"I feel uncomfortable about the word 'hero' because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war." <- Serious discussion of rhetoric like that is basically breaking the 4th wall for 24 hr news channels.
If every soldier is a hero, and we always need more heroes, then clearly we need more wars! Fun times.
I'm fairly torn about this, since I have a fair number of soldiers among my family and in-laws. I generally think the idea of serving, whether during peace or war, as being heroic (assuming you serve honorably, of course), but that the individual missions/wars/etc. may not be. I basically separate the individual soldier from the political merits (or lack thereof) of the war/mission.
Yeah, I could have greentexted that line, shit's more complicated than that, but I figured the melancholy of that would come through naturally from that sentence.
but that the individual missions/wars/etc. may not be. I basically separate the individual soldier from the political merits (or lack thereof) of the war/mission.
While the two things are different, I don't think it's a good idea to disconnect them entirely.
but that the individual missions/wars/etc. may not be. I basically separate the individual soldier from the political merits (or lack thereof) of the war/mission.
While the two things are different, I don't think it's a good idea to disconnect them entirely.
Well, it all comes down to the individual context of each situation and different people may have different views. For example, I thought the initial war with Afghanistan was justified (though we stayed there way too long for various reasons I won't get into), but the war with Iraq was not. Either way, if you've volunteered for the armed services ostensibly to defend your country and are out there, risking your life by getting shot at, that is pretty heroic, even if the people who sent you on this particular mission are idiots who have an agenda other than defending your country.
Having military service as a vocation normalizes war. It's much more akin to merc work than, say, only enlisting during times of extreme duress or defense. Voluntarily enlisting in the military for an occupation, I think, does somewhat dampen your ability to separate yourself from the politics of war; in effect, you're saying you're willing to collect a paycheck whether the fighting is just or not.
Having military service as a vocation normalizes war. It's much more akin to merc work than, say, only enlisting during times of extreme duress or defense. Voluntarily enlisting in the military for an occupation, I think, does somewhat dampen your ability to separate yourself from the politics of war; in effect, you're saying you're willing to collect a paycheck whether the fighting is just or not.
Of course, the reason why we have it is because of the huge backlash over the draft that took place during/post Vietnam. In addition, it does ignore the non-war aspects of military service, such as disaster relief.
That said, I do think that if we either still had a draft or had mandatory conscription for all, a la many countries, the use of soldiers in war would be much more judicious.
I would fight a draft or conscription with every ounce of energy at my disposal.
So how do you suppose we staff the military then? The military is necessary in this world, as much as some of us may not want to admit it (and many of us may disagree on how much of a military we need, but that's a different argument). You don't like the idea of volunteers, yet you're against the draft/conscription. You can't have it both ways.
I didn't say I don't like the idea of volunteers. I said that whether they are heroes or simple mercenaries is questionable. I said we should be more careful about automatically exalting members of the military, and should consider that they do not so much "serve their country" as they do serve politicians' agendas.
Considering the economic conditions in the United States and the class and origin of most of your soldiers, I think "mercenary" is a little bit strong. I would instead posit that the draft simply became obsolete via a combination of integration of the armed forces and refusal to impliment any other safety net. There's still a draft, it's just poverty.
Well, one difference between a volunteer army and run-of-the-mill mercenaries is that a volunteer (or conscript, for that matter) army is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is a much more strict criminal code than that applied against civilians, including mercenaries such as those that work for corporations like Blackwater and such.
FWIW, Linus Torvalds had an interesting opinion on this military servicemen as heroes thing. He grew up in Finland, which has mandatory conscription for all citizens. Since everyone in Finland had to serve in the military at some point, no one there thought military service was such a big deal and certainly didn't equate service with heroism unless you actually did something insanely heroic, like single-handedly fight off a platoon of invading Russians to allow your wounded buddies to escape.
Finland is renowned for its involvement in simultaneous, perpetual, and highly dubious wars of aggression overseas. So yeah, it's a pretty good comparison to the US.
I would fight a draft or conscription with every ounce of energy at my disposal.
Here is the thing, if we had a draft, then you would be fighting against military action with every ounce of energy at your disposal. As it currently stands, you are merely posting on a forum about it.
Finland is renowned for its involvement in simultaneous, perpetual, and highly dubious wars of aggression overseas. So yeah, it's a pretty good comparison to the US.
Acerbic. But still, if you had mandatory conscription, the nation would probably be a lot less likely to utilize the lives of young men and women as a political tool. I'm not saying that justifies mandatory conscription (and I'm in no position to do so, considering I'd have immunity from anything of the sort), but it's still an interesting argument. Overall, I'd say I'd prefer a volunteer force with a change of national ideology rather than the use of mandatory service to force that type of ideological change, though.
A draft system provides an incentive to minimize the size and length of military action and places political pressure on politicians to be much more wary about sending in troops than they currently are.
Finland is renowned for its involvement in simultaneous, perpetual, and highly dubious wars of aggression overseas. So yeah, it's a pretty good comparison to the US.
I wasn't trying to make a comparison to the US. I was saying how it's a case of a country with mandatory conscription not taking the same view of its soldiers as one with a purely volunteer army. On the flip side, India, which like the US has a 100% volunteer army, has a similar view of its soldiers as we do. Basically, there's nothing heroic in doing something that everyone else does anyway.
A draft system provides an incentive to minimize the size and length of military action and places political pressure on politicians to be much more wary about sending in troops than they currently are.
Yeah. Lots of people were eager to support the Iraq War in 2001. The public would have probably been a lot less hawkish if knew they stood to lose their sons and daughters in combat. The potential for grave personal loss forces a person to be coldly rational. Evidence would have been demanded in spades before mobilization would have occurred, I think.
Basically, there's nothing heroic in doing something that everyone else does anyway.
And the question is if that's a good thing or a bad thing... thus the complexity of the matter. I think I'm in favor of making war as unappealing as possible. The Military Industrial Complex and volunteer army both make war more appealing... I think?
Basically, there's nothing heroic in doing something that everyone else does anyway.
And the question is if that's a good thing or a bad thing... thus the complexity of the matter. I think I'm in favor of making war as unappealing as possible. The Military Industrial Complex and volunteer army both make war more appealing... I think?
They do. The optimal combination is probably a Research-Industrial Complex and a conscription military.
Basically, there's nothing heroic in doing something that everyone else does anyway.
And the question is if that's a good thing or a bad thing... thus the complexity of the matter. I think I'm in favor of making war as unappealing as possible. The Military Industrial Complex and volunteer army both make war more appealing... I think?
More appealing? I'm not 100% sure. More palatable, definitely. My personal philosophy on the military is along the lines of Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick" doctrine, just so long as you don't use said big stick unless you have no other options. Or, similarly, a military is most effective when you don't actually have to use it. I saw a documentary a while back where a historian stated that thermonuclear weapons were among the most effective weapons ever designed not directly because they were so destructive when used, but because their destructive capabilities scared the crap out of the US and USSR actually starting up WW3.
Why does appeal matter? After the Vietnam draft, there was no meaningful political fallout against the congressional hawks. The presidency swung in favor of Republicans and pro-war measures for 20 years.
You might think a draft is a deterrent, but there is no better way to artificially pump the military propaganda machine than to tell little kids their drafted older brothers are war heroes. It was very, very effective.
Well the problem with the previous drafts is that they favored sending the sons of poor families to fight. If you sent everyone's sons and daughters to fight, then "everyone" (at least, a more significant group) has "skin in the game". But I don't believe that's ever been on the table.
I know what is better. Class inequity, a dying middle class, and strong economic incentives to become an indentured servent for four years in order to get an education.
Why does appeal matter? After the Vietnam draft, there was no meaningful political fallout against the congressional hawks. The presidency swung in favor of Republicans and pro-war measures for 20 years.
You forget that it was Democrats (JFK and LBJ) who led us into the Vietnam war. and that Nixon ran, in part, on getting the US out of Vietnam. Back then it wasn't a Republican/Democrat thing. It was an "us against the Pinko Commie Bastards" thing that crossed party lines.
You might think a draft is a deterrent, but there is no better way to artificially pump the military propaganda machine than to tell little kids their drafted older brothers are war heroes. It was very, very effective.
That works only until the body bag count gets too high.
Comments
That said, I do think that if we either still had a draft or had mandatory conscription for all, a la many countries, the use of soldiers in war would be much more judicious.
FWIW, Linus Torvalds had an interesting opinion on this military servicemen as heroes thing. He grew up in Finland, which has mandatory conscription for all citizens. Since everyone in Finland had to serve in the military at some point, no one there thought military service was such a big deal and certainly didn't equate service with heroism unless you actually did something insanely heroic, like single-handedly fight off a platoon of invading Russians to allow your wounded buddies to escape.
You might think a draft is a deterrent, but there is no better way to artificially pump the military propaganda machine than to tell little kids their drafted older brothers are war heroes. It was very, very effective.