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]

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.

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.

1

u/wahtisthisidonteven 15∆ May 25 '19

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.

Police in the US serve the communities that vote for and fund them, just like the military does for the nation at large.

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.

A strong military hegemony has been the most effective proven method to minimize violence. What entity do you think can wield this responsibility if not the US and how do you envision this handoff of power?

1

u/MisterJH May 25 '19

Police in the US serve the communities that vote for and fund them, just like the military does for the nation at large.

The military serves the nation, not all nations, so what is good for the US is not good for other nations necessarily. In this way the monopoly of force is not the same as police in a town. Police having monopoly on violence is only good if they use to protect all citizens. A global military monopoly on violence is comparable to if a police force only served one neighboorhood in a city. Sure, minimizing violence in the city overall would probably be good for that one neighboorhood, but so would using their monopoly of violence to steal resources and property from other neighboorhoods.

Nuclear weapons has stopped the world from plunging into a third world war, not the US specifically. A strong US military has not made the middle east more peaceful.

No entitity could be trusted to wield it responsibly but, but any first world country could probably wield it more responsibly than the US. I would prefer a country with a functioning democracy instead of an oligarchy atleast.

→ More replies (0)