The Super-Macho Club?
Published in Der Standard
(Austria) on 13 January 2012
by Hans Rauscher (link to original)
(Austria) on 13 January 2012
by Hans Rauscher (link to original)
Translated from
by Richard Burck.
Edited by Mark DeLucas.
Brutality and the unnecessary use of violence often go hand-in-hand with extremist and/or authoritarian attitudes.
A significant portion of the professional military of the United States is composed of individuals who cannot find their life’s purpose elsewhere and who go into the army with an affinity for weapons, violence and barbarism. This is true for most of the world’s professional militaries (to a lesser extent), even in perfectly democratic countries. When governance by the military hierarchy and policy works, such phenomena can be kept within justifiable limits.
This is often not the case with the U.S. Army, as recurring incidents have demonstrated — from the mortification of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib military prison to the cynical memos about the arbitrary murders of civilians in Iraq (revealed on WikiLeaks through a sub-officer now facing severe criminal charges) and Afghanistan to the desecration by urination of Taliban corpses killed in fighting in Afghanistan.
As long as there has been war, there has been brutalization and desecration of the dead. The actions of the U.S. soldiers are a part of this reality, as were the hanging of dead U.S. agents’ body parts from a bridge in Iraq a couple of years ago and the truck dragging, at around the same time, of several corpses through the streets of Somalia.
Still, such a thing must be rigorously prevented in the armies of democratic nations. The question is whether such brutality is more common in professional armies or in conscripted armies in democratic countries. In other words, do professional armies have a more negative selection than conscripted ones, which theoretically are more representative of the average (democratic) society? One can safely assume that an army almost completely comprised of members of a “Super-macho Club,” which contribute more to professional armies, in and of itself poses a greater risk of excessive violence.
Brutality and the unnecessary use of violence often go hand-in-hand with extremist and/or authoritarian attitudes. Incidentally, this also should be considered when thinking about establishing a professional military — like in Austria. Already, there have been such incidents in the Austrian Armed Forces — for which the offenders were, as Defense Minister Norbert Darabos credibly portrayed, quickly and tenaciously punished.
What comes from establishing a professional army, one can relatively easily predict from experience: one part organized right-wing extremists who want to purposefully infiltrate state institutions, and one part modernization’s sore losers and social misfits. Additionally, Austria is a society with a strong drift to the right, probably stronger than in comparable nations.
It is to be assumed or hoped that those in Darabos’ office thought about some of this and not just about how the (supposed) election-hit "professional army" will sort out its problems financially.
A significant portion of the professional military of the United States is composed of individuals who cannot find their life’s purpose elsewhere and who go into the army with an affinity for weapons, violence and barbarism. This is true for most of the world’s professional militaries (to a lesser extent), even in perfectly democratic countries. When governance by the military hierarchy and policy works, such phenomena can be kept within justifiable limits.
This is often not the case with the U.S. Army, as recurring incidents have demonstrated — from the mortification of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib military prison to the cynical memos about the arbitrary murders of civilians in Iraq (revealed on WikiLeaks through a sub-officer now facing severe criminal charges) and Afghanistan to the desecration by urination of Taliban corpses killed in fighting in Afghanistan.
As long as there has been war, there has been brutalization and desecration of the dead. The actions of the U.S. soldiers are a part of this reality, as were the hanging of dead U.S. agents’ body parts from a bridge in Iraq a couple of years ago and the truck dragging, at around the same time, of several corpses through the streets of Somalia.
Still, such a thing must be rigorously prevented in the armies of democratic nations. The question is whether such brutality is more common in professional armies or in conscripted armies in democratic countries. In other words, do professional armies have a more negative selection than conscripted ones, which theoretically are more representative of the average (democratic) society? One can safely assume that an army almost completely comprised of members of a “Super-macho Club,” which contribute more to professional armies, in and of itself poses a greater risk of excessive violence.
Brutality and the unnecessary use of violence often go hand-in-hand with extremist and/or authoritarian attitudes. Incidentally, this also should be considered when thinking about establishing a professional military — like in Austria. Already, there have been such incidents in the Austrian Armed Forces — for which the offenders were, as Defense Minister Norbert Darabos credibly portrayed, quickly and tenaciously punished.
What comes from establishing a professional army, one can relatively easily predict from experience: one part organized right-wing extremists who want to purposefully infiltrate state institutions, and one part modernization’s sore losers and social misfits. Additionally, Austria is a society with a strong drift to the right, probably stronger than in comparable nations.
It is to be assumed or hoped that those in Darabos’ office thought about some of this and not just about how the (supposed) election-hit "professional army" will sort out its problems financially.
Previous article![]( "The ‘Invented People’ Stand Little Chance")
Next article![]( "Suspicious American Missions in Baghdad")
