
From Army of One to Band of Tweeters - tkschneider
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/opinion/from-army-of-one-to-band-of-tweeters.html
======
Jtsummers
It's not just in military situations. The ability to communicate globally,
almost trivially maintaining connections to people you knew a decade or more
ago, is fantastic. However, it also leads to people not forming new bonds in
their current environment. Or at least not significant bonds.

I was in college when IM was still hot, before Facebook existed and continued
on through grad school by which time it and Twitter had exploded. Over the
years, the community at the universities changed. Students became more and
more distant from each other, with less emphasis on social activities with
those locally available to them. I've observed the same after nearly a decade
in the workforce. The different attitudes, based primarily on age since social
media use corresponds highly with age, is astounding. 40+ year olds are far
more invested in ideas like office social events, group lunches or fun days,
as a way to form bonds and also relax. 30-40 is pretty mixed. Under 30, they
don't get it. They may show up, but they're only physically, and not mentally,
present. It's really frustrating to try and bring people into a group and get
them to function as a team when they're virtually incapable of communicating
and connecting with those around them.

~~~
azernik
Not incapable. Just not interested. If you have a healthy social life outside
of work (ie you're still in touch with old friends, and whenever they move
close enough you know it and can rekindle the friendship), why do you need to
invest so much in a work-centered social circle?

~~~
Jtsummers
I missed your parenthetical earlier.

> you're still in touch with old friends, and whenever they move close enough
> you know it and can rekindle the friendship

This is a big if. I'm speaking of people who have moved across the country or
state, and where the likelihood of this is near zero. The only way they'll
rekindle the friendship (specifically being physically local) is if they move
back themselves, rather than waiting for their friends to move to them.

~~~
azernik
Well, I'm in the Bay Area and grew up in LA, so the drift is very prounounced.
People at my old workplace who came from farther afield (e.g. Canada or the
East Coast) tended to take a lot more initiative in socializing at work.

------
cryoshon
This reminds me of the time when an officer in the Navy invited me to fight
him because I was against the Iraq War via Facebook in 2008. I wonder if that
officer was demoralized to hear that the public was not supporting them during
the war.

I think the article has a point regarding soldier morale. It's hard enough to
maintain morale when fighting in foreign lands for no real cause, and close
communications with home will definitely communicate the message that the
public largely doesn't care about the wars or the soldiers fighting it. On the
bright side, now soldiers can come back from patrols and watch cute cat
videos. I assume this has a positive effect.

~~~
maxxxxx
I wish there was a good way to make it clear to the troops that even though
you don't support their mission you still support them. Often cancelling a
useless mission is the best way to support them.

The "Support the troops" movement is a perfect way for politicians to hide
behind the troops to suppress any criticism.

~~~
Jtsummers
> The "Support the troops" movement is a perfect way for politicians to hide
> behind the troops to suppress any criticism.

As long as you have an American flag on your lapel, you're a patriot and above
reproach.

------
jbob2000
Or you know, quit doing massive military deployments with nebulous goals,
requiring people to be stationed abroad for years. Obama has it right; lots of
intelligence, then a small, very focused mission to act on the intelligence.

~~~
cryoshon
Except that these small missions sprawl when they fail, and never end because
they're too small. The goals are still nebulous.

We still have soldiers in Okinawa.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
So you're implying the 1945 invasion of Okinawa was nebulous?

~~~
cryoshon
Nah, WW2 era occupations were anything but nebulously defined. Just reminding
people that the US never honors its promises when it comes to withdrawal.

EDIT: I'll admit that the first Okinawa comment wasn't entirely thought out.

~~~
linkregister
I agree that WW2 era occupations were fairly nebulously-defined. However, the
"US never honors its promises when it comes to withdrawal" is a gross
mischaracterisation.

The U.S. military base system on Okinawa is a part of a bilateral agreement
with the Japanese government. Although unpopular with Okinawans, multiple
successive Tokyo governments have approved expansions to the original bases,
including one this year. [1]

To my knowledge the only forcibly-held U.S. base is the one in Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba.

[1] [http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21674839-okinawa-takes-
go...](http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21674839-okinawa-takes-governments-
japan-and-america-island-warrior)

------
dang
Url changed from [https://fcw.com/blogs/lectern/2015/11/kelman-facebook-
milita...](https://fcw.com/blogs/lectern/2015/11/kelman-facebook-
military.aspx?s=fcwdaily_101115), which points to this.

