Are you implying little Johnny isn't a real hero? He lived in a military camp in Baghdad for 4 months! He even had a gun pointed at him at one stage!

I really don't get America's glorification of combat "veterans." In the old times, sure, but these are just people doing their jobs at the end of the day, and jobs that frequently involve killing people. I'm sure most people who sign up don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, or for the sake of "peacekeeping."

As a US combat veteran I agree with you, very few do it purely out of patriotism and altruism. I think most of the glorification comes from gratefulness that somebody else is willing to do a necessary and unpleasant job. The fact that the conflicts aren't necessary is slowly changing that, though. People used to be able to trust that the government would only commit us to necessary wars, so the feeling was that somebody had to go and fight and win or Something Really Bad would happen to the rest of us. In that context the glorification makes sense. Now it doesn't really feel like that anymore.

As a veteran of the border war I have zero understanding for the sentiment of "gratefulness that somebody else is willing to do a necessary and unpleasant job". I similarly struggle with the whole "lest we forget" thing in the UK.

The reason is that in my opinion it legitimizes war, violence and killing. It promotes patriotism, which is nationalism by another name, and a bus stop short of fascism. Fundamentally it suggests that one nation's people are worth more than anothers'. It's a neat trick, and I have a real problem with that.

It's doesn't have to mean one nation's people are worth more than another's. But it does mean that a person may care about their nation's people more than another's.

This is the same principle as caring about your child more than a stranger's child. A nation is a kin group just like a family is.

Ingroup preference is perfectly healthy when channeled appropriately.

> A nation is a kin group just like a family is.

Given how divided some of the most jingoistic 'democractic' countries on the planet right now are (US and UK) I don't think that supposed kinship is what these people get from nationalism.

To me, it looks like an excuse to tribally hate another group or nation without admitting to it.

And their job involves indentured servitude punishable by law if they quit early. Just the act of joining means that for at least the minimum term of service the individual turns their life over in service to their country.

Any other job doesn’t involve getting shipped overseas for service and being unable to quit.

So yes, just the act of turning your life over to serve your country is pretty dang brave and absolutely not just another job.

I feel like I was pretty fairly compensated for my time in the service. It's not like I was forced to join or had no idea what I was getting into. Also, outside of the deployments which were interesting if not fun, it wasn't much different from a normal job, so saying I turned my life over seems a little hyperbolic. I had most evenings and weekends free, 30 days of paid vacation a year, and unlimited sick days.

Since getting out I have worked a job that involved both foreign travel and a contract that didn't allow me to quit without ramifications. That job wasn't associated with the military or DoD at all, it was at a bank.

The military, at least for folks outside the combat arms jobs, really isn't that far off from being just another job.

And yet if they offered you a way out, you would be able to quit once you realised the war you were fighting was utterly inexcusable and entirely in the interests of rich old fucks back home.

You would never sell people on wars like this so you have to prohibit a way out. Can't have troops thinking critically and deciding they aren't totally sold on the cause.

As someone who has served in a European army infantry unit, I also find it very strange.

Many European countries had or have mandatory military service.

- Finland [0]

- Germany (until 2011) [1]

- Sweden (until 2010) [2]

- Denmark [3]

- France (until 1996) [4]

- Greece [5]

- Switzerland [6]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Finland

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Germany

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Sweden

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Denmark

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_France

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Greece

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Switzerland

How much would you need to be paid to have people shoot guns at you with intent to kill?

I can't think of a number, personally.

I see arguments for diminishing the significance of military service, but at end of day those who do it are signing up to (potentially) die to protect their country and that's worth special consideration.

To get the glorification you need to consider that those men and women are willingly exposing themselves to mortal danger. This kind of thing is hard to understand for someone who has spent all their life in an all white upper middle class neighborhood with not a worry in the world.

The US foreign policy might be haphazard and misguided, but don’t you dare shit on the very real sacrifice these kids are making.

Except most of them don't expose themselves to any danger. The average fatality rate per 100k in the military is far, far, far below the rates incurred by fishermen, loggers, steelworkers, farmers, garbage collectors, landscapers, roofers, taxi drivers, etc. The military isn't in the top 20 for dangerous jobs.

I think that the fatality rate is lower than I would expect because of improvements to the medical care. If you look at ratio of injuries to deaths: in Afghanistan it's about 8:1, in Vietnam 2.5:1 and in WWII it's 1.5:1 [1]. If it stayed the same military would still be the most dangerous profession. I would argue it still is - sure injured soldiers survive but often without limbs or with serious health issues.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt...

Are you suggesting that for any of the other professions I mentioned the non-fatal injuries are not serious? The fatality rate for military service is so low because few people in the military actually face any serious threat whatsoever. It should also be pointed out that the fatality rates in all of the other more dangerous professions was much higher in the past and has been steadily getting better due to improvements in equipment, procedures, and medical treatment. Military service never has been the most dangerous profession and current reality is no different. What is different is that there is not a half-billion dollar propaganda campaign behind getting people to volunteer to become loggers.

Annd logging is about 3 times as likely to kill you than the military. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/15/dying-for-...

Also there are many, many jobs in the military that do not go anywhere near combat.

> The US foreign policy might be haphazard and misguided, but don’t you dare shit on the very real sacrifice these kids are making

Not to be ... well regarded as an ass, this is no longer the 1960s it might be time to rethink this line of thinking. Take modern day Iraq, was that worth the "sacrifice", what was the "sacrifice" actually for ?

You could extend this to almost any war the US has been involved in. Attacks on US soil (not counting terrorist actions) have been pretty rare. WW2 can be similarly deconstructed and the intentions found to be impure. Remember: USA does not get involved in wars for reasons of morality, despite what excuse they may present.

and yet if the policy is so haphazard and misguided wouldn't it be better to steer them away from a completely a wasted sacrifice?

Doubly so because their cost is measured in lives.

> wouldn't it be better to steer them away from a completely a wasted sacrifice

Pretty sure your OP is not opposed to that, but the "Little Johnny" language bullshit that his parent wrote.

I took it as a reference to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Got_His_Gun

Maybe it would, but that’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is that they are serving their country to a far greater extent than most, and I’m not going to blame them because there’s some neocon shithead giving them idiotic orders. They sure as hell aren’t doing it for money.

It's my understanding that many are doing it for the money and other benefits. The benefits are the stuff of dreams for many who join. Medical, dental, education, housing, pension, genuine advancement prospects, coupled with a steady job that won't vanish in a weekend. These are big draws, especially to a person whose other option is a zero hours contract at a chain store. I've been a reservist (non-US) for almost 20 years; I certainly am not in it for anything involving serving my country, although of course everyone has their own motivations.

The so-called "Founding Fathers" were strongly opposed to professional armed forces for exactly that reason: it's less likely that ordinary citizens recruited via conscription would be sent to fight "bullshit wars".

Vietnam changed all that, or, more to the point, verified it. The anger against the war was fueled by the fact that anyone could be sent to fight it. Politicians realized that wars would not create such uproars if they were only fought by professional soldiers.

And indeed this is true to this day. Most Americans don't care about US foreign wars, because for them personally the stakes are low.

> Stop fighting bullshit wars halfway around the world

In the US, war is big business. So it's not going away as long as a couple of ultra-rich people are making themselves even richer by inflicting suffering onto others.

The article says that the primary problem is the number of eligible volunteers. Changing what wars are fought isn't going to affect individuals ability to pass military fitness and character tests. If the problem was that there are so many eligible people, but nobody wants to volunteer, then you might be on to something.

Biggest single problem is obesity. There are just too many fat teen-agers. Second is a criminal record or drug abuse. Third is inadequate education; the US military requires high school graduation now. As of 2009 [1]:

- 27% - too fat

- 31% - other health problem

The Army used to run fat recruits through a "fat farm" phase of 6 weeks of exercise. But they no longer do that. There's talk of bringing it back.

The Marines want you in shape before you enlist. Marine recruiters help promising recruits get in shape before they enlist.

[1] http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/MR-Ready-Willing-Unable.pdf

> The Army used to run fat recruits through a "fat farm" phase of 6 weeks of exercise. But they no longer do that.

Why not?

They didn't have to bother during the recession.

>If the problem was that there are so many eligible people, but nobody wants to volunteer, then you might be on to something.

They way I read it this is the problem:

> Once you take into account whether or not the remaining 9.7 million are enrolled in college — and that the Army doesn’t want the bare minimum for its future soldiers — the recruiting pool shrinks to just 1.7 million.

The biggest contributor is 7 million college students not wanting to enroll even though they can get the military to pay for college. I bet bullshit wars on the other side of the world affects this number.

Alternatively, maybe they just need fat camp as a pre-boot camp step.

29% is tens of millions of people. I just pointed out why people might be reluctant to volunteer.

Have you read the article? It says the effective recruiting pool is 1.7 million, and the goal is 180,000 recruits. That means you'd need to convince every 1 in 10 eligible person to enlist. Even if the military was a glory-filled job, I doubt you'd get those numbers.

Numbers don’t line up. There are 30 million people in that age group in the US. 30% of that is nearly 10M. There may be fewer volunteers than that, of course, but that problem is fairly straightforward to fix: pay more, and get the hell out of the Middle East.