3 ms·

Combat veteran here (Afghanistan, 2012). You have no idea what you're talking about. War is very hard on morale. You're away from your family killing people

by unit91 10y ago

Combat veteran here (Afghanistan, 2012). You have no idea what you're talking about. War is very hard on morale. You're away from your family killing people who are trying kill you, hoping to live through it, and most of all hoping that in the right moments you'll be able to summon all your strength and courage to fight bravely and honorably. In spite of all your hopes and fears you see death in the most inglorious circumstances. I had a friend of mine who was killed while taking a dump. Try that for a morale booster. To answer your question directly, I hope you care because you vote, and because regardless of what you think we fight and die for you because we believe your life and liberty are precious. Mistakes and inefficient equipment and organizational structures cost lives (maybe mine, certainly others). And if a "better" organized military only results in us being a little happier day-to-day, is that really so much to ask?

Ericson2314 10y ago
To be clear I was working under the (unjustified, hypothetical) assumption that while tradition gives us the separate branches, a different organization would be more effective in the long run. Obviously moral is very important, I don't mean to dispute that. I was saying I don't care for the branches' cultural continuity prima faciae. A temporary drop in moral is bad, but if the new organization really is better the drop should only be temporary and moral should recover long term. The second part of my argument is a mere whip that if we got ourselves into a "big moral/self-evidentally important war", that would bost moral more than the reorg would hurt it.
- Ericson2314 10y ago
  A good concrete example of this principle is integrating women into all combat rolls. In the short-term I imagine this absolutely will distablize the culture and probably hurt moral in certain quarters. In the long term, I hope the culture(s) will change and moral will recover.

by unit91 10y ago

Ericson2314 10y ago

To be clear I was working under the (unjustified, hypothetical) assumption that while tradition gives us the separate branches, a different organization would be more effective in the long run. Obviously moral is very important, I don't mean to dispute that. I was saying I don't care for the branches' cultural continuity prima faciae. A temporary drop in moral is bad, but if the new organization really is better the drop should only be temporary and moral should recover long term. The second part of my argument is a mere whip that if we got ourselves into a "big moral/self-evidentally important war", that would bost moral more than the reorg would hurt it.

Ericson2314 10y ago
A good concrete example of this principle is integrating women into all combat rolls. In the short-term I imagine this absolutely will distablize the culture and probably hurt moral in certain quarters. In the long term, I hope the culture(s) will change and moral will recover.