Being a War Veteran: Is It Always Admirable?

[Debater Slayer]

This issue has frequently come to mind upon seeing people favorably refer to current or former military personnel as having "served" in a war.

Let's say a foreign army invaded a country aggressively and unjustifiably, as was the case in Iraq and Ukraine. Naturally, able-bodied people in the invaded territory would rise up to defend their homeland. But with the order-based nature of militaries, the forces of the invaders would kill those defending their home country from invasion. Many would lose family members and friends to this act of aggression.

On what logical or moral grounds would such an act of killing people who were merely defending their people and their country be considered admirable or respectable "service" as many refer to it? There is a case to be made that many are deceived into fighting and only know they were lied to when it is too late, but this still doesn't make fighting on the side of invaders an admirable thing; it only makes it the result of a lie.

I would never say that any of the Russian soldiers currently in Ukraine were honorably serving their country: there's nothing honorable about the Russian invasion. Similarly, I would apply that same logic to American soldiers who were in Iraq or any other invading forces attacking a sovereign country.

I'm interested to read what others think of this, especially if they think highly of current or former military personnel for serving in the armed forces during invasions that we now know were unjustified or unnecessary.

 

[The Hammer]

I think those that are fighting believe they are doing the right thing, regardless of what side they are on. And those that are willing to put their life on the line to fight and die in service of their community (nation/state/tribe), are acting honorably.

It's easy to judge from the sidelines.

I agree that war is atrocious to all involved. But most of those fighting are doing so for what they believe are the right reasons.

To me that is the sacrifice that should be honored. Not the wars they fought in, or who they killed; but the act of willingness to die in service of others.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think those that are fighting believe they are doing the right thing, regardless of what side they are on. And those that are willing to put their life on the line to fight and die in service of their community (nation/state/tribe), are acting honorably.

It's easy to judge from the sidelines.

I agree that war is atrocious to all involved. But most of those fighting are doing so for what they believe are the right reasons.

To me that is the sacrifice that should be honored. Not the wars they fought in, or who they killed; but the act of willing to die in service of others.

This perspective seems to focus on intention even when the practical outcomes of an action are undesirable or destructive. I think you make a solid point, but by extension, this argument could make a case for honoring someone's actions on the basis of intention alone.

To be clear, my question isn't in support of judging from the sidelines, as you put it, but it is instead meant to raise the issue of whether it is morally tenable to praise participation in an action whose consequences cause unnecessary suffering and grief to others.

If someone killed a defending family member or friend of yours while believing they were doing the right thing in an invasion, I would definitely hesitate to call their service an honorable endeavor. Well-intentioned at best, but not honorable, since I believe outcomes of actions are, more often than not, part and parcel of their moral value.

 

[The Hammer]

This perspective seems to focus on intention even when the practical outcomes of an action are undesirable or destructive. I think you make a solid point, but by extension, this argument could make a case for honoring someone's actions on the basis of intention alone.

To be clear, my question isn't in support of judging from the sidelines, as you put it, but it is instead meant to raise the issue of whether it is morally tenable to praise participation in an action whose consequences cause unnecessary suffering and grief to others.

If someone killed a defending family member or friend of yours while believing they were doing the right thing in an invasion, I would definitely hesitate to call their service an honorable endeavor. Well-intentioned at best, but not honorable, since I believe outcomes of actions are, more often than not, part and parcel of their moral value.

Intention is the most important part in my opinion. But I see your point. It could be my own bias and past history coloring my view.

This is why there is supposed to be codes of conduct in the way warfare is conducted (ie Geneva conventions for instance). While the GC isn't legally binding, it's supposed to help prevent the most atrocious aspects of warfare from spilling over to non-combatants.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Intention is the most important part in my opinion. But I see your point. It could be my own bias and past history coloring my view.

This is why there is supposed to be codes of conduct in the way warfare is conducted (ie Geneva conventions for instance). While the GC isn't legally binding, it's supposed to help prevent the most atrocious aspects of warfare from spilling over to non-combatants.

I agree intention is a significant consideration, but I don't think it's invariably the most important one. Depending on the outcomes of the action in question (e.g., unnecessary loss of life), real-world consequences could be more important.

My argument includes combatants who are merely defending their country or people, such as those in Ukraine. Just because they're combatants doesn't make killing them any more justified in such a situation, in my opinion, since they're only engaging in combat for self-defense rather than aggression.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I have no doubt my own background and geographical location also play a part in shaping my views on this (especially considering the history of warfare in my region).

 

[The Hammer]

My argument includes combatants who are merely defending their country or people, such as those in Ukraine. Just because they're combatants doesn't make killing them any more justified in such a situation, in my opinion, since they're only engaging in combat for self-defense rather than aggression.

I'm not sure I would call them combatants. Not every civilian that picks up a rifle is a combatant IMO. But that's an ethics dilemna in itself, who and what do you consider combatant vs non-combatant.

 

[The Hammer]

Spoiler: May contain language unsuited for some audiences

This song is appropriate to the conversation.

 

[Heyo]

I think those that are fighting believe they are doing the right thing, regardless of what side they are on. And those that are willing to put their life on the line to fight and die in service of their community (nation/state/tribe), are acting honorably.

It's easy to judge from the sidelines.

I agree that war is atrocious to all involved. But most of those fighting are doing so for what they believe are the right reasons.

To me that is the sacrifice that should be honored. Not the wars they fought in, or who they killed; but the act of willingness to die in service of others.

There is something honourable in the will to sacrifice but that is countered by the stupidity (or (malicious) indifference) of having been drawn in to an illegal attack war. That stupidity killed millions of people and that makes it hard to respect such people.

 

[The Hammer]

There is something honourable in the will to sacrifice but that is countered by the stupidity (or (malicious) indifference) of having been drawn in to an illegal attack war. That stupidity killed millions of people and that makes it hard to respect such people.

But is that on the average soldier who signed up, or the person giving the orders to do so? I blame the govt for wielding their militaries in such a fashion and not on those fighting, unless they are outright breaking decorum.

 

[Heyo]

But is that on the average soldier who signed up, or the person giving the orders to do so? I blame the govt for wielding their militaries in such a fashion and not on those fighting, unless they are outright breaking decorum.

The governments can only wield their militaries because there are enough stupid people willing to be ordered to go kill other people in a foreign country.

 

[sayak83]

This issue has frequently come to mind upon seeing people favorably refer to current or former military personnel as having "served" in a war.

Let's say a foreign army invaded a country aggressively and unjustifiably, as was the case in Iraq and Ukraine. Naturally, able-bodied people in the invaded territory would rise up to defend their homeland. But with the order-based nature of militaries, the forces of the invaders would kill those defending their home country from invasion. Many would lose family members and friends to this act of aggression.

On what logical or moral grounds would such an act of killing people who were merely defending their people and their country be considered admirable or respectable "service" as many refer to it? There is a case to be made that many are deceived into fighting and only know they were lied to when it is too late, but this still doesn't make fighting on the side of invaders an admirable thing; it only makes it the result of a lie.

I would never say that any of the Russian soldiers currently in Ukraine were honorably serving their country: there's nothing honorable about the Russian invasion. Similarly, I would apply that same logic to American soldiers who were in Iraq or any other invading forces attacking a sovereign country.

I'm interested to read what others think of this, especially if they think highly of current or former military personnel for serving in the armed forces during invasions that we now know were unjustified or unnecessary.

I have always said the the US Department of defense should be renamed the Department of Attack as it's a long time since they have had actually had to defend the country's territories. They are only attacking here and there and everywhere.
Unless we are talking about fighting against an actual invasion, the work of soldier may be braver but not necessarily more honorable than any other work.

 

[MyM]

This issue has frequently come to mind upon seeing people favorably refer to current or former military personnel as having "served" in a war.

Let's say a foreign army invaded a country aggressively and unjustifiably, as was the case in Iraq and Ukraine. Naturally, able-bodied people in the invaded territory would rise up to defend their homeland. But with the order-based nature of militaries, the forces of the invaders would kill those defending their home country from invasion. Many would lose family members and friends to this act of aggression.

On what logical or moral grounds would such an act of killing people who were merely defending their people and their country be considered admirable or respectable "service" as many refer to it? There is a case to be made that many are deceived into fighting and only know they were lied to when it is too late, but this still doesn't make fighting on the side of invaders an admirable thing; it only makes it the result of a lie.

I would never say that any of the Russian soldiers currently in Ukraine were honorably serving their country: there's nothing honorable about the Russian invasion. Similarly, I would apply that same logic to American soldiers who were in Iraq or any other invading forces attacking a sovereign country.

I'm interested to read what others think of this, especially if they think highly of current or former military personnel for serving in the armed forces during invasions that we now know were unjustified or unnecessary.

I believe the govt are at fault. I also believe that not everyone(countries) will agree to that. The govts that lie to its people, just to go to war, for no other reason except money and population kill and unethical propaganda, seems an untrustworthy govt. The soldiers do as they are told, if they don't, they will be "dishonorably discharged" and where is the fairness in that word "dishonorable" when it based on a lie. It's like making them do as they are told even if their own ethics deem them worthy and their leaders aren't?

Good intentions are only good if they are based on goodness. Killing innocents at the hands of an aggressor is completely unjustified in my opinion. But the soldiers must do what they are told. It's kinda like stuck in a no win situation and then gettin blamed for it and must live the lie out forever in their own head. Many men and women suffer from this.

I feel for the soldiers and this situation. But only those who truly believe in goodness of intention and fight a "worthy" war. Coming to aid is always good. But is it justified to the innocents? To me, that is wrong.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

No. Honor is a complex social construct, and I can imagine scenarios in which a soldier behaves dishonorably.

For instance, killing a family for no reason and raping a 14 year old: U.S. Soldier Convicted of Killing Iraqi Family Dies in Prison

I've also known veterans who had never seen combat who are just plain jerks. While I respect folks who are willing to serve, I acknowledge that sometimes it's done for less than respectable reasons and just serving doesn't earn respect.

 

[Kooky]

It's always kind of a bummer when Americans on the Internet ask what my ancestors did in WW2 and I have to tell them that they served one of the vilest regimes in human history. Needless to say, I've never bought into the uncritical worship of veterans and armed forces common among Americans and Brits.

But is that on the average soldier who signed up, or the person giving the orders to do so? I blame the govt for wielding their militaries in such a fashion and not on those fighting, unless they are outright breaking decorum.

The Nuremburg trials established that soldiers are at the very least complicit in the war crimes and atrocities they commit.

In theory, every soldier has the duty to refuse illegal commands; of course, in practice, no army would ever even dream of supporting its soldiers in this, because that would lead to the kind of critical and self-reflective culture that militaries and warmongering politicians alike universally despise.

 

[Stevicus]

This issue has frequently come to mind upon seeing people favorably refer to current or former military personnel as having "served" in a war.

Let's say a foreign army invaded a country aggressively and unjustifiably, as was the case in Iraq and Ukraine. Naturally, able-bodied people in the invaded territory would rise up to defend their homeland. But with the order-based nature of militaries, the forces of the invaders would kill those defending their home country from invasion. Many would lose family members and friends to this act of aggression.

On what logical or moral grounds would such an act of killing people who were merely defending their people and their country be considered admirable or respectable "service" as many refer to it? There is a case to be made that many are deceived into fighting and only know they were lied to when it is too late, but this still doesn't make fighting on the side of invaders an admirable thing; it only makes it the result of a lie.

I would never say that any of the Russian soldiers currently in Ukraine were honorably serving their country: there's nothing honorable about the Russian invasion. Similarly, I would apply that same logic to American soldiers who were in Iraq or any other invading forces attacking a sovereign country.

I'm interested to read what others think of this, especially if they think highly of current or former military personnel for serving in the armed forces during invasions that we now know were unjustified or unnecessary.

I'm not sure how it is in other countries, but in America, the issue of treatment of war veterans has been a volatile topic for as long as I can remember.

The veterans coming home from WW2 were treated to ticker tape parades and all-around good treatment wherever they went. They'd go into a bar, and everyone would insist on buying their drinks for them.

In contrast, those who came home from Vietnam were treated exactly the opposite. They had people spitting in their faces, calling them "baby killers," and the military was trashed and lampooned in the media constantly.

And then, at some point, war and military service became cool again (probably about the same time as the movie Top Gun came out), and criticism of the military and the government's warlike policies started to dissipate in the 1980s.

By the time of the first Gulf War, there were some concerns about how the general public would react. That's when someone hit upon the "support the troops" idea. The idea was that the troops should not be personally blamed or mistreated for any military actions, since it wasn't their decision. They were just doing their jobs and should be honored on that basis alone.

People I knew to be virulently anti-war in the 60s and 70s were suddenly saying "drop it on Gaddafi" and were enthusiastic cheerleaders in the war against Iraq. Also, the fall of the USSR gave enormous validation to the right-wing militaristic viewpoint, proving in some people's eyes that the war hawks were right all along. Opinions about the Vietnam War itself also changed.

Moreover, the arguments about American military and foreign policies were usually juxtaposed with ideas about our Constitutional rights, our freedoms, and the safe, comfortable, luxurious bubble of safety and security that Americans live within. The liberal hippie ideals of "make love not war" were thoroughly scorned, dismissed, and considered dangerously naive and childlike.

The hippies themselves grew up, no longer embracing the ascetic, non-materialistic, peaceful, commune lifestyle. Instead, they went full consumerism and totally plastic during the Reagan era, a complete reversal of the enlightened mindset they once had. That's how they became vulnerable to the arguments and notions expressed by Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, whose "You can't handle the truth" speech perfectly sums up the mainstream US attitude on war and military service.


Col. Jessup : Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know; that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, *saves lives*. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a *damn* what you think you are entitled to!


The central notion is that "we" (in the West) have safe, free, comfortable, luxurious, consumerist lifestyles mainly thanks to the efforts and actions of our military, who keep us safe and secure from all the "boogiemen" in the outside world. The idea is that if we enjoy our freedoms and insular, carefree lifestyles, we'd better just keep our mouths shut and support the troops no matter what. I've heard it said that the government knows better than the rest of us and that we shouldn't question policy, because it's all for our own protection and well-being. As a result, nowadays, anyone who questions government gets lambasted and ridiculed as some sort "conspiracy nut" (or possibly even worse).

Many people have somehow been led to believe that our "freedom" comes from bombing Afghani civilians and not from the Constitution. One might hear absurd arguments like "I fought in Afghanistan so you could have free speech! How DARE you criticize the military!" Of course, they never explained how people in Afghanistan somehow had the power to change the U.S. Constitution, as their arguments are/were generally more specious than even the wildest conspiracy theories.

 

[Martin]

This perspective seems to focus on intention even when the practical outcomes of an action are undesirable or destructive. I think you make a solid point, but by extension, this argument could make a case for honoring someone's actions on the basis of intention alone.

To be clear, my question isn't in support of judging from the sidelines, as you put it, but it is instead meant to raise the issue of whether it is morally tenable to praise participation in an action whose consequences cause unnecessary suffering and grief to others.

If someone killed a defending family member or friend of yours while believing they were doing the right thing in an invasion, I would definitely hesitate to call their service an honorable endeavor. Well-intentioned at best, but not honorable, since I believe outcomes of actions are, more often than not, part and parcel of their moral value.

Interesting topic. Something which occurs to me is that soldiers don't get a choice about where they're sent, or who they fight. So for that reason, it's probably unfair to blame them.
When I was in the Army Reserve, our battalion nearly got sent over to Northern Ireland, which I would personally have found very troubling because of my Irish roots. But I wouldn't have had a choice.

 

[Kooky]

In contrast, those who came home from Vietnam were treated exactly the opposite. They had people spitting in their faces, calling them "baby killers," and the military was trashed and lampooned in the media constantly.

I'm not going to comment on the bigger picture you draw in your post, but as far as I can tell, this specific example seems to be largely a myth told after the fact.

First of all, nothing I read on the subject offers any contemporary news as evidence that this happened, nor was this brought up against anti-war activists at the time of the war.

Second of all, anti-war sentiment in the US, even at the height of the Tet offensive, was never so widespread that military veterans would routinely be subjected to that kind of treatment; in fact, much like today, antiwar activism appeared to be largely limited to the young, the leftist, and the college educated.

The story of veterans getting spit in their faces first comes up after the Vietnam War, and IIRC first sees public airtime in the first Rambo movie of all places.

In a way, one could read this story as a legend told by Reaganites to contrast the 'good years' of warmongering Ronnie enthusiastically supported by a coalition of fundamentalist Christians and old Southerners vs. the 'bad years' of leftist rule, when 'good soldiers' were being spat upon by dastardly hippies.

 

[Heyo]

Interesting topic. Something which occurs to me is that soldiers don't get a choice about where they're sent, or who they fight. So for that reason, it's probably unfair to blame them.
When I was in the Army Reserve, our battalion nearly got sent over to Northern Ireland, which I would personally have found very troubling because of my Irish roots. But I wouldn't have had a choice.

I pity everyone who can't comprehend that they may not have free will but at least free choice.

 

[Martin]

I pity everyone who can't comprehend that they may not have free will but at least free choice.

Have you ever been in the military? It's more complicated than that.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Until the evidence is presented, I doubt that most who join the armed services (without conscription) are doing so out of love for their country, but might be doing so for the adventure aspects and/or the sense of power such gives them. But I am willing to be corrected.