Quite possibly the stupidest and most insulting statement that I've seen on the FreeRepublic and possibly even Lefty sites too. Military service is about sacrificing our individual freedoms and identities for some period of years to provide the safety for our country and its unique form of constitutional government, often putting our own young lives at stake.
I am a combat veteran and unlike many others that were with me, I made it back alive. If anyone on Earth should know about what works and what doesn't in that environment, it's men like me in my war and the other young men who fought in our latest wars.
You are one weird individual; you're claim to fame is that you were a navigator in a B-52 and then, you mention some interesting activity with nukes. Quite possibly I will have to defer to your opinions of the navigation station and equipment for navigating B-52s but you apparently have zero experience shooting other people or being shot by them. Or living in the nasty areas where combat takes place and seen the effects those conditions have on weapons and other items. Or seen what happens to people around you when the "latest and greatest" from experts in the States fails abysmally and your young fellow soldiers die because of it.
Note that I am speaking directly to you, not to some unseen audience when I tell you that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about - and it would be better for the sake of what little reputation you have remaining that a continuous stream of thunderstorms completely blanked out your ability to babble further from that remote area you live in.
PS; my Air Force Uncles told me that they became pilots to stay out of the mud with the infantry. It was their call. I chose to be with the infantry because that's where the real war takes place and I didn't want others to suffer while I stayed safe and warm somewhere.
“... the stupidest and most insulting statement that I’ve seen on the FreeRepublic ... Military service is about sacrificing our individual freedoms and identities for some period ....”
Can’t decide whether to gasp in astonishment or use one of those near-vocalizations (Hmmmmm...) in skeptic hesitation.
The gambits of one-upmanship and gamesmanship (as described by Stephen Potter) come as close to universal truths about human/group behavior as can be found. Everybody engages in them at some point; some folks do nothing else. I found them in every outfit to which I was assigned, every unit I visited, every organization and office I encountered. Suchlike are inescapable, whenever people are present; sometimes it took a few days, sometimes hours or minutes - but they invariably manifested themselves.
I find it inconceivable that Chainmail didn’t notice. I’d not like to think he was blind to them on purpose.
Chainmail and like-minded believers are overly optimistic: military service - in action or not - is not universally leveling. It has been undertaken by many millions. And people who undertake it have various reasons for doing so. To maintain otherwise is to make light of human variability, of individuality in all its glory - and its limitations. Qualities of character Americans know about and honor ... or would do well to.
Some serve a hitch for the adventure; some find the (alleged) manliness of it all irresistible and yearn to test their abilities against those claiming to be “the best in the business.” Others do it to escape unhappy family situations, or poor economic prospects, or to get away from criminal charges. Still others do it to satisfy ambition: to command, to rise, to work their will upon others. Some do it to find a stepping-stone into the technical establishment, or other organizational structures (including pursuit of civilian professions like the law or medicine). And there are many other reasons I cannot remember or never heard of.
“Service to country” sounds great on the resume, but is a little broad; having met many servicemembers, and listened to them at length, I’d hazard the guess that few who sign on the dotted line do it for one single reason. People can harbor innocent reasons but don’t stay pure for long. Sometimes, they’ve conflicting reasons.
“... I am a combat veteran ..., I made it back alive. If anyone on Earth should know about what works and what doesn’t in that environment, it’s men like me in my war ...”
Chainmail may have seen action but is quite simply in error about the universality of it.
Masses of people and equipment might become entangled, but the experience is inescapably particular and personal. Chainmail survived; others did not. I’d call that a big difference; there are others, but this is possibly the starkest. His experience is neither exhaustive, nor definitive.
It must be stressed that the military establishment is not composed solely of servicemembers and doesn’t reflect their motivations alone. Neither is it a top-down hierarchy, not exclusively: with significant elements of history and tradition, it never reflects the will and the personality of commanders - not perfectly. Still less is it a collection of “mindless robots” facelessly performing the bidding of elected politicians and appointed civilian officials, neither Left nor Right.
” ... Quite possibly I will have to defer to your opinions of the navigation station and equipment ... apparently have zero experience shooting other people or being shot by them. Or living in the nasty areas where combat takes place and seen the effects those conditions have on weapons and other items. Or seen what happens to people around you when the “latest and greatest” from experts in the States fails abysmally ... you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about - ... I chose to be with the infantry because that’s where the real war takes place and I didn’t want others to suffer while I stayed safe and warm somewhere.”
Chainmail has built up a store of moral authority, and all of us are right to honor him for his accomplishments. But he writes as if no one else noticed deficiencies or problems, nor lifted a finger to do anything about it.
High dudgeon does not translate into design expertise, nor engineering insight, nor strategic understanding, nor tactical talent - each of which are indispensable attributes in solving the problems and correcting the shortfalls that burdened him & fellow troops, putting them in peril and causing more yet more losses.
Experience in action, and endurance through unpleasant conditions and privation, may grant one a moral one-up, but is no guarantee of accurate understanding. In fact, it can’t tell us anything at all about what’s going on.
I’ve watched high rankers insist on the “truth” of their encounters with the enemy - every detail of which was in error, some contrary to the laws of physics. Some of us were left wondering how these guys survived to adulthood, to say nothing about their completion of military technical training, their survival of hostile fire, and subsequent rise to positions of authority. Luck defies explanation. Or prediction.