Jump to content

Is there a gap between soldiers and civilians?


ThaHoward

Recommended Posts

So usually an argument among civillians to pull out of wars and conflicts is to not sacrifice soldiers. However most -professional- soldiers join because they want to experience combat or are fully aware of the risks. Is this genuine compassion for soldiers who risk their lives or a cheap political point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
NerotheReaper

Most people who join the military are doing it because they want, that defending their country is at their core. There may be some people who join the military for the "lolz" or because they played Call of Duty one too many times. 

 

I come from a military family, and those in my family have served were very lucky not to be put in any serious danger. Most soldiers do have a really tough time adjusting to civilian life, mainly because war and deployment seriously messes with someone's head. A lot of veterans are the homeless we see on the streets, these people are neglected by the government and are left to their changed civilian life. There needs to be more care and compassion for soldiers returning home, making sure they are adjusting to civilian life and making sure their mental health is stable. 

 

We neglect our heroes who protected us, that needs to change. We need to protect them as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I joined the US Air Force Reserves for experience and technical training before heading to college.  I never saw any action and actually did not want to.

 

My brother went in the regular Air Force for 24 years, saw lots of action, and was exposed to chemicals that later killed him.  He had recurring nightmares from things that he saw that scared the sh*t out of him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure the soldiers are aware of the risks, but that doesn't mean that they have a death wish.  

 

Here's my experience from living near an army base and having many childhood friends that have joined the armed forces:

 

Why did they join?  Many (particularly from the more conservative regions of America) join out of pride/sense of obligation to one's country--they have literally grown up on tales of heroism from movies, books, and even their own parents.  For many, it's almost a sort of family tradition to join.  Others, from immigrant families, may join to show appreciation for the opportunity that they or their family have received by moving to America.  For still others, joining the military seemed like the only way to (continue to) earn a living whether a recent economic crisis left them unemployed, or whether they just finished high school and either weren't smart enough or didn't want to go to college--joining the military gives you free access to skills training and education.  At any rate, once you're in the military, it's hard to leave, plus the pay is better if you can move your way up the ranks, so that's what many do.

 

Whatever their personal reason was, that did not necessarily mean that they signed up to die--to protect their country and pray to live?  Maybe.  To be in reserves because it seemed safe enough at the time while still guaranteeing employment?  Maybe.  Out of desperation/a hope to escape?  Maybe.

 

In any case, there is never an excuse to waste lives--save as many lives as possible and get the hell out of the war asap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe the Stoic
45 minutes ago, ThaHoward said:

So usually an argument among civillians to pull out of wars and conflicts is to not sacrifice soldiers. However most -professional- soldiers join because they want to experience combat or are fully aware of the risks. Is this genuine compassion for soldiers who risk their lives or a cheap political point?

I do not know that this is the case.  I think people in the military are ready to fight if necessary, but if they do not need to fight, why should they?  I am sure that they would all prefer to live and keep the bodies in tact.  If you are being sent to die just because Merkel called Solberg a bitch, I doubt you'd be altogether thrilled.  Being ready to defend your people does not mean that you should be a disposable pawn in the petty games of leaders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion that you can't really know what you're getting yourself into beforehand. While it might be clear that you might see someone blow up right in front of you, actually experiencing it is totally different. You just don't know how you will react to it until it happens.

 

If someone is still desperate to take part in war games, go ahead. Just don't expect any sympathy or extra respect from me. I don't see any service I'd have to be thankful for.

 

So on a very personal level - yes, there is a quite huge gap. I do not identify with military action in any way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

I'd just rather avoid war at all; so many of the wars we've had throughout history could've been avoided and saved millions of both soldier and civilian lives. That said I think WW2 was a "just" war, to stop Hitler and all the war crimes, whereas WW1 was utterly pointless and if it hadn't happened Hitler probably would never have been elected in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Grumpy Alien

I always think that argument is just people romanticizing military personnel. They don't want their heroes to get a booboo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a whole section of the US where the military is the main fall-back occupation, because the jobs aren't there anymore.  People who might have gone into the steel mills or the mines or the factories after high school now have to go into the military.  That's why when news reports interview non-officer military personnel on TV, they'll speak with Southern or Appalachian accents.  It's a shame, but it's America.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe the Stoic
18 minutes ago, Graceful said:

I always think that argument is just people romanticizing military personnel. They don't want their heroes to get a booboo.

Well, who wants anyone to get hurt, generally speaking?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sally said:

There's a whole section of the US where the military is the main fall-back occupation, because the jobs aren't there anymore.  People who might have gone into the steel mills or the mines or the factories after high school now have to go into the military.  That's why when news reports interview non-officer military personnel on TV, they'll speak with Southern or Appalachian accents.  It's a shame, but it's America.  

what about also the effect in the US of the GI bill on people joining the army for the gi bill to help college tuition later?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iff said:

what about also the effect in the US of the GI bill on people joining the army for the gi bill to help college tuition later?

I doubt if too many people are doing that, but the ones who do are probably the same demographic as I mentioned above.   But they're likely not thinking of a standard 4-year college, but rather a training school.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Heart of Darkness said:

Sure the soldiers are aware of the risks, but that doesn't mean that they have a death wish.  

 

Here's my experience from living near an army base and having many childhood friends have joined the armed forces:

 

Why did they join?  Many (particularly from the more conservative regions of America) join out of pride/sense of obligation to one's country--they have literally grown up on tales of heroism from movies, books, and even their own parents.  For many, it's almost a sort of family tradition to join.  Others, from immigrant families, may join to show appreciation for the opportunity that they or their family have received by moving to America.  For still others, like some of my relatives, joining the military seemed like the only way to (continue to) earn a living whether a recent economic crisis left them unemployed, or whether they just finished high school and either weren't smart enough or didn't want to go to college--joining the military gives you free access to skills training and education.  At any rate, once you're in the military, it's hard to leave, plus the pay is better if you can move your way up the ranks, so that's what many do.

 

Whatever their personal reason was, that did not necessarily mean that they signed up to die--to protect their country and pray to live?  Maybe.  To be in reserves because it seemed safe enough at the time while still guaranteeing employment?  Maybe.  Out of desperation/a hope to escape?  Maybe.

 

In any case, there is never an excuse to waste lives--save as many lives as possible and get the hell out of the war asap.

 

I grew up near an Army base and a Marine base and this is pretty much my experience as well. No one signed up for "glory" or expecting to die or sacrifice themselves. Many that don't make a career out of the military end up in some kind of post high school training or college. A lot of my old classmates became EMTs and/or firefighters. One wants to be a nurse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry

What really disheartens me is when current and former military personnel get shafted by the very system they believed they were defending. They end up learning the hard way that US bureaucracy isn't exactly the paragon of positive values some of us would like to believe it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's different in different countries - in the US, which I'm most familiar with, some people oppose war because we often seem to get into needless wars. Some people are legitimately concerned about lives and especially needless waste of them. On another point, some of us lived through the Vietnam War era, and saw what war did to the soldiers who got sent over there (often draftees). War is definitely not something to take lightly (goes without saying, really). I also find that people who have actually been in combat (or close to it as medical support, etc.) are often more cautious than some non-veterans (especially some politicians) about getting into wars; because the veterans know what war really means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WWII was the last war in which it was actually necessary for US soldiers to fight.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I could find the actual article I read, maybe someone else knows? I'm going to recite from memory here.

 

In WWI generals and other commanding officers found soldiers hesitated when it came to actually making the choice to kill their fellow man. The war film was born as way to desensitize the public to violence and create better soldiers. By Vietnam their willingness to kill had increased by about 60%. 

 

I tried looking it up it up and mostly found studies on video games. I did learn a new word: killology

 

Edit: the military also changed to human shaped targets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, borkfork said:

I wish I could find the actual article I read, maybe someone else knows? I'm going to recite from memory here.

 

In WWI generals and other commanding officers found soldiers hesitated when it came to actually making the choice to kill their fellow man. The war film was born as way to desensitize the public to violence and create better soldiers. By Vietnam their willingness to kill had increased by about 60%. 

 

I tried looking it up it up and mostly found studies on video games. I did learn a new word: killology

 

Edit: the military also changed to human shaped targets.

I know an article on this, we looked at it in 5th year (I would have been 16 years old) from our textbooks.  

 

Edit I think this article backs it up

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

So usually an argument among civillians to pull out of wars and conflicts is to not sacrifice soldiers. However most -professional- soldiers join because they want to experience combat or are fully aware of the risks. Is this genuine compassion for soldiers who risk their lives or a cheap political point?

 

Well, the soldiers are supposed to risk their lives for civilians, but if civilians won't want them to fight, what's the point? Honour, patriotism? Which aren't valid reasons, at least for me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also with that point soldiers should have a choice whether to fight or not. Also, a more efficient way to fight in most cases isn't a front-line war. It's guerrilla warfare (which shouldn't be targeted at civilians, imo).

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some people who wanted to fight the "dirty commies" in Korea and Vietnam just like there are some people who think intervention in the Middle East and Afghanistan is justified. Of course, if you look at the demographics it's probably the same people who use the term "glass desert" without realizing it would be unsafe to drill for oil in such a place.  Or that there are civilians who have nothing to do with any war.

 

"You don't support our troops?!"

"I do support our troops. I want to bring them home to their families."

 

I used to have a friend who is an actual historian. She made a remark about how can we forgive the Vietnamese and have so many living in our country. She was completely unaware of the Vietnamese allies who fled when Saigon fell, or the famous story of Ba Van Nguyen and the USS Kirk.

 

I'm by no means an expert, but some people are just clueless. 

 

edit: I think those are famous stories because everyone in my family and many I grew up around knew them. Maybe they're not. My grandfather (dad's step father) was a Marine who served in the Pacific Theater and Korea. He thought it was important for us to hear about what happened to people in the days leading up to the fall of Saigon. I never really thought about it until after he died. He wasn't talking about politics or the military, he was talking about people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably a mix of both, but even between soldiers there are different philosophies behind why they joined.  Some wanted to serve their country (whatever that actually translates to), some were itching for a fight, and I'm sure some just had no better options as far as getting college paid for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎24‎.‎03‎.‎2017 at 9:02 PM, ThaHoward said:

Is this genuine compassion for soldiers who risk their lives or a cheap political point?

I'm a civilian cheapskate. I don't enjoy paying taxes or social security. Whoever gets hurt during a war is a burden on the system. - You might leave a widow and kids who need to be fed together with the wife and kids of the guy taking your place. - What if you come home severely crippled with special needs? IDK how long basic training takes but it has to be reinvested earlier than necessary when a soldier is lost.

Sorry, even if I reduce you to tax money I am unwilling to pay, I see no sense in the foreign missions. - I'd prefer it if the powers interested into them paid that BS on their own.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
SithAzathoth WinterDragon

As quite a few said some join because they want to defend their nation, although the military might be good it does affect the one in it and it also affects the soldiers family, I do believe there is a gap but I never really paid too much attention to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...