Random Stranger: Thank you for your slavery.
Slave: (sotto voce) Fuck you.
Who has got the secret-est Service?
The one that makes the other service nervous?
Fucking-a man!
CIA Man!*
Always a trip to see certain lefties on this board blissfully unconcerned that their loathing for all things military (including denigrating the service of low-ranking recruits) costs their side political support among the great majority of Americans who do appreciate such service (even when they don’t back decisions to send troops into unpleasant or dangerous situations).
*The Fugs.
Concur. FWIW, this is the working definition of service for me. There are nuances and variations, but service roles where the service is done without remuneration or reward are normally called ‘voluntary service’ in my experience.
I guess the work in almost any job could be described as ‘service’ - in that the employee provides services in return for payment; military or other uniformed service is a special case, but different in a way that I feel qualifies the term ‘service’ more than disqualifying it.
I think it’s the public nature of it- almost all public agencies are thought of as services, as they provide a service to the general public. A public water utlility is a service, the post office is a service, etc…
In the case of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, they provide defense, and in an offensive capability, provide the service of being able to enforce the will of the government, which is after all, “of the people, by the people, for the people”.
It doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s a big component of self-sacrifice or undercompensation or anything like that, just that the organization is providing a public service.
Begbert2 made the argument that true service should be free. However, we all live in the real world and must eat, clothe ourselves, have shelter, etc. all of which cost money. To do the kind of service he suggests requires free time, and though we all might have a little free time, very few of us have years of free time to devote to such pursuits.
Some retired people have this kind of free time because they put away money and possibly receive something to supplement that, but they’re not likely to have the strength or stamina to perform rigorous service.
The very rich have such freedom, but seem to be more inclined to service where hands are not dirtied, e.g., fund raising. I’m not begrudging them that because that would likely be my choice as well (and probably many other people’s).
The young are the largest pool of people capable of rigorous service or that which entails hardships, but they have little to no money (especially the poor and lower middle-class) to devote months or years. Therefore, they’re paid for such service whether it’s merely the provision of basic needs or something slightly beyond that. Even Doctors Without Borders, which I think few would not consider altruistic, receive pay.
Because the armed services are one of the most harsh and dangerous forms of such service, they often need to provide additional incentives, as well as good reasons to not only risk one’s own life, but to take the life of another human being. Something normal people are loathe do.
The military requires so much of a person, both physically and spiritually, that they often have to go to extreme lengths, even to the point of propaganda and involuntary service, to secure enough able-bodied people to accomplish their objectives.
Though those objectives are sometimes unethical is no reason to discount the commitment and sacrifice of those who serve. Whether ethical or not, the rank and file have little say in how they are ordered to serve. They may have joined for any number of reasons, but they have sworn an oath to obey the lawful orders of their leaders, both military and political.
It is not always easy to tell from down in the trenches just what is lawful or ethical about a large objective they are not even privy to except in the most basic way, and it often comes down to mere survival for themselves and their comrades.
Even the most clear-cut illegalities are frequently not clear cut. The prohibition against killing unarmed civilians is sometimes violated because service members too often can’t distinguish who is an unarmed civilian and who is a combatant when even women and children are recruited or forced to fight against them.
And let’s not forget that service personnel, as well as other government agencies*, often provide services that I think begbert2 would approve of. Disaster relief immediately comes to mind, but I’m sure there are others.
Anyway, this is a lot for begbert2 to digest, so I’m going to get off my soapbox now.
*One of my son-in-laws is in the FBI and was in Puerto Rico at the time when Hurricane Maria struck and he spent weeks delivering food and water to isolated areas of the interior.
Going into a poll thread about military service to dis it because it is your opinion that the only real service is done for free is akin to going into a poll thread about which German chefs are the best and complaining that the only real chefs are French.
At one point, while I was in the military, a jet aircraft overflew the runway on St. Thomas Island, crashing into a gas station. Ours was a team deployed to St. Thomas for a construction project. We immediately responded, sending equipment and personnel to the crash site, setting up a perimeter and floodlights, and then stood guard to prevent anyone from looting the site. We volunteered to do this, and received no compensation other than our usual paychecks
In another instance, our battalion responded to a massive earthquake in Guatemala. I was on the team that was sent there, where we taught local craftsmen how to erect Butler Huts, which, when finished, were used for schools for kids. Again, we received our usual paychecks plus some per diem.
When hurricane Camille (cat 5) struck Mississippi in 1969, the Seabee battalions in Gulfport mobilized with equipment and personnel to provide relief.
These sorts of responses have happened all over the world by all of our armed forces. To deride these efforts, to call what the military does “not service”, is disrespectful, ignorant and wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I appreciate the posts like Chefguy’s previous one, but I also appreciate begbert2’s main point (though that other thread wasn’t the best place to make it) — that by using the word “service” more ubiquitously when referring to the military than to other things, we are indeed reinforcing the mistaken idea that “sacrifice of underpaid hard, skilled, work”
necessarily justifies the (sometimes debatably) immoral and harmful uses to which that military has sometimes been out (and debatably is a corrosive force in more subtle ways by its very existence), notwithstanding the examples of obvious good deeds such as those cited by Chefguy — and that reinforcing this mistaken idea “serves” (ha!) the interests of the “state”/economic/(cultural?) structure in ways that begbert2 presumably finds unsavory.
(Chris Hedges is an eloquent and well-informed writer on these matters).
But did he? He just seemed to have his own very odd interpretation of the word.
I understand your point, don’t think it should be held against the service men and women but I do understand your viewpoint. I also thank you for not bringing it into the other thread where it would have been a threadshit.
Thanks.
For military service, I’d postulate that the likelihood of you being seriously wounded/maimed or killed is certainly a factor in why it’s called “service” because many die while performing it in a time of war, which could happen at any time, sometimes without much warning.