Why do so few people consider military paying for college?

[Sailor Sam]

Definitionally it is impossible to be moral & upstanding and to join a voluntary military. You are describing a contradiction.

Too grandiose. Is it immoral to join as a doctor or nurse? What about a chaplain? To serve as the PA to a prison? Is it immoral to join a life saving service?

I think you lose all ability to claim yourself as morally upstanding any time you voluntarily subjugate your own decision making to another party.  You may be moral, but if you pledge allegiance to an immoral party that can compel you to participate in immoral activities then your own morality isn't really relevant anymore. 

I think most soldiers are good people.  I think the US military is trying to do good things.  I know that some US soldiers have done terribly immoral things, and millions more have inadvertently supported them.  Even the guy who procures groceries for the staff at Gitmo is complicit in torture.

You know sol, somehow it’s just not as offensive when you call me an immoral creature. Probably because I know you hold yourself to a pretty hard line. Brawndo TQ’s condemnation is a little harder to take, since their history of response is unknown. Maybe that’s just ego on my part. I dunno.

So, in the spirit of intellectual fun; how far would you say the immorality goes? The Torture Memo was issued by the US Department of Justice. I agree there’s some ambiguity over who issued the first memo, but Ashcroft authorized the use of torture while Attorney General. A position he obtained through Presidential nomination, and senatorial confirmation. Are the people who voted those folks into office culpable? They did, after all, voluntarily subjugate their own decision to the electoral college.

If you spiral it out far enough, you'd encompass the whole of society. But maybe that's your intention? I'm sure there are plenty of people who find the entirely of German society complicit in Hitler's holocaust.

[Shane]

Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork?

As I said in the thread above, I met a whole bunch of Army Infantry men and women who were all bummed out that their orders to deploy to Iraq had been cancelled. The only reason for their disappointment any of them were able to articulate was that they had been counting on the extra pay that they would get if they were deployed.

For those of you who've been in the military, is it or is it not true that the government pays you extra money if you go overseas to fight? I lost track of how many people in my community returned from overseas deployments and immediately bought new pickup trucks. My guess is that that money must've come from somewhere.

[Yaeger]

Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork?

As I said in the thread above, I met a whole bunch of Army Infantry men and women who were all bummed out that their orders to deploy to Iraq had been cancelled. The only reason for their disappointment any of them were able to articulate was that they had been counting on the extra pay that they would get if they were deployed.

For those of you who've been in the military, is it or is it not true that the government pays you extra money if you go overseas to fight? I lost track of how many people in my community returned from overseas deployments and immediately bought new pickup trucks. My guess is that that money must've come from somewhere.

Don't buy into the hype. You might get some tax deduction or combat pay ($225 a month?), but the biggest benefit is the inability to spend your money, which means when you get home you have TONS of money (for a non-mustachian). Another reason is that deploying, for some jobs, are the only method of gaining needed experience to be more eligible for promotion. Yes, there are die-hard people that love deploying, but realize that 95% of military in Afghanistan sit on a civilian-guarded base, eat Burger King, and never leave.

So yeah, if you're in the infantry, and plan on making the military a career, you NEED to deploy to actually do stuff and promote. No one hopes for combat (except idiots and Marines, but they're a special breed =P).

[Brawndo TQ]

So, in the spirit of intellectual fun; how far would you say the immorality goes?

It's not very complicated or intellectually challenging. Participating in or directly aiding an imperialist war machine is one of the worst things you can do. The cost is far far higher than the benefit of a college education.

[sol]

So, in the spirit of intellectual fun; how far would you say the immorality goes?

It's not very complicated or intellectually challenging. Participating in or directly aiding an imperialist war machine is one of the worst things you can do. The cost is far far higher than the benefit of a college education.

Brawndo, Sailor Sam is making the point that we ALL directly aid an imperialist war machine.  I pay US taxes, and approximately one third of those dollars are spent on the US military, which uses that money to do some great stuff and some horrible stuff. 

Am I just as culpable for torture as the marine who actually did the torturing?  No, probably less so than that, but neither are my hands clean.  The marine's hands aren't clean either, even though he'll say he was just following orders and had no choice in the matter.  His commander's hands aren't clean, nor the lawyers who justified the torture policy, nor the POTUS who heads the executive branch they all work for, nor the Congress that appropriated the dollars with full knowledge of how they would be spent on mutilating the genitals of man who has been charged with no crime but is being held in an off-the-books black prison in eastern Europe.

And the voters who elected those Congressmen?  They didn't necessarily know about those crimes, but they are also responsible, in some small way, for supporting the system that committed them.  Lots of (straight white Christian) people in Germany who weren't Nazi sympathizers still lived and worked in German during the rise of the Nazi Party, are they also complicit because they were in a position to stop it and didn't?  For those people, and for you and me, the "cost" you mentioned is pretty low.  My life is not materially affected when Uncle Sam electrocutes a man's testicles, on my behalf, because I wasn't directly involved.  I had to sacrifice nothing, and am less complicit in that crime than the man who hooked up the batteries.  The newly enlisted private who shuffles paperwork in San Diego is also less complicit, but maybe more so than I am by virtue of having sworn a direct oath of obedience, even if that oath hasn't yet demanded that he violate his own principles.

[Yaeger]

I think you guys are painting with a very broad brush here. You conversation is analogous to saying that an organization or a group is morally deficient if a small minority of its members commit a crime. You can apply that any ANY organization, ANY group in America. Realistically, 10 people committing a crime out of an organization of over a million, it's not statistically significant. That'd be like saying ALL people who use Medicare are morally deficient because some people on the program purposefully defraud the government. Or ALL Muslims are bad because some willingly participated in a mass shooting.

I think the outrage stems from the fact that these service members are held to higher moral standard. If you're going to put them on such a high pedestal, you need to analyse the pool from which they're drawn. The military is only a reflection of the people it serves.

[davisgang90]

So, in the spirit of intellectual fun; how far would you say the immorality goes?

It's not very complicated or intellectually challenging. Participating in or directly aiding an imperialist war machine is one of the worst things you can do. The cost is far far higher than the benefit of a college education.

Brawndo, Sailor Sam is making the point that we ALL directly aid an imperialist war machine.  I pay US taxes, and approximately one third of those dollars are spent on the US military, which uses that money to do some great stuff and some horrible stuff. 

Not a third.  16%.  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

[davisgang90]

Sol wants to take this to rendition and torture in black locations.  Those were run by the CIA, not the military, certainly not Marines.  So not the military.

[Pigeon]

If you two have knowledge about the military which might help us to understand why we should encourage our children to join up to get help paying for college, why not enlighten the rest of us? Just writing, "Well I'm a veteran and you don't know shit about the military because you never 'served'," doesn't really help us to get a better understanding.

I stand behind my claim that politicians aren't the only ones to blame for the two ridiculous wars our country has been involved in in the last ~14 years. W. and his merry band of Neocons started the wars, but individual members of the military should be held responsible for fighting the wars. If individual Americans hadn't been willing to sign up and fight in our government's stupid wars, they wouldn't have happened and over a million people would still be alive today. Individual members of the military are the ones who fought the wars, and for what? We're much less safe today than we were in 2001. BECAUSE of the wars members of the military chose to fight. They could've just said, "Fuck you!" to W and his buddies, and they would've had to come up with a different plan.

Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork? If you have any understanding of international relations you understand that we only use the military as a last resort. We spend years leveraging assets with NGOs, the State Department, and various international organizations. Ideally, the goal would be to eliminate or neutralize the threat while it's small and unable to present a threat to our country, rather than waiting for a situation like Germany or Japan rapidly expanding and consolidating power before we intervene.

Also, most people also don't understand that the military is primarily an economic force. The largest threat to our country is economic. If a major competitor like China were to close all trade moving through the South China sea, it would cripple our economy. This is turn would cripple our military (example: targeting Japanese oil tankers instead of ships during WW2 won us the war). So when people ask why the US military cares about dissidents in the south Philippine islands, it's complicated and usually at the request of the local government through the State Department, but global economic stability is a vital area of our national security strategy.

How was invading Iraq a last resort?

[Brawndo TQ]

Brawndo, Sailor Sam is making the point that we ALL directly aid an imperialist war machine.  I pay US taxes, and approximately one third of those dollars are spent on the US military, which uses that money to do some great stuff and some horrible stuff.

if that's his point, then we have different definitions of direct.

[sol]

I think you guys are painting with a very broad brush here. You conversation is analogous to saying that an organization or a group is morally deficient if a small minority of its members commit a crime. You can apply that any ANY organization, ANY group in America.

Perhaps, but I think it's a critique that applies more sharply to organizations that require all members to make a pledge of obedience, and then trains them to subvert their own judgment to the chain of command. 

To continue the above analogy about people living in Germany in the 1930s, I agree with your assessment that an active Nazi party member is more complicit than a non-party member who passively benefits from living in a resurgent Germany.  But in this case, we're talking about the difference between civilians who benefit passively (like me and presumably like Brawndo) and active members of the organization committing the crime.  Not every Nazi Party member worked at a concentration camp, but we still hold them each individually responsible for the sins of their group.

It would be ludicrous to suggest that all military personnel are equally complicit in the crimes committed by a few.  I agree with you on that point.  But I still think that a person who volunteers for military service has made a conscious decision to support the things the military does, and forsaken their individual right to protest the things the military does.  That person has got to be slightly more complicit than a peacenik hippie who burned his draft card, but still benefits from living in a country with a ruthlessly efficient military.  Right?

Not a third.  16%.

I didn't look up a number before posting, but isn't the argument equally valid at 1%?  This isn't a thread about the federal budget.

Sol wants to take this to rendition and torture in black locations.  Those were run by the CIA, not the military, certainly not Marines.  So not the military.

I merely used such examples above as easy and familiar examples, because I think there's been enough pointed critque of the military in this thread without me piling on with additional specific examples.  I don't think anyone here needs to be convinced that the US military has done some truly terrible things over the years on behalf of the American public.

And from the perspective of this thread, the CIA and the military are equivalent representative subdivisions of the US government.  They will both send you to college for free.  They both require an oath of obedience.  They both try to do good, and sometimes do bad instead.  We're not here to prosecute the military in particular, we've instead been discussing the merits of volunteering for an organization that may ask you to do things you don't agree with, and whether the benefits you derive from joining up are worth the loss of personal freedom.  The argument doesn't change if any particular example were entirely devoid of military involvement.

[Brawndo TQ]

I think you guys are painting with a very broad brush here. You conversation is analogous to saying that an organization or a group is morally deficient if a small minority of its members commit a crime.

you're missing the point. it's not a minority that are committing a crime. it's 100%: all of it and all of the people who participate.

[Hank Sinatra]

If you have been living your life not killing every military person you can YOU are aiding and abetting the immorality.  If you in any way have not directly tried to end the military to include getting yourself killed in the process, you are aiding and abetting and lying to yourself that you are somehow more moral than they are.

[sol]

you're missing the point. it's not a minority that are committing a crime. it's 100%: all of it and all of the people who participate.

Did you read any of my above post?  You really don't see any variability in the level of responsibility that people from different parts of the military might bear? 

I suspect that this sort of thinking, where "they must all be evil" is exactly the kind of thinking that convinces a young Muslim to strap on a bomb and kill 30 Jews.  He can't differentiate between the horrible things that some Jews have done to some Muslims and the murder of innocent civilians and children that will die as a result of his decision.  Some Jews are mean to some Muslims, yes.  Not all Jews are equally responsible for that.  Some members of the US military have committed horrible crimes, yes.  Not all members of the military are equally responsible for that.

[davisgang90]

I think you guys are painting with a very broad brush here. You conversation is analogous to saying that an organization or a group is morally deficient if a small minority of its members commit a crime. You can apply that any ANY organization, ANY group in America.

Perhaps, but I think it's a critique that applies more sharply to organizations that require all members to make a pledge of obedience, and then trains them to subvert their own judgment to the chain of command. 

To continue the above analogy about people living in Germany in the 1930s, I agree with your assessment that an active Nazi party member is more complicit than a non-party member who passively benefits from living in a resurgent Germany.  But in this case, we're talking about the difference between civilians who benefit passively (like me and presumably like Brawndo) and active members of the organization committing the crime.  Not every Nazi Party member worked at a concentration camp, but we still hold them each individually responsible for the sins of their group.

It would be ludicrous to suggest that all military personnel are equally complicit in the crimes committed by a few.  I agree with you on that point.  But I still think that a person who volunteers for military service has made a conscious decision to support the things the military does, and forsaken their individual right to protest the things the military does.  That person has got to be slightly more complicit than a peacenik hippie who burned his draft card, but still benefits from living in a country with a ruthlessly efficient military.  Right?

Not a third.  16%.

I didn't look up a number before posting, but isn't the argument equally valid at 1%?  This isn't a thread about the federal budget.

Sol wants to take this to rendition and torture in black locations.  Those were run by the CIA, not the military, certainly not Marines.  So not the military.

I merely used such examples above as easy and familiar examples, because I think there's been enough pointed critque of the military in this thread without me piling on with additional specific examples.  I don't think anyone here needs to be convinced that the US military has done some truly terrible things over the years on behalf of the American public.

And from the perspective of this thread, the CIA and the military are equivalent representative subdivisions of the US government.  They will both send you to college for free.  They both require an oath of obedience.  They both try to do good, and sometimes do bad instead.  We're not here to prosecute the military in particular, we've instead been discussing the merits of volunteering for an organization that may ask you to do things you don't agree with, and whether the benefits you derive from joining up are worth the loss of personal freedom.  The argument doesn't change if any particular example were entirely devoid of military involvement.

Sol, you usually have pretty solid arguments, but your numbers are way off and now the CIA and the military are exactly the same.  Weak sauce.

[sol]

Sol, you usually have pretty solid arguments, but your numbers are way off and now the CIA and the military are exactly the same.  Weak sauce.

That's okay, I accept even half-compliments when I can get them.

Is the number you're concerned about the percentage of my tax dollars that support defense spending?  I've already admitted that I didn't research what that number should be, and posited that any percentage greater than zero makes the argument equally sound.  If I were to send $1 dollar to Al Qaeda, then I'd be supporting terrorists, right?

And for this purpose, aren't the military and the CIA both recipients of my tax dollars?  Aren't I incrementally supporting both of them by paying taxes, or by voting for representatives who set their policies and manage their funding?  Am I more complicit in sins committed by one than I am in sins committed by the other?

[davisgang90]

This is a thread about the military.  Not the CIA.  Not the government lab that employs you.  Comparing the US military to Al Qaeda is interesting.

[sol]

This is a thread about the military.

This was a thread about paying for college, and now it's a thread about how people feel about their nation doing some ugly and unfortunate things.  It's only a thread "about the military" for military members who took umbrage at the criticisms leveled against them, and rose up to try to defend their honor.

Comparing the US military to Al Qaeda is interesting.

Slow down there, Hoss.  I did nothing of the sort and you know it.  I was responding to your suggestion that small amounts of support for an organization do not count as support.  I gave you an example that I thought would speak to your sensibilities, to illustrate that yes even tiny amounts still count.  This whole discussion is about how being a tiny cog in a larger machine challenges some people's sense of morality.

[Yaeger]

I respect your opinions, and I agree with your premise that the world would be a much better place if the military wasn't necessary, and I'd wholly support that. However, that idealism isn't likely to spring into being anytime soon. I'd rather have a professional fighting force and not need it, than not have one and need it.

I think you guys are painting with a very broad brush here. You conversation is analogous to saying that an organization or a group is morally deficient if a small minority of its members commit a crime.

you're missing the point. it's not a minority that are committing a crime. it's 100%: all of it and all of the people who participate.

You're going to have to elaborate on this.

Perhaps, but I think it's a critique that applies more sharply to organizations that require all members to make a pledge of obedience, and then trains them to subvert their own judgment to the chain of command. 

Well, Commissioned Officers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, that's it. They're expected to be educated and knowledgeable enough to know when disobeying is worth the risk or crosses the line. They don't swear an oath to a chain of command. The goal of a more senior person is never force a more inexperienced person, under incredible stress, into a situation where they might make that wrong decision. When your boss gives you an order to open fire on a truck that looks like it's going to ram the compound's entrance, do you have time to stop and question him about his decision making process? Do you return fire at someone shooting at you who's using a child as a shield?

It's entirely possible to reduce the number of incidents that happen by including more moral and talented people in the military. It'll likely cost the taxpayer though, after all it's a volunteer force. It's hard recruiting though, as most Americans take for granted the fruits of a major world economy and the security of suburbia. It's completely worth a 4 year commitment, if only to see firsthand what real poverty is.

[davisgang90]

This is a thread about the military.

This was a thread about paying for college, and now it's a thread about how people feel about their nation doing some ugly and unfortunate things.  It's only a thread "about the military" for military members who took umbrage at the criticisms leveled against them, and rose up to try to defend their honor.

Comparing the US military to Al Qaeda is interesting.

Slow down there, Hoss.  I did nothing of the sort and you know it.  I was responding to your suggestion that small amounts of support for an organization do not count as support.  I gave you an example that I thought would speak to your sensibilities, to illustrate that yes even tiny amounts still count.  This whole discussion is about how being a tiny cog in a larger machine challenges some people's sense of morality.

Actually it is a thread about using the military to pay for college.  Now, what role has your lab played in illegal and immoral acts of the US government?  When did you stop beating your wife Sol!!??

[sol]

It's entirely possible to reduce the number of incidents that happen by including more moral and talented people in the military.

While it's an admirable goal, I'm honestly not as worried about it as I probably should be.  The military does the best that it can.  They're not perfect, and never will be.  I think you have to accept some degree if malfunction in any large organization, especially if the cost to fix it is more than the cost of the problem.

But I suspect folks like GuitarSV are less concerned about the bad apple problems that could theoretically be fixed by "including more moral and talented people in the military".  They seem more concerned about the structural, carefully orchestrated problems.  Not a crazy dude shooting up a mess hall or a soldier offing a bunch of civilians in a warzone, more like the instantaneous murder of an entire city by nuclear weapons.  That sort of crime was a carefully thought out and orchestrated act of evil, done with the best of intentions but still evil.  Women and children, noncombatants, hospitals and day care centers and nursing homes, all wiped out instantly in a giant mushroom cloud.  Then, as if that wasn't terrible enough, we did it all again three days later somewhere else.  I'm still not sure what the excuse is for dropping the second one, honestly.

Those sorts of decisions are not the kind of thing that one officer with a conscience can stop.  The entire US military carefully planned and plotted to make that happen, because they thought it was the most moral thing to do at the time.  Murdering civilians is bad, but America did it.  Torture is bad, but America did it.  Supporting pedophiles is bad, but America did it.  Overthrowing democracies to install dictators is bad, but America did it.  Suppressing sexual assault claims within the ranks is bad, but America did it.  Assassinating foreign leaders is bad, but America did it.  Violating due process is bad, but America did it.  Killing American citizens instead of arresting them is bad, but America did it.   These are all carefully deliberated policy positions of the US government, not random flukes that could be avoided if we only had better soldiers, and some people find them too problematic to rationalize volunteering for military service.  We're still a free country, and as long as we have an all-volunteer force they still get to make that decision.

Personally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.  I don't think Dick Cheney was an evil man, for example, I think he was a tragically misguided man.  He tried to do good and failed, and we as a nation bear the scars of countless men like him and the bad decisions they have made.  I'd like to believe those scars are recognized exceptions, not our national ideals made manifest.

[Yaeger]

Those sorts of decisions are not the kind of thing that one officer with a conscience can stop.  The entire US military carefully planned and plotted to make that happen, because they thought it was the most moral thing to do at the time.  Murdering civilians is bad, but America did it.  Torture is bad, but America did it.  Supporting pedophiles is bad, but America did it.  Overthrowing democracies to install dictators is bad, but America did it.  Suppressing sexual assault claims within the ranks is bad, but America did it.  Assassinating foreign leaders is bad, but America did it.  Violating due process is bad, but America did it.  Killing American citizens instead of arresting them is bad, but America did it.   These are all carefully deliberated policy positions of the US government, not random flukes that could be avoided if we only had better soldiers, and some people find them too problematic to rationalize volunteering for military service.  We're still a free country, and as long as we have an all-volunteer force they still get to make that decision.

Personally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.  I don't think Dick Cheney was an evil man, for example, I think he was a tragically misguided man.  He tried to do good and failed, and we as a nation bear the scars of countless men like him and the bad decisions they have made.  I'd like to believe those scars are recognized exceptions, not our national ideals made manifest.

Almost half of those things have, and do, occur with no military involvement at all. Is it entirely possible that someone can have a moral justification to join the military to PREVENT atrocities? Not just in our government, but to wave the democracy flag and stop global injustice? I'm sure you could have advocated peaceful protest against Germany invading Poland, yet that wouldn't have stopped the invasion or the wholesale slaughter of Poles.

Statistically, you're more like to be sexually assaulted at a college than in the military. The military also has a much higher conviction rate for sexual assault and rape. Also, the military is subject to several reporting requirements and restrictions that the average citizen isn't subject to. The UCMJ is a much harsher justice system. When you read these reports about sexual assault, understand that they're extrapolating information from the cases that were reported and ASSUMING that 4 out of 5 people don't report an incident. The military also expanded the definition of sexual assault to include touching perceived to be sexual in nature (like your arm for instance). People were afraid of accidentally brushing in a hallway for a while there.

What do you think the phrase "defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic" means? Has our military done terrible things? Yes. I personally think Sherman's march through the south during the Civil War, burning cities and killing thousands, ultimately saved lives by crippling the south's infrastructure and shortening the war. The same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, it makes you uncomfortable that an organisation you support kills people. Would you rather bomb a compound and possibly kill civilians working with terrorists, or continue to allow them to kill hundreds more? That's what we pay it to do, to make those judgement calls and live with the result. It's kind of like that moral question about time-traveling back and killing Hitler before he came to power. Would you murder an innocent if you knew it would save millions?

I'd also like to argue that all of the major policy decisions are made by civilians, appointed or elected. Lincoln authorized Sherman's march. Truman authorized the bombing of Japan. The Secretary of Defense and his staff of civilians that run the military and develop policy within the US government. A military member doesn't get to decide that. We'd rather not have a force capable of leveling major cities with significant and direct influence within the government.

I think FDR was one of the worst presidents we've ever had, and we'll forever bear the scars from the bad decisions he put into motion. But that's just my opinion.

[Brawndo TQ]

I respect your opinions, and I agree with your premise that the world would be a much better place if the military wasn't necessary, and I'd wholly support that. However, that idealism isn't likely to spring into being anytime soon. I'd rather have a professional fighting force and not need it, than not have one and need it.

The need for the military, at least in its current incarnation, ended with nuclear proliferation.

I think you guys are painting with a very broad brush here. You conversation is analogous to saying that an organization or a group is morally deficient if a small minority of its members commit a crime.

you're missing the point. it's not a minority that are committing a crime. it's 100%: all of it and all of the people who participate.

You're going to have to elaborate on this.

There's not much to elaborate. Fighting for a force and government that has been regularly destabilizing countries for well over 50 years to go kill people is a horrible thing to do.

Do you return fire at someone shooting at you who's using a child as a shield?

That dude wouldn't be using a child as a shield if the members of the military didn't invade their country and destroy their cities.

It's entirely possible to reduce the number of incidents that happen by including more moral and talented people in the military.

Again. Oxymoron. The "incident" is participation.


Also your constant "only following orders" line didn't work too well for the Nazis.


Don't interpret this as me apologizing for ISIS. I think the people who join that organization are awful as well.

[Shane]

Statistically, you're more like to be sexually assaulted at a college than in the military. The military also has a much higher conviction rate for sexual assault and rape. Also, the military is subject to several reporting requirements and restrictions that the average citizen isn't subject to. The UCMJ is a much harsher justice system. When you read these reports about sexual assault, understand that they're extrapolating information from the cases that were reported and ASSUMING that 4 out of 5 people don't report an incident. The military also expanded the definition of sexual assault to include touching perceived to be sexual in nature (like your arm for instance). People were afraid of accidentally brushing in a hallway for a while there.

Maybe you missed the pages of this thread that were dedicated to talking about the prevalence of sexual assaults against young women in the military. Apparently, in certain branches of the military enlisted women have a much higher probability of being sexually assaulted or raped than if they were civilians. In the thread above former members of the military recommended against women enlisting in certain branches of the military because of the extreme danger of being sexually assaulted. The movie The Invisible War has many interviews with women who were sexually abused in the military. One of the young women said that the treatment she got from the military after she reported it was as bad or worse than the rape itself. All the women who were interviewed said they were retaliated against professionally after they reported that they had been raped. Apparently, the military only convicts ~7% of people charged with sexual assault. It's hard to see how that can be "much higher" than civilian courts, especially since the stigma is so great against reporting sexual assault in the military. Any woman who reports sexual assault in the military has to know that it will be the end of her military career. That's why most sexual assaults in the military go unreported.

[Shane]

Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork? If you have any understanding of international relations you understand that we only use the military as a last resort. We spend years leveraging assets with NGOs, the State Department, and various international organizations. Ideally, the goal would be to eliminate or neutralize the threat while it's small and unable to present a threat to our country, rather than waiting for a situation like Germany or Japan rapidly expanding and consolidating power before we intervene.

Not all, but most former members of the military I've known are hawks. They vote Republican, and they like candidates who have military experience and are tough on "defense," i.e., they want to invade other people's countries and take their stuff.

Also, most people also don't understand that the military is primarily an economic force. The largest threat to our country is economic.

I totally agree with this. The main reasons why our military invades or doesn't invade any given country all have to do with money. The whole moral superiority, patriotism thing is just a ruse to cover up the U.S. government's real agenda.

[Yaeger]

Statistically, you're more like to be sexually assaulted at a college than in the military. The military also has a much higher conviction rate for sexual assault and rape. Also, the military is subject to several reporting requirements and restrictions that the average citizen isn't subject to. The UCMJ is a much harsher justice system. When you read these reports about sexual assault, understand that they're extrapolating information from the cases that were reported and ASSUMING that 4 out of 5 people don't report an incident. The military also expanded the definition of sexual assault to include touching perceived to be sexual in nature (like your arm for instance). People were afraid of accidentally brushing in a hallway for a while there.

Maybe you missed the pages of this thread that were dedicated to talking about the prevalence of sexual assaults against young women in the military. Apparently, in certain branches of the military enlisted women have a much higher probability of being sexually assaulted or raped than if they were civilians. In the thread above former members of the military recommended against women enlisting in certain branches of the military because of the extreme danger of being sexually assaulted. The movie The Invisible War has many interviews with women who were sexually abused in the military. One of the young women said that the treatment she got from the military after she reported it was as bad or worse than the rape itself. All the women who were interviewed said they were retaliated against professionally after they reported that they had been raped. Apparently, the military only convicts ~7% of people charged with sexual assault. It's hard to see how that can be "much higher" than civilian courts, especially since the stigma is so great against reporting sexual assault in the military. Any woman who reports sexual assault in the military has to know that it will be the end of her military career. That's why most sexual assaults in the military go unreported.

I hate bandying opinions around, everyone has one and they all stink. Here's the data from the horse's mouth. It includes past data and percentages, including estimated numbers. Bear in mind that the increase in 2011 and 2012ish time-frame is (in my opinion) due to expanding the definition and range of offenses that fall under sexual assault and rape:

http://sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY14_Annual/FY14_DoD_SAPRO_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault.pdf

Also, please bear in mind that the military takes this so seriously that an accusation of sexual assault will cause mountains to move. For some, it can keep you at home for over a year, getting paid full time to twiddle your thumbs while a team of investigators collects evidence, interview witnesses, etc. The military takes it very seriously and takes their time to get it right. When it's so political, like it is in the military, money is no option.

[Travis]

When my children are legal adults they can make their own decisions. Until then, no the military does not need them. I think the practice of trying to recruit them as minors is unethical.

You can join if you're 17 with parental permission.  You can go through training as a minor, but you cannot be deployed until you're 18.

I can personally attest that, while you can join as a minor with both parents' consent; the idea that they can't do anything is a flexible concept.

We had a kid make it as far as Kuwait, but he wasn't allowed to go north into Iraq until he turned 18 just a few weeks later. Usually they're kept home before even getting that far.

[davisgang90]

Military members don't choose to fight, or want to fight wars that come around. That's idiotic. Why would I want to risk my life for someone else's benefit if I get paid the same sitting in the US shuffling paperwork? If you have any understanding of international relations you understand that we only use the military as a last resort. We spend years leveraging assets with NGOs, the State Department, and various international organizations. Ideally, the goal would be to eliminate or neutralize the threat while it's small and unable to present a threat to our country, rather than waiting for a situation like Germany or Japan rapidly expanding and consolidating power before we intervene.

Not all, but most former members of the military I've known are hawks. They vote Republican, and they like candidates who have military experience and are tough on "defense," i.e., they want to invade other people's countries and take their stuff.

Also, most people also don't understand that the military is primarily an economic force. The largest threat to our country is economic.

I totally agree with this. The main reasons why our military invades or doesn't invade any given country all have to do with money. The whole moral superiority, patriotism thing is just a ruse to cover up the U.S. government's real agenda.

Explain how the US made money invading Afghanistan and Iraq.  Please cite your work.

[GuitarStv]

It's entirely possible to reduce the number of incidents that happen by including more moral and talented people in the military.

While it's an admirable goal, I'm honestly not as worried about it as I probably should be.  The military does the best that it can.  They're not perfect, and never will be.  I think you have to accept some degree if malfunction in any large organization, especially if the cost to fix it is more than the cost of the problem.

But I suspect folks like GuitarSV are less concerned about the bad apple problems that could theoretically be fixed by "including more moral and talented people in the military".  They seem more concerned about the structural, carefully orchestrated problems.  Not a crazy dude shooting up a mess hall or a soldier offing a bunch of civilians in a warzone, more like the instantaneous murder of an entire city by nuclear weapons.  That sort of crime was a carefully thought out and orchestrated act of evil, done with the best of intentions but still evil.  Women and children, noncombatants, hospitals and day care centers and nursing homes, all wiped out instantly in a giant mushroom cloud.  Then, as if that wasn't terrible enough, we did it all again three days later somewhere else.  I'm still not sure what the excuse is for dropping the second one, honestly.

Those sorts of decisions are not the kind of thing that one officer with a conscience can stop.  The entire US military carefully planned and plotted to make that happen, because they thought it was the most moral thing to do at the time.  Murdering civilians is bad, but America did it.  Torture is bad, but America did it.  Supporting pedophiles is bad, but America did it.  Overthrowing democracies to install dictators is bad, but America did it.  Suppressing sexual assault claims within the ranks is bad, but America did it.  Assassinating foreign leaders is bad, but America did it.  Violating due process is bad, but America did it.  Killing American citizens instead of arresting them is bad, but America did it.   These are all carefully deliberated policy positions of the US government, not random flukes that could be avoided if we only had better soldiers, and some people find them too problematic to rationalize volunteering for military service.  We're still a free country, and as long as we have an all-volunteer force they still get to make that decision.

Personally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.  I don't think Dick Cheney was an evil man, for example, I think he was a tragically misguided man.  He tried to do good and failed, and we as a nation bear the scars of countless men like him and the bad decisions they have made.  I'd like to believe those scars are recognized exceptions, not our national ideals made manifest.

Yes, this is the point that I was trying to get across originally.

To reiterate (for the third or fourth time) I have no issue with most of the people in the military.  To repeat myself . . . you're not a bad person for joining up and wanting to help your country.  Those are good intentions.

I do have tremendous issue with some current and morally reprehensible military practices.  Especially as there appears to be no end to them because nobody is really admitting that they are wrong.  This is at least in part because calling attention to atrocities currently perpetrated by the US military immediately makes a lot of people react to you negatively.


In this thread:
- I've been called uninformed
- I've been told that I hate servicemen
- I've been told that my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not a member of military
- I've been told that most people in the military don't do immoral things on a day to day basis, so we just obviously ignore all the immoral stuff currently happening
- It's been insinuated that I'm hypocritical for pointing out the immoral things in the military, because there are other jobs where immoral things happen
- I've been told that my opinion is heavily influenced by television and movies, therefore my complaints aren't valid
- I've been told that I have a 'hard-on' for criticizing the US government.
- I've been told that my posts are direct attacks on the morals of US servicemen.


Something is badly broken.  There appears to be nobody trying to stop the bad things that the US military is currently doing (and the above baseless criticisms are a good indication why they remain so).  That means to me, that the problem will never be fixed.  There's a chance that any new recruit could be ordered to torture people in an illegal prison camp, to bomb foreign civilians via computer screen, or to help solidify a base of power for child molesters.  Even if the chance of getting that assignment is low, does that really sound like a group of people you want to encourage your kid to join up with?

[Gin1984]

Those sorts of decisions are not the kind of thing that one officer with a conscience can stop.  The entire US military carefully planned and plotted to make that happen, because they thought it was the most moral thing to do at the time.  Murdering civilians is bad, but America did it.  Torture is bad, but America did it.  Supporting pedophiles is bad, but America did it.  Overthrowing democracies to install dictators is bad, but America did it.  Suppressing sexual assault claims within the ranks is bad, but America did it.  Assassinating foreign leaders is bad, but America did it.  Violating due process is bad, but America did it.  Killing American citizens instead of arresting them is bad, but America did it.   These are all carefully deliberated policy positions of the US government, not random flukes that could be avoided if we only had better soldiers, and some people find them too problematic to rationalize volunteering for military service.  We're still a free country, and as long as we have an all-volunteer force they still get to make that decision.

Personally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.  I don't think Dick Cheney was an evil man, for example, I think he was a tragically misguided man.  He tried to do good and failed, and we as a nation bear the scars of countless men like him and the bad decisions they have made.  I'd like to believe those scars are recognized exceptions, not our national ideals made manifest.

Almost half of those things have, and do, occur with no military involvement at all. Is it entirely possible that someone can have a moral justification to join the military to PREVENT atrocities? Not just in our government, but to wave the democracy flag and stop global injustice? I'm sure you could have advocated peaceful protest against Germany invading Poland, yet that wouldn't have stopped the invasion or the wholesale slaughter of Poles.

Statistically, you're more like to be sexually assaulted at a college than in the military. The military also has a much higher conviction rate for sexual assault and rape. Also, the military is subject to several reporting requirements and restrictions that the average citizen isn't subject to. The UCMJ is a much harsher justice system. When you read these reports about sexual assault, understand that they're extrapolating information from the cases that were reported and ASSUMING that 4 out of 5 people don't report an incident. The military also expanded the definition of sexual assault to include touching perceived to be sexual in nature (like your arm for instance). People were afraid of accidentally brushing in a hallway for a while there.

What do you think the phrase "defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic" means? Has our military done terrible things? Yes. I personally think Sherman's march through the south during the Civil War, burning cities and killing thousands, ultimately saved lives by crippling the south's infrastructure and shortening the war. The same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, it makes you uncomfortable that an organisation you support kills people. Would you rather bomb a compound and possibly kill civilians working with terrorists, or continue to allow them to kill hundreds more? That's what we pay it to do, to make those judgement calls and live with the result. It's kind of like that moral question about time-traveling back and killing Hitler before he came to power. Would you murder an innocent if you knew it would save millions?

I'd also like to argue that all of the major policy decisions are made by civilians, appointed or elected. Lincoln authorized Sherman's march. Truman authorized the bombing of Japan. The Secretary of Defense and his staff of civilians that run the military and develop policy within the US government. A military member doesn't get to decide that. We'd rather not have a force capable of leveling major cities with significant and direct influence within the government.

I think FDR was one of the worst presidents we've ever had, and we'll forever bear the scars from the bad decisions he put into motion. But that's just my opinion.

That is not true. Even the military said they were doing worse than civilians (1/4-1/6 for college vs 1/3 for military).  They brought in Dr. David Lasik, one of the leading civilian researchers on rapists because that.  And prior to that, the response to rape/sexual assault was to harm the victim, not prosecute the attacker.
http://mic.com/articles/29935/sexual-assault-in-the-military-97-5-of-all-military-rapes-aren-t-punished#.jAuhxmwKn
A quote from that article "And as the Wilkerson case showed us, a reported rape, with a conviction at that, can easily be overthrown by the decision of the commanding officer."
I'm not saying civilian is anywhere near good, but the military's history on rape/sexual assault is much worse and pretending it is not, is one of the reasons it is so bad.

[MishMash]

Stv,

Imagine you, yourself, are in a situation, say a hostage situation or a terrible car accident, something that COULD theoretically happen in your apparently super moral country of Canada where no one does any wrong.  There are two lives in this situation, both badly injured or about to be,  one is a stranger, the other someone you love, your wife, your child, your mother etc.  You are asked to CHOOSE who will live.  99% of people, in that situation, I would suspect would go with the loved one.  You could offer to sacrifice yourself, but the human will to live is a basic drive.  Now, it's HIGHLY immoral that you would choose the death of the stranger over the death of a loved one, however, attachments being what they are most people would do it without a second thought.  Heck I KNOW I would choose my husband over a person I didn't know because their life doesn't, in the heat of the moment, directly influence mine.

Now what does this have to do with military actions?  Everything.  One of the BIGGEST things I hear is that the fight is kept over there, so that it doesn't come over here.  So that our loved ones can go to the market without fearing for their lives, that we don't have to worry about IEDs on our daily car ride to the store or the doctors office etc.  Most servicemen, DESPITE what you think, deploy not for the money or for bloodlust, but for the desire and drive to keep their loved ones safe from people wishing to do us and our way of life, harm.  And yes, some of them volunteer for deployments but many times that is because they wish to keep their brothers safe.  There literally is nothing worse then losing a friend/loved one and thinking you could have done something to change the outcome.

Now, we all wish the world was a peachy keen 1950's movie where world peace was a reality and everyone sang their nations version of koombaya around a campfire.  It's not.  Despite how badly you want it to be.  This is reality, there are VERY real threats to this world, and very real world monsters on a power trip.  I guaran-damn-tee you that most soldiers do not want to go to war any longer.  However, until certain nations step off the crazy train that involves mass murdering their own women and children and subjugating entire factions of the population on the basis of religion, skin color, language or genitalia, well, frankly, that's not a reality.    I wish the people of these nations, and the able bodied men in particular, would stop fleeing to Europe and finally stand up to the terrorists that are destroying their way of life, but they aren't, and their governments are so damn corrupt that as long as the money keeps flowing into the elites pockets they don't give a damn about the peasants. 

It is very easy for you to sit in your Ivory Tower and judge all the "immoral" people in the world, but as others have pointed out, until you lose someone to irrational violence, or you yourself are put into a situation that is life or death, you will never be able to understand, and for your sake, I HOPE you are never in that situation.  Instead you sit, like an old school Vietnam runner, in a foreign country, running your mouth about the immoral decisions people make here in the US.  Are there problems with the military, oh hell yea, never going to disagree on that one.  But, there are problems with EVERY company, government, job, etc out there.  All an INDIVIDUAL can do, is make the right decision, for them, in the moment that it has to be made. 

Human beings, after all, are not infallible. 

[GuitarStv]

Imagine you, yourself, are in a situation, say a hostage situation or a terrible car accident, something that COULD theoretically happen in your apparently super moral country of Canada where no one does any wrong.

I've never claimed that Canada was a 'super moral country' . . . so, we're already putting words in my mouth . . . but OK.

There are two lives in this situation, both badly injured or about to be,  one is a stranger, the other someone you love, your wife, your child, your mother etc.  You are asked to CHOOSE who will live.  99% of people, in that situation, I would suspect would go with the loved one.  You could offer to sacrifice yourself, but the human will to live is a basic drive.  Now, it's HIGHLY immoral that you would choose the death of the stranger over the death of a loved one, however, attachments being what they are most people would do it without a second thought.  Heck I KNOW I would choose my husband over a person I didn't know because their life doesn't, in the heat of the moment, directly influence mine.

Yep.  I'd choose my wife in this strange, purely hypothetical heat of the moment scenario you've come up with.

Now what does this have to do with military actions?  Everything.  One of the BIGGEST things I hear is that the fight is kept over there, so that it doesn't come over here.

Screeching brakes here.  You are torturing people in Guantanamo Bay.  Illegality of this action aside, the vast majority of the cases there have (when brought to a real court, not the military kangaroo court) turned out not to have enough evidence to support ever holding them in the first place.

You are therefore torturing innocent people in Guantanamo Bay.  It's not a matter of 'keeping the fight over there'.  It's bringing the fight to innocent people.  It's helping to create hatred of your country all over the world.  It's making your lives at home less safe, dishonoring the principals that founded your country, and spitting on the graves of the people who fought to keep your country free.

So that our loved ones can go to the market without fearing for their lives, that we don't have to worry about IEDs on our daily car ride to the store or the doctors office etc.

Putting pedophiles in power in Afghanistan doesn't prevent IEDs on your daily car ride to the store.  Killing innocent people in drone strikes doesn't either.

You're trying to justify these long standing policies enacted by your country by comparing it to a split second descision made by a husband towards his wife in a time of crisis.  They're not remotely the same scenarios.

Most servicemen, DESPITE what you think, deploy not for the money or for bloodlust, but for the desire and drive to keep their loved ones safe from people wishing to do us and our way of life, harm.

I don't think that servicemen are driven by greed or bloodlust, and haven't said I do.  Again, you are putting words in my mouth.

That said, keeping torture facilities open, killing foreign civilians, and helping pedophiles stay in power makes more people around the world wish to do Americans harm.  It increases the risk to loved ones.  By your logic, every serviceman should be deeply against these actions.

Now, we all wish the world was a peachy keen 1950's movie where world peace was a reality and everyone sang their nations version of koombaya around a campfire.  It's not.  Despite how badly you want it to be.  This is reality, there are VERY real threats to this world, and very real world monsters on a power trip.  I guaran-damn-tee you that most soldiers do not want to go to war any longer.

Agreed.  Why do you think that totally losing any moral authority by your actions, and becoming one of the very real world monsters on a power trip that you're concerned about helps your cause?

However, until certain nations step off the crazy train that involves mass murdering their own women and children and subjugating entire factions of the population on the basis of religion, skin color, language or genitalia, well, frankly, that's not a reality.

I don't understand what this statement has to do with anything being discussed.  The US demonstrably doesn't invade countries because of the treatment of leaders to their people.  If you did, North Korea would have been invaded many many years ago.

I wish the people of these nations, and the able bodied men in particular, would stop fleeing to Europe and finally stand up to the terrorists that are destroying their way of life, but they aren't, and their governments are so damn corrupt that as long as the money keeps flowing into the elites pockets they don't give a damn about the peasants. 

Ok.  We're talking about the people fleeing Iraq and surrounding area?  What exactly gave ISIL the big power vacuum to step into?  It wasn't . . . US invasion and then withdrawal was it?  O.o

It is very easy for you to sit in your Ivory Tower and judge all the "immoral" people in the world, but as others have pointed out, until you lose someone to irrational violence, or you yourself are put into a situation that is life or death, you will never be able to understand, and for your sake, I HOPE you are never in that situation.  Instead you sit, like an old school Vietnam runner, in a foreign country, running your mouth about the immoral decisions people make here in the US.  Are there problems with the military, oh hell yea, never going to disagree on that one.  But, there are problems with EVERY company, government, job, etc out there.  All an INDIVIDUAL can do, is make the right decision, for them, in the moment that it has to be made. 

Human beings, after all, are not infallible.

You don't know me.  You don't know who I've lost to irrational violence.  You don't know what kind of life and death situations I've been put into.

The problems of supporting pedophiles, torture, and murder are rather unique to the military, and don't seem to come up too often in other jobs in my limited experience.  That you are attempting to excuse them says an awful lot about your character.

[Brawndo TQ]

words

Owned.

Agreed.  Why do you think that totally losing any moral authority by your actions, and becoming one of the very real world monsters on a power trip that you're concerned about helps your cause?

This in particular. In much of the world, the US military are the boogeyman. Parents get their kids to behave by telling them they'll be given to the Americans if they don't. We are the monsters of their culture.

[Villanelle]

It's entirely possible to reduce the number of incidents that happen by including more moral and talented people in the military.

While it's an admirable goal, I'm honestly not as worried about it as I probably should be.  The military does the best that it can.  They're not perfect, and never will be.  I think you have to accept some degree if malfunction in any large organization, especially if the cost to fix it is more than the cost of the problem.

But I suspect folks like GuitarSV are less concerned about the bad apple problems that could theoretically be fixed by "including more moral and talented people in the military".  They seem more concerned about the structural, carefully orchestrated problems.  Not a crazy dude shooting up a mess hall or a soldier offing a bunch of civilians in a warzone, more like the instantaneous murder of an entire city by nuclear weapons.  That sort of crime was a carefully thought out and orchestrated act of evil, done with the best of intentions but still evil.  Women and children, noncombatants, hospitals and day care centers and nursing homes, all wiped out instantly in a giant mushroom cloud.  Then, as if that wasn't terrible enough, we did it all again three days later somewhere else.  I'm still not sure what the excuse is for dropping the second one, honestly.

Those sorts of decisions are not the kind of thing that one officer with a conscience can stop.  The entire US military carefully planned and plotted to make that happen, because they thought it was the most moral thing to do at the time.  Murdering civilians is bad, but America did it.  Torture is bad, but America did it.  Supporting pedophiles is bad, but America did it.  Overthrowing democracies to install dictators is bad, but America did it.  Suppressing sexual assault claims within the ranks is bad, but America did it.  Assassinating foreign leaders is bad, but America did it.  Violating due process is bad, but America did it.  Killing American citizens instead of arresting them is bad, but America did it.   These are all carefully deliberated policy positions of the US government, not random flukes that could be avoided if we only had better soldiers, and some people find them too problematic to rationalize volunteering for military service.  We're still a free country, and as long as we have an all-volunteer force they still get to make that decision.

Personally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.  I don't think Dick Cheney was an evil man, for example, I think he was a tragically misguided man.  He tried to do good and failed, and we as a nation bear the scars of countless men like him and the bad decisions they have made.  I'd like to believe those scars are recognized exceptions, not our national ideals made manifest.

Yes, this is the point that I was trying to get across originally.

To reiterate (for the third or fourth time) I have no issue with most of the people in the military.  To repeat myself . . . you're not a bad person for joining up and wanting to help your country.  Those are good intentions.

I do have tremendous issue with some current and morally reprehensible military practices.  Especially as there appears to be no end to them because nobody is really admitting that they are wrong.  This is at least in part because calling attention to atrocities currently perpetrated by the US military immediately makes a lot of people react to you negatively.


In this thread:
- I've been called uninformed
- I've been told that I hate servicemen
- I've been told that my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not a member of military
- I've been told that most people in the military don't do immoral things on a day to day basis, so we just obviously ignore all the immoral stuff currently happening
- It's been insinuated that I'm hypocritical for pointing out the immoral things in the military, because there are other jobs where immoral things happen
- I've been told that my opinion is heavily influenced by television and movies, therefore my complaints aren't valid
- I've been told that I have a 'hard-on' for criticizing the US government.
- I've been told that my posts are direct attacks on the morals of US servicemen.


Something is badly broken. There appears to be nobody trying to stop the bad things that the US military is currently doing (and the above baseless criticisms are a good indication why they remain so).  That means to me, that the problem will never be fixed.  There's a chance that any new recruit could be ordered to torture people in an illegal prison camp, to bomb foreign civilians via computer screen, or to help solidify a base of power for child molesters.  Even if the chance of getting that assignment is low, does that really sound like a group of people you want to encourage your kid to join up with?

It's not that you dare to criticize the military that causes people to react badly.  A lot of horrible thing have happened under the militayr umbrella.  It's the one you have used when doing so. 

Even the bolded is one example of that.  It's a hugely broad brush statement, and it's simply incorrect.  There absolutely are people in the military pointing out problems and atrocities.  So say that there are problems all you want.  You are correct.  Absolutely.  But to say that no one is trying to stop them?  Wrong.  That's why the things you say are offensive.  It's not that you are pointing out the issues.  It's painting all service members as silent, mindless sheep who are complicit in these problems and unwilling (or even just unable) to do anything about it.  If you want your points to actually be heard and considered by at least some, consider how you present them.  Because you do come across as someone with a chip on his shoulder--or a hard-on-- against the military, in large part because of the words you use and the overly generally statements you make (which yes, do make you sound uninformed because they simply aren't true, due to the fact that they are gross and inaccurate generalizations--see the bolded as just one example of that to which I refer).  And thus the valid points you make get lost under the layer of hyperbole you use.

And no, the problems of supporting things like pedophiles are not unique to the military.  Are you by any chance Catholic?  As just one example. 

[Sailor Sam]

In my view, GuitarStv and Sol have offered the better critiques. They both pointed out the problems currently facing the military, with out overly vilifying individual service members. It's possible to have a debate with both of them, and walk away with a handshake. There are others with much more radicalized views, who aren't much interested in debating.

[Brawndo TQ]

Saying it's immoral to sign up to become a state sanctioned killer isn't particularly radical. You only think it is because of the overt propaganda people in the US experience constantly from day 1.

[MoonShadow]

Saying it's immoral to sign up to become a state sanctioned killer isn't particularly radical. You only think it is because of the overt propaganda people in the US experience constantly from day 1.

So, is this the forum's collective answer to the OP question?  That few to no one on this forum mentions sending kids into the military to pay for college, because it's a moral issue?  That seems strange, since it has been noted on many occasions that, for a great many forum members; retiring & claiming Obamacare subsidies intended for the poor, just because one can, is also immoral.  Yet we see such a possibility mentioned in every thread that asks about health care costs in the USA.

I've got a different question, for those who consider the military to be an immoral life choice generally.  What other primary occupation do you think that violent sociopaths might gravitate towards, if not military service?  Police, perhaps?  Organized crime?  Congress?  Does that look like it's worked out for the rest of the USA, so far?

[beltim]

So, is this the forum's collective answer to the OP question?  That few to no one on this forum mentions sending kids into the military to pay for college, because it's a moral issue? 

No, I don't think that's the consensus at all.  I think cats nailed the answer in the very first response:

I would NEVER push the military on my kids as a way of paying for college.  If it is a choice they want to make, fine, but I will absolutely not pressure them to consider it.  I realize for many the military is a great experience and I have tremendous respect for people who have chosen to serve and take the risk of making the ultimate sacrifice, but I strongly believe that it needs to be a personal choice.

One shouldn't plan on their children having an interest in a military career as a way of paying for college, because one should be responsive to their child's interests.  Similarly, one shouldn't plan on pushing them into athletics, or the Peace Corps, or Americorps, or anything else that scholarships are given for.  But the primary reason for doing any of those things should be the child's interests – it should not be the scholarships available.

[Yaeger]

In my view, GuitarStv and Sol have offered the better critiques. They both pointed out the problems currently facing the military, with out overly vilifying individual service members. It's possible to have a debate with both of them, and walk away with a handshake. There are others with much more radicalized views, who aren't much interested in debating.

I don't think we'll ever agree. They're basing their entire argument on their subjective ethical views of some events and extrapolating those events to encompass the entire military.

Disregarding for the moment their their ethical viewpoint isn't shared by everyone in the US, it's definitely not shared by everyone in the world. It's also possible that the things we find so immoral are not held in the same regard elsewhere. I don't agree with their stance. In fact, putting Americans with weapons into hostile areas isn't going to change. Bad things WILL happen. It would be irresponsible of us to convince our best, brightest, and moral young adults to not join. We should be doing everything we can to ensure we increase the moral fiber of the people we have serving.

Something is badly broken. There appears to be nobody trying to stop the bad things that the US military is currently doing (and the above baseless criticisms are a good indication why they remain so).  That means to me, that the problem will never be fixed.  There's a chance that any new recruit could be ordered to torture people in an illegal prison camp, to bomb foreign civilians via computer screen, or to help solidify a base of power for child molesters.  Even if the chance of getting that assignment is low, does that really sound like a group of people you want to encourage your kid to join up with?

Yes! Yes! That's exactly why we want them to join! You're not going to be put into situations with mustache-twirling villains where you can proudly take a stand and defend "Freedom, justice, and the American way!" Welcome to the real world, where balancing ethics, differing cultures, different legal systems, and potent combinations of stress, fear, and anxiety turn once-solid western ethics into shady layers of gray. Do you place more blame on the guy killing civilians with a bomb, or a criminal surrounding himself with children as human shields? Like it or not, our government (not the military) places dollar values on human lives.

Take your faux moral high ground all you want if it makes you sleep better at night. Leave the real decisions to the rest of us. We can live with it.

[MoonShadow]

So, is this the forum's collective answer to the OP question?  That few to no one on this forum mentions sending kids into the military to pay for college, because it's a moral issue? 

No, I don't think that's the consensus at all.  I think cats nailed the answer in the very first response:

I would NEVER push the military on my kids as a way of paying for college.  If it is a choice they want to make, fine, but I will absolutely not pressure them to consider it.  I realize for many the military is a great experience and I have tremendous respect for people who have chosen to serve and take the risk of making the ultimate sacrifice, but I strongly believe that it needs to be a personal choice.

One shouldn't plan on their children having an interest in a military career as a way of paying for college, because one should be responsive to their child's interests.  Similarly, one shouldn't plan on pushing them into athletics, or the Peace Corps, or Americorps, or anything else that scholarships are given for.  But the primary reason for doing any of those things should be the child's interests – it should not be the scholarships available.

Fair perspective, but doesn't this also apply to going to college itself? And the idea that parents should have to pay for a portion of a child's college education?  In my own case, I have 5 kids; the older two I would not advocate the idea of military service, because they would hate it; two whom I told my wife at ages 4&5 they were destined for either military service or prison, and the fifth doesn't matter because she is obviously intellectually gifted (at 3 years old, no I'm not kidding; and I thought my oldest boy was brilliant) and already has a 4 year ride to any state funded university in Kentucky (again, no I'm not kidding).  So what, if anything, am I obliged to do for my older two?  And is it immoral for me to direct my middle two boys towards military service?

[beltim]

So, is this the forum's collective answer to the OP question?  That few to no one on this forum mentions sending kids into the military to pay for college, because it's a moral issue? 

No, I don't think that's the consensus at all.  I think cats nailed the answer in the very first response:

I would NEVER push the military on my kids as a way of paying for college.  If it is a choice they want to make, fine, but I will absolutely not pressure them to consider it.  I realize for many the military is a great experience and I have tremendous respect for people who have chosen to serve and take the risk of making the ultimate sacrifice, but I strongly believe that it needs to be a personal choice.

One shouldn't plan on their children having an interest in a military career as a way of paying for college, because one should be responsive to their child's interests.  Similarly, one shouldn't plan on pushing them into athletics, or the Peace Corps, or Americorps, or anything else that scholarships are given for.  But the primary reason for doing any of those things should be the child's interests – it should not be the scholarships available.

Fair perspective, but doesn't this also apply to going to college itself?

Absolutely, yes.  I am a huge proponent of college education, for far more than economic reasons.  But I fully acknowledge that college is not universally beneficial – there are plenty of people who are better off pursuing other paths.

And the idea that parents should have to pay for a portion of a child's college education?  In my own case, I have 5 kids; the older two I would not advocate the idea of military service, because they would hate it; two whom I told my wife at ages 4&5 they were destined for either military service or prison, and the fifth doesn't matter because she is obviously intellectually gifted (at 3 years old, no I'm not kidding; and I thought my oldest boy was brilliant) and already has a 4 year ride to any state funded university in Kentucky (again, no I'm not kidding).  So what, if anything, am I obliged to do for my older two?  And is it immoral for me to direct my middle two boys towards military service?

I don't think I'm qualified to say whether military service is the right decision for your middle two.  But I think you're using the right process here – your judgement is that military service would be beneficial for two of your children.  Your reasoning is not "it'll pay for college" which I think would be a poor decision (but not immoral).

I'm not expressing an opinion on what a parent's obligation to their children for college is, because I'm not sure what that obligation is, if any. 

[GuitarStv]

It's not that you dare to criticize the military that causes people to react badly.  A lot of horrible thing have happened under the militayr umbrella.  It's the one you have used when doing so. 

Even the bolded is one example of that.  It's a hugely broad brush statement, and it's simply incorrect.  There absolutely are people in the military pointing out problems and atrocities.

OK.  I'm willing to be proven wrong.  Can you name a few of the current military members you're referring to who are speaking out against what I mentioned?  Maybe some of those who are organizing other servicemen to disobey illegal orders?  Gitmo has been open for 13 years now.  Can you tell me what new processes these people have put in place to prevent torture, kidnapping, illegal detainment, detainment without due process, unnecessary force feeding, and all the rest of what happened at Guantanamo Bay?

So say that there are problems all you want.  You are correct.  Absolutely.  But to say that no one is trying to stop them?  Wrong.

If there are so many people trying to stop a military that is out of control and operating immorally, but they can't . . . that really speaks to fundamental structural problems with the military itself, doesn't it?  I'm still waiting for the evidence of what you claim though.

And no, the problems of supporting things like pedophiles are not unique to the military.  Are you by any chance Catholic?  As just one example.

Just because the Catholic church once supported rapists, that doesn't make it OK for the US Army!  The reason that change happened in the Catholic church is that what they were doing got enough publicity and their organization fell into such disrepute that they had to make the changes.  It's hard to lecture others on morality when you're obviously morally bereft.  I don't see the military getting the same kind of bad word of mouth yet, even though they are equally deserving . . . but you are offended by the harshness of my words.  In reality you should be offended by what your military is doing.

Welcome to the real world, where balancing ethics, differing cultures, different legal systems, and potent combinations of stress, fear, and anxiety turn once-solid western ethics into shady layers of gray.

So . . . the innocent people held and tortured in Guantanamo bay, illegal by both US and international law . . . explain exactly where the gray area is there?  It looks pretty black and white from over here.

Kidnapping, torture, ignoring international laws, killing civilians wantonly, not following due process . . . the US military has performed terrorist actions, and is continuing to perform them.  Repercussions for ethical violation should apply to white guys in a uniform or suit from the US just as much as to brown guys from countries ending in -stan.

[Villanelle]

It's not that you dare to criticize the military that causes people to react badly.  A lot of horrible thing have happened under the militayr umbrella.  It's the one you have used when doing so. 

Even the bolded is one example of that.  It's a hugely broad brush statement, and it's simply incorrect.  There absolutely are people in the military pointing out problems and atrocities.

OK.  I'm willing to be proven wrong.  Can you name a few of the current military members you're referring to who are speaking out against what I mentioned?  Maybe some of those who are organizing other servicemen to disobey illegal orders?  Gitmo has been open for 13 years now.  Can you tell me what new processes these people have put in place to prevent torture, kidnapping, illegal detainment, detainment without due process, unnecessary force feeding, and all the rest of what happened at Guantanamo Bay?

So say that there are problems all you want.  You are correct.  Absolutely.  But to say that no one is trying to stop them?  Wrong.

If there are so many people trying to stop a military that is out of control and operating immorally, but they can't . . . that really speaks to fundamental structural problems with the military itself, doesn't it?  I'm still waiting for the evidence of what you claim though.

And no, the problems of supporting things like pedophiles are not unique to the military.  Are you by any chance Catholic?  As just one example.

Just because the Catholic church once supported rapists, that doesn't make it OK for the US Army!  The reason that change happened in the Catholic church is that what they were doing got enough publicity and their organization fell into such disrepute that they had to make the changes.  It's hard to lecture others on morality when you're obviously morally bereft.  I don't see the military getting the same kind of bad word of mouth yet, even though they are equally deserving . . . but you are offended by the harshness of my words.  In reality you should be offended by what your military is doing.

Welcome to the real world, where balancing ethics, differing cultures, different legal systems, and potent combinations of stress, fear, and anxiety turn once-solid western ethics into shady layers of gray.

So . . . the innocent people held and tortured in Guantanamo bay, illegal by both US and international law . . . explain exactly where the gray area is there?  It looks pretty black and white from over here.

Kidnapping, torture, ignoring international laws, killing civilians wantonly, not following due process . . . the US military has performed terrorist actions, and is continuing to perform them.  Repercussions for ethical violation should apply to white guys in a uniform or suit from the US just as much as to brown guys from countries ending in -stan.

There was a post earlier in this thread about some service members who refused an illegal order.   One example.  On no, I don't think that because some people have tried to make change and yet the system is suddenly perfect that is proof of fundamental structural problems.  If rape and sexual assault issues have been discussed here, and progress has been made.  Does the fact that even one person still gets raped or assaulted negate that progress or speak to fundamental flaws?  Of course not.  Every system is more or less a work in progress.  People who work at any large company have probably been assaulted or harassed.  It doesn't mean that company/system should simply ignore it.  it means they need to be constantly vigilant and working toward bettering things.  But not that they are fundamentally flawed. 

And of course I didn't say that hiding rape was okay because the Catholic church did it.  Reread, my friend.  That's a ridiculous twisting of what I said.   What I said is that your claim that such a thing was *unique* to the military is wrong. Even in the section of my post you quoted,  you include my words--"Not unique to the military".  That's not even close to being "so it's okay". You claimed it was unique.  I showed it wasn't.  And they twisted that to try to claim I was saying it was okay?  From someone who claims he's being attacked and his views twisted?  Interesting. 

But in the end, you and I are never going to agree.  Parts of our military, and some of our military members, are flawed, to put it mildly.  And I am offended by some of the things our military has done.  But I choose to generally be respectful in my words and my tone, and to remember that not everyone, or even most, affiliated with the military are part of the problem, and that in fact many are part of the potential solution.  And I am also mindful that when I make broad, hyperbolic statements that are offensive misrepresentations, people who might have otherwise listened and learned are going to instead tune me out.

[GuitarStv]

Parts of our military, and some of our military members, are flawed, to put it mildly.  And I am offended by some of the things our military has done.  But I choose to generally be respectful in my words and my tone, and to remember that not everyone, or even most, affiliated with the military are part of the problem, and that in fact many are part of the potential solution. 

Agreed, for the most part.  (I don't have the same faith that you do that the people at the bottom can change what those at the top are ordering.)

[Yaeger]

So . . . the innocent people held and tortured in Guantanamo bay, illegal by both US and international law . . . explain exactly where the gray area is there?  It looks pretty black and white from over here.

Kidnapping, torture, ignoring international laws, killing civilians wantonly, not following due process . . . the US military has performed terrorist actions, and is continuing to perform them.  Repercussions for ethical violation should apply to white guys in a uniform or suit from the US just as much as to brown guys from countries ending in -stan.

I'm having a hard time understanding the references you're making here. Are all of these recent events? Do you have evidence that the military is 'wantonly' (of a cruel or violent action- deliberate and unprovoked) killing civilians? That's a serious charge, I'm going to need evidence that a reasonable person can apply to say that the military, as an organization, is doing that. Gonna call BS on that one.

I also find it amusing that the military spends hundreds of billions of dollars upholding international law, with Carrier battle groups, patrols in contested areas, humanitarian assistance, and yet you accuse them of willfully ignoring international law. Were some ships ordered to break a harbor speed limit? Did they cross to within 11 nm of Iran and get detained on purpose? Did the President order 1 million troops to wantonly eat Cheetos without paying for them? Where's your preponderance of evidence to support this fantastical claim?

No one has argued that the military is bereft of crime. No one is saying that's even possible. But stop using red herrings to support your points. "Hey guys, the military is bad because 50 years ago the Mai Lai Massacre happened." Wow, thanks for the newsflash. Give us evidence of systemic problems, policies that break law, large ethical problems. Provide for me those publicly available documents. Don't point to a sample service-member that got a DUI last night and tell me that the entire population is bad. Yes, someone that actually goes out and does this stuff can have a different ethical standpoint than a person that sits safe, comfortable, and arguing on the internet about their 'expert' opinion based on what they heard from the 'news'.

[GuitarStv]

So . . . the innocent people held and tortured in Guantanamo bay, illegal by both US and international law . . . explain exactly where the gray area is there?  It looks pretty black and white from over here.

Kidnapping, torture, ignoring international laws, killing civilians wantonly, not following due process . . . the US military has performed terrorist actions, and is continuing to perform them.  Repercussions for ethical violation should apply to white guys in a uniform or suit from the US just as much as to brown guys from countries ending in -stan.

I'm having a hard time understanding the references you're making here. Are all of these recent events? Do you have evidence that the military is 'wantonly' (of a cruel or violent action- deliberate and unprovoked) killing civilians? That's a serious charge, I'm going to need evidence that a reasonable person can apply to say that the military, as an organization, is doing that. Gonna call BS on that one.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Wikileaks-Reveals-CIA-Admitted-Drone-Strikes-Ineffective--20141218-0043.html

I can come up with more.  There are an awful lot of oopsies being wantonly made all over women, children, and innocent people.

I also find it amusing that the military spends hundreds of billions of dollars upholding international law, with Carrier battle groups, patrols in contested areas, humanitarian assistance, and yet you accuse them of willfully ignoring international law. Were some ships ordered to break a harbor speed limit? Did they cross to within 11 nm of Iran and get detained on purpose? Did the President order 1 million troops to wantonly eat Cheetos without paying for them? Where's your preponderance of evidence to support this fantastical claim?

It was the US supreme court, not me.

How could the detention center be legal at all if Congress has blocked funding for any trials for those still imprisoned there?

There’s no clear answer. The US Supreme Court, in four important decisions, Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that international law applies to Guantanamo detainees, that they cannot be held indefinitely without trial, that constitutional habeas corpus protections apply to them, and that the combatant status review tribunals were unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions. Yet Congress and the executive branch have, through policy and legislation, strenuously avoided implementation of these decisions. The United States has also been chastised repeatedly by other states and the United Nations and its human rights organs that its interpretation of the laws of war concerning the detainees is wrong and against international consensus. Since 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has issued and reextended precautionary measures against the United States (the equivalent of domestic law injunctive orders), requesting that the United States take urgent measures necessary to have the legal status of the detainees determined by a “competent tribunal.”

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gitmo-the-legal-mess-behind-the-ethical-mess/

No one has argued that the military is bereft of crime. No one is saying that's even possible. But stop using red herrings to support your points. "Hey guys, the military is bad because 50 years ago the Mai Lai Massacre happened." Wow, thanks for the newsflash. Give us evidence of systemic problems, policies that break law, large ethical problems. Provide for me those publicly available documents. Don't point to a sample service-member that got a DUI last night and tell me that the entire population is bad. Yes, someone that actually goes out and does this stuff can have a different ethical standpoint than a person that sits safe, comfortable, and arguing on the internet about their 'expert' opinion based on what they heard from the 'news'.

The three problems I've talked about (civilian deaths by drone strikes, the illegal Guantanmo Bay facilities, supporting pedophiles in Afghanistan) are ongoing right now.  None of them are a one off done by a single serviceman, but large scale problems and the result of institutional policies.  I've provided numerous links and information about them.  Not sure what else you're looking for.

[Yaeger]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Wikileaks-Reveals-CIA-Admitted-Drone-Strikes-Ineffective--20141218-0043.html

I can come up with more.  There are an awful lot of oopsies being wantonly made all over women, children, and innocent people.

Like I said before, the military doesn't pick targets, they don't make the calls. The title of that last article is 'CIA admitted...' That also doesn't fit the definition as 'wanton' as they are clearly provoked strikes against assumed targets. Unless you're saying they deliberately desired the death of civilians. The evidence doesn't support that.

It was the US supreme court, not me.

What?

How could the detention center be legal at all if Congress has blocked funding for any trials for those still imprisoned there?

There’s no clear answer. The US Supreme Court, in four important decisions, Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that international law applies to Guantanamo detainees, that they cannot be held indefinitely without trial, that constitutional habeas corpus protections apply to them, and that the combatant status review tribunals were unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions. Yet Congress and the executive branch have, through policy and legislation, strenuously avoided implementation of these decisions. The United States has also been chastised repeatedly by other states and the United Nations and its human rights organs that its interpretation of the laws of war concerning the detainees is wrong and against international consensus. Since 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has issued and reextended precautionary measures against the United States (the equivalent of domestic law injunctive orders), requesting that the United States take urgent measures necessary to have the legal status of the detainees determined by a “competent tribunal.”
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gitmo-the-legal-mess-behind-the-ethical-mess/

I agree, that's still ongoing, but I'd hardly consider detaining dangerous terrorists a severe ethical concern. It's clearly a legal and diplomatic concern which needs to be worked out. Legality and funding are two different things. The military is involved in none of that decision making process, it just maintains the facility until ordered to do so. Unfortunately the military can't say no. Imagine that, we work for the government. Once again, blame the civilians running the government, not the military.

No one has argued that the military is bereft of crime. No one is saying that's even possible. But stop using red herrings to support your points. "Hey guys, the military is bad because 50 years ago the Mai Lai Massacre happened." Wow, thanks for the newsflash. Give us evidence of systemic problems, policies that break law, large ethical problems. Provide for me those publicly available documents. Don't point to a sample service-member that got a DUI last night and tell me that the entire population is bad. Yes, someone that actually goes out and does this stuff can have a different ethical standpoint than a person that sits safe, comfortable, and arguing on the internet about their 'expert' opinion based on what they heard from the 'news'.

The three problems I've talked about (civilian deaths by drone strikes, the illegal Guantanmo Bay facilities, supporting pedophiles in Afghanistan) are ongoing right now.  None of them are a one off done by a single serviceman, but large scale problems and the result of institutional policies.  I've provided numerous links and information about them.  Not sure what else you're looking for.

I was looking for REAL evidence. Documents from the Department of Defense, Congress, GAO, the Supreme Court, the President. You can post all your 2nd-hand articles that you want, I don't have time to sift through them, weed out bias, examine the evidence presented. If you suggest and defend systemic problems, SHOW me these institutional policies. None of this is systemic.

[davisgang90]

Once again, the orders for keeping GITMO open, drone strikes and support to pedophiles all come from the top (civilian leadership of the U.S. government).  The military doesn't make these decisions. 

There are less than a hundred people left in GITMO out of 770 or so that have gone there.  I'm not sure what we should do with those remaining folks, but they aren't being tortured.  You can argue about their rights and lack of due process, but they aren't being tortured.  Perhaps Sol or Guitarstv could lay out their plan for these folks.

Drone strikes allow us to kill terrorists with a great deal of precision and a lot of time and effort goes in to ensuring as few civilian casualties as possible.  Literally hundreds of hours are spent observing a potential target and figuring out the pattern of life information like when women and children are in his vicinity to understand the best time to strike to minimize casualties.  I've worked in these programs from an oversight perspective and the number of hours spent observing and collecting this information before a strike is mind-boggling.  The drone program has been expanded dramatically under President Obama.

Do you support the diplomatic corps of the US State department?  Cause they've known of the treatment of the children of middle eastern countries as well and continued to advocate for them.  You can add the whole of the US government as virtually every agency has worked on the ground trying to help Afghanistan rebuild everything from the Police to the judiciary.  Every country that was involved in Operation Enduring Freedom (around the world and most of NATO, including Canada) knew of the culture of Afghanistan and the treatment of boys.  Do all those countries bear responsibility?  Or should we just scape-goat the US military?

I find it ironic that those who advocate so passionately for multiculturalism are finally coming around to the fact that maybe not every part of another people's culture is quite up to par (complete lack of rights for women, FGM, pedophilia, hanging homosexuals) with our western values. 

[shelivesthedream]

FFS, it DOES NOT MATTER that the orders come from civilians. It is the individual soldier who is tasked with carrying them out. Do you want to take the chance that you are that individual soldier who is ordered to torture someone or fire on an unarmed civilian? When that order will be given with a lot of communal pressure to obey and probably in a very stressful situation? Do you want to have to make that kind of split-second moral choice?

[davisgang90]

FFS, it DOES NOT MATTER that the orders come from civilians. It is the individual soldier who is tasked with carrying them out. Do you want to take the chance that you are that individual soldier who is ordered to torture someone or fire on an unarmed civilian? When that order will be given with a lot of communal pressure to obey and probably in a very stressful situation? Do you want to have to make that kind of split-second moral choice?

Ok, once again, torture isn't happening anymore.  We could have a separate argument about what constitutes torture, but it isn't happening and when it was it wasn't done by the military predominantly.

As to the drone question, while I think the expanding scope is problematic, I have no problem with taking out terrorists.  As I said earlier, a great deal of time and effort is made to minimize civilian casualties. 

I find it amazing that civilian leadership gets a free pass as we continue to insult the military members, the vast majority of whom serve with honor to protect our way of life.