screwoffreg wrote...
Goodwood wrote...
I can certainly agree with that. I'm no soldier myself, but I've met and talked with enough of them, in addition to reading many nonfiction historical accounts/biographies/etc. to understand some of the more universal mentalities that come with the territory. Horrifying as it may sound, the effects that war can have on different people is something of a fascination for me. It can transform ordinary folks into paragons of virtue, or destroy the pacifist, leaving him little more than a psychopathic monster, who thrills on the idea of mowing down hordes of enemies.
It's difficult to describe, but part of me regrets not being able to serve in the military, while at the same time the more sane parts thank my lucky stars that I am "physically disqualified". I suppose that's why I've focused so much of my life on understanding what war is.
I think far too often people equate soldiering with a very noble, very fantastic image that is entirely untrue. In reality, it is really just another job, albeit a bloody and dangerous one. Of the over one hundred conflicts the US has been involved in, a majority have had nothing to do with ideas of liberty and valor and everything to do with the interests of business and property. That is true of any nation or government, unfortunately.
As to what people become from their experiences in war, I think the best idea is to wage it so rarely so we never have to find out. If one were to look at the homeless population in the US, many who are mentally ill, a disturbing amount of them are veterans of our wars. I can only imagine in the next decade how many of those wandering, sad men will be former Iraq and Afghanistan combatants. Its easy to glorify them in uniform, much easier to forget when the work is done.
Sad, yet true. And even what I would consider the more morally clear conflicts, with terrorists (and admittedly, those are only guaranteed to be morally clear to a typical soldier, who is trained to believe that while accidental killing of innocents is severely regrettable, intentional killing of innocents is unconscionable, and directly targeting said innocents is d@mnable) aren't fought in what we think of in honorable ways. Typically the US sends in Delta Force or DEVGRP (formerly SEAL Team SIX) with the intent of preventing innocent casualties as much as possible ... by maximizing terrorist casualties. (According to Commander Marcinko, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" was the maxim of the late Col. Charlie Beckwith, creator of Delta Force.) And in that task, the shooters on the team can't be looking for ways to save the bad guy's life, because less than a tenth of a second can be deadly to a hostage, a teammate, or one's self.
Actually, he put it well once in
Designation Gold: "A SEAL has to be able to, without hesitation, neutralize the threat, be it man, woman, or child. Yes, child. An eleven-year-old girl with an AK47 is as deadly as a 25-year-old man with an AK47." A Special Forces shooter has to be able to do all that without a second's hesitation, and never question why they did it or if they needed to until the bullets stop flying.
This is probably why I prefer a Sole Survivor's introduction so much -- "Do you really want someone like that protecting the galaxy?" "Ambassador, that's the
only kind of person who
can protect the galaxy."
/end_Rant