Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 493317)

"Fortunate Son" isn't as resonant today as it was 40 years ago for no good reason. The poor fight our wars, even more than in the past. Yes, there are officers and some rich or middle class kids in the mix. But generally, the military of today draws from people who don't have better options.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 493307)

I spend a lot of time lately hanging around with a guy who recently did several tours in Afghanistan. I'm pretty comfortable saying that we want our soldiers to be good, not amoral killing machines. Not only because of the principle, but not least because successful counterinsurgency tactics depend on soldiers who aren't. In theory, we were in Iraq to restore democracy, not for body counts. I agree that anyone in Kyle's role would be dealing with heavy shit. But that doesn't mean that Kyle dealt with it well, or was a good person (not that you disagree).

I think a lot of people in this country are happy to stick to a simple narrative in which every US soldier is a patriotic warrior, unconflicted and heroic, and everyone else is an enemy combatant. It sure is easier to live in that moral universe than in the one we're actually in.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 493312)

Right, "I believe I did right, but every human has doubts" is good. "I'm infallible and they are dogs" is not.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 493326)

Your default reaction is to almost always criticize US policy, or any militarism.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493321)

I don't know what the hell people are talking about here. This is a guy who wrote a self-aggrandizing book full of various exaggerations, half-truths, and outright lies (he lost a defamation and unjust enrichment suit) that undermines ongoing missions and is going to be used as a propaganda tool for ISIS for years to come. But it made him rich. He brags about murdering dozens of people on his return to the US, stories that likely aren't true but that still suggest he came back to the states a major danger to the rest of us. His story is mostly a case study in why we need better mental health and social services in the military (a sad situation, where real cuts have been experienced in services to active service personnel, including deployed personnel in order to keep funding to other combat medical services and to VAs back home).

I don't know what he actually did or didn't do over there, or how well he did it, and neither does anyone else, because his stories lack credibility. I do know that his expressed hatred and vitriol is going to be cited by our opponents for years to come for how Americans view Iraqis and Middle Eastern peoples in general.

You want a military hero? My cousin's team rebuilt a power station in Afghanistan three times as part of Civ-Ops there. He and his people worked lightly armed in dangerous situations to build friends and trust in-country. While they were at it, the nearby areas that worked with them also got schools and other public buildings and they help engineering roads - all in situations where they had to expose themselves regularly to do the job effectively. Afghans who helped him were in constant danger, but it was critical that the program be cooperative, and that they be stubborn and rebuild the thing no matter how many times it was destroyed. He speaks very fondly of the Afghans he worked with. And idiots like this undermine efforts like his.

You need to pick a side? I pick sanity.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493332)

I haven't walked a mile in a sniper's shoes (particularly one in a war zone like Iraq, where the enemy wasn't in uniform or easy to distinguish from everyone else; contrast WWII.) So, I'm not prepared to say he is "not good." I have great difficulty imagining what it would be like to sit on a rooftop for days waiting to kill someone, who you are told is an enemy and a killer and a terrorist, etc. Could you do that, effectively, and live with doubt? Maybe doubt would come later -- Kyle didn't get much chance at that -- but then?

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493334)

Good post.

Do you blame him, or the pool of shit he was swimming in? Or both?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 493311)

I'd say, "unfortunately"

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 493316)

Yes and no. I don't like anyone or anything offering blind obedience or loyalty to any organization or government. But, we all know these people are necessary for certain types of work the rest of us would never do.

Every army, every movement, every anything, needs its true believers.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 493317)

"Fortunate Son" isn't as resonant today as it was 40 years ago for no good reason. The poor fight our wars, even more than in the past. Yes, there are officers and some rich or middle class kids in the mix. But generally, the military of today draws from people who don't have better options.

Wonk's only off in them being cannon fodder. Most of the fighting today is done by computer.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 493319)

So what's his point?



And my point is, that's a stupid point.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 493320)

the last time we had this discussion (i mean the board, don't recall if you were here at that moment) I posted stats that showed the US military looks a whole like the population, both racially and economically. In fact over 60% (I want to say 70%) of the enlistees had at least some college coursework completed. it strikes me as the opposite of "no option."

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493321)

You want a military hero? My cousin's team rebuilt a power station in Afghanistan three times as part of Civ-Ops there. He and his people worked lightly armed in dangerous situations to build friends and trust in-country. While they were at it, the nearby areas that worked with them also got schools and other public buildings and they help engineering roads - all in situations where they had to expose themselves regularly to do the job effectively. Afghans who helped him were in constant danger, but it was critical that the program be cooperative, and that they be stubborn and rebuild the thing no matter how many times it was destroyed. He speaks very fondly of the Afghans he worked with. And idiots like this undermine efforts like his.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 493342)

There's a movie I'd like to see.

TM

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 493343)

Which raises an interesting question. Why don't we see these movies?

It would be pretty easy to put a money-making patriotic spin on this type of story (heck, it's pretty darn patriotic), wouldn't it?

Instead we get substance-free crap like the Hurt Locker or alleged propaganda like Zero Dark Thirty (I did not see) or whatever this movie is.

How about some propaganda about the good we're actually trying to do?

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493331)

I agree with you that a lot of people want to have a simple narrative. I'm looking past that, past the movie (that I haven't seen) and at the more fundamental question, of why we should be surprised at what people become when we train them to be killers.

I understand you know vets who are different and more shaded than Kyle supposedly was. So do I. But I do wonder whether the particular job of a sniper is such as to make that much more difficult.

I'm not really arguing with you, just wrestling with this myself. A few years ago I bought a book by a general, called "On Killing" that I think discussed some of these issues. I'll look at it and tell you if I can recommend.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 493326)

Not really. Your default reaction is to almost always criticize US policy, or any militarism.

Originally Posted by thurgreedmarshall (Post 493342)

there's a movie i'd like to see.

Tm

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 493343)

Which raises an interesting question. Why don't we see these movies?

It would be pretty easy to put a money-making patriotic spin on this type of story (heck, it's pretty darn patriotic), wouldn't it?

Instead we get substance-free crap like the Hurt Locker or alleged propaganda like Zero Dark Thirty (I did not see) or whatever this movie is.

How about some propaganda about the good we're actually trying to do?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493345)

Jobs like this are particularly problematic. A lot of them are dead-ends within the military. You don't really want someone who is trained as an unfeeling automaton of an assassin to command broader troop formations, and generally moving into senior command ranks requires that (or sometimes a pentagon desk job). Some people get pulled out and retrained, but most languish. So besides all the problems around how you've been trained and what you've been trained to do, there are limited rewards for doing these jobs well, so you're going to start getting pretty frustrated with the military itself as you keep doing this.

Then think on this: as independent contractors, after leaving the military, these folks are in demand and get paid well.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493334)

Good post.

Do you blame him, or the pool of shit he was swimming in? Or both?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 493342)

There's a movie I'd like to see.

TM

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 493344)

Dumbo Drop. We see the movies we would pay to see.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 493328)

dude someone who can enroll at school has the option or, well, enrolling at school.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 493333)

Any militarism is almost always worthy of criticism.

I really don't think we do.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 493354)

War involves doing some awful, illegal shit. The kind of mind that will do the work you and I wouldn't usually isn't a necessarily sane one. It's hardly surprising many guys in Kyle's line of work hold some pretty fucked up points of view. They work in a profession that arguably one has to be kind of nuts to enter, and if they weren't nuts going in, they become so after being in war. We need people willing to put themselves in that crucible. That some will do awful shit is not unexpected. Cost of war.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 493339)

A lot of them computers seem to blow up under Humvees and fall on soldiers.


BTW, I was having a very, very bad day Friday and I said something to you that was undeserved. I'm sorry.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 493357)

I hadn't noticed, but really - there's no need to apologize. You realize we're probably on the same page. I've seen several people with serious heart ailments and MS get held up in the disability claim process while people I know were embellishing, if not outright bullshitting, about alleged inability to work sucked up benefits. That's wrong.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 493356)

Agree completely, but (a) we shouldn't glorify the Chris Kyles of the world -- they are the collateral damage of going to war, and (b) when we decide to use military force, we are decided not only to kill foreigners and blow up their stuff, but also to turn more Americans into Chris Kyles, and we ought to own up to this. Pretending that he is a saint is an exercise in massive denial that's not fair to those who serve.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493367)

Totally classic. Santorum finds the Pope tough to listen to. Yeah, so was Christ you bozo.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493345)

Jobs like this are particularly problematic. A lot of them are dead-ends within the military. You don't really want someone who is trained as an unfeeling automaton of an assassin to command broader troop formations, and generally moving into senior command ranks requires that (or sometimes a pentagon desk job). Some people get pulled out and retrained, but most languish. So besides all the problems around how you've been trained and what you've been trained to do, there are limited rewards for doing these jobs well, so you're going to start getting pretty frustrated with the military itself as you keep doing this.

Then think on this: as independent contractors, after leaving the military, these folks are in demand and get paid well.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 493370)

They also get recruited to other parts of the Government: CIA, NSA, Secret Service, DIA, etc.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 493369)

You do realize that when you give it a name you sustain it?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493367)

Totally classic. Santorum finds the Pope tough to listen to. Yeah, so was Christ you bozo.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 493386)

I have traditionalist Catholic friends and family who are feverishly praying for this infallible Vicar of Christ to find Jesus. Or re-find him. Whatever. It’s hard to restrain myself from noting this is how many of us felt about Benedict, but there are people calling for schism and re-consecrating the papa-in-exile. It’s Avignon all over again. {munches popcorn}

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 493388)

I thought he was infallible?

Also, sounds to me like ol' frothy-lube as some confessing to do with all the pridefulness going on with his pope-doubting.

What's that? I'm not a Catholic and have no idea what I'm talking about? Oh, yeah. Carry on.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 493390)

Earnest answer to facetious question: he’s only protected from error when he speaks on particular topics, in particular ways. If he doesn’t say the magic words, “This teaching must be held by the whole church,” it’s just an opinion and can be disputed. So Santorum is right that press conference statements are not infallible. Ask GGG for details; for non-Catholics the best understanding is essentially that the Pope has declared further philosophical disputations about an issue to be unproductive. It’s a way of the presiding officer of a giant ongoing meeting to say “Moving on . . .”

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 493386)

I have traditionalist Catholic friends and family who are feverishly praying for this infallible Vicar of Christ to find Jesus. Or re-find him. Whatever. It’s hard to restrain myself from noting this is how many of us felt about Benedict, but there are people calling for schism and re-consecrating the papa-in-exile. It’s Avignon all over again. {munches popcorn}