We are becoming too pro-military in the US

Great Debates
41

If someone recently joins the military with the expectation that they will not be employed in anything other than the direct defence of American soil, then they are deluded. The United States has no credible threat on its borders, and has no need for a military to defend it.

Whether the other country invaded was a threat or not is something for the political leadership, who ultimately are answerable to their voters, to determine. You can argue that Iraq wasn’t a threat to the US and I would agree with you, but it is not the role of the armed forces to to decide. Ultimately, I think you would prefer an army that did the bidding of its civillian leadership rather than one that made their own decisions. Do you really think that if the entire US military walked off their jobs tomorow because they thought the Iraq to be misguided, it would do anyone any good? Ultimately, soldiers simply place more value on their civic duty to serve the democratically elected national leadership above their own conceit that they know the global chessboard better than the President. Sometimes, that may be true, soldiers are as bitter about politicians as anyone, but it is hardly the basis for a functioning country or goverment. Your idea that individual soldiers can, with perfect information, instantenously decide whether a war is “just” or not and then react in perfect accordance to some uniformly known code of ethics might be a useful model in a philosophy classroom but has no value in the real world.

You and I will just have to disagree on the particulars, here. I suppose if your ultimate goal was the good will of every single person and nation on earth towards the US, you may be right. I think it’s a worthwile goal, but I also think that to attain it, a lot of people (like OBL) need to be shot in the face first.

42

Perfectly reasonable, as long as you’re not repeating the oft repeated falsehood that it is for the good of the troops.

There’s that “save my stupid neck” thing again. Did anyone try to “save your stupid neck” before you joined up?

43

How about we stop acting like the enemy of humanity ?

As opposed to random people, which is what we do instead ? I serious doubt we will even really try to kill or capture Osama; he’s too good a bogeyman.

44

Isn’t it to the benefit of soldiers to not have to fight wars?

45

I’m going to clarify my position a bit here. I think the Iraq invasion was a disastrous decision in purely cynical geopolitical terms, and that Bush, having duped his country into backing it, should be taken to task on the disaster. OTOH, I don’t think there is anything immoral or unethical about wanting to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein and installing a democratic goverment within a pluralist society. You can argue that invading was a bad idea in geopolitical terms or that such a lofty goal is outside the realm of the possible, but I don’t see how working towards that goal makes one “evil”. You can again argue that Bush never had that intention to begin with, and that the occupation has been grossly mismanaged, both of which are probably true, but for the soldiers and commanders on the ground, that is the goal. The soldier on the streets of Bagdhad does not have “act like the enemy of humanity” as part of his mission statement, his role is not to commit random atrocities or brutalize the civilian population and I’ve not seen any evidence that it is. As such I must disagree with your position that all US forces in Iraq are singularly “evil” by nature of being there. Most of what they do in Iraq is definetly for the betterment of the Iraqi people, especially since the insurgency almost exclusively target the civilian population for terror and reprisal, and should be no cause for regret to the soldier himself.

You do not seriously believe that “random people” are indeed the targets of US military action? Of course “random people” do die, it is a war.

46

This is the crux of the missunderstanding. The soldier in the modern Western army has no other good reason to be what he is if not for the chance to fight. “Getting paid well and goverment benefits while doing very little real work” is a reason for some but it isn’t an honorable one; I’d rather do away with the military entirely if it were made up of people like that, for certainly it would be useless in a fight. It might be materially beneficial to me if I never had to go anywhere (and as a reservist, I don’t, not until the Danes are pillaging downtown Toronto anyway) but why would YOU as a taxpayer want that?

47

Actually it is for the good of the troops, the ones who haven’t brainwashed themselves into thinking that “doing their job” is an honorable thing even while that means killing people who were never a threat to the US. It is for the good of the troops, the ones who believe they’re in the wrong place doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason but lack the courage to risk court martial and accusations of betrayal. Not everyone has that kind of courage; I don’t know if I would.

If we were talking about the decision of joining up instead of the desire to fight an immoral war simply because that’s what we were hired to do, then this might be a relevant aside. But that wasn’t what we’re talking about, so it’s a feeble attempt at misdirection.

48

The soldier’s job is to fight if and when his country tells him to; the act of preparedness it itself one of the core purposes of a soldier. The armed forces doesn’t exist to provide people with a chance to shoot one another. The willingness to be the one to do an awful job if it has to be done doesn’t mean you want it to have to be done.

To suggest soldiers are better off being sent to war is ridiculous, and would doubtlessly be contradicted by many veterans of many wars. In fact, I personally know of a few veterans who would think your statement insane. One wonders what Ron Kovic of any number of Vietnam veterans (many volunteers) would think of armchair generals claiming they’re better off being sent to wars because otherwise they had ‘no good reason to be what they are.’ Soldiers are better off not being sent to war.

Your position betrays another through-the-looking-glass perspective; you seem to actually be saying that it’s better that we have thousands of people killed and maimed than allow them to be disappointed that they didn’t get to see a real war, as if any veteran who’s lost a limb or two wouldn’t trade a little boredom to get his legs back. Shortly before the war, another prominent poster and war supporter said that the U.S. now had no choice to invade because if they didn’t, the soldiers would be upset that they had to travel all that way. I cannot help but think that the scale of death and destruction in warfare is making some people forget the real stakes.

I actually was a soldier. I’m very glad I never had to see a firefight.

49

I have another view for you, kawaiitentaclebeast. You say that as a citizen, if I think a war waged by my government is unjust, it is my duty to try to change the government to stop this war, but I shouldn’t try to claim that I’m doing this as a favour to the troops. This would be condescending to them: they are trained professionals who want to do their jobs, not poor lost babies who’ve been sent abroad to kill and get killed.

I see your point, but I think that if a war is really unjust, bringing the soldiers back home will also be in their benefit. I know that they are professionals, and that they must do their job even if they think they shouldn’t be doing it in the first place, but I do believe that if a soldier think they are fighting an unjust war, one that threatens the security of their own country, they would rather be brought back home to serve a useful purpose, such as defending the country, or sent somewhere else to fight a just war. So I think it does benefit the troops to take them out of an unjust war.

50

Also, from a purely utilitarian standpoint: The military is the tool by which our country uses to defend itself. I’m glad the tool is responsive and reliable but I don’t want it worn out on needless trivialities; I want it at 100% readiness for life-and-death situations.

In Iraq, the sharp point of our armed forces is being ground down to an ineffectual nub, and back home the awesome tide of public support has been reduced to a mere trickle. I sure hope a real emergency doesn’t come up right about now.

51

So where does it stop? What is your criterea for whether a foreign country is a “threat” or not? Was Japan a threat to the US in 1941? All evidence today seems to indicate that it was not, since the Japanese never had any serious intention of invading or destroying the US, the whole war could have been avoided if the US simply agreed to Japanese demands in the previous years. I agree with you all about the current Iraq fiasco but how would you quantify your asertion into a useful real world rule? Should soldiers be allowed to simply withdraw from their obligations if they don’t agree with the politican making the decision? That’s not a joke, I actually think that they should to the extent that the military can still function in an effective manner.

You have a right to not involve yourself in the war, you gave it up when you signed on the dotted line. If you were unaware of it at the time then you have my sympathies and good luck with the court martial. (This isn’t directed at anyone in particular)

You’re the one who’s flaunting your ex-military status.

Fine.

Better off compared to what? Would it have been better off not to send anyone to Europe in WW2 and abandon Europe to the Nazis? You’re arguing from the assumption that ALL wars are uneccesary and needless. So what if I think Afghanistan is a neccesary and just war? Who is “better off” if I do not go?

I said no such thing, in case there was any confusion.

I agree more or less in principle, but that isn’t the situation I see in the real world. I don’t think that abandoning Iraq to the Iranians and Al Qaeda is the best course of action, but that is another debate entirely.

I agree in principle but again, I don’t think this is an accurate reflection of the current situation.

52

Yeah, well, I didn’t mention Iraq in my post for this reason: I’m not sure now is the time for the US to pull out of Iraq either. I don’t think they should have gone there in the first place, but now they might well have to stay. I was speaking more in term of generalities.

How involved is the Iranian government in the situation in Iraq? I’ve heard this before, but I still find it slightly surprising.

53

Er, no, I am most certainly not arguing from the assumption that all wars are needless.

My point is thus; soldiers are better off not being sent into combat. Period, full stop. It’s the responsibility of any decent state - which, in a democracy, means the people - to determine whether the horrors of sending men to war is offset by the potential harm that would be avoided. In the case of World War II, I think it clear that the tradeoff was worth it. In the case of Vietnam, it wasn’t. In the case of this war, well, history will tell.

But if a citizen is convinced that the current war ISN’T worth the tradeoff, don’t feed us some line that they’re not interested in the welfare of the soldiers; clearly they are, or else why’re they opposed to the war, anyway? I’ll grant there are othe reasons to oppose war, or this one in particular, but you certainly cannot deny that most opposition to war usually stems from an unwillingness to have people killed and injured for no good, or insufficient, reason. That’s why so many soldiers came back from Vietnam, and said, your claims to the contrary, that they really weren’t better off for having been sent there.

Sending soldiers to fight and die in war is bad. It’s always bad; there’s nothing good about it. The moral question that has to be asked is whether it’s LESS bad than not doing it.

54

Irrelevant. But I’d class it as when we have in hand either dated plans of, or actual evidence of, an enemy attack that would undeniably result in loss of life. This isn’t Iraq. It also wasn’t Japan either. We suffered a loss at Pearl Harbor which is tragic, but as a result nobody ever doubted for a second the justness of that war.

I find it odious and fallacious to suggest that a citizen can be morally bound by contract to perform evil actions. That defence didn’t seem to wash at Nuremburg either.

You started with your military affiliation. I merely mention mine in these situations to stave off the inevitable “if you didn’t serve then you have no right to speak on the matter.” I did and I do. If you don’t mention it further then I won’t.

55

Sure.

Who is “they”? The soldiers? The Vietnamese? In any case your comparison is inadequate because the current war is still on-going and (this is a matter of opinion) the US has a good chance of winning it, Bush’s mismanagement not withstanding. You’re arguing under the assumption that everything has already been lost. I met a few Vietnam veterans, most of them feel it wasn’t worth it in the end precisely BECAUSE the United States had lost heart. Suppose US troops had invaded North Vietnam, the Chinese had not intervened (gripped as they were in their own Cultural Revolution and facing off the Soviets on their northern border), and the two Vietnams had been unified under an effective and independent democratic goverment. It may have taken 10 more years on top of the 20 already invested and many more casualties amongst both US troops and Vietnamese civilians, but would it have been worth it then?

Don’t get me wrong, I argued long and hard against Iraq in 2003 with any American who would listen, and remember most of them supported the invasion back then. Apparently not even my immense powers of persuasion was enough to sway public opinion, but what good will pulling out now do?

56

Okay, so suppose US naval intelligence had gotten it right and a US fleet had intercepted the Japanese before they launched their attack. Would an all out war to the finish with the Japanese still have been justified? The Japanese certainly tried to avoid that eventuality any way they can.

In any case the point is that some people feel that helping the oppressed and downtrodden of the world, in that case the peoples of Asia, in this case the Iraqis, is a worthwhile endeavour. Whether Bush and Co. is sincere in this endeaveour is another matter, but I have no doubt that the vast majority of the Soldiers and commanders on the ground are. If your foreign policy outlook is one of complete isolationism, then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

Nice Godwin. What “evil action” will you accuse the next soldier stepping off the plane of? You and Der Trhis seemingly feel that anyone who participates in the war must neccesarily be a prisoner torturing Bush Bot. I’m going to argue that not only is this not true, but that the vast majority of US military personel in Iraq are doing far more good for the Iraqi people that Saddam ever did, and are giving a very good account of themselves under difficult circumstances.

Tad defensive, aren’t we? Why was it “inevitable”? I mentioned mine because most people would be puzzled as to why I, a Canadian, would be recounting firsthand the opinions of many American soldiers. If you have experience that is relevent to the discussion then by all means mention away, I’d be interested to hear it.

57

Exactly my point. I think rapid pro-militarism devalues human life and takes away freedom. I can’t say I value human life if I celebrate the fact that we are becoming better at killing humans who have no say in whether they go to war or not. I see people like Sean Hannity (he has done this for Haditha, the start of the war during protests and probably Abu Gharib) subtly using the slippery slope argument all the time to promote the Iraq war.

  1. criticism or publication of mistakes by the military, or criticism and publication of oppostion to the war decreases troop morale.
  2. Decreased troop morale leads to less enlistment, less morale to fight, and more morale for the enemy, all of which put us at a disadvantage in military conflicts.
  3. The military is fighting for freedom and to protect us from evil
  4. Inhibiting criticism is necessary to keep us free.

The sad part about this slippery slope argument is that it is somewhat true. Naturally Hannity doesn’t take it to extremes like people like Michael Savage (who call for the arrest and detention of critics and criticism), but this is a form of fascism. The more we value the military, the more valid it becomes to punish dissidence because it puts military lives at risk. It bugs me when I hear ‘troop morale’ being used to support the war, condemn criticism, or condemn public investigation into wrongdoing.

Hannity on Haditha

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/23/congressman_murtha_smeared_again_on_hannity_colmes.php

Sean Hannity, who never served a day in the military, had the unmitigated gall to paint Murtha as a traitor. “The enemies that are plotting against our troops hear this.”

Scarborough and Savage on the start of the war.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-18164.html

Today Savage calls for the arrest of anti-war activists and the restoration of the Sedition Act to silence dissent (Savage Nation, 3/8/03): “Then we can stop some of these maniacs who are encouraging our enemies, weakening our troops’ resolve and confusing the American people.”

“These leftist stooges for anti-American causes are always given a free pass. Isn’t it time to make them stand up and be counted for their views, which could hurt American troop morale?”

This is all very simliar (but far less dangerous and serious, I’m not comparing the people above to the Nazis in how far they’d take this mentality) to tactics used by groups like the Nazis to stifle dissent.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sk02.htm
“Front soldier X was wounded at Stalingrad and was airlifted back home…He visited a family of acquaintances. They spoke of this and that. The conversation turned to an old woman. One preferred to avoid Frau So-and-So. She was a nice enough woman, to be sure, but she said the oddest things. Recently, she said it was stupid that our soldiers had to undergo such dangers, and similar things. She caused a lot of bother and annoyance, and probably is not quite right in the head. One really cannot take her seriously. One didn’t report her to the police, our reader asked? No, one could not do that. One could hardly send her to prison or even the gallows. She was such a nice woman!..Whether he knows it or not, each stupid chatterer or malicious rumor spreader is helping the enemy to destroy the German people. The enemy imagines he can defeat us by a campaign of agitation. If he reaches his goal, the German people will be destroyed, exterminated, enslaved. Do you think your consideration will earn you special treatment? Do you think a warm place will be reserved for you out there in a Siberian concentration camp?”

Tons of developed nations manage to be domestically free and support freedom and human rights internationally without the level of military pandering we have in the US. Sweden is one example, but there are others.

58

Have we then totally abandoned the header topic and gone over to debating the war itself?

Maybe that’s all we should be debating as long as there is a war.

:rolleyes:

59

:slight_smile: No. I really don’t care about the current war and I don’t think there even is a debate on a board like SD on Iraq as about 80-90% of people here have varying degrees of the same opinion on it and that doesn’t lead to much debate. However you can’t discuss the rampant militarism in the US without talking about Iraq. In regards to my post at least, in Iraq some people are claiming that any criticism of the military or military action is helping the terrorists win and putting US freedoms and US troops at risk. A high degree of pandering to the military may make that kind of mentality easier to get away with. When the troops are seen as some independent force for good who are held in extremely high esteem it (probably) becomes easier to stifle political criticisms because it may eventually harm the troops. And when people assume that the military is a knee jerk force for good they may assume that a military incursion is automatically good as they feel the military itself is good.

60

Again, irrelevant. We did not intercept Iraq doing anything at all, whatsoever, suggesting any imminent attack on the US. Please desist with the bad analogy theatre.

Please do not use terms you do not fully understand. We are talking about soldiers in wartime following orders regardless of whether they’re really justified. Nuremberg is more than relevant here.

When you question the war or criticize the military culture, it’s all but inevitable that someone will say “you didn’t serve, you have no right to criticize.” (As an example, I note that you resurrect the issue in each of your replies.) I happen to believe it isn’t really relevant on matter of national policy, but saves time to mention it up front. I’ve explained this twice now and I will address the issue no more.