A Libertarian Problem with the Military Pt. 1

Mr. Hornberger does not let facts get in the way of a 'good' principle.

Public schooling is much like the military. What is the first thing that the military does to new recruits? No, not teach them to fight or kill. That comes later. First comes boot camp, a seemingly nonsensical period of time in which soldiers are ordered to drop down for pushups at the whim of an officer. Soldiers learn to march together in unison, mastering such movements as right-face and left-face. They’re taught to respond without hesitation with “Yes, sir” and “No, sir” to an officer barking questions a few inches away from their face.

Why? Why does the military spend time teaching those things to new soldiers? After all, none of them comes in very handy once the actual fighting begins.

The reason is very simple: to mold each person’s mindset into one of strict conformity and obedience. That is, higher-ups in the military know that if they can compel a person to do something as ridiculous and nonsensical as a right-face and a left-face, then there is a greater likelihood that that person will obey other orders without question.

Or if a person can be taught to obey orders to march in unison within a group of people, all of whom are wearing the same uniform, there is a strong likelihood that such a person will lose his sense of individuality and instead simply consider himself part of the collective.

That is the real value of military boot camp – it very quickly eliminates all notions of individuality within the human being and makes him feel that conformity and obedience are the only acceptable states of mind.

Mr. Hornberger,

While generally agreeing with the thoughts behind your recent column on Lewrockwell.com regarding public schools, I must take exception to some of your statements regarding the military. All to often on Lewrockwell.com statements concerning the military are made that are either erroneous or denigrating simplifications. In many of these cases what seems to be revealed is a complete lack of personal knowledge on the military at all, and opinions based more on antipathy than reason.

Boot camp as you describe is not a nonsensical time. It is also certainly not uniform in its application across the services and not uniform in its application in a particular service over time. The Air Force for example does not allow officers to drop recruits for pushups. Most frequently, the officers have little involvement in the daily process as that is left to enlisted members on special duty assignments. I question whether you would have a similar complaint if this was a sports team. If upon joining a football team the coach yelled at everyone and required them to run laps and do push ups regardless of its application to the game at hand. In both this sports situation and the military, the recruit voluntarily signed up to submit to certain rules and standards in exchange for financial compensation, training or personal fulfillment. In essence we have a contract that requires both parties to fulfill certain obligations. From the libertarian perspective, what complaint can be made against someone who chooses to submit to an institution that desires conformity or makes one do push ups (if that were true).

Much of the background for things in basic military training comes from military tradition. The goal is to build unit cohesion and a sense of tradition. This is no more silly than the Fighting Irish slapping a sign on the way to the field or the tradition of dotting the I is for Ohio State. Also the theory is that if you cannot trust someone to learn basic skills such as marching, clothes folding and dormitory or barracks cleaning, how can you trust them with responsibility over equipment valued in the millions of dollars and the lives of other people. Remember, the group you are discussing here is generally age 18-21. No other organization gets more out of this age group. At 25 a military member might expect to have more responsibility and span of control then most of his peer group. Whether you like the purpose that this is put to is an issue different from the effectiveness of the military's method of grooming technical expertise or leadership skills.

There is some truth in the goal of raising the level of obedience and conformity to achieve certain results in crisis situations. That is the purpose of training in most every field. This is particularly true in sports. But it is simplistic to say that the military is unquestioning up and down the chain regarding directives. The military is generally of the philosophy that at a certain point the discussion has taken place and the decision made. At this point we revert back to the voluntary nature of the contract signed. The military must be this way. It is essential for it to function in the environment in which it does. If you do not like the use of the military then it must be taken up with the civilian leadership who ultimately assigns the missions and objectives.

I wonder if you know many military people. You speak of them as if they are Borg. Many people do take pride in their chosen occupation. But it is ridiculous to make a statement that indicates that in any environment everyone thinks the same. People join for different reasons, gravitate to different areas of service for different reasons and choose to stay or go for different reasons.

Boot camps are effective at breaking down people. Though certainly only effective on people who desire to successfully complete the experience and are at least partially committed to their choice. The purpose is hardly as nefarious as you make though. It is simply more expedient then dealing with the irrelevancies of everyone's background. You cut out the personal likes and dislikes and create an environment where people look for reasons to work together as opposed to reasons to dislike each other. Eventually most groups reform, but it is effective as a uniform starting point for a career. Something everyone can point back to and say 'I did that too' (frequently with laughter). This makes it much easier to continue training in the technical fields that come later.

At this point in time it is simply silly to talk about the draft unless you refer to another country. The military employs no such thing. It is an all volunteer force. We could have another discussion on things like stop loss etc. Points can be made there, but the draft scenario at current time does not warrant serious discussion.

You are right about how a group would respond to a recruit who said he was going fishing. First, he is violating his contract and word. He actually voluntarily swore an oath to behave in a certain way. What value is a contract or a person's word if they do not honor it. Secondly, he is letting people down who depend on him. This would be no different than if Peyton Manning said he wanted to go fishing on Sunday afternoon. In fact, I can think of few employers who wouldn't respond negatively to someone announcing he wanted to go fishing rather than fulfill his obligations.

To frequently on libertarian sites the military is viewed in a way that would never be applied to another organization. I speak of the lack of acceptance that it is a voluntary arrangement, there is a contract, that somehow people libertarians would treat as adults in all other situations are now children who should be shielded from evil recruiters etc. I hope in the future you will at least speak more honestly or more informed when making the comparison between the military and other organizations.