The Military Thread

Jack: Barkey has been gone for a while. Likely getting on with his real life stuff. He had a full plate last time I chatted with him. He had a deployment to finish and last I heard he was engaged.

Who watches the watchmen?

That Salon article isn't showing, but whatever. I'll bite because this subject greatly interests me.

Military heroism, like most other activities in society, is one of those concepts that, if you praise it in excess, can obstruct legitimate criticism of military affairs while also diluting sincere and needed recognition of military heroism. It becomes a perfunctory act for some Americans, and for some veterans, it can turn into a toxic feedback loop of egocentrism that most certainly interferes with clarity in public discourse.

There was a discussion about this on NPR during Veterans Day between an actual veteran and the host of the show. The veteran stated that it's better to start a real conversation with "thank you for your service" instead of using it as a phatic expression with the latent function of communicating social interference. That is, you say "thank for your service" not to express sincere respect for military heroes, but to shoo them away so you can go about your business. I feel that our insistent desire to regard military personnel and military culture as sacrosanct has eroded honest and necessary discussions about the role of the military in our country.

Without getting too long-winded or political about it, veterans and civilians alike often conflate respect with unwarranted moral superiority, not stopping to fully understand the ideological, cultural and ethical nuances that make the US military what it is and how those nuances will vary from person to person (as they should).

In my admittedly controversial opinion, participating in a hazardous job that involves people trying to kill you is not a license to engage in moral binary extremism nor it is a free pass to make broad sweeping observations about public affairs (e.g. I'm a better candidate than so-and-so because I saw combat in the military). I think the disconnect occurs when we presume that military service can be used as an unchallengeable metric for moral, economic, social and political aptitude, which is just another way of saying that being a military hero doesn't make you an expert in other world affairs although it can and will enhance your understanding of the human condition.

edited 14th Nov '14 4:09:41 PM by Aprilla

I don't think serving in the military automatically makes you a better candidate, however, from my understanding, soldiers are taught to serve the country,not have it serve them. It also helps that the military seems more focused on actually getting things done. When you elect only people who's only career has been politics,then you start to get things like the current Congressional gridlock.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

Hmmm. Over here the armed forces have been jumped on by politicians as something that the public respect (unlike politicians) and have become a political football. While the country getting behind the Forces is great, it doesn't feel sincere...it feels manufactured, cultivated. It kind of reminds of that whole Princess Diana business to an extent.

Meh. Don't really like the word 'hero' anyway. It really does get thrown about too easily now. Hrmm. That sounds like sour grapes. It isn't, though.

I'm not even sure what my point is. I'm tired and possibly rambling. I just don't like that word any more.

Being a career politician should disqualify a person from a career in politics. How can you run a country is you've never had a real job? Even just in a shop or something?

edited 14th Nov '14 4:26:35 PM by InverurieJones

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

Well yeah. The military has to focus on efficiency to an extreme logistical level because people can and will die if those logistical needs are not met. I'm trying to stay away from the political side of that debate, but I think a potentially negative side effect of viewing civil operations from a military perspective is a case of tunnel vision. But like I said, this will vary from person to person. Contrast Eisenhower's policies with Hayes', Washington's, Roosevelt's or Bush, Jr.'s.

edited 14th Nov '14 5:18:26 PM by Aprilla

That is also true. I still think of nearly everything in army terms. I think I need a swear jar at work for every time I start a sentence with 'At Sandhurst...'

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

Apprilla The article in question. I am less then impressed by the presentation. The writer sounds more like he is trying to pick a fight then make a point. I prefer your presentation over his by a large degree.

Who watches the watchmen?

Just caught 1941, a historically accurate film based on the Battle of Los Angeles.

edited 14th Nov '14 9:55:50 PM by Afp

Wasn't that where everyone thought they saw a blimp or something and shot at it but it just turned out to be nothing?

Or aliens if the History Channel is to be believed.

Oh really when?

I like the theory that aliens came in peace at the worst possible time and we scared them off.

Marq: Sorry I missed your last post. By bracing I mean properly resting the weapon against a solid position or body part to help absorb recoil. For example to even feasibly fire the M2 .50 cal you would need to at least partially brace it so your arms are not taking all of the recoil. So you rest or press it against something like your hip or upper thigh. Or if you had something nearby resting it on a log, window sill, or similar rest.

As for those barrels I covered that last bit. Just like the standard m2 those two weapons put their sights and parts on the main body.

Who watches the watchmen?

Don't sweat it. I sometimes miss posts that I shouldn't have missed, too.

I take it that it's because no amount of extra physical strength would compensate for a lack of sufficient durability to withstand constant absorption of recoil?

Would I be correct in assuming that there's an efficiency/ergonomics-related reason for that?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

That Salon article is another whinny hipster grousing that the US military still dares to exist.

Examination of the miltary's role in society, it's mission, military ethics, valid fields of study.

Complaining that people dare say: "Thank you for your service", grow a pair David Masciotra.

Take it away Jonn Lilyea:

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48

@ Jones I should have clarified that if you only elect people whose only career in their entire lifetime has been politics,then you start to have problems. And ironically they often suffer from their own version of tunnel vision, like being more focused on crushing their political opponents in the next election than actually running the country. Also they are more likely to see the world purely by a certain ideology, instead of by what is practical. For example, many Republicans will fight tooth and nail against increased infrastructure spending regardless of it's practicality,though I've herd that shenanigans with such contracts make up most of the corruption in the US,because its the government spending money,therefore it is evil. Similarly, many liberals will leap at the chance to condemn any level of military preparedness as "reactionary" and "nationalistic." From what I've herd and seen, ex members of the military tend to put what's good for the nation ahead of any form of ideological "purity."

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

Marq: The nature of the recoil forces against your arms like that is more like trying to absorb recoil with a free hanging pendulum. By bracing you are adding a point of contact that transfers more of the recoil force through your body and into the ground. Think in terms of points of contact and how directly the force of recoil is transferred from the weapon to the bracing/supporting body be it a shooter or tripod. Also something to note is point of balance.

As for the bare barrel it puts all of the weight and equipment on the weapons main body making it easier to swap barrels out. The m2 is as I noted earlier recoil operated. The bulk of the force is directed directly into the weapons body. So having the most mass at that end to handle the recoil makes sense. It also puts the point of balance of the weapon around the action and receiver which is the part that rests on tripod which more effectively handles recoil forces. It is easier to have your sights on the weapon body rather then the barrel making it easier to handle the barrel when you swap them out while firing. The upgrades to the M2 more recently include a quick change barrel with automatic head space and timing already dealt with so the barrel will be a little less bare then it is now.

Who watches the watchmen?

I know; I was agreeing!

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

If you're going to establish a rebuttal to common misconceptions about military service, you probably shouldn't preface your counterargument with "douchenugget" like you're some middle school student shouting at the kids on the other side of the lunch table. That's not journalism. That's playground bickering, and it's one of the reasons why I generally ignore sparring sessions between liberal anti-war writers and conservative military bloggers. It's a race to see who can give themselves the deepest colonoscopy.

Anywho, ideological purity in the military and toward the military is actually part of my original argument. I recently spoke with a friend who served in Enduring Freedom, and we concluded that military persons and civilians alike would be much better off mentally and politically if we just accepted the chaotic reality of human bias instead of pretending that military service somehow makes one morally and politically incorruptible.

To be clear, I'm not quite disagreeing with Jack, just adding to what he's saying here.

edited 15th Nov '14 9:23:39 AM by Aprilla

Tone policing. Go to privilege gulag.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Yeah, Yeah. Heh.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that military writers be these perfectly poised and graceful little daisies. But if you're going to clamp down on a misinformed civilian, it kind of helps to not be the pot calling the kettle black. Presentable prose counts, folks.

EDIT: Hey! What do you guys think of military LEGO minifigs? I'd order some if they weren't so expensive. I do like the Call of Duty mini figures that Mega Bloks produces. Gabrael bought me one of the Call of Duty: Ghosts figures. I have him standing by the router. Here are some of the figures.

edited 15th Nov '14 10:05:40 AM by Aprilla

Aren't they Mega Bloks, not LEGO? LEGO deliberately does not depict realistic military figures.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Yes, that's right. They're not officially LEGO, but they're structurally the same.

Oh wait. Are you talking about the Call of Duty figures or the aftermarket LEGO figures? The Call of Duty figures are owned by Mega Bloks.

edited 15th Nov '14 10:21:03 AM by Aprilla

Both, I'd assume - they aren't "official" Lego, AFAIK.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Looks like a lot of Brickarms stuff.

"Yup. That tasted purple."

The military themed legos are pretty neat. Handy for making your own table top game or just because you like military theme and legos ability to freely build your own creations.

Who watches the watchmen?

Historically accurate in the sense that the film's events itself are a satirical (and thus butchered) compilation of actual real-life events that were really spaced out through the war instead of taking place on exactly the same day and night.

Otherwise, the film does a great job, especially for a satirical black comedy, of capturing the edgy and uncertain mood of U.S society as it entered the war.

Funnily enough, I actually watched it just over the Veterans’ Day weekend as part of a class assignment regarding the effects that paranoia and perceived threats can have upon society (we’re reading Miller’s ‘’Crucible’’ you see) – said assignment involved watching a film or reading a book with social paranoia driving the plot. In case if you didn’t already know, the skinny-dipping blonde that gets literally caught with her pants down by the marauding IJN submarine reprised her situational role from ‘’Jaws’’.

Nah, it was actually that a mischievous army captain and a redheaded secretary tried to join the Mile-High Club before ensuring that the air defense people gave their [unidentified] plane the go.

Did I mention that the secretary had an issue in which she could only reach sexual climax while in mid-air? This isn't even covering how she’s aroused by the mere mentioning of anything aviation-related in the first place; if you want to hear someone say “B-17” in the most romantic way, then watch 1941.

edited 15th Nov '14 5:05:58 PM by FluffyMcChicken