WP: Veterans need to share the moral burden of war

[Redskins Diehard]

Recently I was a guest on a national television show,
and the host expressed some indignation when I said that soldiers in
Afghanistan don’t much discuss the war they’re fighting. The soldiers
are mostly in their teens, I pointed out. Why would we expect them to
evaluate U.S. foreign policy?
                        

The host had made the classic error of thinking that war
belongs to the soldiers who fight it. That is a standard of
accountability not applied to, say, oil-rig workers or police. The
environment is collapsing and anti-crime measures can be deeply flawed,
but we don’t expect people in those fields to discuss national policy on
their lunch breaks.

                
                
                

    
        
        
        
    
    

                    
                        

Soldiers, though, are a special case. Perhaps war is so obscene
that even the people who supported it don’t want to hear the details or
acknowledge their role. Soldiers face myriad challenges when they
return home, but one of the most destructive is the sense that their
country doesn’t quite realize that it — and not just the soldiers — went
to war. The country approved, financed and justified war — and sent the
soldiers to fight it. This is important because it returns the moral
burden of war to its rightful place: with the entire nation. If a
soldier inadvertently kills a civilian in Baghdad, we all helped kill
that civilian. If a soldier loses his arm in Afghanistan, we all lost
something.

The growing cultural gap between American society and
our military is dangerous and unhealthy. The sense that war belongs
exclusively to the soldiers and generals may be one of the most
destructive expressions of this gap. Both sides are to blame. I know
many soldiers who don’t want to be called heroes — a grotesquely misused
word — or told that they did their duty; some don’t want to be thanked.
Soldiers know all too well how much killing — mostly of civilians —
goes on in war. Congratulations make them feel that people back home
have no idea what happens when a human body encounters the machinery of
war.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sebastian-junger-us-veterans-need-to-share-the-moral-burden-of-war/2013/05/24/726d7576-c3b9-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_story.html

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Personally I feel like the distance is growing. I joined this site shortly after leaving the military...hard to believe how long ago that was...and hard to believe that the "war" I was a part of over a decade ago is still going on.  I was surprised at how my "experience" and "observations" were largely dismissed around here in the heat of the partisan squabble over George Bush and Iraq that raged in 2005.  The "experts" that believed that if only we weren't "distracted" by Iraq then we could have magically put hundreds of US forces into Tora Bora in December of 2001 to kill Bin Laden there. 

 

The partisanship continues today whether we are discussing Benghazi or the drone program.  There are some here and some in the larger community who are "consistent" in their positions on issues.  Honor those that are to be honored today by being true to your values and beliefs and not to your "team" they gave their lives being true to theirs. 

[twa]

well said, those that serve do as we command and go when/where sent

 

I hope we are worthy of the price they pay,and have paid in our service.

[Mad Mike]

Soldiers know all too well how much killing — mostly of civilians — goes on in war.

 

The author lost me right here. He talks about killing civilians and children but not one word about killing the Taliban who kill and throw acid in the faces of children. #### this guy.

 

And frankly, I've never once had received anything other than appreciation from service members when I have thanked them for their service. I'll continue to consider them all heroes and if a Vet wants to tell me otherwise I will be happy to listen. 

[Redskins Diehard]

The author lost me right here. He talks about killing civilians and children but not one word about killing the Taliban who kill and throw acid in the faces of children. #### this guy.

 

And frankly, I've never once had received anything other than appreciation from service members when I have thanked them for their service. I'll continue to consider them all heroes and if a Vet wants to tell me otherwise I will be happy to listen. 

Well here is a vet that posted this because it resonated.  So you can **** this guy if you want but it is too bad you didn't hold on for one more paragraph before your righteousness kicked in.

[Jumbo]

RH, I had to stop reading the article (interruption), but that's ok for what I want to post. I think you know me well enough through the limitation of this being the only contact we have, to know where I would stand on such matters, and I agree with what you said. I will also point out that that to me, the default intelligent thing to do in any case is listen to actual personal experiences someone's had with any important matter with respect and then evaluate. And a lot of what I'll be responding with relates to this comment:

I was surprised at how my "experience" and "observations" were largely dismissed around here in the heat of the partisan squabble over George Bush and Iraq that raged in 2005. 

 

 

Yet any individual's level of general cognitive abilities in reasoning/judgment/etc. is, of course, not solely determined by the fact that they had experience. As in many things, many people are governed by confirmation bias and related dynamics. We use experience as a support when it fits our side of the argument, and ignore experience when it doesn't (or at least we try to). Some of you may find the rest of this OT.

 

Growing up, one of my primary father-figures served in AFSF, made retirement at 40, joined the Anchorage PD and put in 20 years there mostly as a sergeant. I spent most of my first 20 years living just outside of Elmendorf and Ft. Rich (as we called it---mid 50's to mid 70's).

 

My working single mother's old-school cafe was at the beginning of the main road that joined both bases and then headed into the city (until they built a freeway). As a kid stuck there working after school, I had about 40,000 buddies who visited to eat good food and enjoy the pinball machines (you used to be able to play for money on them) and shoot my bow with me out back. I have remained connected, sometimes very closely, to the military in many ways my entire life.

 

My own experiences reflect what should be logically obvious: there are all kinds of people in the military and all kinds of reasons they join. I was kind of smart as a kid (believe it or not) and always very attentive/curious about everything in "adult world." I found it very interesting to have the loving (or "affectionate" at that age) and grateful (lionizing at that age) perspective most U.S. citizens have on "the military" (as I still have) and also be listening to Sarge and his co-workers talking "police work."

 

They'd all the describe what they deal with, and I could see the dialogue was fundamentally the same when relating to either military or civilian populations with such professionals. This held, even while allowing for obvious differences between "military culture" (which will vary all across branches/units/posts etc. even in the military) and "civilian culture" (obviously "civilians" have great diversity) .

 

What I noted then remained consistent with my following experiences in general, and specifically in later years of involvement with Bangor NSB, PSNS, NUWC (Keyport), and JBLM, which this last decade-plus has included providing mental health service to military personnel in my volunteer activities. Today a group of Viet Nam vets (including a very long-time buddy) will be driving south and meeting up with me on my new home turf for a rainy get-together.

 

I lay all this out (most of it posted here before) to give a bit more of a frame to my own experiences. I have had discussions with many military personnel (of many ranks) whose views on various social/political matters that involve military topics that have left me both impressed (whether they agreed with me or not) and dismayed (same deal). Including on ES. Just as with civilians. So yes, IMO, the default should be of respect for experience/education in any matter, and then, in the end, aside from technical expertise on a matter, it moves to how the case is presented by the individual.

 

I'll repeat: the default intelligent thing to do in any case is listen to actual personal experiences someone's had with any important matter with respect and then evaluate

 

and 

the default should be of respect for experience/education in any matter, and then, in the end, aside from technical expertise on a matter, it moves to how the case is presented by the individual

 

Referring back also to my comment about confirmation bias, and just focusing on this forum, we might suggest military be more closely heeded on such matters due to experience, and some will give that a hearty "hurrah", and yet the same "some" may show few qualms about arguing with a geologist or chemist or psychologist or historian or doctor or economist from their perspective as a house painter. Sooooo....

 

As always, my deepest gratitude to all the fine military personnel who are willing to give everything for our country.

 

And on a personal note to RD, thank you for being a part of ES for so long. You are one of many very important posters here, IMO.

[Redskins Diehard]

RH, I had to stop reading the article (interruption), but that's ok for what I want to post And a lot of what I'll be responding with relates to this comment:

 

As always, my deepest gratitude to all the fine military personnel who are willing to give everything for our country.

Thanks for the thought out response.  I agree with a lot of what you said.  As I have mentioned before, probably here but definitely in real life, I am one of the worst people on the planet to evaluate whether or not Iraq was "good".  Way too much personal at stake in the matter to objectively look at it now even almost a decade after I returned home.  I posted 5 names in the thread that twa started and 4 of them gave their lives in Iraq.  Back in the early days of this/these wars everyone was eager to go.  When I tried to explain it to a family member who had not served he just "didn't get it".  Like most things I tried to explain it in terms of sports "imagine practicing for 6-7-8 years and never getting to play in a game".  That was military life in the early 2000s.  How young and dumb.I remember the night that SFC Rivera died...I could write pages about that guy....and talking to my buddy about whether or not "it was worth it".  We never could answer that question but we came to the conclusion that "it better be". 

 

My comment that you pulled out wasn't meant to say "those that haven't served don't get it".  I know that I don't have the skill to explain it.  And it would be unfair to expect people to just inherently "get it".  I was talking mainly about people that either doubted or discounted specific things that I tried to relay.  The most prominent one is long gone by now but truth be told some of it still remains.  I hope we can some day get past that.  Give credit to President Obama for launching the mission to get Bin Laden and question him for his handling of Benghazi and implementation of the drone program.

 

Now....to try and figure out how to unquote this large block of text!

[Destino]

I don't think moral burden is as simple as yes or no. Individual soldiers, as with police officers or oil rig workers, have very little say in the overall decision making of the larger body to which they belong. Their voice might be as small as simply choosing to participate or not. Opting out may come at a terrible price. For the most part I think we all agree that holding those with such a small influence responsible is wrong.

That changes however when when a group does something viewed as being so wrong that simple association with it is unforgivable. Nazi soldiers are not seen as being absent of any responsibility. During the war German citizens were not afforded such sentiments either. The reason I bring up the dreaded nazis (and yes I am the first to do so) is only to establish that a point can be reached where responsibility is applied more broadly and to individuals with little influence. Also the view from those outside a nation, particularly one in opposition, will differ greatly in who is responsible for what.

The subject of individual responsibility for individual acts that occur under orders within the greater theater of events differs from the above. In order to determine moral responsibility, we'd need to define it. My own is based on religion and while I can find paths to forgiveness I cannot find immunity clauses for those ordered to do things they know are wrong. Thus, by my definition of moral burden, individuals are not freed by any organizational structure in which they find themselves in the service of others in instances in which they knowingly engage in immoral acts. The problem is that its not always easy to define right and wrong in chaotic situations.

So in summary my thoughts on soldiers sharing the moral burden of war: maybe, in certain situations.

Lucky for me, I'm not the one tasked with making this determination. From my vantage point I see that service men and women put their lives on the line for an ideal and for those they care about. I respect the hell out of that. I thank them for their service and I mean it. They are the ones that know that at any minute they could be asked to lay down their lives for those of us that, individually, are unworthy of their sacrifice and protection.

Hopefully that all makes sense.