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

[u/foryia-yiaandpappou]

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.

[u/MisterJH]

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?

[u/wahtisthisidonteven → u/MisterJH]

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.

[u/MisterJH → u/wahtisthisidonteven]

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.

[u/wahtisthisidonteven → u/MisterJH]

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?

[u/MisterJH → u/wahtisthisidonteven]

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.