War is part of society? To barbaric ones maybe. Civilized societies don't settle disputes by mass murder.

> If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath.

Are you kidding me? Society can't tell a person to go kill somebody. A person tells another person to kill somebody. It is this absurd respect for authority that makes these wars possible, combined with a lack of personal accountability. Didn't we learn the lesson of the second World War?

> The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in the 1970s [...] As it is now, the vast majority of civilians have absolutely no idea what military service is like, as the author points out.

That was the entire point of ending conscription! Vietnam became a huge PR nightmare because average kids from middle class families had to fight in it. That's why it got constant media attention. That's why people protested in the streets. The people don't mind war as long as it doesn't affect them personally, and poor people have no say anyway. So now poor kids with few options are recruited into the military. Problem solved.

It's quite the opposite -- only civilized societies can have the kind of logistics, range, military culture, ability to support the warrior class (or standing armies), and numbers to engage in organized warfare. Conflicts between small bands of foragers can hardly be even called war.

Not to mention mass murder which absolutely requires the kind of discipline, organization and leadership only a very cohesive and civilized society can provide. It just doesn't happen outside of civilization, no one has the means, or could benefit from it. Anything of the scale of holocaust is only possible in a highly industrialized country.

> So now poor kids with few options are recruited into the military. Problem solved.

Actually, poor kids seem to be enlisting at lower rates (relatively) to richer kids:

> Enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Low-income neighborhoods were underrepresented among enlisted troops, while middle-class and high-income neighborhoods were overrepresented.

This and much more on the topic: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-...

> Actually, poor kids seem to be enlisting at lower rates (relatively) to richer kids

Huh. I stand corrected.

The story may be a bit more nuanced that that:

From a review of "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World"

(http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/genghis-kha...):

"Arguably, however, Genghis Khan and the Mongols were the dominant force that shaped Eurasia and consequently the modern world. Not for what they destroyed – though they wrought much destruction all over the continent – but for what they built. They came close to uniting Eurasia into a world empire, and in so doing they spread throughout it technologies like paper, gunpowder, paper money, or the compass – and trousers. They revolutionised warfare. More lastingly, in the word's of the author: ' ...they also created the nucleus of a universal culture and world system. (...) With the emphasis on free commerce, open communication, shared knowledge, secular politics, religious coexistence, international law, and diplomatic immunity.' ".

http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/06...

> The story may be a bit more nuanced that that:

Make that a lot more nuanced:

(From the same review cited above):

"The Mongols' was the first modern army. It was built on a rational structure (based, like the Roman legion, on units in the multiple of tens) and promotion was strictly on merit. Thoroughly disciplined and highly mobile – infantry was unknown – it could execute complex tactical manoeuvres in silence upon orders from centralised command. Speed and efficiency in conquest were their trademark, and the source of the fear they struck in the enemy. Horse and bow where the Mongol warriors' strength – and it the end their weakness. Forests hindered the deployment of mounted armies, in the humid heat of India the bows failed, and the horses' strength faded when they could not find pastures in the Syrian desert.

Warfare technology and logistics were other factors in the Mongols' superiority. The gunpowder formula was changed to yield explosive force, rather than slow burn as in fire-lances and rockets. Guns and cannon were developed. Specialised troops of craftsmen were skilled in building complex siege machines from local materials – obviating the need to move them over long distances. They perfected sapping of walls, thus making static defence impossible. A dedicated medical corps looked after the wounded. The army and its horses spread across the plains for forage and sustenance, thus obviating for the need for supply lines – yet a sophisticated communication system based on melodies to ensure accurate memorisation allowed the scattered troops to regroup at short notice and to remain in touch with the distant leadership.

The intelligence system was second to none, and the Mongols knew much more about the lands they were about to invade than the defenders knew about the Mongols – if nothing else because the latter lived off the land and needed to know where water and pastures were to be found. In addition, the Mongols developed highly sophisticated methods of psychological warfare, spreading rumours about their cruelty and destruction. This unsettled the rural populations that then fled before the advancing army, hamstringing the defence efforts."

Yes, of course. It came to existence when Ghengis Khan united nomadic tribes but so did the countries in Europe -- Franks were a confederation of tribes, Poland was founded by a tribe subduing its neighbours, etc, etc. That is how civilization is born.

If it wasn't for that they wouldn't be able to reach Europe. That is why we call them the Mongol Empire.

When I speak of a civilized society it is in comparison to other societies. Not all countries violate human rights on the same scale, and therefore, not all countries are equally civilized.

Sacking cities and killing the inhabitants was nothing new. The Crusaders did it at the end of the siege of Acre during the 3rd crusade. Khan actually gave the cities he attacked a chance to surrender and be spared.

Also, the term "barbarian" is loose, vague, and sometimes downright irresponsible when talking about history. Different cultures have viewed others as barbarians throughout history. Unless we're talking about one of these specific cases (such as the Greeks calling those north of them barbarians, or the ancient Chinese calling everyone around them that) it's a meaningless term. Would you call tying peasants to the land and severely limiting their rights and freedom to even move around a barbaric practice? Or is it just cruel or unfair?

The Mongolian Empire was an incredible military achievement, but it was only an Empire in terms of conquest - it wasn't an Empire in terms of sustained society (like the Roman, Byzantine, or British Empires). The guy at the top dies, and the whole thing falls apart? That's not really a 'civilised society'.

Unless you're trying to tell me that Alexander turned the people all the way to the Indus into greek culture adherents, no, Alexander's empire wasn't a society.

It's important to note here that Alexander created a short-lived empire - he did not create the society we think of as 'ancient greek'. That pre-existed him quite considerably in greece. And just because he gathered Perseopolis into his fold doesn't make the society there 'greek'.

The original poster posited that Ghengis Khan's activities birthed the society. Alexander's activities did nothing like this - the society was already there, and greek culture was fairly widespread to begin with, though perhaps not in the direction of the Indus. When Alexander died, the Greeks didn't fade away to become background players again - they were a powerful political and especially social force for centuries to come... largely in the opposite direction to Alexander's conquests.

Alexander was an incredible conquerer, but he did not make nor break Greek civilised society.

While the Mongol empire was split up after Genghis Khan's death, it didn't just collapse. There was a fairly long period of stability that followed.

That's exactly what I did, I compared the Mongol empire to early medieval countries in Europe (Franks and Poland) which I definitely consider civilized, though as you mention not all are equally civilized. There is no tautology here.

And conflating war with mass murder is a tenuous argument. Was it mass murder when HMS Conqueror torpedoed the Belgrano in the Falklands killing 323?

How about all the deaths resulting from NATO interceding in the Libyan civil war? Or during the Kosovo/Serbian confict?

And that's just recent history. In Vietnam, you had Australia, France, and the US fighting a ruthless war. Are they all uncivilized?

Careful when you sling epithets at countries; most have a history of engaging in this barbarism you deplore.

And if you think that "we're all past that now," you need to do some reading of pre-WW1 literature and news. The idea tha t the Continent would engage in some of the most ruthless fighting was inconceivable. After all, it was a "civilized" time.

One of my childhood bullies - let's call him Tom - is most definitely a sociopath, and he joined the marines, along with his two brothers who are not unlike him. All three of these guys have been violent for as long as I've known them. During middle school and high school (and the couple years after where he happened to live in the same city as my university), he would pick fights with anyone and everyone for the dumbest reasons. I think he did it just to do it. Oddly enough, despite all the bullying and "shittalk" towards me over the years, he never fought me - although we did come close a couple of times but I just laughed at his stupidity and that was that. One of the last "conversations" I had with Tom was shortly before he went off to boot camp (or whatever you want to call it) and I asked him why he was going; he explained that he had nothing else better to do so he might as well go kill some people. He said those exact words, and he was dead serious.

If you're wondering why I didn't avoid the guy like the plague, it's because he and I had a lot of the same friends and he would always throw parties as his house to which my friends would invite me. Despite Tom's overly violent behavior, he was always very popular with the ladies, and most people really liked him. This is the same guy who posts pictures of himself on facebook cutting off the heads of goats in his marine gear. My theory is that because of his aggressive behavior (and using it to "dominate" others), people perceived him as an alpha male. Can I get a second opinion on this? Because so many people liking such a violent sociopath has always bothered and confused me.

Back on topic though... while Tom and his brothers are an example of some confirmation of the article's statements, as far as marines (or army, navy, etc.) go, for every Tom I've known, I've also known at least a few very easy-going men. So the author is partially right but his argument is flawed. Violent sociopaths without education probably do gravitate towards the military and war, but the statistics have got to be way off - not nearly 80% - but that's just from the small sample set of my experiences.

I think it's pretty much what you state, but less evo-psych than being an alpha male. Someone who is a sociopath doesn't really care too much about others most of the time, hence they can be extremely confident individuals in certain circumstances. Confidence is a major factor in social success.

My life is my own to live. It's not your right to dispose of it. The draft is a massive violation of individual rights.

If a nation cannot get enough paid volunteers to fight a war, that war is simply not worth fighting.

In my view, mandatory conscription is one of those first-class evils that we need to dismiss as a society---like genocide, slavery, and denying women the right to vote.

My father was drafted to Vietnam, and although he survived the war, I think it damaged him badly and in turn damaged me.

So please consider whether you really want to advocate the draft.

When you have to draft chunks of your population in order to conduct warfare, public opinion is very much against you if your cause is not 'just'.

"If a nation cannot get enough paid volunteers to fight a war, that war is simply not worth fighting."

The flaw here is that there are always going to be people available to fight for a chance at gold. Additionally, and even more troubling for the United States, we are increasingly reliant on machines to do this work for us--there is increasingly no meaningful connection between the citizenry and the hawkish body politic.

If we do not have drafts, nor the possibility of drafts, then we find ourselves in a position where either:

1. We do not fight, for war is not worth fighting.

2. We continue to fight, and find ways of reducing the human requirement even further than it is already.

(2) is much more likely, given the history of man and the way our tech is evolving.

At best, this implies that one day we'll have robots blowing up other robots, all made by autonomous factories--this is merely a farcical misallocation of resources.

At anything less than best, this implies that we'll have robots blowing up lots of civilians or other troops. It doesn't matter whether the lives lost are ours or not, it matters only that things are worse off.

I'd suggest that the United States solely use draftees, and that we pursue national policies that don't require us to deploy widely to hostile areas.

So let's solve the problem of the US entering unjust wars directly, rather than by introducing a new problem (the draft).

How to solve it directly?

The recent unjust US wars do reflect cultural problems: a belief among politicians and the populace that it is worthwile to sacrifice thousands of American lives and trillions of American dollars to occupy and rebuild other countries.

The way to solve the problem is to combat that notion on an intellectual level. To speak out about it. Some other solution (like requiring a draft) is just duct tape.

The ideas of society at large can improve over time. Just look at the history of women and minorities to see that. This is one of those areas where cultural activisim can lead to an improvement.

I am very optimistic that my generation (I'm in my 20s) will not engage in wars like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam once we become the generation that directly makes those kinds of decisions.

In fact, my fear is that my generation will be unwilling to take preemptive offensive action when it is necessary (e.g. to prevent untrusted parties from acquiring nuclear or biological weapons).

Hell, the entire Vietnam War had less US dead than there were Allied dead in one day of the bloodiest battle in WWI. And after a decade of fighting, the US efforts in Iraq have less than 10% of the US deaths in Vietnam. Afghanistan less than 4%. And still the rhetoric is one of siege and difficult fighting. How soft and spoiled are the commentators who think war should involve no sacrifice at all; that effectively it should be like a video game?

It's horrible to waste soldiers for nothing, which is what's been going on over there for quite some time. The problem is, it is a total sacrifice - people losing their lives for nothing.

If it really is 'waste' that people are worried about, why not that?

You mean Saddam Hussein (Iraq) and the Taliban (Afghanistan)?

But yeah, I definitely think we should have acted much more forcefully to end the wars much more quickly and with far fewer casualties on both sides.

I think we probably could do this without resorting to nukes, but applying the same "kind" of intense pressure. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were huge successes compared to a minimum decade-long ground invasion and occupation of Japan resulting in possibly millions of deaths.

An intellectual argument is irrelevant in the face of the masses--by definition, half of them are of below-average intelligence, yeah? So, we should pursue policies that make it concrete--even to the slowest citizen or smartest zealot--that there will be immediate, personal sacrifice for any military action they support.

I would also question the analogy to women and minority rights--neither has particular import here, and only muddy the waters. War is an issue that has faced all states, regardless of race and gender; it is somewhat misleading to treat it as something that may be "overcome" like a silly cultural preference of the West.

"In fact, my fear is that my generation will be unwilling to take preemptive offensive action when it is necessary (e.g. to prevent untrusted parties from acquiring nuclear or biological weapons)."

This is also a place where I think we differ in viewpoint.

Why is it so that Pakistan can have the atomic bomb, but not Iran? Why Israel and not Iraq?

I do not live in fear of my fellow man because he is armed--I only am worried if he is actively hostile. If your state does not pursue hostilities, what does it matter what they have in their stockpiles?

I believe that the bigger threat to my (apparently, our) generation is to continue to live in fear of terrorism, war, weapons, and each other--so many problems would go away if people would just accept that some day their ticket comes up, and do the best that they can in the meantime.

No. If you look at history, from the middle ages until now, you see a continual improvement. Moreover, the idea that people are brutes is disturbing. We have to see people as reasoning individuals; otherwise, we decay into fascism, religious extremism, etc.

Why is it so that Pakistan can have the atomic bomb, but not Iran? Why Israel and not Iraq?

It's fine for nations to have it where it represents absolutely zero threat, from the perspective of the agent (in this case, the US). Pakistan should not have it. (Remember, Pakistani leaders knowing sheltered Bin Laden.)

I only am worried if he is actively hostile.

There are many groups that are actively hostile that are not identical to a national government. There are many national governments that are largely sympathetic to these groups.

so many problems would go away if people would just accept that some day their ticket comes up, and do the best that they can in the meantime.

Dude, you're asking me to just lay down and let the terrorists kill people. No way. We should just stop the bullies. There should be no tolerance for that kind of shit.

I would love to live in an enlightened world where we can all talk out our issues, without ever resorting to violence. I do believe that people, on an individual level, can be reasonable.

The problem <i>is</i> the masses. If a leader comes out with a compelling argument casting group X (country, terrorist cell, religious belief, etc) as a direct threat to the social group YOU belong to, you probably won't want to be the one who stands up and says "maybe that guys full of it?". You look weak and you look like you don't want to be part of the group. And the leader will tell you as much and try to push you out of the group.

Now, spin that story where there's a universal draft. All of a sudden, you and everyone else in the social group have to weigh the consequences of you or someone you love dying somewhere far away. When someone pipes up and tells the leader he/she's full of it, they don't sound like such a nay sayer.

In regards to just 'laying down and letting the terrorists kill you', I don't believe angersock meant that at all (correct me if I'm wrong) - we should avoid all this security theater BS. Do you really think that body scanners at airports are stopping terrorists? Any time I've flown into the states it seems like there's as many TSA agents as there are passengers.

You're basically correct in your interpretation of my views on the security theater and the like. The sad, sorry state of the matter is that when your country is as wealthy as ours, and--more importantly--as large as ours, you kind of have to stop thinking about things any other way than statistically.

It's a hell of a thing to say, but honestly, what's a few thousand deaths in a fluke attack? What's a few hundred million dollars worth of property damage?

The likelihood of that happening to any one of us is so small as to be absurd--even less if everyone is armed, but that is a brand of crazy I don't expect to sell to everyone.

The damage these attacks has actually done to us has been to invoke this media meme of the evil terrorists coming to kill us in our moment of distraction.

The initial loss my country suffered has been compounded beyond all reason by the fear-mongering and reactionary policy-making. Worse still, while we fret about a loss of men and material over a decade ago, our government (with, apparently, our own consent and approval!) has gone on to attack our fundamental liberties and notions of decency so systematically that many still refuse to believe they're up to anything.

All because people are dumb, and get afraid, and are susceptible to the same emotional pandering as they've always been. Oddly enough, I'm actually in agreement with javert about the fact that people should reason more--I just know that you can't write policy that depends on it.

That's why we have the Bill of Rights in the US. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so on. Our society is (currently) civilized enough that people can speak up without problems.

All of a sudden, you and everyone else in the social group have to weigh the consequences of you or someone you love dying somewhere far away.

That just tips the balance differently. Now, if you're a big war hawk, people can say, "Well, you don't have to go fight or have family that fight." If everyone has to go fight, and you're a dove, people will say, "Well, you're just a coward who isn't willing to give your fair share."

we should avoid all this security theater BS

I totally agree with you. TSA is a massive violation of rights and is ridiculous. The solution is to end states that give terrorists leeway in their borders or directly support them. And I don't mean a 10 year ground occupation. I mean forcing their leaders to abide by certain written rules, or they get booted.

You have a somewhat inflated sense of agency here, I believe. Additionally, these "terrorists" and "rogue states" are hardly "bullies"--and your claim of "no tolerance for that kind of shit" is exceptionally incongruous with past and present US foreign policy.

It's not like the terrorists decide that their favorite golf course is closed for the weekend, so instead they blow up some innocent civilians. In the absence of motivating forces, such as economic depression, sanctions, or political meddling, they are likely to not be terrorists--or even more likely, to be somebody else's problem!

As for the intent of my comment: do a calculation with me.

Average human lifespan is around 66 years.

Average time at airport security line is 20 minutes (http://www.bts.gov/publications/airline_passenger_opinions_o...).

Let's say 600 million passengers embark every year (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/).

Run it through (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28600+million+times+20...) and we see that something like 345 human-life-equivalents are wasted every year waiting in line to pull off shoes and get groped or irradiated. All so that people can feel more safe? From an effective non-threat?

In ten years we've wasted more human-live-equivalents than the WTC attacks. From fear and bureaucracy alone.

"Pakistan should not have it. (Remember, Pakistani leaders knowing sheltered Bin Laden.)"

So, the proper argument here is that Pakistan's security is questionable, but that's beside the point.

What does it matter that the Pakistanis knowingly sheltered Osama? Good God, if we were to hold nations accountable for the company they keep America (not to mention all of Europe and the rest of the world) would have a great lot of explaining to do!

"There are many groups that are actively hostile that are not identical to a national government. There are many national governments that are largely sympathetic to these groups."

There may be a reason for this, yes? If you knew of a world government with an exceedingly strong economy and a disposition for meddling extensively in the sovereign affairs of other states, wouldn't you be a wee bit wary? The reason that we face so much hostility is due to our failings in foreign policy, least of which being our military adventurism.

"If you look at history, from the middle ages until now, you see a continual improvement."

Improvement in what, technology? Amusement? Wealth?

Kill ratios?

This is a lot to unpack, but I think that one could make an argument that things are different--not necessarily better--and that happiness of a serf, a slave, or a modern person is open to debate. I'd enjoy debating this point further, but not immediately.

"Moreover, the idea that people are brutes is disturbing. We have to see people as reasoning individuals; otherwise, we decay into fascism, religious extremism, etc."

You've never seen a reasoning brute? You've never seen a fascist attempting to do what they believe is best for their nation? You've never seen a reasoning zealot do what they think is best for their faith?

"Reason" is not some panacea that magically turns the barbarians into white-collar workers and lays the lion down with the lamb.

At any rate, I intended to suggest not that the great unwashed slavering masses will throw us repeatedly into war: I meant to suggest that any more abstract reasoning, any more intellectual appeal, is too open to debate, argument, and misinterpretation. A draft is quite clear.

When you have to draft chunks of your population in order to conduct education, public opinion is very much against you if your cause is not 'just'. There will always be people willing to teach for a chance at gold.

People will oppose most policies if you tie the policy to forced labor, and rightly so. Forced labor is really bad.

That's not an argument for forced labor, that's just a ruthless political maneuver you want to apply to get the policies you desire. Similarly, politicians often attach poison pills to bills they want to kill (e.g., attach tax cuts for coal power to an environmental bill).

In my opinion, draft is only justified for defensive wars where the nation is in total war.

In the same way, if an administration can't convince everyone in the population to pay for a war with tax increases, then the war either isn't defensible or the administration is too stupid to wage it effectively.

The worst possible situation is when you get a war that is fought by volunteers being paid with borrowed money.

Is public education unjust if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to forced labor in public schools? Is care for old people unjust if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to forced labor cleaning old people's bedpans?

(I'm assuming you support these two policies, based purely on the observation that most people do.)

But, there are a few other big differences between waging war and providing social services.

Perhaps the biggest is that a particular war is a one-time, no-easy-turning-back event, that generally provides little direct benefit to the population funding it. By way of contrast, I'm not saying that civil defense should in general go unfunded.

I'm saying that a single massive expenditure of blood and treasure, which will almost certainly result in the violent deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children, should probably need to meet a somewhat higher bar than the requirement and funding of compulsory high school. Whenever many extra innocent people are likely to die prematurely, extra scrutiny of the decision-making process is required.

Because it is precisely when people are asked to pay for something that they seriously evaluate whether it is worth the expense -- and this is a calculation that needs to be made for war more so than for anything else. In general, I think most populations are more than willing to spend what's necessary to defend themselves from a large, immediate threat -- there was little trouble in getting people to pay extra taxes for WWII.

Also, because of its one-time nature, the cost of the war could easily come at the expense of other services. In general, people have consented to paying for social services (yes, in the long run they'll cause America to run a deficit if nothing changes, but for now it's being paid for with tax dollars).

Soldiers also do it for money. You are advocating that we change this in order to make a policy you oppose less politically popular.

I'm just trying to determine whether you are willing to apply this logic in an intellectually consistent manner, or if it's just a political maneuver unrelated to your real motivation [1].

If the possibility of deaths is the justification for tying forced labor to another policy, then there are many government programs we should tie forced labor to - construction, policing and firefighting are all obvious examples.

[1] See, for example http://lesswrong.com/lw/wj/is_that_your_true_rejection/

The draft, and taxation, help to provide the needed reckoning.

There is no comparison, here, to the provision of social services. Or to debt-financed infrastructure construction.

War is categorically different.

The gist (which seems to be going over your head), is that the decision to go to war is not one that should be made lightly. If you don't have any 'skin in the game,' then you're more apt to make the decision lightly (or just be apathetic, letting others make the decision).

Instituting a draft increases the chances that someone you know may die as a result of the decision to go to war. It's easy to make the decision to go to war if someone else's friends/family are the ones making the actual sacrifice. For example, how many politicians are willing to put their kids on the front-lines?

I'm addressing this reasoning: "In my opinion, it's unlikely that $POLICY is just if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to a draft [to provide necessary labor for $POLICY]."

Nothing leot said is specific to war, so I don't see why you are attempting to contrast war to other policies.

Also, regarding the chances someone may die, forced labor on construction projects increases the chance that someone you know may die as a result of the decision to engage in construction (to select one particular non-war policy with real physical risks). It's easy to make the decision to build roads if someone else's friends/family are the ones making the actual sacrifice. So should roads be built with forced labor?

For example, how many politicians are willing to put their kids on the front-lines?

This is unknowable, since we (thankfully) don't allow parents to enslave their children.

  >> For example, how many politicians are willing to put their kids
  >> on the front-lines?
  >
  > This is unknowable, since we (thankfully) don't allow parents to
  > enslave their children.

In this specific case, it means things like:

1) How many policitions would be happy to see their children on the frontline?

2) How many policitions would support [WAR AGAINST X] if they knew that their child would be on the frontlines (or killed in action)?

3) How many policitions would implement a draft, and then pull strings to make sure their children exempt?

It's a matter of the people making decisions only reaping the benefits, but being divorced from the costs.

Sometimes, after being drafted, one can (based on performance or aptitude) elect to go career early on -- staying longer, but going for more serious training.

And if I had children, I would definitely consider relocating them abroad as an option, depending on whether they personally agreed with the war and other factors.

In short, as you go up that hierarchy, people are increasingly politically active, yet are increasingly isolated from the draft.

So, if you wanted this solution to work (and I contend it's a very poor solution to the problem anyway), there are some serious obstacles.

Nationalism is just as bad as racism. People are people. Black and white are just the same as people from Country A and Country B. I dont want to go fight people whos only problem is me trying to kill them.

I think there is social value to having some well-behaved sociopaths on your team (ie, the Jayne Cobb archetype).

But certain jobs/roles will absolutely self-select in favor of violent individuals with little empathy (and if you're not one already, the military, and to a lesser extent the police, are happy to turn you into one). This obviously isn't true of most military personnel, but there is a tendency, and the outliers on that bell curve will be ugly indeed.

I'm realistic enough to know that war isn't going to just go away, and in some situations is a necessary evil. But I would happy enough if we could just stop exalting war as inherently glorious, and instead viewed it as the utter horror that it is, only to be employed at the utmost necessity.

> The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in the 1970s.

I actually think I agree with the logic here. Forced conscription was part of the reason for public opposition to Vietnam; the opposition to Iraq would have come quicker and stronger if the costs and realities were more uniformly distributed.

The opposition to the war was pretty quick already, coming at least three months before the invasion began.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/11/us/threats-responses-disse...

http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=iraq+war+protest...

Geeze Louise. I don't think flagging, on this site, is meant as a downvote for articles where you disagree with some terms' definitions.

>The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in the 1970s. With a draft and mandatory conscription, everybody had the common experience of serving and perhaps doing really bad things in the line of duty.

Are you seriously proposing that, instead of sending in a few thousand well trained guys who can do the job, it's preferable to send a few million who can barely fire a rifle - just because it may make for effective anti-war propaganda? If you are truly serious, you should at least know that it doesn't work. Only Vietnam turned a significant proportion of its veterans into anti-war activists. Korea, the World Wars and the Civil War had no such effect.

It's illegal for a soldier to even tell a reporter how they feel about the war, whereas the military has a propaganda budget of several tens of billions of dollars per year to control what gets shown on TV, in movies, in newspapers, etc. Yes, a retired soldier could theoretically spin something, but in reality they have basically 0 percent control over the way that war is portrayed and sold to society.

That doesn't make sense. If society asked for volunteers to torture someone, the first to step up would very likely be a sociopath.

I'd say I consider sociopathic as anything that's harmful to society, regardless of how society perceives it.

I usually like most of your contributions, but reasoning like this bugs me. "Society" in your reasoning is being treated something like a mathematical set. Society isn't so cleanly defined. Even for that, one could still have psychopathic tendencies, be told to by society to go and kill, but go and kill for completely disparate, possibly psychopathic reasons.

We set up a system where society approves of the use of lethal force. (In fact, many believe the true defining characteristic of a government is the monopoly in the use of force) People are instructed by this system to go kill people.

As long as that's all the information we have, there's nothing to indicate that these people care nothing about societal norms. In fact, they might actually be less sociopathic than those who do not serve. The only thing we'rd offered is descriptions of the cavalier attitude they have towards death, but, yet again, this is not an indicator of being a sociopath. Perhaps a callous and heartless person. Perhaps a crazy person. Perhaps as you point out they may actually be sociopaths. But nothing in this article tells us one way or another. Instead we're presented with these experiences as being the "true" nature of the entire conflict, and then the brutal and crass attitudes observed as being indicative of some sort of psychiatric disorder. That's just a little too much wringing of the hands and over-reaching for my comfort.

There is a premise here: going off and sneaking through the high grass to kill somebody in a brutal and bloody fashion without remorse is indicative of a psychiatric disorder. I'd like to explore that idea. But this article doesn't go there. Instead it's trying to be a "yeah, well this is how it really is, kid." and all I'm saying is to take such stories -- no matter what their slant -- with a gain of salt.

If it makes you feel any better, if the author had written the same tough-guy-been-there story with the soldiers all acting like boy scouts I would feel the same way. The only difference is that there would be plenty of folks willing to take that apart for me, so no comment would be needed.

Grossman is a Psychology professor at West Point (or was when he wrote this), and a former Army Ranger, although he never saw combat. His conclusion is actually similar to the author of this piece. First, he argues, with evidence, that humans have a pretty high disposition to not kill each other unless there is an immediate threat to themselves or loved ones. The evidence he uses to support that claim are the no-fire rates among front line soldiers in World War I and II. I think the stat he found was only about 20% of infantry in trenches shot their weapons. The fire rate among infantry by the Vietnam era was about 95%, and it had steadily increased up to that point. He claims that modern infantry training are responsible for this firing rate, that one of main points of modern infantry training is to get a solider to fire their weapon when instructed.

He also talks about PTSD, and that the amount of people who do not get some form of PTSD from front-line combat is about the same amount of people who have sociopathic tendencies. He then posits that these are the same people who tend to seek out special forces. And the author of the linked piece was, I think, talking mostly about special forces.

In the end, Grossman makes some extrapolations to media, and causation between violent media and actual violence. I don't think he supports that claim well. But if you've ever heard his name before, it was because of those claims. He was a whipping boy in the videogame press because of it, but I think his other work is interesting.

PTSD's existence itself (at levels since Vietnam) proves that W's thesis is incorrect. Grossman's allowance for sociopathic behaviour is a demonstrated, consistent 2%.

W says up front that he is talking about infantry and special forces: When I say soldier, let me be clear that I am talking about the Infantryman and the Special Forces operator, as I have next to no knowledge about anything outside of this relatively small percentile of service personnel. I suspect that he is special forces, and is reporting mostly on his experiences with other special forces soldiers.

He also does not say this 2% is pre-disposed to joining SF units. He does, interestingly enough, suggest that the data does point to this 2% being pre-disposed to mercenary work.

I got to speak at length to some Vietnam veterans while I was in high school. One of them, who was in Army logistics in Vietnam told me that the people in the unit often laid down cover fire, but they were doing their best to scare the heck out of the Viet Cong but not kill any of them. Why? They just wanted to get out of the situation to safety, and the last thing they wanted was to kill someone's best buddy and have someone go all avenging hero on them.

I told this bit to another acquaintance who was a marine, whose entire family had a history of joining the marines, and he said, "That's army for you. My family, when we join the Marines, we sign up to Kill!"

The article definitely isn't claiming that the 5% of so of humanity that is genetically incapable of feeling (much) empathy (i.e. sociopaths) make up 80% of the military corpus. The math obviously doesn't work out.

The article claims that war changes people. Some end up with PTSD, other people cope in another other way that makes them look like psychopaths.

...what? I'm at a loss for words on this one. Just because society - a large, faceless group prone to rallying around propaganda and emotional bandwagons - embraces a cause, doesn't mean it's acceptable by default to kill in the name of that cause.

And it certainly doesn't mean you're not a sociopath.

I have no problem with the notion that our society is sociopathic or at least on a fast pace towards it.

The last time there was coerced/forced military service in the US, many people here were not alive. Imagine how the disproportionately-libertarian leaning crowd in places like HN would react to being compelled to serve in the military.

That's exactly the point. It is almost certain we would have fewer wars, and they would be shorter.

And claiming that a society made you do something and therefore you can't be called sociopath for doing it is not exactly the soundest excuse, because you can ultimately blame everything on the society.

The best analysis I've seen about the combatant are the works of LCol. Grossman. On Combat and On Killing are outstanding pieces of work that say pretty much the exact opposite of W here.

This might be because W is an intelligent Brit who enlisted as a private solider.

Grossman is an intelligent American who accepted a commission.

Different experiences, different cultures.

Add "different skillset" to your comparison while you are at it.

I thought 'different skillset' went without saying (smile).

Adrenaline may make you super strong, but it also makes you blind, deaf, and destroys fine motor skills like marksmanship and bladder control.

So, if society tells you to stone a woman since she committed adultery, you would do so?

In this article, his ridiculous claim was simply his personal opinion about the psychological state of the average soldier, so I find it pretty likely that he was actually a soldier, even though his opinion is clearly wrong.

When you vote, you are exercising political authority. You are using force. And force, my friends, is violence, the supreme authority from which all other authority derives. Whether it is exerted by ten or ten billion, political authority is violence by degree. The people we call "citizens" have earned the right to wield it. Naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor. The contrary opinion "violence never solves anything" is wishful thinking at its worst. People who forget that always pay. They pay with their lives and their freedom.

- Lieutenant Jean Rasczak

- http://imsdb.com/scripts/Starship-Troopers.html