Posted on Jul 7, 2018
Is it really appropriate to respond to critique of the 'military' by questioning if someone served?
1.82K
9
7
1
1
0
It's a unique response among professions if you stop and think about it. No other trade is suspicious of criticism in this way. You don't see lawyers telling you that you can't argue about the law or it's passage unless you're a lawyer, or doctors lamenting you for debating malpractice cases because you didn't go to medical school.
It is a point of keen contention for me, because while I think to 'some degree' it is disgusting to target someone who is serving their country, I also share a common recognition that 'service to our country' is not as universal a primary motive as we all pretend it is.
A lot of people join the military to serve their country, but in my experience, more people join for other reasons and 'adopt' this rationale while or after they serve (Very commonly after since during service the 'majority' are seeking exit from the military, if you remember most people are one and done with regards to tours of duty). Furthermore, regardless of the motive, questioning motives is allowed with regards to other professions as well. I hear people question those who want to go into politics to change things, calling them naive all the time, it's within the realm of acceptability to point out that their desire to change a system with a lot of momentum is unrealistic. Likewise, while the goal to serve one's country is admirable, why exactly is it not subject to the same level of critique that leads to a reality check? Why can't a civilian question whether or not armed service is 'really' the best way to be of 'service to ones country'?
I ask these questions because while I understand many who serve in the military experience horrific things that few can comprehend, many in other fields are subject to public opinion who also face criticism and have just to absorb it. Police in this country see horrible things, often more frequently and to a higher degree than in the service depending on their jurisdiction. EMTs positively deal with this sort of trauma on a daily basis with greater repetition. Lawyers dealing with criminal law and homicide are also on the front lines in a way, dealing with the threat to family and life, and experiencing horror day in and day out. Likewise, the medical professions are subject to similar daily concerns, nevermind the foreign political occupations such as ambassadors, diplomats, reporters, and other fields. The one thing they all have in common? They all serve a higher purpose, and they all experience plenty of traumas, and ALL are subject to public critique without the expectation that you walk a mile in their shoes.
Is there a good reason that the military is different from all the professions I just listed that I have not covered in the details?
It is a point of keen contention for me, because while I think to 'some degree' it is disgusting to target someone who is serving their country, I also share a common recognition that 'service to our country' is not as universal a primary motive as we all pretend it is.
A lot of people join the military to serve their country, but in my experience, more people join for other reasons and 'adopt' this rationale while or after they serve (Very commonly after since during service the 'majority' are seeking exit from the military, if you remember most people are one and done with regards to tours of duty). Furthermore, regardless of the motive, questioning motives is allowed with regards to other professions as well. I hear people question those who want to go into politics to change things, calling them naive all the time, it's within the realm of acceptability to point out that their desire to change a system with a lot of momentum is unrealistic. Likewise, while the goal to serve one's country is admirable, why exactly is it not subject to the same level of critique that leads to a reality check? Why can't a civilian question whether or not armed service is 'really' the best way to be of 'service to ones country'?
I ask these questions because while I understand many who serve in the military experience horrific things that few can comprehend, many in other fields are subject to public opinion who also face criticism and have just to absorb it. Police in this country see horrible things, often more frequently and to a higher degree than in the service depending on their jurisdiction. EMTs positively deal with this sort of trauma on a daily basis with greater repetition. Lawyers dealing with criminal law and homicide are also on the front lines in a way, dealing with the threat to family and life, and experiencing horror day in and day out. Likewise, the medical professions are subject to similar daily concerns, nevermind the foreign political occupations such as ambassadors, diplomats, reporters, and other fields. The one thing they all have in common? They all serve a higher purpose, and they all experience plenty of traumas, and ALL are subject to public critique without the expectation that you walk a mile in their shoes.
Is there a good reason that the military is different from all the professions I just listed that I have not covered in the details?
Posted in these groups: 
Etiquette
Etiquette
Edited 6 y ago
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 5
Can you critique politicians if you've never been a politician?
Can you critique police officers if you've never been a police officer?
Can you critique financial advisers if you've never been a financial adviser?
Can you critique athletes if you've never been an athlete?
In most cases, I think critiquing someone in another field is fair game, so attempting to immediately shut down a critique simply due to someone having never served within that field may be a perfect example of using a debating fallacy ("appeal to experience"). However, the true legitimacy of any critique depends on the context.
For instance, if someone is critiquing the performance of the military by assessing outcomes (did we win a conflict, did we meet our tactical/strategic objectives, etc.), that would normally be fine. However, if someone is critiquing our tactics, when they have no training in military tactics, then that would not be fine. The same goes with coaching (for instance, college football). If you're assessing a won-loss record, or the number of championships won, or the number players put into the NFL, that is fine if you've never played football. However, if you're critiquing specific blocking schemes, details of a game plan, play-calling, etc., that's not fine if you have no formal football experience. So, it's not a clear answer until the specific context can be analyzed. In general, I try to avoid shutting down people using that type of an argument.
Can you critique police officers if you've never been a police officer?
Can you critique financial advisers if you've never been a financial adviser?
Can you critique athletes if you've never been an athlete?
In most cases, I think critiquing someone in another field is fair game, so attempting to immediately shut down a critique simply due to someone having never served within that field may be a perfect example of using a debating fallacy ("appeal to experience"). However, the true legitimacy of any critique depends on the context.
For instance, if someone is critiquing the performance of the military by assessing outcomes (did we win a conflict, did we meet our tactical/strategic objectives, etc.), that would normally be fine. However, if someone is critiquing our tactics, when they have no training in military tactics, then that would not be fine. The same goes with coaching (for instance, college football). If you're assessing a won-loss record, or the number of championships won, or the number players put into the NFL, that is fine if you've never played football. However, if you're critiquing specific blocking schemes, details of a game plan, play-calling, etc., that's not fine if you have no formal football experience. So, it's not a clear answer until the specific context can be analyzed. In general, I try to avoid shutting down people using that type of an argument.
(3)
(0)
Cpl Nicholas Johnson
Thank you for the response. I have this suspicion that most people who stop to think about it and discuss this topic will come to a similar conclusion as yours. I guess my question is why it seems such a common defense then? Is it just me, or is this something you've experienced as well? Is the question legitimate often enough to warrant the discussion, or do you believe the critique is more frequently the sort that requires expertise?
(1)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
Cpl Nicholas Johnson - I suspect it's rather common because a) most people simply want to quickly shut somebody down and/or b) they may not even be able to address the nuances of the specific critique. Thus, the shutdown attempt is part laziness (the former) and part weakness (the latter). Those two aren't mutually exclusive either. From my experience, the question normally warrants a deeper discussion. Most people just don't want to have that deeper discussion and/or they can't engage in that deeper discussion.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I agree with LTC Kevin B. . Plenty of people can, and do critique the military as far it's role in the world, it's policies on this or that, where we should and shouldn't be used, etc. I have no problem with that. There are plenty of historians that know a great deal about warfare that have never actually served and that's fine. I take more of an exception to critiques on the personal level. Such as, people who have never been shot at trying to tell me about what combat is like. Or them telling me which rifle is better than the other one. Shooting on the range is different than combat and they have no frame of reference for that. But we all do it. I've started numerous sentences with "why can't doctors just do..." or "why can't this product get delivered to me faster" and I don't know the first thing about being a doctor or the logistic operations of most companies.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google