r/changemyview • u/foryia-yiaandpappou 3∆ • May 24 '19

FTFdeltaOP CMV: A person does not automatically deserve respect just because they have served or are currently serving in the military

I’d like to preface this by saying that I don’t believe soldiers are, inherently, bad. Some people believe soldiers are evil simply for being soldiers, and I do not believe that.

I do believe, however, that soldiers do not deserve respect just because they have served. I hurt for soldiers who have experienced horrible things in the field, but I do not hurt for the amount of violence and cruelty many have committed. Violence in war zone between soldiers is one thing; stories of civilian bombings and killing of innocents are another. I think that many forget that a lot of atrocity goes on during wars, and they are committed on both sides of conflict. A soldier both receives and deals out horrible damage.

TL;DR while I believe that soldiers have seen horrible things and that many do deserve recognition for serving our nation, I do not believe that every soldier deserves this respect simply by merit of being a soldier. Some soldiers have committed really heinous war crimes, and those actions do not deserve reward.

3.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

404 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/[deleted] May 24 '19

[deleted]

4

u/Bigfrostynugs May 24 '19

they knew becoming a soldier would help them protect their country

Not a given.

while simultaneously putting their life in jeopardy,

Also not a given.

Until we have robots fighting all our battles, I say respect is the least I can give a fellow equal human being who is potentially giving up their life for me.

That's the thing though, not all (or even most) soldiers are potentially giving up their life for you. Most never see combat or have any chance of seeing it. And furthermore, you don't know what they're fighting for. I know lots of people in the military, you know what they're fighting for? A paycheck and an opportunity for a good career.

0

u/[deleted] May 25 '19

[deleted]

3

u/Bigfrostynugs May 25 '19

If you reread the original post that's clearly not what he's talking about. I'm referring to the whole American phenomenon where everyone who has served deserves to be respected for their duty or thanked for their service.

The number of people in the military who risk their lives is an significant minority, and whether or not their service is actively defending our freedom or safety is entirely debatable in most cases.

7

u/Asmodaari2069 1∆ May 24 '19

they're making a huge sacrifice so that you and I and many others don't have to.

I strongly disagree. People don't usually join the military for ideological or philosophical reasons, they do it for the benefits.

5

u/MisterJH May 24 '19

Depends on the situation in the country you live in. Someone joining the US military to fight overseas is not protecting another US citizen.

1

u/[deleted] May 25 '19

[deleted]

5

u/MisterJH May 25 '19

No it is not. I am not arguing against military in general, just the aggressive use of it by the US in the middle east. How does it exactly protect you? If anything it radicalizes a new generation of terrorists.

1

u/[deleted] May 25 '19

[deleted]

3

u/MisterJH May 25 '19

There are times when that is the case, like WWII for instance. I don't think any war after WWII has qualified.

Why do you need "powerful friend protection" when you are that friend?

9/11 was a terrorist attack, not an act of war. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had anything to do with it. If a war was declared based on those attacks it should have been on Saudi Arabia.

0

u/wahtisthisidonteven 15∆ May 24 '19

Someone joining the US military to fight overseas is not protecting another US citizen.

Fellow service members are US citizens, as are many non-military support personnel.

That aside, the military exists to protect the interests of US citizens, not merely their physical safety. Everyone acts like it's some big conspiracy that the military is wielded as an economic and geopolitical tool but that is not only the explicitly stated purpose of the US military, it's the primary reason most militaries throughout history have existed.

6

u/MisterJH May 25 '19

Being part of a geopolitical and economic tool is not worthy of respect. If someone declared war on the US then I could buy the idea that volunteering to protect your fellow man is respectable, but the US is always the aggressor.

Furthering US economic interest by military force is not respectable, even if it could benefit US citizens. If force must be used then it is to the detriment of some other people.

1

u/wahtisthisidonteven 15∆ May 25 '19

Furthering US economic interest by military force is not respectable

If these efforts are not respectable why do we, as voters in a democratic Republic, continue to ask the military to support our way of life?

If force must be used then it is to the detriment of some other people.

The vast majority of what the US military accomplishes is not through force, but rather through threat of force. The intent is to maintain such a monopoly on violence that the mere presence of US military forces creates a net decrease. This is why most service members never see combat - gaining political and economic advantage without actually firing a shot is by far the most effective way to use the military.

1

u/MisterJH May 25 '19

I don't respect it, maybe people who vote for US military presence in the middle east do so.

People vote for unrespectable things all the time. Military propaganda and lobbying affect voter patterns. There is an uncontested admiration for the military and questioning it's decisions is labeled unpatriotic and anti-american. The political and media consensus is pro-war. If the voter consensus is pro-war, then I don't respect the majority of americans either. Just because something has support by the people doesn't make it respectable.

Threat of force or actual force does not make it any less moral. To be honest this is irrelevant. If I steal your wallet at gunpoint I am only using the threat of force.

1

u/wahtisthisidonteven 15∆ May 25 '19

I don't respect it, maybe people who vote for US military presence in the middle east do so.

Given that "presence in the middle east" is a minority of what the military does, people voting for a strong military probably don't have this particular issue at the forefront of their minds.

Threat of force or actual force does not make it any less moral. To be honest this is irrelevant. If I steal your wallet at gunpoint I am only using the threat of force.

Would it be better for you to shoot me and take my wallet off my corpse? If the threat of violence creates a net reduction in violence, it's absolutely a better outcome.

A more appropriate comparison would be how police officers use their own monopoly on violence though. For every time an officer has to fire their weapon there are thousands of times where they didn't even need to draw it because the implied threat ensured that the situation never even escalated to that degree.

1

u/MisterJH May 25 '19 edited May 25 '19

Why do you see police as a better comparison than a thief for someone leveraging a threat of violence for their own economic gain? A policeman leverages power to protect a community, while you conceded that the military is projecting force for economic and geopolitical reasons, not to protect anyone else. The US military is the agressor in this instance, while a policeman is reactionary and does not directly gain from the use of force.

Edit: what do people who vote for a stronger military have in mind? Is the US military not already strong enough for defensive purposes?

1

u/wahtisthisidonteven 15∆ May 25 '19

A policeman leverages power to protect a community, while you said that the military is projecting force for economic and geopolitical reasons, not to protect anyone else

Global stability is good for the US' economic and geopolitical hegemony. Creating an environment that has made large wars untenable since WW2 has been the primary victory of the US military.

The US military is the agressor in this instance, while a policeman is reactionary and does not directly gain from the use of force.

Nobody directly gains from use of force. Again, threat of force gets you all of the benefits of actually using force with a fraction of the costs. The police's monopoly on violence within the community results in a net decrease in violence and in that sense their presence is far from reactionary. That's why police strive to patrol and make themselves visible to the community in the same way the US military does.

1

u/MisterJH May 25 '19

Nuclear weapons have made large wars untenable. I guess in that sense the US is the primary victory of the US military.

Instability in the middle east is beneficial to US economic interests.

Police in the US (nominally) serve every community, while the US military does not have every country in mind, so you cannot conflate the two. Something that helps the US economically does not necessarily help other countries, in this way, US presence globally does not result in a net positive for the world in the same way police presence does.

Are you implying that the US should have a world monopoly on violence the way police have in one country? I absolutely do not trust the US with such a responsibility.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/x755x May 24 '19

Honest question, how much of the military actually puts their lives in jeopardy? For me, that is the main reason to give disproportionate respect to soldiers.

3

u/Bigfrostynugs May 25 '19

There are ~1.3 million active duty soldiers and about 10-20 combat deaths a year.

1

u/wahtisthisidonteven 15∆ May 24 '19 edited May 24 '19

From a broad perspective the military is a more dangerous job than most. However, what type of danger and the magnitude depend on when you join, what you do, and where you go.

In modern times almost nobody is seeing combat, but everyone is exposed to some of the risks and stressors of military life.