It is so weird that men in army are willing to go and kill each other and later behave as friends "because they have a shared experience". Is it a coping mechanism to help oneself' conscience? Or maybe just an example that we really are just machines following the program of the day?
They had the same experience. They didn’t choose to fight each other as a matter of specificity, they chose to serve their country.
Soldiers are effectively tools of a nation and most of them understand that. They were both doing their jobs and why should they take it personally? They both came out the other side and if their roles had been reversed they would have done the same thing.
Yeah I get that point of view, "I'm here just following orders, no hard feelings". And that is part of what is weird to me in these stories from wars, that people are so malleable and empty and later talk big about respecting the other side. Well respect them and don't bomb/shoot missiles at them then. Also, the article sounds very artistic and fake, I'm not totally buying it.
Without getting into the politics of it, the purpose of the air strikes according to NATO to "to halt and reverse the humanitarian catastrophe that was then unfolding."[1] - specifically a "ethnic cleansing campaign"[2]. I think it's possible the pilot or others to feel they're there for reasonable reasons, even if they don't hold any particular ill will towards the guy on the other side.
> I think it's possible the pilot or others to feel they're there for reasonable reasons, even if they don't hold any particular ill will towards the guy on the other side.
I agree, it is possible that the man in the article thought that. But I think it more probable that once you choose to work for military as a profession, you are either very misinformed or do not really care about the actual purpose of the bombing.
Can't agree more. "Just doing my job" is a pretty shallow justification for killing another person on vague grounds of "defend my country". Even more so when flying an airplane and just dropping bombs all over the fucking place.
Glad I'm not alone here. I can respect people in 2nd WW thinking "I believe they are evil and must be stopped and I will do anything to help that goal". I can't respect "I'm just working here".
Do you only respect that if you agree with their reasons as well? The kind of rah-rah patriotism for your country isn't one sided. Plenty of axis troops thought they were fighting against evil. Let's also not ignore the fact that service wasn't always voluntary.
It really just seems like you're looking at this with a very limited, black and white perspective. That's your prerogative but it doesn't really line up with the experience of most of the service members I've known and spoken with both personally and professionally.
I can't speak much to the experience of soldiers from other countries but people come into military service in the US from the full spectrum of the country. Wealthy families with generations of decorated officers to young people who really have no better option when it comes to their future. You may disagree with the entire idea of the armed forces but the reality is, especially for those who come from poor socio-economic backgrounds, there is no better option. A stable job that will provide housing, healthcare and education and a ticket away from whatever other negative things that may be going in their life. It's an alluring prospect. (Recruitment practices get pretty gross, I'm sure we can both agree there, but the benefits are very real).
Whether or not that is right is certainly something we can and should debate as a society, but there are a vast number of reasons people joined the armed forces and most of them aren't because they want to do bad things.
I am not saying everybody in military is "just working there". Some may genuinely believe they are doing something noble or at least necessary evil. But some enjoy shooting, killing, torturing people. And some are just taking the opportunity to get a good job or the benefits.
Shooting and killing other people is an enormity, unless there is a necessity or other justification. I'm just saying that "it was war, we had orders, I just worked there" is a false justification that some military men fool themselves with. To go to a foreign country and shoot people there, I would demand a much stronger reason than rhetoric, news coverage, free college, etc.
It's not weird at all. Soldiers on opposite sides have a lot in common, just as you might have a lot in common with someone of your profession from a different country. Their conflict is that of their respective countries, or they may think they're serving a good cause. But in either case, it's not personal.
It's also a mistake to think that every time a soldier shows an ounce of humanity, they're only doing it to "help their conscience". Soldiers are usually not the tortured individuals Hollywood portrays them to be. Why should these two men's consciences bother them? NATO troops thought they were defending the oppressed, and Serbian troops thought they were defending their sovereignty.
I think you are attributing a lot of what goes on to choice - war has a poor track record in this regard and soldiers are often recruited very young and/or conscripted. Even the US recruits soldiers defined by the Convention on the protection of children (below 18). Schools are used for recruiting in many places.
This aspect of war is really sad - giving kids and young adults guns and sending them off to shoot people is widely glorified.
It is estimated that 70% of conflicts involve child soldiers, though any measurement is hard due variable definitions and the difficulty in measuring.
I'm talking about the men in this article. Both of them were career military officers. It's fair to say that that was their choice.
Certainly there's propaganda that goes into recruiting naive young people in the US, but it's quite a stretch to equate that with child soldiers. I chose to enlist and so did everyone I served with. The vast majority of us do not regret it or feel that we were conned.
> Certainly there's propaganda that goes into recruiting naive young people in the US, but it's quite a stretch to equate that with child soldiers.
The US has signed The Convention on the Protection of Children. This agreement defines a child solder as one below the age of 18.
You may not feel conned but it’s not just about you - it’s the places they go, the decisions they make and the population they supposedly protect that should also matter.
There is little difference in maturity between a 17 year old and an 18 year old, and I would not consider either a child. And 17 year olds cannot be deployed.
But since we're being legalistic, yes, we signed the convention. But we did not ratify it. It is not legally binding on us.
> But we did not ratify it. It is not legally binding on us.
Yes, mostly.
“When a state has signed the treaty but not ratified it, it is not yet bound by the treaty's provisions but is already obliged to not act contrary to its purpose.”
I enlisted right out of high school. Did my 4 years and got out.
I think it made me more mature, or at least less naive about certain things...eventually. The experiences were valuable but it took a long time for me to fully reflect on them and extract that value. I was 22 when I got out, barely past being a teenager.
Money wasn't a factor for me. I had 96% of my tuition to a good engineering school paid for by scholarships, which I gave up to enlist. My reasons were a combination of things. I had a lot of friends who enlisted and I felt bad that they were risking their lives and I wasn't. I was also sick of school and saw war as an adventurous alternative, and a way to prove myself as a man. And I genuinely believed in the mission at the time.
I think the influence of money on soldiers going into actual combat is overstated. It's true that there are a lot of people who enlist for a paycheck, vocational training, or as a way to pay for college. But you get to choose your job. I was in the infantry, and pretty much everyone I knew legitimately wanted to fight, which is the only reason to join the infantry. If you're after job security or education benefits, you can be a clerk or a mechanic or a thousand other things that will generally keep you away from enemy fire. There's an idea floating around that the government keeps people poor so it'll have an endless supply of desperate peasants to feed into the meat grinder, but that doesn't hold up in my experience.
> This aspect of war is really sad - giving kids and young adults guns and sending them off to shoot people is widely glorified.
The American war machine has a lot of white supremacy elements built into it. Not just camps named after Confederate war criminals but actual common training refrains like "if they's brown, shoot them down" were taught during the invasion of Iraq which played at least some role in the war crimes at Mahmudiyah and Falluja. The Mahmudiyah murders and rapes were most eggrigious especially attempting to cover it up and lay the blame on Al Qaeda.
The Mahmudiyah rape and killings were war crimes involving the gang-rape and murder of 14-year-old Iraqi girl Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and the murder of her family by United States Army soldiers on March 12, 2006. It occurred in the family's house to the southwest of Yusufiyah, a village to the west of the town of Al-Mahmudiyah, Iraq. Other members of al-Janabi's family murdered by Americans included her 34-year-old mother Fakhriyah Taha Muhasen, 45-year-old father Qassim Hamza Raheem, and 6-year-old sister Hadeel Qassim Hamza Al-Janabi.[1] The two remaining survivors of the family, 9-year-old brother Ahmed and 11-year-old brother Mohammed, were at school during the massacre and orphaned by the event.
Five U.S. Army soldiers of the 502nd Infantry Regiment were charged with rape and murder; Specialist Paul E. Cortez, Specialist James P. Barker, Private First Class Jesse V. Spielman, Private First Class Brian L. Howard, and Private First Class Steven D. Green[2]).
Lets not forget that Trump also pardons these kinds of criminals.
The very few who actually sign up when they are 17 are almost all 18 before they go to bootcamp, and of the extremely rare ones who aren't they are 18 before they go to their first command or do anything at all. They are not allowed to deploy outside the US or participate in any hostilities until they are 18.
As I addressed in my comment above. 17 year olds are allowed to sign up with their parent's consent, but are not allowed to deploy outside the US or take part in any hostilities.
There's an element of the "just working here" mentality, but it's more than that. I was in Afghanistan more than a decade ago, and in my mind, we were fighting against the abuses and brutality of the Taliban. The guy shooting at me from a mountainside with a PKM was "one of them", a legitimate bad guy.
In retrospect, I realize that guy was probably much like me. A young guy, full of testosterone and looking for adventure, with notions of being part of something grand and heroic (repelling an invader) and a certain naivete about the larger forces and agendas that were using him. We'd probably get along if we met now.
Awhile back I saw a conversation on Reddit between an American soldier who fought in Ramadi (or maybe Fallujah, I can't remember) and an Iraqi soldier who was there at the same time fighting against the Americans. There was no ill will at all, just storytelling and reminiscing, and talking about the courses of their lives, families, and careers since then. The fact was that these guys had almost everything in common about that time in their lives, and had similar motivations for taking part in it. The only difference was that they happened to be on opposite sides.
> Awhile back I saw a conversation on Reddit between an American soldier who fought in Ramadi (or maybe Fallujah, I can't remember) and an Iraqi soldier who was there at the same time fighting against the Americans.
Any chance you might be able to dig up that link? I think it might be interesting to read it.
Unfortunately I can't find it now. I was looking for it earlier because I wanted to reread it myself. Wish I'd bookmarked it at the time. Sorry about that.
Sure, let me just call up all my buddies from my old platoon and apologize to them because some internet know-it-all said I should feel sorry for them. They're all doing great, so they'll laugh at me, but that's probably just an act. Thanks for enlightening me to their true plight.
Have you looked at the actual numbers? I said usually. The veteran suicide rate is roughly double that of civilians [1]. Obviously that's a problem, but it's still a very small minority. Veterans are not dropping like flies.
Anecdotal, but I've witnessed this effect in more than just military men, but rather in males in general. I know lots of guys who tell a story that contains something like; "we got into a fight, but later we became friends"... I'm both, and have done the same. Perhaps there is some more fundamental male psychology at play here?
Ritualistic fights are a common mechanism to resolve conflicts among social animals. Typically neither individual involved wants to get hurt, one of them yields or submits sooner or later, and afterwards there’s no need to remain hostile.
Modern warfare is increasingly buttons rather than bullets, so the psychology is different to (say) meeting the man who bayonetted you after the end of the great war.
