I was asking/am asking for an elaboration on #5 only.
I think I have an idea of what you mean by it, but it might be better if you spelled out exactly what you're saying with #5, so that I don't misinterpret it. I don't want to put words in your mouth on that one, or paraphrase it unfairly.
Effective militaries require people who follow orders. Ours in particular functions with a bit of honor, but still it is full of people who have been indoctrinated to (and should) follow orders. Acting as an individual can be very detrimental to the group. This loss of individuality should not be a problem, because in effect we have not lost our individuality through the proxy of our civilian leadership. If the civilian leadership of this country (the elected POTUS and elected members of congress) decide that a thing is in the interest of the people then we should be able to trust this. If the civilian leadership is telling the military to do something it shouldn't, then the citizens should vote those elected persons out of office. No matter who the Commander in Chief is the volunteer members of the military have taken an oath to obey them, and they will. What I'm trying to say is if you want the military to be different, tell the civilian leadership, don't tell the soldiers at the bottom.
>What I'm trying to say is if you want the military to be different, tell the civilian leadership, don't tell the soldiers at the bottom.
What if the circumstances arise that the civilian leadership and the process to get them elected is not effective for the (majority) people, will the military step up for the people (like it has in Turkey throughout history on occasions, or what like what is going on in Brazil)? Maybe what I am asking is: are there cases where "effective militaries" would be enabled/allowed to circumvent traditional civilian leadership?
(I do not believe this is the case [yet] in the United States since the majority seems complicit [perhaps passively] with the actions of its civilian leadership.)
