I read today that the soldier who had suddenly gone on a killing spree in Afghanistan had not enlisted in the army until soon after September 11th, 2001, at the age of 27. Staying for multiple tours, he was about thirty years old when he committed that mass shooting that's on the news. That's a full decade older than the average, straight-from-high-school-graduation, armed forces volunteer. Was his breakdown from 'darn good soldier' to murderous psychopath more or less likely, given his age?

I've posted other articles concerning the learning-enabled 'young brain' in contrast to the parenting-enabled 'mature brain', so I won't repeat them here. But it was in my mind the moment I heard about the slaughter—was this a probability for any soldier of Sgt. Bales's relative seniority? Is this proof that even greater mental harm is avoided by training and deploying predominately young people, who still have the adaptability and resilience of a younger, learning-oriented mind? Are adults too sedentary to be of use in battle? Should there be regulation of a maximum age for combat troops?

I always feel a little derided whenever the Shakespeare play "Henry V" gets to Act 4, Scene 3:

" We ... brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

...

And gentlemen in England now a-bed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us..."

Now, I'm proud to have been born in 1956, which made me one of the very first generation of Americans that could go from child to man without being forced into military service. And I'm not speaking only of the end of the Draft in 1973, which made my eighteenth birthday (in 1974) a very happy birthday, rather than a death knell.

I'm talking about the "No Nukes" movements of the 1950s and 1960s and the Peace protestors that followed them in condemning War, a cultural staple in days of yore but, as of the mechanized and atomic age of post-WWII, too great a danger to Mankind as a species and Earth as a whole. The communities of the past expected warrior-like training and service to the homeland to be as much a part of maturation as puberty. A boy who shirked this test was not ignored by his neighbors—he was condemned as a coward and weakling. The concept of a man reaching adulthood without military enlistment of any kind is only a handful of decades old—and in many countries, military service is still a mandatory step towards adulthood.

The sentiment of Shakespeare's Henry V is still a very real thing--I don't think less of myself for being a non-soldier, but I hold no illusions as to how veterans of Afghanistan would view me—an ignoramus who can never know what battle is and never bond with anyone as comrades-in-arms bond. I can't argue—it's perfectly true. The fact that I don't want to know those things is my own personal opinion, and doesn't count.

I wouldn't have made a good soldier—and being a bad soldier is a great way to get killed—so I probably avoided a quick death in Viet Nam by not being drafted. Not that dying is something I'm stupid enough to try and avoid--I've always been fatalistic that way—but I would have been miserable for all the time up to my falling dead in a far off jungle. The Army (Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard) lost nothing valuable by my demurring to serve—I was (and am) too nerdy to be good in a fight.

As a boy, I got in a few fights--they always left me shaking and crying, whether I won or lost—in fact, I was more traumatized and horrified by winning than by losing. I'm a very sensitive guy. So I'm only surprised that the mental and emotional damage of combat isn't more unanimous—people of my ilk would never be up for battle number two—you'd need a new army for every battle. I think it's safe to assume that a happy childhood is a terrible preface to serving in the military—those with a penchant for 'mixing it up' are much better suited to institutions of team death-sport. But there's always that element of Patriotism, a la "Born On The Fourth Of July", which proud, starry-eyed boys are so vulnerable to.

I'm not against patriotism, though. I feel very loyal to the USA. But here in the twenty-first century, I can't help but think my patriotism would be best expressed by finding alternatives to armed combat, not participating in it. The whole idea of two groups of near-identical people shooting at each other, tearing each other apart with zipping bits of metal and explosions—am I the only one who finds this just a bit primitive?

We outlawed corporal punishment in public schools, now we are trying to end bullying in school. We have our kids inoculated against the major health risks for which we have immunization. We have our children's diets overseen by the FDA and the Dept. of Agriculture. The local school boards debate the cafeteria lunches served in schools. We treasure and protect our children with every ounce of parental will—is it for this? Is it to make them good killers, good corpses, good PTSD patients?

Yes, savagery exists. Yes, the USA can't just throw out its armed forces. But it is long past time when National Defense should focus squarely on the causes of armed conflict and defends against those causes--not to wait until it's already a fistfight.

Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex—and now we know why. There’s big money in arms. Whole communities live off of governmental military contracts and service bases throughout the nation. Our lives, our culture, our country—all are unbreakably linked to the business of war. Our economy always surges during war-time—imagine the nose-dive it would take if we stopped designing, manufacturing, and selling arms and equipment, and if we closed all military bases and discharged every service-person!

The unemployment hit alone would be massive. And it might surprise us to find out how much of our Capitalist Eden depends on making war.