General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why do we buy into the worship of the military? [View all]LiberalLovinLug
(14,165 posts)Some that have enlisted here are seeing this a one or the other thing. Its not that members of the military should not be applauded, even if just for the fact that IF there were a battle that was necessary to defend ourselves or our allies, these people are willing to put themselves on the front lines.
Its more the degree of that applause. Even if one ranks their respect of others paid jobs and puts working in the military as the #1 respected job. Another overused and disingenuous term is "service" which is also used to hold up the mantle of Hero. It is not service, its being paid for doing a hazardous job. Yes it is to directly protect the country. But can't you say that many many jobs also protect the country in an indirect way? Of course police, firefighters jobs are hazardous. What about high steel workers? Oil rig workers? And mental hazards, which is prevalent in the armed forces as well. Inner city teachers have to deal with a lot. Social workers working with mentally ill, sometimes violent, individuals. Don't all of these and many more worker jobs, also work to defend the democracy? Isn't their work also important for a free and civilized society? And they face these hazards day in and day out, not just if there is a war declared.
I have no problem with celebrating that extra level of danger for that job that they signed off on for military workers, but its a question of just how much less is the sacrifice of others who work for the betterment of the country, that they do not also deserve to be celebrated? How much more does the armed forces deserve? Why are they elevated up to "Hero", when you never hear that about, say, teachers?
But I'll also say there are many factors. Some families are centered around the military, with almost all of their ancestors also a part of it. So there are family pressures too. Add to that the educational and monetary rewards which is very inviting for poor folks of all races, living in economically depressed areas. (It would be better to spend some of the MIC money on these depressed areas).
I also think the role of ex-generals who are invested in the MIC is obscene. They are the lobbyists, and have a lot of credibility because they are "heros". Many have millions of dollars on the line which will grow exponentially if there are more wars. They had on these now-shills for the MIC were all you saw on TV being interviewed during the build up to the Iraq war. (As Donahue was being fired).