by Jeremy Horne

Created on: May 08, 2009   Last Updated: May 23, 2009

This is a rather easy question. My response is a stream of consciousness, as I do not think a response to this type of question (as is the case of so many others) can be parceled out in a set of boxes available for analysis. So, what I will do is introduce you to how a political philosopher handles a question such as this. My response may or may not be typical of those of my background, but at least is one perspective that I think the reader should consider.

A response to this question depends upon how the population perceives itself being oppressed or dominant. I might add here, at the outset, that those in the military are in a socialist institution. It is well known that a state that pays its military well is more secure than one that does not. Loyalty follows the paycheck. Too, one should note that how ironic it is that the more shrill criticisms of "socialism" come from members of the U.S. armed services. Now, we must wonder how far the loyalty will stretch when the limits of this mentality are reached. With this said, let's do an analysis.

If one feels that the "volunteers" are more subjects than participants (ruled versus rulers), then, there will be less of a tendency to volunteer. This is coupled with the perceived level of resentment that the population has towards the recent events of the current regime bailing out the banks, financial institutions, and other corporations that have ripped off the people for so many years. Those more outraged would be expected to be less loyal than those directly benefiting from the system. This also depends upon education and background, and whether the people have the understanding of and the will to change the situation. The more educated the person, the less tendency there will be to rely upon violence as a solution. That is, do potential recruits have the education, background, critical thinking skills, and, most importantly, the will to effect change? Aaaaagggggghhh, this professor seems to be going far afield from the question of whether young bucks will be lured by the siren call of U.S. military recruitment. Stand by for further analysis.

One must understand the system being defended. I am making an assumption that a system IS being defended, rather than saying that a system is promoting conflict. The young buck needs to see this but unlikely will in light of the propaganda barrage s/he will receive in boot camp. I am talking about the reality of corporatist war mongering and the sorry history of U.S.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>