Soldiers Who Become Generals

It is no secret that war is a big aspect of this world. I have heard of wars fought in the name of sovereignty, and I have heard of wars fought in the name of freedom. But what happens to young soldiers who become old generals? Unable to fight in the field any longer, yet still having spent their whole lives surviving war, learning war, and being employed as a man paid to fight against another for the sake of some noble cause - does it not make sense to conclude that young soldiers who become old generals fight wars only for the sake of continuing their occupation in life? Do not lawyers seek to become judges? And officers, generals? And sports-man, coaches? And even the student the teacher? Or the pupil, the master? Is it not simply an effect of growing old that the men who know only war, wage war as if they were a teacher to a pupil, or a judge to a lawyer? To this effect, is it not obvious when conspiracy theorists talk about the modern economy of warfare that we have the financial interests of old war generals guiding our young into a path and a tradition that has been walked on for thousands of years? Are these questions mainly rhetorical?

[Scott]

I doubt it because as I understand it ex-military have a lot of employment options out of the military as they are valued highly in the job market and known for their solid training and personal discipline. In fact, as I understand it, many people join the military precisely as a method for gaining training and an entryway for the future desired career out of the military. Also, at least in the USA, many people are enlisted in the military specifically as officers in training while even the lowest ranking soldiers are as far as I know eligible for retirement after merely 20 years or so which is significantly less than the average time in the private sector and still before they are too old to do anything but be a general.

Well. Yes. Right. Many students do not become teachers. But what I mean is that the generals in the world; the high ranking officials who govern the war in terms of strategy; are these men not like the former hockey players of the world who have gone on to become very good hockey coaches?

If indeed those young soldiers remain and become old generals with influence in the military, it is quite possible that their lifetime of training for war, and their adult life being based around war as well as they career depending on war, that they would seek to continue their careers, their ways of living.
With these people in influential positions, I believe it much more likely that they would pursue more conflict, unless also softened by age; for we see often that the young and courageous and bold are those who use the softened older decision-makers to influence their younger more heated desires. a metaphor may be when a child would want to purchase a pointless (to the parent at least) toy, but the parent is manipulated into giving the child the ability to purchase the toy anyways. What I seek to say here is this: If the old general that you described is in a position of power, the young career-seekers are a much greater worry for raising conflict.
-Amakatura Murou

It is no secret that war is a big aspect of this world. I have heard of wars fought in the name of sovereignty, and I have heard of wars fought in the name of freedom. But what happens to young soldiers who become old generals? Unable to fight in the field any longer, yet still having spent their whole lives surviving war, learning war, and being employed as a man paid to fight against another for the sake of some noble cause - does it not make sense to conclude that young soldiers who become old generals fight wars only for the sake of continuing their occupation in life? Do not lawyers seek to become judges? And officers, generals? And sports-man, coaches? And even the student the teacher? Or the pupil, the master? Is it not simply an effect of growing old that the men who know only war, wage war as if they were a teacher to a pupil, or a judge to a lawyer? To this effect, is it not obvious when conspiracy theorists talk about the modern economy of warfare that we have the financial interests of old war generals guiding our young into a path and a tradition that has been walked on for thousands of years? Are these questions mainly rhetorical?

That is an empirical question, and since you asking "yes/no"-questions and implying that they should be answered with the first I want to add that it is most likely false that generals just want to continue their tradition of war. Further, it might not be very relevant to look into it, since generals don't start wars unless you live in a military regime. Oh, and no, the questions are not rhetorical but guiding, so they are examples of nasty rhetorics, but not instances of what is called rhetorical questions.

Phwhoa!!! Sorry about that. I should have just posited it all as a matter of opinion, I guess. Listen. It simply occurred to me that old men with army backgrounds, who rise to the rank of general, are essentially wasting their lives away (as they perceive it), unless they are waging a war. And who better to wage a war than a soldier who has survived many and knows the ins and outs?

Scott managed to see past the "yes/no" reply and gave his opinion. I see you were able to as well, despite contradicting your self here. Is it an empirical yes or no question, or is it not? Make up your mind. If you didn't think I was interested in your opinion when writing the post, why did you waste your time adding one to the thread?

To dismiss me, I suppose. Brow beat me.

Anyhow. Your opinion. "Might not be relevant to look into...unless you live in a military regime".Ah! Here. Doesn't everyone live in a military regime?

You know what. You're right. Don't answer that. My rhetorical guiding isn't relevant. The world may be close to a plunge into the war over Isaac versus Ishmael. So, you're right. The question is not worth looking into. There may be another war impending that will involve the whole world. And it doesn't matter, really - if its a business matter.

Let me ask you something more relevant? What is the cause or causes for the impending doom over in the middle east?

Otherwise, apart from this reality, I disagree. I think on a fundamental level the old men who occupy military positions in government wage wars because; they think they're good at it; they've earned the right to; and it's in everyone's best interests.

And in my opinion we all live in military regimes. Think of the Kennedy assassination. His life was taken away because he wasn't interested in a war over Vietnam or a take over in Cuba (with the subsequent war of Russia).

If the president of a country is eliminated by people inside his cabinet because he opposes outside wars on a fundamental level of higher principle, what kind of governing rule does that country reside under?

It is an empirical question, and it is also a yes/no question. I was not brow beating you. I simply think the question isn't very philosophical. I mean, there are many political reasons for having a military. Further, most western countries have governments that function independently of the military, so the generals wont just wage wars. The question is thus more or less irrelevant to us. But if we take it on its own premisses it is still impossible to answer in a philosophical manner. A general is just a person. And though there might be psychological research supporting one or another generalized opinion, ultimately it is an empirical question how generals will use their power. And you asked yourself if the questions are rhetorical. I said they are guiding the reader, which is a rhetorical trick. But they are not rhetorical questions. No hate. Cheers.

Okay. Well. I'll try to reframe the question, if it is not very philosophical. The philosophical aspect of it is rudimentary. It is the ethical question of how we go about living our lives. So, it is - in a way, a matter of social philosophy. Does being a soldier in the military contribute later in life to the choices a man in the position of a general makes? Or in a more political way, are the causes of war the inherited social behaviors of men who are growing old?

As you say, yes, there are many political reasons for having a military.

I suppose if one were to try and simplify them, he or she would go as far back as the agricultural revolution and start to make a few presumptions here and there about how people were accustomed to growing food on land and how this became a problem in light of the violent tendencies of maraudering bandits, or murderous transient nomads.

The protection of land seems to be the foremost reason that a peaceful society would organize one part of itself into a band of soldiers. If we can assume this much, then there's no reason not to assume that we, or these 'kinds' of people, would at once have themselves a sort of military establishment with a set of military leaders.

Lets just say these leaders would have the political objective of their part of the governing-body to "protect the land of the people" and the people also. So, I am here rendering a simplification of the principle reasons for having a military. So there's a bit of meandering empirical wizardry in all of this. So, for what?

To say that in spite of the political reasons, a man of war remains a man of war. And if war is all he knows, then war is all he does. But if he cannot make war in the way he did as a youth, he may - at least, use his knowledge of war to extend the life of his career.

So, my point, philosophically speaking, is that - in general, young men attempt to further their careers in life by taking up higher ranking positions in the same field of work. That is the way in which I view a man's relation to his work in my field of opinion.

I view this to be the nature of a man and his work in the philosophical sense. So, it actually is possible to address this matter philosophically by bringing up the question of how a man lives through his work and if this extends to the military and if it has implications on the social aspects of waging war.

Is it or is not the case that as we men and women grow older we attempt to bring our aging bodies into positions of higher authority? Does this extend to the waging of war?

It's not "very" philosophical; true enough. But I think people grapple with the underlying meaning of their life in view of what they do with it.

If you are born into a world where your primary function in life is to fry hamburgers eight hours a day, three days a week, and then wash cars for the remainder of the week, does this or does this not have an existential effect on society as a whole?

It is obvious that jobs are becoming less related to the survival of a person. Life has transcended meaninglessness into chaos. Meaninglessness was a bad enough state for the workers of the world to be in with regards to their work, but is chaos even worse? Should we prefer a job which bears no relation to our survival? Or should we prefer a job that bears no relation to our lives?

How does chaos make itself known to the ethical meaning of a person's life? A meaningless job used to mean being depressed about accomplishing nothing. Now the jobs in life are beyond meaningless. They are meaningless, but also more than that. How would you describe them?

I can't think of the right word to describe this act we are now playing in the world. Our lives have gone from the meanninglessness of the existential era, to what I presume was the 'other thing' of the post-modernist era, into what we have now. Are we all headed for social suicide, and is the extension of man's war making tendency the means by which we will all accomplish it?

Okay, I think I see where you are going. Basically, to put it in supercompressedmode, we want to test the hypothesis that:

Soldier with battle experience grows war lust --> soldier becomes general with warlust --> general reinforces war tradition --> new soldier with battle experience grows war lust etc.etc.etc.

I still think it is mostly an empirical question. If we confirm the hypothesis, then it has philosophical consequences, since war and most other things have moral consequences. But again, I think the military has security mechanisms too. Since it is ultimately subsumed under the government, and since the government to some extend obeys its people, military will indirectly take general orders from the people. Further: even if a general wants war, he wont get it if he lives in a democratic society. One of the basic points of liberal democracy is to cancel out the use of a praxis, such as being a general, for ones own personal goals. What I mean is that even the general must justify his actions, otherwise he is going rougue. So his "missions" are determined by politics, and politics obey the people within the limits of the constitution. Of no liberal democracy is perfect, but the very reason for having that sort of system is precisely to minimize the impact of the personal temper of, for instance, any given general. So your question does have philosophical relevance after all. I was too quick. It is the general question of how to minimize egocentric abuse of an institution as a member of its praxis, right?

Discards,

War was a big aspect to this world, war has changed though. No longer are massive campaigns the most effective means of gaining control. In todays world, war is a matter of business where mercenaries do the important work. War isn't tolerated among nations anymore by enlarge, the wars we have now are for control of resources. The generals profession will eventually fall into antiquity. The executives that run corporations will take their place.

People generally stay on the path that they have developed the most. That doesn't mean they have to. There are a plethora of people that change their fields of work after awhile.

I think on a fundamental level the old men who occupy military positions in government wage wars because; they think they're good at it; they've earned the right to; and it's in everyone's best interests.

This is relevant as well as "living in a military regime" because it represents a natural hierarchy of society. The military forces are just one example, and in some cases a very influential example in the other areas of society.
-AM