I found this article by Christopher Sims at Modern War Institute very thought-provoking. For example, there’s this:
Given that the average age for enlistment into the United States Army is twenty and the average age of deployed personnel is thirty-three, digital natives are now the primary demographic cohort that will be charged with training for and fighting wars on behalf of the nation-state.
What that tells us is that the U. S. military is making an historic transition in age cohorts. Due to the mandatory retirement age, there is necessarily a transition from the Baby Boomers who have led our military for some time to members of the Generation X cohort. I do not know what the implications of that may be.
I find the author’s use of the word “nation-state” problematic. My understanding is that a nation-state is a country in which ethnicity and citizenship are identical. Hungary is a nation-state. The United States is not and never has been. China is presently a multi-ethnic empire that, apparently, aspires to be a nation-state. Russia is not.
I’m also not sure what he means by “legitimacy”:
Many challenges digital natives face will diminish the legitimacy of the state.
I don’t think he means “legitimacy”. I think he means authenticity. I do not know what the background of the author is but he sounds like a Brit. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland isn’t a nation-state, either, as any Scot or Welshman would tell you. Any crisis of legitimacy it faces is more due to the disdain the elected leaders there rather obviously have for the people who elected them than to a generational shift from non-“digital natives” to “digital natives”.
He certainly succeeds in shaking any confidence I had in the fundamental competence of “digital natives”. Isn’t the lesson of the example he cites that being highly connected may also render you irrationally apprehensive?
Read the whole thing.
Just another slicer and dicer trying to make a stew from thin gruel. There are no “generations”, pretty much the same number of people are born each year. The military comprises a very small, self selecting portion of the public that does not strongly reflect the popular culture, at least as defined by the chattering class.
It’s already happened. The vast majority of military personnel are forced out after 30 years of service – most leave long before that (I retired after 23 years and my wife after 22). The only exceptions are a few General officers but even they have to be out by age 64. So at this point, only those in the highest ranks, who’ve not yet retired are Boomers.
That’s sort of my point. The very youngest Baby Boomers will turn 64 in what, 2027? Let’s look at the Joint Chiefs:
Gen. Dunford (born 1955)
Gen. Selva (born 1958)
Gen. Milley (born 1958)
Gen. Berger (born 1959)
Adm. Richardson (born 1959)
Gen. Goldfein (born 1959)
Gen. Lengyel (born 1959)
They’re all Baby Boomers as I would assume that much of next tier down are as well. The present Joint Chiefs basically have 3-5 years until retirement. My guess is that the topmost echelon of all services will be Baby Boomers for another eight years. Clearly, the transition has started but it’s just underway. I think we have yet to realize the complete impact.
historic transition historic transition in age cohorts
You want young people, mostly. For the enlisted, there are time-in-rank limits. You get promoted, or you get out. You do not want 40 year old Lance Corporals.
The biggest loss is combat experience. Each rank has a limited number allowed, and the people who are not promoted take that knowledge with them. Unfortunately, there is no way to retain that knowledge without 40 year old Lance Corporals.
There are time-in-rank limits in the officer corps as well. IIRC O-7s who are not on the O-8 track must retire after five years.