> deployment to Iraq was not 'defending their country'

They served. They were certainly misused and misdeployed, but they served their country, they lost limbs, lives, time and the innocence that most of us enjoy our entire lives, and they deserve respect and support. Not worship; merely respect and support.

Why don't police get treated the same way? They risk life and limb as well, but you don't see unrelated people thanking them for their service, or getting misty-eyed on TV when talking about them. There are abuses by the police, yes, but there are also abuses by the military.

Words matter, and if you actually care about people losing their lives and innocence in these wars, then you should totally be on board with not calling the US military adventurism in Iraq "defending their country". It's mythologising the event in a way that's likely to get more people to sign up, when you should be getting fewer people to do so. The US unilaterally decided to invade a sovereign country that was no threat to it in the slightest, a country that was on the other side of the world, and that the US's own allies were begging the US to hold off. That is not 'defending'. 'Serving', yes, but not 'defending'. It also didn't do much for 'Freedom' in the area - one country is destroyed, another is imploding, and Europe is a little destabilised, all due to this adventurism.

If you care about people in general, you should call it what it is. Don't abuse soldiers who didn't do abuses themselves, but at the same time, don't mythologise them and chest-beat about how patriotic it is to go and kill brown people that aren't a threat to the people back home. Yes, 5000 US soldiers are dead, but that's only 1% of the death toll in Iraq from the invasion, and that doesn't include the knock-on effects in Syria. There was an article recently on HN about how even the guy who toppled the statue of Saddam in that famous photo-op, even he would rather live under Hussein's regime than modern Iraq.

If you want this kind of horror to stop happening, then people need to stop getting misty-eyed about serving their country in ways that are clearly not defence. There's a difference between 'not respecting' and 'not wanting the lie propagated'. Then the next time this kind of thing happens, there's not going to be a fresh source of recruits.

There was no mist in my eyes when I suggested that we shouldn't worship soldiers.

That was all you took away from this? You didn't say it on TV, either. Chances are, I wasn't talking specifically about the one single data point that is 'a3n', but on a broader, societal level.

War criminals? Are we talking about the same people?

People serve in the military for all kinds of reasons.

Some, because it's a family tradition. Others, because they believe in serving their country. And many others, because it presents them with an economic opportunity they would never otherwise have had: college, vocational training, and increased social status.

Very few join hoping to go to war. I doubt that most of the people sent to invade Iraq truly wanted to be there.

And when they went, they were sold a well-scripted dog-and-pony show about how they were defending the freedom of the Iraqi people, about how they were there to fight a horrible dictator that murdered countless innocent lives.

Those people are not to blame, and certainly not to be held responsible, for the utter failure of both our political system and our media, which is supposed to be a watchdog, not a lapdog.

Also, something most civilians don't know is that military service isn't like a regular job.

In civilian life, you can quit your job whenever you want. In the military, while you may be able to change your job and re-train for a new one, it's not that common. Also, you do your job until you finish your term of service, or you go to jail. Only way out is to be assessed by a military doctor as unfit to serve.

In civilian life, if you screw up, screw off, or screw around, the worst that will probably happen is being fired.

In the military, at best you will face Non-Judicial Punishment for minor infractions (show up late to work once), and at worst you go to jail (keep showing up late for work).

How severely punished you will be is in large part up to your boss (commanding officer).

What makes it worse is that most people only see the marketing campaign before they join (pay for college! defend freedom!). But after they enlist, they discover that they don't get the job they were promised (we're full up on surgical assistants and aircraft mechanics, so you'll be sent to train for food service), that they spend countless hours on utterly pointless work (yet another safety briefing), and that overall, the life of a service member is pretty much the opposite of glamorous.

You don't need to worship the uniform, or agree with what the US Government does, to at least appreciate that people who serve in the military are, generally speaking, at worst a bunch of well-meaning Americans that are doing the best job they can in a situation that they largely can't control.

Oh, and once you get out? Getting all that college funding and a lifetime of government healthcare ranges from "easy peasy" to "tell me again why I made a deal with the unholy spawn of Initech from Office Space and Satan's legal team"

None of what you have eloquently said particularly opposes what I said. If people joined up to fight in Iraq, they weren't defending America. America was never under threat from Iraq, and the Iraqi war machine never loomed over the US. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in Iraq due to that American misadventure, and Iraq did nothing to the US. It was also pretty clear for a long time that if you did sign up, you'd be sent to the warzone - and for the people that re-enlisted (like in the article), they shouldn't be as surprised as you suggest.

Similarly, it doesn't matter if you signed up to defend your country and were lied to, it still does not mean perpetrators get a pass on atrocities like the ones committed in Vietnam. No, not all soldiers did, but enough did to take that 'well-meaning' shine off.

The media also wasn't as unified as you suggest. I'm not even American and I saw plenty of different comedians mocking Powell's 'poster project' at the time, and there were plenty of American voices crying that there wasn't enough justification to invade Iraq. While there is some naivity to blame in going 'over there' (it's why the military recruit the young, after all), there is also some willful ignorance. To be clear, I don't think that soldiers are by default at fault, but at the same time, I don't agree with the current "never criticise a soldier" ethos coming out of the US at the moment. If it's as shit as you say, then soldiers should be coming back and telling everyone they can about the horror, and stopping kids from signing up, and generally that isn't happening.

In any case, if you want to risk your life in the service of your country, be a cop. You will directly serve the people in your community, and the greater country in general. If you want to fight for freedom, be a legal aid lawyer. Pay is as shit as the military, but you're directly helping people in need against forces they can't fight alone.

Just about every war ever has taught us these things over and over again. Maybe if we stop glorifying soldiers, those naive kids will stop believing it. Perhaps we should just admit that soldiers in wars do bad things and are bad people. We managed to convince most Germans that the Nazis were bad and not to be glorified. We partly achieved that with Vietnam veterans. But all the lessons of history were forgotten when Iraq came around.

It's not just the media's fault, it's every person who shows sympathy for soldiers and reinforces the idea that it's a good thing to do.

>And many others, because it presents them with an economic opportunity they would never otherwise have had: college, vocational training, and increased social status.

You should show empathy, not sympathy for Soldiers. We don't want your freaking sympathy(from former Soldier), most just want opportunity. If you want to stop people from signing up for the US Army then here's what you have to do: 1) End inequality in America 2) End the spiraling healthcare costs (adding a single payer would likely go a long way) 3) Provide a means for formal education and social support for everyone. It's not enough to teach people, there's life skills a vast swath of America misses out on. 4) Fix the credit rating system. It amazes me that this is even allowed. Security check, sure...credit? Give me a break, just another form of discrimination.

Do all those things and we can start to level the playing field. Until then we'll likely need public jobs programs (and the military is indeed such a program, even if it is also something much more) to throw folks a rope to climb towards the American dream.

> 2) End the spiraling healthcare costs (adding a single payer would likely go a long way)

Obamacare was introduced just before the US healthcare system would go into the red (be a net cost for the government, as opposed to a source of income) and delayed that by creating new income for the government. This was not a coincidence.

The whole purpose of Obamacare was to make healthcare less expensive for the government, by putting more of the burden on the population, without being a new tax. It is very far from an accident that healthcare costs have spiraled.

But Obamacare only delayed the government budget drain until somewhere between 2018 and 2020 according to the congressional budget office. So "Obamacare 2" is coming in the next president's term, don't worry. It might even have single payer, as obviously raising costs is not a compelling public message.

But it must raise costs. There's no other option. It must raise costs to get back into balance, as the US government has borrowed massively from the healthcare system and is in no position to pay back any of it, so it cannot be allowed to have more outflows than inflows. The consequences would be too great. Well, actually, unlike most of the rest of the world the US could choose to defund the military to a significant extent and actually get a few more years of healthcare out of it (but we'd be talking 10-20% budget loss for the military at least, and as you point out that would rob more than a few young people of economic opportunity). But it would only delay matters, it can't solve them.

What can you do ? Nothing really. Too few people paying into a system with too many dependents. More kids was the answer, but obviously those would have had to have been born 20-25 years ago. Right now, more kids would only put more load on the system for the first few decades. Massively opening up immigration could work in theory, but if Europe is any indication, it won't.

Of course, all of this is assuming there won't be an economic crisis, and at this point, we're overdue one.

I agree those are all problems and people suffer from them. But that doesn't excuse those unfortunate people from dragging others down to their level - ie the Iraqis. Or from killing people. Many criminals ruin other people's lives because they're desperate too - they also have no education or income. But we still lock up criminals even when we understand what drives them to do it. We want to make poor people's lives good enough that robbing others isn't the best option they have but at the same time, we don't excuse them for their crimes. Yet with soldiers, most people do excuse them.