It is understandable that after many years of opportunity for involvement in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan those who have served abroad will tend to look down on those who have made little or no effort to leave their comfort zone stateside.

As stated before I would suggest that if the Army is looking to cut costs they should get rid of all those who managed to avoid combat duty on overseas service over this period unless they can produce a rock solid reason/excuse.



Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
If you look at Fuchs' original comment/question, you'll note that he was speaking specifically about non-combat personnel. This idea of exceptionalism has spread well beyond traditional combat arms, and that's a fairly recent development. So is the use of the term 'warrior' in official writing and publications.

I'll also remind everyone to keep the discussion civil and respectful. Lind's comments are worth discussing, but I think we can do it without sniping.