Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly

[Isosleepy]

I believe repairing the bridges in Pittsburgh a worthwile government undertaking. I could conceivably add my labor. But I don’t want to. Fortunately, there are people who do want to.
I believe there is something disturbing about the fact that the US can be involved in as many as three wars at one point (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) with most of the US population never confronted with any consequences of war. But the notion of “shut up, if you aren’t willing to go”, in these times of a professional (i.e. volunteer, non-draft) military is wrong. The deployment of the military is a state exercising its power, the which any stake-holder should have a say in. So I must respectfully disagree with you, and RobertHeinlein, on this.

[iiandyiiii]

@Ravenman

What if the person in question makes other contributions to the nation? Are those also irrelevant, in your opinion, so that the measure of a man boils down to a binary distinction between military service or coward (with the exceptions of health or family responsibilities you noted)?

I am certainly willing to make case by case determinations, if anyone is interested.

[Max_S]

@Buck_Godot

Does this view extend to other professions as well?

If I support the enforcement of laws but I don’t decide to be a police officer am I a coward? If I support the fighting of fires but don’t volunteer as a fire fighter am I a coward. If I support the fighting of disease and starvation in far off lands but don’t travel over seas to help the needy am I a coward?

My personal opinion as stated in [POST=21652954]post #9[/POST] extends to municipal offices including law enforcement. I think there’s a reasonable limit for any profession as to how detailed and passionate advocacy (or criticism) can be before I start wondering if you should just do the job yourself.

~Max

[Max_S]

@iiandyiiii

I am certainly willing to make case by case determinations, if anyone is interested.

What about general taxes? Do you think a citizen who pays taxes, advocates for military action, but has no intention of joining the military (unless drafted) is a coward?

I think it would depend on how heavily they advocate and what is advocated. John Doe opining on a pre-emptive strike would not necessarily be unwarranted. Calling a soldier (or general) a coward would be unwarranted and worthy of public shaming if not a face-slap. Advocating any sort of war and then actively dodging a draft for that war earns a couple punches to the gut on-sight.

~Max

[HurricaneDitka]

This thread reminds me of that famous scene from “A Few Good Men”:

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty… we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to.

How many of you watched that and thought “Damn, that Col. Jessup is right. We should just say ‘thank you’ and keep our opinions about the military, military actions, and actions of members of the military to ourselves unless we’re ready to ‘pick up a weapon and stand a post’”?

[mikecurtis]

11 out 45 US Presidents (including 3 of the last 4) never served in the military: Trump, Obama, Clinton, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Quincy Adams, Van Buren, Cleveland, and FDR. Quincy Adams and Van Buren were founding fathers advocating for revolution. Cleveland actually hired a substitute for himself in the Civil War. FDR was the Asst Secy of the Navy prior to becoming Commander in Chief. Cowards?

Only 96 of 535 current members of Congress are veterans. Are they allowed to advocate for military action? (hint: it’s their job) Cowards?

Many current positions in the modern armed services involve no risk of bodily harm. Are drone operators cowards? Are stateside Honor Guards cowards?

Do you include pacifists in your cowardly role call? or is it just hawks?

mc

[UnwittingAmericans]

What instruments and techniques do you propose for the public shaming and humiliation?

[Miller]

@HurricaneDitka

How many of you watched that and thought “Damn, that Col. Jessup is right. We should just say ‘thank you’ and keep our opinions about the military, military actions, and actions of members of the military to ourselves unless we’re ready to ‘pick up a weapon and stand a post’”?

Where has the OP advocated for any sort of limitation on who can criticize the military?

[octopus]

This is a pretty bad argument if applied universally.

[Velocity]

@iiandyiiii

I’m talking about willingness. It’s mostly unverifiable, barring someone admitting to it or it being otherwise revealed. In that other thread, at least one poster outright admitted that they had no intention of serving in the military, even for an action they supported. But most people aren’t going to make outright admissions like that, in my expectation.

But we all support plenty of things we personally might be squeamish about doing ourselves. I may say, “Someone ought to put out the wildfires in California” while personally being a pyrophobe and not daring to get myself near the flames - and leaving it to paid volunteer firefighters.
ETA: Buck Godot already said it above.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Miller

Where has the OP advocated for any sort of limitation on who can criticize the military?

“Criticize”? He hasn’t, which is why I didn’t use that word in my post. I think it’s fairly transparent that he’s trying to establish a framework where he’s free to criticize the military and advocate against military actions without any repercussions but he can label those who disagree with him (and support military action) as ‘gutless cowards’. I find the whole exercise unconvincing.

[iiandyiiii]

@Velocity

But we all support plenty of things we personally might be squeamish about doing ourselves. I may say, “Someone ought to put out the wildfires in California” while personally being a pyrophobe and not daring to get myself near the flames - and leaving it to paid volunteer firefighters.

I think military action is fundamentally different than dealing with natural disasters. Natural disasters must necessarily be dealt with – there’s no option to do nothing. War, on the other hand, is usually not necessary, as well as having the potential (and frequent history!) to make situations catastrophically worse.

And being “squeamish” is fine and understandable. I don’t have any problem with people having feelings, including feelings of squeamishness, fear, etc.

[iiandyiiii]

@Buck_Godot

Does this view extend to other professions as well?

If I support the enforcement of laws but I don’t decide to be a police officer am I a coward? If I support the fighting of fires but don’t volunteer as a fire fighter am I a coward. If I support the fighting of disease and starvation in far off lands but don’t travel over seas to help the needy am I a coward?

No; I think war is fundamentally different than dealing with natural disasters, health care, or law enforcement.

[iiandyiiii]

@mikecurtis

11 out 45 US Presidents (including 3 of the last 4) never served in the military: Trump, Obama, Clinton, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Quincy Adams, Van Buren, Cleveland, and FDR. Quincy Adams and Van Buren were founding fathers advocating for revolution. Cleveland actually hired a substitute for himself in the Civil War. FDR was the Asst Secy of the Navy prior to becoming Commander in Chief. Cowards?

Many of them probably were, though this isn’t enough information based on the reasoning in my OP.

Only 96 of 535 current members of Congress are veterans. Are they allowed to advocate for military action? (hint: it’s their job) Cowards?

Anyone can advocate for anything they like, of course. And folks are free to make judgments about others based on what they advocate and other decisions.

I have little doubt that some members of Congress are cowards, but this isn’t enough info based on the reasoning in my OP.

Many current positions in the modern armed services involve no risk of bodily harm. Are drone operators cowards? Are stateside Honor Guards cowards?

Some of them may be, but I have no specific information about any of them. This wouldn’t be nearly enough information to make any conclusion based on the reasoning in my OP.

Do you include pacifists in your cowardly role call?

Absolutely not! Pacifists very clearly wouldn’t apply to the reasoning of the OP.

or is it just hawks?

Not all “hawks” – just the ones that would fit the reasoning of the OP.

[UnwittingAmericans]

Does a prior stint in the military exempt you from the public shaming and humiliation?

Let’s say you enlist and do your time and decide to leave when it’s up. Nothing big happens while you’re in. You get out, you’re 30 and single healthy. Now some shit happens.

And you support military action, but you really didn’t like being IN the military and you don’t wanna go through THAT shit again.

Gutless coward, or thank you for your service?

[iiandyiiii]

@Isosleepy

I believe repairing the bridges in Pittsburgh a worthwile government undertaking. I could conceivably add my labor. But I don’t want to. Fortunately, there are people who do want to.
I believe there is something disturbing about the fact that the US can be involved in as many as three wars at one point (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) with most of the US population never confronted with any consequences of war. But the notion of “shut up, if you aren’t willing to go”, in these times of a professional (i.e. volunteer, non-draft) military is wrong. The deployment of the military is a state exercising its power, the which any stake-holder should have a say in. So I must respectfully disagree with you, and RobertHeinlein, on this.

I have no interest in shutting anyone up – quite the contrary, in fact. I want to know everyone’s opinions. Please, please, give me all your opinions, especially about war, my fellow Americans! This is the kind of thing we should be talking about (and indeed, even arguing about!).

[iiandyiiii]

@UnwittingAmericans

Does a prior stint in the military exempt you from the public shaming and humiliation?

Let’s say you enlist and do your time and decide to leave when it’s up. Nothing big happens while you’re in. You get out, you’re 30 and single healthy. Now some shit happens.

And you support military action, but you really didn’t like being IN the military and you don’t wanna go through THAT shit again.

Gutless coward, or thank you for your service?

IMO, coward. I served already, but if I advocated for military action, it would be cowardly if I was still physically (and psychologically) able to serve and contribute but chose not to. In fact, I don’t think I’d be able to live with myself having made such a decision.

[iiandyiiii]

@UnwittingAmericans

What instruments and techniques do you propose for the public shaming and humiliation?

Lots and lots of discussions like this, including naming names and calling out the cowards.

[XT]

@iiandyiiii

Spinoff from this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=875473

In more detail, my position is this: The basis of whether military action by one’s country should be considered should be based on the underlying risks, rewards, rationales, and causes of the possible military action. But IMO, if you support a military action, and you advocate that young people in your country be sent overseas and face unpleasant circumstances away from their families as well as risk of injury and death, and you have the relative youth and health that would enable you to join them, then if your proposed military action comes to pass and you choose not to join them, you are a gutless coward (even if the military action really is necessary!). If you are too old to serve, but you have children that have the youth and health appropriate for military service, and you advocate for military action while privately working to dissuade/prevent your children from participating in the military action (or use money/influence to get them into a non-combat unit or organization), then you are also a gutless coward.

Further, I believe such cowardice should lead to public shame and humiliation (by society, not law or government). I believe that this would be an effective societal deterrent against unnecessary wars, and thus would be greatly beneficial to society – especially a society, like American society, that often seems to lean towards unnecessary wars in recent years.

I believe such cowardice is pretty common, but that doesn’t make it any less cowardly.

Well, does that extend to everything then? I mean, if I support gay marriage, do I need to become gay and get married? If I support the right for a woman to choose, does that mean I have to get pregnant?

It doesn’t seem reasonable to me that if I support some position of my government that means I have to directly participate in it. Seems all sorts of crazy to call someone coward that supports the US in a military action by not joining the forces…hell, I think calling someone a coward is foolish in any case, as you can’t know what is in their heads or how they think. Conversely, I don’t see how being in the military gives anyone the right to be the only ones who can support the government in military action. That, also, seems ridiculous to me, especially considering the fact that our own system specifies that it’s the civilian branch that controls and directs our military. What you say, if taken to it’s logical conclusion, is that ONLY military people can support US military action, and anyone else is an extreme coward if they do but aren’t in the military, or aren’t rushing off to join. That’s contrary to our entire system.

I get that you are trying to make a point…but it’s not a good point. IMHO.

[iiandyiiii]

@XT

Well, does that extend to everything then? I mean, if I support gay marriage, do I need to become gay and get married? If I support the right for a woman to choose, does that mean I have to get pregnant?

I believe war is fundamentally different than these other issues.

It doesn’t seem reasonable to me that if I support some position of my government that means I have to directly participate in it. Seems all sorts of crazy to call someone coward that supports the US in a military action by not joining the forces…hell, I think calling someone a coward is foolish in any case, as you can’t know what is in their heads or how they think. Conversely, I don’t see how being in the military gives anyone the right to be the only ones who can support the government in military action. That, also, seems ridiculous to me, especially considering the fact that our own system specifies that it’s the civilian branch that controls and directs our military. What you say, if taken to it’s logical conclusion, is that ONLY military people can support US military action, and anyone else is an extreme coward if they do but aren’t in the military, or aren’t rushing off to join. That’s contrary to our entire system.

I get that you are trying to make a point…but it’s not a good point. IMHO.

This appears to make a lot of assumptions that are either absent from my OP or even in direct conflict. IMO your points don’t actually challenge anything I said, aside from your quibble with calling someone a coward.