Is the Voluntary Military a Good?

[The Gadfly]

Funny, you talking about rationalization, look at the way you're rationalizing what Obama has done. The man has taken actions and made decisions that he has no constitutional right to make, things that are not in the law as written. Things that should be legislated by Congress; it ain't in his purview to do things if they don't pass laws authorizing his to do so. However you might think it's warranted, he has crossed the line that should separate the powers given to the 3 branches of our gov't.

Yep, reason too is in the eye of the beholder, everything is, we just have a hard understanding the roots. But, and this is the big BUT - Obama either did or did not do something on the issues. I listed what I considered the salient points and to my mind he acted pragmatically reasonable. Now is torture invasions trumped up nonsense email monitoring equivalent. Not in any constitutional book I know.

Back on topic, if the the banana owners are managing the minds of the partisans and ideologies rather than minding the bananas is this a good thing?

"The Swift Boaters' main grievance against Kerry has nothing to do with his actions in Vietnam, but rather with Kerry's public opposition to the war after he returned to the United States. But even in this regard, the Swift Boat Veterans are fighting a war against the truth, not for it. They resent Kerry for having testified before Congress about war crimes committed in Vietnam by U.S. soldiers, but the historical record is quite clear that war crimes were committed. (Kerry gave his testimony shortly after Lieutenant William Calley's court martial for the My Lai massacre.)

The point to all of these attacks is not, as the Swift Boat Veterans pretend, concern for "the truth." Rather, they are engaged in a propaganda campaign aimed at influencing the behavior of a "target population" - in this case, voters." Sinking the Swift Boats

_

So a vet has no business advocating for a political agenda after he leaves the service? Really? That, and in the same breath you praise John Kerry and the rest of the VVAW who came back here and defamed their fellow soldiers with LIES? Of course, that was YOUR side, so you're fine with it. I suppose you are also fine with the facts that Mr. Kerry LIED under oath to congress, that he knowingly procured testimony about alleged "war crimes" (allegations investigated and proven false!) from men who never set foot in Vietnam, and that he went to Paris where he met with representatives of the North Vietnamese government, in direct violation of United States law? Let a group of Special Ops vets critique this administration's disregard for OP SEC for political advantage, and you're outraged? What's the matter? The truth hurts your cause, AGAIN? Too fucking bad! Your outrage is highly selective, partisan hack!

 

[Polk]

While there are certainly ethical problems with having a peacetime draft, I would say that an all-volunteer military is harmful to the fabric of society in the long-run.

 

[Wiseacre]

While there are certainly ethical problems with having a peacetime draft, I would say that an all-volunteer military is harmful to the fabric of society in the long-run.

Based on what logic?

 

[Polk]

While there are certainly ethical problems with having a peacetime draft, I would say that an all-volunteer military is harmful to the fabric of society in the long-run.

Based on what logic?

When people had to serve (WW2, Vietnam), service was seen as doing one's duty for the community/nation. When people choose to serve, it creates a cult of hero worship around them. In the long run, that creates a ripe breeding ground for fascist sentiments.

 

[The Gadfly]

While there are certainly ethical problems with having a peacetime draft, I would say that an all-volunteer military is harmful to the fabric of society in the long-run.

Based on what logic?

When people had to serve (WW2, Vietnam), service was seen as doing one's duty for the community/nation. When people choose to serve, it creates a cult of hero worship around them. In the long run, that creates a ripe breeding ground for fascist sentiments.

"Duty, Honor, Country" is not just a slogan; it is an attitude and a way of lifeIt is not for everyone, but thankfully we have always had men who believed in it, and still do, draft or no draft. The days of fighting with massed armor,infantry and artillery on the battlefield are over; the weaponry of the twenty-first century has seen to that. BTW, TWO THIRDS of those of us who fought in Vietnam were volunteers, not draftees, but I don't recall having any problems with any "cult of hero worship" when we came home (and I am pretty sure I would have noticed, because like most combat soldiers, I don't consider myself a hero; just a survivor).

 

[daveman]

While there are certainly ethical problems with having a peacetime draft, I would say that an all-volunteer military is harmful to the fabric of society in the long-run.

Based on what logic?

When people had to serve (WW2, Vietnam), service was seen as doing one's duty for the community/nation. When people choose to serve, it creates a cult of hero worship around them. In the long run, that creates a ripe breeding ground for fascist sentiments.

Yeah, not really.

 

[Polk]

Based on what logic?

When people had to serve (WW2, Vietnam), service was seen as doing one's duty for the community/nation. When people choose to serve, it creates a cult of hero worship around them. In the long run, that creates a ripe breeding ground for fascist sentiments.

"Duty, Honor, Country" is not just a slogan; it is an attitude and a way of lifeIt is not for everyone, but thankfully we have always had men who believed in it, and still do, draft or no draft. The days of fighting with massed armor,infantry and artillery on the battlefield are over; the weaponry of the twenty-first century has seen to that. BTW, TWO THIRDS of those of us who fought in Vietnam were volunteers, not draftees, but I don't recall having any problems with any "cult of hero worship" when we came home (and I am pretty sure I would have noticed, because like most combat soldiers, I don't consider myself a hero; just a survivor).

It was different in your generation, even if you were a volunteer. I have relatives who served at the same time (they were all volunteers as well). None of them talk about their service. They just considered themselves as doing their duty. That's not really the case today. You can't criticize any use of force, because doing so is "attacking the troops". Funny, I'd think not wanting your people shot at for pointless reasons would be support, not attack.

 

[midcan5]

The point missed here is Kerry spoke as a person who served and not because some banana republic business hack is paying their way. I missed Nam by a coin flip, went to another remote place, but all my friends had nothing negative to say about Kerry's comments on the war. You see subtle differences are missed here when partisan hacks pay other partisan hacks to criticize a president based on personal hatred for the man. That is the point, this isn't today about military behavior, it is about the politics of corrupt money. Agree or disagree with Kerry, it took guts to speak out, not about a president, but about a war and what it did to the soldiers. I've never read a single substantive piece of journalism refuting Kerry's criticism. Did you all forget My Lai? Swift boat criticism came from partisan hacks who disliked Kerry and money made whining visible.

 

[daveman]

The point missed here is Kerry spoke as a person who served and not because some banana republic business hack is paying their way. I missed Nam by a coin flip, went to another remote place, but all my friends had nothing negative to say about Kerry's comments on the war. You see subtle differences are missed here when partisan hacks pay other partisan hacks to criticize a president based on personal hatred for the man. That is the point, this isn't today about military behavior, it is about the politics of corrupt money. Agree or disagree with Kerry, it took guts to speak out, not about a president, but about a war and what it did to the soldiers. I've never read a single substantive piece of journalism refuting Kerry's criticism. Did you all forget My Lai? Swift boat criticism came from partisan hacks who disliked Kerry and money made whining visible.

Just because you eagerly swallowed Kerry's lies does not mean they're true.

WinterSoldier.com - Yesterday's Lies: Steve Pitkin and the Winter Soldiers

Pitkin appears several times in the documentary film "Winter Soldier," where he comes across as vague and somewhat stunned, especially while being questioned by John Kerry in a preliminary interview. He seems overwhelmed at having to relive his harrowing experiences in Vietnam. But Steve Pitkin says today that what the film actually shows are his efforts to avoid answering Kerry's questions at all.
During the formal hearings, Pitkin started to slam the press for misrepresenting what GIs really did in Vietnam, but a woman he believes was Jane Fonda shot him an astonished look and started to stand up. Steve could see other members of the group getting ready to cut him off, so he changed course and made up a few things he thought they would be willing to accept. "Everything I said about atrocities and racism was a lie. My unit never went out with the intention of doing anything but its job. And I never saw black soldiers treated differently, get picked out for the worst or most dangerous jobs, or anything like that. There were some guys, shirkers, who would intentionally injure themselves to get sent home, so I talked about that for a while. But the fact is I lied my ass off, and I'm not proud of it. I didn't think it would ever amount to anything."​

The Book on John Kerry | The Weekly Standard

After Senator Mark O. Hatfield read the Winter Soldier testimony into the Congressional Record, he asked for an official investigation. When the Naval Investigate Service did just that, many of the veterans refused to cooperate (despite protections against self-incrimination). One soldier admitted that his testimony had been coached by members of the Nation of Islam; exact details of the atrocity he'd seen now escaped his memory. Several veterans hunted down by Naval investigators swore they had never been to Detroit and couldn't imagine who would have used their identities. (Somehow this episode was left out of the "Winter Soldier" chapter of Brinkley's book, but the details can be found in Guenter Lewy's "America in Vietnam" and in Mackubin Thomas Owens's account in the latest National Review.)

John Kerry seems to have had a way of eluding the bad odor that clings to his old associates. On "Meet the Press" in 1971, he appeared with VVAW member Al Hubbard, a veteran who was exposed around this time for lying about his rank and combat experience (he had seen no combat). While this confirmed suspicions about the dubious identities of many of the winter soldiers, it didn't keep Kerry from becoming famous. The young politician was able to have his cake and eat it, too, becoming the establishment, patriotic face of a radical, anti-patriotic movement. Quite a trick, really.​

WinterSoldier.com - <p>US Army CID Reports

In April 1971, Sen. Mark Hatfield placed transcripts from the Vietnam Veterans Against the War's "Winter Soldier Investigation" (WSI) war crimes conference into the Congressional Record. The House Committee on Armed Services responded by directing the Department of Defense to conduct a prompt review of the VVAW's allegations.
The Army's Criminal Investigation Division (CID) opened a case for each witness who claimed to have knowledge of criminal actions by the Army. These cases are described below, with links to the actual Army summary reports.​

48 investigations. Most terminated due to insufficient evidence, unsubstantiated claims, or backtracking by the witness.

Only ONE investigation, 19. Henry, James, 23, Sgt., 1st Bn., 3/35th, 4th Infantry Division (August 1967 to August 1968), was substantiated.

John Kerry lied. This is undeniable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While there are certainly ethical problems with having a peacetime draft, I would say that an all-volunteer military is harmful to the fabric of society in the long-run.

Based on what logic?

When people had to serve (WW2, Vietnam), service was seen as doing one's duty for the community/nation. When people choose to serve, it creates a cult of hero worship around them. In the long run, that creates a ripe breeding ground for fascist sentiments.

Strange. I remember reading about the War Department bringing people like Audie Murphy home and using them to sell bonds. He even got into movies despite the fact that his acting ability paled in comparison to his ability to kill Germans. Now we have snipers that routinely make shots that Murphy could not even imagine, yet most people have never heard of Chris Kyle.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The point missed here is Kerry spoke as a person who served and not because some banana republic business hack is paying their way. I missed Nam by a coin flip, went to another remote place, but all my friends had nothing negative to say about Kerry's comments on the war. You see subtle differences are missed here when partisan hacks pay other partisan hacks to criticize a president based on personal hatred for the man. That is the point, this isn't today about military behavior, it is about the politics of corrupt money. Agree or disagree with Kerry, it took guts to speak out, not about a president, but about a war and what it did to the soldiers. I've never read a single substantive piece of journalism refuting Kerry's criticism. Did you all forget My Lai? Swift boat criticism came from partisan hacks who disliked Kerry and money made whining visible.

You are the one missing the point if you think that the point is that Kerry served.

 

[The Gadfly]

When people had to serve (WW2, Vietnam), service was seen as doing one's duty for the community/nation. When people choose to serve, it creates a cult of hero worship around them. In the long run, that creates a ripe breeding ground for fascist sentiments.

"Duty, Honor, Country" is not just a slogan; it is an attitude and a way of lifeIt is not for everyone, but thankfully we have always had men who believed in it, and still do, draft or no draft. The days of fighting with massed armor,infantry and artillery on the battlefield are over; the weaponry of the twenty-first century has seen to that. BTW, TWO THIRDS of those of us who fought in Vietnam were volunteers, not draftees, but I don't recall having any problems with any "cult of hero worship" when we came home (and I am pretty sure I would have noticed, because like most combat soldiers, I don't consider myself a hero; just a survivor).

It was different in your generation, even if you were a volunteer. I have relatives who served at the same time (they were all volunteers as well). None of them talk about their service. They just considered themselves as doing their duty. That's not really the case today. You can't criticize any use of force, because doing so is "attacking the troops". Funny, I'd think not wanting your people shot at for pointless reasons would be support, not attack.

The point missed here is Kerry spoke as a person who served and not because some banana republic business hack is paying their way. I missed Nam by a coin flip, went to another remote place, but all my friends had nothing negative to say about Kerry's comments on the war. You see subtle differences are missed here when partisan hacks pay other partisan hacks to criticize a president based on personal hatred for the man. That is the point, this isn't today about military behavior, it is about the politics of corrupt money. Agree or disagree with Kerry, it took guts to speak out, not about a president, but about a war and what it did to the soldiers. I've never read a single substantive piece of journalism refuting Kerry's criticism. Did you all forget My Lai? Swift boat criticism came from partisan hacks who disliked Kerry and money made whining visible.

I might as well reply to both of you in one post, because the answers are related. First of all, you'll generally find that combat vets don't talk much about what they saw and did, except with others who were there, or with other vets who have had similar experience. I work with a lot of today's vets who have come back physically or emotionally wounded, and they are not much different from us Vietnam vets in that regard, and there is a reason for that. First of all, after Vietnam, a lot of us tried to tell people back home what it was really like, and how we felt about it. We learned pretty quickly, that if we told the truth, and said we behaved with honor, and didn't commit war crimes, and refused to hang our heads in shame like the 'war criminals" a lot of people had been led to believe we were, the left in particular did NOT want to hear a word of it! If we talked about the VC and NVA atrocities we had seen, the Left, in particular, did NOT want to hear it. You know what; it's STILL going on; I've had people right here on this board (Jose comes to mind) ask me how many women I raped, how many children I killed, how many villages I burned, and so on. I've had some of the same people tell me I deserved to be forgotten, consigned to oblivion, and burn in hell, because I'm not sorry I served in Vietnam, and because I maintain that my men and I acted like soldiers, not thugs. Yeah, it takes courage to talk about what the war did to us; hell, I've been called a liar here more than once for saying that some people right here at home cursed us and spit on us, just for wearing the uniform. Yeah, it takes courage to tell the truth, when permanent civilians do not want to either believe it, or try to understand it, because it doesn't fit their desired political agenda. It takes courage to talk about PTSD, when people who don't know what they're talking about mock soldiers who have PTSD and call us weak, or malingerers scamming thesystem, or making excuses for drug/alcohol abuse, or say we deserve it because we are murderers.

No I haven't forgotten My Lai; that was a damn sorry disgrace, and those who did it will have to live with it, but I didn't do that, I did not EVER see any other American do that, and while I have no love for the politicians who ran the show, I'll be damned if I will accuse them of ordering any of us to commit atrocities, because to the best of my knowledge they never did that. McNamara and Co. were incompetent, negligent, elitist pricks, but they were NOT war criminals.

That's not supposition, that is ground truth, from someone who was there,and if it doesn't fit your meme, tough. If you want to criticize a war, fine, but you remember this; right or wrong the soldiers who fight it are not responsible for anything but their own conduct. A whole lot of ignorant people rubbed salt in the wounds of Vietnam vets for years, over lies about what we supposedly did, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let anyone do that to another generation of veterans, ever again.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"The point missed here is Kerry spoke as a person who served..."

Oh yes, he served. A little. Before he bent every rule he could find to abandon the duty he had volunteered for along with the crew of his boat. If service actually meant anything to you, you might have noticed the length and conditions of service of those who opposed him.

"That is the point, this isn't today about military behavior..."

Alleged heroics and/or war crimes aren't about military behaior? What an ignorant statement!

"Agree or disagree with Kerry, it took guts to speak out, not about a president, but about a war and what it did to the soldiers."

It might have if he had much in the way actual knowledge of those subjects. A (very) short term sailor knows more about soldiers and their operations than they do themselve? I don't think so.
I spent a tour in Vietnam as an Army medic and happen to know a bit "about a war and what it did to the soldiers." I also happen to know what it should take to qualify for a PH. Kerry was- and remains-full of shit.

Did you all forget My Lai?

Did you forget Hue and all of our murdered wounded?

 

[Wiseacre]

While there are certainly ethical problems with having a peacetime draft, I would say that an all-volunteer military is harmful to the fabric of society in the long-run.

Based on what logic?

When people had to serve (WW2, Vietnam), service was seen as doing one's duty for the community/nation. When people choose to serve, it creates a cult of hero worship around them. In the long run, that creates a ripe breeding ground for fascist sentiments.

You are mistaken I think. In Vietnam I don't think many draftees saw it as doing one's duty. Some went to Canada, some joined the Reserve to avoid the war, some found other ways to avoid conscription. Sure as hell wasn't any cult hero worship then, I can tell you. But times changed after the 1st Gulf war, attitudes changed too; servicemen and women got more respect, which was well deserved. Might be a stretch to call it hero worship, but in any case saying that created a ripe breeding ground for fascist sentiments is way out there. Outside of the far left, who are in no way military hero worshippers, I do not think there is much in the way of worry about the military taking over control of the country.

 

[daveman]

"Duty, Honor, Country" is not just a slogan; it is an attitude and a way of lifeIt is not for everyone, but thankfully we have always had men who believed in it, and still do, draft or no draft. The days of fighting with massed armor,infantry and artillery on the battlefield are over; the weaponry of the twenty-first century has seen to that. BTW, TWO THIRDS of those of us who fought in Vietnam were volunteers, not draftees, but I don't recall having any problems with any "cult of hero worship" when we came home (and I am pretty sure I would have noticed, because like most combat soldiers, I don't consider myself a hero; just a survivor).

It was different in your generation, even if you were a volunteer. I have relatives who served at the same time (they were all volunteers as well). None of them talk about their service. They just considered themselves as doing their duty. That's not really the case today. You can't criticize any use of force, because doing so is "attacking the troops". Funny, I'd think not wanting your people shot at for pointless reasons would be support, not attack.

The point missed here is Kerry spoke as a person who served and not because some banana republic business hack is paying their way. I missed Nam by a coin flip, went to another remote place, but all my friends had nothing negative to say about Kerry's comments on the war. You see subtle differences are missed here when partisan hacks pay other partisan hacks to criticize a president based on personal hatred for the man. That is the point, this isn't today about military behavior, it is about the politics of corrupt money. Agree or disagree with Kerry, it took guts to speak out, not about a president, but about a war and what it did to the soldiers. I've never read a single substantive piece of journalism refuting Kerry's criticism. Did you all forget My Lai? Swift boat criticism came from partisan hacks who disliked Kerry and money made whining visible.

I might as well reply to both of you in one post, because the answers are related. First of all, you'll generally find that combat vets don't talk much about what they saw and did, except with others who were there, or with other vets who have had similar experience. I work with a lot of today's vets who have come back physically or emotionally wounded, and they are not much different from us Vietnam vets in that regard, and there is a reason for that. First of all, after Vietnam, a lot of us tried to tell people back home what it was really like, and how we felt about it. We learned pretty quickly, that if we told the truth, and said we behaved with honor, and didn't commit war crimes, and refused to hang our heads in shame like the 'war criminals" a lot of people had been led to believe we were, the left in particular did NOT want to hear a word of it! If we talked about the VC and NVA atrocities we had seen, the Left, in particular, did NOT want to hear it. You know what; it's STILL going on; I've had people right here on this board (Jose comes to mind) ask me how many women I raped, how many children I killed, how many villages I burned, and so on. I've had some of the same people tell me I deserved to be forgotten, consigned to oblivion, and burn in hell, because I'm not sorry I served in Vietnam, and because I maintain that my men and I acted like soldiers, not thugs. Yeah, it takes courage to talk about what the war did to us; hell, I've been called a liar here more than once for saying that some people right here at home cursed us and spit on us, just for wearing the uniform. Yeah, it takes courage to tell the truth, when permanent civilians do not want to either believe it, or try to understand it, because it doesn't fit their desired political agenda. It takes courage to talk about PTSD, when people who don't know what they're talking about mock soldiers who have PTSD and call us weak, or malingerers scamming thesystem, or making excuses for drug/alcohol abuse, or say we deserve it because we are murderers.

No I haven't forgotten My Lai; that was a damn sorry disgrace, and those who did it will have to live with it, but I didn't do that, I did not EVER see any other American do that, and while I have no love for the politicians who ran the show, I'll be damned if I will accuse them of ordering any of us to commit atrocities, because to the best of my knowledge they never did that. McNamara and Co. were incompetent, negligent, elitist pricks, but they were NOT war criminals.

That's not supposition, that is ground truth, from someone who was there,and if it doesn't fit your meme, tough. If you want to criticize a war, fine, but you remember this; right or wrong the soldiers who fight it are not responsible for anything but their own conduct. A whole lot of ignorant people rubbed salt in the wounds of Vietnam vets for years, over lies about what we supposedly did, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let anyone do that to another generation of veterans, ever again.

Damn fine post, sir.

 

[Polk]

Based on what logic?

When people had to serve (WW2, Vietnam), service was seen as doing one's duty for the community/nation. When people choose to serve, it creates a cult of hero worship around them. In the long run, that creates a ripe breeding ground for fascist sentiments.

You are mistaken I think. In Vietnam I don't think many draftees saw it as doing one's duty. Some went to Canada, some joined the Reserve to avoid the war, some found other ways to avoid conscription. Sure as hell wasn't any cult hero worship then, I can tell you. But times changed after the 1st Gulf war, attitudes changed too; servicemen and women got more respect, which was well deserved. Might be a stretch to call it hero worship, but in any case saying that created a ripe breeding ground for fascist sentiments is way out there. Outside of the far left, who are in no way military hero worshippers, I do not think there is much in the way of worry about the military taking over control of the country.

Some people dodged the draft, sure, but most people who had their number called fought in the conflict. I never said there was a cult of hero worship then (in fact, my post indirectly states that wasn't the case). As other posters have noted in this thread, there was a level of disrespect post-Vietnam that was unwarranted. However, the response to the Gulf War I went too far in the opposite direction. You may not see it as hero worship, or creating a breeding ground for fascist sentiments, but it's certainly there. Seeing the military as always being right is a short step away from dictatorial rule. And if you don't think there is a general trend in the culture toward an unquestioning attitude toward the military, look at the degree of public dialogue centered on the idea that only the opinions of soldiers are the only ones that matter when examining our current wars. I've also heard a great deal of support for the idea that only members of the military should be allowed to vote. We're already had several states this election cycle extending special privileges to members of the military (Ohio tried to create extra military-only early voting days).

 

[Polk]

"Duty, Honor, Country" is not just a slogan; it is an attitude and a way of lifeIt is not for everyone, but thankfully we have always had men who believed in it, and still do, draft or no draft. The days of fighting with massed armor,infantry and artillery on the battlefield are over; the weaponry of the twenty-first century has seen to that. BTW, TWO THIRDS of those of us who fought in Vietnam were volunteers, not draftees, but I don't recall having any problems with any "cult of hero worship" when we came home (and I am pretty sure I would have noticed, because like most combat soldiers, I don't consider myself a hero; just a survivor).

It was different in your generation, even if you were a volunteer. I have relatives who served at the same time (they were all volunteers as well). None of them talk about their service. They just considered themselves as doing their duty. That's not really the case today. You can't criticize any use of force, because doing so is "attacking the troops". Funny, I'd think not wanting your people shot at for pointless reasons would be support, not attack.

The point missed here is Kerry spoke as a person who served and not because some banana republic business hack is paying their way. I missed Nam by a coin flip, went to another remote place, but all my friends had nothing negative to say about Kerry's comments on the war. You see subtle differences are missed here when partisan hacks pay other partisan hacks to criticize a president based on personal hatred for the man. That is the point, this isn't today about military behavior, it is about the politics of corrupt money. Agree or disagree with Kerry, it took guts to speak out, not about a president, but about a war and what it did to the soldiers. I've never read a single substantive piece of journalism refuting Kerry's criticism. Did you all forget My Lai? Swift boat criticism came from partisan hacks who disliked Kerry and money made whining visible.

I might as well reply to both of you in one post, because the answers are related. First of all, you'll generally find that combat vets don't talk much about what they saw and did, except with others who were there, or with other vets who have had similar experience. I work with a lot of today's vets who have come back physically or emotionally wounded, and they are not much different from us Vietnam vets in that regard, and there is a reason for that. First of all, after Vietnam, a lot of us tried to tell people back home what it was really like, and how we felt about it. We learned pretty quickly, that if we told the truth, and said we behaved with honor, and didn't commit war crimes, and refused to hang our heads in shame like the 'war criminals" a lot of people had been led to believe we were, the left in particular did NOT want to hear a word of it! If we talked about the VC and NVA atrocities we had seen, the Left, in particular, did NOT want to hear it. You know what; it's STILL going on; I've had people right here on this board (Jose comes to mind) ask me how many women I raped, how many children I killed, how many villages I burned, and so on. I've had some of the same people tell me I deserved to be forgotten, consigned to oblivion, and burn in hell, because I'm not sorry I served in Vietnam, and because I maintain that my men and I acted like soldiers, not thugs. Yeah, it takes courage to talk about what the war did to us; hell, I've been called a liar here more than once for saying that some people right here at home cursed us and spit on us, just for wearing the uniform. Yeah, it takes courage to tell the truth, when permanent civilians do not want to either believe it, or try to understand it, because it doesn't fit their desired political agenda. It takes courage to talk about PTSD, when people who don't know what they're talking about mock soldiers who have PTSD and call us weak, or malingerers scamming thesystem, or making excuses for drug/alcohol abuse, or say we deserve it because we are murderers.

No I haven't forgotten My Lai; that was a damn sorry disgrace, and those who did it will have to live with it, but I didn't do that, I did not EVER see any other American do that, and while I have no love for the politicians who ran the show, I'll be damned if I will accuse them of ordering any of us to commit atrocities, because to the best of my knowledge they never did that. McNamara and Co. were incompetent, negligent, elitist pricks, but they were NOT war criminals.

That's not supposition, that is ground truth, from someone who was there,and if it doesn't fit your meme, tough. If you want to criticize a war, fine, but you remember this; right or wrong the soldiers who fight it are not responsible for anything but their own conduct. A whole lot of ignorant people rubbed salt in the wounds of Vietnam vets for years, over lies about what we supposedly did, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let anyone do that to another generation of veterans, ever again.

Notice that no one in this thread is accusing you of being a war criminal (I know I certainly did not). The question was about an over-idealization of military service. You're not responsible for crimes committed by others, but no one here is claiming you are.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Notice that no one in this thread is accusing you of being a war criminal (I know I certainly did not). The question was about an over-idealization of military service. You're not responsible for crimes committed by others, but no one here is claiming you are."

But Kerry and Co. did exactly that, loudly and over considerable time and managed to convince a large portion of the population that we were degenerates and scum for trying to do what they sent us to do.
That hurt and it hurt in a way the enemy never could. It created distrust and dislike for civilians. Especially protesters. That distrust and dislike was well earned and has not lessed a great deal with years. Over-idealization? No. It would be nice if the troops could get the credit they deserve and have actually earned.

 

[Wiseacre]

When people had to serve (WW2, Vietnam), service was seen as doing one's duty for the community/nation. When people choose to serve, it creates a cult of hero worship around them. In the long run, that creates a ripe breeding ground for fascist sentiments.

You are mistaken I think. In Vietnam I don't think many draftees saw it as doing one's duty. Some went to Canada, some joined the Reserve to avoid the war, some found other ways to avoid conscription. Sure as hell wasn't any cult hero worship then, I can tell you. But times changed after the 1st Gulf war, attitudes changed too; servicemen and women got more respect, which was well deserved. Might be a stretch to call it hero worship, but in any case saying that created a ripe breeding ground for fascist sentiments is way out there. Outside of the far left, who are in no way military hero worshippers, I do not think there is much in the way of worry about the military taking over control of the country.

Some people dodged the draft, sure, but most people who had their number called fought in the conflict. I never said there was a cult of hero worship then (in fact, my post indirectly states that wasn't the case). As other posters have noted in this thread, there was a level of disrespect post-Vietnam that was unwarranted. However, the response to the Gulf War I went too far in the opposite direction. You may not see it as hero worship, or creating a breeding ground for fascist sentiments, but it's certainly there. Seeing the military as always being right is a short step away from dictatorial rule.

I don't think too many people think the military is always right, or even close, and I think 'a short step away from dictatorial rule' is a bit of an overstatement. Are you thinking a military takeover is in the works, or even possible?

And if you don't think there is a general trend in the culture toward an unquestioning attitude toward the military, look at the degree of public dialogue centered on the idea that only the opinions of soldiers are the only ones that matter when examining our current wars.

Who else is going to offer expert advice and analysis on the conduct of a war? There's a difference between prosecuting a war and the decisions made to get into one in the first place. The public has a very high degree of confidence in our military's ability to fight a war, up to and including the top generals. But that does not translate into an unquestioning attitude, that the military can do no wrong. Remember the Al Graghib prison, and the guy who shot up an Afghan village awhile back, killed a bunch of civilians, some were women and children?

I've also heard a great deal of support for the idea that only members of the military should be allowed to vote. We're already had several states this election cycle extending special privileges to members of the military (Ohio tried to create extra military-only early voting days).

What? Where'd you hear anything about only the military should be able to vote? Utter poppycock, not even the military itself believes that. Most of the early voting for military is based on ensuring their ballots are received; those who are in combat zones oughta be given enough time to vote via absentee ballot, that ain't special privilege in my book.

I think you are overestimating the connection between the military and a fascist dictatorship. It'd never fly, the military rank and file would never do it. Every GI is told in no uncertain terms about the requirement for civilian control over the military; even if the country was going to hell in a handbasket, a military takeover is just not inthe cards.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Some people dodged the draft, sure, but most people who had their number called fought in the conflict. I never said there was a cult of hero worship then (in fact, my post indirectly states that wasn't the case). As other posters have noted in this thread, there was a level of disrespect post-Vietnam that was unwarranted. However, the response to the Gulf War I went too far in the opposite direction. You may not see it as hero worship, or creating a breeding ground for fascist sentiments, but it's certainly there. Seeing the military as always being right is a short step away from dictatorial rule."

I would say that there is your problem. The military fights wars; it doesn't decide which ones to fight.
If you don't think a war should be fought; don't send the military in to fight. Civilians, through the government, decide make those decisions and must accept responibity for them.