During COVID there were no jobs to earn enough money to live, so I attempted to join the officer corps. Unfortunately, I also received a bipolar diagnosis at the same time. Cool, Graham Greene was bipolar; I can work with this, I said to myself. The recruitment officer did not make an exception for me though. No skin off my back.
A few years later, I was speaking with a young man. “I have to pass the entrance exam for business school or they’re going to make me join the military”, he lamented. “So what?”, I asked in return.
When I was younger it was a matter of 1) being gay and unwelcome, and 2) my belief that US Military action demonstrated a pattern of being morally, logically, and strategically unfounded. Later in my career as a political scientist with graduate training, I determined that becoming a professional military officer might be a way of becoming a leader for change within an organization and a country.
Yes, all institutions have means through which even the most idealistic and strong-willed individuals are disciplined to reproduce the institution and its prior values, procedures, and structure. This is truer for the military as a form than for any other type of organization. Military service is a path of submission to hierarchical command with extreme mechanisms of control.
However, even within any given country’s military apparatus at discrete time X, disagreements exist, contention occurs, and significant decisions are made under pressure. People choose not to execute a nuclear command. Generals challenge their commander-in-chief. Units on the ground detect and neutralize threats before commanders and populations even become aware of them.
Meanwhile, militaries around the world have a dark past and present that tends to dissuade a significant number of people from joining, especially those from families and communities that have opposed past and present actions. This reduces the influx of contentious thought in the long run (retrievable perspective one can draw upon when they reach the other side of socialization, professionalization, and the career path to leadership) and makes continuity of an institution’s current path more likely. In the case of the US military, the path our country is on has consistently unfolded despite alternatives to war.
Yes, the threats we face are dark too, but we have always had other options, ones that would have strengthened US legitimacy as a world leader, not because we abuse power to induce dependency and instill fear, but because we offer value that people want even when they do not need us.
Thus, I wonder whether some people might decide to make a shift from conscientious objection to conscientious participation. It is a bit late for me now (though i am seeking additional clients), but what about the coming generations? Rather than steering youth away, perhaps we can incentivize a generation of future military leaders who will develop mutually assured satisfaction within a world of increased trust and cooperation. Maybe universal nuclear disarmament becomes a shared demand from within leaderships seeking to establish national and world security.
Ultimately, the wager is that rather than encouraging more bipolarity—the community of staunch support versus those who seek the destruction of the institution—an influx of idealists who similarly desire peace, stability, and prosperity for their country might be the most transformational force for a new path forward.
Please note: the issue is not merely for military recruiters to consider, but also for those having discussions in career centers and homes where many idealists are steered away from military careers at a young age.
P.S. My bipolar diagnosis may or may not be the truth. Maybe it is just anxiety with a dash of psychosis. Who knows… Psychology is a soft science, but I work hard and smart regardless of the challenges, and I always will.
Teliost Language Services 