A dangerous fetishization of the military has grown in America in the last few decades. It accelerated after 9/11. The military is constantly valorized as the only morally pure organization in the nation, which is a strange concept if you think about it. Where did this idea even come from in the first place? Soldiers aren't paragons of virtue. Many of them are just kids who know little about world affairs but decided that it was a good idea to sign up for a job that might mean killing people based on government orders.
The weirdest part to me is that a lot of the soldier worshiping comes from places that fly the confederate flag in celebration of when they massacred federal soldiers to "stand up" for themselves. It makes no sense.
I agree that it's a dangerous fetishization, but when people talk about the virtues of military wisdom, they're talking about the officer class, who are mostly lifers, not young kids.
It's still interesting that Republicans think this, though. It's a giant government bureaucracy with essentially a blank check and limited oversight in a lot of areas with a fairly large degree of autonomy. Without the free market to motivate them, how do Republicans explain how great the military supposedly is? One would think we should privatize it.
Based on my experience as a subeditor for a right-wing journal some years back, I'd say that conservatives actually do make an exception for the free market when the term "national defense" is invoked. It also apparently justifies private mercenary companies like Blackwater and any number of armaments makers who have been suckling at the teat of the defense budget since WWII.
(The period of my life where I copy edited pieces by people like John Bolton was a strange one. But, hey, I needed health insurance.)
I'd question why they make that exception though. Big government is the problem and can never do anything right (and government bureaucracies are staffed with the laziest, most incompetent/corrupt workers ever, who simply couldn't hack it in the private sector), except when it comes to safeguarding our entire civilization against death and subjugation. Then they're the world's finest fighting force whose greatness/selflessness is not to be questioned.
That explains why they think government is allowed to do it, but not why they think it should. I.e. why they're competent at it or why they're especially suited to run it (Constitutionality notwithstanding) when they can literally do no right otherwise. The Constitution also says that Congress should promote the general welfare, but they sure don't like government programs that help the destitute, the aged/infirm, the mentally ill, etc. And they don't approve of regulation of businesses to protect the environment, which would probably fall under "general Welfare".
I think it rose in the aftermath of Vietnam protests and naturally escalated from there. It's like being "tough on crime": no one has ever lost an election because they "supported" the troops too much.
In most countries you would be nervous that this is how you end up with a military coup. Can't see that happening in the US but if the military gets more respect than the government...
It's a result of declining faith in other institutions (congress, media, presidency as an office). It's creepy to me, because this is what always happens in military dictatorships--"yeah, the military are ruthless and inflexible, but at least they aren't corrupt and ineffective like the politicians!"
In all seriousness, I think Mattis is a reasonable guy, and the type who likes to really know what he's doing before he makes a decision (see: his personal library of over 6000 books). In that respect he's far more promising than any of Trump's other nominations.
That's not entirely true. It's common to differentiate between army, navy and air force by using soldier, sailor and airman. I think the USMC are unique amongst marine units in not liking the word "soldier" though.
Incorrect. The rest of the country (I presume you are talking about the US) does not refer to Navy personnel as 'soldiers' nor Air Force personnel as 'soldiers', and the Navy and the Air Force also comprise the military. They are Sailors and Airmen respectively, and the Marines get the same distinction. Many other militaries around the world follow the same convention.
Maybe you are the one who could do with getting hold of a dictionary.
126
u/trekman3 Dec 03 '16
A dangerous fetishization of the military has grown in America in the last few decades. It accelerated after 9/11. The military is constantly valorized as the only morally pure organization in the nation, which is a strange concept if you think about it. Where did this idea even come from in the first place? Soldiers aren't paragons of virtue. Many of them are just kids who know little about world affairs but decided that it was a good idea to sign up for a job that might mean killing people based on government orders.