So what? I really doubt that a directorate that was organized in 1969 for the purpose of subverting internal dissent had all that much to do with changing attitudes that were under way in the U.S. in 1965 and had already caused the premature retirement of one U.S. president in 1968.
Aaahh! Anyone who happened to be upset by a prolonged war with daily views of death and destruction along with an ongoing body count and no clear end in sight comprised simply “the gullible,the easily led and those who had no genuine strong views one way or the other but wanted to appear Hip and trendy.”
Rather than throwing out straw bogeymen, here, can we address the topic of the thread in a serious fashion? (Or should we be pulling up our quilts and opening our closets to be sure that no nasty commies are still lurking under our beds or behind the coathangers.)
The Soviet Union was a genuine foe and a serious threat to the U.S. However, whenever I have encountered tales of superior propaganda subverting the U.S., I have found either that it was a failure or that it was unnecessary and that the Soviets were being given credit for something (of which someone on the Right disapproved) that was occurring in our society anyway.
Who laughed at Newton and Galileo? Not sure what point you’re trying to make with that.
Men who have “served”, in either war or peacetime, often recall those years as “the best years of my life”. Young, full of energy, using their physical strength, surviving danger, those are exciting times. Lots of thrills, especially if the danger was great. For those who survive and who aren’t maimed in mind or body, quite thrilling. That’s why young men keep going to be soldiers, isn’t it? If they couldn’t get 18 and 19 year old boys, how could they have armies, how could they have wars?
Your description of your own experiences makes my point for me. Nothing further required.
Have I lived a sheltered life? Well, I’ve never been in the military and have no personal experience of war, so in that sense I’m sheltered. I daresay I’m a tad older than you suspect, though, and I’ve actually had a pretty hard life, one way or the other. Not to complain, though. I’m still alive, still kicking, cuz I’m a tough old bird.
All of that is beside the point, though, isn’t it?
Probably shortly after the manufacture of circuitry-based components overseas got so cheap that it became more sensible to throw away electronics and replace them than to repair them. I mean, I have a soldiering iron myself, and I do occasionally use it, but…
I think of Remarque’s forward to All Quiet on the Western Front.
Yet the military is routinely portrayed as an adventure. It seems that after the brutal ugliness of battle society gets turned off by war until a sufficient time passes, a new generation comes up and a new jingoism comes into play. The question is, in the long term is the general view of life in the military gradually eroding?
I think it took a hit in WWI along with patriotism related ideas of all kinds, since that was such an example of stupid or greedy political leaders throwing people’s lives away, and the devastation cause by war. Military aircraft and long range artillery also affected attitudes, since it meant that you tended to get hurt even when your side was winning. The attitude of women especially seems to have changed from the old “come back with your shield or on it” attitude; probably because they never did the dying back then as long as their side won. I recall reading about how in the Civil War women were so pro-soldier that men who avoided service ( possible legally; you could buy yourself out ) would literally be spat upon and refused sex by streetwalkers, much less respectable women; a far cry from today where women typically like to portray themselves as innately peace loving.
As for all this talk about American attitudes towards it’s soldiers, is ralph124c an American ? America is unusually warlike, no doubt to being powerful and far enough away to avoid most retaliation, and typically picking “bully wars” against far weaker enemies. A non-American would likely see soldiering as less popular as it is in militaristic America. America hasn’t been invaded in a long time; something like Pearl Harbor would be just another attack in many countries history. We aren’t used to paying much of a price for militarism.
Realize that this post is by a soldier of a former generation. My grandfather’s wars were in the Philippines and Northern France, my father’s war was in North Africa and Italy, my war was in Southeast Asia. I don’t know anything about the day to day, minute to minute experience of war in West Asia.
It does seem to me that, like sex, each generation thinks it discovered the obscenity, the wastefulness and cruelty of war.
From all I can gather my father and grandfather thought they had a duty to serve. They were young and health and their nation called them and that was enough. Both served without compulsion, although many of the men they served with were coerced by conscription, social pressure and family expectations. I like to think that I served for much the same reasons as my father and grandfather. Like them, however, many of my fellows served from compulsion. None of us looked forward to the cynics definition of military glory: to get killed and have your name misspelled in the newspaper.
On that note I just found out last week that a high school friend’s remains (a tooth and a skull fragment) had been identified – presumably those pitiful pieces of what was a vigorous and amusing young man will be brought home and buried with all the local young men who have died in service since the town was organized in 1817.
I was told from earliest childhood that it is an honorable thing to be a soldier and I believed it to be true– so, when I was old enough and my country called I went. I don’t regret the five years I followed the guideon. I was given responsibilities, challenges and opportunities far beyond what I would have received were I not in the armed service. I never had to worry about my wardrobe, either.
Nonetheless, I am also grateful that my children are daughters and will never have to see the things I saw or do the things I did.
Actually most people would consider me to be much more leftwing then the majority of Americans including Democrats.
I was one of the foreigners who were behind Obama all the way,I believe in U.H.C. and the welfare state.
I believe that we were wrong to go into Iraq as we were lied to about W.M.D and I also dont believe that we should have gone into Afghan either for purely tactical reasons if nothing else.
But veering towards the left politically doesn’t mean that I change my perception of reality to suit my political views,grass is green no matter what colour would suit me personally.
So now that we’ve dispelled your portrayal of me of being some sort of closet fascist can we dispense with all the tired old facetiousness ref.Reds under the Bed,Better Red then Dead and all the other none arguments used to undermine my position.
I read about this in some detail a few years ago when I was trawling through memoirs of ex K.G.B./G.R.U. agents.
I cant remember the name of the book so I’ll have to return to the same library and hope that it hasn’t been relegated to storage and do some searching.
Not quite as easy as googling but I will do my best.
As to the truthfulness of my assertation I swear on the soul of my dead mother that it is completely,totally and utterly true.
Yep, the table of contents is visible. “France and Italy in the Cold War. Agent Penetration and Active Measures.” That should be the chapter. Sorry I can’t cite it more specifically… find the book. It’s as close to a primary source as you’re likely to get.
Kipling describes well how the average “Tommy” in the ranks of the British colonial forces was regarded: A piece of trash from the slums whose life was held about as valuable as a horse’s- indeed, often less valuable than a good horse. In sharp contrast to the officer corps, which was a patriotic and respectable part of upperclass society.
The “truth” behind war is always apparent. It hasn’t been a great mystery since before the Pharaohs. Being a soldier is a life of being wet, cold, and dirty- that’s WHY it’s appealing. That’s where the prestige is. If it were an easy job, no one would think of it as a sacrifice. No one would say “thank you for your service” to me. But because it’s hard, dangerous, and pays little, yet everyone benefits from the common defense, it has prestige.
I joined for practical reasons (school money) and idealistic reasons. It appealed to me because by being cold, wet, and dirty, with the added possibility of getting killed (very very low possibility), I knew I’d be a hero. Chicks (not necessarily) dig that and I was 17.
To summarize, it hasn’t lost appeal for any of the reasons you’ve given.
Actually, that’s more of a product of the Vietnam War and it’s drafts. A casual Googling reveals that the average age of soldiers killed in the war in Iraq is around 30. The average age of a soldier in WWII was 26. Soldierin’ is certainly mostly a young mans game, but there are certainly plenty of soldiers who are at least old enough to separate myth from the reality and still choose to sign up.
Coincidently I am across a copy of the London Times from Monday 3rd Nov. with a front page article saying that service in the armed forces in the U.K. is held in greater esteem then ever by members of the public,servicemen themselves and their families.
Before you say it the Times is not a rightwing gung ho paper.
Very recently it headlined on the front page the heightened number of British soldiers suffering from hearing loss due to not wearing ear defenders in heavy firefights in Iraq and Afghan,hardly something designed to improve recruiting.
Rather than the uniforms, I should think that the more romantic appeal of the military in the old traditional sense went away with the mass slaughter of WWI & the millions dead in Flanders…
While one could say mass slaughter was emerging throughout the 19th century evolution of war, the perfection of mechanised slaughter - machine guns, the emergence of tanks, massed modern artillery, removed the last vestiges of the honourable fantasy.
I would say modern sense of honourable military service is indeed rather different from the types of things one saw written as late as 1916.
I made no effort to portray you as a closet fascist; I corrected an historical error that you posted in support of something or another. Since it is an error frequently employed by revisionists on the Right in the U.S., I addressed that issue, regardless of your personal beliefs.
The idea that Soviet propaganda had any serious affect on changes in attitudes toward the U.S. military, (particularly propaganda that issued from a bureau that was created for a different purpose a couple of years after the attitudes had already begun to change), is not supportable.
Well it’s certainly different, but I think it’s still there. Instead of a romantacized Charge of the Light Brigade honorable fantasy of charging across a field on horseback with your saber drawn as part of a dragoons regiment for the glory of the Empire, there is the romantacized Black Hawk Down honorable fantasy of fastroping from a helicopter to nab a terrorist warlord drug kingpin as part of a special ops team for liberty and freedom.
I viewing the US army’s recruiting ads (TV). it is apparent that the positive side of soldiering is shown-handsome young men in spotless uniforms performing feats of strenght. The hardware is shown, but there is never any shots of the human wreckage in the aftermath of battle. To watch the ads, a 4 year enlistment is a fun time to get in shape, act macho, and hang outb with your buddies.
they never show the caskets being unloaded at the military cemetaries, or the delegations calling at the (late) soldier’s home, to break the bad news to the parents/wife/children.
I have to agree with this. When “Black Hawk Down” first came out I heard some people say that it’s probably one of the best anti-war films made because it shows the horror of war etc. When I saw it my first thought was, “I want to be a Ranger!”
On a related note, when I was at Camp Pendleton as a midshipman spending a week training with the Marines, the movie that our Gunnery Sergeant showed us was none other than “Full Metal Jacket.” The film has been portrayed as being anti-war, but Kubrick reportedly stated it was neither anti-war nor pro-war, but just showed things the way they were. Our gunnery sergeant evidently agreed, because he played it for my platoon in a Marine barracks, despite the fact that:
the Marine gunnery sergeant is shot by a recruit in the film.