Posted on Aug 28, 2017
Why is it that many vets get seriously offended if someone has an opinion counter to a war they fought in?
3.04K
40
17
3
3
0
We all served honorably. In my opinion it doesn't discredit what we did by questioning why we were there. Also if you made it through basic and a deployment or two you should have thick enough skin to brush off opinions.
Posted in these groups: 
Infantry
Infantry
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
7
7
0
Because many people who express a contrary opinion don't do it dispassionately but imply some shortcoming on the vet they are involving.
(7)
(0)
SPC David Willis
That's understandable. If someone was standing there mocking those who lost limbs or never even came back I'd probably be a bit hot.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
During VN, those who believed the war was immoral often felt that the soldiers prosecuting the war were, by definition, also guilty of immorality for doing the killing in a war they believed was immoral. Decades later, around the time of the first gulf war, society sort of changed their view, and separated the soldiers who were doing their duty, ordered by their country's leaders, from the politicians who made the decisions to go to war
This led to the concept that you could be against a war, but still recognize and honor the sacrifices that the soldiers made in that war. The "support our troops but not the war" theory. And while that seems OK on the surface, and better than blaming the soldiers as they did during VN, I have always felt there is a disconnect with this concept. Because how do you really recognize the sacrifices a soldier makes, including loss of limbs, or the lives of friends and families, while at the same time telling them that you believe they made those sacrifices for nothing, or worse for some immoral intent. I think most soldiers want to feel that their country was behind them and felt that their sacrifices were for a worthy cause.
So it's that "worthy cause" component that can become problematic to the vets and the civilians. Wars are started for political reasons, and looking back, it is very possible to say that a war was a mistake, or that the decision to go to war was a poor one. But where does that leave a soldier who paid a huge price in the pursuit of that flawed decision? And where does it leave a civilian who does recognize the sacrifices a soldier made personally, but honestly believes the war is wrong for our country and we should end it as quickly as possible?
It seems to me that an almost unreconcilable dichotomy exists in the support the troops but not the war concept. It's better than blame the troops for the war, but to say that all Americans must support every war our leaders get us into without critical assessment is also wrong. I dont believe it is unpatriotic to oppose a war you feel is unjust. In fact, I would say it is ones patriotic duty to do so if that is what they believe. We can't blindly support putting troops in harms way simply because other troops have already been in harms way and paid a price. That is a circular argument that would prevent any political dissent on any war.
This led to the concept that you could be against a war, but still recognize and honor the sacrifices that the soldiers made in that war. The "support our troops but not the war" theory. And while that seems OK on the surface, and better than blaming the soldiers as they did during VN, I have always felt there is a disconnect with this concept. Because how do you really recognize the sacrifices a soldier makes, including loss of limbs, or the lives of friends and families, while at the same time telling them that you believe they made those sacrifices for nothing, or worse for some immoral intent. I think most soldiers want to feel that their country was behind them and felt that their sacrifices were for a worthy cause.
So it's that "worthy cause" component that can become problematic to the vets and the civilians. Wars are started for political reasons, and looking back, it is very possible to say that a war was a mistake, or that the decision to go to war was a poor one. But where does that leave a soldier who paid a huge price in the pursuit of that flawed decision? And where does it leave a civilian who does recognize the sacrifices a soldier made personally, but honestly believes the war is wrong for our country and we should end it as quickly as possible?
It seems to me that an almost unreconcilable dichotomy exists in the support the troops but not the war concept. It's better than blame the troops for the war, but to say that all Americans must support every war our leaders get us into without critical assessment is also wrong. I dont believe it is unpatriotic to oppose a war you feel is unjust. In fact, I would say it is ones patriotic duty to do so if that is what they believe. We can't blindly support putting troops in harms way simply because other troops have already been in harms way and paid a price. That is a circular argument that would prevent any political dissent on any war.
(5)
(0)
CDR Kenneth Kaiser
I can only speak from my experience. As a service member I signed up to defend and to do the country's bidding. Usually there is some sort of fervor generated by an event or series of events which leads to the commitment of force. World War II for instance it was Pearl Harbor. Up to this point I have no problem but it seems that after WWII the country's attention span decreased significantly and furthermore the coverage increased. At this point things get fuzzy. Various elements (the press, politics etc) work together as a system of variables if you will. The result is that the very public you are fighting for suddenly is giving the enemy that they sent you to fight aid and comfort. Suddenly the force that was sent at their behest is now the enemy. SEALS are threatened with Court Martial because an enemy said that they hurt him. It is to the point where you need at least one lawyer for every five troops some even defend the troop but others defend the enemy. War is not a gentleman's pastime and the service is not a social engineering laboratory but only a small percentage take on the mantle of service in the military very few truly understand nor want to. A great general, Lucius Macedonicus, made a statement—at least it was attributed to him. He called it, or someone later called it, “Come with Me to Macedonia.” It is a great statement and one that has impressed me greatly, with its many hidden truths. He said:
Commanders should be counselled chiefly by persons of known talent, by those who have made the art of war their particular study, and whose knowledge is derived from experience, by those who are present at the scene of action, who see the enemy, who see the advantages that occasions offer, and who, like people embarked in the same ship, are sharers of the danger.
If, therefore, anyone thinks himself qualified to give advice respecting the war which I am about to conduct, let him not refuse his assistance to the state, but let him come with me into Macedonia.
He shall be furnished with a ship, a tent; even his travelling charges will be defrayed, but if he thinks this too much trouble, and prefers the repose of a city life to the toils of war, let him not on land assume the office of a pilot. The city in itself furnishes abundance of topics for conversation; let it confine its passion for talking to its own precincts and rest assured that we shall pay no attention to any counsel but such as shall be framed within our camp. [General Lucius Aemilius Paulus, surnamed Macedonicus, Roman general and patrician, c. 229-160 B.C.]
That about sums it up It is no wonder that our military has shrunk to the point that they constitute about 1% of the population.
Commanders should be counselled chiefly by persons of known talent, by those who have made the art of war their particular study, and whose knowledge is derived from experience, by those who are present at the scene of action, who see the enemy, who see the advantages that occasions offer, and who, like people embarked in the same ship, are sharers of the danger.
If, therefore, anyone thinks himself qualified to give advice respecting the war which I am about to conduct, let him not refuse his assistance to the state, but let him come with me into Macedonia.
He shall be furnished with a ship, a tent; even his travelling charges will be defrayed, but if he thinks this too much trouble, and prefers the repose of a city life to the toils of war, let him not on land assume the office of a pilot. The city in itself furnishes abundance of topics for conversation; let it confine its passion for talking to its own precincts and rest assured that we shall pay no attention to any counsel but such as shall be framed within our camp. [General Lucius Aemilius Paulus, surnamed Macedonicus, Roman general and patrician, c. 229-160 B.C.]
That about sums it up It is no wonder that our military has shrunk to the point that they constitute about 1% of the population.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I think it's because may feel that civilian opinions are lacking context. Like people who compared less than 4,500 casualties in Iraq to 58,500 in Vietnam, and didn't get that they were spoonfed a wrong idea by the media.
I used to care some about that sort of thing, and just got over the idea that most people aren't critical thinkers, but mean well/wish they understood.
I used to care some about that sort of thing, and just got over the idea that most people aren't critical thinkers, but mean well/wish they understood.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google