Soldiers are Soldiers, the Big Lie

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Thank you all for the discussion so far, especially Mike.

First, let me remind you that it’s not my intention to bash soldiers in general, although some here clearly won’t believe me.
My point is that respect ought to be paid to everyone and that the soldier’s call is most often one of youth and adventure, not one of honor and commitment. If good and noble things come out of someone’s service, I am not trying to denounce that.

My mother’s lineage is quite militaristic, Hessian mercenaries, Prussian officers, Wehrmacht and also a NVA Major.
My fathers side was more pragmatic. They generally tried to avoid war, nonetheless they did their duty or fought as partisans. One individual pretty much showered himself with glory during the 1920 Battle of Warsaw.
I know how the actions of few can literally shape continents, free men of tyranny. This is not what I want to take away from anyone.

How is it that perhaps the majority of ex-soldiers tell their sons “it’s not worth it” if it’s worth it?
It’s always the same. The young men see this more as a test of their dedication. They go. They won’t miss out their chance to prove their mettle. Ten years later, they realize that mutilation and death is quite possible, that marching sucks and the superiors are cowards. But, initially you don’t want to realize that. We’re literally built for that folly.
A certain part of the male brain, dealing with rational analysis takes 25 years to mature.
Especially in today’s western society, trading a safe and comfortable life for military service seems to be completely irrational. A thousand years ago you had to fight to earn soil and privileges. Today it’s really optional.
So surely they risk life and limb out of noblesse?
No, they just do what nature build them for.

Mike, again, thank you for sharing these very personal facts.
I will now comment on your post.
I can wholeheartedly agree with your resumee.
“It’s okay to like war. It’s just not okay to join simply to kill.”
Perhaps the american soldier just happens to have “the luck” to actually shoot bad guys most of the time. But the machinery itself of which he is part of leads to more suffering then good in most cases (WW2 excluded, for example) - that I do not doubt.

I also find it refreshing that you openly admit how wonderful it felt, not only to do good things, but to be sort of a hero.

Again, I have to point out that even though I think you most probably did a great job and deserved to feel like some “freedom metal” rock star, all over the world, young guys desperately want to believe they kill for a greater good, for instance that they really serve allah’s will and they, too, get often a rock star like praise.

And yes, like every male with a healthy attitude, I have my share of hero fantasies. But I’m willing to wait for the burning barn cause I know for sure there is no “just” conflict that needs me to participate.

42

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
This actually bugged me for quite some time.

Why are so many here in awe of soldiers?

Despite what you might think of the reasons for (recent) wars, the guys who go there don’t do this for humanity or America.
They do it because they are men.
War is a blast, especially if you happen to have the upper hand, better intel, weapons and propaganda.

I doubt not that many parrot the phrases they’ve heard so much when hugging their moms for a last time.
"Don’t cry mommy, someone has to do it. We have to (choose according to culture and pers. preference liberate them/ defend our border/ repay them/ purify the continent/ obey gawd"

But deep down, they KNOW it is about…well, call it like you want: testosterone, the will to compete at the highest level with the biggest stakes, joy of killing, the big adventure…

Of course, some really want to make a difference. Is it 5%, 3% maybe? No idea, but it’s minimal. Others are solely in for the dough or perks like health insurance which is more or less the same - although a combination of destitution/opportunism and bloodthirst is likely.

But reason #1 is the beast inside men.

Why so many here, even women(!) try to embellish what is the ugly, bloodied, grinning hydra we call war?

I think you little understand war in the modern era.

You should read “House to House” by David Bellavia, “Warlord” by Ilario Pantano, “Lone Survivor” by Marcus Luttrell and then see if you think the same thing. Oh yeah, and “Black Hawk Down.”

[/quote]

Yawn, make a real point or go.

43

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Why so many here, even women(!) try to embellish what is the ugly, bloodied, grinning hydra we call war?

(1) I think there are people here that genuinely respect soldiers and the sacrifices they make, as Rainjack has expressed.

(2) On the other hand, I think that some here have made a fetish out of being a “tough guy”. Having been raised on Rambo, Terminator and the whole series of “action heros”, they have lived combat vicariously and part of the image they wish to project of themselves as Tough T-Men is to glorify war.

For those who belong to category two (2) I would say they have become prisoners of their own stereotype. I suspect that many of them would not be as tough if they found themselves in an actual war zone. Nonetheless, one can be full of “sound and fury” on the Internet without every having to back it up with action.
[/quote]

I think there is a valid point here. I have been a professional soldier (many years ago) and I find it nauseating when kids try to find movie thrills in war. (I should declare hare that, although I have been on active service, I have never had to fire a gun in anger, nor been in any real danger. Which is fine by me.)

One observation is that this attitude of fawning excitement is not common among the WW2 generation. The more danger they were in and the more brave they were, the quieter they become. Yes, they empathise with soldiers today, but they know that a friend of theirs, a clerk from Omaha, or Edinburgh, or Canberra, was far braver than any man. They also know that among the kids of today walk such brave men. And that only some of them wear uniform.

The unthinking admiration of soldiers too often masks that talk “Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap”. If you mean it, volunteer for something to help soldier come back to normal life. If you really mean it, volunteer and go in their stead. Many would be happy for a break.

44

[quote]Sikkario wrote:

What was noble or righteous about 1812? The Civil War? The Mexican American War? The Spanish-American War? World War 1, World War 2, the Korean War? Vietnam War? Desert Storm? Iraq War?
[/quote]

1812- The British attacked us.

WWII, Korea and Vietnam were wars against what was seen as a great totalitarian threat.

45

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
My point is that the majority of us do join for the right reasons. I had the honor of leading some fine men in combat and I knew who they were and what they stood for. [/quote]

Good stuff as usual, Mike.

The one question that I could never wrap my head around is, how do you ensure that you are fighting for the good cause? I mean, once you are engaged in the military, there ain’t much independence left. If the president suddenly decides to commit a genocide or something of the sort, your only choice as a foot soldier is to comply. What about wars of aggression?

As a kid, one of the people I looked up to, is my cousin who’s an officer in the military. He was the coolest and strongest guy I knew at the time. But once I realized that my country was going against the international consensus to hold a referendum in the Western Sahara (and using its military and police to do so), I couldn’t in good conscience join an organization where you’re supposed to check in critical thinking at the door.

Do you trust the people in command are always the “good guys”? Will you desert or be face the court-martial if the mission assigned doesn’t qualify as “good”? I’m really curious how you manage to reconcile those things in your mind.

46

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
1812- The British attacked us.
[/quote]

Only if your name is Napoleon.

47

[quote]streamline wrote:
Terrorists threaten our freedom everyday they exist. Do not be fooled by thinking they will not kill you. It maybe improbable, but it is also possible and if not you then maybe someone you know. [/quote]

Do you, in British Columbia, feel that your “freedom” is threatened by these “terrorists”? If so, what are those freedoms?

Agreed. But once again, which freedoms do you think those “terrorists” can take away from you?

And you have every right to do so. I’ll ask you where you stood on the invasion of Iraq issue though. Were you on Chrétien’s side?

48

Hollywood. Popular culture. Propaganda.

The only knowledge of war kids (in the US) have before joining the military is what we learn from media and our parents.

Our parents rarely tell the truth of what they know. They only speak about the “good” of what it means to fight the “enemy”…whatever that means.

49

[quote]lixy wrote:
The one question that I could never wrap my head around is, how do you ensure that you are fighting for the good cause?.[/quote]

Yes, I think this is a valid point. There have been brave, dedicated soldiers from all nations. Do we glorify them all?

There have been brave American soldiers, Soviet soldiers, Nazi German soldiers, Cuban soldiers. In other words, soldiers who came from countries with diametrically opposed ideologies.

Am I a Nazi for recognizing Rommel was a great Nazi general or a Stalinist because I think Zhukov was a great Soviet military leader? No.

But no matter how we might admire a soldiers bravery, skill, sacrifice, there is a seperate issue, the political agenda behind the war they engage in.

We may admire a soldier but abhor the politics of his country. Likewise, when we criticize a country for engaging in a war, we needn’t see that as damning the soldiers who, very often, are just pawns.

It is a RHETORICAL tactic for certain politicos to criticize those who are against a war by saying this latter group is direspecting the troops, hateful towards the soldiers, putting them at harm.

50

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hollywood. Popular culture. Propaganda.

The only knowledge of war kids (in the US) have before joining the military is what we learn from media and our parents.

Our parents rarely tell the truth of what they know. They only speak about the “good” of what it means to fight the “enemy”…whatever that means.[/quote]

War is becoming impracticle. If anyone really did try to all out conquer a major power, the world would simply end in one big boom.

Becoming a soldier/marine today is now similar to becoming a cop, only the world is going to be your jurisdiction. The goal is not conquest but keeping the peace.

51

[quote]entheogens wrote:
lixy wrote:
The one question that I could never wrap my head around is, how do you ensure that you are fighting for the good cause?.

Yes, I think this is a valid point. There have been brave, dedicated soldiers from all nations. Do we glorify them all?

There have been brave American soldiers, Soviet soldiers, Nazi German soldiers, Cuban soldiers. In other words, soldiers who came from countries with diametrically opposed ideologies.

Am I a Nazi for recognizing Rommel was a great Nazi general or a Stalinist because I think Zhukov was a great Soviet military leader? No.

But no matter how we might admire a soldiers bravery, skill, sacrifice, there is a seperate issue, the political agenda behind the war they engage in.

We may admire a soldier but abhor the politics of his country. Likewise, when we criticize a country for engaging in a war, we needn’t see that as damning the soldiers who, very often, are just pawns.

It is a RHETORICAL tactic for certain politicos to criticize those who are against a war by saying this latter group is direspecting the troops, hateful towards the soldiers, putting them at harm.[/quote]

Here I think we are heading onto the slippery slope. Any soldier above the rank of colonel who use the argument “I am only a simple soldier” is lying. Rising in any armed forces requires political skill (not to mention a bit of back-stabbing, of course only “expressing an opinion about the leadership qualities of Major V”).

Any soldier, even below those ranks, is also responsible for his or her actions. You can never “just obey orders” (Nuremberg doctrine). That doesn’t mean that things do not happen in the heat of battle, but while you can understand them and apply compassion, you can never excuse them.

Thirdly, if you are in command, you are responsible for the actions of your soldiers. Period. That includes if you do not have operational or tactical control (Yamashita standard).

I am afraid I have as little respect for soldiers hiding behind politicians as I have for politicians hiding behind soldiers.

52

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Becoming a soldier/marine today is now similar to becoming a cop, only the world is going to be your jurisdiction. The goal is not conquest but keeping the peace.
[/quote]
Keeping the peace would be easy if the notion of imperialism was forgotten.

Ideally, defense is the only reason to have a military force. Let each nation be responsible for keeping its own internal peace.

53

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Becoming a soldier/marine today is now similar to becoming a cop, only the world is going to be your jurisdiction. The goal is not conquest but keeping the peace.

Keeping the peace would be easy if the notion of imperialism was forgotten.
[/quote]

Are you serious? Man will always fight. It doesn’t have to be about empires.

[quote]
Ideally, defense is the only reason to have a military force. Let each nation be responsible for keeping its own internal peace.[/quote]

Best defense is a good offense.

54

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Best defense is a good offense.[/quote]

If everyone thought this way what would the world really look like? If you applied that standard to your neighborhood what kind of neighborhood would you live in? Is that a practical solution?

The doctrines of imperialism, colonialism, and protectionism eventually destroy all civilizations internally. No nation that follows these doctrines can last for economic reasons. Morally, it is wrong; economically, it is suicide.

55

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Man will always fight. It doesn’t have to be about empires.
[/quote]

THAT’S what I’m talking about.

Screw empires.
Screw honor.
Screw self defense and screw religion.

It’s just about finding the right pretence. Officially and subconsciously.

56

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Man will always fight. It doesn’t have to be about empires.

THAT’S what I’m talking about.

Screw empires.
Screw honor.
Screw self defense and screw religion.

It’s just about finding the right pretence. Officially and subconsciously.[/quote]

Man will kill over scraps of food.

57

Of course, but that is not the point.

It’s pretty clear when three bums got killed when fighting over some food.

However, when soldiers get shipped over half the world to a war which costs over a billion a week, the official reasons must be better then some base motives.

I believe honor and self defense were the favorites that day.

While the real reasons for 90% of the naive youngsters were to answer the call of testosterone, for financial reasons or a mixture of both.

58

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Morally, it is wrong; economically, it is suicide.[/quote]

Incorrect - by your own standard, imperialism and colonialism are just as “right” as non-aggression and minding your own business. If a country wants to invade and dominate another, there is no moral claim that it is wrong - just an equally valid difference in personal opinion.

No moral truths, recall. Or is this another instance when you have opened your mouth only to switch feet?

59

Here’s my take, which I don’t think is that cynical:

Nations fight to obtain land, resources, and political influence, or else to keep other nations from obtaining these things at their expense.

Individual men are told (and tell themselves) that they fight for duty, honor and country, but what they really fight for is money, personal glory, revenge, camaraderie and survival, and most of all because men like to fight.

Meanwhile, everyone who is not actually fighting thinks it’s about freedom. On all sides of the conflict.

60

I think undiluted imperialism was better because they didn’t try to make their wars out to be righteous or just. They simply painted the mudman as inferior and said it was better than the Christian rule the misguided pagan negro.

Their arrogance wasn’t masked.
They didn’t justify their massacres, terror campaigns or occupations as liberations. It was all pure might makes right.

This noble war, and murder to free you bullshit, is about as absurd as enslavement for salvation.

Worst about it is, it is absolutely pointless, for as we tip toe this strange line in Vietnam and Iraq, between imperialism, humanitarianism, and liberation.

We don’t succeed at any of them.

Instead we fail on accounts while shoveling more lives, dollars and propaganda on affairs which don’t work on any account.

We are hated, even if we try to make amends.
The gov’t is not trusted because it’s motives are senseless is unclear, and further and further, it distances itself from its people.

We say we are liberating yet we are murdering, and creating chaos in affairs which are not our own,

We say we are humanitarian yet our planes drop bombs more frightening than any terrorist on cities where people live and our soldiers are outside of our gov’ts control and commiting murders, rapes, massacres and others forms of abuse.

Our motives are at least partially imperialist but we fail on those accounts as we try to keep up the image of sanity and good will. Never robbing anything substantial or adding to our nation’s wealth.

Our ways are senseless, our leaders are decadent and unprincipled.

Our people come home and root for a made for tv movie war and stand in righteous arrogances as the world falls apart around people 10,000 miles away.

Fuck war. Anyone who says it is justified for any reason is fucking stupid.

If you want to kill then go kill, but at leas t be honest about it.

The war hawks like Rain Jack, see the world as they should kill someon’s whole family so they can give the daughter a bandaid for a lost leg to a landmine.