Why is nationalism decreasing...

Yeah, I pay taxes too.

^^ While obligatory service would not be a bad thing in terms of manpower, volunteers are always the better soldiers in everything. Look at the countries where they do have conscript armies like Finland, Sweden, Germany, Israel. Most of the time the average conscript there is horrible compared to a volunteer in a volunteer army like the US or Russia.

edited 2nd Jan '11 3:03:33 PM by MajorTom

Russia has conscription, and the quality of conscripts that it gets is abysmal.

Israel is an interesting case though, as they have a pretty kick ass military. But that may be because they have just as many volunteers (often times from another country) as they do conscripts.

Which brings us back to nationalism.

Yes, yes, but I'm talking about the relationship of civilians to the military and the degree of acceptance of the latter of the authority of the former. The "You wouldn't understand, you don't know us, you haven't been though the same stuff as us, you're not qualified to judge us or tell us what to do" argument grates me deeply, and I would like to see if there is a reason for it to still exist or if it should be discredited once and for all.

Oh no, please, I don't want to talk about Israel...

edited 2nd Jan '11 3:10:00 PM by RawPower

You don't get to be a small country hated by much larger countries who surround you without developing a military that's very high quality, albeit somewhat trigger happy.

But let's not go there.

edited 3rd Jan '11 12:27:03 PM by pagad

Counterexample: Qwait, the Emirates, Taiwan, Singapore, Belgium/Netherlands/Luxemburg in both world wars and before those. Balkans. Being small and hated/hostiled isn't all there is to it. But yeah, let's not get into it, talking about Israel almost always depresses me.

-inb4starshiptropers-

Barkey and I have been saying this for a while: yes. The military serves civilians through mission. Gives us the mission. Tell us what you want done, and we will do it. Don't tell us how to do the mission, because you'll likely get us all killed. It's like when my power goes out and I call the electrician. He's technically serving me at this point. So I tell him "fix my power". I don't tell him which wires to fuck around with. I don't tell him which conductors to work on. I don't tell him which fuses to connect to or whatever, because we'd be there all day trying to figure out how we messed everything up so badly. He's the electrician. He knows how to do electrician things. I don't. If I let him do his job the way he knows works, he gets to do things right and I get my power back.

... Remind me, what brought us to this point precisely?

Nationalism

That's kinda broad. Let me see if I recall correctly. I have been speculating on the role of the military and the inefficiency of the use thereof. I think this is when Scrye has started pointing out that civilians judge the military unfairly because their only contact with it is through the media, which show a dramatized, unfaithful portrait of their work, either in glorification or in denunciation. We then went on to comment that, while it is not desirable for certain for all civilians to have some military experience, they should still avoid telling the military how to achieve their goals, and simply set the goals for them. This is a point where I feel I think I have to disagree: the way the civilians want the war fought is part of the goal. If the military were simply told "win the war in Afghanistan and eradicate the Taliban once and for all, we'll give you all the budget you require", people who think like Barkey seemed to on one occasion would practice scorched-eath policies, gestapo the hell out of the rebels, and... wait, I might have wanted to say it on that thread, but the Soviets did exactly that and it didn't do them any good either, though I am told they blame their defeat on the politicians.... anyway, at that thread we had arrived at the conclusion that the military didn't have all of the factors in mind and might make extremely grave mistakes if left to their own devices, especially if the situation doesn't consist of "one army versus another".

Is it true that asymmetric warfare is more like police work than actual fighting?

I had said that putting your nation above the others, the right of its citizens above those of others, was what "nationalism" meant to me. Nowhere is this truer than during a war, since the very situation means that the life of your citizens takes precedence over that of theirs, or even that the interests of the nation (which might mean the citizens... or a tiny powerful fraction of them) require the death of the other country's citizens. We want X, you have X, if you won't give us X, we force you? Threatening and practicing murderinhumation is done when other forms of pressure and leverage fail.

Some here have commented that diplomacy had a bad track record. While I pointed out some counterexamples, I would like to remind everyone that "diplomacy" is in fact the default mode of operation, used all the freaking time, while "war" is a special case only used when several conditions arise. This alone, I think, suffices to prove that diplomacy works better than war: war is a last resort. It may look like it "solves stuff" better because it is contrasted to the failures of diplomacy that give rise the the casus belli in the first place, when in fact said failures of diplomacy are the exception rather than the norm.

If the parties that have expressed opposite opinions are convinced by my argument, I would like them to acknowledge it. If they aren't, I would like them to challenge it, which is also an acknowledgement. Please do not leave me with the inconclusive feeling of preaching in the desert.

edited 2nd Jan '11 4:48:31 PM by RawPower

I was being sarcastic.

Quite unhelpfully so, I fear. I invite you to make a more worthwhile contribution.

I also apoligize for this prolongued episode of Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness, I don't know what took me...

edited 2nd Jan '11 4:49:19 PM by RawPower

We are doing absolutely nothing like what the Soviets did. In fact, a good majority of our classes are "This is what Russia did, this is why it didn't work, this is how we can do it differently." And those were military decisions, not civilian decisions. The military is more prudent than civilians to make a drastic decision like nuking a place. Barkey and I use it as a joke, because it does have some merit, but we also understand that it opens up many more problems we'd rather not deal with. We've had the nuke for what, 65 years now? We've used it twice, and that was right at the beginning of when we've had it. We know not to use Nuke Them From Orbit as our primary course of action. And for civilians to take credit for that prudence is frankly dishonest.

Except the military exist for the sake of the civilian society, which feeds, arms, dresses and fuels them. Do you mean military service should be obligatory so that everyone can form a truthful opinion of what being in the military is like so that only then can they tell you what to do?

What you should do is start asking people in the military questions, we're always happy to answer questions that aren't the RTQ's.(Retarded & Taboo Questions, an acronym a recruiter friend of mine made up)

Instead of relying on fiction for your best impression of what it's like, which I know you realize isn't a good source, seeing as I know you're an intelligent human being, you need to go straight to the source; people who actually do this for a living. I mean seriously, it might not seem like much at first, but I've been doing this for over half a decade now, I'm not a crusty SNCO yet, but I know my way around military society and I'm articulate enough to communicate it to people who ask.

(The main RQT's are usually the ones that involve killing people, people being killed, being in combat, and being shot at, never ask those. It's awkward.)

edited 3rd Jan '11 1:32:53 AM by Barkey

killing people, people being killed, being in combat, and being shot at

You'd rather have movies and Assange's clips tell us how those are like? "Yeah, that guy is trying to crawl to safety, should I gun him down?" "Yeah, you got clearance, shoot" "Yeah, they're taking him into a van, I think I should shout the van" "Shoot the van" "Okay, I think I got like twelve of them at once here" "Good job" (parpharsing very approximately)

That doesn't seem like particularly warped talk if you're in the frame of mind that you just schwacked what you thought was a van full of insurgents.

You have to think of it from the frame of mind of a soldier, an enemy, someone who was trying to kill your comrades but minutes ago, is trying to escape. You get clearance to shoot him, you're going to take the shot, that's common sense.

This wounded enemy immediately gets pulled into a vehicle that's about to speed off, it's generally a rather safe bet to say that the people in the van are the enemy, or allies of the enemy, you get clearance to shoot.. So you shoot. In your mind, you just made sure several enemies won't have the chance to kill any of your buddies, it wouldn't be untoward to give yourself a pat on the back for that.

(It just makes civilians sound really stupid when they ask questions like that, unless the two people discussing it know eachother really well, and the right amount of precaution is taken in asking about it, it isn't something strangers talk about.)

edited 3rd Jan '11 2:41:00 AM by Barkey

So... it all boils down to a horrible misunderstanding, and no one did anything wrong? Also, I must ask, in all humility and sicnerity, is it normal to shoot retreating incapacitated enemies?

I don't know if I could call myself a nationalist, but I'll try to explain in a simple way why do I root for my country: My country (Serbia) sucks. I'm in no way proud of it, because it is completely ruined by Sleazy Politicians and meddling foreign powers. Most of the population is poor, myself included. Therefore, whenever a nation as a collective gains something, I, as an individual, would gain something too, as well as the other people. I'm sick of looking at poverty all around me. That's why I want the best for my nation. I was thinking about some of my ideas for the progress of the country, and some of them verge on hardline nationalistic behavior in order to get rid of foreign influences. It's purely utilitarian, though.

edited 3rd Jan '11 3:27:10 AM by MilosStefanovic

Now I can't resist wanting to know more about the seemingly-ultra-nationalist methods you would use to increase your nation's independence.

Well, if I was the leader of my country, I would nationalize most large private enterprizes, foreign included, adopt the Swiss model of isolationism, do a blood brotherhood ritual with Hugo Chavez in front of TV cameras, and say in a deadpan style "Fuck you, State Department".

I used to like Chavez until I found out some of the stuff he actually did.

I'm for nationalization of industries that are critical to the survival and well-being of the state, though. I hate seeing our national railway and telephone companies being shoved into the realm of private business, because that just means that eventually we won't have a railway system.

Hugo Chavez is a tinpot dictator waiting to happen.

I love the fact that there's a South American leader willing to fight the imperialist capitalism of the US and its allies in the region, especially with the history of the continent in mind. It's just a pity that that fight is lead by people like Chavez and the Castros.

A genuinely free and Northern EU-level democratic nation in South America, willing to try and survive what the CIA throws at it and govern itself, while making its neighbours see the light (of democracy) on the side? I'd love that.

Pity that you have to be an asshole to survive in politics, and the larger the wealth of your nation (that is to say, the more potential resources are in the nation and its industries, not the wealth that is in the hands of its people), the more of an asshole you have to be to make it to the top.