July 12, 2008

• Can't figure out the rank here.
• Mmm, sailors.
• That, Ralph, is because your picture clearly shows poorly trained and equipped irregulars. Most of them have no uniforms at all (which is a violation of the Geneva Convention), none of them are wearing body armour and four of them don't even have helmets. There's no uniformity in equipment and they're clumped together while crossing open ground, which indicates a serious lack of training and/or discipline. Furthermore, I have serious doubts about some of those soldiers being of proper fighting age.
• True, but I've always had a weakness for chicks in uniform.
• The Bularian policeman is a sergeant. Singaporean pilot is a lieutenant, I think. Chinese sailor looks to be a corporal, but from the encyclopedia a "private, first class". Aussie, I can't tell.
• Senior sergeant, actually. A regular sergeant would have two chevrons. That's the things with uniforms: you can't necessarily make cross-cultural assumptions. Bulgarian police uniforms seem to be very loosely based on the old Soviet rank insignia tradition, in which there isn't the English-speaking-world two-stripes-equals-corporal assumption. The Singaporean is a Captain. The insignia is clearly based on the American captain's insignia, but follows the three-item = captain pattern used in many countries. The Chinese Navy is usually called the PLAN. When I was an undergraduate I started a research project on the Chinese armed forces without knowing very much about it. I kept reading about this terribly sinister thing called the PLAN, obviously such a devious Communist plot that it was rendered in all-caps. Eventually I worked out that this was the Peoples' Liberation Army Navy. In keeping with this rendering of the Navy as a branch of the Army, Chinese naval ranks are basically army ranks with the word 'Navy' stuck in front of them. So that Chinese sailor would be referred to as a Navy Superior Private. In the West this is usually just translated as Sailor First Class or Able Seaman, because we get confused when other nations don't conform to our own rank structure. The Australian, with his one anchor (or 'hook' in navy slang) is a leading seaman. That's about the same as a corporal in the army.
• Okay, I'm waiting to be attacked here. I'm waiting for people to come along and tell me that this post, these comments, are a morally dubious, even distasteful, whitewash of the true nature of militaries and what they do. I'm waiting to be told that I am encouraging a kind of fanboyish geekery, an irresponsible and inappropriate obsession with military ephemera that treats professional killers like a stamp collection. I'm waiting to be argued with, in this way, because I want to use this little concept to make a broader point. Almost nobody studies militaries any more. They're just too alien for most researchers except for anthropologists, and anthropologists are largely forbidden to engage with the military by their professional codes of conduct. We have these vast, powerful organisations that sit right inside our countries -- even running some countries -- and we barely notice them. And when we do notice them we tend to express our interest in either fawning deference or knee-jerk condemnation. And yet there is a huge amount of information, information that can help us as a society grapple with the nature of our military institutions, sitting out there in plain sight. Something as simple and apparently arbitrary as rank badges can actually be a signal, a special language, in which military organisations are attempting to communicate with themselves, with each other, and with the outside world. In the midst of our society is a strange, alien culture with immense power and incalculable influence. This culture is global, interconnected, and encompasses millions of people. And it is broadcasting out to the rest of us in its own secret language which it, honestly, doesn't understand that we don't understand. We should not ignore it.
• fanboyish geekery To be frank, Dreadnought, this post from you didn't surprise me because I know this is part and parcel of your geekery. In a good way, honestly. I don't think I'm in deep-thinking mode, more somewhere above surface level today. Is it still true that juniors don't salute senior officers because it exposes them as a target? Was that ever really true? Wouldn't that also apply to uniform insignia?
• Assigning rank to members of the group is a common human and even animal trait. The military is perhaps more overt about it, what with their need for discipline in trying circumstances, but many organizations have their insignia, arcane symbols and rules regarding rank and status. As long as tribes, nations, religious sects or races are inclined to fight with each other, an impulse that seems to be an inescapable facet of human nature, military forces will be part of our societies. So, the study of the military seems to me to be an entirely worthwhile vocation and hardly fanboy geekery. I'm quite happy that the Canadian Navy (or Maritime Command, post-unification speak) has seen fit to re-instate proper naval uniforms for its sailors. And Naval insignia are, by far, the coolest.
• Dreadnought, this post, these comments, are a morally dubious, even distasteful, whitewash of the true nature of militaries and what they do. You are encouraging a kind of fanboyish geekery, an irresponsible and inappropriate obsession with military ephemera that treats professional killers like a stamp collection. See? All you had to do was let us know, honey. Now, let's have some Swiss Miss and punkin bars.
• "Okay, I'm waiting to be attacked here." Maybe I'm just being cranky, but isn't this kinda the exact definition of troll? "I'm waiting to be argued with, in this way, because I want to use this little concept to make a broader point." So make your fucking broader point in the FPP! You post People in Uniforms, but have a secret Broader Point. So, did Dogs in Shawls have a secret Broader Point that we all missed because Kit is so tame and bland? What was the Broader Point of Snakes on a Plane? Of Art in Poop? Of Cows with Guns? This isn't exactly the Read Between the Lines Club. End of rant, in my own, secret language.
• In the midst of our society is a strange, alien culture with immense power and incalculable influence. This culture is global, interconnected, and encompasses millions of people. And it is broadcasting out to the rest of us in its own secret language which it, honestly, doesn't understand that we don't understand. We should not ignore it. Strangely enough, Dreadnought's comment applies just as well to the next post over. Agree w/Ralph that if you have a point to make, it should be made in the OP. Which isn't to chide you - just to say that you should gather the links and post that point as an FPP. I'd like to read it!
• isn't this kinda the exact definition of troll? No, I would have thought that a troll was where you try to start an argument to, you know, make other people feel bad. I think this is more of a straw man argument. So make your fucking broader point in the FPP! Actually, I thought I did, but I was sufficiently close to the subject that I overestimated the degree to which my point would be apparent to other people. When I realised that other people weren't getting it I tried to move the conversation along in what I hoped would be an interesting way, but I guess it didn't work. Seriously, if nobody else cares about this subject I'll just shut up now.
• That really was just my sense of humor, showing, Dreaddy - it is an interesting post. And I AM working up the energy to make a batch of Koko's punkin bars. OK, Srsly, then. Mind you, this only applies to folks I've had personal dealings with; I have no way of knowing if it's representative of the whole. The military and ex-military folks I've known haven't been welcoming of any laypeople's trying to understand anything that goes on inside their organizations, including how they're structured and what different ranks and terms would mean in laymen's language. At best it's a benevolent, chuckling sort of "don't worry your little head about things you couldn't possibly understand" sort of thing; at worst it's a disdainful "don't poke your civilian nose where it doesn't belong" sort of thing. Either way, it can have the effect of appearing to the outsider's eye as a kind of cultish snobbery. It may be that that's the sort of attitude that they need to have, in order to function within those organizations. Or maybe it's actually true that those of us who haven't been indoctrinated have no business trying to understand how things work. Either way, sailors are hot. Srsly.
• Dreadnought: Military with a visible presence wearing uniforms, having an obvious chain of command is one thing. Even many of the quasi-military guns-for-hire have an externally visible interior structure. Guns-for-hire are one thing, what frightens me is our own hidden mercenary army, Blackwater, answerable to corporate structures, government officials, and certain rich men with power. They do, on occasion, wear a semi-uniform, but the majority of images show them without a standard dress, apart from Kevlar. Then we have the NSA/TSA/Homeland Security bunch. Not a military organization per se, but shortly after certain commands from those in charge, capable of exerting a lot of control. Chain of command in these organizations is often difficult to identify without a scoresheet, also. Comments?
• It may be that that's the sort of attitude that they need to have, in order to function within those organizations. Or maybe it's actually true that those of us who haven't been indoctrinated have no business trying to understand how things work. I think the second contention, there is clearly false. It is a fundamental principle, at least in democratic states, that the military is under the control of the civilian government. This is why it makes sense for BlueHorse to be worried about organisations like Blackwater. If the military of her country was independent of democratic oversight, then there would really be no difference between it and Blackwater as both would be just as unaccountable. The first contention is, in my view, less clear cut. It's absolutely true that military people and organisations can often be very dismissive of civilian 'interlopers'. While I think this is an unfortunate and wrong-headed attitude, although it certainly isn't a universal one, I also think we should carefully look at where it comes from. Restricting ourselves, for the moment, to talking about the Western democracies, most of the major military institutions we see today are based on models established in the late 19th century (obviously that's an oversimplification, but work with me here). Now, at that time, most voting members of society, which is to say educated men, were the recipients of a formal military education. An understanding of the armed forces was something you got from school, just like reading, writing, Latin and maths. Even well into the 20th century, most Western universities had departments of military science and the like. So Western militaries grew up in an environment in which civilians could interact with them on their own, military terms. They never had to reach out to the rest of society, and they never had to learn institutional tolerance for people who didn't understand their ways. One of the side-effects of this change in civilian culture is that civilians often find themselves having difficulties when given the job of overseeing the military. I remember, during Clinton's presidency, people openly said thing like 'I don't think a guy who has never served in the military can be Commander in Chief'. Well obviously that's nonsense, but the fact that people can say it shows how wide the gulf between the two cultures has grown. So the answer to this should be easy, right? You just reform the military so that it's more responsive to civilian oversight and easier to control. The trouble is, this has been tried and it's generally considered to have been a disaster. In the late 1960s, in Canada, there were a series of reforms designed, in part, to bring the military more firmly into the civilian world. The result was an exodus of talented people and a whole series of morale and training problems that have continued down the line for more than forty years. And this is where we get to Blackwater. We're used to thinking of people like Bush and Cheney as being very powerful and able to bend things to their will. But I'm sure that if you were able to talk to them, candidly, they would tell you that their power is subject to all kinds of constraints, one of which is the difficulty in overseeing the vast and sprawling systems of the US armed forces. I think that, on one level, the use of private companies to provide military force is a way to end-run around the military system. The Bush administration is full of businessmen, people who understand how a private company works. It seems logical, to me, that they would try to use these private companies to do things that they can't get the military to do.
• So this opens up another question then: civilian control of the military: good or bad? On the one hand it's a cornerstone of democracy and the thing that stops generals from taking over and turning your country into Burma. On the other hand, it contributes to truly hideous abrogations of democratic oversight like Blackwater. How can we, as a species, square this circle?
• People's militas, baby.
• GramMa's snoozing off the wine again.... MonkeyFilter: Poorly trained and equipped irregulars MonkeyFilter: Isn't this kinda the exact definition of troll? MonkeyFilter: Okay, I'm waiting to be attacked here. MonkeyFilter: Leading seaman MonkeyFilter: Seriously, if nobody else cares about this subject I'll just shut up now. etc...
• Further to my people's militias advocacy, filthy commie Tom Wintringham was one of the prime movers in our beloved WWII Home Guard. Don't panic!
• Very good points, Dreadnought - one reaction I'v noticed that's in between the two I described earler (don't worry your little head/don't poke your nose in) is a third that relates to that - a sort of puzzled, "Why don't you already know all this, you moron?"
• ...on one level, the use of private companies to provide military force is a way to end-run around the military system. It also seems, to me, to be a pretty effective way to end-run around around the legal and political systems. If are to have civilian control of the military, that control must always be truly in the hands of the civilians, not just the wealthy and politically well-connected. and amen about the clusterfuck that was the Canadian Forces unification scheme of the 60's and 70's.
• "If we are" would make a little more sense.
• Interesting suggestion about militias, Abiezer. What exactly do you mean, though? Militias as an alternative to a standing army? Militias as a third-level 'community' reserve? Militias as an Israeli or perhaps a PRC-style integration of the military into society?
• Why don't we just break this up into three topics: 1. Here's a great resource for looking up the vagaries of military uniform design 'round the world. 2. Here's my take on why the military subculture, misunderstood or ignored by civilians, is evil. 3. Here's an open question: should a civilian or a group of civilians supervise the military's top brass? Or just keep mumbling. Either way works for me.
• TBH not really thought it through at any length, Dreadnought, but you do see the idea of a militia as testament to the legitimacy of a regime - the US Second (?) Amendment, Switzerland (iirc), Israel and even interestingly the PRC even during some of the maddest moments of the collective era. The idea that the business of the people's defence should be the work of the people themselves. I'm not sure how that could work in a modern world of hi-tech warfare, but then recent experience has shown that even ad hoc assemblies of non-state actors can fight big war machines to a standstill. Another thing that plays on my mind is the traditional British objections to a standing army as a symbol of "continental" oppressive government. Those suspicions do seem to have be borne out (albeit in a different way to how they were framed at the time) in the way the "military industrial complex" can capture the state even in a finely-tuned democratic polity like the US - the way the military takes on a logic of its own and can even subvert domestic policy to aims that are not always open to democratic debate. I do suspect that the security of the average citizen would be no worse in a system of militia defence - as opposed to the interests of the state.
• Dogs in Shawls was actually a coded message to my fellow Justified Ancients of Mu Mu to beware a new mobilisation of the Illuminati. The consequences of that post continue to be felt around the world wherever the forces of freedom and chaos are rallied against those of oppression and order. Those of you who failed to pick up on this message, you just need to learn to see the fnords, man. Plus, I love the military. They get to play with such cool kit. Snatch Land Rovers and fragmentation grenades? What's not to like.
• How about Dogs in Sailor Suits?
• A call to arms if ever I saw one!
• sorry, GramMa's snoozing off the Poppies, not teh wine.
• PRIVATE DREADNOUGHT! FRONT AND CENTER! IS THIS YOUR POST ON MILITARY UNIFORMS ON THE FRONT PAGE OF MONKEY FILTER?! DID THE CRAZY FAIRY FLY INTO YOUR EAR AND TAKE A SHIT ON YOUR BRAIN?! ANSWER ME! DID THE CRAZY FAIRY FLY INTO YOUR EAR AND TAKE A SHIT ON YOUR BRAIN?! BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER WAY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH THAT YOU COULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT SUCH AN INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION BELONGED IN THIS STEAMING PILE OF DISEASED APE SHIT. WHERE ARE YOUR LOLCATS?! WHERE IS THE SQUEE?! CEILING CAT IS READING YOUR POST AND DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! THESE MAGGOTS WANT TO DISCUSS BRITTANY SPEARS, NOT BRITISH BRIGADIERS!! IF YOU DON'T DUMB THIS POST DOWN I WILL HAVE TO DUMB IT DOWN FOR YOU, AND THEN YOU WILL BE IN A WORLD OF SHIT UP TO YOUR EPAULETS! DO YOU HEAR ME PRIVATE DREADNOUGHT?! I WAS GOING TO NAME YOU "PRIVATE SMARTYPANTS", BUT I SEE THAT YOU HAVE A CATCHY NICKNAME ALREADY. OUT-STANDING!!
• I don't know why I got so crabby re this post, but the idea of someone derailing his own thread to talk about something juicier seemed like an odd way of doing business.
• SIR! THIS RECRUIT REALISES THAT HE HAS NO EXCUSE FOR THE TONE OF THIS THREAD; SIR! SIR! THIS RECRUIT BEGS THE FORGIVENESS OF RalphTheDog AND HOPES THAT THE UNIT WILL ACCEPT THESE PICTURES OF SOLDIERS INTERACTING WITH KITTENS; SIR! *gets punched in the stomach*
• Why is a private wearing epaulettes?
• Oh, and that third kitten has enough stripes on his arm to be a Double Master Sergeant.
• In the midst of our society is a strange, alien culture with immense power and incalculable influence. They are knows as.... KITTENS.
• pst! Is that sergeant guy gone?... ok So here are a few, disordered thoughts, about the concept of citizen militias: This may very well be a reasonable way of handling the military/civilian divide, as it would afford a large group of civilians with direct or indirect access to military culture. It is also, as you point out, Abiezer, a pretty good way of insuring that your country is very expensive and difficult to invade. This is why strong civil-military integration is so attractive to places like Switzerland, Israel and Singapore, places that for one reason or another see not-getting-invaded as an important thing for a state to be worried about. But these countries often rely, rather heavily, on conscripted National Service, and they do this for a reason: volunteer militias have a terrible problem with retention. Working as a soldier is, rather famously, Not Fun and it's difficult to keep people doing it on their ostensible 'time off' even if you manage to get them through the door. Having said that, this in itself might not be such a bad thing. Maybe what you want to do is get a lot of people through your military unit in a revolving door without keeping them in very long. They get a taste of military culture and they also get some basic military skills that saves you time training them if you need to engage in mass mobilisation, of the kind that we saw in the World Wars. There is an alternative model which might work even better, though. In various countries, and at various times, we have seen 'third level' community or 'village' militias. These are military units that take in local people and give them basic training in military skills and discipline. The focus, though, is on community integration rather than fighting efficiency. These people then become useful as partially trained soldiers in the event of mass mobilisation, but they also become useful for things like disaster relief. More broadly, they encourage ordinary citizens to be involved in and informed about military affairs.
• Ok, so that's the good stuff. Now the bad stuff: Citizen militias carry with them a downside above and beyond merely being very expensive. Let's get the most serious of these out of the way first: you point out, Abiezer, that they might help decentralise the command authority of the military (which is how I would express suspicion of standing armies that would have been familiar to this historical Abiezer Coppe). I would argue, however, that they have the potential to do the exact opposite. In most states, the effect would be more likely to bring a central state apparatus down into the community level. You have to be very careful whenever you do something like that, because it's one of the chief prerequisites you need if you want to conduct a -- let's not sugar coat this -- if you want to conduct a genocide. Problem two: let's say that your ultimate goal is to make military policy more responsive to the view of voters. Well, training the voters to polish boots and dig foxholes isn't necessarily going to do that for you. The questions that get put to voters tend to be things like 'should we invade Blurgvania', and that's a question for generals not privates. So maybe you need to be training your citizens in strategy rather than tactics. Finally, if you want to have your People's Militia entirely replace a standing army, it might lead to various different problems. 1) it means your army can only stay home and defend home turf. This is fine if you want to be Switzerland, but what if you want to go off to foreign parts and, say, defeat the Nazi hordes? 2) it can lead to the social exclusion of conscientious objectors. I'm told that a lot of job applications in Israel have a spot where you're supposed to write down what army unit you belong to. Conscientious objectors are usually uncommonly nice people, and we shouldn't be mean to them. 3) it can lead military commanders to develop an ideology of military equality based on the ideal of the 'universal' citizen soldier. In Israel/Palestine we often see absolutely terrible situations that are basically caused by regular line-infantry being put into military situations that properly call for elite special forces.
• Why is a private wearing epaulettes? *blink* Privates' uniforms often have epaulettes on them. Didn't you RTFIEoUIAtW? :-) (sorry, I just wanted to make the most appaulting acronym on the Internet)
• /appalling
• I just don't know what it is. I can't figure it. I have no dog in this fight. I have always admired Dreadnaught and the specialized bit of expertise he brings to threads here now and again. But I just can't stop harping. "Conscientious objectors are usually uncommonly nice people". Being a bleeding liberal, I would also be tempted to make a statement like that. But I would hopefully stop before publishing, because this is whatever the opposite of an ad hominem attack is. I'm sure there is a term, I am too lazy to look it up. But it is basically the "hey, here's a fella that shares the same beliefs I do! He must be nice!" No trend there, doc. "Conscientious objectors are usually above the poverty line" makes some sense. "Conscientious objectors are usually not NASCAR fans" makes the point if you want to be open about your bigotry. "Conscientious objectors are usually those who have a moral indignation to killing, and who themselves have suffered horrendous pain as a result of close, personal tragedy" is hard to refute and may be right on the money. But "Conscientious objectors are usually uncommonly nice people" is soda pop. You can do better.
• "hey, here's a fella that shares the same beliefs I do! He must be nice!" Yeah, I'm with you that broad generalisations are a bad idea, but I think this one is based on at least a thread of truth. I'm not, actually, a contentious objector. But I have spent a lot of time talking with pacifists (in part trying to persuade them not to object to me) and I have to say that 99% of them seem to be super-nice. And you know what? This doesn't surprise me at all: they are dedicated to a world view of 'everybody be nice to one another'. Now, a much more cutting objection to my comment would be this: what does the (generally speaking) niceness of contentious objectors have to do with anything? Are you, Dreadnought, implying that it should be ok to socially exclude them if they were a bunch of irascible curmudgeons? I put it to you that this objection shows up my point for the hollow rhetorical flourish that it is.
• I think it would be a good idea to have a compulsory military service for young males ages 15-18. I look at the males in school, and what they want is a physical challenge. Instead of football, have the boys do the military physical training. Teach them discipline, make them aware of history and the need for military defense. The awareness needs to be that the military defends the country, not participates in offensive actions. Mornings they train, afternoons they do their schooling and get real world training in physical jobs such as construction and mechanics. Teach 'em how to dig a ditch, read a compass, run heavy equipment--do all sorts of real-world jobs. At age 18, they can have the choice to enter the military as an actual combat-ready soldier, or continue on with a formal education. This should be done on a case-by-case basis. If there's a gifted boy that shows that he can pursue his education on a fast track with an A average and stay out of trouble, he can pass on all but the last year of service at 18. Girls can do military training, also, but separate from the boys. Both sexes get hit hard with classes in real world coping skills, sex education, and ethics. To do this would take an immense attitude change toward the purpose of the military and an significantly increased commitment to education.
• Nazis and kitten. This thread is now closed.
• The Nazis are offering the kitten a flower to distract it from the fact that they have tied a freaking grenade to its cute widdle feet!!!!
• *probably does not know what a grenade looks like if it hit her in the arse face*
• Is it time for the Hitler Cats video?
• There seems to be an assumption that conscientious objectors are pacifists who are opposed to killing. It's more likely that a not insignificant number of them refuse service because they're opposed to being killed. Being nice has very little to do with it. Also...what do you have against football?
• I would bet there are a lot of people in and out of military service that are opposed to being killed. I would also bet there are conscientious objectors that object to the idea of being forced to kill innocent people--you know, the ones they call "collateral damage." Aside from being boring, the whole culture of football, especially high school football, is wrong on so many levels.
• Sure, high school football is a fairly dumb sport, based on the politics of exclusion, but aside from that? All high school sports are pretty dumb and petty, no?
• All of high school is based on the politics of exclusion, not just football.
• Also, all of high school is dumb and petty.
• See, that's just it -- football isn't any different than anything else that way. Those traits are just highlighted more than, say, Band.
• There seems to be an assumption that conscientious objectors are pacifists who are opposed to killing. In most countries, in order to register as a conscientious objector you have to show a long term commitment to pacifism. You can't just show up to the draft board and say 'I choose not to fight'. You have to show up with papers that say 'I've been a Quaker for the past ten years'. Furthermore, CO's are often subject to alternate service regimes, in prison or in labour camps, in which their enrolment is significantly longer and harsher than conditions experienced by most soldiers (as only a minority of soldiers actually fight). CO's are not cowards. They are, as the name would suggest, people of conscience. They often suffer great hardships and sacrifice much to honour their belief in non-violence.
• There are much simpler ways of draft-dodging than identifying as a CO. Just ask George Bush.
• Canada to deport U.S. war deserter