Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs, And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots, But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time, But someone still was yelling out and stumbling And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.— Dim through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,— My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori."
I was a proud member of the US military a few years ago. I remember I was continuously exposed to survival techniques. Winning was the only option.
I own the US Army survival Manuel. It has terrific instruction and tips that are useful in civilian circumstances too. I recommend you get a copy. Here is a Link to that insightful Manuel:
@Davidrmoran I'm not a pacifist, but I am tired of the constant glamorization of war/the military and the mythology surrounding the greatest generation: https://thedailybeast.com/the-not-always-greatest-generation?ref=scroll Suffice it to say I have/had relatives who were members of the greatest generation and fought in the war. They did their duty but didn't like to talk about it and saw nothing glorious or honorable about warfare or being in the military. The truth is,state sanctioned killing of other human beings is always a dirty business regardless of which side is doing it, even when it's necessary as it was in WW II for the U.S..
@Ted No, I haven't. Nor do I have any desire to as it would mean people could die needlessly at my hands. And from the looks of your avatar, you seem to have more of a fondness for Hollywood fantasies of war and the military than the ugly reality of it. In fact, I'm fairly certain if every politician and pro-war yahoo had to send their own children to the front lines the U.S. would not be mired in any unnecessary conflicts today.
@LewisBraham, I don't disagree with a thing you say --- the automatic glamorization is repulsive, and the pro-sports romance worse than that. I just thought it was striking to post that about one of the morally clearcut wartime events of the modern era, and considered that only a pacifist could do such a thing. For another such, I know I've posted this in the past: https://davidrmoran.wordpress.com/ I have had immediate family in the Navy and Marines. But no, not for me, and no desire in the last 55y. Did you happen to see this disturbing wrapup, the most succinct I have read: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/26/what-went-wrong-in-vietnam
@Lewis: From your response, I take it you have never served you country in the military ! Regards, Ted
Ted. I believe the person who wrote the poem Lewis posted served his country. WW1 I believe. My guess is that poem is a more accurate representation of battle, more so than the glorification of a patriotic rendition from Paul Anka (who I'm pretty sure didn't serve anything). I don't have anything against the patriotic flare. I guess it feels better to remember it that way. But it does assist in masking the horror of it all. But, just my 2 cents.
@davidrmoran Thanks. It sounds like your grandfather Sherwood was a righteous man.
“Maj. Sherwood Moran of the U.S. Marines lived in Japan … and spoke fluent Japanese, and was a particularly effective interrogator because he treated each prisoner as another human rather than as the enemy.
This is still true today with regard to criminal confessions too. "Enhanced interrogation" doesn't work. I started the New Yorker piece but haven't finished, but yes in my view WW II was the last moral war the U.S. fought.
This post quickly expanded beyond my initial purpose. I was simply attempting to salute our brave military men, not even the military establishment itself. Your posts turned that simple goal into a complex discussion of the morality of war. That is never simple and has haunted us forever.
Remember that our military spends most of its time keeping the peace. That too is its vital and practical duty. And the military has long recognized that difficult function. As General Marshall famously said: "The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it." That's an insightful observation based on experience.
Remember that our military spends most of its time keeping the peace. That too is its vital and practical duty.
I don't think this has been true in Vietnam or Iraq. Much has changed in America's military since WW II. It is now a massive industry controlled to a significant degree by the private sector with shareholders who profit from war-like activity. Even traditional old-school Republicans while recognizing the ostensible peacekeeping role don't completely agree with you. From Republican president and former general Dwight Eisenhower:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Indeed it is a tough balancing of competing forces. That's a constant over time. The competing forces themselves help to keep that balance with their demands. Constant attention is mandatory.
Thanks for your research that uncovered the Eisenhower observation. Unfortunately war is profitable for some elements of our society; never for the grunt soldier.
Unfortunately war is profitable for some elements of our society; never for the grunt soldier.
If war isn't profitable for grunt soldiers, that still doesn't mean that every grunt soldier is by default a hero and worthy of glory and honor. Much depends on whether the state's cause for killing other human beings is a just one. One can see the problematic logic of the jingoistic fallacy that all soldiers are heroes--a fallacy promoted in the U.S. today--in analyzing the military campaigns for unjust causes. Few would argue that all the grunt soldiers on the German side of WW II were heroes worthy of honor and glory. In fact, most would agree that it was those German soldiers and citizens who deserted or actively resisted the Nazis nationalistic campaign against other nations that were heroes.
Similarly, in the U.S. it is hard to make a case that the grunt soldiers who fought on the side of the Southern confederacy in the Civil War were heroes. At best I can muster pity for those soldiers caught up in a campaign they maybe didn't fully believe in to rebel against the nation and maintain the vile institution of slavery. Those soldiers who actively believed in the cause earn nothing but my disdain. Putting up statues and memorials for Confederate generals and soldiers is tantamount to putting up a statue celebrating Benedict Arnold. They were literally traitors. It also worth noting that most of the Confederate statues were erected many years after the war ended in the 1920s and 1960s during the rise of the Klu Klux Klan.
Also, it is simply untrue that war is never profitable for grunt soldiers. In the history of war, many soldiers have pillaged and looted communities to their own profit--and done worse to the women and children. I would add even in less extreme conditions like today, the military can be a highly profitable career for U.S. citizens. I would hazard to guess that many soldiers sign up today as a route out of poverty and a chance at a free or cheaper college education. For many it may be the only way they can afford college. That does not make them automatically heroic. Rather, it's a sad testament to how unaffordable a college education in America is today.
Finally, I would add even when the cause for war is just as it was in WW II, that does not make all soldiers who fought automatically heroes worthy of honor or glory. As the aforementioned article I linked stated:
The American soldiers in Europe and the Pacific were unbelievably brave. Tens of thousands of them made the ultimate sacrifice. Collectively, they helped save Western civilization. But 16 million Americans served in the Second World War, and they were a varied bunch. Lots were heroic, but many weren’t.
The articles details much of the bad behavior of American G.I.s stationed in Italy who saw no time on the front line. And even in the cases of those who saw action, what is "glorious" or even honorable about seeing your friends and comrades die or get their limbs blown off? There is nothing glorious about that--tragically sad more like that things ever had to come to that.
Stating that all soldiers are heroes is dangerous as it abrogates them of any individual responsibility for their actions as instruments of the state. In fact, I believe the jingoistic propaganda that they are all heroes is specifically for that purpose--the tacit implication that the state's actions in war are always just and that soldiers needn't be concerned that they will be perceived as invaders or murderers for their actions but always heroic freedom fighters. But in every war either one side is wrong or both sides are if you truly believe killing is wrong as America--ostensibly a religious nation--claims to believe. The question for every soldier and American citizen to ask with each war is: Are we on the right side or wrong side of history?
Thanks again for your recent post. It clearly demonstrates a firm opinion that has many emotional aspects to it. I would never consider an attempt to change that opinion. You own it, and it substantially differs from mine on soldierhood. Divergent opinions are common and always acceptable.
Much of what you said is personal opinion, not necessarily absolute fact. You often emphasize the exception rather than the rule. In every actual event, individual exceptions exist. Some do good, some do harm.Grunt soldiers are no exception. And these poor souls do not make the decision to fight a war or not to war.
I am proud to have served in both an active and a reserve military duty capacity. I never fired a shot in anger but some good did happen. I met and married my wife of 58 years while serving. Good things do happen.
History is hard to predict, and it's interpretation changes over time and perspective. In this arena, absolutes do not exist and fail to survive.
My Pa served in the front lines in WW II (heavy artillery). Shot people and got shot at. Lost many comrades. His best home town buddy did not return home. Pa developed nothing but anathema towards war. It was exceedingly hard to get him to talk about his experiences. He rarely did. But if I might dare speak for him, I think he’d say: “The cause was noble. The means were not.”
You often emphasize the exception rather than the rule. In every actual event, individual exceptions exist. Some do good, some do harm.Grunt soldiers are no exception. And these poor souls do not make the decision to fight a war or not to war.
Soldiers absolutely can make the decision to fight or not to fight in a war they perceive as unjust. Those who choose not to are called conscientious objectors. As for my emphasizing the exception rather than the rule, can you tell me how many of the following military conflicts the U.S. military was justified in fighting and whether more of them were justified than not?
Also, if there are two sides to every war, are you assuming that both sides are right and that soldiers on both sides are heroes? Or are you just making a case for American exceptionalism, i.e., that we fight better more moral wars than most countries do and thus all or most of our soldiers are heroes? Because if one side is always wrong in a military conflict and sometimes both sides are wrong, then heroism by default in war by soldiers is the exception rather than the rule. That is unless you count military actions by soldiers for an unjust evil cause as heroism.
You have articulated your views in this thread extremely well. (I’m in awe.) Look forward to @MJG’s response to the above questions.
Just wanted to add some thoughts on my Dad’s experiences (first in France and later on German soil). Keep in mind this was an 18-19 year old kid just out of school. But two reactions stand out. First, I think he was genuinely surprised at the decency of the average German citizens when he encountered them in person. Not some 3-headed fire-breathing monsters as the war hype had prepared him for. Just humble hard working human beings with farms to tend to, families to care for, etc. Secondly, he was a bit perplexed that none of them appeared pro-Hitler. Far from that, they near universally claimed to have opposed the Führer and to have voted against him.
Conscientious objectors have existed forever. It is definity not a new thing. The percentages of US conscientious objectors were under 1% for both WWI and WWII. That US number was just over 4% for the Vietnam conflict. Men have been jailed for refusing to serve. I don't challenge their beliefs or courage.
These are small numbers. They are the exceptions. They clearly illustrate your tendency to emphasize the exception rather than the rule.
I make no claims to right or wrong judgments in war. Each case is different, difficult to analyse, and far to complex for simple generalizations. I pass. Investing decisions are difficult enough for me.
They are the exceptions. They clearly illustrate your tendency to emphasize the exception rather than the rule.
I never commented on the percentage of soldiers who are conscientious objectors and whether or not they were heroic, merely that your contention that soldiers have no choice but to fight in wars is false. My primary question was focused on whether the majority of soldiers who do fight should automatically be considered heroic--a question you have carefully ducked and deflected to focus on objectors instead.
No he hasn't Lewis. Soldiers have to follow lawful orders. There is no choice without consequences. Most soldiers themselves would never claim to be heroic or that they performed heroic deeds. They would tell you that they were just doing their jobs.
@Mark Regardless whether soldiers perceive themselves as heroes--I suspect you're right that many don't--the constant depiction on this board and in the media in general is that soldier = hero no matter what the conflict we are currently mired in, and it is part of an ongoing debate on this board it seems about whether or not for instance players in a football stadium are being respectful enough to our military and patriotic enough if they take a knee during the national anthem, a debate I find patently absurd. Regarding following lawful orders, well one of the classic excuses you would hear after WW II from the other side was "I was just following orders." Sometimes disobeying orders if they're inhumane is the heroic thing to do even if it is against the law.
On that we agree and I most certainly hope there are some who will do so when the twit in chief tells them to hit the red button because his feelings got hurt.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
The Planning of "Operation Overlord"
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~kmmurray/The Longest Day/planning operation overlord.html
I am curious that you posted that famous savagely antiwar poem with regard to the Allied invasion of Europe --- are you a pacifist?
I was a proud member of the US military a few years ago. I remember I was continuously exposed to survival techniques. Winning was the only option.
I own the US Army survival Manuel. It has terrific instruction and tips that are useful in civilian circumstances too. I recommend you get a copy. Here is a Link to that insightful Manuel:
http://www.preppers.info/uploads/FM21-76_SurvivalManual.pdf
It works.
Best Wishes
https://thedailybeast.com/the-not-always-greatest-generation?ref=scroll
Suffice it to say I have/had relatives who were members of the greatest generation and fought in the war. They did their duty but didn't like to talk about it and saw nothing glorious or honorable about warfare or being in the military. The truth is,state sanctioned killing of other human beings is always a dirty business regardless of which side is doing it, even when it's necessary as it was in WW II for the U.S..
Regards,
Ted
I don't disagree with a thing you say --- the automatic glamorization is repulsive, and the pro-sports romance worse than that.
I just thought it was striking to post that about one of the morally clearcut wartime events of the modern era, and considered that only a pacifist could do such a thing.
For another such, I know I've posted this in the past:
https://davidrmoran.wordpress.com/
I have had immediate family in the Navy and Marines. But no, not for me, and no desire in the last 55y.
Did you happen to see this disturbing wrapup, the most succinct I have read:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/26/what-went-wrong-in-vietnam
@LewisBraham- I absolutely share your opinion.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-news-state-department-dday-germany-20180605-story.html
(I couldn’t make this stuff up.)
This post quickly expanded beyond my initial purpose. I was simply attempting to salute our brave military men, not even the military establishment itself. Your posts turned that simple goal into a complex discussion of the morality of war. That is never simple and has haunted us forever.
Remember that our military spends most of its time keeping the peace. That too is its vital and practical duty. And the military has long recognized that difficult function. As General Marshall famously said: "The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it." That's an insightful observation based on experience.
Regardless, thank you all for your contributions.
Best Wishes
Indeed it is a tough balancing of competing forces. That's a constant over time. The competing forces themselves help to keep that balance with their demands. Constant attention is mandatory.
Thanks for your research that uncovered the Eisenhower observation. Unfortunately war is profitable for some elements of our society; never for the grunt soldier.
Best Wishes
Similarly, in the U.S. it is hard to make a case that the grunt soldiers who fought on the side of the Southern confederacy in the Civil War were heroes. At best I can muster pity for those soldiers caught up in a campaign they maybe didn't fully believe in to rebel against the nation and maintain the vile institution of slavery. Those soldiers who actively believed in the cause earn nothing but my disdain. Putting up statues and memorials for Confederate generals and soldiers is tantamount to putting up a statue celebrating Benedict Arnold. They were literally traitors. It also worth noting that most of the Confederate statues were erected many years after the war ended in the 1920s and 1960s during the rise of the Klu Klux Klan.
Also, it is simply untrue that war is never profitable for grunt soldiers. In the history of war, many soldiers have pillaged and looted communities to their own profit--and done worse to the women and children. I would add even in less extreme conditions like today, the military can be a highly profitable career for U.S. citizens. I would hazard to guess that many soldiers sign up today as a route out of poverty and a chance at a free or cheaper college education. For many it may be the only way they can afford college. That does not make them automatically heroic. Rather, it's a sad testament to how unaffordable a college education in America is today.
Finally, I would add even when the cause for war is just as it was in WW II, that does not make all soldiers who fought automatically heroes worthy of honor or glory. As the aforementioned article I linked stated: The articles details much of the bad behavior of American G.I.s stationed in Italy who saw no time on the front line. And even in the cases of those who saw action, what is "glorious" or even honorable about seeing your friends and comrades die or get their limbs blown off? There is nothing glorious about that--tragically sad more like that things ever had to come to that.
Stating that all soldiers are heroes is dangerous as it abrogates them of any individual responsibility for their actions as instruments of the state. In fact, I believe the jingoistic propaganda that they are all heroes is specifically for that purpose--the tacit implication that the state's actions in war are always just and that soldiers needn't be concerned that they will be perceived as invaders or murderers for their actions but always heroic freedom fighters. But in every war either one side is wrong or both sides are if you truly believe killing is wrong as America--ostensibly a religious nation--claims to believe. The question for every soldier and American citizen to ask with each war is: Are we on the right side or wrong side of history?
Thanks again for your recent post. It clearly demonstrates a firm opinion that has many emotional aspects to it. I would never consider an attempt to change that opinion. You own it, and it substantially differs from mine on soldierhood. Divergent opinions are common and always acceptable.
Much of what you said is personal opinion, not necessarily absolute fact. You often emphasize the exception rather than the rule. In every actual event, individual exceptions exist. Some do good, some do harm.Grunt soldiers are no exception. And these poor souls do not make the decision to fight a war or not to war.
I am proud to have served in both an active and a reserve military duty capacity. I never fired a shot in anger but some good did happen. I met and married my wife of 58 years while serving. Good things do happen.
History is hard to predict, and it's interpretation changes over time and perspective. In this arena, absolutes do not exist and fail to survive.
Best Wishes
https://globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946
Also, if there are two sides to every war, are you assuming that both sides are right and that soldiers on both sides are heroes? Or are you just making a case for American exceptionalism, i.e., that we fight better more moral wars than most countries do and thus all or most of our soldiers are heroes? Because if one side is always wrong in a military conflict and sometimes both sides are wrong, then heroism by default in war by soldiers is the exception rather than the rule. That is unless you count military actions by soldiers for an unjust evil cause as heroism.
You have articulated your views in this thread extremely well. (I’m in awe.) Look forward to @MJG’s response to the above questions.
Just wanted to add some thoughts on my Dad’s experiences (first in France and later on German soil). Keep in mind this was an 18-19 year old kid just out of school. But two reactions stand out. First, I think he was genuinely surprised at the decency of the average German citizens when he encountered them in person. Not some 3-headed fire-breathing monsters as the war hype had prepared him for. Just humble hard working human beings with farms to tend to, families to care for, etc. Secondly, he was a bit perplexed that none of them appeared pro-Hitler. Far from that, they near universally claimed to have opposed the Führer and to have voted against him.
FWIW
Conscientious objectors have existed forever. It is definity not a new thing. The percentages of US conscientious objectors were under 1% for both WWI and WWII. That US number was just over 4% for the Vietnam conflict. Men have been jailed for refusing to serve. I don't challenge their beliefs or courage.
These are small numbers. They are the exceptions. They clearly illustrate your tendency to emphasize the exception rather than the rule.
I make no claims to right or wrong judgments in war. Each case is different, difficult to analyse, and far to complex for simple generalizations. I pass. Investing decisions are difficult enough for me.
This completes my participation on this subject.
Best Wishes