4 ms·

Others have stated some of the big reasons why service members get so much respect: they risk their lives for their country, they give up some of their Constitu

Others have stated some of the big reasons why service members get so much respect: they risk their lives for their country, they give up some of their Constitutional rights (although they also gain some extra rights, such as Article 31 rights), and they generally accept lower compensation than they might get on the outside (still true, but not nearly as true as it used to be). I would add another reason: they accept the burden of spending many years of their lives away from home, often missing major life events (weddings, graduations, even the births of their own children), as well as the lesser burden of having to move every 2-3 years. However, there's another side to your question: why is the U.S. like this, and not other countries? My initial response would be to turn that around: why don't people in other countries hold military service to a higher level of respect, especially considering that some of the reasons given here for respecting the military (e.g. giving up rights or accepting lower pay) are more applicable in some other countries? Just because the U.S. is unique in this regard, doesn't mean we're the ones doing it wrong. There have been others who felt their nations didn't give their troops enough respect: http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Poetry/Anthology/Kipling/Tommy.htm http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Poetry/Anthology/Kipling/T... That being said, I think that there are some important differences in U.S. culture that help to explain the difference. One thing relatively unique about the U.S. is that, unlike most nations, we do not have an ethnic identity. For example, Spaniards can feel united in the fact that they are all Spaniards, the Japanese can feel united in the fact that they are all Japanese, etc. Certainly there are ethnic sub-groups within most countries, but for the most part they have a national identity that is rooted in their shared ancestry, and of a shared history that in almost all cases predates the existing government by centuries. Since the U.S. lacks that, we have a national identity rooted in ideals, embodied specifically in the Constitution. There is certainly a great deal of political disagreement about the specifics of those ideals (and of the meaning of the Constitution), but the generalities are largely agreed upon. So what does this have to do with the regard in which we hold military service? Well, part of it is an awareness, dating back to our war of independence, that our Constitutionally guaranteed rights were underwritten by a lot of individuals who left their homes to fight for those shared ideals which define us. We literally would never have come to exist as a nation if it were not for our military services. We also have an ideal in this country of "Citizen Soldiers." It is not unique to the U.S. (I believe it originated in ancient Greece, but please correct me if I'm wrong), but I think that the only nations that currently subscribe strongly to this idea are the U.S. and Israel. It's the idea that our military consists primarily of individuals who are not lifelong military professionals: most of the people in our military serve for only a few years, then go back to being ordinary Americans. This means that we have a lot of veterans spread throughout our society, so that almost everyone knows at least one veteran, raising cultural awareness of military life. Conversely, in a nation where the military consists primarily of individuals who make a lifelong career of it, the military tends to be a little less visible to the bulk of the population because they don't have as many veterans to interact with. There are quite a few nations with universal conscription (everybody has to serve for a few years), but with the exception of Israel, I haven't seen this same "citizen soldier" meme in such nations. I think there are two reasons for this. First, the time spent is very short (usually 2-3 years, as opposed to the minimum enlistment in the U.S., which is 4-5 years) and at the end of that time the choice is "get out, or commit to a life-long career," as opposed to the U.S. military, which allows a succession of short re-enlistments. The second reason is most important: in countries with universal conscription, it's just seen as something everyone has to go through, like high school, and the conscripts are not fully integrated into the military: they are given minimal combat training and are used primarily for drudgework, with more thorough combat training coming only after an individual commits to a professional military career. Finally, I can't end without addressing this: >America's wars post WW2 are mostly invasions of random third world countries against underequipped,and mostly untrained enemies, and even then the victory/defeat ratio is very mixed. Our two biggest wars since WWII were Korea and Vietnam. The Korean war was really a war fought against China on Korean soil. The People's Army is hardly something to sneeze at. The NVA was also a modern army, equipped and trained by the Soviets and the Chinese. Our next-biggest war (and longest, by far) was Iraq, which showed that "underequipped, and mostly untrained enemies" can be quite deadly. This statement also seems to imply that we should judge the merits of military service on the basis of our political views about the particular wars fought, and on the degree of success achieved. In reality, we judge the merits of military service on the basis that these individuals volunteered to make tremendous sacrifices in service to a noble ideal: our Constitution, and the concept it embodies (a self-governed people).

calibraxis 15y ago
Let's not forget our anti-war movements, which are just as much a part of our culture as apple pie and militancy. Mark Twain wrote: "Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood of his hands and works for 'the universal brotherhood of man'—with his mouth." Mark Twain, for those who don't know, is one of the US's most defining authors; I read his fiction as a schoolchild. I think the answer to the OP's question is simpler: We're the world's most warlike people, spending probably more than the rest of the world combined on military. So it stands to reason we'll have a pro-war propaganda budget. That's a more hacker-like explanation, at any rate, as I imagine hackers tend to avoid anything that smells like ideology, and prefer realpolitik arguments. (BTW, I also think there definitely is an ethnic component; that of the European peoples who are categorized as "white". It's reflected in the language we're speaking now, as well as culturally and racially. Those who come from elsewhere are referred to as "ethnic minorities", pretty much implying an ethnic majority. Plus, we have developed many national mythologies during our centuries, to make up for history only starting with our conquering of the land from the mostly exterminated indigenous population.)
plinkplonk 15y ago
Good points. But as to this, " we judge the merits of military service on the basis that these individuals volunteered to make tremendous sacrifices in service to a noble ideal: our Constitution, and the concept it embodies (a self-governed people)." If that were true, policemen and firemen, who face danger and death every day, and teachers, who have low pay for doing a very vital social task should be getting equal or greater respect. This was precisely my point. The assumption that everyone in the US army joined up to serve the Constitution etc and is universally motivated by "sacrifice" is very suspect. This maybe true for a minority, or for people who join up in a national emergency or just after an attack on the country, say Pearl Harbour or 9/11, impelled by patriotism. Plenty of people join because they want a steady job, because they can't pay for college, want a fast track to citizenship, want something to belong to, are subject to a draft, (as for the Vietnam War ) etc. Why should someone who joins the military for such reasons ( and I suspect those are the majority) be worthy of a special respect denied to (say) a fireman or a nurse? The notion of respecting someone for an assumed intent, and not any objective metric of success or competence or totally independent of morality or political view point is highly suspect and naive. The Japanese soldiers at Nanking, though not all volunteers, were people who respected their political system highly and were willing to sacrifice their lives for the Emperor and Japan. The willingness to sacrifice their lives for a cause their society deemed just doesn't make them automatically worthy of respect, or any less war criminals, as some of the Japanese hardliners would insist. To quote a fictional character, "A knight is a sword with a horse. The rest, the vows and the sacred oils and the lady’s favors, they’re silk ribbons tied round the sword. Maybe the sword’s prettier with ribbons hanging off it, but it will kill you just as dead". A soldier is a man with a gun whose job, stripped to the essence, is to kill. What distinguishes him from a mafia hitman is that society deems his work to be necessary, and he is part of an organization subject to socially approved rules and regulations, and he is trained to do his job. So far so good. One can agree it is a necessary job, a (sometimes) dangerous one, without choosing to automatically respect every soldier just because one assumes he sacrificed a lot to "serve the nation". I suspect that the selfless "sacrificers" motivated by a "higher cause" are a minority in any army. And a description like, "individuals volunteered to make tremendous sacrifices in service to a noble ideal" would fit a policeman perfectly, if you happen to assume that every policeman chose his job only because he wanted to dedicate his life to justice and protecting his fellow citizens. And yet we don't expect random people to thank every policemen "for his service". And with that, I exit this overlong thread. Thank you for your extensive reply. It has helped me clarify my thinking.

calibraxis 15y ago

Let's not forget our anti-war movements, which are just as much a part of our culture as apple pie and militancy. Mark Twain wrote: "Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood of his hands and works for 'the universal brotherhood of man'—with his mouth." Mark Twain, for those who don't know, is one of the US's most defining authors; I read his fiction as a schoolchild. I think the answer to the OP's question is simpler: We're the world's most warlike people, spending probably more than the rest of the world combined on military. So it stands to reason we'll have a pro-war propaganda budget. That's a more hacker-like explanation, at any rate, as I imagine hackers tend to avoid anything that smells like ideology, and prefer realpolitik arguments. (BTW, I also think there definitely is an ethnic component; that of the European peoples who are categorized as "white". It's reflected in the language we're speaking now, as well as culturally and racially. Those who come from elsewhere are referred to as "ethnic minorities", pretty much implying an ethnic majority. Plus, we have developed many national mythologies during our centuries, to make up for history only starting with our conquering of the land from the mostly exterminated indigenous population.)

plinkplonk 15y ago

Good points. But as to this, " we judge the merits of military service on the basis that these individuals volunteered to make tremendous sacrifices in service to a noble ideal: our Constitution, and the concept it embodies (a self-governed people)." If that were true, policemen and firemen, who face danger and death every day, and teachers, who have low pay for doing a very vital social task should be getting equal or greater respect. This was precisely my point. The assumption that everyone in the US army joined up to serve the Constitution etc and is universally motivated by "sacrifice" is very suspect. This maybe true for a minority, or for people who join up in a national emergency or just after an attack on the country, say Pearl Harbour or 9/11, impelled by patriotism. Plenty of people join because they want a steady job, because they can't pay for college, want a fast track to citizenship, want something to belong to, are subject to a draft, (as for the Vietnam War ) etc. Why should someone who joins the military for such reasons ( and I suspect those are the majority) be worthy of a special respect denied to (say) a fireman or a nurse? The notion of respecting someone for an assumed intent, and not any objective metric of success or competence or totally independent of morality or political view point is highly suspect and naive. The Japanese soldiers at Nanking, though not all volunteers, were people who respected their political system highly and were willing to sacrifice their lives for the Emperor and Japan. The willingness to sacrifice their lives for a cause their society deemed just doesn't make them automatically worthy of respect, or any less war criminals, as some of the Japanese hardliners would insist. To quote a fictional character, "A knight is a sword with a horse. The rest, the vows and the sacred oils and the lady’s favors, they’re silk ribbons tied round the sword. Maybe the sword’s prettier with ribbons hanging off it, but it will kill you just as dead". A soldier is a man with a gun whose job, stripped to the essence, is to kill. What distinguishes him from a mafia hitman is that society deems his work to be necessary, and he is part of an organization subject to socially approved rules and regulations, and he is trained to do his job. So far so good. One can agree it is a necessary job, a (sometimes) dangerous one, without choosing to automatically respect every soldier just because one assumes he sacrificed a lot to "serve the nation". I suspect that the selfless "sacrificers" motivated by a "higher cause" are a minority in any army. And a description like, "individuals volunteered to make tremendous sacrifices in service to a noble ideal" would fit a policeman perfectly, if you happen to assume that every policeman chose his job only because he wanted to dedicate his life to justice and protecting his fellow citizens. And yet we don't expect random people to thank every policemen "for his service". And with that, I exit this overlong thread. Thank you for your extensive reply. It has helped me clarify my thinking.