Are soldiers really serving their country?

Here's a motto I oftentimes see thrown around in relation to veterans: "Thank you for serving your country!"

Don't get me wrong, I fully support every soldier and if I had my way, no soldier would die. Still, there is a question that I think needs to be addressed here which is important when anyone cheerfully recites the above phrase: Do soldiers really fight for their country, or for their government?

When one looks at wars throughout history, I simply cannot understand how anyone can blanket every US soldier as serving their country. Vietnam, the Korean War, Iraq, Central American conflicts, and a variety of other military struggles were mostly fought for government interests that had nothing to do with protecting people. Afghanistan made some sense as retribution perhaps, still, it wasn't self-defense.

If it is easier for those who are Americans like myself, think about foreign troops and how often they are serving their nations. Were Russian soldiers who invaded Georgia really serving the Russian people? Of course not, it was purely governmental interest at work.

Here, then, is my question for political forum; and I'm especially interested to hear the perspectives of those involved in the military or who have been in the past: how often do soldiers really fight for their country?

 

Far too rarely. We're getting closer and closer to the century marker on the last "good war"(ww2) and even then soldiers on both sides did some pretty despicable things(Firebombing tokyo anyone?)

 

In America, our president is elected thru a democratic process, he is also the commander-in-chief of our armed forces. We also elect people to congress, who represent us. The president has digression on the use of our armed forces, and congress has the power to declare war. So when, our armed forces are called to do a job, they are in fact serving their country.

 

Yes, but aren't the votes of our representative bought by lobbyists and the president influenced strongly by other interests beyond our control?

 

You have to look at it in the grand scheme of things. Does the existence and continued willingness of American soldiers to fight and put themselves in danger protect America? What enemies in the last 50 years have truly threatened the existence of the United States? Why has the U.S. really never been threatened in those 50 years?

 

Consider the Armed Forces as a tool of diplomacy...

 

They are serving their chain of command just like a private sector employee serves his boss. Their job, of course, is defending the nation and that they do. I think thanking them for service to their country is appropriate although their country could well be somewhere behind the primary motivations.

 

Sweden hasn't been threatened in the last 50 years either, null argument. "Aggressive" defense is far more likely to make enemies than friends, what's been keeping America safe is the same thing that kept Russia safe, nobody big enough to fight us is crazy enough to start anything. We're playing late end British Empire stuff, getting involved in countries to prove that we still can stay involved, and I hope for our sake that nobody pulls a Germany on us.

 

This is because Sweden benefits from the protection of a world that's protected by NATO and the U.S.

Sweden was also comfortable sitting by while Hitler murdered tens of millions of people.

Russia has been invaded multiple times; Sweden, ironically, was one of these invaders.

Don't just think America, think American interests.

 

This is the Marxist-Leninist point of view.

 

No, not really.

 

kinda moving the goal post, aren't you?

 

People join the military for many reasons, but in times of war we must assume that they have great courage. Military benefits have been on the cutting block for years now and many of the advantages of serving are lost, most likely forever. I have not served but many in my family have. Questioning the patriotism, the courage and the idealism of those who have risked their lives in service to our country is wrong. I fear that more and more often today the modern soldier is being denigrated by the popular view. They are poor, they are from low employment areas, they are less important than other veterans who have been in prior wars etc. God help us all if we had to risk our lives as they have, and God forgive us if we judge them.

 

Interests is a euphemism for greed. Look up LaFeber on economic interests. As for other countries, would you like other examples of non-invaded countries? Morroco? Spain? Portugal? The "We're only safe because we invade somebody every ten years" argument somehow fails to hold water.

 

Really? Interests is a euphemism for greed? That's an incredibly naive view of the world. Every country looks out for its interests (i.e. the best conditions for its country to prosper). You're extraordinarily naive if you think that countries don't do this. Look at the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. invaded because it believed that it was in its best interest to do so. There was NO economic benefit to the U.S.......and in fact it was the complete opposite. Economic interests do obviously factor in, but there's a lot more at play.

I never once said that the U.S. is safe because they invade someone every ten years. I said that because of the existence of the U.S. military and its continued willingness to intervene to protect its interests, Americans are "safer." Portugal and Spain are part of NATO....and thus benefit from the U.S. military (and others). Morocco spent decades under French rule and only relatively recently achieved independence.

You're looking at this in a vacuum. If you looked at Poland and Finland between 1920 and 1938 with their relatively puny military and decades of peace, you could claim the same thing. Fast forward four years and both countries were occupied.

 

Every day. There are a lot more layers to combat than the government's decision to send people to war. You are fighting for different things, including your life, your buddy's life, and the lives of people that come in after you. In a sense, you are preserving some people's right to live, and prerogative to leave the military at any point to pursue the life they want. That's fighting for something American, to the benefit of more than just the individual.

Reflective belts, shaved heads, right colored socks, and CBTs for safety and harassment. Duh.

 

Who in Hell do you think you're kidding?

 

That assumes that all voters and the president have perfect information before the election. People who elected Bush to office were told by his administration that he would stay out of unnecessary wars. You could argue that it was a lie being that most of his advisers were in PNAC, but that's what the voters were told. The American public had no idea 9/11 would happen and on November 4th, 2000 did not even know where Afghanistan was, much less start a war with them.

It also assumes that the public votes on foreign policy issues. They do not. The public gives a mandate, but it's not on foreign policy.

This was a response to bluespade on mandates. I'm still figuring out this board.

 

The US has a strong tradition of civilian control, although the military gives advice. When a war is initiated, it is done by civilians and not the military, sometimes for political rather than strategic reasons. The intent has nothing to do with defending the country.

And I don't see what individual reasons and characteristics have to do with the country known as the United States of America. While defending individual characteristics and interpersonal relations as applying to the entire country as a whole, you might as well say the military defends a relationship between a man and woman and the right to drink alcohol. That is not the whole known as the national interest or individual rights as implied by the phrase "serving the country." And when you think about it, the whole defending your friend is contrary to the corporate interests and the characteristics of the US military. As Samuel Huntington put it, all militaries are collectivist organizations that sacrifice the individual to serve the whole.

 

This shouldnt even be a serious question. Try telling someone that you believe US soldiers saved the United States from Iraqis with a straight face. Or you can go down the list. Tell people that you believe that US soldiers defended our freedom against the threat from the island of Grenada. Or US military advisers protected the United States against the threat from FMLN guerrillas. Or US Southern Command protected us against the Nicaraguan threat or the Vietnameze threat and on and on. What a joke and people are on here saying we have to be a bully and attack these tiny countries so they dont get any ideas about picking a fight with us. Go see a doctor!

 

You're not addressing anything I said. Get on the right conversation.

So what you're saying is you don't know what an individual's pursuit of a better life has to do with America. OK.

And when you actually think about it, that again has nothing to do with what I said.

 

Our government is what keeps this country going. It may be our government who votes on the war but yet our government is meant to uphold the safety and beliefs our country was founded upon. Every soldier is fighting for our country. Our soldiers fight to save lives. They should be thanked. Not considered "tools of diplomacy". They are people just like us. Our government decides whether or not we should fight and if our soldiers are called upon then they step up to the plate. Instead of questioning who they fight for why not give them a break and take a turn at the plate. Each soldier has a reason they are in the armed forces but at the end of the day they fight for the U.S. not for the government.

 

Difficult subject. Soldiers are serving themselves first and foremost. I believe that the institution of the military is good thing in that it allows people in a difficult situation to change their circumstances. That being said, the institution has been hijacked by nitwits intent on world domination, bullying or some other degeneration that results in a negative connotation to those actually in the military.

 

I believe you don't know the first thing about the military. Leave your elitist attitude behind. The "average" soldier is better educated and from a better socio-economic background than the "average" American.

 

Based on your experience? I doubt you have ever sniffed service and have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue what you're talking about. Nitwits? OK, "dudeman," you try to figure it out:

It's what they talk about behind the barista bar at Starbucks.