Being a War Veteran: Is It Always Admirable?

[Martin]

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.

Various reasons, though I think there often is a sense of duty, patriotism and service. That was my experience in the Army Reserve anyway.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Various reasons, though I think there often is a sense of duty, patriotism and service. That was my experience in the Army Reserve anyway.

Like to see more evidence though, other than anecdotal.

 

[Kooky]

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

Based on my own experiences as a conscript, soldiers who insist on their free choice tend to be treated as troublemakers, and become prime targets for bullying and harassment by superiors and peers alike.

 

[Martin]

Like to see more evidence though, other than anecdotal.

Maybe some research has been done?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Maybe some research has been done?

Show me then.

The Top 5 Reasons Soldiers Really Join The Army, According To Junior Enlisted
Studies tackle who joins the military and why, but their findings aren’t what many assume

Here's some, and the first corroborating what I tend to believe (as to adventure), but I am willing to accept whatever evidence is available.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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.

I know a former student of mine with particularly deep mental health issues who joined so he could, as he stated, be put in a position where he could kill people.

He's apparently doing really well there. I am glad the kid found his place in the world and I hope his mentality has changed, but I have trouble with respecting the choice to do something just so you can kill people.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I did personally know some vets who told me of bad treatment upon returning home. One guy said after his first tour, someone called him a baby killer (or something to that effect), and as a result, he signed up again for another tour in Vietnam. So, I know of at least one person it happened to. Others seemed to complain mostly of widespread indifference, that nobody really cared.

Some of it may have been exaggerated in later years, but I do know that the military overall was strongly criticized and lampooned. If you look at the movies and TV shows of the 1970s era (such as M*A*S*H), it reflects a very strong anti-military bent which existed in popular culture at the time. Even organizations like the Boy Scouts had fallen into disfavor and weren't very popular.

"Spitting in veterans' faces" may have been overblown and became more of a cliche, although the reality of the sharp contrasts between veterans returning from WW2 as opposed to those returning from Vietnam was a salient point. People also started to learn about some of the horrific conditions in the VA hospitals and reacted negatively against it.

Of course, opinions were sharply divided, and the battle between the hawks and the doves was quite contentious. Most of the protests were directed at the government and political leadership. While there may have been some truth to Nixon's "silent majority" speech, the anti-war sentiment in the U.S. was widespread and definitely a force to be reckoned with. It wasn't just political, but it was also cultural. However, Reagan and his crowd seemed to be more of a backlash against what had been happening. The "silent majority" became the "moral majority," and that's also when opinions about geopolitics, war, and America's purpose in the world started to shift into what it is now.

 

[Stevicus]

Show me then.

The Top 5 Reasons Soldiers Really Join The Army, According To Junior Enlisted
Studies tackle who joins the military and why, but their findings aren’t what many assume

Here's some, and the first corroborating what I tend to believe (as to adventure), but I am willing to accept whatever evidence is available.

I tried to join the Navy when I was 19. The reason? It was a case of unrequited love. Heartbroken and despondent, I decided "I'm going to join the Foreign Legion!" But I shot down that idea and hit upon the Navy instead. However, I was rejected for military service. It was a slight physical impairment, nothing serious or major, but it was enough to keep me out of the service.

This was back in early 1983, when military recruitment was at an all-time high. So, it seemed they could afford to be choosy back then. The economy was in rough shape, the unemployment was up, so a military career probably looked attractive to some. At least it was a job that paid better than McDonald's.

 

[Heyo]

Based on my own experiences as a conscript, soldiers who insist on their free choice tend to be treated as troublemakers, and become prime targets for bullying and harassment by superiors and peers alike.

Yep, making choices has consequences. But so has not making choices.

 

[Heyo]

Have you ever been in the military?

One of the most depressing and foolish things I ever have let me been dragged into.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I tried to join the Navy when I was 19. The reason? It was a case of unrequited love. Heartbroken and despondent, I decided "I'm going to join the Foreign Legion!" But I shot down that idea and hit upon the Navy instead. However, I was rejected for military service. It was a slight physical impairment, nothing serious or major, but it was enough to keep me out of the service.

This was back in early 1983, when military recruitment was at an all-time high. So, it seemed they could afford to be choosy back then. The economy was in rough shape, the unemployment was up, so a military career probably looked attractive to some. At least it was a job that paid better than McDonald's.

I think the navy would have been my choice, if I had one. I joined the scouts for my adventuring, and can quite recommend such (at least in the UK), since I learnt almost all I needed to get me into rock-climbing, caving, mountaineering, sailing, etc., and without the need to kill anyone - although the food wasn't that great and one scoutmaster had a mock trial for being too fond of little boys.

I thankfully escaped conscription by a few years from memory.

 

[pearl]

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.

Most served with honor, if the war itself was not, that's not on them!

 

[Heyo]

Most served with honor, if the war itself was not, that's not on them!

"Only executing orders" should only be an excuse for someone who is certifiably too stupid to understand what that means.

 

[pearl]

"Only executing orders" should only be an excuse for someone who is certifiably too stupid to understand what that means.

Why not post your opinion of them at one of the Vietnam war memorials?
Read some of the last letters these 'too stupid' wrote home.

 

[Stevicus]

I think the navy would have been my choice, if I had one. I joined the scouts for my adventuring, and can quite recommend such (at least in the UK), since I learnt almost I needed to get me into rock-climbing, caving, mountaineering, sailing, etc., and without the need to kill anyone - although the food wasn't that great and one scoutmaster had a mock trial for being too fond of little boys.

I thankfully escaped conscription by a few years from memory.

At the time, I'm not sure that I was even thinking about that part of it. Or if it did involve killing, it was more in the name of defense. And with some aspects of the modern military, those carrying out some of these grisly tasks may be more detached from their targets, such as pilots dropping bombs or navy ships launching missiles at land-based targets (or at aircraft carrying civilians). The Army and Marines are the ones who have to slug it out on land and come face to face with the people they have to kill. I don't know if one is more difficult than the other; I've never done either job.

I had to register for the draft, but fortunately, there hasn't been a draft in America since Nixon cancelled it back in the 70s (I forget the exact year).

I had a friend who was drafted, and when he reported at the induction center, there were Navy recruiters there who offered draftees the chance to join up with them instead. It seemed the Navy and Air Force were able to get many of the "cream of the crop" among the draftees, and that may have been true for the Marines as well. The Army ended up with the ones that none of the other services wanted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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've never served in the military, so I may be completely talking out of my butt, but here's my take on it:

A soldier in actual combat probably isn't in the best position most of the time to judge the ethics of the war. They're more concerned with achieving their immediate objective, not dying, and making sure their buddies don't die (not necessarily in that order).

Any resistance they encounter can't be taken as an indication of how much support or opposition "the people" of the country feel generally. Their progress - or lack thereof - in achieving their objective isn't an indication of how well the war is going overall.

The ethical frame work of their own actions may also be very different from those of the overall war. Regardless of whether a war is just or not, it's probably going to be morally acceptable - or at least neutral - to, say, protect a supply convoy from ambushes, or to secure a crossroads so that the enemy can't outflank you and kill you.

The cooks who are tasked with feeding a regiment are probably doing the right thing in their immediate circumstances even if depriving that regiment of food would help to end an unjust war... especially when the regiment would still get fed if one lone cook refused to work.

Even in an unjust war, most of the participants' actions can be morally acceptable most of the time, and there can still be selfless acts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Only executing orders" should only be an excuse for someone who is certifiably too stupid to understand what that means.

It's not an excuse when the order you've been given is clearly illegal.

It's one thing to fault a front-line soldier for shooting an unarmed civilian. It's another to fault a diesel mechanic for doing an overhaul on a tank that belongs to a unit that rumour says may have killed civilians in a battle a month ago.

 

[Wandering Monk]

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.

Many people are conscripted to fight. How can you know their motives?

 

[Kooky]

Yep, making choices has consequences. But so has not making choices.

Indeed. Usually, when atrocities happen, one or several guys that nobody liked tend to get singled out as the sole culprits and punished as an example to all, while the people actually responsible for ordering them, and who continued to turn blind eyes to the whole thing until some journalist or whistleblower blew it up into international news, get away scot free.

There seems to be one exception to that rule, which is when an entire regime comes crashing down - in which case, some of the people ultimately responsible for atrocities will get caught and punished for it.

I suppose your best choice as a soldier, then, is to hope that the regime you serve falls quickly and gets replaced with one that will rehabilitate your legacy. Good luck with that - in the decades since WW2, it hasn't happened to the majority of Wehrmacht soldiers who were tried and executed for desertion, nor to the numerous Germans tried and executed for joining a resistance force.

So these are the consequences you face - cushy job with the miniscule chance to become a scapegoat months or years down the line, versus endless mistreatment by your employer with the likely prospect of becoming a fall guy for all of it when this all blows up anyway; alternatively, you could become a whistleblower and endure a decade in solitary confinement. And that's in a liberal democracy with at least a nominal commitment to human rights and due process; your prospects in an authoritarian regime are extremely likely to be much, much worse than that.

According to Sartre, we always have a choice, even while enslaved or tortured. I guess we can draw the conclusion from this that all the slaves and torture victims wanted to be there, or else they would have resisted. What do you think?

 

[Kooky]

"Only executing orders" should only be an excuse for someone who is certifiably too stupid to understand what that means.

It is actually a very convenient way to push responsibility down the chain of command, as if the people ordering a genocide were less culpable than the people who ultimately carried it out. Atrocities are never the responsiblity of individuals; they are almost aways the indication of a deep moral rot in the entire system where they occur.