Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Let us Pray. I'm not a great believer in God, but we're going to need all the help we can get before this is over.
And I'm serious. I've been thinking the same thing for quite a while now. We're asking the military to disobey direct orders in the hope of saving this country. That's asking one hell of a lot, and I really wouldn't be surprised if it came down to that. That man is an unstable, ignorant, narcissistic fool.
Many good points have emerged in this discussion. As to conscientious objectors, I recommend Adam Hochschild's "The War to End All Wars," an account of how those who objected to WWI were terribly mistreated, or simply shot.
I came of age in the Vietnam era and from my point of view that was when the notions of American patriotism and heroism were re-defined. The display of our flag, for instance, was co-opted by that portion of the population that said one should not undermine any war effort, just or unjust. The idiocy culminated in remarks from elders to the effect that what my generation needed was "a good war," so that we'd see the errors of our protesting ways. Slogans such as "Support Our Troops" came to represent a pro-war attitude, a very Orwellian distortion of language. The Brits still talk of soldiers who "a good war" to designate those who survived and whose service was praiseworthy. IMHO, it's better not to ask the veteran how good it was. I hope we can all agree that no war is "good," even one where there seemed to be a clear choice between good and evil.
@Ted Seeing how the two videos are collectively 21 minutes long, and you posted your insulting response ten minutes after mine, it is evident that you didn't even watch them. Perhaps then you are unaware that both of these men actually served in Iraq and only became conscientious objectors after serving and realizing how unjust the war was there. Having served, are they therefore "yellow-bellies?"
I know that I promised to abandon this specific discussion, but the personal attacks have prompted me to reconsider. Debating financial matters is the focus of this site; personal attacks are not and often reflect a weak position on the subject matter. Our worthy goal should be to eliminate such attacks. Make them go to zero.
I don't like to post without attempting some contribution to the topic. Military men (and women too) are not perfect. Some here have suggested that I believe this flawed opinion. Having served, I definitely do not accept this falsehood. Dishonorable discharges exist for a reason and are exercised every year. Here is a summary of discharges that I found for a recent timeframe:
According to data from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the discharges from the 2014-2015 fiscal year break down as:
Honorable: 78.29 percent General – Under Honorable Conditions: 6.36 percent Under Other Than Honorable Conditions: 2.09 percent Bad Conduct: 0.49 percent Dishonorable: 0.07 percent
The dishonorable discharge rate is not high , but it and others under undesirable circumstances illustrate that problem people exist in every occupation including the military. No surprises here. The numbers will change and are timeframe dependent.
These are some of the available statistical data. We all use data, but please be careful. Benjamin Disraeli noted that "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". Also consider Mark Twain's witty rejoinder: "It is easy to lie with statistics, but it is easier to lie without them".
I'm in the statistical collection, assessment, and deployment crowd.
Once again, I am finished with this post, but this time I really mean it. Ha ha!
MJG, I don't think that you needed to apologize(?) or explain. You made your post to honor and remember those who gave it up when called upon. In any collection of folks there will be some who will stand out as hero's, or the best if you prefer, and those at the other end of the curve as dirtbags for whatever reason. But I don't believe that was your intent or your point. Your point was just simple, humble remembrance. The merits of morality of war belonged in a different thread.
It's not you. Too many these days are looking for any reason to bunch up their underwear. But you know all this.
@MJG Personal Attacks? What personal attacks? The only thing I said directly to you about you personally was:
My primary question was focused on whether the majority of soldiers who do fight should automatically be considered heroic--a question you have carefully ducked and deflected to focus on objectors instead.
Otherwise, there have been no ad hominem attacks towards you on this thread whatsoever.
And yet you continue to duck my question because the honorable discharge statistics are meaningless when assessing American soldiers ostensible heroism without analyzing whether the cause to kill other human beings the state charged soldiers with is a just or unjust one. Soldiers dropping Napalm bombs on Vietnam that killed thousands of civilians and deforested the regions may have been following orders and still receive honorable discharge, but that does not make them heroic in my view or in that of much of the world, certainly not to the Vietnamese.
One basic fact, not opinion, fact, I've stated twice before that you have not responded to is that in every war there are at least two sides. Soldiers on both sides can't all be heroes if history is to judge one side or both sides wrong for killing other humans--the first and highest Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" if you are religious as many Americans claim to be. The same jingoistic propaganda employed in the U.S. that all soldiers are heroes is invariably employed by the opposition too. Somewhere in Iraq/the Middle East right now the leaders of ISIS/ISIL are telling their own soldiers and followers they are heroes for fighting back the American infidels. I'm also sure that Nazi soldiers and the German citizenry were told they were heroic for killing as many Americans, Brits, Russians and Jews as possible. Most historians see otherwise.
Even when one side is in the right, as for instance, the North was in the Civil War, it is never uniformly so. Sherman's March wreaked unnecessary havoc on the South and soldiers who participated in the burning of states down to the ground I hardly view as heroic. Meanwhile, on the Confederate Side, soldiers who actively betrayed our nation and sought to maintain slavery would be considered heroic by Confederate generals and politicians and receive the equivalent of "honorable discharge" for doing so.
The thing is it is not I who is pointing out the exception rather the rule. It's you by pointing to the longest day or battle of the bulge as heroism. But I would never consider an attempt to change that opinion. You own it, and it substantially differs from mine on soldierhood. Divergent opinions are common and always acceptable.
Much of what you said is personal opinion, not necessarily absolute fact. You often emphasize the exception rather than the rule. In every actual event, individual exceptions exist. So if you found that exception when American soldiers proved their heroism, good for you!
Soldiers on the front lines when all is said and done are professional or conscripted killers. I feel more empathy for the latter than the former. Sometimes killing is necessary--in self defense and to prevent genocide being two prime examples--more often than not it isn't. If I've gotten my "underwear bunched up" over it as Mark suggested, it's because I think killing other human beings is the most serious business on earth and shouldn't be taken lightly and deemed heroic without a thorough analysis. Some 2 million Vietnamese died during its war with the U.S. and about 60,000 Americans. Were the Americans doing the killing for our side all heroes and the Vietcong on the other side all evil losers? I don't think so. Yet both sides I'm sure perpetuate that old lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.
Thank you for your extensive reply. It likely absorbed a considerable time to prepare. I respect that. Your emotions run high on this subject, and I respect that too even though we have very disparate opinions on this matter.
All soldiers are not good soldiers. Some are good, some are bad. That's true in every discipline. There are good and bad folks among the priesthood. And who we place in each category differs among those doing the judging.
Good soldiers and good workers follow orders. Quiting is an option that is an especially hazardous challenge to implement within the military, but instances do exist with mixed outcomes.
When entering military service we take the following oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
But the orders must be lawful. If not, options also exist. It depends on the order. Military folks disobey orders at their own risk. They also obey orders at their own risk. Each soldier makes a decision in every instance and owns it. Infrequently, that is a difficult decision.
Just returning from a multi-week history/art tour through northwestern Europe, specifically Belgium, Luxembourg, northern France, and Holland.
From Waterloo to Omaha Beach (hundreds of years more if one includes the Bayeux tapestry detailing the exploits of William the Bastard), through all the small towns where one finds names of the soldiers from the towns who died in the "Great War" and the one that followed.
One sees the rain of utter destruction from all sides, century upon century, town after town after town. And the progression of war machinery from swords and horses to rifles and artillery to mass killing with poison gas and bombs. More and more "efficient", more and more dehumanizing.
Sure we were in Normandy on June 6, with lots of WWII gear parading about. We visited the American cemetery that is always crowded, and a British cemetery (including Moslem headstones) with virtually no visitors then or at any time. Perhaps because the British feel they simply did what they needed to for king and country, while Americans tend to glorify their deeds.
I for one will not do so. I will thank veterans for their service, for jobs well done. But that is all. Count me with Lewis here.
I disagree that " Amercans tend to glorify their deeds". Our military simply acknowledges and do their duty. They don't seek glory. Their combat motivation individually differs and likely changes over time. Survival is forever a strong,consistent motivational factor. Not only for ourselves, we also fight for our buddies sharing our common risk. I salute them in such instances.
What would the world look like if the world had not reacted to the Nazi invasion of Poland in Europe or to the aggressions of Japan in the Pacific in WWII? Sometimes options are reduced to only one realistic reaction. Under such dire conditions, the military accepts huge risk to respond against high negative outcome odds.
Soldiers are not "killers". They execute orders. Do they overreact in an excessive wrong way? Unfortunately, sometimes the answer to that question is "yes". Bad things do happen under emotionally charged situations. All folks are subject to bad decision making under extreme pressure. Americans recognize that distinction and do not glorify them.
We understand the difference between good and bad. What is perceived as good or bad often depends on perspective and elapsed time. However that often promotes an endless debate with no simple answer.
I disagree that " Amercans tend to glorify their deeds".
Your first words when you started this thread were:
The risks and uncertainties were beyond measure. Honor and glory to those who participated.
The noun "glory" is a cognate of "glorify." That is precisely what you were doing.
What would the world look like if the world had not reacted to the Nazi invasion of Poland in Europe or to the aggressions of Japan in the Pacific in WWII?
Except it wasn't the "world" that reacted. It was the Allies. Part of the world was also the "Axis" powers--the Germans, Japanese, Italians, etc. To conflate the American/British/Russian Allied cause with the entire world is a dangerous distortion because as I've said three times before on this thread and you now know there were soldiers on both sides. And those soldiers on the Axis side--the wrong side of history in retrospect--were told they were heroes and glorified just like you've done in this thread for killing as many Americans as possible.
Soldiers are not "killers".
That is precisely what those on the front lines are. That is what they're trained to do and what they're supposed to do during war. Sometimes killing is necessary though. More often it's not.
I had an uncle who was wounded while charging the beaches on that historic day. Uncle Mike never talked in terms of glory when he remembered that day. He freely acknowledged his fears, yet he did his duty. That was a rule rather then the exception on that world changing day. In the end, Uncle Mike died from his wounds. No glory here. Just persistent pain from recognizing and doing our duty. My Uncle never thought of himself as a killer. He was a kind and gentle man. Indeed "sometimes killing is necessary". Killing in peacetime and wartime are distinctly different acts.
@MJG Uncle Mike sounds like a good guy. Do you mean to extrapolate from this singular anecdote some generic truth for all soldiers worldwide, including those of America's historic enemies? And even if Mike was modest about his service, does that say anything about the constant parade of jingoism celebrating soldiers' heroism in the American media and in the media of other countries, including those of our historic enemies? I'm sure Kim Jong Un also celebrates North Korea's soldiers too, regardless whether they themselves are modest like Uncle Mike. You say "Killing in peacetime and wartime are distinctly different acts." Yes, one is legal and often celebrated even when it shouldn't be. Imagine a world in which killing another human being was always considered by everyone as one atrocious unacceptable act. There would be no such thing as war.
Good luck on your wish. Much more beyond luck is required. History tells a completely different story. I suppose a total rewiring of man is needed to even approach your wish, which most folks share.
Thank you for your excellent contributions. They are consistently worth reading and pondering.
@MJG True, it would require rewiring. Sometimes nations and individuals do bad things. Sometimes other nations and individuals have to stop them. But what happens when it's our nation, historians agree, that's done the bad thing? Should the soldiers following orders in such a situation be considered heroes for killing then?
@ MFO Members: On June 6th MJG posted a simple straight forward message to commemorate the invasion of Normandy and a link to the movie The Longest Day. However, a few MFO Members decided to turn the thread into an ant-American, anti-war diatribe. What a shame ! Regards, Ted
@MFO From June 6th through June 13th members had an enlightening discussion and spirited debate about the meaning of war and heroism. Then on June 13th Ted decided to use this as an opportunity to post snide comments and troll the thread. What a shame!
My quick reaction to your question about killing in a bad war is "yes". At the time of the action, soldiers are convinced of the rightness of their current actions. They believe they are the aggrieved party.
When Germany invaded Poland to initiate WWII, the German soldiers likely believed they were simply recovering their own land that had been taken from them as a penalty for WWI. It gets complex and confusing very rapidly.
The actual determination of the merits of a war are never made until many years later, and are never unanimous in a final assessment. Never an easy and universal judgment.
We ought to limit these exchanges. Folks will start to talk.
Comments
And I'm serious. I've been thinking the same thing for quite a while now. We're asking the military to disobey direct orders in the hope of saving this country. That's asking one hell of a lot, and I really wouldn't be surprised if it came down to that. That man is an unstable, ignorant, narcissistic fool.
I came of age in the Vietnam era and from my point of view that was when the notions of American patriotism and heroism were re-defined. The display of our flag, for instance, was co-opted by that portion of the population that said one should not undermine any war effort, just or unjust. The idiocy culminated in remarks from elders to the effect that what my generation needed was "a good war," so that we'd see the errors of our protesting ways. Slogans such as "Support Our Troops" came to represent a pro-war attitude, a very Orwellian distortion of language. The Brits still talk of soldiers who "a good war" to designate those who survived and whose service was praiseworthy. IMHO, it's better not to ask the veteran how good it was. I hope we can all agree that no war is "good," even one where there seemed to be a clear choice between good and evil.
Regards,
Ted
Ted, suggest you edit your post, just for the record here.
I'm what used to be called a Woody Guthrie patriot.
I know that I promised to abandon this specific discussion, but the personal attacks have prompted me to reconsider. Debating financial matters is the focus of this site; personal attacks are not and often reflect a weak position on the subject matter. Our worthy goal should be to eliminate such attacks. Make them go to zero.
I don't like to post without attempting some contribution to the topic. Military men (and women too) are not perfect. Some here have suggested that I believe this flawed opinion. Having served, I definitely do not accept this falsehood. Dishonorable discharges exist for a reason and are exercised every year. Here is a summary of discharges that I found for a recent timeframe:
According to data from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the discharges from the 2014-2015 fiscal year break down as:
Honorable: 78.29 percent
General – Under Honorable Conditions: 6.36 percent
Under Other Than Honorable Conditions: 2.09 percent
Bad Conduct: 0.49 percent
Dishonorable: 0.07 percent
The dishonorable discharge rate is not high , but it and others under undesirable circumstances illustrate that problem people exist in every occupation including the military. No surprises here. The numbers will change and are timeframe dependent.
These are some of the available statistical data. We all use data, but please be careful. Benjamin Disraeli noted that "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". Also consider Mark Twain's witty rejoinder: "It is easy to lie with statistics, but it is easier to lie without them".
I'm in the statistical collection, assessment, and deployment crowd.
Once again, I am finished with this post, but this time I really mean it. Ha ha!
Best Wishes
It's not you. Too many these days are looking for any reason to bunch up their underwear. But you know all this.
And yet you continue to duck my question because the honorable discharge statistics are meaningless when assessing American soldiers ostensible heroism without analyzing whether the cause to kill other human beings the state charged soldiers with is a just or unjust one. Soldiers dropping Napalm bombs on Vietnam that killed thousands of civilians and deforested the regions may have been following orders and still receive honorable discharge, but that does not make them heroic in my view or in that of much of the world, certainly not to the Vietnamese.
One basic fact, not opinion, fact, I've stated twice before that you have not responded to is that in every war there are at least two sides. Soldiers on both sides can't all be heroes if history is to judge one side or both sides wrong for killing other humans--the first and highest Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" if you are religious as many Americans claim to be. The same jingoistic propaganda employed in the U.S. that all soldiers are heroes is invariably employed by the opposition too. Somewhere in Iraq/the Middle East right now the leaders of ISIS/ISIL are telling their own soldiers and followers they are heroes for fighting back the American infidels. I'm also sure that Nazi soldiers and the German citizenry were told they were heroic for killing as many Americans, Brits, Russians and Jews as possible. Most historians see otherwise.
Even when one side is in the right, as for instance, the North was in the Civil War, it is never uniformly so. Sherman's March wreaked unnecessary havoc on the South and soldiers who participated in the burning of states down to the ground I hardly view as heroic. Meanwhile, on the Confederate Side, soldiers who actively betrayed our nation and sought to maintain slavery would be considered heroic by Confederate generals and politicians and receive the equivalent of "honorable discharge" for doing so.
The thing is it is not I who is pointing out the exception rather the rule. It's you by pointing to the longest day or battle of the bulge as heroism. But I would never consider an attempt to change that opinion. You own it, and it substantially differs from mine on soldierhood. Divergent opinions are common and always acceptable.
Much of what you said is personal opinion, not necessarily absolute fact. You often emphasize the exception rather than the rule. In every actual event, individual exceptions exist. So if you found that exception when American soldiers proved their heroism, good for you!
Soldiers on the front lines when all is said and done are professional or conscripted killers. I feel more empathy for the latter than the former. Sometimes killing is necessary--in self defense and to prevent genocide being two prime examples--more often than not it isn't. If I've gotten my "underwear bunched up" over it as Mark suggested, it's because I think killing other human beings is the most serious business on earth and shouldn't be taken lightly and deemed heroic without a thorough analysis. Some 2 million Vietnamese died during its war with the U.S. and about 60,000 Americans. Were the Americans doing the killing for our side all heroes and the Vietcong on the other side all evil losers? I don't think so. Yet both sides I'm sure perpetuate that old lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.
Thank you for your extensive reply. It likely absorbed a considerable time to prepare. I respect that. Your emotions run high on this subject, and I respect that too even though we have very disparate opinions on this matter.
All soldiers are not good soldiers. Some are good, some are bad. That's true in every discipline. There are good and bad folks among the priesthood. And who we place in each category differs among those doing the judging.
Good soldiers and good workers follow orders. Quiting is an option that is an especially hazardous challenge to implement within the military, but instances do exist with mixed outcomes.
When entering military service we take the following oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
But the orders must be lawful. If not, options also exist. It depends on the order. Military folks disobey orders at their own risk. They also obey orders at their own risk. Each soldier makes a decision in every instance and owns it. Infrequently, that is a difficult decision.
Best Wishes
From Waterloo to Omaha Beach (hundreds of years more if one includes the Bayeux tapestry detailing the exploits of William the Bastard), through all the small towns where one finds names of the soldiers from the towns who died in the "Great War" and the one that followed.
One sees the rain of utter destruction from all sides, century upon century, town after town after town. And the progression of war machinery from swords and horses to rifles and artillery to mass killing with poison gas and bombs. More and more "efficient", more and more dehumanizing.
Sure we were in Normandy on June 6, with lots of WWII gear parading about. We visited the American cemetery that is always crowded, and a British cemetery (including Moslem headstones) with virtually no visitors then or at any time. Perhaps because the British feel they simply did what they needed to for king and country, while Americans tend to glorify their deeds.
I for one will not do so. I will thank veterans for their service, for jobs well done. But that is all. Count me with Lewis here.
I disagree that " Amercans tend to glorify their deeds". Our military simply acknowledges and do their duty. They don't seek glory. Their combat motivation individually differs and likely changes over time. Survival is forever a strong,consistent motivational factor. Not only for ourselves, we also fight for our buddies sharing our common risk. I salute them in such instances.
What would the world look like if the world had not reacted to the Nazi invasion of Poland in Europe or to the aggressions of Japan in the Pacific in WWII? Sometimes options are reduced to only one realistic reaction. Under such dire conditions, the military accepts huge risk to respond against high negative outcome odds.
Soldiers are not "killers". They execute orders. Do they overreact in an excessive wrong way? Unfortunately, sometimes the answer to that question is "yes". Bad things do happen under emotionally charged situations. All folks are subject to bad decision making under extreme pressure. Americans recognize that distinction and do not glorify them.
We understand the difference between good and bad. What is perceived as good or bad often depends on perspective and elapsed time. However that often promotes an endless debate with no simple answer.
Best Wishes
A false counter.
And as for overglorification and valorization, you have not been to a sporting event recently, sounds like.
No one is arguing about relatives who showed courage and dutifulness during wartime.
I had an uncle who was wounded while charging the beaches on that historic day. Uncle Mike never talked in terms of glory when he remembered that day. He freely acknowledged his fears, yet he did his duty. That was a rule rather then the exception on that world changing day. In the end, Uncle Mike died from his wounds. No glory here. Just persistent pain from recognizing and doing our duty. My Uncle never thought of himself as a killer. He was a kind and gentle man. Indeed "sometimes killing is necessary". Killing in peacetime and wartime are distinctly different acts.
Best Wishes
Good luck on your wish. Much more beyond luck is required. History tells a completely different story. I suppose a total rewiring of man is needed to even approach your wish, which most folks share.
Thank you for your excellent contributions. They are consistently worth reading and pondering.
Best Wishes
@MJG: Well, you certainly read my mind very clearly on that one.
Regards,
Ted
My quick reaction to your question about killing in a bad war is "yes". At the time of the action, soldiers are convinced of the rightness of their current actions. They believe they are the aggrieved party.
When Germany invaded Poland to initiate WWII, the German soldiers likely believed they were simply recovering their own land that had been taken from them as a penalty for WWI. It gets complex and confusing very rapidly.
The actual determination of the merits of a war are never made until many years later, and are never unanimous in a final assessment. Never an easy and universal judgment.
We ought to limit these exchanges. Folks will start to talk.
Best Wishes
You mean Ted who called the warfighters-turned-COs in the videos yellow-bellies? That Ted? The one with the moviestar icon?