Citizen Soldier: war imitating SciFi?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EnumaElish
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Scifi
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "Citizen Soldier," particularly its origins and implications in relation to military service and citizenship. Participants explore the historical context of the term, its use in recruitment slogans, and the broader societal implications of mandatory military or public service. The conversation touches on themes of sacrifice, civic duty, and the potential for a military mindset in society.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that "Citizen Soldier" is a phrase from the novel Starship Troopers, linking military service to citizenship.
  • Others propose the idea of mandatory military service for all citizens, suggesting it could lead to more responsible decisions regarding war.
  • Some argue against mandatory military service, viewing it as a violation of human rights and akin to slavery.
  • A participant mentions that countries like Switzerland and Italy have forms of mandatory service, raising questions about their historical military involvement.
  • There is a suggestion that public service could be a viable alternative to military service.
  • Some express skepticism about the notion of sacrifice for the greater good, questioning the value of such sacrifices to the individual.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for military indoctrination through recruitment slogans.
  • Participants discuss the historical context of the term "Citizen Soldier," asserting it has roots dating back to the Revolutionary War.
  • Some participants emphasize the need for equal service obligations for all genders if mandatory service is implemented.
  • There is a debate about the relevance of historical sacrifices to contemporary views on mandatory service.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the concept of mandatory service, with some advocating for it and others firmly opposing it. There is no consensus on whether military service should be mandatory or what form it should take, leading to an ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments hinge on personal interpretations of sacrifice and civic duty, while others depend on historical context and definitions of citizenship. The discussion reflects a variety of perspectives on the implications of mandatory service and its ethical considerations.

EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Messages
2,348
Reaction score
124
U.S. joint forces' latest recruitment slogan is "Citizen Soldier."

Isn't that a phrase from Starship Troopers?

'The path to citizenship – concretely through military service – is a key theme in Heinlein’s novel. "Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part . . . and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live."' -- Karen Kwiatkowski

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/kwiatkowski1.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe that's the way to go. Or perhaps, mandatory military service for everyone.

Then perhaps, people like Bush would be less likely to jump into a war like the one he started in Iraq.
 
Astronuc said:
... Or perhaps, mandatory military service for everyone...

I'll take this out of context, but yeah merrily, serve, then be a full citizen and have all your rights and privileges (vote etc...).
 
Dr Transport said:
I'll take this out of context, but yeah merrily, serve, then be a full citizen and have all your rights and privileges (vote etc...).

while i sympathize this would only represent the views of those with a military mindset.

I'd rather that pre-emptive and offensive wars not sanctioned by a world body like the UN be made an illegal matter altogether.
 
EnumaElish said:
U.S. joint forces' latest recruitment slogan is "Citizen Soldier."

Isn't that a phrase from Starship Troopers?
Goes back a bit further. The prototype for the phrase was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus" a roman, who left farming to be a soldier in time of crisis and when the crisis passed put down the sword and returned to the plow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
slugcountry said:
while i sympathize this would only represent the views of those with a military mindset.

If I remeber correctly, mandatory (male?) service is in effect in Switzerland and I cannot remember the last time they participated in a war.
 
Italy has mandatory military service, if you convince them that you are a pacifist (they actually have a test where you answer questions about liking flowers and sewing), then you can opt for 1-2 years (can't remember the minimum) of public service. But the public service requires you quit school and your job and leave your home to live at the institution you are serving. My friend in Italy had to live at the institution for the blind he was assigned to, it is a full time job of public service, and there is a curfew, you are not free to live as you wish during your period of service.
 
Last edited:
well, I guess "Citizen Soldier" is better than some line from "1984"
 
It doesn't have to be military service, but I'd be in favor of mandatory public service.
 
  • #10
I don't think a mandatory military service is a good idea. I think it's against the UN human rights declaration and a type of slavery.

... and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live.

I don't really comprehend statements like that. I'm going to gain nothing while losing everything by sacrificing my life, and what happens to the "whole" after that is irrelevant to me.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
If there's going to be mandatory service, there better be womandatory service, too!
 
  • #12
EnumaElish said:
U.S. joint forces' latest recruitment slogan is "Citizen Soldier."

Isn't that a phrase from Starship Troopers?

I guess they are having a hard time selling duty in Iraq as an "adventure".

'The path to citizenship – concretely through military service – is a key theme in Heinlein’s novel. "Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part . . . and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live."' -- Karen Kwiatkowski

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/kwiatkowski1.html

I think the last thing that we need is every citizen being brainwashed by the military. Public service for college tuition or for assistance purchasing a "first home" would be great.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
siddharth said:
I don't really comprehend statements like that. I'm going to gain nothing while losing everything by sacrificing my life, and what happens to the "whole" after that is irrelevant to me.
Well you are able to maintain that world view because of others that went before you and believed the opposite.
 
  • #14
mheslep said:
Well you are able to maintain that world view because of others that went before you and believed the opposite.

Perhaps, but how is that relevant? If they sacrificed their lives voluntarily for what they believed to be for the good of the whole, it shouldn't obligate me to do so, and especially not through mandatory military service.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
siddharth said:
Perhaps, but how is that relevant? If they sacrificed their lives
They put their lives at risk, they didn't necessarily die.

voluntarily for what they believed to be for the good of the whole, it shouldn't obligate me to do so, and so especially not through mandatory military service.
Ok, perhaps so, there certainly valid arguments about mandatory obligation. I object to your characterization of prior sacrifice as irrelevant. Military action by democracies has not been always used wisely, but it certainly is not irrelevant, as otherwise we likely don't have this discussion. On rereading your post though it appears that the argument is not qualified to military obligation, and that you would dismiss any civil obligation like, say, jury duty?
 
  • #16
mheslep said:
I object to your characterization of prior sacrifice as irrelevant. Military action by democracies has not been always used wisely, but it certainly is not irrelevant,

To clarify, what I mean is that whatever happens to the whole after *I* sacrifice my life is (obviously) irrelevant to *me* (and so, why should I?). I'm not saying that military action, or prior sacrifice by *others* is irrelevant to having this conversation, just that it is irrelevant to my views on mandatory military service. Whew, hope I conveyed myself clearly.

On rereading your post though it appears that the argument is not qualified to military obligation, and that you would dismiss any civil obligation like, say, jury duty?

The judicial system where I live doesn't use juries, so there isn't any such obligation. Even if such a system did exist, I wouldn't mind civil obligations as long as they don't directly increase the risk of "dying for the nation" (which is what my argument is based on).
 
Last edited:
  • #17
russ_watters said:
It doesn't have to be military service, but I'd be in favor of mandatory public service.

rewebster said:
If there's going to be mandatory service, there better be womandatory service, too!
Agreed, public service or military service for ALL is a reasonable requirement for anyone. If it was performed without any educational deferments that would be good, a year or two before starting your higher education would do wonders for the marurity level of many students and may even reduce the drop-out rate.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Ivan Seeking said:
I think the last thing that we need is every citizen being brainwashed by the military.
Ugh, that crap getting old. Very few people that are/were in the military are brainwashed. I think the exact opposite is true to people who keep spouting that. A lot of us actually consider ourselves to be relatively free thinkers.

The term "Citizen Soldier" has been around since the Revolutionary War. It's not a modern marketing scam. Hasn't anyone had an American history class?
 
  • #19
Yes it is old and zero weighted
Bringing back the old days of bugs might be best evaluated since its strange to see how suddenly it all disapeared
 
  • #20
FredGarvin said:
The term "Citizen Soldier" has been around since the Revolutionary War. It's not a modern marketing scam. Hasn't anyone had an American history class?
There is a book entitled "A Citizen-Soldier in the American Revolution: The Diary of Benjamin Gilbert in Massachusetts and New York" published in 1980.

There is also the website http://www.citizensoldier.org which claims to be "Teaching America's Ideas to America's Military." Excerpt:
www.citizensoldier.org said:
America is at war with Muslims who read and believe Koran and Hadith.
Muslims who live in Western countries are increasingly adopting a strategy of Peaceful Jihad, growing their numbers by immigration, reproduction, and conversion. As they gain political clout, they will elect their own politicians and begin to take away our rights by changing our laws to conform with Koran.
The only way to slow this process down is to teach Muslims that Jesus - not jihad - is the real way to get to heaven.
I am not sure that this rhetoric is actually helping the military.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Dr Transport said:
If I remeber correctly, mandatory (male?) service is in effect in Switzerland and I cannot remember the last time they participated in a war.

yes but I was specifically addressing the idea of an all-volunteer army that gained voting privileges through service
 
  • #22
Dr Transport said:
If I remeber correctly, mandatory (male?) service is in effect in Switzerland and I cannot remember the last time they participated in a war.

nor did I ever say anything about greater participation in wars =\ attack someone else
 
  • #23
FredGarvin said:
The term "Citizen Soldier" has been around since the Revolutionary War. It's not a modern marketing scam. Hasn't anyone had an American history class?
Even before, Fred. During the British colonial period in the Americas, Britain could not afford to field a large standing army here, so they required able-bodied males to train as militia and to serve (perhaps in Nova Scotia, perhaps in the Hudson Valley, etc) to project the military interests of the crown and suppress the expansion of the French in the New World. This plan backfired in the late 1700s when the citizens defied the British, stripped the arms and supplies from their respective armories, and effectively beat back the regular British army and all the mercenaries they could ship over here. You don't train a colonial populace to fight like Special Forces (a la Roger's Rangers) and then expect them to line up obediently in neat rows to shoot it out with your "contractors".