3 ms·

Hey - you are right and I should have included that essential point. I was focused on other issues, but the whole thing makes me angry. The all-volunteer, prof

Hey - you are right and I should have included that essential point. I was focused on other issues, but the whole thing makes me angry. The all-volunteer, professional US military, for all its advantages, loses civilian familiarity with the realities of the military and warfare - people seem to know Call of Duty, where killing is like shooting baskets. When I see people glorify the military, soldiers and warfare, or talk about it like a sporting event ('win' and 'lose' (my bad) should be banned from the discussion of warfare) I feel very uneasy: First, people have those extreme, romantic conceptions of things they don't understand; when there was universal conscription, the military was a stand-in for bureaucratic absurdity (e.g., Gomer Pyle, MASH, expressions like FUBAR and SNAFU), not glorification; war veterans generally (IME) are not war mongers. Also, I feel a little queasy; I think, 'it creates (intentionally, in the hands of some public figures) the public mindset that makes it easier'. And finally - again, maybe intentionally for some, maybe subconsciously for many - it shuts down the actual experiences of veterans; it makes clear that there is only space for the 'glorious' version of warfare and anything else is almost antisocial. Finally, it all lets people put warfare on the back burner, which IMHO is how Afghanistan and Iraq lasted so long. My (very amateur) policy idea is that the US should bring back universal conscription but only for the reserves (and no exceptions, as a hard and fast rule). Sure, it's not as optimal as volunteers, former active duty, etc. But then there would be real skin in the game for everyone, and everyone's families and friends. They'd understand the military, and what warfare was about. I hope no more hyping war with China (or Iran!). I'm very sorry about your friends and for what you lost. We need to do far better with how seriously we take warfare and how we treat soldiers when they come home. It's really absurd. Thanks for sharing your experience.

warner25 3y ago
> ...talk about it like a sporting event ('win' and 'lose' (my bad) should be banned from the discussion of warfare)... To be fair, the Army's own foundational doctrinal publication - ADP 1 - uses the word "win" very prominently. The second-to-last line of the Foreword by Chief of Staff says, "The fundamental role of the American Soldier today is the same as it was over 244 years ago—to win." It goes on from there. So don't feel bad. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN18008_ADP-1%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN1800... As someone who deployed to combat myself, and who has known many who died there and since that time from suicide, my biggest complaint is that it didn't feel like we (as a nation) were really trying to "win." We were just going back again and again to "do our time," which made dying there seem especially pointless. I agree with everything else said.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I noticed that the US military picked up the hot cultural and management-speak of 'winners' and 'winning' etc., whatever that means - business is usually optimizing a both-sides-benefit scenario; when I sell my client some IT thing, I hope that I, the client, my subcontractor, the manufacturer, etc. all do well from it. You can see its absurdity in sports, where 'winning' even makes some sense, when I see them talk about a prospect, 'first, they're a winner' - you mean they played for the school that's won 5 national titles in 10 years, with or without them? Is there a better player at a bad school that you're purposely overlooking for this ambiguous BS? But I was a bit disturbed to see ads for the US Marine Corps over the last few years. The Marines used to talk about, "First to fight for right and freedom / And to keep our honor clean". The ad taglines had been 'for honor, for country, etc.' - something bigger than the individual, a higher cause. Then the taglines became 'Marines fight to win'. Win what? It's almost aggressive amorality (which I think is the message of the management-speak, 'that's all we care about'). Perhaps appropriately, given your and many other experiences, nobody is thinking that far. Also, it seems much less motivating than fighting for freedom, etc., as you say.
  - warner25 3y ago
    > Win what? That's the root of it, of course. Everybody who went to Afghanistan or Iraq, after the first wave, knew that they weren't coming home until either (A) their timer ticked down to zero from 3-6-9-12-15 months, or (B) they became a casualty. There was no third possibility (C) of coming home after accomplishing X, because nobody could define X. I was there during an election year, and I told everyone back home that "supporting the troops" would mean making it an electoral issue to either define X and go all-in or bring us all home; not just sending care packages.

warner25 3y ago

> ...talk about it like a sporting event ('win' and 'lose' (my bad) should be banned from the discussion of warfare)... To be fair, the Army's own foundational doctrinal publication - ADP 1 - uses the word "win" very prominently. The second-to-last line of the Foreword by Chief of Staff says, "The fundamental role of the American Soldier today is the same as it was over 244 years ago—to win." It goes on from there. So don't feel bad. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN18008_ADP-1%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN1800... As someone who deployed to combat myself, and who has known many who died there and since that time from suicide, my biggest complaint is that it didn't feel like we (as a nation) were really trying to "win." We were just going back again and again to "do our time," which made dying there seem especially pointless. I agree with everything else said.

wolverine876 3y ago
I noticed that the US military picked up the hot cultural and management-speak of 'winners' and 'winning' etc., whatever that means - business is usually optimizing a both-sides-benefit scenario; when I sell my client some IT thing, I hope that I, the client, my subcontractor, the manufacturer, etc. all do well from it. You can see its absurdity in sports, where 'winning' even makes some sense, when I see them talk about a prospect, 'first, they're a winner' - you mean they played for the school that's won 5 national titles in 10 years, with or without them? Is there a better player at a bad school that you're purposely overlooking for this ambiguous BS? But I was a bit disturbed to see ads for the US Marine Corps over the last few years. The Marines used to talk about, "First to fight for right and freedom / And to keep our honor clean". The ad taglines had been 'for honor, for country, etc.' - something bigger than the individual, a higher cause. Then the taglines became 'Marines fight to win'. Win what? It's almost aggressive amorality (which I think is the message of the management-speak, 'that's all we care about'). Perhaps appropriately, given your and many other experiences, nobody is thinking that far. Also, it seems much less motivating than fighting for freedom, etc., as you say.
- warner25 3y ago
  > Win what? That's the root of it, of course. Everybody who went to Afghanistan or Iraq, after the first wave, knew that they weren't coming home until either (A) their timer ticked down to zero from 3-6-9-12-15 months, or (B) they became a casualty. There was no third possibility (C) of coming home after accomplishing X, because nobody could define X. I was there during an election year, and I told everyone back home that "supporting the troops" would mean making it an electoral issue to either define X and go all-in or bring us all home; not just sending care packages.