America's upper classes have gone AWOL

[Ret10Echo]

As the candidates attest to their stance of the week, I found this an interesting read. It probably does not come as a surprise those who pass through this forum.

R10

America's upper classes have gone AWOL By Peter A. Gudmundsson
Tue Jan 8, 3:00 AM ET

During this presidential campaign, voters will hear much about the divergent economic realities between "the rich" and "the middle class." Yet there is another partition in America that is less visible, but no less troubling. The great divide between the civilian and military communities leaves the nation and its electorate ill-equipped to make informed judgments about military and international affairs.

I recently returned from a trip to San Diego, during which I toured the Marine Corps Recruit Depot and spent two days at sea with the officers and crew of the USS Nimitz. To say the least, it renewed my respect for the professionalism, competence, dedication, and sacrifice of America's men and women in uniform. I was deeply impressed by the vigor and apparent confidence with which they attend to their duties.

A quick glance at the troops I met immediately revealed a broad representation of America's ethnic groups – a diversity that's typical throughout America's armed forces. Statistics reveal high standards of educational attainment and the near nonexistence of illegal drug use or criminal backgrounds. Many come from families in which military service is a common experience. Yet I can't help concluding that the upper and upper-middle or "elite" social classes seem to be conspicuously absent.

A Navy admiral told me, "America is not at war. Its military is." He was acutely aware that a prominent segment of society had little but tax money invested in the outcome.

The civilian leaders with whom I traveled to the ship were clearly surprised by their exposure to young Americans who were seriously and stoically preparing to deploy to a war from which some might not return. Concepts of duty, honor, and sacrifice were simply not central to the life experiences of these civilians. America's elites don't necessarily lack patriotism, but precious few of these leaders have engaged in military service themselves. They simply lack reasonable reference points.

In the middle of the 20th century, military service was near universal for American men. While some used their privileged status to escape arduous or risky duty, society as a whole came together in the common cause of national defense. As a result, America was full of veterans who could place "news from the front" in context for friends and neighbors.

For example, to the extent that the American family received accurate estimates of casualties from the Normandy landings in 1944, a nearby uncle or father would have been able to put those figures in context by declaring, "I was on the Western Front in the Great War; we could have lost many more on Omaha Beach. All things considered, it seems that they managed that campaign as well as could be hoped."

A society with veterans represented at all levels of the community is better equipped to interpret accounts of inadvertent civilian casualties, interrogation interpreted as torture, or prisoner abuse. With the abdication of the upper classes from military service, most elites in the media, private sector, and government service don't have the intimate human context for the realities of war.

The debate about US engagement in Iraq is at its core an estimate of whether America is winning – or indeed can win, given the circumstances. The fourth estate long ago declared this war unwinnable. But how do we know that? How can they?

No electorate can make informed decisions about the exercise of military power in a far-off theater if it lacks a reasonable measure of collective experience with military matters. And any society that restricts its information and analysis to the sound bites of "embedded" journalists and political pundits will find itself highly susceptible to the manipulations of partisan politicians and interest groups at either extreme of any debate. It is simply too difficult to separate hope from fear and fiction from fact.

What can we do to correct course? To begin, America must find a way to reengage the nation's elites with the satisfactions and sacrifices of military and national service. Leading colleges should reinstate ROTC programs. Corporations should emphasize postmilitary recruiting. Likewise, professional organizations such as bar associations and business trade groups must seek opportunities to attend military expositions and demonstrations.

Just as America responded to the Soviet Union's Sputnik launch some 50 years ago with a vigorous effort to strengthen math and science education, America today must overhaul its school history curricula to engage students in military culture. And it must equip them to effectively and skeptically evaluate future military and political issues in the context of past experience.

It is only with an experienced and knowledgeable citizenry that we as a nation can prosecute sound strategy to achieve US policy goals while avoiding the pitfalls of failure and their attendant human, financial, and diplomatic costs.

• Peter A. Gudmundsson, a former US Marine field artillery officer, is CEO of Dallas-based Beckett Media LP.

[Penn]

This was one of the central positions of Andrew J. Bacevich book, “The New American Militarism”

[jatx]

Saying that corporations "should" recruit from the military is a bit silly. If a pocket of talent is discovered, the recruiters will come. Unfortunately they are voting with their feet and the vote is not going well.

I don't think that many in the military are inclined to face up to this, instead taking comfort in the tired (and misinformed) mantra that military service builds marketable skills. I don't see much evidence of that, and it shouldn't really be the focus of our war-fighting machinery anyway.

Also, this is a military problem, not a public service problem. The nation's public service organizations are filled with "elites".

I'm sure that someone will take exception to this comment, but I believe that the Army is one of the most class-conscious organizations in America. It may be blind to race and religion, but it is highly sensitive to differences in class, as defined by economic and educational background. The soldiers whom I know from these backgrounds go to great lengths to hide them, primarily because of the reactions they invite from peers and superiors.

The Army is a blue collar organization in an increasingly white collar world and will not be able to widen its recruiting base without a degree of cultural change. Some of that change might be healthy, but some of it may not be worth the effort. It would be far easier to have a system of mandatory national service and let the chips fall where they may.

[The Reaper]

Not to be argumentative, but I have found the reverse to be true.

Military people tend to be recruited heavily, especially enlisted with the right specialties, junior officers, and retirees.

Maybe I am overly generalizing, but the crew I saw at ACAP had almost all found work before retiring.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[jatx]

Sir, I don't take your comments as argumentative, but I also know that you spent your career in the company of some of the Army's more capable men. How much of their success was due to their character, intelligence and diligence as opposed to military experience per se?

I'm not saying that the military should take any specific steps to accomodate "elites" - just that we need to be realistic about why they are going elsewhere and either live with it or commit to change.

[Penn]

Jax, It has been my experience as an employer, to jump at the chance to hire former service members. Regardless of rank, in most cases their maturity level and world view exceeds their age group peers. Additionally, and again regardless of career path, they are team oriented, flexible, and accustom responsibility. That is usually not true of those who have not served, or below a socio-demographic level of middle class, and even then it is questionable. Therefore, IMHO, the experience does build marketable skill sets.
Is the military insular? Of course; but all large corporate structures are, and each has its own culture; be it the US Army or Goldman Sachs.
What I have found to be true is the following; at a certain economic level, service to the nation in the Armed Forces is to be avoid, but one should find a way to “give back “. How quaint…

[Razor]

Is your measure of "elite" purely based on personal wealth, or other factors?

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by jatx

Saying that corporations "should" recruit from the military is a bit silly. If a pocket of talent is discovered, the recruiters will come. Unfortunately they are voting with their feet and the vote is not going well.

I don't think that many in the military are inclined to face up to this, instead taking comfort in the tired (and misinformed) mantra that military service builds marketable skills. I don't see much evidence of that, and it shouldn't really be the focus of our war-fighting machinery anyway.

Well...I was a headhunter for 8 years, and feel that Military service most definitely builds marketable skills. Most of my clients were always more interested in hiring Veterans. Some even said though they couldn't "require me" to find them a Vet...they strongly preferred those types of candidates. I was not recruiting for too many blue collar jobs...but sales execs, managers, engineers and the like. Of course being very pro-Military myself it was always my pleasure to seek Vets out, or help in other ways if they didn't make the cut for that particular position.

Most of the hiring managers I dealt with extolled the virtues of former Military members and used words like reliable, hard working, committed, honest, team players, leaders...you name it.

Of course, I once tried to assist a former sniper in a job search...that was an interesting one.

[warrottjr]

Originally Posted by jatx

The Army is a blue collar organization in an increasingly white collar world and will not be able to widen its recruiting base without a degree of cultural change. Some of that change might be healthy, but some of it may not be worth the effort. It would be far easier to have a system of mandatory national service and let the chips fall where they may.

My first two years as a Vietnam Era draftee were spent as a company clerk in a BCT unit. I processed approximately 1,200 troops during that time: RA, ER, NG and US. Most of the shining stars were draftees and tended to have some college, if not a degree.

My point is that to take advantage of the entire labor pool, the Army will have to cultivate white collar jobs, without stigma.

Originally Posted by Gypsy

Most of the hiring managers I dealt with extolled the virtues of former Military members and used words like reliable, hard working, committed, honest, team players, leaders...you name it.

My experience agrees with yours. That former military personnel are sought after by those who have the experience to understand what strengths they are more likely to get in vets. Behaviors. Skills can be taught. Changing behaviors is much more difficult. Vets are more likely to have the behaviors that corporations want.

However, the problem is that college graduates, high school graduates, etc. are not aware of the importance of these behaviors. The military spent a lot of time and money advertising skill training as a big benefit of military service. In my opinion, that was a campaign that has hurt the military long-term by focusing on the most perishable advantages, and the ones that are easiest acquired elsewhere as well. Why should a kid who is well-off enlist to learn a skill when he can afford to go to school to learn it?

I don't think the military needs to make any changes regarding what people learn, do, etc. I do think that some sort of compaign to educate the general public (and specifically young people) on the long-term benefits of military service. Get a bunch of CEOs giving short statements on why they prefer veterans. That will get the attention of the people who can afford to pursue MBAs rather than serve in the military.

Btw, from that perspective, I guess I qualify as one of these "elites" that are claimed to not serve. I come from a well-off family. Could have pursued an MBA if I had chosen to do so rather than choose to be a Soldier. I chose to serve (and so did all of the males in my family). Why? In my family, the benefits of service (those things Gypsy mentioned) were stressed. Whether they liked it or disliked it, every one of my uncles (and my father) felt that they were better men, better leaders, better workers because of their time in the military. Doing your duty was assumed, but the "What's in it for me" was stressed. As a result, every one of my cousins, my brother and I all served.

[Shar]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

My experience agrees with yours. That former military personnel are sought after by those who have the experience to understand what strengths they are more likely to get in vets. Behaviors. Skills can be taught. Changing behaviors is much more difficult. Vets are more likely to have the behaviors that corporations want.

I've had similar experiences with the companies I've worked with and for both for the reasons cited and for more specific ones - ie: they go after those with top secret clearances so they can sell into government contracts. I know the federal sales and consulting teams in the two software companies I worked for specifically targeted former military with TS clearances (even if recently expired - but then they know they can get them, it just a lot nicer if they've got it so they can save that expense). They also had to know this software, have the training in the software or at least have the ability to get the training and have degrees in the required fields - so the pool becomes much smaller and very hard to find. During the year I was at one particular company they had an open requisition for a position that never got filled but they'd have snatched up a vet that met those requirements in a heartbeat. They'll overlook quite a bit of on the job experience in lieu of the military background, but you really can't ignore the educational and training components. At least that was my experience in software companies.

[jatx]

Many of you make valid points. I agree that veterans are attractive candidates for many positions due to their behavioral characteristics and character traits. However, as Greenhat points out, that's not the same as being prepared for a civilian career (note I am not saying "job").

We're dancing around the real issue though, which is the purported under-represenation of the "elites" (to retain the author's terminology).

I have never seen good data that supports this assertion, though I believe it to be correct.

If you believe that it (a) exists and (b) is unhealthy for the republic, you are left with only two broad sets of remedies: voluntary and involuntary. The involuntary option is simple enough in concept and has been used previously, though the devil is in the details and many have argued that it might end up helping society more than it helps the military. I am sympathetic to this view but support the idea.

Voluntary solutions would all require that the military acknowledge some measure of culpability and commit to change. It cannot be the case that "elites" avoid military service solely because they lack virtue, especially during a period when the military is granting a record number of criminal enlistment waivers. The military's own deficiencies must play a role in the situation.

Personally, I don't think that the military will ever face up to its issues with class. They have existed for as long as standing armies have manned the ramparts. And frankly, we'd probably end up neutering the beast in the process.

I say bring back mandatory national service and let everyone share in the unpleasantness. Eventually, everyone would hate it equally, which is a fine goal.

BTW, Razor, I am not ignoring your question but believe that we probably share a common understanding of to whom we are referring without putting too fine a point on it. Agreed?

First, mandatory service is not all that functional. Most of the countries that have employed it have dropped it. Of those that retain it, a great number have a "two-tier" military system which makes the problems you are discussing worse, not better. Only Switzerland and Israel (in my opinion and knowledge) are successful with universal conscription/mandatory service. Both are fairly small nations with a strong tradition of relying on all of their citizens for national survival. Not to mention that the draft has been violently opposed within the US every time it has been implemented. IMO, that solution is worse than the problem.

It may be that fewer folks from higher incomes serve in the military. I'm not convinced that is true, but it's possible. I think it is more likely that there are more people from higher-income backgrounds serving in the USAF, and fewer serving in the US Army (strictly based on % comparisons) for example. But then again, isn't the USA the land of opportunity? Does it really matter what income background a Soldier comes from? Certainly doesn't to me.

As I stated before, I do not think the military needs to change what it does, trains, etc. to become more attractive to those at the higher end of the income scale. The Advertising Agency representing the Army needs to make the changes.

In the 1980s, with Jimmy Carter leaving the White House and Ronald Reagan entering... the US Army did some interesting things. They advertised the Army as a challenge. They made it easier (via Chapter and discharge) to get rid of poor Soldiers. They increased the standards (HS grad, ASVB). And the President of the United States talked about character, leadership and duty.

What happened? Enlistments went up. Way up.

[jatx]

Greenhat, the closest I have seen to relevant data has been mean income by enlistee zip code, which actually shows middle- and upper-income Americans over-indexing slightly. But it was panel data, not time series, and we don't collect information on enlistees' household income so it's difficult to do much better.

Also, for the record, I do not support a system of national service consisting only of military service. The military must retain the ability to enforce its own recruiting standards if it is to remain an effective fighting force and not just a social experiment. However, it is my belief that, faced with the prospect of painting over graffiti or wiping the drool off of aging Baby Boomer chins for two years, many of our sons and daughters would choose the military.

Some might even come to value the dignity of meaningful work and make a career of it!

[REMFlt]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

First, mandatory service is not all that functional.

This topic frequently comes up in bull sessions with my NCOs. We as leaders spend enough time as it is working with/chaptering Soldiers who either should never have enlisted in the first place due to "misunderstanding" of what it means to be in the Army, or are just plain bad eggs. While mandatory service is a bad idea, it is rather disheartening that most of our elected officials, who make choices about how to allocate funds for the military, have never served in uniform. It would be nice (albeit a pipe dream) if anyone who wanted to serve as an elected official, if physically able to do so at the age of majority, would be required to have a record of honorable military service.

Originally Posted by Greenhat

In the 1980s, with Jimmy Carter leaving the White House and Ronald Reagan entering... the US Army did some interesting things. They advertised the Army as a challenge. They made it easier (via Chapter and discharge) to get rid of poor Soldiers. They increased the standards (HS grad, ASVB). And the President of the United States talked about character, leadership and duty.

What happened? Enlistments went up. Way up.

Again during our bull sessions, discovered that the vast majority of us were first inspired to join the Army because we wanted to "Be All You Can Be." I guess its also of note that alot of my NCOs were combat arms, but have profiles that prevented them from continuing in that MOS, but wanted to continue to serve.