Re: real combat footage
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cavscout1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> you support the war, you fight the war. period </div></div>
I've been following this thread and can't help feeling there is merit in some of this sentiment while there is also oversimplification. Like the often lobbed charge of hypocrisy thrown by people who, if logic follows, apparently must support the aberrent or repulsive acts committed by the awful hypocrite, I don't think it's entirely fair to lump all the able-bodied-yet-not-serving supporters of the current wars as
beneath contempt.
The stand offish participation in this nation's wars since time immemorial has as much to do with the absence of recurrent invasions, such as those visited upon the Caucasus and Europe for millenia, as much as parents seeking to protect junior for his future in real estate. Even in WWII, when three nations had declared war on us, there was a draft to fill the need for man (and woman) power. Not 5 years after the end of hostilities, we found ourselves in a wicked war, fraught with global consequences, that found most Americans barely aware of it beyond the impact on a family member, or the absence of Ted Williams from the Red Sox line up.
Slave owners bought their way out of serving in "the cause" they had no qualms over sending the southern (and non slave owning) white peasantry to fight, much as northern aristocrats did the same in our civil war.
Foreign incursions went on for generations while American civilians toiled in their own ambivalence. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, the first Gulf War, all witnessed a military that was comprised of a tiny representation of the population of the nation. Many of whom could also have served.
While the current wars have been rife with simplistic, jingoistic sloganeering by musicians (especially several country "artists"), politicians, "personalities", and people who have it very good indeed, while other young men and women have made huge sacrifices, it is understanadable that there is resentment among those who have witnessed the cost disproportionately paid by so few.
I didn't serve when I was a young man. On the number line of manliness where a fire breather is a 10 and a hairdresser a .001 I feel I fall in the meaty part of the curve well below those who I would humbly deferr to as my superiors.
That said, I don't feel compelled to support those who claim we should only deploy our forces when we have been attacked and only where we have been attacked.
It does not follow that I should thwart the politicians who sent our forces over seas because I did not serve.
Respectfully.
</div></div>
You're right, it is an oversimplification and history is wrought with the opposite of the idea behind it.
While I wasn't around during WW2, I was always under the impression that while there was a draft- the majority went quite willingly and enlisted in much larger numbers in support of the war. Stars and soon to be Stars did their part for the most part. It was a much different war, a much different Society and collective mindset. While the consequences of an Allied loss were great, I wonder if perhaps the consequences of a loss today (if it's not contrived and blown out of proportion) would be of even greater consequence. The challenge faced by society in today's war is I feel a multi-pronged issue. The obfuscation of true threats and intelligence, successful operations, etc by the Government do not help. I found myself, a young PFC on the ground searching for answers about why I was where I was. By the time I did my first tour in 2005 it was blatantly obvious that the reasons we invaded Iraq were at best- bullshit. The reason for the mission went from WMD's/possible Al-Qaeda possession to "freeing" the Iraqis from the very man we supported for so long, to enabling the Iraqi people to have a democratic government which we then balked at when they wanted to do their own thing. By the time I got there, we were hearing from the president "Iraqi's will be taking over operations and control very shortly". I remember looking at the IA and Ministry of Interior Police Commandos (sort of like an Iraqi National SWAT team of "sorts") and just wondering if the president knew something I didn't. I'm sure he knew a lot of things I didn't but I knew from working with those yahoos the only control that would be happening would be in Shi'a hands. A democracy in Iraq dictates this anyway as the majority is Shi'a, if everyone voted on party lines. The mode in which they operated was more about vengeance than truly trying to clean up their country. Most of the guys we worked with were former political prisoners and a lot were just downright miscreants freed after the fall of Saddam.
Afghanistan at the time was a bygone forgotten effort from all I could tell. A friend of mine was in A-stan in 2005 and they had massive areas of operation. It was just ineffective. Where are we now? Scrambling to get that place under control after almost 10 years of presence there. 10 years? There's a reason they call that place the graveyard of empires.
I understand that certain people can't join and go over. That's fine. I also realize there is a pretty big segment of society that is perfectly able to join, support the war so far as to buy into the crap said on Fox news and take it as gospel, truly believe in the "fight them there so we don't fight them here" line, and yet- dont join. This is the group I have a problem with. I also understand there are people who are wishy washy on the fence regarding the war. They just don't pay attention to it, thats fine too. I don't expect them to join. The last group- truly anti-war ( or this war), "leftists" etc. I certainly don't expect them to join.
I just like people to put their money where their mouth is. I take no issue with those in no position to join due to age, true health issues, etc. I have no problem with people who are a little older and never served and support the war. Last thing we need is a grandpa brigade. There are other ways to support the war, if one is not able to fight. I know you (Queequeg) have done a lot at personal expense to show your support for guys overseas, as have a lot of other members here- many who have sent packages to guys overseas that I have given addresses for. That's nothing to sneeze at and certainly you have done more than most Americans to support the effort in the way you can.
Even our "enemy" the jihadists make this distinction. Jihad is more than strapping on an AK and setting IEDs. The mother who sends her son off, is in a jihad of her own in support of X cause. Jihad simply means "struggle". The fat rich man who supplies the money to buy equipment for the mujahideen, is an integral member of the Jihad. He certainly would be a poor fighter due to his age and health etc. But the Young man who is of fighting age? Eventually he has to do his part.
to illustrate my thoughts on the matter,I will quote a synopsis of the Heinlein novel " For us the living: a comedy of customs" re: national mentality regarding war in the society he writes about:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic">'For Us, the Living' also depicts graphically the transition between the society that Perry left in 1939 and how it is transformed through a series of acts by the Government. Of specific note is the 'War Voting Act'. In this act, if the United States wished to engage in armed conflict with any other country, a national referendum was required to be held. Voting was not obligatory for all citizens, but in the event that the article was passed and the country was to go to war, those who had voted for war were the first to be enlisted in the armed forces, those who abstained were the second conscripted, and those who voted 'No' were the third group. Heinlein states that in the history of the 'War Voting Act', the process had been enacted twice, and both times the entire citizenry were actively engaged in very vocal debate as to the whether the conflict was warranted. Both times, he states, the measures to go to war were defeated.</span></div></div>
While not one of the more famous Heinlein works, I highly suggest it.