In today's political climate, it appears that nothing is off limits for discussion and evaluation. Discussions range from rights of homosexuals to whether or not the legalization of marijuana is a viable option to rescue state budgets. However, one thing that you will never hear questioned or debated is the value of our military. It is without question sacrosanct. Sure, there may be disagreement on the various engagements they are currently involved, but they will always be referred to our nation's "heroes." Despite the conflict or war, the men and women in the military are glorified and put upon a pedestal. I never quite understood this kind of mentality. I recognize the need for a standing and well-equipped military to provide stability and act as a deterrent, but I do not understand the level of adoration afforded to the individuals serving. One could easily come to the conclusion that those in the military are doing so without pay or benefits. It could easily be inferred that they are completely selfless and have given themselves over to the greater good. The reality is much different and the sacrifice not so impressive.
I am primarily speaking about today's current military and not so much about the great generation that fought in WWI or WWII. There is no question that there have been great contributions and sacrifices by past individuals and generations, but I do not believe that our present military typifies those of past eras. Some wars were necessary evils (WWII) and some were the result of poor diplomacy and leadership (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan). These examples may be debated and the contributing factors that led to them scrutinized, but for general purposes they will suffice. I would like to ask questions about the true function of the military and explore the reality behind their existence.
1. The military participates in government sanctioned killing. In our society and religious backgrounds, we are told that taking another's life is a crime/sin. We have in our Constitution that "all men are created equal." Due to societal laws and culture, taking another life, except in extreme circumstances, is deemed as perhaps the most egregious offense. However, it becomes acceptable and is even encouraged when the government condones it. All of a sudden the criterion of how to determine whether life matters is placed with the government. As a result, a dehumanizing process takes place whereby people become terrorists, Communists, extremists. I would imagine that it is easier taking someone's life if you were able to put them in a nice demonic category. Why does the government have the authority to determine whose life matters? I guess that is a form of hypocrisy that our nation has to deal with. A nation who many claim is a Christian nation is anything but.
2. The military are in many ways mercenaries. There is a reason that the government continues to add incentives for those thinking about joining the military. There are signing bonuses, scholarships for school, and, not the mention, a way out of this terrible economy. Additionally, excellent medical care and family services are a plus. It is also notable that President Obama is placing a freeze on pay increases for those working for the federal government, except the military. If the people who serve in the military are as pure and sacrificing as we say they are, why not freeze their pay as well? It is because people always do what they think is in their best interest. How many would continue in the military if their payment were a meager stipend and the privilege of serving their country? I think there would be forced conscription if that were the case.
3. The military is meant to be apolitical and areligious. Those in the military are to obey orders and not ask questions. This statement is a generalization and does not take into account exceptional circumstances. Overall, a soldier does not need to have a deep understanding of the culture or historical background of the people or region they are going to occupy or engage. More attention is paid to weapons training than to obtaining a meaningful grasp of the roots of the conflict in question. The most important item that is needed, is an order. Why do we call people "heroes" who are trained to follow instead of to evaluate? Why are they placed in such high honor? Are they not already adequately compensated? Why do we glorify those who lack the power to disengage from a hopeless and reckless cause?
Many may disagree with my evaluation and view of the military. However, I think that I have brought questions that need to be addressed. A hero should not be someone who is told how to view the world, but instead exercises their constructive gifts upon it. War is the most destructive thing that humankind has invented. Perhaps it is more apropos to pity those in the military, because they subject themselves to serving in the capacity of pawns for political use.
1 comment:
From a social or anthropological point of view, could the American modern day obsession and worship of the military be a way to deepen the country's cultural experience or expression? How many times have I heard Americans bemoan their "lack of culture?" However, military culture and patriotism are leitmotifs everywhere in Americana.
I would also like someone to explain to me what it means that "the military is over there fighting for our freedom." I know enough to understand that it could not be the same freedom they struggled for during the 18th century. Is this now an economic freedom mostly? The eudaimonia of old? I doubt it is religious or political.
In any regard, I believe that the military is of tremendous economic value to the United States. In a pure production sense, it stimulates growth in many communities and the US macroeconomy. In a social sense, it provides employment to many who would otherwise be struggling in a difficult job market (although the upper ranks include highly educated officials). Yet, in terms of trade, US made weaponry are exported to several countries around the world and comprise a strong sector that helps keep the trade balance down. In a callous, dispassionate and rational world, some might argue that wars are therefore really good advertising. I mean, who would want to buy military weapons from France, or worse yet, Sweden?! So, could it be better for the US to make war and not love?
Very scandalous questions, I know; but is there some economic analysis that does a cost/benefit review of making war over the long term? Granted, Iraq did not work out the way it should; this question warrants some study regardless.
Post a Comment