Soldiering not compatible with family responsibilities

[Bragi]

This may seem a bit raw, but since we don't have any new dead troops announced so far today, I want to ask:

Why is that we are supposed to respect young married men (mostly men) with young families who choose to go to war instead of looking after their family responsibilities?

It would be different in situations where your country is actually in danger, especially if there is a military draft and no-one has a choice but to go into the military.

But why is that young people with spouses and children voluntarily join the military, and then volunteer for combat in wars of choice, instead of looking after their families?

And when soldiers like this are killed or mutilated or otherwise damaged for life, as invariably some will be, then we are supposed to pretend that they are great heroes who made great sacrifices for their country.

Far as I can see, the ones making the sacrifices are the families they abandoned so they could join their pals blowing stuff up in countries that represent no threat whatsoever to us.

- B

[jwlashta]

1. ...

In some part, I do agree with you. I cannot understand why married individuals would put themselves in harms way by joining the military. However, this stance is a matter of tastes because the same could be said for any individual who chooses to join the military. Everyone, save orphans or people who have lost their families, has some sort of familial tie. I personally would not want to join the military--the thought of shooting at and being shot at has little appeal to me.

I would like to think that most people join the military because they want to earn a living. Many individuals couple with this a desire to fight for/defend their values. With a military whose enlistment is as thin as Canada's, I do not think that ground forces have much say as to where they want to be deployed.

I guess my problem with your argument is that it is largely egocentric. As I mentioned before, really anyone that has a family (or friends, for that manner) stands to create potential mourners. A country like Afghanistan was essentially a rogue-nation--not simply a country that harbored a terrorist organization, but willingly allowed that organization to co-ordinate attacks on other countries. Furthermore, the government of Afghanistan was the most oppressive government in the world at the time of the UN-sanctioned invasion. Canadian soldiers, as well as the multiplicity of international soldiers and aide workers, are there both in a peacekeeping role and in a military role. The fact is that there are groups of Taliban and Al-Qaeda soldiers operating within and around Afghanistan that want to revert the country back to what it was. The country, as it stands now, is ill-equipped to deal with these threats, hence the NATO-led forces.

Anyway, I stated that I found your argument largely egocentric. The reason being is the last sentence of your post: "Far as I can see, the ones making the sacrifices are the families they abandoned so they could join their pals blowing stuff up in countries that represent no threat whatsoever to us." First of all, the country did pose a threat to us not too long ago, and even with international aide it seems to be teetering. Secondly, the way the country tramples the rights of women and any religion other than their gross misrepresentation of Sunni Islam. The problem is, and at the risk of indulging in Western-bias, it would be difficult for a vast majority of rational/reasonable people to want to live in such a political system.

(By the way, I am aware that my personal reasons for not wanting to join the military can be considered egocentric).

[Bragi]

2. You raise some very good points...

This is a subject I've been thinking about for some time, and I can't say as I have completely formed my thoughts on the matter, which is why I wanted to see about getting a discussion going on this in this forum.

So here are some responses to your points:

- I disagree with your characterization of the Afghanistan war meriting the sacrifice of Canadian lives and dollars. I say this not because I have any time for the appalling Taliban government that the US toppled in the first weeks of this war. My problem with the war is that the job was done in a matter of weeks -- the Taliban were ousted, the al Qaeda camps were closed and moved to the bordering tribal areas. It is now 7 years later, we are still there, and there is little prospect that anything durable coming out of this war. The simple reality is that most of the people in Afghanistan, especial;ly those who run the place, are either drug barons or religious fundamentalists who support all the things we hate about the Taliban. We are now propping up an unpopular, corrupt government that in no way shares our values, and we can't even define at this point what "victory" would mean. This is about as pathetic a war effort as I can imagine.

- Having said that, my concern is why do we, as a society, support and even encourage married people with dependent children to join the military and go abroad to engage in combat at the risk of coming back dead, crippled or so badly scarred emotionally as to be dangerous to themselves and their familes. Not to mention the strain that their absence puts on their families, especially for children who, at a very early age, will know that their parent has opted to go fight in a life-threatening war from which they may not return instead of staying home and looking after their personal responsibilties. Frankly, is this not a form of child abuse?

- In this regard, the merits of the war itself (and our disagreement on this) is not really the central point. Whatever be one's views as to the merits of a particular war, the fact is that some wars are defensive and unavoidable, and others are offensive and optional. In a true war of defence, it seems logical to me that there ought to be a draft so that all citizens are required to make a contribution to the common good. When it's an optional offensive war, however, (which I think has been the case in Afghanistan since the Taliban initially fell and AQ was sent elsewhere) then I don't see why we would encourage young people with family responsibilities to be on the front lines. It makes no sense. And I certainly don't understand why we would hold them up as great heroes when, in fact, they have chosen to shirk their responsibilties to their families.

- So what's this all matter? I'm not sure exactly, but I'm thinking that at the root of my argument here might be a different and useful way of "reframing" the "Support Our Troops" meme. One way to support our troops, of course, is to get them out of political wars where we can't even define what victory would mean. Another way to support our troops would be to make a decision as society not to recruit and encourage young people with dependent families to volunteer for combat. If we did this, and found that we could not recruit sufficient people without children and spouses to run a war, then surely this sends a signal about joining wars that people won't actively support.

- B

[jwlashta]

3. I don't know

In a sense, I do not think that they are heroes for the simple fact that killing others or being killed on the job does not, when looked at in their basest form, merit heroic status.

I completely agree that the war effort in Afghanistan is "pathetic." The problem with the initial invasion was that there were no long term strategies set beforehand, much akin to some of the many criticisms that can be lain against the American's Iraqi war effort. What exactly was the average person supposed to do after the Taliban was toppled? What was to be done or could have been done to avoid the provinces/regions falling under the control of drug barons or warlords? Karzai has also been a very ineffectual president both domestically and internationally. All that being said, I still think the war was justifiable and the current NATO troop presence necessary. The Taliban couldn't be allowed to remain in power because, as I mentioned in my previous post, they were enabling, supporting, and empowering Al-Qaeda. Furthermore, even though Afghanistan is in turmoil, the NATO presence is currently necessary; the Afghani government is ill-equipped to deal with the Taliban insurgency. I guess that my biggest fear is that NATO leaves, and the country quickly falls into a bloody civil war eventually leading to a coup of the government and you get the Afghanistan of old, except that when international forces have to go in again, they will be met with far greater hostility from the general public (who would be justifiably resentful).

As to your issue with married men (or women) fighting abroad, my only real issue with it is that most of these people have a poor education and either could not attend a post-secondary institution (perhaps because they lacked the funds to do so, or perhaps they already had families) or just had no desire to. Sometimes, it seems, joining the military is the only option for a person, and especially for a very young person with a family. The recruitment officers really sell it up, I'm sure: pension at the age of 35 and a family-sustaining salary. The fact is that there are many hazardous work opportunities out there that are largely filled by the poorly educated. The accident rate in the construction industry is considerably higher than most occupations (actually, if I remember correctly, it has the highest accident rate of all industries in Canada). I will grant that when being deployed to hostile situations, military life is indeed dangerous; however, it is quite possible that someone could go through his or her entire military service without seeing any "action."

I also take issue with the claim that military service can be tantamount to child abuse. A person can get injured or killed in a car accident. A person could slip and fall off of a house that he or she was helping to build. Many loggers and oil-rig workers finish a tour and have all of that money--many develop nasty drinking and/or drug habits. What exactly constitutes child abuse? Does living in poverty--a result of being unemployed or working at a minimum wage job--amount to child abuse because the child could be under nourished? I don't think the majority of people join the military because they want to be deemed heroic; they join the military to earn a decent living because there are just few options open to them.