28
28
0
This question was asked to me last night and it sort of struck a cord. It had me thinking and, truthfully, I do not have an answer. However, I feel as though it is a valid question after 14 years of combat operations against the terrorists that reside in the Middle East.
For some of us here, the War on Terrorism was something that we had to deal with. We enlisted prior to the attacks on 9/11, yet quickly found ourselves putting our training into practice seemingly overnight. Now, 14 years later, there are service members with more than 5 combat deployments. Multiple deployments have almost become the standard rather than the exception. Prior to 9/11, combat patches were a rare thing to see. Those with them were seen as being there and doing that while the rest of us waited for our chance to prove ourselves. Now, those without one are sometimes viewed in a different light by those with them. Heck, some of us have been awarded enough combat patches that we can change them out daily and never repeat during the week.
Then there are the newer service members. The 18, 19, 20 year old enlisting straight out of high school and finding a different military then when I enlisted in 1999. I know other Veterans say the same about the service members that follow them but as I look around, I am continuously surprised by the character of these new service members. When I enlisted, it was suggested that you *may* deploy. Now, it is not a question of "if" but a question of "when" you will deploy. Yet, over the years, we have seen the deployments change. In Iraq in 2003, our deployment was a fight; each day was uncertain as the battlefield kept evolving as one side tried to come up with new ways to counter the other side's actions. Now, vehicles like the HMMWV have been replaced by tank-like trucks with V-shaped hauls and enough armor to take several RPG rounds. We have become smarter, faster, better equipped over the past 14 years but are we still at war?
Are we forever going to be "at war"? Is the government going to keep deploying service members to take the fight to the enemy in 2020 under the same executive order that sent me to Iraq in 2003? What will the history books say about us? Will our children and our children's children learn about how after a surprise attack, thousands of men and women answered the nation's call and did one heck of a job? Or will this time be viewed as a military Groundhog Day?
For some of us here, the War on Terrorism was something that we had to deal with. We enlisted prior to the attacks on 9/11, yet quickly found ourselves putting our training into practice seemingly overnight. Now, 14 years later, there are service members with more than 5 combat deployments. Multiple deployments have almost become the standard rather than the exception. Prior to 9/11, combat patches were a rare thing to see. Those with them were seen as being there and doing that while the rest of us waited for our chance to prove ourselves. Now, those without one are sometimes viewed in a different light by those with them. Heck, some of us have been awarded enough combat patches that we can change them out daily and never repeat during the week.
Then there are the newer service members. The 18, 19, 20 year old enlisting straight out of high school and finding a different military then when I enlisted in 1999. I know other Veterans say the same about the service members that follow them but as I look around, I am continuously surprised by the character of these new service members. When I enlisted, it was suggested that you *may* deploy. Now, it is not a question of "if" but a question of "when" you will deploy. Yet, over the years, we have seen the deployments change. In Iraq in 2003, our deployment was a fight; each day was uncertain as the battlefield kept evolving as one side tried to come up with new ways to counter the other side's actions. Now, vehicles like the HMMWV have been replaced by tank-like trucks with V-shaped hauls and enough armor to take several RPG rounds. We have become smarter, faster, better equipped over the past 14 years but are we still at war?
Are we forever going to be "at war"? Is the government going to keep deploying service members to take the fight to the enemy in 2020 under the same executive order that sent me to Iraq in 2003? What will the history books say about us? Will our children and our children's children learn about how after a surprise attack, thousands of men and women answered the nation's call and did one heck of a job? Or will this time be viewed as a military Groundhog Day?
Posted in these groups: 
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) - Afghanistan
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
Deployment
Warfare
Command Post
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) - Afghanistan Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) Deployment Warfare Command Post
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 37
15
15
0
Every day, it seems like that war is not only still on-going...but spreading. When you fight a conventional enemy, someone "wins", and someone "loses". When you fight a non-conventional war against an enemy that has only local interest...the fight ends when you leave the area they are interested in. But when you fight a non-conventional war, against an enemy that wants to dominate the globe...has the resources, intent and opportunity to do so, and is more than willing to bring that war right back to your doorstep-I don't think it ever ends.
(15)
(0)
14
14
0
The argument could be made that although we aren't at war with radical islam, radical islam is at war with us.
(14)
(0)
9
9
0
We've never "not been at war."
Whether it was the Tax rebellions, the Indian Wars, expansion of the Nation, Civil War, World Wars, Cold War Conflicts, or the Middle East, our Government has clung to every possible excuse to maintain a "Monopoly of Force" and as large of one as possible.
I'm not saying one isn't needed, but having ready access to one does present the "If all you have is a Hammer, everything looks like Nails" philosophy. We tend to be quick to respond with Military Might.
Now I realize that our Military mission has changed from one of National Defense to one of Global Stability, and that requires a Force of Deterrence, and one that can respond on a Global Scale... but I think we lean towards "inefficient usage" (not over usage).
Whether it was the Tax rebellions, the Indian Wars, expansion of the Nation, Civil War, World Wars, Cold War Conflicts, or the Middle East, our Government has clung to every possible excuse to maintain a "Monopoly of Force" and as large of one as possible.
I'm not saying one isn't needed, but having ready access to one does present the "If all you have is a Hammer, everything looks like Nails" philosophy. We tend to be quick to respond with Military Might.
Now I realize that our Military mission has changed from one of National Defense to one of Global Stability, and that requires a Force of Deterrence, and one that can respond on a Global Scale... but I think we lean towards "inefficient usage" (not over usage).
(9)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I disagree with you on the historical context of being at war. Many of the minor wars, rebellions, and uprisings were not a reason for the nation to be "at war." To be as a nation if we are "at war" it is total war, and total war has a dramatic effect on the entire nation. The Civil War, WWI, and WWII was as close as modern/western nations have come in the last 200 years to "total war", although the ruthless slaughter of the Indians during out "manifest destiny" time could be viewed as total war against them.
In the end, to be a nation "at war" every bit of the nation has to understand the sacrifice that being "at war" entails.
In the end, to be a nation "at war" every bit of the nation has to understand the sacrifice that being "at war" entails.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC (Join to see) - War to most of the population is just "something going on in the background." We try to energize the populace behind why it is justified but in reality it's transparent for most people's day to day lives. We are definitely affected and influenced by it, but America hasn't experienced "total war" in the way described since our Revolution. It's always in some far away place, even if it is inside our borders.
Compare that to WWII Britain or Korea, or any Nation we've gone to. They experience War. We "participate" in War, and my belief is that we've always been engaged in some "war-level conflict" (at war).
Compare that to WWII Britain or Korea, or any Nation we've gone to. They experience War. We "participate" in War, and my belief is that we've always been engaged in some "war-level conflict" (at war).
(0)
(0)
SGT Michael Fry
The over all problem has been this what is war? If you look at it we use the word war way to loosely. When was the last time the president went to congress and asked for a declaration of war. Anything after that has not been a war but a conflict. See what I. Getting at here. We use the words to justify what we want to do. " way in terror" is a justification to keep using troops anywhere there is " terrorist" with out following the law put into place by our founding fathers. So we don't end up in a way like we are. The American people are war weary our troops are breaking down and are getting burnt out. There is too much of this also " peace keeping ". Just another word to get around the rules.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google