General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't think it's healthy or good that we lionize those who serve in the military
I am NOT suggesting that it would be good if we demonized them either. By and large, they're young men and women like other young men and women in this society. They're entrenched in a military culture that sends them terribly mixed messages. They bring with them into the service cultural biases and in many cases educational deficiencies.
By lionizing them and insisting that they're heroes we do them, and ourselves as a society, a serious disservice. We continue to send out fractured messages: They're heroes, ergo any wrongdoing is either not true or it's reflective of so tiny a minority of those serving that it's inconsequential. Heroes are good, ergo any war we engage in is worthy. The young people serving in the military are the best of the best.
So no, those serving aren't heroes any more than there peers who aren't serving. They're just kids in a bad system. And yes, I think our military is a pretty lousy system becomes it's almost wholly an aggressive and not a defensive entity.
And I don't mean to insult any of you who served or are serving. I know that there are exceptions. I'm not wholesale anti-military. I'm just anti a military that's postured in the aggressive stance the U.S. Military has assumed.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
izquierdista
(11,689 posts)The nastier the work they do, the more human rights they violate, the more crimes against humanity they perpetrate; that's when they need a big cheering section with a brass band while they hand out medals.
catbyte
(34,438 posts)I didn't find out until my dad was practically on his deathbed that he was a Deep Blue American Hero in WWII. I knew he was a Marine and he said the South Pacific was "humid", but I had no idea he was a Marine Raider, first wave at Guadalcanal, etc. etc. etc. Even then it had to come from one of his buddies, not dad. I found a cigar box full of medals in his dresser drawer after his funeral.
Thanks, dad. I miss you every day. 
Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Leo, Sophie, Taz & Nigel, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"We ride inside--HISS!”
montanacowboy
(6,099 posts)I totally agree and I have family currently serving. We need to stop this hero thing, enough is enough.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)People who have served are elevated as more deserving than the rest of us. There is a healthcare system dedicated to their needs while millions are without. Recently, they are given priority when it comes to jobs programs. I don't think such things should be taken away, but I do wish that we were valued equally.
montanacowboy
(6,099 posts)applying for any federal job - extra points are awarded if you a vet, if you are the spouse of a military person, if you are this if you are that, and by the time these points get added up, a regular civilian does not have a chance in hell of landing that job no matter how qualified you are.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)It's all part of the effort to build up the military (and, by extension, its industrial complex) as untouchable and omnipotent.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)sporting events where at each game a hero is introduced to a rousing round of applause. Enough.
Why not recognize a teacher, a social worker, a health care worker, a firefighter, a volunteer -- anyone making a difference in their community. People quietly perform heroic acts that go unnoticed and unappreciated every day. It's beyond time to acknowledge and celebrate some of them.
By making them "heroes" regardless of what they actually do or don't do, we glorify war. Why don't we consider all teachers "heroes" automatically? Or for that mater sanitary workers?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)and I'm embarrassed when anyone thanks me for my "service".
USMC '61 - '65
Meiko
(1,076 posts)and walk away huh? Sometimes people just like to thank others for their service, especially when they themselves couldn't.serve.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Was it the marching? The shooting? The saluting? The getting drunk whenever possible?
I rendered no service to anyone other than the MIC when I was in.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Not so with you though.
Why is that?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Funny that it should bother you considering your icon.
Meiko
(1,076 posts)considered your contribution worthless.
Logical
(22,457 posts)cbrer
(1,831 posts)The invasive missions the military's been asked to perform are more outrageous. But the set of values that cause our young to volunteer for military service are generally honorable.
And the chronically violent segment is embedded regardless.
UTUSN
(70,725 posts)a main impetus for military service and why minorities are more susceptible (if that's the correct word) to enlisting. The wingnut lionizing of military "heroes" is part chickenhawk, part John WAYNE bluster, and big part scoundrelism, as in the-last-refuge-of-scoudrels thing. This is not to negate or discount sincere SERVICE, or that one may enlist for one reason and grow into an appreciation of wanting to serve. But the economic (and family dysfunction) factor also explains why so many of the homeless are veterans.
But the lionizing in desperate times, under duress, like when under real threat, can be understable, as is the later phase when the duress is long over, like twenty or more years after the Civil War when letters to the editor started popping up all over the country about "the veterans have gotten ENOUGH" (free land, etc. ) .
The DETESTABLE ones are the shameless wingnuts pandering with phony and/or shallow "patriotism" all focused on outward/artificial symbols like fabric with patterns of dye on it.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)don't fight it, seeking to adjust nuance into our national dialog is a loser. Besides, one has to realize that this hero worship is a mile wide and an inch deep. It's all hero's until it comes to VA funding, or you're John Kerry running for president. Then the hero talk goes out the window and you're just another greedy freeloader.
What we need to do is to copy it. We need a national academy where people can go and study foreign service, or even civil service. Think "west point" for civilians. They study foreign policy and government in general. The can do summer studies/internships/co-ops in consulates around the world. They can take an option to do Peace Corps after graduation.
But ultimately, it's focus is to have them not just work in government, but to work everywhere, and have the training necessary to understand how government works. They become politicians and advertise their credentials as a graduate as much as the military academy graduates do. They end up in cabinets posts.
And we can build special cemeteries just for them. We can build up the image of the "hero that defends the country WITHOUT a gun". We can have Oliver Stone make action movies about them. And in the end we can create the notion that this country can be defended through peaceful engagement, not just torture chambers in GITMO.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)it isnt necessary to criticize "the troops" to criticize the policy or to criticize the actions of a few troops who go rogue.
Projecting onto the troops ones issues with the fact that a Commander in Chief pushes an illegal and unjustified war in Iraq is just wrong.
It's also politically toxic.
So, it's unfair, unnecessary and toxic to any other views or agenda you have.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)To the original point, you immediately "jump" to "criticizing" when the OP was talking about merely not "heroizing" them. There's a big span between those two points. Now, I'm not particularly ragging on you, but that is the difficulty in even discussing that over praising military personnel might be a bad idea. Not calling them hero's everytime the put on the uniform immediately becomes "criticizing".
As such, the basis of my point was not to swim up stream. Don't try to beat 'em, join 'em. Create other "heros". In essence, water down the distinction by including larger numbers of contributors. Teachers are heros, civil servants are heros, the troops are heros, the crossing guard is a hero. That way, at the end of the day we get back to where we should be to begin with. We are all contributors and that is the point, to contribute. And it becomes hard to call that "criticizing" anyone.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I think you have some good ideas now that I understand them. Regarding criticizing vs. lionizing, I get the difference. I just think this whole idea of not 'lionizing' the troops is a useless exercise. It's not going to help any liberal or progressive cause to do so and in fact may harm some of those causes.
Fact is, troops are 99%ers, all of them. If ones focus is on them, it is misplaced.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)They are the 99% and there's little point in fighting this semantic battle. Better to leverage the concept towards all the 99%.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)He has an important technical job, high security clearance and looks spiffy in a uniform.
He is also 19, can't clean his room or remember to call momma or nana once in a while and like to play D&D and Magic when he is home.......
I'll pass on making him a hero..... at least until he cleans up his damn room.
mainer
(12,029 posts)Generals and conquerors.
In our town square, there was a big push to erect a monument to EVERY TOWN RESIDENT who's ever served in the military, with all their names engraved. They didn't even have to be dead. Several of the local veterans objected, saying it was a monument to war, but the plan went ahead anyway.
I wanted them to erect a monument to peacemakers: diplomats, for instance. No one gives a damn about diplomats.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Unless they actually do something heroic. But in wartime, their lives are on the line, so their willingness to do that gives them hero status, with an exception for those who end up doing something horrible.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)I do not consider every single person who ever fought in a war to be a hero. That word used to have a very specific meaning and was reserved for those who went above and beyond the call.
To call every man and woman who ever wore the uniform during a war a hero is ludicrous.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)As evidenced by some of the people whose names you can find the word attached to today...
jwirr
(39,215 posts)The real problem that goes as far back as WWII is glorifing war. Sherman said "war is hell" and he was correct but we forgot that in the aftermath of WWII and started thinking that going to war over almost anything was some kind of act of heroism. Going to war is a failure of deplomacy.
cali
(114,904 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)back in the days after WWII. Most of us did not even ask them about it. I was much older when I found out that the uncle had been part of the chemical warfare division. He came home and lived quitely as did the others I knew.
True all the parades are about military and were back then also.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The truth is that the military, and the service in the military, has always held a special place in the American political tradition. Washington wore a uniform, and rode a white horse, while president. When traveling, he'd often ride in a carriage, and then get out at the outskirts of town, put on his military coat, and ride into town. Lewis and Clark were given military commissions as part of their work. All manner of presidents were in the military at some point and used that as part of their campaigns. Clinton was the first president since before FDR that never served in the Military. (A bit deceiving I'll admit since WWII had practically a whole generation in the military).
This current "thank you for your service" thing is a post Vietnam thing. But it is true, that after WWII, my father was one of the last out of the army (he'd always been state side). He spent many months still in uniform. The bus drivers wouldn't let him pay his fare. The diners comped him slices of pie. He'd get free beers in bars. He tried to talk them out of it because of the state side thing but they'd have none of it.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)community. I was kind of hard to wear a uniform farming. These men were respected or I would not have known that they were vets.
Very good point.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Perhaps we dilute the memory and honor of true heroics when we apply it so haphazardly as we do now.
One wonders if one can truly be a hero in an unjust war. Anymore than one could be a true volunteer in wars of choice. If you have to apply, get accepted and then collect a paycheck. Well, I've never thought of that as volunteering. More like employment.
Sgt.York on the other hand was drafted. Tried to be a conscientious objector because of his Christian beliefs and was finally sent off to war. Looking back on his experiences he remarked that the only way he would support going to war again was if it was on American soil.
It's all out of my realm but I think killing is never justified unless it is in self defense. I would defend my little plot of ground with my life if it were invaded. Just as I know so many other Americans would. I always felt if the Iraq Navy ever landed on the coast we could just put an ad in Field & Stream and you'd get thousands of "volunteers" providing their own arms and ammo to push them back.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)PFC Guy Louis Gabaldon (March 22, 1926–August 31, 2006) was a United States Marine who, at age 18, captured (or persuaded to surrender) roughly 1,500 Japanese soldiers and civilians during the Battle of Saipan (1944) in World War II. He did this even though his own family, back in the U.S., had been sent to a Japanese-American internment camp.
They made a movie out of his story too.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)I stumble over it again every so often and I'm just as floored by it every time.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)...I think if youths volunteer in droves to follow an illegitimate leader to an unjust cause, more than anything, this represents a failure on the part of the generation of the parents. If one has a child who reaches "hero age" (17,18,19...) one should sit them down and exactly explain to them what being a soldier amounts to.
That said, I *was* military age (19 exactly) when 9/11 happened and everyone was going into a nationalistic frenzy. I thought it was bullshit then and thought a better idea would be asking the government some tough questions (not because of my dad, with whom I had quite a few arguments about this...). For that I was called a traitor and America-hater and other things by people who couldn't wait to enlist to "smoke them some sand n***ers". To some degree I therefore think being young is *not* an excuse.
I guess one can only feel sorry for the poor bastards who were stuck in the chain of command already when shit started hitting the fan. But for those who seeked it out? I guess one can feel sorry for them too (if one can get over all the shit one had to take for wanting no part in it) for buying into and being swept up in stupidity, but as my stepdad would put it "there are plenty of orphans and widows to feel sorry for in Iraq". To some degree this overt painting of the volunteers for the Iraq war as victims rings a little bit like the "but Germans were victims too" types who were no uncommon in post-Nazi-Germany. I'm sorry, but "died at the east-front" is *not* the same as being murdered in a concentation camp. And volunteering for a war of aggression and coming back as a cripple may be horrible but it is *not* the same as having family members murdered by the invader.
That is also why I am against military parades. As much as some people might "deserve them", they always will be offensive to those who were the targets of the aggression.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)I've never felt like I deserved to be called a hero or any more respected than anyone else when I was in the Army. I joined for several reasons...mostly because I needed a job, education and I had a child to support. I also took my oath seriously and was willing to give my life if my country asked it of me.
It seems like the attitude about the military began after WWII and the rhetoric was not stopped even during peace time. Now, it's the norm and accepted by everyone. It's turned my stomach the way the military has been used as pawns of politicians.
Most of the people I knew in the military were anti about one thing...and that's war. Of course, most of the ones I knew at that time got their war experience from the Vietnam war.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)They don't decide about going to war. They don't decide when, where, or why. What they have decided is that they'd give their lives -- or limbs, or eyesight, etc. -- in service to their country.
It's up to the politicians to make wise decisions about how and why the military is used.
Especially when we don't have a draft, the difference between those who serve and those who don't is often, sadly, an economic one. But any volunteer for the military shows a level of commitment and bravery that I think deserves respect for its own sake.
cali
(114,904 posts)look, many volunteer because of a lack of opportunity. by your standards Lindy England deserves respect.
BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)Congratulations on sticking your neck out for the Freeper trolls and idiots jump into the circle jerk mode to deride what I've known for years: Military service is not only unnecessary but incredibly dangerous to the security and sanctity of the world.
What we SHOULD do is to stand down our military except for coast guard and other border protection (NOT "patrol"
duties. We don't need military in other parts of the world to act in our unilateral efforts.
What should be done is to start migrating our offense-related military, including naval ships, elite forces, and all major aircraft, to the United Nations, where a consortium of peaceful, progressive nations can take the controls, and ensure that our military is ONLY used for defense and humanitarian purposes. There is no reason for ANY one nation to unilaterally decide to invade or kill based upon its republicanist leadership's whims.
To that end, we should create a worldwide referendum and begin to migrate the US military to the UN, and stand down all military that's not needed. Pronto.
Oasis_
(254 posts)anyone that's honorably served our country in the military. I believe the term "hero" gets tossed around a little too much, as many of the soldiers I've interacted with feel the same, but I've always admired and held a profound respect for our armed forces and the men and women who've served and continue to do so.
YMMV 
Oasis
unionworks
(3,574 posts)I am sooo lionized! I might be a Leo, even! Exit, stage left! 
rainbow4321
(9,974 posts)I just have to shake my head.
I've worked in the healthcare system that takes care of them and have seen how the vets are shortchanged when it comes down to their healthcare, young and old.
We couldn't even get them a spoon to use after hours...had to hand them a tongue depresser as a substitute. Yes, really. Not even plastic ware is available after hours.
We've had some guy come around to tell us that we could only use ONE bed pad (called chux) at a time for any vet who needed one underneath them (we use them to put under patients who are likely to be incontintent of urine or stool while in bed). The reason: the bean counters at the facility decided that it was costing them too much money to purchase them more frequently. Forget the fact that using two lined up next to each other at a time keeps the linen better protected because alot of these patients are all over the bed and work their way off those protective pads if only one is used. And another no-no: don't put any extra ones in the patients' rooms...heaven forbid you have one handy and within reach if you walk in and see one needs to be changed..no, no...you have to tell the patient "back in a little bit..." as you go running to the stock room to get what they need.
One patient once said that when he asked a housekeeper for more paper towels in his room he was told by that worker that the system were "running out of money" so he was having a hard time keeping all the paper towel containers filled.
Then there was the frequent running out of supplies over the weekends...how the FUCK do you run low on things like oxygen tubing, IV tubing, and other vital stuff...WHY is the staff having to go on a ward to ward to ward scavenger hunt for this stuff because the supply dept tells you "um, we are out".
And staffing? Pfft. Can you say skeletal? One nursing assistant for 25 patients is not uncommon. And they then wonder why the licensed staff is so burnt out..sorry your medicines are late...I've spent the last hour filling up water jugs, getting vital signs, picking up meal trays out of rooms, taking blood sugars..I'll get to MY job as soon as I get done doing the job of 3 other people since, once again, the supervisor has pulled our staff to another ward...the manager has stopped staffing our floor the way it should be staffed because she knows all that will result in is our people being pulled elsewhere. Better, in her eyes, just to short change us from the beginning and staff minimally.
But no worries...as all of this goes on, on the TV's in all the rooms you can watch the news and see pols and powers that be saying how proud they are of the vets and that we should be grateful to them and posing for photo ops.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)
unionworks
(3,574 posts)...that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than those uniforms,
And they're starvation cheap".
From "Tommy", by Rudyard Kipling
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)some honor would be obvious the problem is the reality seldom fits the frame.
That means the frame has to be busted and you aren't going to do that by turning away from the grunts because you amplify reaction and suppress thought. You are going up against the visceral programming, asking folks to tone it down on the respect levels for the people risking their lives for US.
That will almost never work, not on a mass conscience level. You're swimming upstream of too many generations of instincts and deep societal programing.
What we have to do is wrap our heads around the game that has been run and stop falling for the appeals to fear, the tugs to the heart strings, and divert those resources and people into the larger economy.
smoking357
(42 posts)Lionizing them serves the state's need to have more killers in the pipeline, and the practice gives former government employees a feeling of pride for the rest of their lives, also useful to keep the pipeline full.
Lionizing killers for the state elevates and rewards the exact wrong people and qualities a nation requires to have a freedom-loving populace.
SlimJimmy
(3,182 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)They boil down to two. It's for recruitment, and it's to justify an insanely costly, powerful and destructive military empire. It has nothing to do with sacrifice or defending the homeland or heroism, it's about profit. What do you think they're going to say, join the army so you can risk getting killed to maintain a murderous global empire? Get yourself involved in war crimes while your country is bled dry aand ends up hated around the world? No, they are happy to brainwash the population, especially the young and vulnerable.
as a counter to the rah rah military posts.