Can an american explain me their view on their military?

[manaman]

...the large amounts of difficulty it requires to actually get to be a part of. Ask anyone in the military, and they will confirm that boot camp is really tough...

...Also, I heard it's mad easy to get girls after you're in, so there's that.

Nope, not true at all. People who can't hack basic training, well aside from those with a medical condition (an obesity isn't a medical condition), are just to lazy, to whiny, or to spoiled.

As long as you can put in a little effort you can make it. They don't require so much physical strength as they do willpower. No not even mental strength, you just follow orders, and don't quit. That's all there is to it.

As for girls, well it's not really any easier, and not really any harder. It can make some things easy because there is a massive shortage of girls in the armed forces, but you probably are not going to get any special treatment from superiors, and as likely as not to run into some that look down on girls getting the guys to do everything for them - then treat all women as if they do the same.


OT: I have to wonder how many people responding here actually served.

I was in the Air Force, I was combat communications. Which is about as fun as it sounds. I served for five years until I was wounded in Iraq and eventually discharged. The first time I was deployed there where people there at the airport when we got off the plane that offered phones, food, cookies, and some just hugs and words of kindness. Care packages where sent from time to time to the base by buisness and communities. The last time I got deployed people where generally either apathetic or showed outright hostility that their precious plans had the possibility of being disrupted because of us. Total time between those deployments, only three years.

There is still a lot of talk about supporting the military here in the US, but very little real support going on these days. More just general tolerance and a respect for the fact that people volunteer to enlist.

 

[Skizle]

They are war heroes each and every single one of them.

Even the ones who torture people at places like Abu Ghraib?

Torture is the oldest form of getting information. Every nation has done it since the beginning of time. It is a scar among all nations, however we all deal with it. Most soldiers are just following orders. Some may not be willing to do, however they will because if they dont a long prison sentence awaits them

 

[Biosophilogical]

They're held in such status because they're seen as servants of the good of the nation, but it's a mixed bag same as anywhere else. It's mixed with good people putting in their prime years in the service of a government they believe in, mixed with the arrogant who want something to flaunt and the unfortunate who need a job and consider low to medium odds of death a decent trade off.

And don't forget the crazies who just want to be paid to shoot a gun, and the manly men who love 'roughing it'.

OT: I'm an Aussie, so I'm not sure how it is in America, but from my view, it is that the population values the country, and therefore the sacrifice that soldiers make is considered valuable by extension, so when someone starts spouting crap about the military, they are belittling not only the worth of the soldiers' lives but also the worth of the country (and it's freedoms, rules, people, culture, etc).

 

[Truth Cake]

I hold the U.S. military in the same regard as every other military- that they're armed men/women that are trained to kill or assist in killing, and the fact that we need such a group of people around at any given time is a testament to how humans can be WORSE than animals.

The soldiers themselves though, I treat them as any other human, nothing special.

 

[hyzaku]

On another note, how do you handle criticism of the Military then? I mean a couple of weeks back when Don't Ask, don't tell was repealed, I read that The Marince Corps was reluctant to do so. I think thats douchebagery at it's worst, so how do you, as an american, express your disagreement with a US Military institution? Without getting:


See my point?

As far as I have seen, you typically have to voice you negative opinions tactfully. It is difficult to voice a negative opinion on anything military related without being slammed for lack of patriotism. It is still possible, but you have to address the policies and decisions specifically and not use blanket terms to address the military in a negative light.

For instance, if you want to advocate against sending more troops to X area or for Y conflict then you must say exactly that. You say I don't want more troops in the Middle East. You do not say something like, I hate our military for being in the Middle East. It is really touchy. The gist is that in most every case we support the troops even if we do not support them being in a particular area or conflict. It isn't the soldiers' fault for being sent out somewhere, but it is their choice to risk their lives and that is what we respect.

 

[Kryzantine]

I see it as necessary, both for the world and for ourselves. For one, most ocean shipping lanes are protected by our navy and air force. For another, our defense department employs more than a million Americans state-side, in addition to what our actual fighting force consists of. Not to mention research programs, national communications defense, war colleges (which are amazing at providing opportunities to intelligent working-class Americans, I know several people from my high school class that opted to go to war colleges instead of more prestigious private universities). Part of the reason that Europe doesn't focus so much on its military, is that the US military fills the void. If we didn't emphasize it so much, then countries in Europe will have to start spending more on their own military, which could upset some countries if taxes need to be raised.

So that's why when the talk about budget cuts in America heats up, you don't hear the Dept of Defense having its head called for, even though it is by far our largest department expenditure.

 

[JB1528]

I hold the U.S. military in the same regard as every other military- that they're armed men/women that are trained to kill or assist in killing, and the fact that we need such a group of people around at any given time is a testament to how humans can be WORSE than animals.

The soldiers themselves though, I treat them as any other human, nothing special.

Worse than animals? You do realize animals kill each other over territories and resources too right?

 

[Truth Cake]

I hold the U.S. military in the same regard as every other military- that they're armed men/women that are trained to kill or assist in killing, and the fact that we need such a group of people around at any given time is a testament to how humans can be WORSE than animals.

The soldiers themselves though, I treat them as any other human, nothing special.

Worse than animals? You do realize animals kill each other over territories and resources too right?

I do fully realize that, but do animals have so many of their own solely (spelling?) dedicated JUST to fight over territory and resources and not to, say, gathering food? Very few do, I can only think of ants and wolves- aren't humans supposed to be better, not the same or worse?

 

[Loner Jo Jo]

I think partially it's a hold over from when we were "the good guys" and helped end WWII. Then we were fighting a cause that could easily be said was a fight of "good and evil" so it only makes sense to glorify the heroes from that war. Even now, WWII veterans are put on a pedestal. However, during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, when we had a draft, many vets came home only to be ignored, cast aside or ridiculed, respectively.

Now, because there is no draft, we have this idyllic notion that those who enlist are brave men and women who love their country above all. I'm sure some are, but then again, I've met my fair share of military men and women who are far from these stereotypes.

Then again, I do hold the military in high regard. Many members of my family have served, and I'm grateful to the service they perform. Really, I think that it's the combination of the job itself, the potential for putting their lives on the line, and the fact that they receive rather pitiful treatment still from the government in terms of benefits and pay.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Americans hold our fighting men and women in the highest regard specifically because none of them are conscripted, they're all volunteers, and they fight and die for our country of their own free will.

Many, in fact most, Americans may not believe in the wars that we're fighting, and might think that they are petty and needless, but we still all have the highest respect for the men and women who are sent to fight those wars.

Now, on the subject of the actual military, and not the people involved, our military is seriously too damn big. We spend twice as much on our military as the entire European Union and China put together. I mean sure, we have the most technologically sophisticated military in the world because of it, but the fact that we spend so much money on it means that we can't spend money on other things. Hell, if we cut our military budget by just 20% we'd still have the best equipped military in the world, and then we could also pay for universal healthcare for every citizen without anyone needing to pay more taxes, as well as paying more for education, and still have enough money left over to slowly start eliminating our debt, but for some reason the morons in Washington refuse to even consider doing that.

 

[Dosbilliam]

They're held in such status because they're seen as servants of the good of the nation, but it's a mixed bag same as anywhere else. It's mixed with good people putting in their prime years in the service of a government they believe in, mixed with the arrogant who want something to flaunt and the unfortunate who need a job and consider low to medium odds of death a decent trade off.

i couldnt have said this better myself. however, these people are the GOOD portion of our military, the ones who are told to do the things we as a people find reprehensible and are constantly complaining about. the ones we REALLY need to be angry at are the ones who GAVE the orders, the ones who are willing to sacrifice the time, possibly the lives, of others for their own ends. take the constant warring of the Three Kingdoms era in Chinese history.(going off of Dynasty Warriors and Wikipedia on this) for the most part, all the fighting was to free the country from the chaos that plagued it from the end of the Han, even though the fighting itself was the cause of the chaos. this was an end to be honored, and even though it led to many deaths, it was all for a cause every single of those people believed in, to one degree or another.
fast forward to the current situation my own country has found itself in, that of effectively being the police force of the world. we send troops into situations we have no reason to be in, and that leads to more chaos and more deployment. while we say its in the name of peace, that seems to hold less water for every person slain. while the foot soldier and the immediate superiors they have are not to blame, i find that assigning that very blame to those that give those orders, the ones who GET those people killed, is much easier and probably the best place to put it. the War in Iraq is probably the best example i can give for this. did we have a good reason for being there? i cant say. we could have been there to get rid of Saddam once and for all, in which case, we were successful. but we also could have been there in a teenager-esque attempt by Bush Jr. to finish what his father had started but failed to finish, and thats assuming it was Jrs. idea in the first place. our nation's capital is so corrupt and embedded in its ways that finding the true cause of that is near impossible without a large amount of time and resources, something which i lack as a student at a local community college. while i may have taken a roundabout way of saying it, my point is that we cannot blame the single soldier for their actions when we should instead blame the one who gave the order, when the very nature of our country's leadership makes finding ANY motive, honorable or not, nearly impossible for the average person.

 

[Ghengis John]

You're right. I do/did not understand, but these answers has actually been very enlightening, and I must admit from that viewpoint, the appreciation seems a lot more natural. Glad that people took this serious.

I'm glad that you bothered to ask in a reasonable and sensible way, actually seeking our opinions and inviting discourse. It points to an intellectual and open minded manner and I can respect that. As I'm sure you know a lot of people from the international community these days are at least outwardly not big on the US. It would seem the archetypal thread on the net dealing with the american military is a very thoughtful and evolved foaming rant that invariably insults the citizenry themselves and has a fifty percent chance of wishing the country they've never been to were wiped off the face of the earth.

On another note, how do you handle criticism of the Military then? I mean a couple of weeks back when Don't Ask, don't tell was repealed, I read that The Marince Corps was reluctant to do so. I think thats douchebagery at it's worst, so how do you, as an american, express your disagreement with a US Military institution? Without getting:

We destroy anyone who says shit about the armed forces!

See my point?

Well I think that's a very profound question and the answer is that sometimes you can't. I have to agree on that point of douchebaggery and while you might have a valid concern and make a rational argument some people are going to be just plain unreasonable when it comes to the military. (But you can expect that on any subject really, it's part of life.) You have to expect that criticism is going to come part and parcel, par for the course.

However, the important thing to do is not to insult or attack the soldiers as a whole nor the institution itself, but the individuals in charge of actions or decisions that you disapprove of. Generalizations in general (the irony) are bad though and you should try to avoid them in debates anyhow because you can be picked apart with specific counter examples or bogged down in counter generalization. It would make little sense to criticize the soldier or institution in this instance because you're trying to protect the first and uplift the second. You're far less prone to get pro military detractors when going after the specific boards, politicians or officers responsible for an action and (then with the number of opponents reduced) have to deal primarily with those of like mind who are ideologically opposed to the changes themselves. This limits your opponents to specific people who can be pigeon holed as bigots or hawks and opens them up to charges of being disrespectful towards these soldiers.

It's all a question of framing the argument the right way from the start, with the caveat that some people will be angry with you no matter what you say. Just aim your volleys as best you can, try not to hit the wrong houses in the first place and you'll have less angry people to deal with.

 

[coolkirb]

I think the main reason I and other fellow Americans have such reverence for our military is the large amounts of difficulty it requires to actually get to be a part of. Ask anyone in the military, and they will confirm that boot camp is really tough. So, in completing boot camp (be it for the marines, army, air force, etc), you have essentially placed yourself in the ranks of the elite who have braved and conquered their own weaknesses, and acquired a discipline only the military could offer. Also, I heard it's mad easy to get girls after you're in, so there's that.

Thats why Canada allways beats you at war games

 

[Ghengis John]

I think the main reason I and other fellow Americans have such reverence for our military is the large amounts of difficulty it requires to actually get to be a part of. Ask anyone in the military, and they will confirm that boot camp is really tough. So, in completing boot camp (be it for the marines, army, air force, etc), you have essentially placed yourself in the ranks of the elite who have braved and conquered their own weaknesses, and acquired a discipline only the military could offer. Also, I heard it's mad easy to get girls after you're in, so there's that.

Thats why Canada allways beats you at war games

We are letting you have those war games to throw you off. You will be over confident when we need to replenish our beaver and maple syrup supply.

 

[Jodah]

Sorry for the weird title. Well obviously I am not american myself, and some people might find this post a little weird. I have been thinking about this for some time now. Well here is the thing;

Browsing pages such as 4chan.org, imgur and reddit.com, I find people making fun of basicly everything. Except one thing. The US Military. Everytime its about them it all about heroes, "oorah" (some kind of Marine slogan?) and thanks.

Being born in a country with conscription (Denmark), being in the military really isn't that big a deal. Was in the Army Fire Deparmtent myself. Many males of the danish population has been in the military for a certain amount of time, so the military isn't really that much of an romantic institution. It's just a job.

But during my travels last year in the US, and also on the internet, the military is almost sacred. Every word of criticism is met with harsh reprisals, and sorry to say so, but I just don't get it.

Anyways, what I am most curious about is why it is this way? It's not that I think anythings wrong with it, but I must admit that the praise and respect seems a bit excessive in my eyes. Being a hero (which americans use a lot when talking about their troops) in my country is something you have to earn through action. Not by just signing up.

I'm curious, so if any american browsing the site could spare a few minutes to tell me why they pay their respects, it would be much appreciated.

Has to do with two things imo. First, as you said in Denmark it is mandatory to serve. In the US it is voluntary. As such they are willing to sacrifice themselves for everyone else (thats one reason anyways). That, for most people, automatically makes them worthy of respect.

The other reason has to do with the reaction of civilians towards military personnel during and after Vietnam. Returning military were insulted and disrespected terribly. Looking back at it afterwards many people are appalled by it. This leads to the current population overcompensating to a degree.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

I'm in the military, I have lots of family in the military. In fact, only one person in my family isn't in the military.

I see the US military as an engine of social mobility which is disturbingly exempt from criticism in the United States.

Millions of people can only go to school on Uncle Sam's dollar. Millions more need it for stability and a future. Immigrants use it to gain a foothold in this country. It's a little sad that we don't have other ways of doing this. What about civil service instead? Build roads, fix those levies along the Mississippi, or build houses for the homeless. Instead, we go to war. People are joining for the wrong reasons. Money instead of service, but that's what you get when people have no where else to turn. That's not to say discipline is a bad thing. People in the military are very healthy physically and mentally. I just think there are other ways to be using our young men and women to better our nation.

I also don't like how the US public acts about the military. It's as if people have to say "Praise be to Them" every time they say troops or soldiers. The soldier worship is alarming. Even implying you put a soldier in bad light gets a person labelled as un-American or they're told they should go to the front line if they don't like it or the condescending, "You can only say that because soldiers are fighting and dying to let you say that." I'm not saying we should spit on them or call them baby killers, but instead treat them as individuals. Not this fetishized image of them as being brave protectors of freedom who can do no wrong and are completely exempt from any questioning. The person who merely suggests cut-backs is condemned in this nation. It's insanity which can't go on forever.

 

[Grickit]

You have to separate the soldiers (as individuals) and the military (as an organization) in order to discuss this.

The soldiers have volunteered to give up their lives for the rest of us. They really are sacred heroes. They lose limbs. They lose their sanity. They lose their family. They die. So that everyone else in the country can just that much safer.


Then there is the military as an organization. If it were up to them (the leadership of that organization), we would always be at war. And then there's the guns versus butter thing. America is so hung up on our debt right now, and all anyone can talk about is cutting medicare, or cutting social security, or cutting this or that. Well gee... why don't we cut back on our military spending a bit? We spend just as much on our military as the rest of the world put together. Our leading competitor is China and we spend SIX TIMES more than them.

The big problem is, when you try to point out negatives about the latter (no matter how blatant and valid), the far-right, gun-porn, fanatics (who are too big of pansies to actually ever go to war themselves) will accuse you of hating the former.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

Well The world my call America fat, dumb, stupid, lazy, arrogant, but the one thing they don't call us? Weak. We know that those men and women put they're lives on the line to make sure we're the toughest guys around. And we know that.

 

[Liudeius]

Basically it's like you say.
The military is voluntary, those who join it are risking their lives for their country, regardless of the validity of the reason they are risking their lives.

I'm against much of the U.S. military action in the past years, but that is a problem with the leaders. The elected officials, comfortable, safe, and manipulative, thousands of miles from the death. I would trash talk them endlessly, but the soldiers are not able to influence those matters, so I would only speak badly of them when they over-step a boundary.
Like torturous murder and rape in Vietnam and, a more modern example,

murdering unarmed civilians then slaughtering the good sumaritains who came to help them (with kids) while the soldiers were completely safe, even if the civilians had possessed guns, in a helicopter. (The video released on WikiLeaks which made big news)
They were scum, the stress and danger of war is no excuse for such actions.
Slaughtering innocent civilians is the ONLY difference we have from terrorists, both sides are fighting for their ideals.

AND they were laughing about it, PSYCHOPATHS.

The majority though, I assume, are perfectly fine people, risking their lives for one reason or another.
Hate the organization, not the individual. That's the rule I tend to follow, with exceptions for those who are repulsively vile.

Edit:
Someone else has mentioned that they aren't. That's true, it's purely a speaking respect. Say anything bad about America's military actions, and suddenly you are saying those who die are worthless.
Veterans aren't given much special treatment by the average citizen. Contrary to what that person thinks, this is how it should be. Joining the military should NOT give an individual "higher social standing".