I Do Not Respect The Military

[Strawman]

Yes, we should disband the military, the pentagon, all of that crap. The founding fathers were almost terrified by the notion of a standing army.

We don't need a standing army. In times of emergency, if necessary, then we can reorganize our society, draft an army of citizens in order to meet the threat. Ordinary American citizens make excellent soldiers in times of emergency. We don't need a permanent military. It shows a lack of confidence in our own society; what are we so afraid of? Do we think our rank and file citizenry cannot overcome the threat?

On the other hand, war is necessary in some ways. We need to find a moral equivalent to war, something less destructive.

[Angry Citizen]

The consequences of not having a military at all are greater than those of having one and risking that it be used improperly.

I am not suggesting we disband the military. I am suggesting that those who serve under present conditions should be treated not with respect, but with disrespect for choosing to participate in an organization which is immoral. Under ideal conditions where the military was used for defense purposes only, then I would amend that to saying that those who serve should merely be considered average - not commendable, not ostracized. Military service does nothing positive to your character that cannot be achieved through gas station employment.

[Yarn]

Strawman:

Of course we need a standing army. The difference in strength between a professional force and a militia is far greater now than it was 220 years ago. And some of the founders did want a standing army, e.g. Washington. We don't need to spend as much as we do now, but we do need to spend something.

[Yarn]

Angry Citizen:

You haven't addressed things I have already said that refute your reply.

[Angry Citizen]

None of your points had anything to do with mine. For one, college educations will never outweigh a human life. I would rather be a janitor than kill someone over my ambitions. Merely thinking otherwise speaks highly about your own moral center. For two, sans 'decent human beings', there would not be enough manpower to fight an unjust war. And even if there were, then 'immoral people' would exist in combat regardless of the militarization status of 'decent people'. They would still act to commit genocide, rape, murder, and other crimes.

And finally, most of your point seems centered around the obliteration of the military, which again has nothing to do with my point.

[Strawman]

Military service does nothing positive to your character that cannot be achieved through gas station employment.

Gas stations are robbed occasionally. Bullets fly around, people get hurt; danger, risk to life and limb. These things can help build character, help make a person braver, more confident, more sober minded. They can also destroy character; increase anxiety, depression, the whole ptsd thing.

We usually think of discipline and bravery as virtues, do we not? Military service can at times help to cultivate these virtues.

[Angry Citizen]

I would value rational thought and the willingness to think for oneself above discipline and bravery. The military attempts to destroy the first two.

[Strawman]

Yarn:

I mean the cool founding fathers, like Jefferson; not the federalists like Washington and Hamilton, a bunch of fascists.

Just kidding. Hamilton may have been an authoritarian, but he was a thinking man's authoritarian, as the federalist papers show.

[Strawman]

I would value rational thought and the willingness to think for oneself above discipline and bravery.

Are you not aware that the marines, the screaming eagles, and all of the elite military units in general, they always stress individual initiative as the prime virtue?

Another virtue that can be cultivated through the military: personal independence. If you are a well-trained, razor-sharp, unstoppable killing-machine, then you need have no fear in daily life, because you will always be able to defend yourself.

[Whiskey1428]

By: Angry Citizen
In another thread, a poster returned from basic training and AIT to choruses of "Good for you!" Rather than derailing that thread with an actual debate, I figured I would post it here.

I have no respect for the military. There is no reason to hold any extra good will towards a man or woman in uniform. The existence of the military, and public participation in it, encourages militaristic endeavors which are designed to extend American influence abroad.

Moreover, military service is not altruistic: several benefits exist which entice young, impressionable men and women into picking up weapons and killing other men and women (and sometimes children, if I may add). These include the chance at a college education; prestige at home and in the work force; benefits such as health care; and ethereal (and I posit non-existent and/or worthless) qualities like 'leadership skills' and 'experience'.

Military service is risking your life, your sanity, and the lives and sanity of other human beings for these benefits. I claim that any human being who would willingly accept this kind of indentured servitude is nothing more than a contract killer trafficking in blood money; or is not in possession of full mental faculty. Such individuals should be as ostracized as Untouchables in the Indian caste system. Caveats exist, of course, which pertain to the existence of the nation at large; however, no such existential threat has been seen in seven decades.

Shame on the military men and women who perpetuate this evil on mankind.

All of your arguments would be justified if we could create a world of complete non-violence, but as we can see, we can't. If there was no military, you would have just utter anarchy. Why? What makes people listen to gov't? Well they have the biggest guns. Also without militaries, since we have established we cannot create a world of complete non-violence, who is going to stop a random guy who convinces enough people of his idea and wants to take action about it? A military is entirely necessary. And for your argument about public servants (i.e. military, policemen, etc...) not deserving special recognition, that is entirely bunk. They are willing to risk their lives for the greater good of everyone else. Needless to say, most people aren't. Without those willing to "go above and beyond" society would not exist. If you are not willing to die for anything, than you have nothing to live for.

Josh

[barts]

If you are a well-trained, razor-sharp, unstoppable killing-machine, then you need have no fear in daily life, because you will always be able to defend yourself.

And in most developed countries this is necessary? I don't think so.

[lsbskins1]

How can you condemn individuals for doing what you admit is necessary? I understand your larger point, as I think most people do, that aggressive war is a horrible thing that should always be avoided. But vilifying those who choose to serve is simply wrong. It is almost as if you want people to become angry with you. I know many good and honorable people who made careers in the military. They are not evil, bloodthirsty monsters who joined so that they could kill innocents. You set up a nice Catch-22 for the military with the attitude presented. Anyone who "joins" is a bloodthirsty killer, anyone drafted is...what? A powerless pawn? And I would guess that you can't just grab any pilot and shove him in a fighter jet and say, "Go kill the enemy!"

Certainly not the only, but one of the many reasons for the bloody carnage of the Civil War was the fact that soooooo many men with no idea how to use an Army properly were thrown into positions of leadership because the standing Army of the period was tiny. And read some of Washington's ruminations and dispatches from the Revolutionary War concerning the fitness of his untrained troops. The "grunt" might be able to be brought up to speed in a few months time, but a well trained officer corps is an absolute necessity and not having one is not a reasonable way to avoid aggressive war, it is a very good way to ensure defeat in a necessary and unexpected defensive war. And like it or not, it is a necessity that hierarchy and chain of command exist. Armies have to respond as well disciplined units, not as free thinking individuals. Here is just one example of what happens when a "patriotic but untrained free thinker" gets control in the Army:

Union General Daniel Sickles

Sickles later contended that had his salient been supported, the stampede of the XI Corps might have been avoided. He believed he had seized the initiative, improvised his own strategy on the spot, and was only cheated of victory by lack of support from an emotionally drained commander. He felt that he had saved the day and checked Jackson's advance. The evidence, however, does not support such contentions.

In fact, Sickles had accomplished nothing to stop Jackson's flank attack, and found himself instead isolated and in no position to slow or prevent the debacle on the army's right flank. When he returned to Hazel Grove, Sickles drove off a scouting party of about 200 men of the 4th Georgia Infantry. This can hardly be described as stopping Jackson's attack, which petered out long before it ever reached Sickles' position because of confusion in the underbrush and the need to reorganize. As for his brilliant night attack, witnesses reported that it was a mixed-up mess, one of the most comical episodes in the history of the Army of the Potomac. Very little of value was accomplished. Its main effect was to increase the number of casualties and deprive both armies of sleep.

Years after the battle, XI Corps historian Augustus Choate Hamlin, who had been a lieutenant colonel and medical inspector at Chancellorsville, investigated the events of that fateful day. His report was quite different from previously accepted accounts of the XI Corps' disaster. In his 1896 book, The Battle of Chancellorsville, Hamlin charged that Sickles' expedition to Catherine Furnace and beyond was the ultimate cause of the rout and the campaign's failure. Hamlin blamed Sickles because he had persuaded Hooker to allow him to make the fatal reconnaissance that isolated the XI Corps and left it without reserves. Hamlin also derided Sickles for his ignorance of Jackson's location and true intention and for the absurdity of his expedition.

Sickles clearly had failed to respond properly to the situation at hand when he advanced to create his salient. If he really suspected that Lee was attempting to flank Hooker's line, his proper response would have been to support Howard, not isolate him. He should have realized that Lee was not retreating when Birney was struck by the two enemy brigades at Catherine Furnace. That attack made it clear that there was a strong force of Confederates still massed in force on his left, apart from the marching units–and they were obviously not retreating. Yet Sickles continued to advance, completely disregarding what must have been a flanking column bent on mischief to the west.

By his hasty actions, Sickles succeeded in isolating elements of Hooker's army (his own and Howard's) at a time when a united defense was essential. Had Sickles remained next to Howard, along with Barlow's reserve brigade, he might have been able to bolster that corps and prevent or minimize the ensuing rout. In the end, however, Howard's corps was decimated, the entire army was endangered, and Sickles' own corps narrowly escaped destruction.