The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Who are they?
Why are they there?
What would they be doing otherwise?
who fights in he American army? All sorts of people. From South Americans, who want an American citizenship over ghetto people, who think an army service will give them opportunities, to people like the sons of John McCain and Sarah Palin, who do it out of conviction, that fighting for their country is a great thing.
Why are they there? For different reasons, as already pointed out. Oppotunities and nationalism both play a role.
What would they be doing otherwise? I don't know. But it is irrelevant for the question if they do a great honourable question for their country. If they are slaves, it would be the most important thing to liberate them, not to laudate them for what they are doing. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Urban blacks are actually very underrepresented in the military. The biggest overrepresentation is among small town and rural whites.
I just read a report that says exactly the opposite. The military has far more blacks and hispanics than are in the general population by percentage. Whites are underrepresented.
But you don't have to be a high school grad to enlist.
In many American cities, only 50% of African-American students graduate High School.
I'm HIGHLY suspicious of that DOD website.
For them, this is an avenue out of poverty. Look at the stats. When we're not in war, enlistment rises very high. In the last 6 years, enlistment has cratered. Why? one would assume that honorable service to country in a time "of need" would draw more enlisters. Instead, the opposite is true. When the military is there to provide training, however, and not require combat from enlisters, then enlistments skyrocket.
What do we deduce from this?
I do believe, that this narrative serves as distraction from the justification of wars, that it is potentially dangerous for the liberty of America, and that it helps to keep an overly large military in place, which not only sucks up resources, which could be better used elsewhere and which animates other countries to join at least partially into an arms race, but makes it as well more attractive and normal to actually use it.
Hey, the arms race maybe nice, European industry makes a lot of money with selling arms, but I would prefer, they would sell something useful.
Maybe it is typical German, but I do not 'support the German troops' in Afghanistan. And the minister of defense is pissed about that. They can be there, if they want, but if they die, I care as much as I would care for a victim of a traffic accident; and if they were tortured (not happened so far, seems only 'friends' do that) I would care as much as I care for people who suffer from cancer, or another painful illness. They are (and in case of Germany they really are) voluntarily there, while 80% of the German population doesn't want them there. Since 5 years troops are in Afghanistan, and since then never a convincing explaination was given why. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Bei den Bürgern herrsche oft nicht das Bewusstsein, dass der Einsatz der deutschen Soldaten ihrer eigenen Sicherheit in Deutschland diene
Hell yeah. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The citizens often do not conquer the awareness that the use of German soldiers of their own security in Germany serves
Real translation: Many citizens fail to understand that the deployment of the German soldiers is in the interests of their own security.
The connection is that the so-called narrative doesn't fool many other than the kids that come from military families. It's not a powerful narrative. You're seeing it now because McCain is a POW, but in general, no one buys it. Kids go to the military because they are poor. They don't go to become heroes.
As for the country at large, people honor the service of soldiers. In America, war heroes are not those who fight in combat. It's reserved for those who are wounded and/or save other soldiers during combat. The difference is important because, one, simply serving is honored especially since affluent youngsters tend to look down on military service (and in fact this form of hypocrisy has been used against the right because those who support the war refuse to enlist). It's acknowledged that the poor are doing a service for the rich. That's the so-called "honor" right there. The heroic is reserved for people who almost die and/or saved others. Killing a good amount of Iraqis may be heroic inside the military, but I've never heard a soldier brag about kills, or be considered a hero for that.
In other words: McCain's POW status makes him a hero to many Americans.
Again, if the narrative were actually powerful, then in a time of war, people from all social strata would enlist. They don't. The exact opposite happens. the rich stay home and the poor opt out.
Unlike many other countries, however, the US has a volunteer army that requires a long term commitment. If you signed up before 9/11, you're probably still on the hook.
What I take from this comment is that you think people honor the service of soldiers. And justify it with [i]t's acknowledged that the poor are doing a service for the rich. Prostitutes, I brought up before, are as well servicing the rich, or do you think people who just make it, go to prostitutes? I don't honour them.
If people pity soldiers, say should express their compassion, not thank for an honourable service. The soldiers believe for sure, that when you say honour, you mean honour. In Germany no veteran (majority of men) would ever use his uniform to come to a public event. Because we don't honour veterans. As well not those of the possibly justifiable missions in former Yugoslavia, or Afghanistan (and there it is just the peacekeeping mission, not the original attack).
I think it is ridiculous to assume that saying honour is to acknowledge, that the soldiers are doing their service for the rich. It doesn't fit - a majority of Americans thinks this and still reasonable voices can be painted as anti-Americans, or un-Patriotic people, when they don't drum the war drums. Or do average (and as well the average progressive) Americans think, that America = the rich? Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Honor is gov't propaganda.
No one believes it.
If they did, they would enlist when the country goes to war. The evidence shows that they don't.
Instead, they honor veterans out of their own guilt for not really believing the bogus propaganda.
And if they wouldn't believe, that much of the electorate believes it, they probably would answer much harsher, when this propaganda is abused, e.g. when Bush sends general Petrayus into the political arena, to profit from the military nimbus. But they do fear backlash. Or in the run up of the war in Iraq, or the damage the Democrats feared, what would be the reaction in the population, when they would vote only for enough money to withdraw the troops, leaving the heavy material behind, but not for an ongoing war, or....
Of course that's just indirect evidence, maybe the typical American thinks completely different, and the political elite just believes they are doing effective propaganda (in a strangely bipartisan agreement). But what evidence have you for that? While I know of course only a little part of the US media, I can't believe you would get such an impression by watching CNN, MSNBC, FOX, read the NYT, Washington Post, or follow any debate of presidential candidates during primary season. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
I think it's largely because of the sterile depiction of war in American media. No casualties are shown--some soldiers are alive and some are dead and gone, but the tens of thousands of wounded are invisible.
I see it everyday. 2 minutes from my house.
I gave you the stats.
If people believed the propaganda, they'd live it.
But they don't. How else can you explain the extreme contradiction between support for the war and refusal to enlist? The fact is, if we had a draft, then and only then would you see Americans come to grips with what it REALLY means to go to war. As it is now, the burden is carried by the poor and uneducated. That's why the propaganda still dominates. The propaganda is not meant as a recruiting tool for young soldiers. It's there to be used as a political cudgel to question people's patriotism.
You want proof? If we really honored military heroism, then John Murtha and John Kerry would not be cast as cowards.
The homecoming parades are attended by 100s of friends, not thousands of citizens. Big difference.
And you can die when you go to war or becoming seriously wounded. People my be afraid, but admire the brave of other, more 'cool' people. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Are you saying that fear is a trait of certain races, social classes, etc.?
But like I said, I think you are mostly right on this.
I taught at a university with a ROTC program (U. of Rochester) and had long talks with my officer candidates. That is a slightly different story, as you say.
You say those who don't enlist and say it is honourable are hypocrits and liers. I say they are consistently wrong. And I think this is much more dangerous. Liers (and we don't speak here about a few super rich, but about most of the middle class) may know when stop, stupid people don't. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
You're leaving out the political aspect of this. The GOP has been long affiliated with the military, and they use military propaganda as a political cudgel. This is incentive enough for someone to be a hypocrite, rather than merely "wrong."
They are so proven wrong on Iraq (80% of AMERICANs are now against it) but these elites will stick to being WRONG because of the political value of the propaganda. That tells me that they don't care whether they are right or wrong. They'll stick to the "honorable" line.
If military service were truly "honored" then wouldn't those who favor militarism take care of the soldiers who come home wounded?
Are you aware that our health care for veterans is a disaster? You're better off being poor and uninsured than you a soldier.
They are so proven wrong on Iraq Yes, and telling, that one is against this war, or was against it from the beginning isn't something considered 'unpatriotic' anymore, or? Sure, the Republicans play the "Obama is for losing in Iraq" game, this may help to consolidate their most extremist base, but will hardly work to gather independents. It did work in the run up of the war in 2002. Many say, the then recent memory of 9/11 has boosted that. For sure many Americans after 9/11 did think, the country needed a strong answer (~90% approval to Bush in the beginning of the Afghanistan war); was there a mass enlistment of middle class people with good job chances after 9/11?
If military service were truly "honored" then wouldn't those who favor militarism take care of the soldiers who come home wounded? The polit clowns use it as propaganda, and they tell they would care well for the veterans. Low information voters might think McCain as a veteran himself will care more for the veterans than Obama. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
McCain comes from a military family in the officer class, so it's an expected thing that his son would join. McCain's Dad and grandad were also officers. Officer class is indeed, educated, more affluent, more white. I'm talking about the grunts, not the officers.
A huge number of the soldiers over in Iraq right now are part of the National Guard. These are so-called weekend warriors who earn an extra paycheck. I knew lots of NG people growing up and I would not say they joined for militaristic reasons.
Lastly, after 9/11, enlistment dropped among ALL classes.
While I agree with you on who joins up, I think they are a somewhat self-selected group from the poor and middle income population. Most wouldn't have joined if they didn't see it as a way out of a dead end life, but the patriotism stuff tends to be a secondary reason, indeed it's what distinguishes them from their peers who don't enlist.
I think that once they're in and have been through boot camp, then yes, I agree, they have bought in to the lore. By the way, I'm not saying that all of them have disowned that macho bullshit. It definitely plays into some enlistments.
The recruiters talk an excellent game: opportunity, training, free school, etc. Money.
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 2 3 comments
by gmoke - Sep 27
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 17
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 3 comments
by Oui - Oct 4
by Oui - Oct 41 comment
by Oui - Oct 31 comment
by Oui - Oct 24 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 23 comments
by Oui - Oct 214 comments
by Oui - Oct 115 comments
by Oui - Oct 120 comments
by Oui - Sep 30
by Oui - Sep 303 comments
by Oui - Sep 2819 comments
by Oui - Sep 28
by Oui - Sep 276 comments
by Oui - Sep 271 comment
by Oui - Sep 263 comments
by Oui - Sep 266 comments
by Oui - Sep 251 comment
by Oui - Sep 252 comments
by Oui - Sep 2410 comments