Is this sarcasm?
Do you really consider being in the Army a noble profession?
And do you think that the software industry serves humanity in general less than military industry?
It's sad that the Armed Forces are now looked upon with disdain by hackers mere decades after the West wrested the world from Germany's grasp.
Say what you want about the military industrial complex, but lets not forget that should any of our countries be invaded, we will be very grateful that those guns pointing at the invaders.
Disdain is inappropriate, but so is automatic praise. The media wants to paint this picture that members of the military choose to serve for altruistic reasons and that we need to celebrate them all. This may be true for some, but I think the majority are in the military more-so because they think it's their best option for starting a career.
Additionally, the justness of military conflicts these days is far more questionable than in the past. Doesn't this make it reasonable to be more critical of the military as a whole?
I agree. I served 4+ years in the Army and was deployed as part of OEF. I'm uncomfortable with the automatic praise; it's definitely not why I signed up.
However, given a choice I'd prefer that the scale remain tipped towards praise instead of neglect or ignorance.
It's true, not all Soldiers serve altruistically, but they serve nonetheless. It's fine to question the intent of our government, military, and its officers, but try to remember that for the most part, Soldiers are forced to follow orders or face jail time, and they are constantly reminded of this.
The recruitment pitch is vastly different from the reality. I remember many Tuesdays where we'd spend the day sweeping the motor pool, wondering if we really deserved the praise bestowed upon us. Rest assured, most Soldiers wrestle with this at some point during their career.
> On the other hand, there's good reason to believe that terrorism is directed against us because we're continually pointing guns in their direction.
There's a better reason to believe that terrorism is directed at us more because of our history and continuing practice of direct support for both repressive regimes that are unpopular with large segments of their own* population in the Middle East and Central Asia than because of our military specifically (though, particulary post-9/11, our use of the military has played directly into the same animosity.)
(* or, in the case of Israel specifically, a population that they simultaneously claim is not their own and disclaim interest in governing, but nevertheless seek to control every aspect of.)
> Can it be that the military is both the problem and its own solution?
Its a secondary aspect (as discussed above) of the problem, as well as a treatment for the symptoms that doesn't actually solve anything.
Sure, we need to have a military for defensive purposes. But the US doesn't maintain military spending at a level that rivals the rest of the world combined for anything resembling "defensive" purposes, it does so to maintain global hegemony and the ability to dictate policy in a wide range of domains to countries all over the world.
That's not to say it didn't come out of a legitimate, even defensive, place -- much of it was necessary, though one may certainly debate particular aspects, during the Cold War to counterbalance the attempts led by the Soviet Union to export Stalinism. But with that enemy defeated, the military-industrial complex is now more about serving domestic commercial interests -- both those that have are part of the military industrial complex and dependent on military spending directly, and those that through more traditional lobbying seek to have preferred policies imposed both domestically and globally.
The Armed Forces (and similar government organizations) spent their good will raping people in Abu Ghraib, mutilating people in Afghanistan, blowing people apart in cafes across the Middle East, illegally spying on Americans for who knows what reason, and generally acting like a bunch of psychopaths with little to no respect for the rule of law.
Why would we trust any institution acting so obviously violent and so completely unaccountable?
My mother's high school class of men were almost entirely killed in Vietnam.
She told me this and i'll never forget it: "hate the war, hate the government, but never, ever hate the soldier." Just don't do it. It's disrespectful to the sacrifice so many make, every day.
Not to mention in the world we live in the USA, most of the people in the military are from poor families, simply because they have no other choice and the army gets them an education.
We will always have an army, would you rather it be through conscription or volunteer?
We will always have an army, would you rather it be through conscription or volunteer?
As an 18 year old man I would have said "volunteer" no question. As someone who had a nephew volunteer, my mind is now completely changed and am 100% for conscription.
Egalitarian conscription means mothers across the country have a major stake in any decision to go to war -- even if their kid has not (yet) been drafted. You can bet your ass they will make it known they don't want their sons and daughters to be killed in some far off land fighting some rich man's war. It also means that congress itself will have children in the line of fire (unlike today where it is on the order of about 10 out of 535) giving them a lot more personal accountability for choosing to send other people's kids to face death.
No, (US) congress will simply have children signing paperwork in Pentagon, or inspect bolts in a Boeing factory.
I'm from a country with conscription. The major difference it makes is that the military treats soldiers like shit, because a new fresh batch of soldiers will always arrive, no matter what. In the extreme cases, your son will be found dead with three gunshot wounds and the military decides he committed suicide. In the more benign cases, you end up digging ditches with a shovel in winter, because soldiers are cheaper than machines.
The conscription program there definitely has problems both with the treatment of the average Joe (Kim?) and the ways for the privileged to avoid risk. There will never be a perfect system (c.f. Bush essentially going AWOL when he was in the service here). But I think the circumstances are different enough - you guys already have 100% conscription, that's a big cultural difference from spinning up a draft.
May I suggest you review Vietnam history? In fact, if you want to skip facts and just listen to some music consider the classic Creedence Clearwater Revival Song, "Fortunate Son."
Some folks are born to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,
Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,
Given the steady decline in the number of congressional kids in the military since the draft was suspended it seems pretty clear that the situation has only gotten worse since vietnam. Don't confuse imperfection with failure.
