What about the troops?

POSTED BY: Causal
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 15:17
VIEWED: 12314
PAGE 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

CAUSAL

Monday, February 5, 2007 10:39 PM

Over in another RWED thread, I posted an explanation of the military command structure as part of post regarding my military service in Iraq. I tried explaining how the chain of command works, and that the chief function of the military is to protect the country, its citizens, and its system of governments. I got the following response:

Quote:

Wow. Here's a hint about debating - if you're going to make a big, self-promoting statement like "servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms", do not immediately follow it with a comprehensive argument that shows your career has no basis on our freedoms (you're the C-in-C's bitch) and in fact if you were ordered to end our freedoms (for example, our freedom not to have a bullet lodged in our chests), then you'd do so.

This scared the hell out of me. Because up to this point in the Iraq war, those who oppose it have been able to separate their anger at the President from their feelings toward the military. Apparently, the wall that separates the two is beginning to crumble: apparently we veterans and active-duty servicemtn are "bitches" who would happily put bullets in the chests of civilians and who have no interest in preserving the freedoms enjoyed by American citizens.

Well, FFF.net: what do you think? How should we respond to the military and to those who have served in Iraq?

OLDENGLANDDRY

Monday, February 5, 2007 10:45 PM

Let me answer with a question. As the military is an extention of the politicians arm, if your commanding officer recieved an order to fire into a crowd of civilians and passed that order on to you, what would you do?

CAUSAL

Monday, February 5, 2007 10:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Let me answer with a question. As the military is an extention of the politicians arm, if your commanding officer recieved an order to fire into a crowd of civilians and passed that order on to you, what would you do?

I'm not sure what this question has to do with the military being "an extention of the politician's arm." I guess I was under the impression that having the military under civilian control was a good thing, being that it provides a check on the power of the military.

In the second place, it would depend on the crowd. Are the civilians armed and shooting at me? If so, darned tootin', I'd shoot. If the civilians were not armed, and not posing a mortal threat to the lives of my men, hell no, I wouldn't shoot. That would constitute a Rules of Engagement violation, and as such, it would be an unlawful order, and I would, therefore, be obligated under military law to disobey it. Then I'd try like hell to get that officer court martialed for dereliction of duty for passing on an unlawful order (because he, too, had the obligation to disobey).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 5, 2007 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Well, FFF.net: what do you think? How should we respond to the military and to those who have served in Iraq?

The vast majority of men and women that serve and have served this country deserve our gratitude and respect, as well as BETTER quality benefits than they've been recieving from miserly old Uncle Sam!!!! Average 100+ day wait for attention from the VA seems completely effed to me. If money can be dumped into this war, it sure as hell should include the well being of the troops back at HOME!!!

All manner of concerned Chrisisall

CAUSAL

Monday, February 5, 2007 11:08 PM

Chris, I agree that the government isn't terribly swift about caring for vets (and neither, for that matter, is the military itself).

I guess the big issue on my mind, though, is the basic question: should the troops be blamed for Iraq in the same way, or to the same degree (or at all) as the President is blamed? Some on this board have said that the only troops they support are the ones who refused to deploy (which I find disturbing) and others have come perilously close to the sort of rhetoric we saw in Vietnam (baby killer, et al). I am just wondering what people think: are the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to blame? Or just Bush?

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

MALBADINLATIN

Monday, February 5, 2007 11:09 PM

I'd like very very much not to believe that our boys are behaving like vikings. But they must follow orders. To question an order or refuse to obey one during war time can be a lethal mistake. I haven't seen enough evidence out of Iraq from the media to indicate they have behaved innapropriatly. This whole thing about "bitches" and all the rest is disrespectful given the lack of evidence of any atrocities.

CAUSAL

Monday, February 5, 2007 11:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
I'd like very very much not to believe that our boys are behaving like vikings. But they must follow orders. To question an order or refuse to obey one during war time can be a lethal mistake. I haven't seen enough evidence out of Iraq from the media to indicate they have behaved innapropriatly. This whole thing about "bitches" and all the rest is disrespectful given the lack of evidence of any atrocities.

Yeah, that's a thing: it's one thing to arm-chair quarterback, another to make decisions when it's life and death and bullets are flying. And you're absolutely right. If you sit down to figure out whether or not you like an order, you or someone close to you will die. And the hell of it is, it's impossible to explain that fully to someone who hasn't had the experience of mortal terror in combat.

That said, there has been some misbehavior in Iraq. Haditha springs immediately to mind, as does Abu Ghraib. I hope the wrong-doers are punished severely. What seems to be missed is that those people are a tiny proportion of the 135,000 people who do their jobs honorably, professionally, and in keeping with the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 5, 2007 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
should the troops be blamed for Iraq in the same way, or to the same degree (or at all) as the President is blamed?

Troops do a job; they don't make the job details up to suit themselves. Wanna blame workers at Wal-Mart for closing down mom and pop shops? Wanng give them respect when Wal-Mart gives out a scholarship? They work there. Difference is they don't put their very lives on the line. Troops deserve respect for the hard and potentially deadly job they do. Apart from the inevitable tiny wacko percentage that you'll also find in any population of Police, Seven-11 workers or Hollywood actors, they are peeps, just like us, but braver. And in NO WAY responsible for the mess in Iraq, and any who say different are just in need of scapegoats and a kicked ass.

Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:11 AM

I have a theory that says that civilians have a tendency to treat the military and military operations the same way that they treat a waiter in a restaurant.

I see it happen every day.

If a consumer eats at a restaurant and the food is lousy, the waiter's tip suffers.

Why is this? What does the waiter have to do with the quality of the food? Usually nothing at all. Their job is to bring the food to you, and to get you accessories as you need them. (Refill your beverage, get a spare napkin, etc.)

Now, it's one thing if you ordered Eggs Benedict and got an Omelette. That is clearly the fault of the waiter. But if you got your Eggs Benedict and it's just awful, that's not the waiter's fault.

People seem to treat the military similarly, unfortunately. They don't like the quality of their war, so they take it out on the warriors. Why didn't the warriors refuse to go to this bad war? Likely the same reason the waiter didn't refuse to serve your bad Eggs benedict. It's their bloody job to serve. They don't choose the food or the war, and they don't choose how it's cooked or executed. They merely pledge to serve when called to do so.

Lately, as terms of service are changed and lengthened, I have begun to wonder if we aren't going to see more restaurant analogies.

You see, if your waiter/waitress has been forced to work mandatory overtime with no days off for 3 consecutive weeks, the quality of their service is bound to suffer. They aren't going to be as peppy in getting your order. You might not get that smile. Your extra napkin might never arrive. They might even get testy and rude with you.

The waiter certainly takes some blame, but so, too, should the management that forced endless days of long hours upon the beleagured employee. How long can a waitress be expected to deliver peppy, smiling service without a chance to unwind?

What about the folks carrying guns and getting shot at? What happens when they are pressed into service beyond reason? What happens when months turn into a year? What happens when a year turns into two? Or three? Or more? What is the warrior's equivelant to 'bad service?'

When the men in the field start to break down after too-long service, will we remember that the management is also to blame?

It's amazing how much the military is like a restaurant.

Then again, maybe I'm just hungry.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:15 AM

EXTREMELY well put, Tony!!!

Oh, waiter Chrisisall

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE