Why is it fundamentally different? Seems an arbitrary thing that you are just making up to me. Perhaps you can go into some sort of detail that shows that, objectively, it’s fundamentally different to support the US in military action than to support it in any of the myriad other things it does at any given time, foreign or domestic. What about quasi military things, such as the War on Trade™? If I support that, does that mean I have to only buy American or I’m an extreme coward?
Seems like a logical progression to me. You are saying that anyone who isn’t in the military or isn’t going off to join right away shouldn’t be able to support the government in a military action. In fact, you go the next step and say that if they don’t, they are a coward. What’s the assumption that’s absent from your OP??
Because, in our history, war is usually (but not always) a choice made by the wealthy and powerful at the expense and to the detriment of the poor and powerless. And war usually results in catastrophic suffering and loss of human life, unlike the other things you mentioned.
Cliff’s Notes: I think Andy’s saying “Don’t be an internet tough guy.” Don’t goad Iran and North Korea and then send a generation of our warriors into a needless combat.
No, you didn’t use the word “criticize” in your post. You quoted a famous scene from a movie where an officer loses his temper at the idea that someone could possibly question his methods in doing his job, stated that you felt the scene is relevant to the OP, and then asked if anyone posting to the thread had internalized the idea that non-military people should not share opinions about military actions. But you totally didn’t say the word “criticize,” so you win all the internet points!
Yes, he absolutely is establishing an ethical framework around what someone who thinks the use of force by nations should be willing to do before they advocate for the use of said force. Well spotted! Now, can you explain why you think that’s a bad thing? Do you not find the idea of saying, “I think this is important enough that you should die for it, but not important enough that I should die for it,” at least slightly distasteful?
Ok, but I’m still not seeing why this makes it a special case that the people who support the government need to be called out if they aren’t in the military.
That’s because it wasn’t a summation…it was a logical progression of your position. You didn’t bring it up, but that’s because you don’t seem to want to think through what it means or where it goes. This is where it would lead, and it’s not a good place. If you think war is mainly about ‘the wealthy and powerful at the expense and to the detriment of the poor and powerless’, how much more would that be if only a military (elite) are able to comment on it, positively or negatively, or be called cowards? Or if you wanted to support the US in something it’s doing, you’d immediately have to join up or be called a coward? Seriously, this is exactly where what you are advocating would lead.
Because it’s incredibly important that we as a country avoid stupid wars of choice in the future, and I think this is a societal tool that could help dissuade people from advocating for stupid, unnecessary wars.
This is expressly in conflict with what I advocate for. If fewer people are advocating for war (especially for stupid, unnecessary wars), then there will be less political support for stupid, unnecessary wars, and thus these stupid and unnecessary wars will be less likely to happen.
The problem is, ‘stupid, unnecessary wars’ is also completely subjective, except maybe in hindsight. Even then, with the lens of history it’s not always clear what wars were necessary and which ones were ‘stupid, unnecessary wars’. I’m not convinced we should have intervened in WWI, for instance. Many at the time and even today opposed the Korean ‘war’. Vietnam seems pretty clear cut, but what about the first Gulf War?
What about wars that might be necessary? Are we allowed to support those? What about ones that are definitely necessary? Who decides what wars can be supported, and which ones can’t be and those who do (and aren’t military) should be shunned or called names or have other verbal stones hurdles at them? Do you decide? Do I? Is it a poll and the people decide? And how do we even ask, since the default position you seem to be advocating for is that ONLY those in or former military can advocate without being called a coward.
Isn’t this same thing dragged out every time someone like Warren Buffet says the wealthy don’t pay enough tax? The refrain is, ‘well Warren, pay more then’.
The two are seperate. Warren Buffet isn’t greedy because he only pays pays taxes due despite it being less than what he thinks all wealthy people should pay.
You’re leaving out dozens, if not hundreds, of military actions. Looking at them all, it’s clear to me that this country has a serious problem of getting into stupid and unnecessary wars (and smaller actions that still get lots of people killed but the media doesn’t label as war). The really, really important ones, like WWII (and just a few others) will happen no matter what we do. It’s the wars of choice that I want to avoid, since those almost always go badly, and cause more problems than they solve.
Basically, I want our country to be more skeptical of using military action for foreign policy goals. I think this is a tool that could help increase that skepticism. You are free to disagree.
This thread is about my beliefs, and what I advocate that others push for. This is purely about conversations - these are the discussions (and arguments) that I want Americans to be having, including contentious things like calling people cowards if they are chickenhawks for wars of choice.
And your last sentence is inaccurate with regards to my positron.
I disagree with your method, not the goal. I, too, want the country to be more…not skeptical, but more rigorous for when the US needs to use military force. I want us to be able to explore more options.
But…I also think there are times that the US needs to use military force, or at least to be willing to use it if we have too. And countries that oppose the US need to know we can and will use it if we have too. It’s a fine line for us to collectively walk. Calling people names because they do or don’t agree with you is not, IMHO, the way to do any of this, it’s merely the way to further ratchet up the already wide political divide and disconnect.
I get that. It’s just a conversation. No heat here. I just think you are wrong, and that if we did so something like this it would make things worse. Instead of calling people names (which don’t work to do anything but get folks backs up IMHO), you should work on your logic and debating skills, as well as using facts. Sure, many people the facts will just bounce off of, but eventually a narrative can be changed. Look at the Second Gulf War to see this in action.
Again, I disagree. It’s the logical progression of what you are advocating that you seem unwilling to look at. But I’ll leave it there with my disagreement.
You know Col Jessup was the bad guy in that movie, right? And I don’t think this OP is about criticizing the military, but those outside of the military who say “Yeah! We should go kick Iran’s ass! But I’m going to stay here in the safe USA”
Do you believe that those who are capable of serving in uniform, but did not, outside of your scenario here, are somewhat less honorable, courageous, patriotic, or whatever attribute you may choose to name, than those who did?
I understand that roughly 75% of young Americans are unfit for military service due to criminal backgrounds, health/obesity, drug use, educational background, and other factors. Do you think society is going to change its attitudes toward war by isolating the 25% of Americans who are fit to serve, and shaming a certain portion of them to oppose wars of choice? In other words, don’t the vast majority of Americans have an easy out for being called cowards?
Why not just stigmatize the fetishistic view this country has toward violence generally? That if successful would seem to be fruitful in reducing the support for wars of choice, and also the violence we see on our streets and in so many homes - from gun violence to bar fights to child abuse.
It’s not that there’s any issue with trying to establish an ethical framework generally, just that iiandyiiii’s is badly flawed. As for the question about distaste: not particularly.
As others have noted, there are a fair number of activities, some of them dangerous and even deadly to the participants, that many of us support / advocate for / enjoy. For example, this evening I went to the hardware store and picked up several sheets of plywood for a home improvement project. I did this knowing full well that logging is one of the deadliest jobs in America, and despite the fact that I have no personal desire to become a logger.
No one bothered to ask, but if they had, I would have told them that I certainly hope logging efforts continue, even though I understand that I’m essentially advocating for my convenience to be able to go to the hardware store and pick up sheets of plywood at the cost of scores of mens’ lives each year. If someone wanted to call me a ‘gutless coward’ for being part of the market for wood products, or supporting the logging industry, or argued that I have blood on my hands for it, I’d laugh and think less of the person making that argument. Ditto for things like eating crab, or enjoying electricity provided by a coal-fired power plant.
Do you think people have the blood of coal miners on their hands when they flip on a light switch? Do you think they’re ‘gutless cowards’ for implicitly supporting coal mining, even though they’re unwilling to dig up their own coal?
Yes, I’m well aware (it’s probably part of the reason I’m comparing iiandyiiii’s argument to his). I would hope it’s obvious to most people that Col. Jessup’s ‘if you want to complain about what we’re doing in Cuba, you can pick up a weapon and stand a post’ line of argumentation is obviously flawed. I would also hope the flaws inherent in iiandyiiii’s argument, which - while not identical to Col. Jessup’s argument - is awfully reminiscent of its ‘I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post’ line of thinking. From many of the responses in this thread, it seems that they are, at least to quite a few Dopers.
Here’s the thing. While it’s true that loggers and miners and military are all in their professions by choice, only the military is forced by your favorite people, the Federal Government, to go die. Or be imprisoned.
That’s true of those three professions, but there are various other jobs that are volunteer positions, paid for and directed by the federal government, that are, at times, deadly. I don’t want to be an IRS agent or work for the Border Patrol, but I do want someone doing those jobs, and I don’t feel the smallest bit of cowardice at asking those people to do those jobs and risk their lives doing so, even though I’m not interested in them. In the words of Miller, “I think this is important enough that you should die for it, but not important enough that I should die for it”.
What about you? Do you feel a tinge of cowardice at wanting someone to collect taxes, even though you aren’t (AFAIK) an IRS agent yourself? Or do you think that’s a stupid line of reasoning?
I think this will become an increasingly moot point in the future. With all the new technologies the military is using and developing, drones, smart bombs, missiles, aerial superiority I can definitely envision a future where wars could be waged largely by machines and unpiloted equipment. If we eventually reach such a point where ground troops are largely unnecessary I wonder if that changes the arithmetic of unwillingness to serve, but supporting military action automatically makes one a coward.
I agree with the OP that war should always be the last resort and our young men and women shouldn’t be sent into the meat grinder without damn good and just cause.
I think the U.S. is too mired in the business of other countries, obviously sometimes meddling is necessary in the interest of national security but we shouldn’t be toppling governments, fighting other countries’ civil wars, or be in the business of nation building, there can be a fine line sometimes if real human rights abuses or genocides are occurring but it shouldn’t be done without serious debate and discussion first.
I served in the military but did not see combat, the only way I could see myself voluntarily going back, is if it was a WWIII type scenario and our whole way of life and the lives of my family were threatened if we didn’t enter the war.
