Is gratitude for the military overemphasized?

[Nars Glinley]

In the US, everyone seems to be tripping over themselves in an effort to thank veterans and those currently serving their country. Make no mistake, I have nothing but respect for those that serve. They are risking their lives. I get that, but do they deserve more thanks or respect than the police, firefighters or others that risk their lives for our safety? We have a Veterans Day, should we have a Policemans Day?

[SenorBeef]

Yes. There has been a deliberate effort by hawks in the government to create what is essentially military worship, so that they could browbeat people who objected to the latest military escapade into accepting it. They equated "support the troops" to "support the war", and made the ridiculous over the top military worship so strong that no one would dare even question that.

Then it increased a social construct on which people could become holier than thou - rah rah I wave the flag harder, I'm better than you. People all wanted to become part of the military worship club.

It's also obnoxious when people try to tell you that the only reason you have any freedom is because our military is blowing up backwater countries for economic and political interests.

I say this without any inherent disdain for the military or those in it at all. For the most part they're good people - many of whom buy into the same bullshit and truly want to sacrifice themselves for their country. But the fervor is over the top. It has gotten to the point where it's difficult to have a rational discussion about the merits of particular military actions.

Which is exactly what the intent was in the first place.

I realize that even though my criticism is rather mild, most people reading this will be uncomfortable with what I'm saying. That fact is a really good piece of evidence that I'm right - that even questioning military worship is a forbidden thought.

[John Mace]

How does one determine what the proper amount of gratitude is?

Also, keep in mind that while there is a superficial resemblance between police work and military work, during war time, the military has to put up with everyday living conditions that no policeman every has to deal with. And during the really intense wars, like WWII, they get put their lives on the line like no cops have to do.

As for Veteran's Day, keep in mind that it started out as Armistice Day after WWI (which was sort of big deal, in case you didn't know) then morphed into the more generic Veteran's Day in the 50s. I think the experience of vets in the two WWs is on a different level than that of policemen.

[gracer]

I think to approach the proper amount of gratitude we must consider what exactly the military is doing at a certain point in time.

Remember Coldfire's legendary post about the gratitude towards those brave men who liberated The Netherlands in 1945? I share that gratitude to the bone. Our debt to those brave young men who risked & often lost their lives to come and save an entirely foreign country from Nazi occupation is immeasurable.

However, since the WWs the reasons for the various wars the military (I'm talking about several countries now) have been involved in have become murkier. Things aren't as clear cut as they were during the Nazi occupation. There have been some errors in judgement, even if they were well meant (certainly by the young men and women in the military).

If the military goes to war in a place far away, and it turns out that place may not have posed a threat to us and they may not uniformly have wanted to be "liberated", then what exactly should we be grateful for? I think we can still be grateful for the intent of the men and women who go out there, after all they go with faith in their leaders, thinking they are risking their lives to protect us or to liberate others. We can be grateful for their bravery, but perhaps we don't need to be grateful for the actual mission (if that makes sense).

Blind gratitude spurred by patriotism, without examining each situation individually, can be a dangerous thing. After all, I'm sure many citizens of Nazi Germany felt gratitude to their military for what they were doing.

None of that diminishes my gratitude towards the brave Canadians, Americans and Brits who liberated the Netherlands 1945 and allowed me to grow up in a free country.

[G-SE]

Although soldiers, policemen & firemen share a similar mortal risk, soldiers have to deal with additional hardships that, IMHO, represents and even greater sacrifice.

A policeman risks his life daily, but still gets to go home to the wife and kids and sleep in his nice warm bed. Even in times of peace, soldiers usually face extended deployments away from his family, and usually stuck some crappy barracks or worse.

[Odesio]

I realize that even though my criticism is rather mild, most people reading this will be uncomfortable with what I'm saying. That fact is a really good piece of evidence that I'm right - that even questioning military worship is a forbidden thought.

I like what you did there. You've set it up so that anyone who disagrees with your premises can be dismissed on account of them being brainwashed into reverence for the military. Bravo.

[SenorBeef]

No, I didn't say anyone who disagreed with me was wrong. I'm fine with rational disagreement. I'm saying that most people will have an immediate, intuitive, irrational response to what I said - and this response should be indicative of the sort of Orwellian way we've been programmed to think about the military.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

No, I didn't say anyone who disagreed with me was wrong. I'm fine with rational disagreement. I'm saying that most people will have an immediate, intuitive, irrational response to what I said - and this response should be indicative of the sort of Orwellian way we've been programmed to think about the military.

I have that response and agree with him.

[Lumpy]

Time magazine recently had an article titled "An Army Apart", on the increasing gulf between military and civilian life. It included the quip that we're grateful to the troops because we don't want to have to be them.

[John Mace]

No, I didn't say anyone who disagreed with me was wrong. I'm fine with rational disagreement. I'm saying that most people will have an immediate, intuitive, irrational response to what I said - and this response should be indicative of the sort of Orwellian way we've been programmed to think about the military.

How does that reasoning differ from what conspiracy theorists use when they, for example, talk about the lack of press coverage about their pet theory? That just proves there's a cover-up!

[SenorBeef]

How does that reasoning differ from what conspiracy theorists use when they, for example, talk about the lack of press coverage about their pet theory? That just proves there's a cover-up!

I don't understand the similarities. I'm not making an argument based on the intuitive feelings of the reader - that's just an aside to attempt to get people to think about my point. My post stands otherwise without it.

I guess you mean I'm saying "if you think I'm wrong, that just proves I'm right!" but my point was more nuanced than that. My point is that if you intuitively, emotionally reject what I'm saying automatically, as if it were so wrong as to be beyond consideration, then it's a reaction of conditioning rather than reason. If you don't have that reaction, then obviously I'm wrong about that particular person. It's also entirely possible not to have that reaction, but to examine the issue and genuinely disagree with me - that's fine.

[tim-n-va]

Didn't we do this thread on Veteran's Day?

[JThunder]

I like what you did there. You've set it up so that anyone who disagrees with your premises can be dismissed on account of them being brainwashed into reverence for the military. Bravo.
Odesio's analysis is spot-on.

[SenorBeef]

No, it isn't. The line is an aside. My post can be read entirely without losing a bit of meaning if you just ignore the last line entirely.

He's also logically incorrect, for reasons I already pointed out. He's attempting to portray my argument is dismissing anyone disagreeing with me as brainwashed, and I have very clearly elaborated that that isn't the case.

But don't let a lack of reading comprehension get in the way of trying to feel clever.

[JThunder]

Oh, I'm sure that you do want everyone to ignore that last line completely.

Odesio did an admirable job of pointing out why your statement effectively dismisses the opinion of anyone who disagrees with your premises. After all, their disagreement is surely evidence that they've been brainwashed -- programmed by Orwellian means into adoring the military. Sheesh.

[JThunder]

My point is that if you intuitively, emotionally reject what I'm saying automatically, as if it were so wrong as to be beyond consideration, then it's a reaction of conditioning rather than reason.
In another thread, I pointed out that you tend to paint people into extreme corners, without regard for any middle ground. This is another example of which I speak.

It is perfectly possible for someone to reject what you say without saying that it is unworthy of consideration. One may consider your words, for example, and yet ultimately conclude that you're incorrect in that regard.

Ah, but you may point out your use of the word "automatically." And sure, you did use it -- in your subsequent posting, that is. Not in the posting to which Odesio responded. One could argue that it's wrong to automatically reject your words without any consideration, but that's not the sentiment which was expressed in the statement that Odesio quoted (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14496653&postcount=6).

[SenorBeef]

I don't want anyone to ignore that line. It's there for a reason. The point is that it's not my argument. It's not presented as an argument. The rest of my post does not hinge on that.

I mean, for fucks sake, are we really going to pretend that mindless jingoism doesn't exist? That a lot of people chant "USA!!!!!!! USA!!!!" at stupid shit for no reason? Why is this any different?

There are lots of people who are blindly supportive of the military for probably very personal reasons - perhaps they're vets, or their family members have served and died for the military. Perhaps they've just rationally come to the conclusion that people who are willing to serve, regardless of the merits of what they're serving, deserve a lot of respect. I never precluded the possibility.

I'm simply saying that a lot of people are simply blindly jinogistic and worship the military because there has been an emourmous social pressure to do so. That they don't come to that position through rational analysis, but rather a knee-jerk conditioned reaction. And that there are people who want to encourage this because they've deliberately conflated the idea of "support the troops" with "support whatever we want to do with the troops"

I have no in way, whatsoever, precluded the possibility that people can disagree with me for rational reasons. I have, in fact, gone way out of my way to avoid doing so.

[SenorBeef]

In another thread, I pointed out that you tend to paint people into extreme corners, without regard for any middle ground. This is another example of which I speak.


Yes, and the thread in which you speak of, you were yet again wrong and responded to straw men because you lack reading comprehension. Saying that there are people that exist that hold a certain view, or that other people deliberately encourage that point of view, is not saying that every single person subscribes to that view, or that everyone who does indeed have that view came to it through the same motivations.


It is perfectly possible for someone to reject what you say without saying that it is unworthy of consideration. One may consider your words, for example, and yet ultimately conclude that you're incorrect in that regard.


Of course. THIS IS MY ENTIRE POINT. You're the one that created this straw man position that I said that no one can rationally disagree with me.

Your entire point hinges on me automatically dismissing people who disagree with me, which is not something I've done, and which I've specifically gone out of my way to point out several times that I specifically crafted my position to avoid exactly that.

[JThunder]

I don't want anyone to ignore that line. It's there for a reason. The point is that it's not my argument. It's not presented as an argument. The rest of my post does not hinge on that.
Of course, it's not your argument. Nobody said that it was. It is, however, a convenient way to dismiss the opinions of people who DO disagree with your argument. After all, you claim that their disagreement is "a really good piece of evidence" that they've been effectively brainwashed.

I think that you're fully aware of this distinction.

I mean, for fucks sake, are we really going to pretend that mindless jingoism doesn't exist? That a lot of people chant "USA!!!!!!! USA!!!!" at stupid shit for no reason? Why is this any different?
Of course it exists. Nobody here denies that. However, this does not logically imply that the people who disagree with you ARE guilty of such jingoism.

Again, I'm pretty sure that you understand this distinction -- or at least, that you're capable of understanding it if you so choose.

[Odesio]

No, it isn't. The line is an aside. My post can be read entirely without losing a bit of meaning if you just ignore the last line entirely.


What you did was poison the well with an implicit conclusion. i.e. Any discomfort I might have with your argument is evidence that I'm troubled by "forbidden thoughts." I can't possibly respond to your statements without simultaneously defending myself against your conclusion that questioning military worship is a forbidden. If that last sentence had nothing to do with the rest of your post, well, you shouldn't have written it down.

[SenorBeef]

Of course, it's not your argument. Nobody said that it was. It is, however, a convenient way to dismiss the opinions of people who DO disagree with your argument.


Make up your mind. Either I automatically dismiss everyone who disagrees with me, or I don't.

I haven't actually done it, so that you're arguing against me as if I had makes it a straw man.

After all, you claim that their disagreement is "a really good piece of evidence" that they've been effectively brainwashed.


I said that if someone has an immediate knee-jerk emotional response that precludes them from thinking rationally about the issue, then that is evidence that they're conditioned to respond that way. Is that not true?

THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING THAT EVERYONE IS SO CONDITIONED, OR THAT THE ONLY WAY TO ARRIVE AT THOSE VIEWS IS THAT CONDITIONING.

Can you guys read that sentence until it sinks in? You are throwing endless straw men at me because you don't comprehend that.

My only point in including that line was to perhaps make some people become introspective if they indeed did have that thought-terminating reaction.


I think that you're fully aware of this distinction.


Of course. I'm the one that's been harping the distinction this entire time, and you're the one claiming that I made no such distinction.


Of course it exists. Nobody here denies that. However, this does not logically imply that the people who disagree with you ARE guilty of such jingoism.

Again, I'm pretty sure that you understand this distinction -- or at least, that you're capable of understanding it if you so choose.


Yes, I know! This is what I'm saying. I have no idea how you aren't comprehending it.

You are essentially restating the things I've already clearly said, and then admonishing me for holding the opposite position, which I clearly do not.

[JThunder]

Yes, and the thread in which you speak of, you were yet again wrong and responded to straw men because you lack reading comprehension.
No, you're the one who lacked comprehension, but that's fodder for another discussion altogether.

Of course. THIS IS MY ENTIRE POINT. You're the one that created this straw man position that I said that no one can rationally disagree with me.
You're the one who said that if people disagree with you, it is really good evidence that they've been brainwashed. Oh sure, your words do allow for some possibility that they may have other reasons for disagreeing. However, the fact that you consider their disagreement to be "a really good piece of evidence" that they've been brainwashed means that you consider that to be unlikely.

Your entire point hinges on me automatically dismissing people who disagree with me, which is not something I've done, and which I've specifically gone out of my way to point out several times that I specifically crafted my position to avoid exactly that.

Weasel words. As I said, you technically allow for the possibility that they have may have some non-brainwashy reason for disagreeing with you.... yet you claim that if they do disagree, this is strong evidence that they have indeed been brainwashed. Oh sure, your statement falls short of claiming absolute proof, but you do declare that if people disagree, then we should regard their view with suspicion; after all, they've probably had that belief forcibly drummed into them!

[JThunder]

What you did was poison the well with an implicit conclusion. i.e. Any discomfort I might have with your argument is evidence that I'm troubled by "forbidden thoughts." I can't possibly respond to your statements without simultaneously defending myself against your conclusion that questioning military worship is a forbidden. If that last sentence had nothing to do with the rest of your post, well, you shouldn't have written it down.

Quoted for truth.

[SenorBeef]

What you did was poison the well with an implicit conclusion. i.e. Any discomfort I might have with your argument is evidence that I'm troubled by "forbidden thoughts."


I would be doing that only if I said "all people that are strongly supportive of the military are brainwashed", which I did not say or even imply. I did use the word "most", and I think that's true - but that in no way precludes people from having pro-mlitary positions which derive from something other than conditioning.


I can't possibly respond to your statements without simultaneously defending myself against your conclusion that questioning military worship is a forbidden.

Of course you can. You can simply say "I believe that we should support the military [to whatever degree] because of [whatever reason]" - if you present a rational argument then you necesarily are already past the unthinking, knee-jerk reaction I mentioned.


If that last sentence had nothing to do with the rest of your post, well, you shouldn't have written it down.

I didn't mean that it has nothing to do with it - but that it's not an argument or a necesary part of my argument. It makes no sense to dismiss that line and ignore the rest of my post.

It's useful in so far as it may provoke a moment of introspection as some of the people reading it realized "I did indeed have a completely emotional reaction to the idea"

[Odesio]

I said that if someone has an immediate knee-jerk emotional response that precludes them from thinking rationally about the issue, then that is evidence that they're conditioned to respond that way. Is that not true?


That's not what you typed in your original post.

I realize that even though my criticism is rather mild, most people reading this will be uncomfortable with what I'm saying. That fact is a really good piece of evidence that I'm right - that even questioning military worship is a forbidden thought.

I don't see anything in there about "immediate knee-jerk" responses. Nor do I see anything in the rest of your original post addressing knee-jerk responses. You clarified yourself in subsequent posts but don't blame me anyone else for taking your original words at face value.

[JThunder]

SenorBeef, what is the logical way of treating someone who disagrees with your viewpoint? Should we consider their reasons for disagreeing before passing judgment? Or should we state upfront that their views should be held in suspicion; after all, if they agree, then this is surely strong evidence that their way of thinking has been warped?

This is why Odesio has accused you of poisoning the well. He's right.

[Odesio]

I didn't mean that it has nothing to do with it - but that it's not an argument or a necesary part of my argument. It makes no sense to dismiss that line and ignore the rest of my post.


It made no sense to include that line if you wanted a discussion. I don't want to hijack this thread so this is the last I will write about the last line of your post. If you wish to speak more about it, feel free to take it to the Pitt.

[JThunder]

I don't see anything in there about "immediate knee-jerk" responses. Nor do I see anything in the rest of your original post addressing knee-jerk responses. You clarified yourself in subsequent posts but don't blame me anyone else for taking your original words at face value.

Odesio's words almost exactly echo what I said in that other discussion we had. In that discussion, I said that people can only respond to the words that you actually use. They can't be blamed for failing to respond adequately to the content of subsequent postings which employ non-equivalent phrasing.

[gracer]

Sheesh.

I think SenorBeef raised an interesting point to consider:
If you immediately feel uncomfortable with someone not patriotically declaring gratitude to the military, it's probably worth examining your motivation.

That's all I read. Maybe it would've been better if he'd added a little nuance for the sensitive people.

Anyway.

Let's talk about gratitude & military.

:)

[SenorBeef]

No, you're the one who lacked comprehension, but that's fodder for another discussion altogether.


Then pit me, see how you fare.


You're the one who said that if people disagree with you, it is really good evidence that they've been brainwashed.


No, I didn't. I said that if people were uncomfortable with what I was saying, that it's evidence that they're conditioned. Do you typically become uncomfortable if someone says something that runs contrary to your rationally held views? It's that emotional reaction that's an indication of conditioning.


Oh sure, your words do allow for some possibility that they may have other reasons for disagreeing. However, the fact that you consider their disagreement to be "a really good piece of evidence" that they've been brainwashed means that you consider that to be unlikely.


This is entirely of your creation. I did not and do not indicate that people coming to a different conclusion than I do about this issue is an indication that they've come to their position through conditioning rather than rationality. I said that an emotional response that intuitively makes them reject what I've had to say without considering it is evidence that they've come to their position through conditioning.

The key point here is that I'm not at all talking about which side of the issue someone has decided to be on. I'm talking about whether they consider the issue rationally or if they react to it emotionally.

Oh sure, your statement falls short of claiming absolute proof, but you do declare that if people disagree, then we should regard their view with suspicion; after all, they've probably had that belief forcibly drummed into them!

You're wrong. For example, if someone said that they had absolute faith in the military because dozens of their ancestors have dedicated their entire lives to it, I wouldn't accuse them of being brainwashed by a modern effort to deliberately breed jingoism.


Quoted for truth.

Really? A +1 post? So you can feel like you're ganging up on me? Pathetic.


That's not what you typed in your original post.



I don't see anything in there about "immediate knee-jerk" responses. Nor do I see anything in the rest of your original post addressing knee-jerk responses. You clarified yourself in subsequent posts but don't blame me anyone else for taking your original words at face value.

Again, I spoke of discomfort. People shouldn't react with emotional discomfort with someone who disagrees with them on a position they've come to hold rationally. This is different from something like social discomfort from being in the presence of some guy spouting off offensive stuff. I'm talking about having an emotional discomfort with even evaluating the counterargument to a position you hold. That's evidence that you did not come to your position rationally.

Do you think I'm lying now? You say my position is inconsistent. Am I just making it up? What am I saying now that runs contrary to what I said in the first place?

SenorBeef, what is the logical way of treating someone who disagrees with your viewpoint? Should we consider their reasons for disagreeing before passing judgment? Or should we state upfront that their views should be held in suspicion; after all, if they agree, then this is surely strong evidence that their way of thinking has been warped?


Again, missing the point entirely. People can state their reasons for disagreeing or state their argument, and it can be evaluated at that point. I have not dismissed anyone's argument, pre-emptively or otherwise.

I was simply stating that if you were uncomfortable thinking about this subject, you should consider what that means.


This is why Odesio has accused you of poisoning the well. He's right.
[/quote]

You can go ahead and re-state the same straw man a thousand times and you won't be any more correct. I have not precluded anyone who disagreed with me from having a rational viewpoint.

It made no sense to include that line if you wanted a discussion. I don't want to hijack this thread so this is the last I will write about the last line of your post. If you wish to speak more about it, feel free to take it to the Pitt.

I didn't do anything to stop a discussion. People can go ahead and list all of the rational reasons for why they're super grateful towards the military.

Odesio's words almost exactly echo what I said in that other discussion we had. In that discussion, I said that people can only respond to the words that you actually use. They can't be blamed for failing to respond adequately to the content of subsequent postings which employ non-equivalent phrasing.

I don't even know wtf you're talking about specifically. Certainly nothing I said in that thread could constitute "poisoning the well". It's lame to hint at how I've been in other threads, especially when it's just adding more straw men. If you want to bring it up for discussion, pit me.

[Snarky_Kong]

If you don't see SenorBeef's point then you've never watched Fox News.

[Nars Glinley]

How does one determine what the proper amount of gratitude is?
In absolute terms, I have no idea. In relative terms, I guess I know it when I see it. Instinctively, you probably do as well. If every day were Veteran's Day and we never recognized others that risk their lives for our safety, I'd say that things were improperly unbalanced. It seems that every football game that I watch involves a thanks to the military. Policemen and firemen are never mentioned. I would assert that relative to policemen and firemen, the appreciation for the military is out of proportion.

Also, keep in mind that while there is a superficial resemblance between police work and military work, during war time, the military has to put up with everyday living conditions that no policeman every has to deal with. And during the really intense wars, like WWII, they get put their lives on the line like no cops have to do.
This is certainly true for some members of the military. But IIRC, only a small portion of the military are in actual combat positions and another small percentage are actually deployed. They deserve recognition for their service. We don't draw any distinction between those that risk their lives and those that don't.

I work for an electric company as a System Administrator. When bad weather comes, news crews praise the linemen that get out and get power restored. I would be extremely uncomfortable garnering any appreciation from the public at large for the work that the linemen do. Maybe those in non-combat positions feel the same way. I don't know.

As for Veteran's Day, keep in mind that it started out as Armistice Day after WWI (which was sort of big deal, in case you didn't know) then morphed into the more generic Veteran's Day in the 50s. I think the experience of vets in the two WWs is on a different level than that of policemen.
Some part of me wishes that things had stayed the way they were.

I understand the point that SenorBeef is making. At first, I felt bad about even bringing this question up for debate. I'm not sure where those feeling of guilt originated.

[marshmallow]

People feign respect for soldiers due to social conditioning and propaganda but most don't really mean it when it comes to actions -- pay, benefits, supporting dumb wars, etc. Republicans try to paint themselves as fervent military supporters but will happily boo a gay one or one who doesn't support whatever war is going on. Dems don't soldiers when they do soldiery things like killing, maiming, torturing, making a string of ears, etc.

[SenorBeef]

I understand the point that SenorBeef is making. At first, I felt bad about even bringing this question up for debate. I'm not sure where those feeling of guilt originated.

This was exactly what I was hinting at - there's such a great social pressure on this issue that people become uncomfortable to even question their own view on the subject. Which leads to emotional and conditioned feelings on the subject rather than ones that were rationally derived, since people are too uncomfortable to even really think about it.

Which, again, isn't to say that there aren't rational reasons to be very supportive of the military.

But the conditioning leads to the "You oppose the war? WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT THE TROOPS?" style of bullshit. Which was the intent behind the people (as mentioned, Fox News among others).

[JThunder]

Sheesh.

I think SenorBeef raised an interesting point to consider:
If you immediately feel uncomfortable with someone not patriotically declaring gratitude to the military, it's probably worth examining your motivation.

That's all I read.
Perhaps that is what you read, but it's not what he said. If that were all he said, then I doubt that many would disagree with him.

Rather, his claim is that if people disagree with him, this is strong evidence that because of society's indoctrinatino, these people are blindly devoted to the military and consider questioning their sacrifice to be a "forbidden thought."

As we've been pointing out, that effectively amounts to saying that if you disagree with his view, your rationale for doing so is suspect, and that this is pretty darned good evidence that he's right.

[SenorBeef]

You are repeating the same thing over - exactly - that I have very specifically addressed. You are wrong. I have provided more than enough explanation as to why you are wrong, so for you to continue on in this way is to deliberately attempt to mischaracterize my argument. You are not being intellectually honest.

You seem to have a grudge against me, so by all means pit me and we can go further with this. Otherwise I'm just going to ignore your misrepresentations about my posts from here on out.

[foolsguinea]

I don't have any reverence for the military at all. It's a useful tool that has been used for evil too often for my liking. I worry about the people around me who buy into the veneration.

I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who are vets. And some of them are dicks, & the others know they are dicks. I don't think not serving makes you a mortal dick, & serving doesn't make you a saint; so why would I venerate servicemen?

[JThunder]

I'm addressing the claim that you originally made, not the subsequent revision in which you retroactively inserted such terms as "knee-jerk" and "automatically." As Odesio demonstrated, you are now defending a claim which is quite a bit different from the one which you originally posted. Let's not pretend that the two are logically equivalent.

The addition of such modifiers does not help your case anyway. Of course it's wrong to have blind devotion to the military. Of course there will be people who reject your claims in a knee-jerk fashion. The same can be said of practically any issue, whether it's politics or reviews of the latest Muppet flick. The existence of such people does not, by any stretch of the imagination, amount to strong evidence that you're right. Heck, one could just as easily conclude that they see something you don't, and that their devotion is therefore pretty good evidence that you're wrong.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Yes. There has been a deliberate effort by hawks in the government to create what is essentially military worship, so that they could browbeat people who objected to the latest military escapade into accepting it. They equated "support the troops" to "support the war", and made the ridiculous over the top military worship so strong that no one would dare even question that.

Then it increased a social construct on which people could become holier than thou - rah rah I wave the flag harder, I'm better than you. People all wanted to become part of the military worship club.

It's also obnoxious when people try to tell you that the only reason you have any freedom is because our military is blowing up backwater countries for economic and political interests.

I say this without any inherent disdain for the military or those in it at all. For the most part they're good people - many of whom buy into the same bullshit and truly want to sacrifice themselves for their country. But the fervor is over the top. It has gotten to the point where it's difficult to have a rational discussion about the merits of particular military actions.

Which is exactly what the intent was in the first place.

I realize that even though my criticism is rather mild, most people reading this will be uncomfortable with what I'm saying. That fact is a really good piece of evidence that I'm right - that even questioning military worship is a forbidden thought.

No not really, the majority of Americans despite their patriotism came to oppose the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.
People feign respect for soldiers due to social conditioning and propaganda but most don't really mean it when it comes to actions -- pay, benefits, supporting dumb wars, etc. Republicans try to paint themselves as fervent military supporters but will happily boo a gay one or one who doesn't support whatever war is going on. Dems don't soldiers when they do soldiery things like killing, maiming, torturing, making a string of ears, etc.

That's a bit of an exaggeration.

I don't have any reverence for the military at all. It's a useful tool that has been used for evil too often for my liking. I worry about the people around me who buy into the veneration.

I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who are vets. And some of them are dicks, & the others know they are dicks. I don't think not serving makes you a mortal dick, & serving doesn't make you a saint; so why would I venerate servicemen?

I might not agree with everything they do but they do deserve our respect for their service.

[gracer]

Of course it's wrong to have blind devotion to the military.

Hey, you responded to the OP :) Cool.

So, blind devotion is wrong. Wanna expand? Do they get the same amount of devotion as people who risk their lives for their country in other ways?
How about being grateful to people who went to Iraq to protect their country, only to find that the war there wasn't really protecting their country, rather it was costing their country lives and money?

[Jackmannii]

In the US, everyone seems to be tripping over themselves in an effort to thank veterans and those currently serving their country.Yeah, doesn't that piss you off? Obviously, yours is a righteous view and expressing it is an excellent political strategy in a country that has long respected service in the military. :dubious:

By actual count, I believe this is the 3,568th Dope thread I've seen in recent years griping about our having to give too much respect to the military, or police, or similar public servants.

I don't think it was a great idea for us to have gotten embroiled in a number of foreign military campaigns including Iraq and Afghanistan. However I am grateful for the sacrifices of those who've served there, seeing as how they are occuping the attention of a lot of violent religious fanatics who might otherwise be focusing on projects in the U.S. I reserve contempt for political leaders who waste lives and resources on poorly-thought out foreign adventures, not those who serve in them.

[even sven]

This is something i have some complex, unresolved thoughts on.

I was a Peace Corps volunteer. I served my country.

I did not do what veterans do. I did not see my buddies die in IED attacks. I did not experience the fear of war. I cannot equate my experience to life in a warzone. I do not mean to offend by saying this, and i know it is sensitive.

I did live in difficult conditions- 120 degree heat without any climate control, 20 degree cold without any central heating. I lived for extended periods without water or electricity. I was very remote, and often very alone.

I saw my buddies get stabbed, violently raped, struck down with deadly and disfiguring diseases, axed, macheted, threatened with guns, unlawfully detained, maimed, rendered psychotic by anti-malarials, and otherwise traumatized. I have laid on my death bed. I was violently attacked and broke my back in the struggle, and was subject to an attempted rape with a broken back. I, like many of my friends, came out with a genuine case of PTSD. It took me a year to sleep through the nights without waking up in a cold sweat. It took me two years until I stopped remembering how close I was to death or paralysis and breaking and crying at random. It was inches. That part of me is still not entirely resolved. I have a habit of embarrassingly and inappropriately telling the story to strangers.

I got, after four years of service, around $7,000 and 1 year of non-competitive eligibility for federal jobs. I also get a lot of cracks about a "two year vacation."

I served my country. Not in the same way, and not to the same degree, but I did serve. I'm not sure what to say. This is an incoherent thought of mine. But I want to say soemthing.

[MichaelEmouse]

This is something i have some complex, unresolved thoughts on.

I was a Peace Corps volunteer. I served my country.

I did not do what veterans do. I did not see my buddies die in IED attacks. I did not experience the fear of war. I cannot equate my experience to life in a warzone. I do not mean to offend by saying this, and i know it is sensitive.

I did live in difficult conditions- 120 degree heat without any climate control, 20 degree cold without any central heating. I lived for extended periods without water or electricity. I was very remote, and often very alone.

I saw my buddies get stabbed, violently raped, struck down with deadly and disfiguring diseases, axed, macheted, threatened with guns, unlawfully detained, maimed, rendered psychotic by anti-malarials, and otherwise traumatized. I have laid on my death bed. I was violently attacked and broke my back in the struggle, and was subject to an attempted rape with a broken back. I, like many of my friends, came out with a genuine case of PTSD. It took me a year to sleep through the nights without waking up in a cold sweat. It took me two years until I stopped remembering how close I was to death or paralysis and breaking and crying at random. It was inches. That part of me is still not entirely resolved. I have a habit of embarrassingly and inappropriately telling the story to strangers.

I got, after four years of service, around $7,000 and 1 year of non-competitive eligibility for federal jobs. I also get a lot of cracks about a "two year vacation."

I served my country. Not in the same way, and not to the same degree, but I did serve. I'm not sure what to say. This is an incoherent thought of mine. But I want to say soemthing.

Did you ever start a "ask the..." thread? If not, I would love for you to indulge your habit of embarassingly and inappropriately telling the stories to strangers. I don't mean the attempted rape specifically but everything that happened during your four year service and the years following.

[jasg]

I served in the military, my father served and Yes, I think gratitude is overemphasized. (I've wondered it was a counter to the crappy way many of us Vietnam era guys were treated.)

This hit home for me when I got a family-wide email from a cousin announcing that their son was going to Iraq (no other details were given). Other cousins (non of whom served), responded with effusive letters of thanks that were, IMHO - over the top. The kid dutifully sent back photos in battle gear, holding an automatic weapon.

He was working for the Gallup Poll organization on a government contract...

[MichaelEmouse]

I served in the military, my father served and Yes, I think gratitude is overemphasized. (I've wondered it was a counter to the crappy way many of us Vietnam era guys were treated.)

This hit home for me when I got a family-wide email from a cousin announcing that their son was going to Iraq (no other details were given). Other cousins (non of whom served), responded with effusive letters of thanks that were, IMHO - over the top. The kid dutifully sent back photos in battle gear, holding an automatic weapon.

He was working for the Gallup Poll organization on a government contract...

Purple hearts for paper cuts!



As an aside, I was a combat engineer for two years in the reserve, never deployed. Does this rub off on me too or is that not significant enough? Can I honestly say that I served in the military?

[even sven]

Did you ever start a "ask the..." thread? If not, I would love for you to indulge your habit of embarassingly and inappropriately telling the stories to strangers. I don't mean the attempted rape specifically but everything that happened during your four year service and the years following.

I have.

This particular story is a tough one. Obviously it's a pretty intense story, even though it ends well. I've found on a few occasions, I've ended up telling it in inappropriate situations- stuff like a first date, at a party, to a new friend.... situations where it's not really the place to be bringing up things that are still so raw. I'm always embarrassed when I do it, because i know it makes people uncomfortable and paints me in a pretty odd light. But somehow, the urge to tell it can be overwhelming and it comes out.

It's only recently, on the Dope, that I've learned that over disclosure is a sign of PTSD. Hearing that floored me- it's like a piece of the puzzle got put together.

[Argent Towers]

I don't want to sound like I'm diminishing the value of what you did in the Peace Corps, because I don't intend to, but how exactly does it serve our country (America)?

[ataraxy22]

That was a beautiful response even sven.

Perhaps it's not so much that too much gratitude is being given to those serving in the military, but rather not enough is given to others who have also made personal sacrifices for the benefits of others.

It kind of reminds me of breast cancer--everyone is so busy raising awareness of breast cancer that a lot of equally horrible diseases are being forgotten.

[JThunder]

I served my country. Not in the same way, and not to the same degree, but I did serve. I'm not sure what to say. This is an incoherent thought of mine. But I want to say soemthing.
I am glad that you did.

With regard to your story, I don't think it means that people overvalue the military. They do, however, undervalue the work of Peace Corps volunteers such as you.

ETA: What ataraxy22 said.

[Odesio]

I don't want to sound like I'm diminishing the value of what you did in the Peace Corps, because I don't intend to, but how exactly does it serve our country (America)?

It's a government program created, in part, to bolster the image of the United States in the eyes of the world. By "Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served."

[Airman Doors, USAF]

We don't ask for it, we don't expect it, and in fact are quite embarrassed by it. Yes, it's overemphasized, especially in a country where we all volunteered to do it. I tend to thank other veterans for their service because for me they're all brothers of a sort, but I certainly don't walk around in my uniform looking for people to pat me on the back for it.

The biggest problem as I see it is that we have given people incentive to claim that they have done things that they in fact have not done. If military service were not so venerated there would be no fakers, and thus no controversy over people who make extravagant claims of heroism.

Incidentally, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, WWI and WWII veterans don't deserve thanks either, because the United States has never been under serious threat of invasion. There has not been a battle within a thousand miles of the United States since 1898, and there was no threat of invasion from Spain then, either. No living citizen of the United States has ever fought for this country's freedom. We may as well lay all the cards on the table if we're going to have this discussion and bring up uncomfortable truths.

That said, they did serve their country's interests to the best of their abilities. The men of my father's generation did the same, and did the men of my generation and the most recent one. That those interests may not be something you approve of is irrelevant, not everybody approved of our involvement in the World Wars, either.

The point is this: a veteran is a veteran. If they served honorably they should all be treated exactly the same. It is for you to decide for yourself how you feel about veterans and act accordingly. If you thank us it's appreciated. If you don't, that's perfectly OK too.

However, the emphasis of the military is deeply rooted in our culture and always has been. As countries go we are a relatively young one, and we still discuss our origins regularly because they are so (relatively) recent. Hell, our entire history is told by wars that we have fought, all the way up until the beginning of the last century. It will take a considerable effort indeed to reduce that emphasis, if only because virtually every family has a veteran in it and it would be unseemly to diminish their service when such a large mythos has been built up around them. Who wants to reduce their grandfather's service to a job? Who wants to render meaningless a loved one's death? This is why the emphasis exists, and chances are it will never go away.

So, what do you want to do about it? More to the point, what do you think you can do about it?

[Odesio]

There has not been a battle within a thousand miles of the United States since 1898, and there was no threat of invasion from Spain then, either.


Pancho Villa raided Columbus, New Mexico in 1916 with a force of between 500-600 men who were repelled by the United States Army who drove off the invaders after inflicting over 75 casualties. The United States Army also engaged both revolutionaries and the the Mexican army well within 1,000 miles of the border. Do those count?


We don't ask for it, we don't expect it, and in fact are quite embarrassed by it. Yes, it's overemphasized, especially in a country where we all volunteered to do it.

As another poster already pointed out, the adoration for the military is mostly lip service (kind of like the false adoration for teachers). When it comes down to brass tacks, pay, health benefits, etc., etc. there's been ample demonstration that most Americans adore the military. They don't hate the military. They just don't really adore members of the Armed Services.

[Grumman]

Incidentally, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, WWI and WWII veterans don't deserve thanks either, because the United States has never been under serious threat of invasion.
You couldn't be more wrong. The same line of reasoning that states that serving the US government is not inherently praiseworthy would also lead you to conclude that someone who saves British or French lives is just as praiseworthy as someone who saves Americans.

[Sandwich]

You couldn't be more wrong. The same line of reasoning that states that serving the US government is not inherently praiseworthy would also lead you to conclude that someone who saves British or French lives is just as praiseworthy as someone who saves Americans.

Saving British and French lives is more praiseworthy than saving American lives. I'm puzzled you don't appear to understand that?

[A clever user name]

As a currently mobilized reservist, I'd have to say absolutely yes.

I am currently mobilized in the Middle East, though not in Iraq or Afghanistan. I have a safer and more comfortable life than many deployed servicemen, but I'll still spend almost a year away from my family in a place I'd rather not be, doing work I'd rather not do. I got heaps of praise and gratitude as I was preparing to head out here, but I often asked myself if I actually deserved any of it.

The reality for me is that I signed up knowing deployment was possible or even likely. And if I am completely honest with myself, a lot of my motivation to join was to get the tangible benefits of service (military retirement, job security, extra pay, etc.). In other words, I evaluated my personal decision to serve like anyone else deciding whether to take a job or not.

This isn’t to say that “non-tangible” motivation to have joined/stayed in the military was unimportant. Without being corny, some of reason to serve indeed came from a sense of duty and a belief in the responsibilities of citizenship. But lots of people serve their country out of the same civic-mindedness: teachers, cops, EMTs, firefighters , poll workers, etc. and don’t get the same love.

Some of the extra adulation of the military is undoubtedly because of the personal risk and hardship that often comes with military service, but again lots of other “service” jobs have their share of hardship and risk without the same adulation. And it’s also worth remembering that the vast majority of military jobs are not in places like Iraq or Afghanistan.

I think it is absolutely the case that political forces (primarily, though not exclusively, on the right) intentionally create this fervor, and then cynically use it to “prove” their own patriotism, push through bad foreign policy, overspend on unnecessary weapons systems that benefit their districts and campaign contributors, and deflect criticism of their own blunders.

For me, there is certainly value in honoring the sacrifice of those wounded and killed in service, but the glorification of joe-average veteran, who may or may not have seen combat or even deployment, is way overdone. Since we already honor our fallen heroes on Memorial Day, perhaps we should go back to celebrating November 11th as a day to hope for peace. In any event, as a military person currently serving overseas, I think we could certainly afford to cut back on all this “Thank you for your service” business.

[carlb]

As with a couple of others above, my feelings on this are complex and ever-evolving. I spent my time as a peace-loving, anti-military, no-nukes type in my younger days, and have since become more inclined to take the stance that a strong military is a necessity, but one that we should be reluctant, thoughtful, and deliberate about using.

I tend to have great respect for anyone who has a job in which it is a distinct possibility that they will be killed or severely injured as a part of their normal work day, and which job is done for the greater good. I give an extra measure of respect for those who join the armed forces because they knowingly and willingly (even if naively on the part of some younger members) give up their self-determination as to how they are deployed. Police and firefighters, while certainly at mortal risk, have a pretty good idea of how and where they will be used. The day-to-day is unpredictable, but the broad strokes are pretty well-defined. They have a good idea of what's in store for them when they sign up.

Our military can't count on this. Yes, someone who signed up in the decade after the Sept. 11 attacks should recognize that there is a strong likelihood that they will be deployed to an active combat area, but consider someone who joined in, say, 1998. Sure there was a chance that they would see combat, but by and large we were in a peacetime stance. They could not have foreseen that we would send combat troops to Afghanistan or Iraq, yet we expect them to pack up and do so because we tell them to.

As I see it, someone who joins the military subsumes their will to the will of "the people" more thoroughly than anyone else I can think of off the top of their head. They are essentially putting their trust in the idea that the rest of us will not casually or callously put their lives at risk; that if we ask them to do so it will be for a very, very good reason. And, if we do risk them casually or callously, they are expected to just suck it up and do their job. They can't just refuse to do so, or quit, without serious personal consequences, and they have essentially no say in the matter. I can't think of any other profession that carries that degree of risk along with an abrogation of one's independence.

I've probably not explained this as thoroughly or well as I'd like; it's something that is still a bit nebulous and ill-formed in my own mind. But that's basically it; we ask our service members to take on enormous risk and at the same time put their faith (and fate) in the rest of us to use them in a meaningful way. I think that's worthy of a great deal of respect.

[Ulfreida]

I think that much of the adulation of the military is due to the country's overall Rightward drift. Some of it is also enabled by the Left's sense that villifying conscripts during the Vietnam war was a mistake on several levels -- that making common cause with those who do the dirty work everywhere is more congruent with leftist values. I've watched these changes happen over the past few decades.

Personally, I admire the ethos of the military in many ways although I don't quite see why it cannot be harnessed to the service of peace and justice instead of violent destruction.

I find jingoism disgusting, always and everywhere.

[Farmer Jane]

We are one of the greatest and strongest nations in the world. We can't continue to hold that title without military prowess. It doesn't even matter if the military is 'doing' anything right now. We need people to serve and top of the line weapons. It's public service. It's worth a thanks. And it's not an easy life, even when you're not fighting in a war.