance for various events (family survivors, disability, etc.)
2) The draining off and co-opting of some young men (and women) serves the unemployment statistics and removes some of the more violently capable or inclined into national subservience / adherence vs. other avenues — which is why the glorification and tearful thanks and so on is necessary because without that potential social boost and respect the nos. would sag…and everyone knows this… Of course it is poorer regions that furnish the grunts, which also keeps dissidence / insurrection down — as does the prison industry, and in part, the arms industry, btw.
3) An insidious and growing class distinction (see 1) Only fools (deplorables, poor ppl, those hoping for green cards, idiots, etc.) will enlist — we the higher and edjicated folks need these expendables to ‘fight’ and may THEY be grateful for our support and the crumbs we offer them! No way any ‘war’ or ‘occupation’ can be won with that attitude. The crunch: the ‘wars’ have no aims, they are no meant to be ‘won’, the soldiers are there to feed an ersatz belligerence, a menacing presence (actually sanctions, banking, perm. milit. bases, etc. do the job, the gals with guns are for show), to force others to defend themselves by buying arms from their supposed enemy (MIC) …
Well enough the drift is clear i guess …

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 21 2017 14:25 utc | 108

You must be one of those who either kneel or sit during the National Anthem. Remember that those in the military provide their most valuable earning years while you sit in your cushy chair at work. When the military deploys on a moments notice and their wives and families and left behind, while you are safe here in the USA!

Posted by: Pissed Off! | Oct 21 2017 15:19 utc | 109

@109 I stand for the anthem cos I’m afraid of what people might think of me if I don’t. Raw Courage! /sarc

Posted by: ruralito | Oct 21 2017 16:08 utc | 110

But that Kim Jong Un, boy! That man is a Brutal Tyrant!

Posted by: ruralito | Oct 21 2017 16:12 utc | 111

@ Pissed Off who seemingly stumbled into the wrong bar
It is my understanding Pissed Off, that the folks who are kneeling during the US national anthem are protesting discriminatory treatment of those not white.
Your connecting their actions to disrespect for the nation have been shown to be delusional, if not also racist.
Try another bar down the road.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 21 2017 16:30 utc | 112

Enjoyable thread. Obviously troll city or it really touched a nerve. Not trolls because no repeated baited. So touched a nerve then. The old man dodged the aussie lottery, his mates that came back said ghetto blasters don’t work well in well wooded Vietnam. Unprofessional lot them yanks. But yeah, the fear factor is pretty wow. Lucky that they run on a make believe war economy of high tech weapons to make up for the ill discipline.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Oct 21 2017 21:39 utc | 113

MadMax2 | Oct 21, 2017 5:39:32 PM | 113
A couple of my family were in Vietnam. ona a conscript, the other career officer. Both have similar veiws on the yanks from that time. a lot to do with their arrogance.
Father in law in WWII with aussie ground crew protecting US airfields. First in New Guinea then moving with the yanks as they island hopped. The highlight of his war was shooting down the US planes as they come in to land. Yanks ended up kicking them out and going it alone.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Oct 21 2017 23:04 utc | 114

In reply to: psychohistorian | Oct 21, 2017 12:30:15 PM | 112
*chuckles* that’s a juvenile argument, like accusing someone of liking to argue. You just like to argue. No I don’t! See? :^)
If you don’t like me, you must be a racist. We’ve entertained that notion often and long enough that it’s become the norm. If you don’t have sex with me, you must be a racist. It was clever, but now it’s old and *yawn* boring. Everybody’s racist. It’s part of the human condition.
The protest is clever in the same way. If they try to force them to stand for the anthem, the point is exemplified by the use of coercion. Because, you know, we have this “constitution”. There’s no winning that scenario for either side however juvenile the protest may be. I say that because if they ever change their minds and stand up for what they believe, they’ll be known as hypocrites. It’s a tiger by the tail.

Posted by: Stryker | Oct 22 2017 9:03 utc | 115

We American public seem more and more to be outside the fence wherein the cows graze peacefully. Over in the best pasture, hidden from public view, is the most pampered. These are the foreign bases the US military has coerced over the years, whose population does not actively engage in a war front. They are the best and brightest, whose children are bilingual, cushioned from any discrimination, looked upon as an enclave of world power This is a low stress environment guaranteed to protect intelligence and health. This is a separate world from the US bases at home.

Posted by: katesisco | Oct 22 2017 15:03 utc | 116

@ Stryker who in their response to me had the audacity to write:
”
Everybody’s racist. It’s part of the human condition.
”
Sorry, I don’t buy the concept. Race does not exist if you look at the DNA. People are brainwashed into fearing others (some of which is innate) and from that fear hatred is formed by those, who like bullies, pass the hatred down that they received…..stupid is as stupid does.
Go read The Polyvagal Theory by Stephen Porges to get an idea how we evolved into the hubristic animals we are.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 22 2017 19:57 utc | 117

In Reply to psychohistorian | Oct 22, 2017 3:57:10 PM | 117
First, thank you for the pingback.
Brainwashing is part of the human condition. In other words, no one can claim total immunity. I wouldn’t necessarily go to the extreme of the term “brainwashing”. It’s more subtle, like environmental or cultural conditioning.
I self identify as human, but obviously the government isn’t letting me get away with that. It’s not up to me, and that’s why I can honestly say everyone is a racist because we’re all caught in the same trap by society. I can’t just ignore the existence of race even if it exists only as a concept or theory.
DNA may not be a racial attribute, so race is not defined by DNA since that would be like comparing apples to insects. That’s according to the current knowledge set. Bone structure, for example, may be used to identify race. There are other examples.

Posted by: Stryker | Oct 22 2017 22:21 utc | 118

While they are in, yes. Once they’re out they’re treated like subhuman trash. I have a buddy was blown up twice in Iraq. Late 20’s, several kids and wife. He can’t get the VA to pay for his dental work, yet the military has MILLIONS of dollars to pay for the mentally-ill to have their penises surgically removed. Truly is clown world.

Posted by: Old Ez | Oct 23 2017 15:35 utc | 119

SFC Steven M Barry USA RET 55
Here’s what a Marine Colonel told a young guy who was just starting out in his military career, about what it meant to be a soldier:
* * * * *
So you want to be a career soldier? Good for you. But remember that the longer you stay in uniform, the less you will really understand about the country you protect. Democracy is the antithesis of the military life; it’s chaotic, dishonest, disorganized, and at the same time glorious, exhilarating and free — which you are not.
After a while, if you stay in, you’ll be tempted to say, “Look, you civilians, we’ve got a better way. We’re better organized. We’re patriotic, and we know what it is to sacrifice. Be like us.” And you’ll be dead wrong, son. If you’re a career soldier, you may defend democracy, but you won’t understand it or be part of it. What’s more, you’ll always be a stranger to your own society. That’s the sacrifice you’ll be making.
* * * * *
IMHO you’d be wise to do a tad more thinking about what it meant being a soldier in a democratic country.
Reference

Posted by: Taylor M Brampton | Oct 24 2017 9:46 utc | 120

Back to Main