A question that’s going the rounds on the Internet is as follows:
“Why has no one been able to explain to me why youg men and women serving in the British, Canadian, Australian or US Military for 20 years only get up to 50% of their pay on retirement, while politicians who hold their position receive full pay after serving one term?”
The answer is that all young people from the age of puberty — often a confused and directionless puberty — until the age of about 30 while their brains are developing are eager to enter the adult world. In order to make out and be accepted during this period they are highly biddable by the adult world, and are inevitably exploited in all sorts of ways.
Underlying all that there is in any case a powerful instinct of loyalty to the culture in which one was brought up as a child. Above it all is that the defence of one’s own culture is paramount and can easily by elicited by the social elite for some reason, whether a genuine need for defence or merely a pretext.
In normal times, it is thus relatively easy for young people to be recruited. Once in the armed services, a high degree of mental conditioning is maintained and few questions are asked about terms and conditions of service as is normal in non-military jobs.
It is interesting why the question is now arising. It never used to be. It is probably much to do with the increasing lack of credibility in the nation state. This reveals itself in non-voting by young ;people at general election times but, also, to the extreme difficulty that all advanced governments are now experiencing in recruiting enough young people for their armed services.