When my brother got back, I said (half drunkenly) that I wanted to thank him… not for defending our freedom, because he wasn’t doing that (he agrees) but for stepping in and attempting, no matter how misguided, to help someone else. The goal was good, even if execution and follow through was for shit (which he also agrees with).
I also thanked him for being part of the system that does actually defend this country in times of need, and for doing a job that so many can’t (or won’t) do themselves.
One always has to try and see both sides. Military service is a proud tradition, the expression of much deeply held idealism, and the occasion for much heroism and sacrifice*. Military service also sanctifies, even justifies, war by its very preparation for war, and it’s not going too far to suggest that a certain institutionalized cruelty is needed to maintain an effective military.
*in the sense of the Latin word meaning to make holy.
Do you realize that there is a difference between defending your country and attacking another one?
Besides, in case of an invasion, every citizen has the duty to defend their country, not just the professional soldiers.
You begin with patriotism and you end up killing babies.
Do you realize that when someone signs up for the military they don’t get to choose whether they will be defending their own country or attacking another one? IMHO people who sign up for the military should be thanked for their service because they signed up to defend my ass (and the ass of everyone I care about) should my country be invaded. It doesn’t matter if it turns out they didn’t actually do that.
(NB: This whole “thanking the military” thing is really empty rhetoric anyway–I’m not saying that every person has a duty to say thanks or give money or bake a pie for a returning service member. But the above is what I believe to the extent there is any content to the idea of thanking someone for their service.)
To be fair, it’s a valid–if hardly diplomatically framed–point. It’s pretty well accepted that the biker gangs of the 50s and 60s were in some measure a result of a population of aimless single men who’d become accustomed to an existence of adrenalin and violence. I’m not sure I can think of a post-Viet Nam analog, but it’s still something that will have to addressed.
Itself another element of the “Valiant Troops” mythos-- not only should they be praised for their sacrifice, but the mere suggestion that any of them, upon their return, could be other than stalwart, virtuous, almost deific examples of perfect citizens borders on treason. Hence the recent phony “outrage” over the suggestion that veterans could be targeted by right-wing extremists.
Nevermind that combat veterans do frequently suffer from psychological problems brought on by post-traumatic stress, experience problems readjusting to civilian life, encounter marital/relationship problems, including higher incidence of domestic violence— to merely say as much, even with an aim of finding a solution to the problem, becomes “attacking the troops.”
We should thank the troops because, as citizens of democracies, we the voters are responsible for them being there (albeit indirectly and perhaps theoretically).
The last military veteran to assassinate a President was a left-wing extremist and a self-identified communist. That’s something that people might want to consider before they talk about right-wing gun nuts and the grave danger they supposedly present to our country.
And a large portion of the military is black and Hispanic. Do people ever raise the possibility that these individuals might be targeted by black militant revolutionaries or Aztlan guerrillas when they come home from their service? (No, they do not.) Because the notion of it is absurd.
Sure, there are a few lunatics who come out of the military. There are also lots and lots of lunatics who have no connection to the military.
It’s an interesting contrast between our apparent happiness to say “oh, hey, thanks for all that”, and apparent unwillingness to provide actual concrete rewards, as the recent political problem with the Gurkhas has shown.
We’ve been in Iraq for almost 6 years now. In point of fact, every single British soldier now returning either (a) joined before the war but chose to re-up, or (b) joined after the war in full knowledge that they would probably be sent to Iraq.
I dunno, there was that time when the US military was caught with its pants down and wasn’t invaded but was attacked by the Japanese. The Americans responded by using the most horrific weapon available at the time on two civilian targets to kill over two hundred thousand people who had fuckall to do with Pearl Harbor. But hey, they did a hell of a job in fighting off our attackers!
Of course they should be thanked, otherwise, it’s a largely thankless job with low pay, shitty hours and often shitty assignments, and despite it being voluntary, it takes a certain kind of mettle to join and do your job professionally.
Since we are talking about soldiers returning from Iraq I cannot see how this is even remotely relevant but yes, I am grateful to those who defended America and the allied countries who had been attacked.
But now it is America who is the agressor and I cannot feel any sympathy for those who are doing it. I feel sympathy for the Iraqi people who have been caused to suffer so much.
Christ, you and Xan win the award for the most absurd and bizarre responses to one of my posts today. You too would have to study night and day to someday rise to the level of blithering idiot.
They probably also did a hell of a job discouraging people from attacking the US again by putting other countries on notice that they will get lit up if they mess with us. If putting out that notice costs the lives of a few hundred thousand Japanese folks, then, well, sucks to be them.
