The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Why join the military?
poshniallo
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Now I know this isn't going to be a popular OP, but hear me out. There's a lot of people in the US who talk about 'serving'. There are a lot of other people who can understand how hard it must be to be a soldier in combat, and who empathise enough to not challenge the decision.
When people talk about the ecology, we talk about 'think globally, act locally'. On many other issues some of us believe that the first thing we should do when we are concerned about something is to act on it ourself.
I'm concerned about that old classic, the military-industrial complex. I live in Japan, we have a constitution which states:
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Constitution_of_Japan
While this is something I love about Japan (regardless of the reasons how it got there, it is a great thing), Japan still has a huge defence budget - rated fourth or fifth in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_budget_of_Japan
Again and again throughout the world we see defence spending which is massively out of line with countries' defence needs.
In addition, we see, in current military policy all across the world (not just the obvious bugbears of the US and it's allies), political self-interest, ancestral grudges and economic goals hidden behind a screen of fake altruism and fear-mongering. The world's true enemies are hate, ignorance, intolerance, lies and many more. None of these can be killed, and trying to is a trap.
So what I'm saying is, why join the military? Is it necessary? Are you sure? Are you sure you're going to be doing more than prolonging conflict (you kill one enemy and his friends and children will hate you forever), furthering economic grownth, and becoming so desensitised to killing that you don't see war for the evil that it is?
So what's the point of being a soldier?
When people talk about the ecology, we talk about 'think globally, act locally'. On many other issues some of us believe that the first thing we should do when we are concerned about something is to act on it ourself.
I'm concerned about that old classic, the military-industrial complex. I live in Japan, we have a constitution which states:
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Constitution_of_Japan
While this is something I love about Japan (regardless of the reasons how it got there, it is a great thing), Japan still has a huge defence budget - rated fourth or fifth in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_budget_of_Japan
Again and again throughout the world we see defence spending which is massively out of line with countries' defence needs.
In addition, we see, in current military policy all across the world (not just the obvious bugbears of the US and it's allies), political self-interest, ancestral grudges and economic goals hidden behind a screen of fake altruism and fear-mongering. The world's true enemies are hate, ignorance, intolerance, lies and many more. None of these can be killed, and trying to is a trap.
So what I'm saying is, why join the military? Is it necessary? Are you sure? Are you sure you're going to be doing more than prolonging conflict (you kill one enemy and his friends and children will hate you forever), furthering economic grownth, and becoming so desensitised to killing that you don't see war for the evil that it is?
So what's the point of being a soldier?
I figure I could take a bear.
poshniallo on
0
Posts
Poshniallo, I am a pacifist too, but making a statement like this makes a monster out of soldiers and is hyperbolic moral grandstanding that is out of line with rational debate.
I tend to believe some people are just born soldiers and live for the need to work and act as part of a large, hyper regulated instrument. It's the only way I can understand how compelling military service is to certain people.
Personally, I believe that there should be a mandatory 2 years military service (with exceptions for conscientious objectors, etc.). People are too desensitized to the thought of military action, and with the threat of close relations going off to fight looming over everyone's heads, I think* it would all but eliminate frivolous or questionable military endeavors. Plus, if there were ever another situation where a draft was necessary, you'd have a populace that already has some training and preparation for combat.
*desperately, desperately hope
I know people are going to come and tell me I'm demonising soldiers, but I'm not. I'm making the statement that being involved in a war desensitises you to how wrong it is to kill. I'm not saying any of the more extreme opinions you may associate with that. I would also say that war is evil, and when you're in it, watching your friends get killed or injured, face to face with people trying to kill you, people blame the enemy for obvious reasons.
I don't know why you think that's hyperbolic - do you believe soldiers dont' become desensitised? Do you not believe that the pressure and danger of being in a war makes soldiers find it hard to be objective?
There seems to be a lot of pacifism love going around. As far as I've been able to tell from history, the ability to deploy organized force is the price of a society's survival. I don't think this principle has been overturned completely by any recent developments.
The trouble with drafts, that we can see in several countries, is that they often serve to continue the conflict. It's hard to see the enemies' claims as valid, or even see them as people, when they tried to kill you. I've seen this in the attitudes of people I've known in Northern Ireland, Turkey and Israel.
I'm not talking about a people's attitudes towards their real or perceived enemies, I'm talking about prevention of conflict as a product of self-preservation.
Actually, the JSDF is at least some kind of compromise - they're not allowed to attack anybody, so those joining who wish to defend their home have perhaps a better chance of not having their ideal corrupted. It seems like most militaries end up doing much more harm than help - is the JSDF model a way to improve this?
I'm not convinced about the spending, though. I guess I shouldn't conflate the two issues?
They also contribute to war weariness though. In all of your examples you don't have to be in the military to be menaced by the local conflict, so assigning causal status to membership in the military is questionable.
It seems to me the JSDF model is a luxury afforded by the American military presence. Japan is uniquely vulnerable because it has to import/export so much for its economy to survive. In the absence of the American security assurance, your nation would be pushed into a more aggressive stance to defend its interests. It would not be comfortable with Chinese domination of the eastern Pacific sea lanes.
Does this seem reasonable to you? I'm sure you are much more familiar with the dynamics of your region than I am.
While the pressure of a single moment may push someone to kill without making the necessary consideration beforehand, I would not say, from my experiences talking with veterans of all sorts, that it desensitizes them. Soldiers come home with PTSD for a reason.
Also, pacifism is a personal, often spiritual choice. For the leader of a nation to be a pacifist would be improper, because it is their responisibility to be ready to protect their people.
I want to become fit
I want discipline
I want skills
I want an experience
It is also a good backup option if you fail at other stuff, much like the police.
I cant due to medical shit though.
The point is, if not me, who? You can live in a world where there are no enemies other than "hate and injustice" or whatever vague terrors you want to create are the only bad things out there. But it's not a real world.
Japan is backed by the US military, which is why it is afforded the luxury of having merely a "defense force." Japan also committed some of the worst atrocities in the world (See the Korean women abducted for use as sex slaves and the rampages in China) and is only 50 years removed from that. By your argument, we should be seeing Korean and Chinese suicide bombers in Japan. They created more enemies, right?
Beyond this being an unpopular topic, I believe that you posses a pretty sizable lack of what it is "soldiers" do. Prolonging conflicts and creating enemies are not in the job definitions of soldiers. That lays in the realm of politicians. If you feel a war is unjust, you need to talk to your local politicians. Soldiers do a job. As one of the best artillery quotes goes, ""Ultima ratio regum." (The final argument of kings)" That is exactly what the Army is. We are sworn to defend the Constitution and the nation. The nation, through it's representatives in Congress, authorized a war in Iraq. That is why we are there. The military didn't decide to do this on it's own one fine Sunday afternoon.
I see this mentality more and more amongst the civilian population. Why would you want to join the Army? You must be stupid or uneducated. I've always thought, why wouldn't you want to join the Army? It is a classic case of, "Can't someone else do it?" Soldiers and police deal with it the most. It's great to talk shit about them like they are unnecessary and we only need to fight "intolerance and hate" or whatever, but as soon as someone steals your shit or shoots at you, I bet you'd be looking for someone to help you real quick. So send someone else, but I'm not going is a pretty common and selfish thought.
And the idea that you get "desensitized to killing" through being in the service is laughable. If anything, you are much more prone to revulsion at the sight of most of these instances. Perhaps in the moment of an attack, you are desensitized because you are reacting, but the idea that as a Soldier you revel in gore is totally ludicrous. I just watched Halloween with my fiance. She barely blinked and I could barely watch parts where people were being tortured and brutalized. The 20 year old civilians behind me were laughing as one girl was dragged by the foot to presumably be killed. Don't try to portray Soldiers as mindless killers, it's as much a fallacy as me portraying people who oppose the war as jobless hippies.
Why did I join? I wanted to surround myself with people who work in a professional manner doing a job that means something. The people you meet in the service are some of the most intelligent, selfless, hard working people I've ever met, in any aspect of my life, and it's an honor to get to work with them every day.
That all said, if you want to be a pacifist, that's fine, it's your right. Good luck with that. I'll be out practicing with my M4 on the range tomorrow to make sure you still have that right in the future.
While I don't know what you mean by "defeaning", I see what you are saying.
There are two ways of looking at this:
-The Catholic arguments for soldiers and the Just War Theory
-The fact that the passage in the New Testament where Jesus explicitly told people not to become soldiers was removed from the Bible so that more Romans would become Christians (see: "Misquoting Jesus" by Ehrman)
So it would be wrong for someone who is Christian or otherwise opposed to killing to be a medic, dentist, veterinarian, file clerk, network administrator, supply specialist, historian, maintenance personnel, or any of the over 70 percent of non combat arms MOS's in the service? Not every job in the service involves you and a gun. And don't give me the "Well they support the people doing it" argument, because if you paid your taxes, voted for someone who voted for the war, drive a car, or any of the number of things that benefits our government, you support it, too.
While I would argue the difference in active and passive support, I think this is just a definition difference between us. I don't consider a medic, or a supply specialist to be a soldier (unless they do carry a gun with the expectation they may come into lethal situations). But to clarify, I only see hypcorisy on the squad-fellow on the front-lines, or really any position where you could be ordered to kill.
generally, i consider soldiers who join the army to defend their nation (and not for financial reasons, ironically like my family) to be the most selfless, courageous and noble people we have on the planet right now.
It was my understanding that the Japanese constitution was largely written by the occupying american forces post WWII and that this clause was a deliberate effort to keep Japan's expansionist-by-war tendencies from reemerging. Anyone know more than me?
That's all very well, but it runs up against the argument that all enlisted are supposed to be able to up arms and act as infantry when neccessary.
You can't really begrudge people for feeling this way. Putting oneself in harms way for a cause is difficult, and while it might have been real easy for you you can't hold everyone to the same standard for courage.
Not wanting to join the armed services because you don't want to be hurt is a good reason. As for non-combat positions in the military, maybe people just don't want to be placed in a job that makes them more responsible for what happens to the troops. Personally, I'd never join the army because 1) I don't want to be any more responsible for what my country is doing with our military than I already am and 2) more often than not I've disagreed with what my government's doing with our troops, and I'd rather not be doing a job that requires me to follow orders explicitly.
To add to this, I find it a little more than irritating that the people who try to shame others into serving don't try to shame them equally into the police, fire, or paramedic services. If you're going to run a comparative argument between them, be consistent.
Personally, I think the chickenshit argument only applies to armchair warmongerers. "If you're really that into it, get off your ass and join", sort of thing.
actually, my understanding of the situation is that the opposite occurred. iirc, the push to renounce war came internally from the japanese administration that had quite honestly become exhausted of military rule and unquestioning loyalty to the emperor.
if i remember correctly, in the decades following, the u.s. continued to request that japan amend article 9, but the japanese refused to.
ah, that is interesting.
as such, the japanese provision goes farther than the u.s. provision and likely most countries' laws regarding racial, sex, etc., equality. unlike the u.s. provision, which is a negative covenant ("discrimination based on sex, origin, etc., shall be prohibited"), the woman, who according to my professor, had a big brain, drafted a positive affirmation ("women and men of all races and origins are equal under the law and shall be treated so", or something like that).
awesome.
too bad the reality of the situation is that japan is still one of the most mysogynistic first world countries.
The military provides training in areas that, especially if a recruit is from a poor background or has just been unable to get far in traditional education, can really help get jobs in the civilian world.
There is also the old "see the world" thing.... when my father was young, if he had not joined the military, he would probably have never seen any place outside bike ride distance from his home, his entire life.. on his first day of enlisting he was on a train for the first time ever, visited a city for the first time, used a phone for the first time. He also visited places all over the world, in Africa, Asia and the Americas as well as Europe (this was the UK army).
As for the whole "war is wrong!" claptrap.. if it was not for being willing to stand up and go to war rather than allow other countries to roll over them, many places would not exist... war is part of human nature, tribal conflicts have existed throughout history. It speaks volumes for how decadent and intellectualized our society is become when people can stand around moralizing over war because its never effected them directly, nor has anything of the magnitude to go to war over.
Tell the person who's just seen their family slaughtered that going to war against the group that did it is wrong.. tell the country facing invasion by another who will slaughter their people and steal their resources that war is wrong.. Its part of human nature, until we, globally, live in some sci fi Utopian community where we all agree, there will be war.. and if we ever do, aliens will probably turn up for us to fight!
As the current situation in Iraq shows, the risk with joining the military as a career, as opposed to waiting until an enemy attacks the US and then joining, is that you may have to go to war because of a really stupid decision made high up in the chain of command.
Exactly. It's one thing to willingly endanger yourself for something you believe is a good reason, but it's something else when you have no control over what the army considers a good reason and no choice but to go along with it.
Which clearly justifies our current military expenditure, amirite?
Back to the topic, no, there is no justifiable reason to join the military of any country that does not actually uphold the UN charter.
That is to say, most major governments are right out.