Military Reenlistment and the general public

[IDrinkaRum]

My father was 23 years Air Force and was in the Communications Squadron. When he first joined, if you dialed "O" for operator, you would probably have gotten him. Then he decided he wanted to do more than be an operator, and so he up and went with the computer side of the communications.

He was issued fatigues and gas mask and such and went on little excursions on the base. (This was mid to late 1970s). But other than that? Nothing.

I have forgotten about the "I hate the cops" threads on CS, the_std. What can I say? I'm an old woman with a memory that is as sharp as a rusted out steel trap.

[Slytovhand]

Evandril - and IDAR - yeah, I know, the military organisation is massive. And the point is definitely noted... after all, you all hear about who got shot and how in Iraq, you don't hear about the hospitals, schools and bridges done up by the engineering sections, nor how they are training medics and nurses, and all the other good non-violent stuff that is being done. Hell, I'm hoping that's why people choose to join up.

But I would say that in most ppl's minds, 'military'='war' or at least, 'guns'.

The 'enforcer' bit still holds though - just as the police aren't the ones to make the laws they enforce.

[Shards]

Slyt, I like you, and I respect your right to the opinions you have, however, I have to ask, what's wrong with the military=war reason for signing up?

My grandparents were less than 10 city blocks away from the trade towers on 9/11, I was 11, and they were the two people I cared about most in the world. It took my father and I nearly 48 hours to maintain contact just to find out they were still alive. I got lucky and didn't lose anyone, but other people weren't so lucky, and the fact is, I got mad. I hated the people who flew those planes full of innocent people into a building so central to so many people's lives, and I considered the people who brought the plane they were on down in my state's woodlands to be heroes. As we pursued what leads we could find to give them what they deserved, we continued to see our own men killed by suicide bombers, and videotaped as they were tortured to death, and those responsible thumbed their noses at us with each new recording.

So tell me, right now, what is wrong with me saying that it would be an honor and a privilege to serve on the front lines of Afghanistan, and put a bullet through even one smurfing terrorist's lungs.

[DrT]

I would recommand to anyone wanting to even dwell on the subject of military life to read the military blogs. As much as possibkle: from either side of the opinion, an dpossibly those in the middle as well.
It's simply the bast way to get as accurate a picture as you can.

The one thing you can understand then is that joining the military is not purely about accepting to be shipped out and kill people (though I come back to that afterwards) but about something else: your country.
Because in order for your country to exist, for the food on your plate to be affordable, for your ability to go on a fratching forum and state your mind to exist, it takes people willing to stand on a line, looking straight out, ready to take out anything with a mind to take away your rights.
That's a member of the military.

Sure, they get sent out to kill people, and sometimes with reasons that are borderline criminal. I do for instance believe that the Irak war is not justified. Would I consider someone joining up to be deployed to Irak a fool? Hell no. My wife's cousin joined up and is ther, and he's not a fool. Because at that point of the war there's no point in saying it was a mistake: it's done now, and soldiers are dying. Anybody willing to enlist and go help these guys die less is a great person.

The Afgan war is different: that one is justified, and my only beef with it is the quagmire it became due to political crap. I trust this war would be over by now of the military had been sent with the order to get the job done, and restrictions lifted (up to the Geneva convention and some rules of engagements, that is .
If they had been allowed to find and pursue the ennemy anywhere it was going, for instance.


The issue is that today the military is put together with bad politics and an unjustified war (Irak), and thus the shine of the military uniform pays for it. The credit for bad decisions goes to the people making them (the excecutive, which is actually made of civilians).
So do throw potatoes at your politicians, but respect your military and the choice they make.

[Slytovhand]

I'm going to get flamed for this, but perhaps only because I'm not going to answer the question you asked, Shards, and for the presumption you threw into your well said post DrT. But this mis-quote was said to me only a couple of days ago, so I'll use it now (add: just searched the script... I think they got it wrong)

"You call me a monster. But you will bomb a nation to save a nickel on a tank of gas".

I'll say this out loud here and now... I think the 'Afghan War' has been propagandad to the point that it has been made to look justified.

but this thread is about why people don't get why others enlist, or choose to re-enlist, and I'm giving a reason - that those persons only make a direct connection between military and war, and they don't get that military mean other things. Hmmm, here's a thought I just had. How would we feel about, say, and Iraqi national who chose to join their local military, after seeing their kinfolk get shot? Or any other person who chooses to join any form of military? Are they all in it for the same reason? Do they all perceive it in the same way?

I think, to us, war has been 'cleaned up'. It has, literally, become more 'humane'. I note, for example, that the UN has put on a ban on cluster bombs.

Shards, the love is mutual (well - other than you being a pally *), but I do tend to debate points (and sometimes, I don't necessarily go with what I really think - or at least come out and up front with it). Your question will divide people though - if it is taken to heart (and, unfortunately, if it goes beyond mere debate... which I hope it doesn't... that'd be a shame). But I can already tell we see the universe through different lenses.


(* - ok, thinking of playing a pally/sorcerer/EK next run on NWN2... and had a pally in WoW... and if it wasn't for the fairly crap bonuses for being one...)

[Flyndaran]

...
(* - ok, thinking of playing a pally/sorcerer/EK next run on NWN2... and had a pally in WoW... and if it wasn't for the fairly crap bonuses for being one...)

First offm I hope you meant that the Iraq war has been turned into a justified war retroactively. The Afghanistan war was always justified as much as any war can be.

Second, you must be insane. WoW pallies kick ass.

[Slytovhand]

Oooh - sorry Flyn (and Shards), my serious typo bad.... Firstly, let me correct myself...

(* - ok, thinking of playing an aasimar pally/sorcerer/EK next run on NWN2.... and if it wasn't for the fairly crap bonuses for being one, I'd probably play one all the time.... and I had a pally in WoW that wasn't too bad! But in PvP I couldn't figure how to be used best, though in normal, I was healer which was good!)

Yes, WoW pallies kick ass... much like any class in WoW (bit too much of a level playing field for my liking...), but standard DnD one's don't...Now, I hope my sanity has returned...


Second... hmmm - Iraq as justified 'retroactively'... not a good stance to take... ever! "Oh, we originally did if for the wrong reasons, but we've found some good one's since, so that's ok".... hmmm - I think not! Now, Burma, OTOH, that would be a better position to go for...

Afghanistan?? No. Quick question (well, 2 really). How many countries are involved in the 'Coalition of the Willing' in Afghanistan? Why aren't all the rest of the Security Council Nations involved in it? For one simple reason... proof! Sufficient proof for suspecting the Afghanistani Taliban and Al Qaeda was never shown to those other nations. Some of the European ministers outrightly refuted and denied what was shown to them as inconclusive, and only diplomacy stopped them from saying it was a complete fabrication. In the UK and Australia, we pretty much live with the options that our PM's of the time at best mis-informed, or worst lied to, us about Iraq and WMD. Why should there be much reason to believe Afghanistan was to blame??

I ask another simple question... everything that says/said it was Al Qaeda... where did it come from? Answer, Intelligence Services. Mostly, US Intelligence Services.

Sorry, but the US Secret Service (and others over the 'civilised' world) has way too much to answer for, up to, and currently including, sending men and women (and the unfortunate children in those countries) to their deaths and maimings in countries all over the world. And now, we're heading into the Conspiracy Theory thread.....

[Xanthina]

Sorry, but the US Secret Service (and others over the 'civilised' world) has way too much to answer for, up to, and currently including, sending men and women (and the unfortunate children in those countries) to their deaths and maimings in countries all over the world. And now, we're heading into the Conspiracy Theory thread.....

Secret Service is not an intelligence agency. They deal with protection and counterfeiting. They protect the President, exPresidents, Vice Presidents, Presidential candidates, their families, foreign embassies, etc. And they go after counterfeiting of money, bonds, and checks.

The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) is an intelligence group. And there is DHS, United States Department of Homeland Security. Formed after 9/11. DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency. And the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), which is more of a domestic intelligence group.

You mentioned Police vs Military.

I would rather have my husband in the military than the police force. He's at greater risk as a police officer than as a military member. I would rather say goodbye to him once, for a month, or 9, or 18 months, than say goodbye to him every day and wonder if he'll come home alive that night.

Every police officer, from the beat cop on the street, to the sheriff, to the detectives, know that they might be called into the line of duty. Every Military member knows that they may be called up.

[Slytovhand]

I would rather have my husband in the military than the police force. He's at greater risk as a police officer than as a military member. I would rather say goodbye to him once, for a month, or 9, or 18 months, than say goodbye to him every day and wonder if he'll come home alive that night.

oooh... that's a damn good thought..(well, no, actually it's not, but it's a good point!)

Sorry - my bad on the SS - I was trying to generalise....


(btw - what's the sig line??)

[DrT]

Afghanistan?? No. Quick question (well, 2 really). How many countries are involved in the 'Coalition of the Willing' in Afghanistan? Why aren't all the rest of the Security Council Nations involved in it? For one simple reason... proof! Sufficient proof for suspecting the Afghanistani Taliban and Al Qaeda was never shown to those other nations. Some of the European ministers outrightly refuted and denied what was shown to them as inconclusive, and only diplomacy stopped them from saying it was a complete fabrication. In the UK and Australia, we pretty much live with the options that our PM's of the time at best mis-informed, or worst lied to, us about Iraq and WMD. Why should there be much reason to believe Afghanistan was to blame??

I ask another simple question... everything that says/said it was Al Qaeda... where did it come from? Answer, Intelligence Services. Mostly, US Intelligence Services.

Let's wiki it, for the hell of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_...2%80%93present)

From the look of it, a WHOLE lot of countries are helping. I know France is in it, with the little troops we can give. The Foreign Legion has been there from the start, for instance. All other European nations are contributing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati...nistan:_Allies

Intelligence for the baking up of Al Quaida by the Taliban ? Well, appart from all the intelligence services in the Western World, you have the Taliban and Al Quaida themselves. They never kept it a secret that they were based in Afghanistant and backed up by the Taliban. For years before 9/11.
Tis just that no one was justified to get cracking on the Afghan problem, particularly since that's a problem dating back many, many, many years.

So bottom line: yes indeed, one is justified to take arms and frag some Talibans.

[Slytovhand]

DrT, I think we're heading a bit OT on this thread, but am most happy to discuss it on another thread...

But, as for your last point, I'm still seeking justification for it. No, really. The Taliban was a political party (very religious, though) that was brought to power with the help of the US to help fight Russia from the 1980's. They had a right to control that country, as far as Muslim law dictated. And I never said that Al Qaeda and the Taliban weren't connected, I'm saying there isn't good evidence to say they were involved in 9/11 - and a fair bit to say that they weren't!

If we're using Wiki as a valid source of information:

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration delivered several hundred FIM-92 Stinger missiles to Afghan resistance groups, including the Taliban, to aid the defeat of the Soviets.[77]....

Officially Pakistan denied it was supporting the Taliban, but its support was substantial -- one year's aid (1997/1998) was an estimated US$30 million in wheat, diesel, petroleum and kerosene fuel, and other supplies...

Foreign powers, including the United States, were at first supportive of the Taliban in hopes it would serve as a force to restore order in Afghanistan after years of division into corrupt, lawless warlord fiefdoms. The U.S. government, for example, made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995 and expelled thousands of girls from schools.

Later on:...On September 21, 2001, the Taliban responded that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, they would hand him over, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking him to the September 11 attacks.....

On October 4, 2001, it is believed that the Taliban covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan refused the offer.[120][121] On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to "detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law" if the United States made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence.[122] This counter offer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient....

On October 14 the Taliban offered to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted bombing, but only if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.[126] The U.S. rejected this offer as an insufficient public relations ploy and continued military operations.

So... still just as justified??

Andreas Von Bulow, former German Defence minister is one who says that there was not sufficient evidence to link Al Qaeda to 9/11... and thus 'justifying' a war in Afghanistan. Same also UK's Michael Meacher, Italy's former Prime Minister Francesco Cossega, Japan's Opposition party, and others.

But I found this little baby in my search:

Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

Link

Also - it's now been 7 years. While most of the Taliban will be older males, there are now a lot of kids who are going to be involved in this war. After all, as far as they are concerned, they are defending their homes and families from an oppressive invasion. It's certainly how I'd be seeing it, and why I would join the local militia to fight them (the invaders) to the bitter end. "Taliban" and "Al Qaeda" are not synonymous. I'd suggest that all of the people you are advocating 'fragging' are not actually responsible for the WTC bombings... even if Al Qaeda, with the support/approval of the Taliban, were originally involved (and as I've said, that's a debatable point).

Btw - slight technicality - that list does not include all European nations...

Revenge is not a valid or justifiable reason to kill, maim and oppress people in another nation - especially through a protracted war effort.

Sorry Shards, I do respect you, and your choice to join the military in general, but you did pose a specific question.

[Slytovhand]

BIG ADD....

Shards, this is more specifically directed towards you...

I was walking home this afternoon, thinking about Fratching (as I'm wont to do...), and I realised something.

I'm not generally against people joining the military (although my previous posts may have seemed to indicate that.. ). I've just been trying to see things, and show things, from a different perspective, tis all.

I'm extremely glad that there are military forces operating in various countries throughout the world (I prefer that they were all UN PeaceKeeping forces, btw). Not only in warzones, but also acting in a stabilisation and building capacity. They train new recruits. They dispense urgent medical and food supplies. They help smooth over elections (well - if they're lucky... ). They help to keep people safe.

So - for all those reasons - I seriously respect people who choose to join up... naturally, including those on this board (and their relatives, associates, etc).

So, thought I'd clear that side of things up, in case you felt you were getting some 'hate' from me...

(of course, my last post still stands - but that's a difference in one specific area only - even if it does have far reaching consequences..)

[DrT]

Well, considering the original subject of the thread has been covered, I think going OT shouldn't hurt.

Anyways:
-I concede, Bin Laden may not be directly linked to 9/11, however he is directly linked to enough terrorist actions to warrant bringing him in front of a tribunal (or shoot him on sight, but that's just me)
-Al Quaida has however been linked to 9/11, and another bunch of terrorist actions. When you join Al Quaida, you embrace the fact these actions were justified, thus just like german soldiers in Nuremberg trials, you are guilty of these actions.
-the Taliban have been backing Al Quaida and protecting them for years. That makes them guilty by association. By the way, Pakistan is believe to do the same right now.

So, even if not taking into account the grave violations to human rights that the Taliban belief includes, the Taliban are guilty of aiding known terrorits. That give them the choide of surrendering and facing charges, or be hunted down and shot.

The reason for the war in afganistan to happen so late, when all of this was known for a while: the US wouldn't join up. Al Quaida has been an issue for number of years preceding 9/11, and many attemps have been made at gathering a coalition to go over there and find them. Clinton was tempted to do so (after the embassy bombing in 98), but the Balkan War took most of his attention.
Once the Balkan war was over, a lot of military might on all sides was freed up. 9/11 was the final push that tipped the US towards waging a war agains Al Quaida and their bakers, the Talibans.
The reality of being a superpower is that nothing in the world happen without you. Let's face it: there's no way to make war without the US infrastructure and military power. You can say whatever about them, but they know how to keep an efficient military force standing.

Now, the fact that the West created Al Quaida during the Afghan war against the Soviets doesn't change anything, appart from saying that the West made big mistakes in history (well duh).

The Talibans as freedom fighters: against who ? The coalition forces are not invading: they cleaned up the old regime, and are now supporting the new one. The Talibans are thus fighting against the current Afghan government. That makes them a side in a civil war, not freedom fighters. Well, they fight for their ideas of freedom, but the afghans on the other side are doing that too so it nullifies that argument.
Now it's up to the Afghans to decide which brand of freedom they want.

The coalition forces are now maintaining a kind of order until the Afghan make their minds up, and should very much pursue Al Quaida and it's bakers in Pakistan to finish the fight once and for all. But we're doing the same mistake as in 'Nam: the frontier is where the soldiers stop.

[Slytovhand]

DrT, you've reminded me of something I forgot to say in a previous post. When I was talking about 'not being justified', I was intentionally ignoring the human rights abuses. I agree, on that alone it 'may' be justified, but if that's the case, then there ought to be a lot of other nations getting worried. And personally, I think that's what the role of the UN should be...

As for your last paragraph... so what will the US do if the Taliban are once again reinstated to power through elections?? And what, also, if they choose to take Al Qaeda in under their wing offering a form of 'sanctuary'... will everyone just up and leave - as would be appropriate? Or will the wars continue until a more 'suitable' government is found (ie - one that the west likes, and thus, over-ruling the rights of the locals)?

Sorry (well, no, not really), but I don't think 'harbouring terrorists' is a good enough reason to invade other nations. After all, the USA harbours most of the world's terrorists, and also so do many other European nations - and they don't invaded... so I think you need a new argument to validate that one (in the context of 'justice').

[DrT]

Sorry (well, no, not really), but I don't think 'harbouring terrorists' is a good enough reason to invade other nations. After all, the USA harbours most of the world's terrorists, and also so do many other European nations - and they don't invaded... so I think you need a new argument to validate that one (in the context of 'justice').

Wa... ?

Why don't we backpedal a bit, there, and back this one argument up? Just for a bit.

I personnaly think harboring terrorists is good enough to be invaded. Terrorist wage war on other nations, harboring them is accepting guilt for these actions, thus you're in the crossair.
Now, you can always drown the whole thing in a quagmire of diplomacy (look at the Israely/Palestinian issue), but for that you need allies (ie: palestenians have the rest of the arab world, Israelies have the US). The Taliban didn't have any backup (aside from Iran and the Arab nations maybe, but it wasn't official), so they go invaded.

Plus, Al Quaida attacked a big fish. Notice that it took american lives on american soil to get the US giant to move. For years Al Quaida attacked the US, but it was overseas. When US authorities wanted to wage a war in answer, congress and public opinion would kill the idea in the egg. A few missiles were fired on old training facilities, but that was that.

In summary: I believe the Afghan war is justified, and should definately set a precedent for other wars agains human rights and terrorism. But I won't hope too much for the second part, because humans are what they are.

I do believe, also, that war against terrorism cannot be fought with violence only. You need to attack the roots of the issue; and that's poverty and inequality. Good luck on that one too