In a Democracy should not the military be Democratic?

Question

In a Democracy should not the military be Democratic?

Should military personnel (soldiers, sailors, etc) be thoroughly informed of the complete details of a proposed war so that an individual, inteligent decision can made, then allowed to vote to participate in the fight? If the majority votes in favor,THAT majority goes to the war, instead .of the participation being arbitrarily dictated by those who would send them and not participate.

Relevant Reading

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Answer 1

In other words, should we allow an armed mob to roam the country or world to attack anyone or anything they feel justified to attack?

No, I don't think so. Pretty sure "bully rule" is part of what America was founded to protect against.

Oh, and should we assume that those who did not "vote" for it should not receive the benefits that the conflict was designed to obtain or protect, like freedom (Revolutionary war, War of 1812), or soverignty (WWII), to name a few. Heck let's get real. When oil starts flowing from Iraq, would participants have the right to withhold it from non-participants? (I've got to admit, that would be interesting!) Exactly how would you prevent non-participants from selfishly reaping unearned profits and freedoms from the sacrifices of those who did fight?

Answer 2

Of course that would be ideal. But actually the democracy if operated correctly our government that makes the decisions are the people we elected and they represent us. We vote for them to be the elect to vote on issues. Unfortuately The Elect at the time on the War on Terror did not represent or vote the way the majority of Americans can feel.

Answer 3

To properly understand this compelling question (which may appear as a dillemma in our democratic society), it is useful to consider the proper role and limits of democracy.

A simple answer might be that the military IS democratic, in as much as it is composed of self-selected, professional volunteer soldiers who are informed beforehand, albeit in a general way-- of the risk of death in war, the necessary sacrifices, and knowledge of current world trends and events (the latter often being the reason that soldiers choose to be soldiers, instead of something else). Once one has "democratically elected oneself" to be a soldier, is it then unjust that the voting and referendums should not continue to the battlefield?

I answer that ANY profession or human activity that is charactarized by organization of people in view of achieving a goal inherently contains elements of heirarchy and "chain of command" more often associated with monarchical governments. Such power structures are based upon the authority of competent individuals (which is highly efficient) rather than the general "will of the people" (which is highly inefficient under certain circumstances). This is also true of any private company, where leaders are frequently entrusted with authority that is not subject to vote. Even riding a public bus assumes confidence in a competent authority in view of a particular end ("the bus driver will get me to where I want to go).

I argue that it is too simplistic to view any organized society (military or otherwise) in terms of one SINGLE system of government. In reality, authority functions democratically (rule by the most), aristocratically (rule by the best), and monarchicly (rule by the one) at the same time, in an interwoven fashion in all healthy societies. We in America put a very strong emphasis on the democratic, so much so that we forget the important ways that the other "governments" work in our everyday lives.

The heirarchical and "non-democratic" structure of the military works for several reasons:
A) The discipline necessary for the tasks to be accomplished-- democracy promotes a general sense of well being; direct rule by competent leaders promotes fitness, readiness, and excellence often at the expense of some personal well-being.

B) The gravity of the tasks undertaken by military personel-- often requiring the efficiency of direct leadership necessary in split-second, life and death scenarios.

C) Authority, when too evenly distributed, greatly reduces the possibility of STRATEGICAL thought, which depends on one mind (or just a few) being capable of directing a whole body based upon relevant data in view of some goal.

D) A more extreme form of government is able to defend a more relaxed form of government (to the death, if necessary). This is easily seen by analogy: An intruder enters a home with intent to kill or harm its owner. While the general good of the owner may be best served democratically (his bodily members might choose or "vote" to be at rest) the situation calls for absolute (extreme monarchical) rule by his mind, which knows that a course of action must be followed, regardless of feelings of tiredness for example. Now it would be ridiculous and contradictory for a man to live without rest and general well being at home (democracy), ONLY to ask himself how achieve general well being (calling a referendum) when threatened by danger!

In conclusion, a healthy society is charactarized by a mixture of democratic, aristocratic, and monarchical elements (often with one as the official tradition or ephasized form, i.e. democracy in America). Within any society, each form may justly be emphasized over the others in proportion to the task at hand (threat of destruction, building project for the general good, a sporting goal to be achieved, etc.) Lastly, our democracy, which is a democratic republic, is poorly understood in today's popular culture: it is not a form of government whose goal is that each man lead himself at all times, but that he is able (at regular intervals) to choose his leaders.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Answer 4

read some books. that's right, get off the internet and read some books.

and first off read the definition of democracy and republic.

the usa is not a democrcy, it is a republic. don't they teach this in school anymore?

Answer 5

ROFL...LOL oh man did you escape from the daily koz board or moveon.org? do you hear yourself? I cant believe out of 3 million sperm you were the winner.

Answer 6

How many countries would be able to survive and operate on that INSANE logic my friend?

Answer 7

Ooh. This is gonna cause a debate.