With no lack of empathy for the veterans (of all countries) and the horrible things they go through...
Don't you guys ask yourself how come you are always at war? Why you have "generations of veterans", even though you have by far the most powerful military force to ever have existed?
There is no credible conventional threat to the US, and there is no unconventional one that can be mitigated by fighting a war.
Not participating in unnecessary wars would help the mental health of soldiers much more than therapy or whatever else.
It's not like they're fighting for the survival of the US. Much of the fighting is due to some stupid idea in the head of some politician, or even in the service of corporate profits, and a lot of innocent lives get sacrificed on those altars.
If you want to support those brave service men and women, it's better to support better medical care for veterans. It's bizarre that that's been such a long running problem in such a warlike country. But that's something that takes care of the actual people involved rather than the questionable corporate/political motives behind some wars.
For one thing, because many did not volunteer to participate in war. I'm sure you've heard stories about people coming home from Vietnam and being spit on. A lot of those people were drafted. In more recent history, most of the people sent to invade Afghanistan and Iraq joined a peacetime Army with no foreseeable major conflicts.
Feel free to criticize the soldiers themselves, of course. I just don't see the point, and I don't think you'll get very far. Even if you vilify utterly in the public mind, you'll accomplish nothing. The people who decide where to send those soldiers are the ones who count.
This is so hilariously naive I almost don't know what to say. If anything it's the other way around nobody cares about the soldiers as long as the bottom line is met. I mean just look how the US treats their veterans, to proof the point.
But didn't people learn from the Vietnam and Korean wars that they might be unnecessary for defense even if the government says so? Is it that a new generation forgets the lessons from the previous one? In that case, why not blame the soldiers - if there was little popular support for them and it was seen as a shameful or failure of a job then maybe fewer would be sucked into it.
I heard that in WWI, soldiers were naive and didn't understand what they were getting into. Now though, there's no excuse. Everyone learns history at school and can use Google. So the decision to join should be fairly obviously likely to lead to doing bad things. The US has been nearly continuously at war since WWII, it's not going to suddenly stop when your son joins the army.
Also, how do Americans reconcile that "my family" attitude with the fact that the people they're fighting are also somebody's sons and brothers? It's not seen as equally noble to be an Isis soldier as a US one. What makes the US special other than "my country"?
Probably you should not enlist in the US Military and complain afterwards about lost opportunities and PTSD because of doing pointless crimes for an overall pointless war. Thanks for your service.... hmm not really.
Soldiers who have never fought are less capable in battle. It doesn't really matter how much they train or how many drills are run. Nothing really prepares you for the trauma of watching your friend of many years die by getting his head blown off next to you, or worse, bleeding out while crying for his mother. There are two kinds of people who witness that: those who curl up and pray for it all to stop, and those who pick up their weapons and keep fighting. Generals never know which kind of men they have unless battles weed out the first kind, by death or discharge. And militaries with too many of the first kind lose wars.
Yes, it's horrible. It's gut-wrenching just to think about it. We'd all be better off if we could resolve our conflicts without war. But in the world we live in, there are too many military and paramilitary actors who are not guided by such Enlightened ideals. What will we do if we are not prepared and they come knocking on our door?
Maybe you don't believe that the same irrational forces that first manifest as teenage graffiti, then grow into organized crime, could ever result in organizations the size of militaries. Maybe you don't believe that, in societies which have abolished all adventure, the only adventure left is to abolish that society. That's fine. I respect that. But what if you're wrong? Shouldn't society hedge that bet, considering the cost? Can no such hedge possibly justify its cost?
There's a reasonable discussion to be had about where the line (i.e. cost) should be drawn, and what shape the line should take. But the opinion that it is worth it to pay some cost should be relatively uncontroversial. And if you understand that society should pay some cost to maintain an effective military, you ultimately understand that, until the diplomats can succeed at building a genuine global peace, war is inevitable.
Hey - you are right and I should have included that essential point. I was focused on other issues, but the whole thing makes me angry.
The all-volunteer, professional US military, for all its advantages, loses civilian familiarity with the realities of the military and warfare - people seem to know Call of Duty, where killing is like shooting baskets.
When I see people glorify the military, soldiers and warfare, or talk about it like a sporting event ('win' and 'lose' (my bad) should be banned from the discussion of warfare) I feel very uneasy: First, people have those extreme, romantic conceptions of things they don't understand; when there was universal conscription, the military was a stand-in for bureaucratic absurdity (e.g., Gomer Pyle, MASH, expressions like FUBAR and SNAFU), not glorification; war veterans generally (IME) are not war mongers. Also, I feel a little queasy; I think, 'it creates (intentionally, in the hands of some public figures) the public mindset that makes it easier'. And finally - again, maybe intentionally for some, maybe subconsciously for many - it shuts down the actual experiences of veterans; it makes clear that there is only space for the 'glorious' version of warfare and anything else is almost antisocial. Finally, it all lets people put warfare on the back burner, which IMHO is how Afghanistan and Iraq lasted so long.
My (very amateur) policy idea is that the US should bring back universal conscription but only for the reserves (and no exceptions, as a hard and fast rule). Sure, it's not as optimal as volunteers, former active duty, etc. But then there would be real skin in the game for everyone, and everyone's families and friends. They'd understand the military, and what warfare was about. I hope no more hyping war with China (or Iran!).
I'm very sorry about your friends and for what you lost. We need to do far better with how seriously we take warfare and how we treat soldiers when they come home. It's really absurd. Thanks for sharing your experience.
They do get to choose whether to sign up to a volunteer military that's engaged in an existing war. It's very weird the way some paint US soldiers as a sort of Hero Innocent, absolving them of any sort of moral culpability.
Having spent 9 years in the military, I can say with some confidence that even soldiers are not willing to fight a war. War is evil. No one looks forward to it (except the generals). But when its thrust upon you, you rise up to the occasion and defend your motherland.
Yeah, considering how poorly the US treats their service members and veterans, even if I were eligible for service and thought I'd do well in that kind of environment it'd be very hard not to feel like a sucker. When we demonstrate over and over again that we can't be bothered to take care of the people who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country's interests how can we expect anyone to sign up?
Militarism has intellectual consequences. The tacit admission that US military members sign up to fight pointless wars is not allowed: loud patriotism drowns all dissent so that they will not be demoralized by the grim reality that they are expendable pawns.
It's all PR, of course: the veterans end up as broken husks that are left to rot as soon as they get home-- a very convenient political issue that is stored safely in the bank for whenever a distraction or stirring election platform is needed.
To answer your question: it is Starship Troopers that you are watching.
I find this mysticism around the US military to be puzzling. I mean really, "The honour of the professional soldier in a modern western democracy is that they don't pick and choose the wars they fight in"? As opposed to every other soldier ever? And when it's a volunteer military and you sign up after a war is declared, that's choosing to fight that war.
The US has had a volunteer military for decades. People who would refuse to fight simply never volunteer in the first place.
Boycotting companies for extending a few minor courtesies to the troops is ridiculous and ineffective. If you want to make a difference then get active in politics.
I don't believe that the vast majority of soldiers go into war because they believe in the cause and are ready to die for it, not at least in countries with professional armies.
Soldiers go into war because it's their job, it's what they're paid to do.
They join the military for a variety of reasons, which may or may not have involved any feelings about any conflict at hand much less the media. The reason they go to war, however, is because of old men.
It doesn't help that each new generation gets a barrage of propaganda pushed onto them equating military service with heroics, honour, patriotism, and so forth. We could teach the next generation that war is bad, if we wanted to, but since the decision to go to war is made by the same government that sets the educational curriculum, well, odds are slim.
Completely the opposite with me. No matter what those soldier may have thought before enrolling, freedom is not why they have suffered personal losses. Just merely an excuse for an aggressive foreign policy from their government.
Maybe this generation will have a bigger impact on the general US population to not support this kind of war during the current century. Or maybe North America needs to have it own internal armed conflict to learn that war is a bad bad thing.
Don't you guys ask yourself how come you are always at war? Why you have "generations of veterans", even though you have by far the most powerful military force to ever have existed?
There is no credible conventional threat to the US, and there is no unconventional one that can be mitigated by fighting a war.
Not participating in unnecessary wars would help the mental health of soldiers much more than therapy or whatever else.
reply