Is there a disconnect between the way military veterans and those who've never served think 'bout things? As methinks has become evident here recently I'd hafta say that on some things the answer is definitely yes. Maybe discussin' it'll help clear up why it exists, eh? IMHO this is the place to do it.

Cardinal posted an article not so long ago that probably gave some idea why the difference, but methinks there's more to it. Just the same, please click on the link and read it before goin' any farther, eh? That'll help make the rest of this easier to understand.

There's a longstandin' concept that describes the bond between military veterans. Some refer to it as bein' a bond between "A Band of Brothers", maybe now it should be modified to "A Band of Sisters and Brothers" to acknowledge the many women now servin' in the military.

We are loyal to each other, maybe to a fault, eh? Even military vets we've never met, just by nature of havin' served honorably, get our respect unless and until they do somethin' to lose it. More often than not we tend to dismiss allegations of their wrong doin', givin' 'em the benefit of the doubt, until any allegations are proven true. Methinks you've seen hints of this here on CGCS in the past.

The concept of "A Band of Brothers" is based on a speech delivered by Henry V of England before the Battle of Agincourt in William Shakespeare's Henry V; Act IV, Scene 3:



When I was on active duty I knew of many Marines that carried a copy of this speech on them at all times. They'd recite it together before goin' into combat, and lived it every day. 'Twas part of the esprit de Corps, and methinks you see variations of it in every military service of almost every country.

Someone who's never served in the military and never depended on someone else, maybe someone you've never even met, to do their best to cover your butt while they depend on you to do the same may have never experienced what we have and so don't may not understand the bond. Consequently their attitudes towards certain things, like utmost respect for the dignity and honor of those who've fallen and their families, may differ from ours.

Like I've said before, methinks I'd not want to see differin' attitudes suppressed by any means, but at the same time just wish others would respect and acknowledge that the attitudes some of us gained durin' our time of service have value too. In many cases our opinions've been created by spillin' our blood for others. It's deeply ingrained, and as you've seen here, tends to bring us together in defense of the dignity and/or honor of others who've served.

Lately I seem to not be too clear in gettin' my points across. Hopefully I've done better here. Methinks, if anyone wants, I'd be more than happy to discuss this further. I'm pretty sure other military vets would join in too, eh?

Flydangler,
Thank you for starting this thread.

I read the article cardinal provided and this is from that article:

" If the profession of arms is not considered honorable, then Soldiers have no honor to lose. There is a direct line between the kinds of honor that I described yesterday in America Honors its Fallen and Soldiers striving and sacrificing to make their country proud. A nation that denies its Soldiers honor will not get the Army that it wants or needs."

After reading the article, this portion brought to mind a couple of questions, ones that I think might go to the heart of the disconnect we often see between vets and non-vets during the Viet Nam war and now the Iraq war.

What can Americans do to allow Soldiers their honor while not being in support of a war? Is support of a war necessary for Soldiers to feel that their profession of arms is an honorable profession?

Do those questions make any sense?

Great post and good discussion starter. I found that article you referenced last week and I thought it was very eloquently stated but as you pointed out that probably isn't the whole story.

Great questions!

If folks'd not show their angst 'bout a war by promulgatin' every negative story allegin' misconduct by the troops fightin' it methinks it'd be a good start. For instance I've seen threads here on CGCS with articles from sources like Alternet, CounterPunch and Dahr Jamal claimin' American military personnel committed atrocities, but containin' nothin' but conjecture and hyperbole to back up their claims. There was a couple threads showin' pictures of alleged atrocities by American military personnel, but in fact came from a site called babykiller.com and were misrepresented - in fact they were of attacks by Saddam on his own people and from other conflicts where American forces weren't even involved.

As far as supportin' a war, IMHO most military folks don't relish the prospect of goin' off to get shot at 'tall! They think wars are the result of diplomats not doin' their jobs and so the military ends up goin' in to clean up the messes politicians make. For the most part they try to put all the political bs out of their minds and just wanna be with their mates, watchin' each others' backs and tryin' to get each other through it in one piece, eh? The distraction of thinkin' 'bout the political considerations and whether or not the war they're fightin' is legal, moral or justified might get somebody killed, so they try to blank that out as best as they can.

Hopefully that answers your questions. If not methinks you know where to ask for amplification.

This is without dobut one of the best posts in this Forum Thank you for writing this because it sheds great light on veterans views and the cultural divide that exists, a divide created from sheer ignorance among the many who have never considered a military career, or who have never served in the Armed Forces. And that includes most of Congress, and the majority of people born since the 1960s.

This is the core issue I think.

I also wonder if people in the military are more disposed to think we need to fight some country or people because they have been trained to think in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys. The government has to convince these people that there is an enemy out there that is planning to do us in unless we fight that enemy.

Military guys I know are also very into all of the weaponry and hardware used to fight in wars. They seem to think of them like toys, in a way. So, I think they're more likely to think that we need all of this equipment, that we need to spend all of this money on military and defense "stuff."

People in the military are heavily indoctrinated to believe what the government wants them to believe. They would have to. Otherwise how could they do what they do?

This was an exchange I had with bigtom the other day in the DCCC video thread, which has now been closed. He didn't answer my question, so I would be interested to hear what other vets might think.










Do guys in the military think of non-military men (moreso than women) as cowards?

Don't think this is true 'tall, eh? Methinks 'tis more a matter of bein' told you're deployin', that this is what you've trained so hard for, and and then goin' is all.

I can only speak for me, but methinks I never thought all that much 'bout anybody bein' good guys or bad guys. Most of the sentiment I heard indicated them we was goin' to fight were just folks like us with lives of their own and families, maybe we thought of the cultural differences a bit, wondered if they were as scared as we were, and whether they really wanted to kill us or whether we really wanted to kill them, eh? We thought more 'bout self preservation and keepin' our buddies safe under fire than anything else.Methinks we've gone through this before, yet you keep tossin' it out there. You make it sound like military folks are just robotic automatons trained to kill 'cause that's all Uncle Sam wants them to do.

We do learn to act together as a unit, each of us havin' to do our individual jobs to the best of our ability so that the unit functions as efficiently as possible. Methinks 'tis kinda like playin' team sports, but objectives and tactics're a bit different and consequences of failure to execute are more serious.

Do we learn to obey orders? You betcha! Under fire everyone has to be on the same page in the same book, eh? Failure to execute orders and do what you're ordered, even if you think 'tis bone headed, can get you or your mates killed.

Are there orders we'd question or be disposed to not obey? Definitely! For instance if an order was given not havin' to do with attainin' a tactical objective and appeared to be illegal (e.g. shoot and kill an unarmed captive in cold blood) we'd likely disobey it, as we were trained for. Part of our trainin' was on individual responsibility and the difference between legal and illegal orders.No! Methinks they're just thought of as folks who'd rather not serve, for whatever reason. It is a volunteer military, eh?

Y'all might wanna check out this thread that Snuffy posted elsewhere. Methinks it might have some relevance in regard to this discussion too.

I don't have a lot of time to respond because I have to go to work.

I discussed in another post somewhere that I thought the military was probably comprised of more people who possess what some call a "warrior archtetype." I believe that warriors view the world in more black and white terms.

Your description of what you learn in the military about our "enemies" sounds very tame and bland. You make it sound like you're being coached like a football team to go out and do your job and help your mates stay alive. But even a football team is trained to get pretty aggressive with the other "team."



I did check that out. Here is a paragraph from that article:



I am aware that this is the type of background from which the majority of Marines and other members of the military come. I have met and been around members of the active military, as recently as Friday night.

I think that with many members of the military it is almost like a religion. Patriotism and the whole "your country right or wrong" mentality takes on the characteristics of a religion.

And, I think that members of the military tend to be more conservative. I know this is true with career military. Regular enlisted may be different. So, they would be more disposed to support people like Bush or Nixon or Reagan or Truman, who are considered strong on defense. Although this article claims many vets were skeptical about Iraq.



http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/0...cial_conse.html

And, from another source:



http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0921/p02s02-usmi.html


Good topic for discussion.

My understanding is that active military may not say anything or do anything to diss the CiC. If that is true wouldn't it be a farce then when we see Bush surrounding himself with a captive audience of active duty units? Would not that be so disingenous, as to have Vets express their outrage?.

If this sense of Brotherhood among those wo have served is as sacred as you say Flydangler. What do you specifically think, and (in your opinion) what do many other Vets think; about being used as props for photo-ops by Bush?

Fascinating discussion...

I have an ancillary question/comment - but I don't want to derail the thread.

I'll keep it close to my heart and ask later.

I don't think I missed out be a photo prop for any president since Nixon. Ya know, they are our CinC so why shouldn't they get the opportunity to be photographed with the folks they command?

I was wondering why you would single out Bush, like I said every president I served under used the military for public relations.

Perhaps, but not anywhere near as many as Bush it seems to me. Also why aren't the Vets expressing outrage if they do not want their brothers to be exploited for "political purposes"?

If you say it's ok for a president (any president) to do "public relations", isn't that really another name for "politics"? I've heard you all express your disdain for "politics" as if you are all above it or something. You are all citizens even in the military. I know you sign away many of your Consttituional Rights when you enlist, and there are rules about expressing political opinions that run contrary to the CiC's positions. Isn't that a condition that should make any CiC with an ounce of respect for the Armed Forces loath to "use" them for politics?

Before anyone starts posting pictures of Clinton or Carter doing a "military photo-op" I want to emphasize that I am talking about degree. For every picture of Carter or Clinton doing this I will bet you could put up four, five or more times that many showing Bush doing it.

At some point the degree matters.

Colby Buzzell - does that name mean anything to posters here -- I haven't read his book but visited his blog which now only shows reviews of it, he doesn't actively post entries now but yesterday I saw him in a dual appearance on a re-air of a C-Span2 BookTV program. He read selections from his book and a Jordanian girl that is studying here, read selections from Riverbend authored by the young Iraqi women whose blog is Baghdad Burning.

Next time I'm at a bookstore I intend to buy and read the whole thing after watching the broadcast which was lengthy enough and had a subsequent Q&A session to more than pique my interest.

Here's blog link you may want to read the reviews of which there is an abundance.

http://cbftw.blogspot.com/

The book title is MY WAR: Killing Time in Iraq.

"Killing" in the title has dual meaning.

Hope someone here has read and will post.


lenal

I saw the segment on BookTV last night. There are more and more service members stepping forward even though this is a volunteer Army.

If I ain't mistaken I answered you elsewhere that a percentage of the youngsters enterin' the military come in with a piss and vinegar attitude, but methinks very few retain a "warrior archtetype" mentality once their eyes get opened to the ugly facts of war. Remember that?

As far as viewin' the world in more black and white terms, methinks military folks learn to deal in facts and discount rhetoric and hyperbole. IMHO 'tis better to deal with what you believe is factual and disregard confusin' conjecture.Prior to enterin' an operation or battle zone we'd get pep talks from leaders to get us focused on the mission at hand and put everything else out of our minds, if that's what you mean. In the case of combat arms units they are encouraged to be aggressive, and coached that attackin' is far preferable to defendin', but also to be aware of and protect civilian populations that may get involved in an area of operation.

We do try to minimize collateral damage and inadvertent civilian casualties as much as possible, and sometimes methinks pay a high price for doin' so. We were also almost always told that 'tis preferable to capture someone than kill them.

Methinks 'tis more like bein' members of an extended family than a religion or cult. IAC methinks the "your country right or wrong" mentality was really a British thing, but methinks you'll find members of our military had a tendency to gripe about and question the decisions of superiors goin' back to the Revolutionary War. We just tend not to do it when it distracts from the mission at hand. Methinks most are actually more moderate than you think, but from what I've seen here on CGCS and other places 'twould seem folks that're very liberal tend to lump everyone less liberal than they are together and place them into the group they consider conservative. IMHO tryin' to be so judgemental is a mistake, eh?

Don't get me wrong, there are some very conservative members of the military, just as there are some that are very liberal. Just the same, when folks start only lookin' at what they believe are facts and discount the conjecture they tend to become less strident and more middle of the road.

Last year I saw a study, maybe from the Annenburg Center at the University of PA, that found registered voters in the military were registered as 'bout 60% independents and the rest split pretty evenly between the parties. The way they voted varied, methinks based mainly on how they perceived they were treated by the political parties. For example when Democrats in FL made a big deal 'bout tryin' to have absentee ballots from military members deployed overseas thrown out or disallowed in the 2000 elections they paid a heavy price for it in subsequent elections.'Tis a situational thing where the way you exercise your First Ammendment rights comes into play. We don't give up any rights when we join the military, but are held responsible for how we exercise them. Methinks 'tis much like the example of yellin' "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you've got the right to do so, but if it's a false alarm there're laws on the books that hold you responsible for problems caused by it.

Anyone who joins the military does not, and can not sign away any of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. I once thought differently, at least 'til this pretty smart fella named Thurgood Marshall, who at the time was a sitting Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, spoke to a group of us at the Military Rights and Responsibilities training workshop I attended in DC in, I think, 1984.

Justice Marshall set us straight on many things, one of which was that joinin' the military in no way removed any of your constitutionally guaranteed protections and rights. He went on to explain that there is nothing contained in the constitution that would even allow this to happen. Accordin' to him the confusion comes in because each of our rights carries with it responsibilities, and the military more strictly enforces these responsibilities than you'd normally see in the civilian world.

There are restrictions when you are in a duty status and/or wearin' your uniform, which methinks you can understand is a given. In the case of commissioned officers there are even more special restrictions, which methinks is what Army 1stLt Ehren Watada ran afoul of in part of the charges against him. We discussed this thoroughly earlier this year in threads 'bout the Leonark Clark case and 'bout the Marines and/or DoD firewallin' their networks.

Methinks for officers these specific restrictions come into play only if 'tis done in a way where it seems they're actin' as a comissioned member of the uniformed services, and not as a private individual, eh? Once commissioned you're officially able to act as an authorized representative of the United States of America, so you've got to be responsible in what you do and/or say so that when speakin' only as a private citizen it can't be misconstrued as representin' the country. Wearin' the uniform when speakin' or actin', or identifyin' your military status verbally or in writin' in any way activates your special representative status. When comissioned officers get in trouble for critical statements methinks 'tis 'cause they weren't bein' none too careful when they did it.'Bout the same as I feel 'bout 'em bein' used in photo ops by every other American President in my lifetime, eh?

Well, we are at war. I remember during Gulf War 1 standing in formation scared ****less the Bush #1 was going to choose me to be the one to stop in front of and start asking questions, a star of the silver screen, I am not.

Guess I was too pretty for him, eh?

Restofus:

"I saw the segment on BookTV last night. There are more and more service members stepping forward even though this is a volunteer Army."


It's certainly debatable whether it is a volunteer Army given the enticements that are offered and keep being enhanced in order to achieve recruitment levels. IMHO any time the Congress gives a pass to AUMF it should be accompanied with mandatory service by men and women - whoever is able bodied - until the matter gets resolved.

I don't know how many members here date back to WW11 as I do, but with my experience and exposure back then and since, I think there would be much closer examination and debate about what actions are taken nationally if a method of service similar to a draft equalized the contributions to the military over a much wider sampling of the population.

I think it is evident on CGCS that there is noticeable variance on the results of experience in the military and that's good and I hope everyone reads enough of the multitude of posts to be able to discern this.






lenal

Thanks for starting this thread, Doc.

Though it would appear that many will never believe or subscribe to there being a sister/brotherhood, it would also seem that because your deliberate and quite factual writings, there are many have come to a greater understanding of that sister/brotherhood.

To all: To kill or be killed? I would always take the former as apposed to the latter. But please understand that those of us who have killed many of our own species do not go without feelings.

Many, many more than myself dream every night of what we have done, relive those battles where we have taken lives, and wake up from those dreams screaming and crying.

Thanks again, Doc, for being my brother, and I further thank all of my brothers and sisters for allowing me to be their BROTHER...

joe e, U S Navy Retired

When I was in the military, I was told "You're not paid to think. There's people in Washington who do your thinking for you".

I wore a peace sign medallion when not in uniform. I was never complimented, only question for wearing it by people who didn't know me: "What are you doing in My Navy!"

When I was in the military, I only saw the Democrats through the Republican lens. I use to think it was because Republicans were tougher, but I later realized it was because of the Military Industrial Complex.

There is really only one question on this thread that should be answered on this thread. It's the question in the title of the thread. The answer is "Yes". Nobody can judge anyone else's positions, in any profession, until they've experienced what lead to those positions.

Other questions on this thread ask if being in the military makes you a Republican or a warmonger. The answer is "No." Does being in the military increase your likelihood of being a Republican or a warmonger. The answer is "Yes." Is a Republican or a warmonger more likely to join the military. The answer is "Yes." Should any of the above answers surprise anyone. The answer is "No."

All other questions shouldn't be oversimplified as an attitude disconnect between life-long civilians and veterans. If anything there is more of a disconnect between civilians in charge of the military and the average citizen (veteran or not).

The questions are:
1) How do we support military without supporting the war?
2) What's the difference between honorable and dishonorable service?
3) What's the difference between pro-war and an anti-war soldier?
4) What's the difference between pro-war and an anti-war civilian?
5) Should the soldier question the politics behind military action?
6) Is defending the Constitution the same as defending the administration?

These questions should be answered on other threads if they haven't already been.

I never doubted the brotherhood/sisterhood shared amongst members of the military. That's never been the issue I have about members of the military.

Men I know who have served in Vietnam have had severe problems with nightmares and emotional distress because of what they have been through. It's very sad, and I have great compassion for those who suffer and have suffered, such as yourself.

I wonder about the brotherhood members of the military feel with civilians. I think there is a separation. This poem that Fly cited in his first post illustrates that divide. Notice the bolded portion. That's why I asked if there is a common perception among people in the military that men who don't serve are cowards. The term chicken hawk is further evidence of that perception.

Thanks for your post. As for this paragraph:




Wouldn't you say that the difference between the civilians in charge of the military and the average citizen are not clearly seen by the average citizen?

Yes.

Who's at fault? Both the ignorance of the average citizen and the purposeful misinformation from powerful private interests.

VERY powerful private interests.

Thanks for your response, beamer.

One of the things I have stated before is: It may seem that military members are, as many have stated, appear to be nothing more than brainwashed Gumbies.

As you, with the wisdom and insight you have garnerd, know that all may not what it looks like on the surface.

To add a bit more to the Gumby mix, we in the military (for the most part) are highly trained in our own specialties, and in most cases are not at liberty to say anything about it to non-military folks. (In my case, I wasn't allowed to talk about one of my sub-specialties for five years after I retired.)

Anyway, the major point I want to stress is: Each and every one in the military is bound by constitutional law to Carry out the orders of our Commander-in-Chief.

____________________________________________________________________

And to sorta echo one of the Doc's statements (which I know doesn't fit in this post) and that is: there is not one person in the military who ever wants to go to war (less they have had their ability to think because of prior toors in a war theator). They would much rather stand as a strength to show others that the United States of America will not condone any aggression towards us, nor will towards any country with whom we are allied.

joe e

What you wonder, beamer, about how the military feel regarding to civilians is: we (for the most part, with exceptions like there are many who enlist just to get their college paid for) are willing to give up our lives to preserve all Americans rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by our constitution.

And further more, military men and women do not see civilians men or women as cowards. In most cases that couldn't be further from the truth. The thinking is more in keeping with that both men and women who do not serve are among those 'civilians' discussed in my above paragraph.

I, of course, do know that there will always be false impressions of each side of the coin, that are shared by both civilians and military personnel...

joe e

But those private interests are not folks in the military.

I do believe, Doc started this thread to shed light on some of the misperceptions between civilian and military folks.

I'm not one who is prone to bitching about being 'off topic', but I would really like to see this one stay pure and unmolested. Better understanding each other sure couldn't hurt. Just my thrown in here...

joe e

The private interests are relevant. As mentioned, some of the misperceptions come from the misinformation from private interest.

"Not supporting the war is not supporting the troops" is one example of misinformation. This drives a wedge between civilian and military.

Yes, the private interests are generally folks not in the military. However, some of them may have been in the military. I'm thinking of "powerful" people in the defense contracting business, who often have been in the military. I believe there is a very close relationship there.

I'm fine with trying to keep this on-topic. But, I think the mission of the military, as determined by civilians, does have A LOT to do with the distrust that anti-war civilians like myself feel toward the military.

I would be interested to see yours or Fly's (or any other military guy or gal lurking around) response to billfmsd's post above, if you have one.

First Doc, thanks for an incredible thread. As I've shared with you and Marine, I did not have the temperament to make the military my career- a euphemism for 'I was a major screw-up.' But I am as proud of my brief military service as you are of your extended; for me, retiring from the military would have been my first goal, but my destiny was to teach, and to hopefully lead people away from a desire for fighting.

Several in here have chastised me because I do not object to having military recruiters in my classroom. I respond that military service is an honorable profession, no less so than auto mechanic, truck driver, or cardiovascular surgeon. To deny a young man or woman the opportunity to serve would be cheating them out of an opportunity.

As in my war, I was too naive at 18 to understand the nature of war; like Paul Baumer and his high school friends from All Quiet on the Western Front I thought of the glory- medals, family pride, getting laid. I didn’t understand the honor, nor did I really understand the military component of war. I think that most here who have not served are not clear on the concept, for it is difficult to fathom. As you asked Beamer, why would a man or woman join the military but to go to war? But I ask you to just think of the motivations for a typical 18 year old and you can find your answer- just as Paul Baumer did in WWI, and as I did in Vietnam.

And like Paul, I discovered my sentiments against war by seeing the results of its practice; like Paul- or moreover the author, Erich Maria Remarque- I became part of the anti-war movement then, and it is the genesis of my anti-war sentiments today. Doc, Marine, and several others of us have often had heated arguments about this, but we have all more or less agreed that hating war is not the same as hating those who fight it. Essentially, this thread is a continuation of that dialogue- and I chose the word dialogue carefully, for that is how I perceive it.

You made a broad generalization in which you pondered:

people in the military are more disposed to think we need to fight some country or people because they have been trained to think in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys.

and I would respond that the need to fight is not determined by any soldier of any rank. “War,” the great Prussian general Von Clausewitz said, “is merely the continuation of policy by other means,” and soldiers have nothing to do with American policy- not even the Chief of Staff. It would seem, then, that soldiers- and by this I mean all branches- are only there to fight if the government determines the need.

You suggest that,

military guys I know are also very into all of the weaponry and hardware used to fight in wars. They seem to think of them like toys, in a way.

and I would venture that to be the case for any occupation. NASCAR mechanics and drivers are all into horsepower, drive shafts, and speed. Football players are all into strength, formation, timing, and power. I’m into pentameters, literary themes, dangling participles and verb tenses, as well as historical and cultural writing. Those are the tools of my trade; weapons are the tools of the warrior’s trade. I would also venture that a PFC clerk typist in Omaha is not all that concerned with weapons; software maybe, ergonomic keyboards, but weapons may not be high on his or her list.

Military service is an honorable profession, and the men and women who serve in uniform undoubtedly look at their career choices in the same fashion as every other American. What our nation chooses to do should not changes our perceptions of their profession.

... and your two cents is worth a thousand bucks!

I can relate.

My admiration for the ingenuity of war machines almost matches my level of disgust in the war profiteers who trade them and the warmongers who want to use them on innocent civilians.

And let me add: boys will be boys, and boys will have toys.

These (still mostly) guys are often little more than kids! Of course they love their toys.

Girls like toys too. Guys just like the toys that have to do with machinery (weapons and vehicles) more than the toys that have to do with life and humanity (doll houses and stuffed animals). This is because men are more goal-oriented machine-like beings than women.

Look at how many women like to play the Sims video game instead of the shoot-em-up video games.

For the most part my "toys" were a stethoscope, bandages, splints, blood volume expanders, surgical instruments and the like, eh? A person could hurt themselves playin' with those!

'Course aboard ship underway when I stood the Officer of the Deck watches methinks I had a pretty neat toy to keep me occupied.

I admit that against my will I am impressed by Flydangler's response to one of my posts. I am getting a glimmer of understanding.

Still, I ask what do you want us to do Flydangler, Marine? Stand by while you and your brothers die and say nothing? Can you never forgive the excesses of niave youth? Will you march into needless bloodshed holding on to your honor and tell we your civilian brothers to be silent?

It is true, your quote is a big misrepresentation of reality. I do not think anyone has to support the war, but I do think we, as Americans, do have an obligation to support the troops, no matter what their assigned mission might be.

"Not supporting the war is not supporting the troops," is the same kind of bull s### as "if you are not with us, you are against us...

joe e

-Peg, I have had all sorts of military toys to play with, but my favorites were big ships and big shiny bullets that glow in the dark.

I loved the ships, especially when I was the officer of the deck. At those times I could find myself responsible of aircraft launch and recovery, or piloting a 1000 foot aircraft carrier through Tokyo harbor on a Monday morning, but mention a few.

There was never a day that I didn't live in dread, dread of having to authenticate an order to set the wheels in motion to launch one of those cute little shiny bullets that glow in the dark. I say this because I just wanted to illustrate that the toys we have do not define what we are. Some would have it be that if you have a big gun you must want to use it. Something like, "f@%# patients, I wanta kill something...

joe e

In defense of the trained killer mentality. If America expects to have trained killers, America better be prepared to forgive certain behaviors that are developed before or during the killer-training process.

Again, this goes back to policy and the civilians in charge. I'm willing to forgive the trained killer more than I'm willing to forgive the policy-maker who ordered the killing.

Mankind will grow up when we find a common way to reject and scorn the Masters of War.

It starts with economics. If we can take profitability out of the equation, we've solved half of the problem.

The other half may be buried too deep in the human psyche to grasp, but is worth studying. There is probably more answers to the human psyche problem to be found in serial killers than can be found in even the deadliest of military warriors.

It all comes back to purpose. There's no way of knowing if a soldier honestly likes killing unless they admit it. But the serial killer has no excuse justifiable by any civilized nation, and yet they are compelled to kill anyway. I believe society as a whole may have some of the same flawed reasoning of a serial killer, that can only be discovered if a serial killer is not dehumanized in the process of interrogation.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, most people in the military feel that they are just doing their jobs. It's not so much that they love their jobs. It's that they love their country enough to do even the worst jobs their country asks of them.

You're right TRoU, you are seeing a glimmer of perspective- and such perspective is an important part of finding a progressive solution to the unforgivable actions of this Administration.

But still something is missing: it is not the job of a soldier to determine whether the bloodshed is needless. That is a policy decision: Shrub, Dickless, and Rummy decided the blood needed to be shed. Paraphrasing Patton, the soldier's job is to make sure the other side is the one doing most of the shedding.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think the military is telling us to be silent in our protestations of the Iraq War. Their civilian overseers are telling us, but not those actually in uniform. All military personnel are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and that document guarantees every civilian in America the right to voice their disgust or praise. The military guarantees the protection of those rights.

Was that quote by Cheney or Rumsfeld? Or did Shrub read it off a cue card?

Well Winston, the first 3 years and ten months I spent in the Marines I was a major screw up too. I probably spent a total of about two weeks after boot camp and ITR drawing a sober breath in that time frame. It took me about 10 years to live down being known as a drunk.

I remember after I made SSgt I was assign to a duty station with an old Master Sgt I'd served under as a drunk Corporal and he couldn't believe his Marine Corps would make a drunk like me a Staff NCO. I had to prove to him I was worthy of being a Staff NCO. Boy, did he make my life miserable for a couple of months.

I saw the above in one of the news articles I was reading and it reminded me of something that I became aware of quite some time ago.

There are several examples of soldiers, both in recent battles and in battles fought long ago of soldiers who are willing to risk their lives to recover their fallen comrades. And it seems many times these rescues are successful but always at the cost of additional men/women being killed and/or injured.

Two of the most recent examples I recall of rescue or recovery by the US military are Operation Anaconda when a Navy seal fell out of a helicopter and the second was the search and recovery of the three soldiers from the 101st just last month. Perhaps the most well known in recent times is Black Hawk Down. One of the soldiers involved in that recovery effort grew up and lives in my hometown.

I’ve been hesitant to ask for fear of dredging up painful memories for some here which is the last thing I want to do. But it seems like it’s an important piece in understanding and so I’ll take the chance. I have my own theory but I’d like to hear from the Vets on this.


What is it that motivates someone to risk their live for a fallen comrade?

Why is it important?

Is this a spontaneous action, military policy and part of the overall plan or sometimes a combination of both?

Who makes the decision?

Is it universal? By that I mean, do all countries, or cultures place the same value on rescue and or recovery efforts?

How do you deal with the emotional aspects if you find yourself in a situation such as the soldiers who were trying to recover the bodies of the two soldiers from the 101st?

Do civilians have a role to play in this? If so what?

I am not a vet, Cardinal but I would like to speak to this. A dear friend of mine was lost in Vietnam. He died trying to rescue others and I remember being told it was his decision and his honor to do so. He had the chance to escape and chose not to- out of loyalty to his fallen comrades.
http://www.virtualwall.org/dm/MurphyMT01a.htm

I'd missed this post earlier, Joe, or I would have responded. I don't think that I expressed myself very well. I didn't mean to imply that "playing with toys" implies childishness, but that soldiers often do enjoy their toys because they practically are children!

(not that I don't have toys that I enjoy, mind you!)

Now back to Redbird's questions, which are fascinating.

Oh Pie, I'm sorry. He was very lucky to have you as a friend.