99% of the military has a better chance of dying on the drive into work/base in places like San Diego and Norfolk than they do from anything military related. Unless you're referring to all of those YNs dying from papercuts (this is sarcasm) then I think there's plenty of opportunities in the military for people to elevate themselves, all the way to admiral in some cases, without risking life or limb.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
CJCS responds to Rep. Gaetz
- Thread starter IKE
- Start date
99% of the military has a better chance of dying on the drive into work/base in places like San Diego and Norfolk than they do from anything military related. Unless you're referring to all of those YNs dying from papercuts (this is sarcasm) then I think there's plenty of opportunities in the military for people to elevate themselves, all the way to admiral in some cases, without risking life or limb.
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
Is that 1 percent an acceptable risk?
The Army and Marines have a huge amount of positions that are dangerous and are overseas. It’s not like the Navy.
Really? Who decides what is a BS war? Your problem is with politicians, not the military. The military stands ready to fight all wars. Do you not see a non-BS conflict in the future of the US? Who will be READY to fight if people like you sit on the sidelines until a war you think is worthy comes around. Who deters both your future BS war and the worthy ones? Some of them have darker skin than me. Some come from families poorer than mine. GOD BLESS them.
Aside from the fact those numbers are very low as a percentage of military membership, they were not forced into service. Not one. McDonalds and Amazon would have hired them.
Or you could become a cop or firefighter or commercial fisherman and get seriously injured or killed.
To have a trained ready military as a deterrence? Of course!! We all knew following orders meant we might have to do things we did not agree with. It is one reason it is call SERVICE. It is also, in part, why it is an honorable profession.
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
Deterrence?
what exactly did we deter in Afghanistan and Iraq?
I don’t think any of those deaths were acceptable and sadly waste of young lives.
Well, there hasn't been another 9/11 since we entered Afghanistan and we got the guy who did it.
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
We could’ve caught the guy who did it without an occupying force of 20 years in Afghanistan and invasion of iraq toppling saddams region and being responsible for the creation of isis.
occupying forces trying to force democracy wasn’t a necessity and had little to do with strategic deterrence
Is this guy Otto pretending to be somebody again?
You are hung up on Iraq and Afghanistan. Another place and time we might have a good discussion regarding your direct question.
You are navel gazing. You don't think every single person in uniform serves as a deterrent to future aggression even you might not want to tolerate? Maybe it is just easier for me to see the big picture. I came of military age at the end of Vietnam and was a Cold Warrior. I didn't have to read in history books about Vietnam, proxy wars and shooting conflicts involving US forces over the Cold War. I followed them first hand as it unfolded. I suppose because of the investment so many of our current military has made in the post 9/11 wars it is understandable they see everything in that light. But it is very short sighted. We need good people standing watch. Discouraging that future force from service because YOU think the SOME of last generation of the military was taken advantage of is myopic.
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
its not short sighted.
The Vietnam war was a waste too and cost 50,000 dead Americans.
that didn’t deter anything at all.
I’m not advocating against a military.
I’m advocating against its misuse which results in a disproportionately amount of poor people getting killed. which if you look at the data- it’s extremely hard to say that isn’t true.
A little exercise. Think hard and convince a critic of our military that it has served a valuable purpose since, oh, say 1950. I'd like to hear that.
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
Where did I say we didn’t?
I'll agree with the Iraq sentiment (which is why I specifically didn't mention it) but with the Taliban protecting him in Afghanistan there's little to no chance we would have ever come close to sniffing him. It would have also given him plenty of opportunity and manpower to mount another attack.
Vietnam was a lot more complicated than just a bad decision to be involved or a waste that should have never been.
Yes, the "hawks" (in uniform and in civilian leadership) took advantage of the Gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate from assistance to direct action, and yes we failed to appreciate/took too long to realize just how bad the Diem government was (what we'd nowadays sanction for human rights abuses- although it wasn't as bad as Uncle Ho). We also didn't appreciate that was a civil war as much as it was a war of unification with outside intervention. The domino theory seems trite nowadays but the effort we poured into the Vietnam War did deter communist aggression (didn't eliminate by any stretch but it did impact adversary nations' foreign policies).
"What if" we hadn't gotten involved or what if we'd got out in the mid-late sixties, instead of sticking around through Westmoreland's doctrine changing to Abrams'... it's kind of a scary thought. I think ceding South Vietnam c1965 would have empowered the eastern bloc, a lot.
It's a debate that will never really conclude, I mean thesis-level stuff that a lot of people have dedicated years of their lives to figuring out.
Yes, the "hawks" (in uniform and in civilian leadership) took advantage of the Gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate from assistance to direct action, and yes we failed to appreciate/took too long to realize just how bad the Diem government was (what we'd nowadays sanction for human rights abuses- although it wasn't as bad as Uncle Ho). We also didn't appreciate that was a civil war as much as it was a war of unification with outside intervention. The domino theory seems trite nowadays but the effort we poured into the Vietnam War did deter communist aggression (didn't eliminate by any stretch but it did impact adversary nations' foreign policies).
"What if" we hadn't gotten involved or what if we'd got out in the mid-late sixties, instead of sticking around through Westmoreland's doctrine changing to Abrams'... it's kind of a scary thought. I think ceding South Vietnam c1965 would have empowered the eastern bloc, a lot.
It's a debate that will never really conclude, I mean thesis-level stuff that a lot of people have dedicated years of their lives to figuring out.
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
No my problem is with senior officers who plan the wars and act extremely risk adverse and get people killed in these unwinnable conflicts.
Tons of WIA and KIA come from poor planning from flag officers planning operations poorly and irresponsibly.
Battle of Wanat in Afghanistan
Korengal
Abu Gharab
and that’s just the ones that made the news. Lots of incidents of people being denied artillery support, QRF, and ROE changing.