US Troops are "Warriors" now?

[DeBunkem]

Yes this is religion, too, IMO. I'm puzzled by the effort of the Pentagon to implant the idea of US troops as "warriors." I find it repulsive. What other advanced nation is doing this? Is "soldier" too tame? "Warrior" connotates bloodthirsty barbarian hordes such as Goths, Huns, and Mongols. "Soldier" connotates the armies os civilized nations with advanced laws, such as Rome, England, and the (former) USA. With reports on how much the US military is becoming infiltrated with militant Fundamentalists, (i.e., the USAF cadet scandals)i would suggest a sinister long-term strategy.
Which sounds better next to "Holy"? Holy Soldiers or Holy Warriors? I'm just sayin'. Holy Moly I hope I'm wrong but it would also fit the direction that AIPAC is pushing us. Obama said their control over our policy is "sacrosanct."

Here's a picture of Pastor John Hagee (Google 'im) forya:

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

anotheratheisthere, I think we're looking at the issue from different, though equally accurate perspectives. I agree with the gist of your arguments, but feel I owe you and the observer this response...

The act of protecting one's nation is a complex issue, with no easy answers. I don't doubt, and I think the history is there to say that politicians do some stupid, greedy, heinous things. But I don't accept blaming one's military for the misdeeds of its politicians. If a nation is to be protected by its military, that military must be beholden to what the political leaders declare.

Are we to have a military that second guesses those in command? Are we to have a military that holds its finger up to the political winds before it makes a decision?

Certainly, soldiers are legally required to not follow an unlawful order. This is fact, but it doesn't hold up to the realities of war. A soldier, from General to private, must often act instantly, almost without thinking, relying on pure adrenaline to make decisions. There simply is not the time allowed to deliberate every possible angle, every possible outcome, and every possible legality of a situation.

I agree the military is a tool of the politicians, but this tool is necessary, and its misuse by politicians is not sufficient grounds to condemn it as a whole.

[anotheratheisthere]

From Post 10:

anotheratheisthere, I think we're looking at the issue from different, though equally accurate perspectives. I agree with the gist of your arguments, but feel I owe you and the observer this response...

The act of protecting one's nation is a complex issue, with no easy answers. I don't doubt, and I think the history is there to say that politicians do some stupid, greedy, heinous things. But I don't accept blaming one's military for the misdeeds of its politicians. If a nation is to be protected by its military, that military must be beholden to what the political leaders declare.

Are we to have a military that second guesses those in command? Are we to have a military that holds its finger up to the political winds before it makes a decision?

Certainly, soldiers are legally required to not follow an unlawful order. This is fact, but it doesn't hold up to the realities of war. A soldier, from General to private, must often act instantly, almost without thinking, relying on pure adrenaline to make decisions. There simply is not the time allowed to deliberate every possible angle, every possible outcome, and every possible legality of a situation.

I agree the military is a tool of the politicians, but this tool is necessary, and its misuse by politicians is not sufficient grounds to condemn it as a whole.

Joey, first of all thank you for your insight, and, of course, thank you for your service. That's a given.

Just for the sake of the debate, and not as an attack to you or the military as a whole, I'm going to go ahead and fundamentally disagree with you on something:
You said "the military is a tool of the politicians, but this tool is necessary".

I disagree.

I submit to you that for us to go out and kill millions of people is NOT necessary to keep us safe. Quite the contrary.

I submit to you that having killed half a million in Iraq does the very opposite of the military's goal of keeping us safe. More orphans, widows and son-less fathers hate us and want to do us harm.

I submit to you that Jesus would agree with me on this.

In principle, as a tool of national self defense, the military may be necessary. But the US has abused that tool to the degree that it can no longer make that claim.

As an analogy: you and I have the right to bear arms. But if we went on a shooting spree in a mall and killed 30 people, we'd lose the right to bear arms, right?

In Vietnam we went on a shooting spree. In Iraq GOD KNOWS we went on a shooting spree.

You ask: Are we to have a military that second guesses those in command?

Yes! For crying out loud, f**king yes! Of course members of the military should hold its leaders accountable!

Look at the last 10 times that US soldiers were asked to fly to the other side of the world and kill civilians. Of the last 10 times, how many times would it have been better if the soldiers had refused?

Vietnam? Panama? Graneda? Iraq the first time? Iraq the 2nd time? Afghanistan? Korea?

Millions died in those wars. How many American lives did we save by invading Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of children? How many American lives did we save by invading Graneda and killing thousands of children?

As a soldier, you have to realize that you are part of an apparatus that has gone to war for the wrong reasons the overwhelming majority of the time. When you have that brown-skinned person in the sights of your M-16, realize that chances are good that that person doesn't deserve to die. Chances are good that when you look back to that moment on your deathbed, history will have already determined that killing her was a mistake.

When is a soldier going to say to himself "Wait a minute, here I am in some third world country killing somebody else's daughter, mother or wife, while back home insurance companies kill 46,000 Americans/year by denying healthcare coverage. I am being scammed".

When is a soldier going to say to himself "You know what, next time some gray haired martini wielding politician wants to go exterminate some brown people, he can send the sons of the rich lobbyists who put him in office. I'm staying home, protecting my family and reading my Bible".

[FinalEnigma]

From Post 10:

anotheratheisthere, I think we're looking at the issue from different, though equally accurate perspectives. I agree with the gist of your arguments, but feel I owe you and the observer this response...

The act of protecting one's nation is a complex issue, with no easy answers. I don't doubt, and I think the history is there to say that politicians do some stupid, greedy, heinous things. But I don't accept blaming one's military for the misdeeds of its politicians. If a nation is to be protected by its military, that military must be beholden to what the political leaders declare.

Are we to have a military that second guesses those in command? Are we to have a military that holds its finger up to the political winds before it makes a decision?

Certainly, soldiers are legally required to not follow an unlawful order. This is fact, but it doesn't hold up to the realities of war. A soldier, from General to private, must often act instantly, almost without thinking, relying on pure adrenaline to make decisions. There simply is not the time allowed to deliberate every possible angle, every possible outcome, and every possible legality of a situation.

I agree the military is a tool of the politicians, but this tool is necessary, and its misuse by politicians is not sufficient grounds to condemn it as a whole.

Joey, first of all thank you for your insight, and, of course, thank you for your service. That's a given.

Just for the sake of the debate, and not as an attack to you or the military as a whole, I'm going to go ahead and fundamentally disagree with you on something:
You said "the military is a tool of the politicians, but this tool is necessary".

I disagree.

Going out and killing is obviously not necessary. I'll not debate every war in the history of the country with you, but I'll say this, if we didn't have a military, we wold be in BIG trouble.

In principle, as a tool of national self defense, the military may be necessary. But the US has abused that tool to the degree that it can no longer make that claim.

As an analogy: you and I have the right to bear arms. But if we went on a shooting spree in a mall and killed 30 people, we'd lose the right to bear arms, right?

You can argue that, but you can't support it. Even your own analogy fails. In your analogy, everybody would have a gun(every country a military). say he does go on a killing spree and kill 30 people. nobody touches him becasue they're all too afraid. Then he throws away his gun and declares himself a pacifist. He will be dead in a day.

You ask: Are we to have a military that second guesses those in command?

Yes! For crying out loud, f**king yes! Of course members of the military should hold its leaders accountable!

and I say no and hell no. you cannot have a military that second guesses its chain of command all day - that would be chaos and it could not function.
The nature of military is such that it MUST follow the chain of command, without question, becasue sometimes, if you take the time to second guess, people die. if you take the time to doubt orders and demand they be explained, sometimes, people die.
An army where everyone did what they felt was appropriate to the situation as they knew it would be chaos and absurd. there will always be the danger of this command being abused, but you cannot remove that danger, save by declaring some orders illegal, and declaring that soldiers cannot follow illegal orders - which has been done. Beyond that, there isn't much you can do without crippling your army.

As a soldier, you have to realize that you are part of an apparatus that has gone to war for the wrong reasons the overwhelming majority of the time. When you have that brown-skinned person in the sights of your M-16, realize that chances are good that that person doesn't deserve to die. Chances are good that when you look back to that moment on your deathbed, history will have already determined that killing her was a mistake.

When is a soldier going to say to himself "Wait a minute, here I am in some third world country killing somebody else's daughter, mother or wife, while back home insurance companies kill 46,000 Americans/year by denying healthcare coverage. I am being scammed".

They're not, becasue that's ridiculous. The country has problems, yes. Serious problems that need to be addressed, but what the heck is a soldier supposed to do about healthcare? How would refusing orders and getting other soldiers killed save sick americans?

When is a soldier going to say to himself "You know what, next time some gray haired martini wielding politician wants to go exterminate some brown people, he can send the sons of the rich lobbyists who put him in office. I'm staying home, protecting my family and reading my Bible".

On a side note, I really hope you don't realize how offensive your posts have been on this thread. I have to give Joey credit for not losing his temper.

Some of the things you are saying are true, but your proposed solutions don't work.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 12:

Again I admit there's some valid points from one perspective, but IMO they are negated by the necessity of a military.

Just for the sake of the debate, and not as an attack to you or the military as a whole, I'm going to go ahead and fundamentally disagree with you on something:
You said "the military is a tool of the politicians, but this tool is necessary".

I disagree.

I'm having difficulty understanding your post if you say its not an attack on the military as a whole. IMO, the tone of your post is an attack (in the sense of debate, not vitriol).

I submit to you that for us to go out and kill millions of people is NOT necessary to keep us safe. Quite the contrary.

As I said, we shouldn't condemn the military for its misuse by politicians. I would agree we've fought some questionable wars, including the current Iraq war, but this doesn't negate the need for a military. Our military is also a deterrent for those that would attack us.

I submit to you that having killed half a million in Iraq does the very opposite of the military's goal of keeping us safe. More orphans, widows and son-less fathers hate us and want to do us harm.

Agreed. However, it was the politicians that sent the military. There was no overt declaration of war by the Pentagon until they were told to wage the war.

I submit to you that Jesus would agree with me on this.

I was unaware Jesus was in the Chain of Command.

In principle, as a tool of national self defense, the military may be necessary. But the US has abused that tool to the degree that it can no longer make that claim.

Again, I don't dispute the politicians have abused their powers. What I do dispute is the notion that the military is useless or a force for bad on its own.

As an analogy: you and I have the right to bear arms. But if we went on a shooting spree in a mall and killed 30 people, we'd lose the right to bear arms, right?

Just as a General would lose his command for starting a non-sanctioned action.

In Vietnam we went on a shooting spree. In Iraq GOD KNOWS we went on a shooting spree.

War is a "shooting spree", I don't know how this can be avoided, given current technology.

It was the politicians that instigated this spree, not the military.

I challenge anyone who claims to know the mind of God to show they speak truth.

You ask: Are we to have a military that second guesses those in command?

Yes! For crying out loud, f**king yes! Of course members of the military should hold its leaders accountable!

As I mentioned, the realities of war more often than not preclude second guessing. Especially so the lower down the ladder one is placed.

Look at the last 10 times that US soldiers were asked to fly to the other side of the world and kill civilians. Of the last 10 times, how many times would it have been better if the soldiers had refused?

None. If soldiers refuse to soldier, we no longer have a military.

Vietnam? Panama? Graneda? Iraq the first time? Iraq the 2nd time? Afghanistan? Korea?

Vietnam - fight the spread of communism
Panama - fight a narcotics trafficker.
Iraq 1 - remove occupying forces from Kuwait
Iraq 2 - I agree was a misuse of forces, but it was politicians that declared that war, not the military.
Afghanistan - fight folks committed to the destruction of the US
Korea - fight the spread of communism

Of your six (though you mentioned 10) I see one illegitimate use of the military, and note the military did not instigate that action.

Millions died in those wars. How many American lives did we save by invading Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of children? How many American lives did we save by invading Graneda and killing thousands of children?

I challenge you to support the Grenada assertion.

I accept the Iraq assertion, but remind all that war is a messy business, and with current technology civilian casualties are nigh on impossible. We rely on the military to do its job, and we should not be surprised when we tell it to do that job, and it does that job.

As a soldier, you have to realize that you are part of an apparatus that has gone to war for the wrong reasons the overwhelming majority of the time.

Disclaimer: I single-handedly fought off the Russians in the Cold War (my efforts were hushed up at the highest levels - why are you laffin' at me). I have no real combat experience.

I look to your "last 10 times", notice you only point to six of them, and note that of those six the majority were legitimate, even UN sanctioned.

When you have that brown-skinned person in the sights of your M-16, realize that chances are good that that person doesn't deserve to die.

I make no racial distinctions when I'm ordered to kill the enemy. If I feel my life or the life of my team is in jeopardy, I kill.

Chances are good that when you look back to that moment on your deathbed, history will have already determined that killing her was a mistake.

Soldiers don't have time to think of their legacy, except to wanna leave one.

When is a soldier going to say to himself "Wait a minute, here I am in some third world country killing somebody else's daughter, mother or wife, while back home insurance companies kill 46,000 Americans/year by denying healthcare coverage. I am being scammed".

A soldier works to "insure" the life of every citizen they are tasked to represent, regardless of the actions of civilian insurance agencies. Let the military talk to these civilian agencies and see how quick they're persuaded to change their policies.

When is a soldier going to say to himself "You know what, next time some gray haired martini wielding politician wants to go exterminate some brown people, he can send the sons of the rich lobbyists who put him in office. I'm staying home, protecting my family and reading my Bible".

The soldier has these concerns, only they have committed themselves to the protection of some of the very folks they dislike.

I, and I'm sure others, would ask when are these "gray haired martini wielding politicians" gonna do right by our military?

[DeBunkem]

Too many have forgotten that this nation was founded on the Enlightenment, a time of rejecting Holy Wars and savagery:

"If there be one principle more deeply written than
any other in the mind of every American, it is that we
should have nothing to do with conquest." Thomas
Jefferson, In a letter to William Short, written in
1791

"Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of
despotism." : Thomas Jefferson

Yup, they rejected holy wars. They just liked good old regular genocide of native Americans. That was alright with them.

And slavery.

As George Carlin said "This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free".

My statement was more about the Enlightenment than the US military, which is sworn to protect the Constitution and people of the US. If "our way of life" becomes so profligate that we use the military as "warriors" to invade whole regions to protect the "flow of oil," we are no different than the Empire which we fought against in the beginning. I've read Howard Zinn's "People's History," so I'm aware of how hypocritical the power elites have been about the Enlightenment.

[Wyvern]

Yes this is religion, too, IMO. I'm puzzled by the effort of the Pentagon to implant the idea of US troops as "warriors." I find it repulsive. What other advanced nation is doing this? Is "soldier" too tame? "Warrior" connotates bloodthirsty barbarian hordes such as Goths, Huns, and Mongols. "Soldier" connotates the armies os civilized nations with advanced laws, such as Rome, England, and the (former) USA. With reports on how much the US military is becoming infiltrated with militant Fundamentalists, (i.e., the USAF cadet scandals)i would suggest a sinister long-term strategy.
Which sounds better next to "Holy"? Holy Soldiers or Holy Warriors? I'm just sayin'. Holy Moly I hope I'm wrong but it would also fit the direction that AIPAC is pushing us. Obama said their control over our policy is "sacrosanct."

I think you are reading to much into the word warrior. The only branch of the military that has soldiers is the army, the navy has sailors, the marines have marines and the air force has airmen. Try calling a marine a soldier and see the reaction you get. The point is that warrior is being used as a catch-all phrase for all service members whereas soldier only refers to army personnel.

[DeBunkem]

Yes this is religion, too, IMO. I'm puzzled by the effort of the Pentagon to implant the idea of US troops as "warriors." I find it repulsive. What other advanced nation is doing this? Is "soldier" too tame? "Warrior" connotates bloodthirsty barbarian hordes such as Goths, Huns, and Mongols. "Soldier" connotates the armies os civilized nations with advanced laws, such as Rome, England, and the (former) USA. With reports on how much the US military is becoming infiltrated with militant Fundamentalists, (i.e., the USAF cadet scandals)i would suggest a sinister long-term strategy.
Which sounds better next to "Holy"? Holy Soldiers or Holy Warriors? I'm just sayin'. Holy Moly I hope I'm wrong but it would also fit the direction that AIPAC is pushing us. Obama said their control over our policy is "sacrosanct."

I think you are reading to much into the word warrior. The only branch of the military that has soldiers is the army, the navy has sailors, the marines have marines and the air force has airmen. Try calling a marine a soldier and see the reaction you get. The point is that warrior is being used as a catch-all phrase for all service members whereas soldier only refers to army personnel.

"Military personnell" or the corporatist "assets" used to be the catchall terms. But if I'm not mistaken all branches are given Army-style basic training so that they can be sent into ground combat as Infantry riflemen "soldiers" if necessary. This happened often in WWII.

[Wyvern]

"Military personnell" or the corporatist "assets" used to be the catchall terms. But if I'm not mistaken all branches are given Army-style basic training so that they can be sent into ground combat as Infantry riflemen "soldiers" if necessary. This happened often in WWII.

Nope, only the army and marines provide basic infantry training. I was in the navy and the only gun we got to shoot was a .22 pistol, once. We didn't go through an obstacle course or even run very far. The only rates in the navy that got combat training were seabees and corpsmen and then only after boot camp.

[Cathar1950]

I suppose "warriors" is alright as they do practice war. War is kind of their job. I guess war has changed over the years or centuries and soldering or military personnel has changed. Now they would be better off with some first aid and police training as well as other training just because you never know where they may end up or what kinds of situations.

It just seems "warriors" is just kind of archaic.

[DeBunkem]

I have personally read employment ads for different types of "warmaker" positions having to do with peripheral duties such as weapons efficiency assessments. Then there is the even more huge mercenary "industry." We now have more of these in Afghanistan than actual "warriors." One way to fudge the numbers on deployments and probably US unemployment figures.