Army - Stimulating Simulation

civic virtue. There is already a raging debate
in the nation over federal government
intruding ever more deeply into
the state and local role in education. National
civics training would generate
even more controversy. Indeed, that is
just what happened when Truman proposed
Universal Military Training. Reacting
to the proposal, historian Charles
Beard told Congress that it would “violate
every liberty to which our nation has
been dedicated” since its foundation.
During the anxious years of the early
Cold War, the Army tried to take a
greater role in engineering patriotism
among service members to prepare them
for the long struggle against communism.
Despite the best of intentions, the
results were largely a disaster, Lori L.
Bogle concludes in The Pentagon’s Battle
for the American Mind. The Army abandoned
the program after it became apparent
its impact was to spur the formation
of right-wing activist groups at
some military installations.
There were many reasons the program
bogged down, including controversies
over what to teach and how
to teach it. Without question, a federal
program that sought to take on the responsibility
of inculcating civic virtue
would face similar challenges.
Finally, a debate on national service
can’t be held without considering fiscal
issues. Will youth displace federal workers?
Will they compete with nonprofits
and philanthropic organizations? What
costs would a national program incur? In
a 2013 study of the demise of Universal
Military Training, historian John Sager
noted that once the potential costs of the
program became apparent, congressional
support for the notion diminished.
Is there a need to build greater civic
virtue among future generations? That’s a
debate well worth having. But rather than
start with an answer—“mandatory service
for all”—there ought to be a much broader
discussion of what is to be accomplished
and the options for achieving those goals.
Faith, family, education, physical fitness
and mentoring all play a role in building
better citizens. Why aren’t these practices
and institutions front and center in the
conversation of what produces the most
virtuous citizen?
■
Lt. Col. James Jay Carafano, USA Ret., a
25-year Army veteran, is a Heritage
Foundation vice president in charge of
the think tank’s policy research in defense
and foreign affairs.
Bond of Brothers
Infantrymen Stand Alone but Are Uniquely United
By Col. Keith Nightingale, U.S. Army retired
The media reports daily on actions in
Fallujah, Iraq; or Marjah, Afghanistan;
or Location X. These reports are
usually quite impersonal, allowing us to
ignore the humanity behind the news.
But at every location, named and unnamed,
mortality is a daily and instantaneous
issue, and the reason for the report
is usually the actions of an infantryman.
The people behind those humanless
reports have borne our national bayonet
since our founding. They have a name.
They are a person. They are us.
We owe them the decency and courtesy
to try and understand who they are,
though we may not know their names
other than as a group: combat soldiers,
infantrymen, grunts. Why they do what
they do is because of their commitment
to us. That is one of our greatest national
strengths, misunderstood and underappreciated
as it may be.
Unlike the rest of our nation, the infantryman
has no race, color, creed or
specific origin. He is totally colorless and
transparent. He has become a unique entity
called “infantry.” This is a transformation
he will retain the rest of his life,
regardless of external attempts to recover
and remold him to whatever niche people
may have assigned to him before.
He and his brothers were thrown into
a group that never would have naturally
coalesced in our society. They have been
bonded and transformed by their mutual
environment and become a family that
will transcend any future noncombat relationships.
He and they are a unique society
open only to themselves.
One percent of our nation’s population
supports 100 percent of the present
military structure. This is truly a small
band of brothers and sisters that we
send off to preserve whatever national
interest du jour may arise. Though it is
ostensibly open to all, the people who
populate the very small percent of the 1
percent that we call infantry are a
unique set of Americans.
While we owe them immeasurable reward—and
we consistently say that—we
probably do not really understand them.
They are different, unique onto themselves
and a true cult. Their experience in
this microcosm of America is relatively
short but forever changes them. When
they assimilate back into the 99 percent,
much of what they have become will go
with them, albeit subliminally.
The infantryman has no interest or
valuation in the preceding individual
makeup of his unit. His sole interest is in
the quality and reliability of the present
members. They are his insurance for return,
and he for theirs. He is remarkably
unaffected by our historic societal prejudices
but is ruthlessly judgmental about
any weak, hesitating or undedicated
member of his immediate clan. He
clearly understands teams and goes to
great lengths to ensure he is on one.
The infantryman believes that if any
self-declared enemy of America encounters
his unit, it will be the worst day in
that person’s life insofar as he and his
unit can make it. In his lexicon, someone’s
health record will get a lot thicker
or be closed out entirely.
He deeply believes it without the
slightest concern for its meaning. Mortality
of the enemy is viewed as his salvation
and managed as a common bodily
act. It’s all very simple.
Within his small unit—and all combat
is small unit—he and his companions are
immutably steadfast and consistent on
any given subject regardless of what you
March 2016 ■ ARMY 19