I can't testify to the truth of the next couple of anecdotes, but they will set a context. It was said that when a flight attendant asked Oprah, sitting in the window seat, a question, her personal attendant, on the aisle, said "Ms. Winfrey does not speak to flight attendants". Calmly, the flight attendant cited the Federal Aviation Regulations about following flight crew directions and not interfering with them, saying "And people who won't speak with flight attendants do get to speak to FBI agents, at a special stop if necessary."

It was rumored that some junior staff of the Clinton Administration huffily turned away from senior generals, saying "I don't speak to the military." While I had thought that a canard, I am seeing a bit of that right here at TPMcafe. The belief, of some, seems to be that anything military is evil.

In the specific, a reference was made to a regular unit of the US Army as "mercenaries". That's a word that's thrown around a lot, sometimes with amazing imprecision. Now, it was quite clear by the Geneva Protocols and other international agreements that uniformed, lawful combatants, citizens of the country for which they fight, are not mercenaries. While I am aware the United States has not ratified the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (GC) of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977:

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Occasionally, I see people posting that people join the military for the pay and benefits, meager that they be. There are different motivations involved in enlisting and in fighting, but, for the US military, pay and benefits aren't major motivators. Especially in technical jobs, education may be a motivator.

I happen to know a lot of soldiers, as well as people in the other branches. Offhand, I can't think of one that doesn't regard his or her oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." There are additional, often unwritten commitments as strong as oaths. Some, such as the slime at Abu Ghraib, dishonor the traditions, and it's hard to find civilians with such knowledgeable contempt.

The all-volunteer Army is different than one with draftees. One interesting comparison comes from the comparison of the withdrawal, from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea, by the 1st Marine Division and the Army's Task Force Faith. The Marines left no one behind and, fighting all the way, finally marched, not walked, into a safe area. TF Faith was destroyed, because, in part, it didn't have the unit cohesion characteristic of a volunteer unit.

I often hear people here suggesting the military should disobey unwise orders from civilian policymakers, but is that a wise tradition to develop in a military? Would such actions tend to make the military less subservient to the Constitution? And yes, it is possible to decline to obey an unlawful order, but the lawfulness of an order, especially issued by the President from data not shared with the senior military, can be hard to determine.

I can think of professional soldiers that are utterly revolted by such things as flag burning -- yet absolutely defend the right to do so. When someone claimed, the other day, that soldiers have no knowledge of history and culture, the first three senior officers that came to mind all have doctorates in history or a related field. It isn't just generals -- the finest Byzantine and Ottoman scholar I know is a sergeant.

The United States has had the great fortune of being guarded by large oceans and generally friendly neighboring countries. Other countries have been more threatened, but sometimes it is the military that defends liberal democracy. While I don't think soldiers exclusively grant freedom, they are an important part. There's some exaggeration in the quote below from

Charles Michael Province, but there's also considerable truth.

It is the Soldier, not the minister

Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter

Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet

Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer

Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer

Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician

Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,

Who serves beneath the flag,

And whose coffin is draped by the flag,

Who allows the protester to burn the flag.