give me a reason to respect the military

Great Debates
21

At its most basic, having a functioning military with career officers and enlisteds ensures that we are no weak prey for another country’s aggressions.

The military is the front line. When the bad shit comes down, they are the ones who step up and make sure that you and I are spared the worst of it. That may seem a bit dated or irrelevent now, but that’s only because they’ve been there for so long, doing such a good job. Had we been attacked, invaded, and conquered, we would be asking why the military hadn’t taken care of us.

That is why I class members of the military with law enforcement officers, medical workers, and fire fighters. They are first responders. They may, and often do, put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us.

Beyond that, you cannot know the reasons each individual decides to join.

I think it is possible to serve in the military when you fundamentally disagree with its current mission, and even to do so in an honorable manner. For instance, what if I - a person who vehemently disagrees with the decision to invade Iraq - decided to join the Army, knowing that I would most likely be shipped there? Why on Earth would I do such a thing?

Simple. First, no matter what I think about the Iraq war, I recognize that the more resources our military has to draw on, the safer our soldiers and the citizens of Iraq are. Second, my presence specifically would mean there was another person to help the Iraqis. Third, the best way to change an organization is from within. The more people - military and civilian - who speak out against our Iraq policy, the more likely our civilian government is to change its stance.

22

Except it seems the way the military is being run is exactly the point. And it doesn’t suit you. You want them to disobey an order you don’t agree with. So now your calling their morals into question.

“How can good people participate in bad things? They must not really be good people, then.”

I have served, and never met anyone by your decription. I realise my experince was limited (6 years, USN, 80’s), so I guess they may exist… but I think that this is a false caricature that some folks paint the active duty military member. It makes disliking them easier.

There are, however, a few “tough guys” (usually young and male) out to prove how tough they are. I don’t know how that attitude stands up under actual combat conditions, though.

However, it seems you think they are (mostly) glorified mercenaries, correct? Should the active duty service member serve without pay? Would that change things for you?

23

Oh, I’m not disputing that that. Other countries hire professional killers to threaten us. Therefore we have to hire professional killers to protect us?

But:

are those professional killers good people ?
That’s the point I want you to answer.

And if people didn’t work as professional killers, then there would be nobody to threaten us, would there?

24

You are startings with the fallacy that the military is made of professional killers.

They are professional soldiers / marines / sailers / airmen - NOT professional killers. A killer does not care about who he kills or how he kills. Our military has specific rules of combat, controls, limitations on weaponry, an attempt to minimize the impact on civilians, and answers to our democratically elected government.

Most would love it if nobody else had a military - then we could reduce our military as well. However, that does not seem to be happening any time soon. There are bad people in this world, and we need people to help protect us from those bad people. Sometimes we need beat cops, sometimes we need vice, sometimes SWAT, and sometimes we need a full-fledged military.

25

Not for this thread, it isn’t.

I have quoted two dopers in their own words from the other thread.

26

I was not implying. And they were not superflouous, they just did not fit with what you were saying so you got rid of it. You have made up your mind and are pretending to be open minded as is seen in the sentence bolded. He said no such thing. But thinking of such things as pay, housing and career goals should be looked at when deciding to choose to join the military. It is after all a fulltime job, not a hobby. A good recruiter will inform you of all aspect of the military. There is no evidence that SSG Schwartz is not a good recruiter or a good man. On the contrary his words show that he is. Since we can not witness his actions that is all we have. Chosing to believe otherwise is just your prejudices. As for your last sentence the actual attitude needed to make the military career is a belief in this. If you can’t see this then close the thread and move on.

27

If your question is, “Explain why I should respect people who join the military solely for personal gain, who put aside all morality and ethics to join the military.” Then the answer is “you shouldn’t respect them anymore than you would any other group of totally self-interested people.”

The fallacy is, assuming that such people make up the majority of the military. It’s impossible to say what percentage of people who join the military are the type that do it “solely for career advancement” with “no regard to their ethical considerations.” I’m not aware of any polling or any sort of scientific study that would give us a factual basis from which to proceed on that point.

All I can offer is my own anecdotal evidence that, while there were some people who were in the military for purely selfish reasons–the typical soldier is in it for a combination of reasons, and most of them aren’t of the opinion that what they do is unethical and that they are “doing it anyway” for the money/benefits.

28

Yes it is.

That is the core of your OP. However it is not possible to have a military that pops into existence when a conflict that you believe is just comes up. It is just not possible. And you have not come up with an alternative. As usual people answer your questions in a manner that does not fall in line with your original suppositions and you either ignore it or chose to misinterpret. This is not a debate. This is not an argument. This isn’t even a contradiction. This is you maturbating in thread form.

29

There aren’t too many people that enlist just for the money. yeah, maybe they come from underprivledged backgrounds, need money for college (which you can simply borrow without joining the military, btw…).

The average enlisted soldier makes squat for monthly pay, with a little extra for hazardous duty pay and housing allowances.

In your OP, you quoted a poster debating whether their son should join, and he joined the Navy. Well guess what? The Navy is a pretty smart choice in terms of preserving your life…not many of them get killed in a ground war like the Marines and the Army do.

The honor portion of serving in the military is doing something necessary that many others will not do, honor towards your comrades-in-arms, honor towards the fallen you knew and the fallen that died before your service, honoring the flag, honoring your nation.

It’s serious business, and rightly so. My family is rich in military tradition, myself included, and every one of us has served in a combat zone in spite of the fact that we didn’t want to, were afraid of being killed, didn’t agree with the war effort…once you sign on the dotted line you’re giving up some constitutional protections, the government almost utterly owns your ass and makes decisions for you that you cannot disobey (within the parameters of what constitutes a reasonable order).

30

Oh yeah, and another answer to “Why should I respect the military” is because we do or have done what you will not or cannot, and afford you the opportunity (along with our democratic leadership) to post about it on an internet messageboard.

31

Thank you

I assume no such thing. I have made the point clearly in the OP that there are soldiers going to war in the belief that they are protecting freedom. And that I respect them for doing so.

And yet in the other thread, certain military mrmbers WERE saying “do it anyway for the money/ benefits”

32

Are you being Dense on purpose?

33

As a side note on the Navy, while I’d have to look at statistical tables to be certain, it is probably more dangerous to be an infantryman in Iraq or Afghanistan than it is to serve in the Navy.

But I was never really envious of any sailors the entire time I was in service, sure–they may be relatively safe out on their ships, but I was in the Army for over two decades and almost the entirety of that time was spent doing things other than engaging the enemy or being in a war zone.

I prefer the niceties of most military bases over a ship. Living on a ship is months on end of being away from friends and family, and living in extremely crowded conditions. Most of the officers even have quarters that would remind civilians of your average prison cell.

And when you’re NOT actually deployed in a war zone, living on base or off base, you’re in a much safer environment than a ship. I think of living/working on a big naval vessel as one of the more dangerous types of daily occupation that isn’t being involved in an active combat area. There’s a ton of ways to get yourself seriously injured or killed on any ship, especially one loaded with hundreds (or even thousands) of other men, with huge machines and et cetera.

34

I started the thread. I’ll say what the topic is. And the topic is not what you want it to be.

Once again, you dodge the point.

35

Wow. Bad mood today Pete?

36

Yeah, that’s true about living on a ship. Not to mention nuclear reactors, ammunition stores and the like. An uncle of mine was a career Naval officer and spent tons of time away on deployments. Although to be fair, officers always get it at least slightly better than enlisted folks, but Navy chow is also the best out of all the services.
My Dad served two tours in Vietnam and didn’t get to really spend any time with my Mom or me until 1971, when he taught mathematics at West Point and we lived there.
Any way you slice it, there are a lot of personal sacrifices military people make that civlians do not, and one of them is definetely pay. And that little “you could get killed” thingie.
That to me is deserving of respect.

37

Most people join the military because of feelings of patriotism for their country. It’s generally not for the money or benefits, though they sometimes rationalize it to themselves that way. If you look at the hours spent and the risk to your personal safety, the pay and benefits any servicemember gets doesn’t usually work out to be a great deal.

Indeed, the heart of the oath that military personnel take is “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” Even those who join for less altruistic reasons are still serving their country.

Your biggest misconception, I think, is that military wants to fight wars. Most military personnel have no desire to go to war. However, whether they want to fight in a war or not, nobody in the military gets to make the decision as to whether the country should go to war or not.

You also appear to believe that we should not have any career military personnel. You seem to think that we can call up volunteers and conscripts for any future conflict. This makes as little sense as would getting rid of all police forces, and believing that you can call up volunteers should a crime ever occur. Modern industrialized armed forces need far more highly trained personnel than untrained volunteers and conscripts. It takes millions of dollars and years of training to produce effective fighter pilots, nuclear submarine officers, and missile technicians. In addition, you need experienced leadership, from the NCOs and petty officers to the generals and admirals.

You might ask why we need all of that. The short answer is that one of the fundamental duties of a government is to be able to protect its citizens and its sovereign territory. Any nation that fails to do this survives only because it is under a stronger nation’s protection, or survives at the pleasure of nations with viable militaries. When the U.S. was a new, weak nation 200 years ago, other nations (France and the U.K., at various times) seized our ships and citizens at their whim. Nobody does that anymore to us without consequences.

Also, realize that a career military person joins for 20-30 years, over the course of numerous presidential administrations. You can’t have a viable career in the military if you were to get out every time you disagreed with the current administration.

Most career military personnel have reconciled their personal political beliefs with the feeling that their overall service to the nation outweighs any disagreement they might have with current policies.

Let me turn the question around for you. Assuming that you are a U.S. citizen, your taxes pay for our military and for its operations in Iraq. Do you think it is honorable for you to pay these taxes? Don’t tell me that you have no choice–you certainly do. You can refuse to pay (and go to jail), or you can emigrate and move to a country whose policies you agree with.

Finally, as a former military servicemember, let me say the most people in the military do in fact respect their adversaries. Former WWII adversaries (Americans and Japanese) have had joint memorial ceremonies. I have met a German U-Boat sailor who fought against us in WWII, and I treated him with respect. I met Soviet officers and sailors during the height of the Cold War and treated them with respect. I might have been ordered to fight those same men a week later, and I would have done it. I am thankful that this never happened.

So long as military personnel serve their country honorably, meaning that they follow the lawful orders they are given (which includes compliance with the Geneva Conventions), there is indeed something to admire in their actions, and they are doing something noble by serving their country.

38

I have quoted you directly. Stand by what you wrote or not. Matters not to me.

I have dodged no points. I have answered several of your questions and questioned many of your answers. I have not answered everyone of your questions but there is no reason why I have to. Others have answered some of it so there is no need to. You can agree or not. You can continue to ignore the parts you have no answer for. I have no way of making you read for comprehension. However others are reading it and can see for themselves. Many of your underlying suppositions are wrong. Many of your questions can not be answered without picking apart those suppositions. Sorry if you don’t like some of the answers. You may have written the thread but you don’t get to steer it.

39

Very well said.

StraightDope, ATTENTION!
<<Salutes>>

40

IIRC that is a bad assumption. I believe Peter is British. If I remembered incorrectly I apologize.