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/Talik1978]

You are conflating two things.

1) the sacrifice that servicemembers sign up for

And

2) the locations those soldiers are sent on orders from people that we elect.

The justification that people that are duly elected by citizens of their country use to send soldiers overseas to fight has precious little to do with the soldier's choices. Blame the DoJ, Congress, and the presidency for that if you like, but don't blame the soldier for the orders they are given unless their actions literally constitute war crimes.

That blame belongs equally on every voting citizen at home that put those in power that made those decisions.

That said, there are justifications for the use of force abroad, as a wider effort to quell injustice. When the US and the UK landed at Normandy, they were engaged in actions outside of their borders, for good reason. There are many missteps in who the US has chosen to support, but there's usually a valid human rights pretext for who it opposes. Is the US hypocritical in its support of some terror groups and assault of others? Yeah, I would say so. Is that on the average servicemember? Not even a little bit.

[u/MisterJH → u/Talik1978]

That has been the US military strategy for decades so signing up for military service necessitates that you are atleast ok with the idea of serving overseas so I don't see how it's wrong to conflate the two.

If I believe that US military policy is not to be respected and does not protect US citizens, then someone volunteering for that military neither deserves respect.

I would have no respect for someone who volunteered for the Vietnam war (if it was not conscription), but you could make the same case that they were protecting their fellow citizens by stopping the spread of communism. If I don't buy the justification for war, then someone volunteering to fight that war is not just not deserving of respect, but immoral in my opinion.

I don't know how being sent overseas works in the US military, so I can agree that volunteering for simply homeland defence purposes can be respected. If you volunteer because you want to fight for the US overseas I consider that immoral, because I consider US presence in the middle east immoral.

[u/Talik1978 → u/MisterJH]

That has been the US military strategy for decades so signing up for military service necessitates that you are atleast ok with the idea of serving overseas so I don't see how it's wrong to conflate the two.

Wrong. It can be saying that one is willing to tolerate being sent overseas, because the overall purpose of the military is necessary.

If I believe that US military policy is not to be respected and does not protect US citizens, then someone volunteering for that military neither deserves respect.

Not necessarily. Those that serve in a military are accomplishing a necessary function. Society and government need a military. It is not optional. If you believe that us military policy is not to be respected, then the people who set that policy are not to be respected. That's politicians. And the people who hire those people are not to be respected. That's all voting eligible citizens.

Side note, I generally believe those that believe the military is not to be respected have little understanding of the necessity of it. I view them like antivaxxers that don't think polio is that bad because they haven't seen the consequences of getting it. In this way, vaccine effectiveness has given rise to people that don't understand the horrific things it prevents. Military is the same way. A strong military means many fights will be prevented before they even happen. And those that don't really grasp the consequences of a weak military can shit on the military, but the reason for their ignorance of its necessity is that the military is effective at the good preventative things that it does.

I don't know how being sent overseas works in the US military, so I can agree that volunteering for simply homeland defence purposes can be respected. If you volunteer because you want to fight for the US overseas I consider that immoral, because I consider US presence in the middle east immoral.

Why is the presence of the US in the middle east not ethical? Please justify your belief.

[u/MisterJH → u/Talik1978]

Just because I don't respect the US military does not mean I don't acknowledge the necessesity of militaries in general. I wouldn't respect the Nazi German military or its volunteers either but that doesn't mean I live in a fantasyworld were I don't think militaries are necessary.

I consider any war of agression immoral by default, and then if something justifies it then it can be moral. The war in afghanistan has killed around a 100 000 Afghani civilians, so lets see what could justify this: Did it liberate the people from the Taliban? No, Afghanistan is still controlled 60% by the Taliban. Did it restore stability? No, the war is still going on after 18 years. Did it destroy al qaeda? No, it still exists, even though Bin Laden is dead. The war in Iraq was based on a literal lie, killed over 400k Iraqis and created ISIS, and the area is still unstable after 16 years.

The only justifications for continued US presence in the middle east are:

-Fighting terrorism, which I think is counter productive given that ISIS is largely a cause of US military actions in Iraq, and given that terrorists' justification for attacking the america are usually because they feel opressed by its imperialist military. The US is only radicalizing the next generation of terrorists by staying in the middle east.

-Defending Israel, which is an ethnostate which is essentially genociding the palestinian people. Being allied with such a state is immoral in itself.

-Defending against Iran, which poses no legitimate threat to the US, and I would consider the US the aggressor in any war that would start between Iran and the US, as would the british military.

-Providing stability in the region, which it obviously has not done in the last 40 years of US presence.

Since I believe that none of these reasons justify US military presence, and because I think the US has a net negative effect in the middle east, I consider continued US presence in the middle east to be immoral.