Thanks Byron, Matt, Brenda

I'm glad to read a whole series of posts without swearing or accusations of one thing or another and we can actually discuss the issue. Look forward to more of the same.

Steven Snell

Posted by: Steven Snell at August 22, 2005 7:11 AM

Good Evening Matt,

I'm more or less in agreement wil most of what you said. My only execption might be Jarad Diamond.

Prof. Diamond ignores the evolution of the brain in his progression of humoniods. In the case of the Neanderthals over 500K years and in Homosepiens less the 50K years.

So far the popular theories of the Neanderthals demise, the mating with modern man and thus geniticaly leading himself to extention or conflicts between the two species that doomed the Neanderthal can't be shown beyond educated speculation in the Archological evidence so far.

Your other observation on the structure of current U.S. forces I can only agree with. The United States currently has a "Volunteer Force", half of more enlistees leave after their first enlistment. If Sec. Rumsfeld's Military comes to actulazation the Military has to transform itself into a "Professional Force".

Requiring Military personal to master two or more MOS's (skill sets) will be a huge investment in labor (training) and capital (economic costs) that can't be wasted on a four or even six year enlistes. The current Military Careers of 20, 25 or 30 years or out at 55 will need to be changed.

This will mean better pay and benefits, better planned deployments, newer and better equipment, more generious Veterans Benefits and stronger public support of the men and women who serve.

The days of the worlds best and most able Military on the cheap will be over if Sec. Rumsfeld's plans are put into effect and followed and improved upon by future generations of Military leaders.

Raising children for a Military career will become a common way to introduce the Military as a life choice to the next generation. Although likely canidates to have their children raised this way are the serving Military the non Military public will also have to become involved.

The use of medical technology to increase upper body strenght, smaller body size, 20/10 vision, increased lung capasity, even sleep deprevation tolerence and other advantigious physical and mental attributes for military needs will come about with the children who's parents chose to "Enlist" them in these programs.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at August 19, 2005 11:49 PM

An underlying theme cutting across the posts of stress / sleep / weather tolerance is specialization. Jared Diamond has convincing arguments that people do not become extinct because *they* fail to move from hunting to agriculture but that they are overmatched by those that do. This transition led to specialization and the creation of the 'warrior-class' (and the ruling class, the bureacracy class, etc). This allowed for a segment of the population to become specialists in war (i.e. knights, samurai, etc). Ok, so we have this warrior class, so what?

Around two hundred years ago, a revolution in military affairs started. Napoleon leveraged budding nationalism to put forth huge armies (levee en mass), but remember that was not the only factor behind this size increase. Technology (easier to operate rifles, better artillery), logistics, and c2 (professional officer corps, strategy, loyal soldiers) all helped. The important point here is simpler technology of war + nationalism to make the cause of war for the group and not the game of sovereigns created the citizen soldier. Thus bringing the fight "home".

I suggest the recent RMA coupled with contemporary globalization is reversing the 'recent' trend of citizen soldier and is returning to the professional soldier model (e.g. Hessians, Swiss Guards, knights, samurai). This professional soldier is moving outside of the general population through seperate support systems (divisions in an increasingly diverse population, commercial seperation with base PXs, VA) and increasing specialization in the field of warfare. The modern US military is creating its own increasingly unique culture through differentation with the general population. This is necessitated by an increasingly "complex battlespace", increasing demands on professionalism, and a deepening of the civil-military divide, all Darwinian in their application.

That "Military...has a roll in society and...will demand to be at the table along with Wall Street and the political interest groups" is a troubling example of the weakening of the civil-military relationship successfully entrenched in our society and other Western, industrial societies. The subjugation of the military to their civilian overseers is of course furthered by the training of an elite officer corps, indoctrination of troops in general, etc. Is this de-ossification also seen when generals speak out directly to the press, increasing their own profile and not of their civilian masters, or is are these examples simply the same symptoms as wanting a seat at the Wall Street table?

The natural evolution is leading to the "Mark MacGuires" in Skinners argument. Whether it is through gene doping or plain old doping, we have a civilian leadership increasingly disengaged from the realities of combat (How many current Congressmen have served? How many of their family members are in the service? and were Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz really knowing best when they ignored the advice of professional soldiers? and on). This is not an issue of understanding the "horrors of war" but of understanding the realities on the ground, the nuts and bolts of winning that go beyond powerpoint presentations.

The age in which we live is not geologic nor does it provide enough time for genetic selection. However, through changes in society (diasporas, CNN Effect, interests in XBox instead of the London Tube, etc) there is selection happening more and more. Where do our soldiers, airmen, and sailors came from these days? I'd be curious to know how many do not come from families with some kind of military tradition or have some other steeply patriotic urge or simply have no where else to go. I suggest there are too few citizen soldiers who harbor greater intellectual prowess that do not come from traditionally military families. How many readers of this list, seekers of informed comment, have served recently, or are currently serving? More importantly, how many have not and will not?

Posted by: Matt at August 19, 2005 4:36 PM

Good Morning Steven,

To answer you concluding question first. Soldiers don't make wars, non soldiers do.

Intelligent societies might be an oxymoron. Soldiers loved the "Cold War". All show and no go. Both side knew from the get go that neither was inclined to go nuclear so the sabre rattleing was just show.

Non soldiers want more land, expanded markets, new raw material sources etc. Since all the worlds land is occupied, if you want more of anything you have to push someone else off their Mountain. Soldiers are the ones who must back up the Politicans words.

To you other topic. We are talking about DARPA here. This is the agency that sponsered Adm. John Poindexter and his "Research" into Economic warfare. His idea shook Wall Street so badly he got fired from DARPA and his research was terminated.

If DARPA is not looking into Genetics and Biological Soldier I would be very disappointed in them, because South Korea and China to name two countries are not so bashful about doing this kind of research and are clearly showing where it's going.

Like it or not Geneticaly specialized Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen are comming. The technologhy is already happening, think Barry Bond, Mark MacGuire and Homeruns.

To study the Genetice make up of Neanderthals might be very important.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at August 19, 2005 2:47 PM

From PTStress to Neanderthals in only a few words? Amazing.

I'd like to comment on the original post and add some english thought here.

Byron posted about being stressed out. I wonder what the consequences of eliminating post traumatic stress in soldiers will be on the battlefield? If a soldier can remove the burden of guilt or even dilute his morality simply by popping a drug would this affect the choices he makes on the battlefield? Are we heading towards a Universal Soldier 'ear necklace' future? Do we want a "stress-free" war?

The other half of the discussion seems to revolve around a mystical 'Gladiator' class - a person who if only fought would have died out long ago. Remember that the best, most successful warriors in history have only used fighting where necessary. Art, poetry, music, religion all took priority as part of the lifestyle; the samurai poets, terracotta warriors (carry musical instruments), aztec warrior artists, etc etc. It seems that industrialised civilisation inevitably asks that the 'warrior' become the soldier and sacrifice these interests for the sake of war.

Also, it was written that a large majority of american's are in the armed forces "defending america". America is one of the only countries on the face of the planet that has never been invaded. Attacked, yes, so have we all (britain had a tendancy to get invaded in the early days:), but certain US actions cannot be justified as 'defense'. Perhaps this is a discussion for another time.

On the subject of intelligent societies and advanced technology, why is it intelligent to fight a war? Surely the intelligent society of the future would able to resolve conflicts without the need for fighting? I know what's more intelligent to me.

In the immortal words of Chris Rock - "I ain't fighting"

Posted by: Steven Snell at August 19, 2005 5:31 AM