Why is nationalism decreasing...

That's right now, but how did it work back in WWI and II? Unless the officers at Verdun or Stalingrad weren't looking for promotion... Still, it's good to know that.

Do you acknowledge that war actually has a bad track record as far as "solving things" is concerned?

edited 2nd Jan '11 8:20:13 AM by RawPower

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

Yes, in fact it used to be a shitload harder to get promoted back then.

And however bad War's record is, Diplomacy's is worse.

"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZE

That sounds so incredibly obviously wrong I just can't wrap my mind around it. Whatever do you mean by that? Do you mean how diplomacy failed to stop the Nazis, or the Serbian ethnic cleansings, or... what exactly?

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

I'm pretty sure shooting them in the face is what stopped the Nazi's.

The Nazis were exceptionally insane, and if they had used diplomacy and Know When to Fold 'Em at the right times, they would be owning most of Europe right now. But no, they had to fucking go and take on the USSR, the morons.

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

Yeah, poor Nazi's.

What, did it sound like I'm taking their side? If you're going to be complete monsters at least DO IT EFFICIENTLY! Which you CAN'T DO, because at the level of an ENTIRE SOCIETY, SOCIOPATHY, by DEFINITION, means SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT. And what makes me the most furious is people, including me, getting the stupid impression that those guys were efficient in any way.

Okay, they did know how to dress their officers. But that's all.

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

Needless heroics don't get you promoted if they were done for their own sake.

Most of those silver stars, crosses, and medals of honor(in fact, probably all of them) are usually achieved because either someone else screwed up badly and the recipient cleaned up the mess, or the enemy did something smart and you were in a bad situation.

Take Sal Giunta, the newest MOH recipient, and the only non-posthumous one since Vietnam. His platoon got caught in a really nasty L shaped ambush that was planned perfectly, out in the Korengal valley in Afghanistan. The fireteam in the front got cut down when the insurgents started their ambush, and the forward squad spread out to minimalize casualties and try to keep a broad base of fire so they weren't being squeezed by the L shape. That's good strategy and tactics on the part of both parties.

Because they had to spread out, one pair of two on the far flank got attacked. One was killed, the other was captured. Giunta went running after the soldier who had been captured and was being dragged away by insurgents. He killed several combatants in the process of getting his buddy and carrying him back. While they did get him to a medivac, he died in transit.

That wasn't needless heroics or idiotic heroism for the sake of reward, it was putting himself at extremely great risk in a bad situation to save the life of another. That's the type of shit that gets you those rewards.

^No dude, didn't you know? The military is like the Starship Troopers movie where you get promoted whenever someone above you dies or you do a football play in combat.

Dinchahear?

"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZE

They must not teach us how to fight properly in the Air Force then, I knew I should have said Hike before we breached that building!

So how can the Glory Hound exist? I mean, the characters that act like this justify their dog kicking by "looking for promotion points", while making very blatant mistakes that seem to go against the promotion rules we talked about. Is this a case of the authors committing a Critical Research Failure, or is there some Truth in Television, and, in that case, how much and how?

I don't get it... "Hike", like, Kyle Broflovski's little brother?

edited 2nd Jan '11 12:40:26 PM by RawPower

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

@Raw

Hike is what you say before you start a play in American Football, I was going off of Scryes joke.

It's not so much that the research isn't being done regarding heroics, lots of us dream of doing heroic things, though usually for the reputation and regard, not so much for promotion. None of us usually dream of doing heroics that are optional though, if there's a safe route, we'll take it.

It's more that soldiers who always play it safe and professional don't make for as interesting of a story as soldiers who do extraordinary things that should have gotten them killed. It also makes for a good antagonist character in a war story, to have a trooper who is willing to do anything to earn glory, even at the risk of his life and others being unnecessary.

In other words, yes, soldiers do romanticize war a lot. But not to the suicidal and dangerous degree where fantasies and dreams get turned into real life action the way they do in fiction. On occasion I've thought about how great it would be to have the prestige that comes with earning a medal of honor, and then I think about the type of situation I'd have to be in to earn one in the first place, and realize how foolish that is.

edited 2nd Jan '11 12:51:56 PM by Barkey

So... let's tie this back to the topic. Traditionally war and the glorification of one's own troops has been one of the central elements of the cult to the nation. Again, nothing better than an external enemy in order to unite a group. Often said troops would have been very happy if people stopped it with the jingoism and the cheering and professing and stopped sending them to meet unnecessary deaths in pointless conflicts. Late nineteenth and early twentieth century were especially bad about this, ...Or So I Heard.

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

Sort of, unfortunately lots of soldiers are very nationalistic themselves, and romanticize war in the same fashion up until the point that they get their gray matter splattered all over the grass.

Yes. Very. Also, I hear using fictional media to form your understanding of something is a pretty bad idea.

Explains a lot, though.

"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZE

I've noticed that people who have friends or relatives in military service usually have a much higher (and better informed) opinion of the military than people with no connection whatsoever.

I live in a country where all men are supposed to serve in the military or do a longer term of civil service, so though I got exempted, almost all of my friends and my younger brother served in the military (my brother is a sergeant). That's why I know a lot about protocol and other issues related to military things. That's also why I know that armies are not for randomly spraying bullets at everything that moves and bombing the enemy until there's no way to know that life ever existed in the area.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I'd wouldn't mind national service if I got to work at the civil service, I like helping people with their tax forms and other stuff, and at least you are being helpful there.

Honestly I wish the military did more humanitarian aid and civil projects. I tried really hard to go to Haiti when they were requesting people, but we didn't get the call. We have tons of Engineers who don't have much work to do, and plenty of cities can't afford to build certain parts of their infrastructure correctly. I'd love it if the military did more to give back, given the way our unique skillsets and organization can help.

But nooo, if the military, who are already being paid on salary, assist in city infrastructure efforts then that's somehow negative because it takes jobs away from less skilled workers.

The closest I get to civil aid is when we do joint exercises with local law enforcement, which I'll admit is pretty fun.

Scrye, do you expect me to become a war reporter or arms dealer or something and go find out for myself? Most of what I have watched is of the anti-war variety, but are Tom Clancy type novels really all that more instructive, besides teaching you a lot about military hardware?

I'm afraid that's true of many professions.

If not for Pratchett's novels, my perspective on policemen would be very different, being informed by shows such as Law And Order or The Shield, which give a very different, less human and sympathetic, but more "efficient" perspective. That is, Pratchett talks a lot about how cops relate to their job and think of their social role, while most other shows and stories focus on the cases, or on how the cops relate to the cases, or on the cops' private lives, or a combination thereof. I don't remember shows about cops thinking about what it means to be a cop. Same for Ciaphas Cain novels in regards to the military mind, but then again Cain is described as the exception rather than the rule, which always struck me as odd, and I think the gung-ho persona he puts on for his public's benefit would be seen as repulsive in a modern day setting, amirite?

However from my experience I think the demographic of coppers that are rude assholes looking for trouble is really underrepresented in fiction. Same for soldiers. Giving an eighteen-year-old boy with no higher education a huge gun and little consequence to killing is just asking for trouble.

Again, back on topic, as we said, nationalism is traditionally very linked to the strength and prestige of the military. This has made me wonder. Again with Pratchett, I must ask, about Ankh-Morpork (which is fiercely nationalistic, and the most arrogant, stuck-up, slef-satisfied city in the Discworld): is it really possible to fight your wars with cash? Can a city in a mediaval setting really defeat a horde of mongol invaders by welcoming them with open arms and treating them as custimers and ripping and empoverishing the shit out of them until they become yet another minority? That always struck me as moronicodd: barbarian hordes usually Rape Pillage And Burth the shit out of you and ask questions later. And, if a foreign army is marching to invade you, the fact that their country is massively indebted towards you and that you manufactured their weapons should only be an incentive for them to attack, yes? Many pogroms were caused by impoverished kings believing their Jews had accumulated too much cash and power and it was time to steal it back.

edited 2nd Jan '11 2:47:18 PM by RawPower

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

I'd prefer it if the army was brough in to help, but sometimes it can give the wrong impression, it can look like the US is bullying other nations.

Tom Clancy is ok, but he is obviously from the cold war generation. His opinions on Russia are very negatively biased, and many of his theories aren't the basis of his books because they are likely to happen, they are there because they make a good story. He would disagree with me on both counts though.

It's entirely possible to get a pretty good (though not first-hand) understanding of how military organizations and conflicts work by studying the subject. The point of Scrye's post was that in order to have (even a passing) grasp of these things, you need to use something else than fiction as your source material.

If you're gonna form an opinion on armies and war, you need to know something about the subject, and (so close as to not make a difference) no amount of fiction is going to teach you enough about it.

You need to read nonfiction sources to learn what war is really like (another way to learn is to join an army; even without conflict, they'll at least teach you about the reality as well as is in their power).

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

@Bungman That's certainly true when you do it in foreign countries, unless you're sending the soldiers in a quality other than that of soldiers. That is, without all the weapons and armour and stuff, just with work outfits. If I were a worker I might not be comfortable working along a foreign trained killer armed to the teeth...

Generally the problem with foreign aid is that it's conditional, it's decided by the foreigners, who breed a dependence towards them and ofthen try to keep local aid associations subservient and under control. Also, ill-thought foreign aid, even when selfless and well-intentioned, can really fuck things up. I mean really fuck things up.

For one thing, accepting foreign aid is always damaging to the pride of a nation, no matter how much they need it.

I thought it was in their interest to lie to me to make me a useful pawn? And I'm not in a position to join any army. Morocco's army is pretty messed up, and Spain's got such a fascist pedigree...

edited 2nd Jan '11 2:55:00 PM by RawPower

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

Tom Clancy still wouldn't help. Fiction is fiction, dude.

So yeah, if you actually, you know went over there and worked with the military in some form, you'd actually understand it a lot more at all. But therein lies the problem.

You don't want to do what it takes to actually get a grasp on the subject, but you still want to have something on the subject. So you seek out ill-informed, flight-of-fancy biased sources that only cloud your judgment while making it seem like it's informing you. It's not.

I'll repeat: The people who want to have so much to say about the military will do anything accept what they actually need to do to fully understand it.

It is, however, funny that this would be completely unacceptable in another field. I know precisely two things about computer central processor construction: jack, and shit. Now if I kicked in the door to the Intel Inside manufacturing plant and started telling people how to conduct their operations, how many people would heed me or take me seriously?

edited 2nd Jan '11 2:56:26 PM by Scrye

"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZE

Except the military exist for the sake of the civilian society, which feeds, arms, dresses and fuels them. Do you mean military service should be obligatory so that everyone can form a truthful opinion of what being in the military is like so that only then can they tell you what to do?

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?