Last known surviving Great War veteran dies

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

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.

Comments

[dwer.livejournal.com]

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?

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

Not mutually exclusive.

A private becomes an active participant.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

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.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

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%.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

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.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

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.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

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.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

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.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but Korea, Vietnam, GWI or GWII, none of them had anything to do with protecting rights of freedom of speech in the US. I don't doubt that being in the military is a special thing, but it does not especially inform political views -- look at Gen Boykin (sp?) or enlightenment (see: DADT).

Being the military is a job. It has different risks, different levels of achievement, different issues, but it's a job nonetheless. I was born in 1970, and there has never been a shot fired to protect my rights militarily. There's never been a need.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

It is not just a job. You can quit a job. You can't just quit the military.

You willingly give up your right to public free speech, to freedom of movement, to freedom from what most people in normal jobs would consider as abusive treatment from their superiors. You give them your life and oftentimes the lives of your immediate family, not just 8 hours a day five days a week, with two weeks vacation. What you do in the military may be "just a job" for a lot of people, but being in the military is so different from civilian life that people like you and me can't comprehend it.

You look at the group action, determined by politicians and bureaucrats. I look at the individual soldier, placed where those politicians determine. I see their lives and their sacrifices. We're talking apples and oranges here.

Choosing to be in the military is NOT the same as choosing to work at McDonald's, or joining the Peace Corps, or working with Planned Parenthood or General Motors.

"I was born in 1970, and there has never been a shot fired to protect my rights militarily. There's never been a need."

If you can't answer the question "Why has there never been an actual need?" then I can't help you.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

conditions of employment are conditions of employment. If you choose to be employed by someone who will restrict your rights, is that not on your own head? Can I have some conservative consistency, please?

If you can't answer the question "Why has there never been an actual need?" then I can't help you.

Sure I can. America's technological military might, and an unquestioning willingness to use it for the most artificial of inducements. But no american soldier has fought for american freedom since WWII.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And during WWII the real geopolitical winner was not American freedom but Uncle Joe in the East. US soldiers didn't go to war for our freedom so much as we got jumped by the wrong enemy and Hitler decided "Oh what the Hell, why not" and went from undeclared to official war with us. If it had been up to the conservative traditional family values types like Bob Taft we would never have entered the war.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, but Korea and GWII (the 1980-8 war is GWI) both had UN sanctioning to be launched......

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

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).

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

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.