talkpolitics | Last known surviving Great War veteran dies

Entry tags:

Last known surviving Great War veteran dies

Last known WWI veteran Florence Green dies at 110

This is not only the end of an era...it is, to me, a reminder of just how short-sided people tend to be these days (perhaps we Americans especially). The Great War (World War I, the First World War, the War to End All Wars, or what have you), which began ninety-eight years ago, is now as remote in time to us as the Napoleonic Wars were to the people of 1914, although the events of the Great War still largely shape the modern world to this very day. To a large extent, the people and nations of 1914 had forgotten how truly evil and destructive full-scale war was, as recruits enthusiastically shipped out to the front that summer, wildly cheered by adoring crowds suffused with a sense of glory and adventure. And who, these days, outside of university history departments and the ranks of military buffs, even knows the basic history of the war, why it happened, and how it changed the world?

And now, we can see the very same thing happening to our people as happened to those of 1914, as our Second World War veterans age into their eighties and nineties. As we approach the 75th anniversary of that war's beginning, is it even arguable that the West, by and large, has forgotten just how horrible and desperate full-scale war is? Especially here in the United States, where our armed forces has been all-volunteer for more than a generation, for many people the military has become an unfamiliar, mysterious, and even sinister entity; in my own family, dating back three generations, there has been only a single person who served in the military. I was seriously thinking about enlisting, but by the time I was in high school it was obvious that my health would preclude it; I was later privileged to have a semester internship with the Naval Historical Center (now the Naval History and Heritage Command) in Washington, DC. It was my first time working and socializing with active-duty personnel, and I am thankful for the experience.

Our Congress sees fewer veterans in its ranks every session, the last veteran on the Supreme Court retired in 2010, and we haven't had a president who served on active duty since 1992. I am certainly not saying that military service should be required to hold public office, but I am saying that, as the military becomes further and further removed from the daily lives of our citizens, we continue to lose a personal connection with the men and women who serve and protect our freedom. For all of our flag-waving patriotism, most of us don't know, and will never know, what it is like to have a close friend or family member in harm's way.

I would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank every member of

talk_politics who has served in the military of any nation. You are the protectors and guarantors of the freedom and liberty we take so very much for granted.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So what benefits do you see of requiring national service?

It shows that an individual is willing to work for the common good.

But how are they "willing" if it's a mandatory requirement for the franchise? (I'm not trying to be argumentative...just curious.) I just don't think it's just to attach any extra requirements to the franchise beyond age and citizenship. Heck, you don't even have to be literate to vote.

that presumes that what one does in the military is IN the common good. We know that's mostly not the case.

"We know that's mostly not the case."

Would you care to elaborate? For example, who is the "we" you are referring to? Also I'm curious if it's mostly not in the "common good" what is it "mostly" in?

it's mostly "in" the cause of greed, for either power or money.

The "we" is anyone paying attention.

Well when I went into the military it certainly wasn't for money or power (actually it was to avoid the draft) If that's the case now, I guess I'm one of those who isn't paying attention. If you are referring to Public service as becoming a politician, you may have a case, however, YOU specifically stated military service.

well of course you're not the one getting power or money. You weren't running the military.

And?

Seriously, this has really gotten far afield from the comment that I asked for clarification on.That may be my fault for not being clear, it may be his fault for his coment to the coment being clear, it may be the fault of the original statement not being clear, it may be the fault of all of us not understanding what the other person meant in any comment, or it may be everyone having their own agenda to push regardless of what anyone says.

I think I'll go read a book ;)

this has really gotten far afield from the comment that I asked for clarification on

Smedley's speech spells out clearly from an insiders perspective how military action may not always be "in the common good (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1341118.html?thread=106604222#t106604222)".

I am unsure how I could make it any clearer myself, or why my words would carry any weight where Gen. Butlers haven't.

it may be everyone having their own agenda to push regardless of what anyone says.

Oh okay then. Noted.

I think I'll go read a book ;)

Yeah. Go enjoy reading your book.

Edited 2012-02-10 04:14 (UTC)

Hopefully you know I wasn't trying to be sanrky (at least not to you ;) )

The original point of the thread (as I understood it) was whether or not some kind of "service" should be "required".
It was suggested that it didn't have to be military, but something that would serve the common good. It was hi-jacked with a rather broad generalization of the military, that implied that most thinking people "knew" the military was not in it for the "common good". Granting that people like Smedley (and I did listen to most of the video) were disselusioned (sp) the majority of people who have served, even under the draft believed it was for good. They (we) may not have been correct, all the time.
I realized after your post that it had gone off into a rant on the "military-indutrial complex" and perhaps I am too sensitive on the issue (being a (non-combatant) Viet Nam vet but I had too many friends "in the bush" and came home to too much crap in college in '68 and '69) but i felt the comment was a slur directed to all who served.
At any rate, sorry for the rant.

I did presume you flipped us off so to speak, but that's cool. I was too flip, so I'm guilty. Uh. Sorry.

most thinking people "knew" the military was not in it for the "common good"

Its a common idea. Not "most", but enough thinking vets to make a thinking citizen take pause. Especially when disillusioned veterans like Smedley offer such unassailable evidence of our imperialistic actions. Simply applying "the golden rule" objectively (or a space aliens perspective) to an analysis of our countries military behavior quickly reveals that we've gone astray in the "common good" area often enough.

America isn't unique in that respect of course. It is the nature of violence to turn us into something we dont like.

i felt the comment was a slur directed to all who served.

Well, I'm sorry. I know that isn't what I mean, and I sincerely doubt that is what dwer means. That said, avoid both false pride and undue shame, soldier. These criticisms are not slurs, so much as sad observations. You ever hear the expression, "hate the game not the player"? I think that fits pretty well.

It is the purity of the common soldiers supreme sacrifice which spoiled men in soft leather chairs have sullied.

Fuck those assholes, if you pardon my french.

Edited 2012-02-10 21:01 (UTC)

It is an active assumption of responsibility for the nation's acts.

not if it's required. Then it's just a check box to be checked.

And how is a private responsible for the acts of a general anyway?

Not mutually exclusive.

A private becomes an active participant.

and yet, not anything that makes the participation voluntary.

A private becomes an active participant in the task of being ordered around.

Military service is no panacea to proper citizenship.

Military service provides a unique perspective on the cost of citizenship. As in, what one person has to give to enable the 99% to critique the 1%.

Anything provides a unique perspective on the cost of citizenship. Military service is not a golden ticket.

Soldiers did not invade Iraq to protect freedom of speech in the united states.

Military service provides a unique perspective on the cost of citizenship. As in, there is no one else who can understand what it takes to remain free to speak your mind in a civilized society.

As it pertains to the OP, I don't give a flying fuck about your bone to pick with Iraq. They serve, period. They offer themselves for your right to say they were wrong-all-wrong in the country of your choice, without question, whether they think you are right or not.

Would that others could bring themselves to do the same for them.

As in, there is no one else who can understand what it takes to remain free to speak your mind in a civilized society.

I strongly disagree with this. Martin Luther King wasn't in the military, for example.

Military service does not grant any special insight into anything, other than military service. Just like my IT work grants me special insight into IT work, but has fuck all to do with politics.

MLK did not give up his right to speak and act freely, he exercised it. There was a huge cost, yes. His position is also unique to him and his circumstances, and his sacrifice accomplished a goal unique to his time. But its also different from voluntarily giving up some rights on a daily basis and being sent to war with no ability to question it to enable people like MLK to actually do what he/they did. Without those who went before him, in The Great War and WW2, and those who actively volunteered during Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf Wars -- not to mention UN peacekeeping -- he would not have had the opportunity to do what he did.

You can quit your IT job on a dime, tell your boss where he can go, and engage in the political speech of your choice, without losing your freedom. You go into your job knowing what it will entail, and can walk out at any time. You will not be asked to take a bullet, or scrub a squeaky clean floor for several days with a toothbrush without the ability to say "no" or land in the brig.

Here, willingly stand between me and an armed terrorist for your paycheck on Friday. Go ahead.

(no subject)

dwer.livejournal.com - 2012-02-08 23:15 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

kayjayuu.livejournal.com - 2012-02-08 23:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

dwer.livejournal.com - 2012-02-09 02:53 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

underlankers.livejournal.com - 2012-02-10 12:50 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

underlankers.livejournal.com - 2012-02-10 12:51 (UTC) - Expand

Nor did they enter any war at any time in the USA's history with a true, broad backing. The USA has yet to have one of those, the closest we came to that was WWII and that's because the America Firsters were made Unpersons after the war in terms of the history books (and they hardly disappeared during the fighting, for that matter).

Military service would not be sufficient, if military service were mandatory.

Of course, I have not limited it to military service, I am happy with fighting fires or building dams.

But, the criteria is you must sign up, and once you sign up, you abide by the rules and go when ordered.

If you have not demonstrated the will to conform with rules that are created by a process, despite your personal issues, then you do not get to participate in that process.

Apart from other arguments, it would be a unifying experience for citizens, a chance to mix with people of difference regions and backgrounds, to gain marketable skills and to experience discipline, personal responsibility, teamwork and leadership. It would also provide a pool of labour that could be used to affordably build and maintain infrastructure, e.g. the sort of work the Corps of Engineers does. It would give many people a meaningful first job.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only