The Merits and Pitfalls of Military Service

What are soldiers? Heroes? Victims? Do they defend our freedoms? Are wars ever justified? If so, when? Are they worth the sacrifice? What do they accomplish? Is there a cycle of violence?

This thread is for discussing questions like these.

It's my opinion that all wars are some mixture of grey vs. grey, simply by the nature of the profession alone. There's no getting around that. The sides could have more black or white to them depending on the circumstances.

Governments set military policy, so if the government sets a humanistic task for the military, it will benefit the world. If they set a selfish policy, soldiers will naturally bring great harm.

What makes for a moral army is its willingness to defend its citizens, and if possible citizens of other nations, over its government. The luckiest nations are those that know that the military will not turn its guns on non-military, domestic or otherwise.

Other than that, the military is very much at the mercy of the mismanagement of the government.

Soldiers are the land based component of a nations military

Depends on who you ask. When benefits are cut, or individuals are unable to receive the necessary care? Sure

Yes

Yes

Yes

That depends on what the conditions for victory are.

Of course there is; we're human.

edited 2nd Aug '11 11:21:27 AM by Kino

I find myself more-or-less agreeing with Kino and Game Chainsaw. I'd just say they're people doing a job. That job happens to be the continuation of politics by other means.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that someone thought soldiers got to much respect...that they're just doing a well-payed job and dangerous job.

I think that's complete bullshit. We're always on a shortage of soldiers from what I hear, and so the people who enlist voluntarily are keeping away the "draft". Doesn't matter what your view of our government or it's actions are when it comes to respecting the troops imo.

A military body is only as good as the populace it draws from and the quality of it's training. Despite being run through a program designed to alter your world view into something more usable many still retain a fair portion of their previous views.

Yes the members of the military can be victims especially considering how the military machine works. It is easy to be abused or abuse others.

As kino noted there are lots of nasty issues with benefits and getting medical care you are due in the U.S. Military. There is a long track record of this. Look at how the military treats the members with mental trauma and the way our society treats them.

Shell Shock, Battle Fatigue, PTSD w/e name you give it we have a problem with it and the military and government rarely want to pony up the cash and care for it.

Then we come to things like poisoning from agent orange, gulf war syndrome, and the newer problem of neural damage caused from close in explosions messing up people. The government and military will happily sweep your ass under a rug.

Some positively incredible people come from the military and after they are done with the military pursue goals that would benefit others. We also have our share of bad apples who pursue less then noble goals.

A volunteer military defends the freedoms of the private citizens by choosing to be the military hopefully preventing a draft as a necessary measure which draws people in who do not want to be in the military.

Few wars are justifiable. The sacrifice is only relative to the goals of the battling nations, the military body doing the fighting, and the citizenry. That is a very hard question to answer.

There is a long long long cycle of human warfare dating back before even our written history. Humans are aggressive and territorial. We fight for resources like animals in the wild but our scale and means of fighting are devastating.

I don't view soldiers differently than I view other people; I respect them if what they do is right, and not otherwise. I don't respect soldiers who willingly fight in an unjust war or who murder innocents.

For example, I highly respect Bradley Manning, because he was willing to risk his future to expose wrongdoing by the military. He put doing the right thing above blind loyalty to the military, even above his own wellbeing.

Wars are only justified when there's no better option, which is pretty much never the case except in direct self-defense. Soldiers who willingly fight in unjust wars are not heroes, and if they kill innocents, they're nothing more than state-sanctioned murderers. The same goes for soldiers who commit war crimes (an odd term — as though war itself wasn't a crime against humanity).

I don't think that any wars currently going on are a last resort or an effective measure for either side, so I have a very low opinion of most soldiers. Along the same lines, as the ones leading or ordering the wars, people higher in the military hierarchy are even worse.

I would say that statement pretty much misses the point of being a soldier in a democracy. Which is, when electing to be the people who actually operate military fire-power, you give up the right to choose where that fire-power will be directed. Separation of powers.

Soldiers (read:esp. generals) who think they have the right to choose who they'll point their guns at are dangerous creatures. Suppose they disagree with your politics? Suppose their idea of an unjust war is at variance with the rest of the population? Suppose their idea of a just war is at variance with the rest of the population?

And they've got the guns, tanks, etc.

This separation of powers does mean that soldiers can find themselves in foreign adventures on behalf of opportunist politicians, but it was ever thus. It's the price paid for having a military instead of a military dictatorship.

edited 2nd Aug '11 4:29:42 PM by Bluesqueak

Depends on the side and what war that's going on. They can be villainous a-holes trying to relive their former gory(most wars after WWII on the Allied side). They can be heroic defenders of their homeland(soldiers whose war took place in their homes). Or they can be thrillseekering Internet Tough Guy(there's a lot of these). Not sure about victims....that guy who is morally against the war and is hiding out in Canada? I dunno...they're often victimizers.

Think of them as nothing but a pack of dogs. What side of morality they stand in depends entirely on their owners. Bad owners will have bad dogs. Good owners have good dogs. Which is why we need more people like Mannings and those in Wikileaks to make sure they don't stray off and bite people they aren't supposed to bite.

Depends on the war and side. War is only ever justified when it comes to self defence or aiding an ally. In a sense, no war is ever justified to begin with because someone had to have started the war to begin with, and that side's justification has never been adequate before. So it's justified for those protecting themselves and their allies, but not for the twat who started it.

Depends on the war and side. If it's a soldier fighting in a war taking place in their own country, yeah they're fighting for freedom alright. In most other cases, no. It's a good way to garner support from the populace though. One's own government is often a much bigger threat to the people's freedom than a foreign country is. Think about each and every single "war" after WWII.

The only people who think "freedom" is in jeopardy are either dead or they still think the Cold War is on...and even in the Cold War, "freedom" was never really at that big a risk.

Depends on the war and the side in the war.

Pretty much.

Wars aren't necessarily bad, and soldiers aren't necessarily "evil". But they definately can be bad and soldiers can definately be evil. Refer to my dog analogy.

edited 2nd Aug '11 4:55:00 PM by Signed

Pretty much what most people have said here spells it out, particularly Game Chainsaw.

If you want to hate the Marines who committed the slaughter in Haditha? By all means. But don't hate all Marines because those things happen, or hate all troops because we participate in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, direct your anger at individual troops singled out for atrocities, or direct it at the governments that initiate those wars in the first place.

As far as respect goes, I hate being told "thank you for your service" and such. It's awkward, I don't like it, and I don't feel I should be respected any more than anybody else because of what I do.

If you want to give me respect, don't vote for politicians who want to cut my healthcare, since I'm sure the VA will need to foot at least some of the bill for the hearing loss in one of my ears, the two metal pins I have in each leg, and the repercussions of standing guard duty near a burn-pit in Afghanistan that made me cough up black shit for several weeks after I was done with that duty.

Don't fuck me out of the benefits package I was promised and told I would get when I enlisted, and don't show me disrespect because of what I do, and that's all the thanks that I need.

I.E. leave my pension, GI bill, and medical care alone, and don't call me a baby killer. I don't need anybody to shake my hand or buy me shit.

Now keep in mind, I'm not really the patriotic sort. I have a duty to the citizens of the united states, to protect them and not barge into their homes looking to confiscate weapons or screw with them until they screw with the government first, but when it comes to war and such, I do that for the money, plain and simple. I'll defend this nation in a heartbeat, especially its people, but as far as war on foreign soil goes, it's just business.

edited 2nd Aug '11 5:05:07 PM by Barkey

The soldiers who turned against Qaddafi were celebrated as heroes by many in the West.

Then again, I've never understood the military mindset. I could kill someone because I, personally, believe they need to die, and I can understand someone who'd kill for money, but killing because someone else thinks someone needs to die?

edited 2nd Aug '11 5:10:56 PM by feotakahari

No, you don't kill because "someone else thinks someone needs to die", you kill either because you will be killed yourself, or that someone will harm you/ your friends and family/ your country/ humanity. If that someone happens to be forced into service himself, well it is a tragedy, but are you really going to let some stranger harm you and your loved ones, no matter what his circumstances? There's no contest, really.

You're essentially either deciding that you'll kill whoever your boss(the government) says needs to die for the money(me) or you decide that whoever the government decides needs to die, really does need to die.

I don't have that sort of faith in the government most of the time. I genuinely hate the Taliban, but I'd have to fallback on the money logic if we invaded, say, France.

^

And someone else is in a position to harm you because you signed a contract and allowed it. Our military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't exactly self-defense. Saying that by joining the military, shooting back at anybody shooting at you is just you defending yourself is hogwash. In a literal sense, it's true, but in a metaphorical sense, it's not.

edited 2nd Aug '11 5:28:29 PM by Barkey

Unless we're going in to liberate Carla Bruni from that troll; sound justification for an invasion of France.

Soldiers? Ordinary folk doing a tough job. Some do some amazing heroics, some are jerks of the highest order and most of them are somewhere in the middle.

As for the morality and justification over war and military action, that depends on the situation. I don't think anyone, for example, would say that going to war with Germany in World War II was wrong but plenty would argue that the invasion of Iraq, for example, was wrong.

^

Hell, I think that we should have left Iraq once we got definitive evidence that WMD's didn't exist. Doesn't mean I wouldn't go, but I don't feel our invasion was any more than a farce.

Soliders are men who went along with the standard draft (or volunteer women)

Anyway soliders are people just like anybody else: they include both good and bad. Wars are sometimes justifiable. Defensive wars always, situations like Libya are more debatable though I think it's justified.

so, I'm planning on joining the airforce and I just want to make sure I know what I'm getting into so.... according to the recruiter I'll be housed in the barracks and eat on the meal card and since I'll be stationed on base I wont have to commute.

what living expenses do most people have in the military? if they house you, feed you, and train you does that mean you get to keep and save up all your pay?

I'm in the Air National Guard, and used to be active duty Air Force. Odds are you'll live in the barracks until you've been an E-4 for a while, and then have the option to live off base with BAH paying for it.

While living on base, you have the option of either getting free meals in the chow hall, or paying out of your own cash for food anywhere else. You can get groceries uber cheap in the commissary.

Medical is full ride, you don't have to pay for any medical issues. The things you'll pretty much end up paying for involve a car payment(You'll want a car at some point, trust me, especially depending on how far away your job is from the barracks)

Past that, it's things like a cell phone, and then whatever else it is you want to spend your money on, or previous debts from civilian life.

edited 25th Oct '12 2:58:29 PM by Barkey

Common living expenses include:

• Haircuts, at a minimum of 2/month
• Gas and similar vehicular expenses
• Real food, not the slop they serve at the chow hall
• Entertainment; this usually boils down to alcohol with a frequent chance of strippers*
  Yes, this is a serious comment from how many people I've seen blow half their paycheck on a single weekend
• Starbucks*
  Again, too many damn people drink this overpriced swill, and most bases have one

If you have debts, such as credit cards, that you racked up before you join the service, talk to your Legal department on base; there is paperwork you can send to your creditors that will force them to drop the interest rate on anything but student loans.

Well, different service and a different country, but seeing as it's an interesting question...

Mess fees. The food and accommodation weren't free, just cheap.

Apart from that...all the same expenses as civilians. Of course, you have to bear in mind that a soldier's pay isn't actually all that great compared with a desk job in civvie street.

The average Jock (or Tom, if you're English) could probably make more by being a plumber.

Oh, and the staggering quantity of booze and tobacco I used to consume used to cost rather a bit.

Incidentally, I liked Army food, but in my day it was cooked by other soldiers. They've privatised it since then and I hear it's rather gone downhill.

This is the Air Force he's talking about squiddie, not Navy slop.

The Air Force has a passable breakfast, an ungodly tasty lunch if you don't give a shit about your diet, and a bland dinner that usually consists of 4 types of chicken that are called different things, but all taste like really dried out chicken.

Any food gets old after a while though. I'm sick of everything that isn't lunch that the Air Force makes, and that's only because cheeseburgers and fries are hard to fuck up.

edited 25th Oct '12 4:10:12 PM by Barkey

Don't you also have to pay for uniform bits and bobs?

Dress uniform, your sword, elastic twisty things for your trousers...that kind of thing.

In the UK you also end up having to buy stuff that the Army doesn't have enough of but that seems to be all over Ebay, like decent boots, body armour, spare combats etc. etc.

edited 25th Oct '12 4:47:48 PM by InverurieJones