Why the left criticizes combat soldiers who support escalation

[Thorgrim]

Brilliant write up by a former Marine:

I was less than 2 months past my 17th birthday when I joined the Marines in 1985. If I had to guess, I'd say the average age of the 52 men in my platoon (A Company, 1st Batallion, Parris Island) was 19 or 20. In the 12 weeks of bootcamp, they break you down and build you back up - civilians become slimy and worthy of scorn and contempt, you grow into a Proud Marine. You will carry yourself with bearing, dignity and honor everywhere you go. In and out of uniform, you are part of a brotherhood - an elite few that will always and forever carry a bond.

As importantly, you become a killing machine. Every Marine, regardless of specialty, is first and foremost a basic rifleman - and a warrior that lives for battle. At no time in your Marine Corps career is this more ingrained than in bootcamp. By the end of your twelfth week, you not only have a basic familiarity with how to kill, but you are excited to get started. If your drill instructors did their job well, your mushy seventeen - or nineteen, or twenty-two - year-old head has been reshaped and you want war. You've got your game face on 24/7, you've become part of something much larger than yourself and you're ready - primed, even - for war.

Today, I thank god war never came while I served. The closest I came to any kind of combat was being aboard the aircraft carrier, John F. Kennedy when two Navy pilots engaged and shot down two Libyan MIGs in January of 1989.

Even then, three years out of bootcamp and having been softened by the relatively lax air-wing life, the feeling of euphoria that washed over us all was exquisite. I remember the Captain of the ship announcing it over the ship-wide intercom system. A cheer rumbled through the decks and everyone - even the Navy "squids" - was awash in vicarious glory. we had taken out some bad guys.

Something else I just remembered about that time... I was aboard that ship in October of '88. Our Commanding Officer (CO) made it known that he wanted 100% registration for our squadron. He didn't care who we voted for - or even if we voted - but he insisted on 100% registration. I, being an immature and unwise little pissant, decided to challenge his authority. I thought I was the height of sophistication when I smugly said to my Sgt., "Ha. One's a clown, the other's a jackass and they are interchangeable. I'm protesting this election by not registering." My Sgt., being somewhat more mature and wise than I was, forged my signature to the registration form because I was never called to answer before the CO.

Anyway, I tell the story because it points up the low-information nature of your average young soldier. I didn't spend my nights reading Mother Jones, In These Times or The American Prospect. LOL! The thought that I would, today, is still laughable. No... I spent my time drinking beer and being incredibly inept at chasing skirts. That was just the priority for me - and the vast majority of the rest of my peers. It's not to say that we were all the same - there was a significant minority of fundies - but for the most part, we were young, and well... we were young...

So when you go watch this film, I want you to remember that I served in the relative normalcy of peacetime. The guys you see in the film... well, they've been under a bit more pressure...

Because the truth is, if this war had started 20 years earlier, I would have been one of these guys. I have no doubt about that.

So... What to make of this?

Well, the truth is that these kids do not have fully informed opinions. They are not "wise" - and, as much as it pains me to say it, they are not "mature". They are young men in hell coping in an entirely predictable way (given the training they received).

This is why although challenging their patriotism is not something the left supports, we should not rely on an 18 year old right out of "full metal jacket" boot camp on war, we should be able to criticize their opinions, they are not sacrosanct

How do you feel about the opinions of 18 year olds in the military? How should they be treated?

[motivez]

They're no different than any other 18 year olds opinion really. I am not going to judge it by age, but rather the ideas and information they have that have helped them to form that.

Someone's position in the military as a fresh out of bootcamp grunt doesn't automatically make their opinion more or less valid when it comes to strategy or whatever IMO..

If they're like a lot of people who still support the war and everything going on that I know, they don't really pay attention to much of anything but the talking points of their favorite conservative pundit.. and it's fairly obvious to anyone who does pay attention and read because they have an inability to discuss the issues at any real depth.

If that's all they have, I don't care if they're 16 or 60.. in the army or not, their opinion is not something anyone in charge should be listening to, and for good reason.

[ballz2wallz]

You take a marine's opinion about how much the opinions of soldiers don't matter. The ironing.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You take a marine's opinion about how much the opinions of soldiers don't matter. The ironing.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Brilliant write up by a former Marine:

This is why although challenging their patriotism is not something the left supports, we should not rely on an 18 year old right out of "full metal jacket" boot camp on war, we should be able to criticize their opinions, they are not sacrosanct

How do you feel about the opinions of 18 year olds in the military? How should they be treated?

There's some things that some people will never agree with. It's one thing to be critical of the mission, it's another to be critical of the soldiers. Why would a liberal negatively stereotype our military, while being 100% against it for any other purpose? When Murtha was running to the media saying soldiers were guilty of war crimes before an investigation he was told by the investigators to be quiet because he was hindering the investigation and he was criticized for taking away their rights to a fair trial. Liberals defended Murtha and basically said it was ok because soldiers should be held to a higher standard. What higher standard is that? One of which we can trash their rights and walk all over them to promote a political career and agenda? I'm not buying it.

We have former presidential nominees botching jokes calling our soldiers stupid and then saying they won't apologize.. Why? If a Republican botched a joke and offended the entire black community, wouldn't they be expected to apologize? Even if it wasn't the intent, it still happens.

Then we have liberals painting pictures of our servicemen living in palaces and living off the luxurious tax dollars. Why? What purpose does it serve to exaggerate their quality of in life in Iraq? Why must some people stretch so far to be critical of our troops for reasons out of their control and unrelated to the war?

Then we recently had Arkin write up an editorial calling our soldiers mercenaries? Is that being critical or is that just flat out insulting? There's a difference here, and one that many on the left haven't been able to figure out. Immediately after these comments we had Kieth Olbermann defending this comment? Why? What does he get out of it? Since when did bashing and insulting our troops become politically savvy and help promote someone's career?

I watched a recent interview with a soldier in Iraq. He said a writer from the Economist came over to his platoon. He said he really likes the Economist, it's a great magazine and he reads it. The reported never once left his room, was there for two days and had no idea what was going on. He went back home and wrote an article slandering the troops saying they were swearing at women on raids and hitting children (or something to that effect). He wasn't even there... The soldier continues to make the point... how then is a soldier supposed to read all this negativity and contempt from the left and be ok with themselves if they have to end up killing somebody. He simply answers his own question and says they can't.

Our soldiers in Iraq are quite often young. Some of them have children being born that they may never see. They're over there because their country put them there and the vast majority are working their asses off day in and day out in very harsh conditions. They're putting their lives on the line everyday trying to make their country proud. Why then, would someone be critical of the troops in general? There's no reason for it. There's political advantage point. If a soldier says they don't understand how someone can be against their cause, but still support them.. they should be entitled to that opinion without a lash of attacks by liberals. There's a big difference between attacking and being critical. And many liberals today are not being critical, they're going on the offense. And that's just wrong.

Just look at the topic:
Why the left criticizes combat soldiers who support escalation

First of all you're stereotyping people. Secondly there's no reason to criticize the soldiers. Criticize their points. Don't attack the soldier. There's a clear difference and one that needs to be separated. The elitist mentality of attacking people who don't agree with you or have a voice who dissent your political opinion is no reason to attack them directly. Criticize their point, not the person. It's one of our rules on this server because it's rude. It's not just one person or a few people. It's a huge portion of our military. I have my views on abortion. I'm not criticizing people who disagree with my view on abortion... I criticize someone's view that disagrees with mine, why then doesn't that rule of thumb carry over to our soldiers? There is absolutely no reason to lump any group of people together and criticize them when their views are legal and legitimate. You can disagree with them, sure. But don't criticize them just because you disagree. They deserve better than that.