The fear of a professional military almost doomed our Republic before  
it was even born. Contrary to the American myth, it was the  
Continental Line (the professionals) not the Minute Men who won the  
American Revolution. The fear and distrust of a professional military  
under Pres. Thomas Jefferson and his "disciples" almost resulted in  
our reconquest by the British during the War of 1812. We did manage  
to lose Washington DC and but for a fortuitous delay of the attack  
would have lost New Orleans. During the war our gunboat equipped Navy  
was totally incapable of defending the United States and the British  
blockaded our ports. It was only in a small number of single ship  
actions that the excellence of our ships and sailors was  
demonstrated. This ongoing distrust of a standing military resulted  
in fairly severe defeats during the opening battles of WWI and WWII.

The statements Prof Finkelman expresses about our present  
professional military are typical of those who have not served, and  
lack knowledge of the way the system really works. The majority of  
those who join do not make 20-30 year careers out of the military.  
They serve a hitch (4-8) years and go home. Many after serving on  
active duty for 2-4 years finish their obligation in the reserves. Or  
stay in the reserves to complete a career (as I did). Taking myself  
as an example. I served 8 years on active duty. Two years in the Army  
Reserve in North Carolina. Six years in the Pennsylvania Army  
National Guard. And finished up with 4 years in the Army Reserve in  
Virginia. During that time I was on active duty a number of times to  
attend schools in New Mexico and Oklahoma (with other officers from  
all over the USA and NATO). I was also on active duty during Haiti  
and Bosnia-Herzegovina in USACOM in Norfolk, VA. There I served with  
USAF, US Navy, US Marines, and US Army personnel from all over the  
USA (active duty and reservists). Most of us do go home. And even if  
you serve for a full 20 years, most are enlisted and joined at 18 or  
their early 20s. They retire and go home when they are in their late  
30s or early 40s. Even those who serve 30 years on active duty are in  
our 40s or 50s when they retire and go on to other careers. You take  
that military experience with you. It enriches the communities you join.

The Founding Fathers were concerned about the problems inherent in a  
standing military. One of the ways they sought to avoid what they saw  
in Europe was to enshrine the principal of civilian control of the  
military. The president, an elected official, is the commander in  
chief. One of the problems with the military up to WWII was that the  
majority of the officer corps was professional. While the soldiers  
may have been citizen soldiers, the leadership were all graduates of  
VMI, West Point, The Citadel, and Annapolis. With today's larger  
military this is no longer possible and the majority of the officer  
corps is commisioned via ROTC. All things being equal this should be  
a way to prevent the takeover of the military by a professional  
elite. However, the fear of a professional military on the part of  
some in the US (like Prof. Finkelman perhaps) has forced the closure  
of most ROTC programs. As a result rather than getting its officer  
corps from across America, the majority come from conservative  
southern and western backgrounds. There are exceptions. I knew a lot  
of people from middle class and even upper class backgrounds who went  
to Ivy League (or equivalent) universities and joined the military.  
My father was a doctor, as was his father. I went to the Univ of  
Pennsylvania and joined ROTC as a graduate student. One of my  
daughters went to Wellesley and is now in the USAF. Another daughter  
is on her way to Tulane in the Fall on an Army ROTC scholarship.  
Their mother's parents were both college grads and her dad was a  
professor. She too joined RTOC while at the Univ. of Pennsylvania.

As Prof. Finkelman has pointed out the military has served as a means  
of upward mobility for many minorities in the USA. This is because  
while some parts of the US denied equal education and equal rights,  
the military has always been more merit based. And following the full  
integration of the military by order of Pres. Truman this was even  
more true.The color of your skin mattered less, and what you wanted  
to do with your life mattered more, than it did outside the military.  
The military provided opportunity that was denied to many on the  
outside. Over my 20 years in uniform I saw lots of people who did not  
see much opportunity in their neighborhood, so they put on a uniform  
to get ahead. The military offered to teach them a trade, send them  
to school, and offered the opportunity for those who wanted to attend  
college. Many enlisted were sent to college or worked on degrees  
while on active duty. When their hitch was up, or when they retired  
they went out into the world with skills and education that would  
have been difficult to get otherwise. Most officers are given the  
opportunity to get master's degrees. I knew a lot of sergeants with  
MAs. I knew a number of people who started out as privates and  
retired as colonels, one even made three stars.

James Brothers, RPA
MAJ, FA Retired
MBA Duke, MA Wm & Mary
[log in to unmask]



On Jun 6, 2007, at 14:03, Paul Finkelman wrote:

> Both postings remind us that for most of our history wars were  
> fought by
> men who lived together before and after the war.  Regiments were from
> counties and cities and even divisions were from states.  Such shared
> combat made wars more real to the people at home as well as to the
> politicians who sent men off to battle.  Thus, wars had to have a
> purpose and political support at home. Since WWII this has not been  
> the
> case; soldiers are in a professional army, disconnected from the home
> front and from regular Americans; the military is a place for the poor
> and unfortunate who see it as "a way out" of where they are, but the
> soldiers are not part of units that come from where they do.  THe  
> mixing
> in the military was probably a plus in and after WWII -- people  
> from all
> parts of the country met and learned about each other -- even if they
> were in "home town units" like the 116th.  In our modern professional
> army people also meet others from all over, but there is no going home
> after the war because the army is their home.  In the long run this is
> probably not good for our Republic; it underscores the Founders  
> fear of
> a standing army.  We cannot always "learn from history" but I think  
> the
> larger memory of the 116th (and thousands of other units like it) is a
> lesson we should learn.
>
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
>      and Public Policy
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, New York   12208-3494