Among the lost opportunities in this crazed electoral system is any real discussion of the topic all candidates claim to value above all others: namely, the aims toward which the United States commits force, the strategies and weapons and doctrines with which it does so, and the obligations it owes to the one percent of the population exposed to life-and-death risks in the country’s name.
This was the theme I addressed early last year in “The Tragedy of the American Military” (for which my working title was “Chickenhawk Nation”) and that readers have been discussing over the months in this thread.
Now a note from a young veteran about why serious attention to the realities of the military matters — and despite all the “Salute to the Heroes!” halftime observances, is still not taking place. In addition to the many substantive points this reader makes, I highlight it to illustrate a chasm. On the one side of the divide is a very small proportion of Americans who wrestle with the complexity of military issues, in many cases because they’re personally exposed to them. On the other side are most of the rest of us, with flip “boots on the grounds” comments and political sloganeering about “being tough” and “winning again.”
Over to the reader:
I've had your article "The Tragedy of the American Military" bookmarked for several months but just now got around to reading it….
It's not an easy task to "call out" the military establishment but it needs to be done. You note in your article "those who did not serve are almost invariably afraid to criticize the military because of their not having served." I wonder if part of this hesitancy might derive from or be heightened by the actions of some veterans and current service-members who are quick to point out when people they disagree with haven't served, as an attempt to de-legitimize their views or attack their character.
As an example, the internet is rife with commenters dismissing the new Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning as not suited for the job simply because he hasn't served, despite his impressive resume and qualifications. The same type of vitriolic comments are frequently directed at Secretary Carter and other civilians within the DOD, as if prior military service is the most important factor in determining someone's qualifications or even their worth as a person.
In my 5 years (and counting) in the National Guard, ROTC, and Army Reserves I've run into manifestations of this looking-down-the-nose attitude in many different places, although it seems to be more prevalent within active duty circles than among the weekend warrior types.
It's rare to go a day in the Army without hearing at least one reference to the oft-quoted 1% statistic. I once had a commander who frequently remarked that he hates "dirty nasty civilians." I think a certain amount of contempt for laziness and the other diseases of modern society is a natural result of the disciplined, regimented lifestyle that one has to adopt in the military, but taken to the extreme this contempt becomes generalized and applied towards civilians as a whole, the very people whom we're sworn to protect. Actions like these from the veteran community leave a bad taste in the mouth and certainly don't add anything positive to the discussion.
This elitist attitude, while understandable, is perhaps even more detrimental for those who perpetuate it than the target of their scorn.
***