You Are Right, Martha Gillis

[IntelTrooper]

The average such comment (and I refer mostly to comments seen in the past years elsewhere) would get a "fascist" rating in Germany.

My knee-jerk reaction to this would be to dismiss any German perspective on what is or isn't "fascist" since their culture seems to have abhored anything remotely nationalist since a certain affair in the 1940s.

The official German position (and actually a very widespread one) is that soldiers are citizens in uniform. No more, no less. No special service, no special merit, no special ethical standing.

Now, the German way of doing things doesn't need to be a good idea for Americans - and it's probably not even a good idea for Germans.
Yet, the Americans seem to be on the end of the spectrum with their habit, and that should raise eyebrows.

Disagree with "the official German position" on the former point and disagree with where exactly America falls on the spectrum on the latter.

In some ways, service members should by definition be less than simply citizens while in uniform. I can't imagine a country being willing to risk the lives of up to millions of its own citizens to accomplish international political objectives. Yet the US and many other countries are willing to do just that with its service members. By joining the military, citizens are subjecting themselves completely to the will of the state. They are tools, means to an end.

If you have questions about whether soldiers should be simply "citizens in uniform," reference Germany's commitment to ISAF. The lives of German soldiers are apparently so valued that the German government refuses to allow them to engage in combat operations. Really helpful in a war.

I think the American reverence of service members is like an apology... like, "Remember when we were willing to sacrifice you for our own gain? Well, sorry about that... here's some college money."

While the coverage of Michael Jackson is by far over-the-top ridiculous, substituting a recently-killed service member would be a disaster. If we humanized our service members to that point, very few Americans could stomach using military forces in "foreign contingency operations" for any reason, regardless of how justified.

[Fuchs]

In some ways, service members should by definition be less than simply citizens while in uniform. I can't imagine a country being willing to risk the lives of up to millions of its own citizens to accomplish international political objectives. Yet the US and many other countries are willing to do just that with its service members. By joining the military, citizens are subjecting themselves completely to the will of the state. They are tools, means to an end.

If you have questions about whether soldiers should be simply "citizens in uniform," reference Germany's commitment to ISAF. The lives of German soldiers are apparently so valued that the German government refuses to allow them to engage in combat operations. Really helpful in a war.

On point one; that would earn you a fascist rating not only in Germany.
It's utter stupidity and madness to de-value something first to be able to afford its loss later.
That's a self-deception and predictably leads to extremely stupid, wrong results.

On point two; you're ill-informed about the present RoE and don't seem to value the fact that the North stayed extremely calm in relation to places where ISAF was supporting the Afghan government more violently (for many reasons, of course - but the old RoE were apparently no disaster in this regard).
The job was done so far, several years of time were bought for Karzai and his cronies in the North. More violence would have been of marginal utility. There's no strategic or political failure in sight (even though tactical-focused people agree with you).

Well, point two is really off-topic, so I'll quit on this now.

[Ken White]

Good job of stating your opinions. You're certainly entitled to them and to state them.

Others may have differing opinions, they are equally entitled to state their ideas as I'm sure you just forgot

Germany and the US are very different Nations with very different traditions and attitudes. I don't agree with what little I know of German attitudes and you don't agree with what little you know of American attitudes. We'd probably both be better off if we knew a little more. Can't speak for German Media but I'd advise anyone from elsewhere not to judge the US by the media or comments on the internet here, one could get some flaky ideas, apparently. In any event, my point about egregious insults stands; they add nothing to any discussion.

You seem to throw minor insults about easily and also seem to believe that if things are not done the European -- and preferably German -- way, those who do not conform are stupid. Overlooking the insults, if you really believe that, that's sort of sad.

You also throw the Fascist tag about a lot. Why is that?

You consistently contend that the US is the odd man out in the world in many respects. That's true, has been for many years. So what's your point? Everyone knows that and, mostly, we here do not care what others think of us. It's almost like you were carrying a grudge or something.

With respect to all three of those comments, surely you haven't forgotten your own advice:

The world isn't fair, get over it.

Now that you and devmoonbat have completely derailed a thread that was respectful of someone else's concern -- and opinion, I'll apologize for both of you and suggest if either of you or anyone else has any off thread comments, start another thread or send a PPM to to the target of your choice. With that, we should return to the thread topic.

Good point, Mrs. Gillis. I wish I had an answer. Other than pointing out that some in the world are more concerned with self and illusion, I don't.

[JarodParker]

The only outstanding feature of the critical component "soldier" is that he's doing nothing of relevance most of the time.

How do you define “most of the time?” Are you counting training time, standing watch, sleep, chow, etc? This comment reminds me of a criminology professor who was outraged that gang bangers were considered to be criminal “since they only spent a fraction of their time committing actual crimes.”

Soldiers are neither more ethical 'because they serve' nor more important than civilians in general.

You’re kind of right. Some service members are more ethical and important than some civilians and some are not. But most soldiers have sacrificed more than most civilians.

Just as a hint about where this point of view comes from: Soldiers who look down to lesser civilians are usually associated to military dictatorships and Tiananmen square-like actions. The coining German history event was the Zabern Affäre.

Thanks for the link; that was enlightening. It confirms my suspicion that the Germans are overreacting to something that happened a long time ago.


Maybe the idea of the “citizen soldier” died with the transition from militias/draftees to an all-volunteer force. The idea that we shouldn’t show any appreciation/recognition would probably work in a nation without a professional army. Only if every able bodied civilian picked up a weapon and answered the call to service during an emergency. As IntelTrooper suggested service members are “completely subject to the will of the state” in addition to the loss of certain freedoms and individuality (uniform, hair cut, etc). They become part of an anonymous entity called “the military” which is held in high regard by most US civilians when compared to other institutions (until their son or daughter decide to join). At least that seemed to be the consensus in the “General v Barbara Boxer” thread. So maybe that’s more of a reason to show our appreciation once they leave the service or are KIA. You gave up these things to serve the common good, so we thank you for it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a big fan of the “wolf, sheep, and sheep dog” analogy. That's just my opinion.

Today even those in the Guard and Reserve, not regular forces on regular long term active duty have a GI Education Bill as well as service-specific higher education grants (non-repayable); growingly substantial re-enlistment bonuses, and related benefits civilians don't routinely have at their finger tips.

Sir, call me cynical but I see these as recruitment incentives more than a show of appreciation.

[Schmedlap]

My thought regarding the comments of the new visitor is to heed the advice of my father... that advice being "don't."


My thoughts in regard to the original post are that I am not sure whether Mrs. Gillis is frustrated with the depravity of our culture, or the lack of recognition of her nephew, or both. I never particularly cared whether news of my death would have been reported, had I used up all nine of my lives. Here is an example of why: more than 1.6 million people requested tickets to Michael Jackson's funeral. I could not possibly care less what those people think of my service. There are several other groups of individuals, each group of similar size to the Jackson funeral ticket cohort, whose opinions I have zero concern about - at least in regard to their opinion of me, were they to have one. Now if I actually had an iota of respect for most people in this country, then whether or not a particular issue gets a lot of coverage might concern me. It would annoy me if people got their priorities straight AND the media ignored a story that concerned those people. But the former will never happen, so the latter is a non-issue. The people who actually care are the only people whose opinions matter, in my opinion. Why get worked up about the opinions of people whose opinions don't matter?

[Tom Odom]

My thought regarding the comments of the new visitor is to heed the advice of my father... that advice being "don't."


My thoughts in regard to the original post are that I am not sure whether Mrs. Gillis is frustrated with the depravity of our culture, or the lack of recognition of her nephew, or both. I never particularly cared whether news of my death would have been reported, had I used up all nine of my lives. Here is an example of why: more than 1.6 million people requested tickets to Michael Jackson's funeral. I could not possibly care less what those people think of my service. There are several other groups of individuals, each group of similar size to the Jackson funeral ticket cohort, whose opinions I have zero concern about - at least in regard to their opinion of me, were they to have one. Now if I actually had an iota of respect for most people in this country, then whether or not a particular issue gets a lot of coverage might concern me. It would annoy me if people got their priorities straight AND the media ignored a story that concerned those people. But the former will never happen, so the latter is a non-issue. The people who actually care are the only people whose opinions matter, in my opinion. Why get worked up about the opinions of people whose opinions don't matter?

I have heard the "don't wrestle with pigs" line before. Thanks for the picture. I really did not need it.

I posted that letter to the press because it happened to hit the same week we lost 5 KIA and several very seriously wounded one of whom is a friend and a battalion commander. One reporter who happens to know him quite well did a nice salutory piece on him. That was it. In contrast we have been inundated with the coverage on the death of a flawed entertainer.

I empathized, therefore, with Ms. Gillis. Dare I say most if us over here share similar feelings.

On the entertainment industry of which the news media is a part, I will agree that it is what it is. An entertainer that the media villified dies and the same media jumps to heap adulation on him. Felllow entertainers jostle to make the "A List" of a send off followed by near breathless commentary on the entertainment values of the memorial. They should have had American Idol provide judges--especially Simon.

As for the people of the United States, you are certainly entitled to your opinion but I will disagree, strongly. Many are ill-informed and focus on their day to day existence exclusively. But they do have a great core of caring, especially when something worthy comes along. They often get it wrong; the outpouring on MJ is another example.

Tom

[Tom Odom]

Fox noticed

Relatives of Soldier Killed in Afghanistan Decry Lack of Coverage Amid Jackson Spectacle

A day before New York Rep. Peter King called Michael Jackson a “pervert” unworthy of nonstop media coverage, the aunt of a U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan on the same day Jackson died asked why her nephew's death went virtually unnoticed while the King of Pop got memorial shrines across the country.

"Mr. Jackson received days of wall-to-wall coverage in the media," Martha Gillis wrote to the Washington Post. "Where was the coverage of my nephew or the other soldiers who died that week?"

[Stan]

And I still have to 'press 1' for English!

As for the people of the United States, ...Many are ill-informed and focus on their day to day existence exclusively.
Tom

[RJ]

Fuchs,

Your comments were only minimally connected to the theme of this thread.

Your distain of the American Military and the regard Americans have for their military is evident.

But the reasons you chose to wander thru a incidient in 1913 that was caused by a undiciplined 19 year old Prussian aristocrat 2nt Lt. who was cruel, petulent and out of controldoesn't make sense. I wonder if he had ordered those 5 armed Prussian enlisted men to beat the shoemaker, would they have followed orders? Did that arrogant child survive WWI?

Then your historical side trip to a Danish built fighter and its adoption by a small regional Austrian politican in the 1980's doesn't connect to the discussion at all. Do you always scatter tid bits of arcane history in your commentary? How could that minor 30 year old border incident figure into the death of an American singer or an American paratrooper?

The use of the word facists and novels by Robert Hienlein had little to do with any major military in the world to date. You made no reference to the commitment to Germany by the United States since 1945.

No mention of the "Marshall Plan", named after an American General to lift Europe out of the devastation caused by you know who.

Nor did you acknowledge the service, lives lost in training and the treasure spent by the American Military in guarding Germanys border from the Russian threat for more than half a century.

Your self pity in the folowing quote is obvious

"You guys should live a few years as a European soldier - neglected by politicians, neglected by public, low prestige and utterly irrelevant in general social life and economy."

You answered you own question with your own words - "The world isn't fair, get over it."

Now that I have put things back into a healthy perspective with no offense intended, I didn't write this for this one case - I've seen many indicators of your attitude and this had to be said sometime.
__________________

If my reponse seems provocative, I think I intended it to be so.

I contrasted a bit to make a point.

A gentleman would offer his condolences and not take the opportunity to attack the whole concept of concern for the death of a soldier serving in a foreign land to protect its people and his own.

__________________
I don't discuss areas of agreement.
That's why I look provocative. Well, I think so.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Millions will miss MJ, mere dozens will miss some unknown soldier who died in a distant place.

Michael Jackson enriched himself merely by entertaining others and died a somewhat ignoble death.

Brian Bradshaw sacrificed his life for the freedom of 32 million Afghans on behalf of over 300 million Americans.

Somehow I feel that Brian's much shorter time with us was the better life lived.

[Steve Blair]

This thread is rapidly derailing from the OP's original intent. I'd suggest folks refocus or it might be time to slap the lock on it.

[Fuchs]

You also throw the Fascist tag about a lot. Why is that?

Mostly to show that what some perceive as normal is being perceived as extreme in other places.


The insight that 'others do it differently' or 'other nations have different approaches' is always helpful to me to check which approach has more merit.
I do only discuss if I feel that a foreign opinion's background lacks lessons learned/insights that are incorporated in my opinion's background.

I actually think that this is highly relevant to the topic.

A partial interest does not need to be right just because it feels right for its group of people. Others might possibly have the arguments for why it's not right. It's always useful to exploit a very rich base of information and to get rid of a (national) tunnel vision.


(And seriously; if you think that my average of writing about ten times "fascist" per year is "a lot" then you should never meet German lefties.)

[RJ]

Steve you are correct.

Umar, You put the whole tread in perspective and I thank you for your words.

Tom Odom, My apologies to you if I stepped over the line.

My mother, born in Ireland, taught her sons to react negatively to those amongest us who commit the Sin of Begrudggery. It doesn't excuse me, but I come by it honestly.

My condolenses to the Bradshaw family and especially to his Aunt Martha Gillis.

Brian Bradshaw will be remembered in my house with respect and love, as long as I and my children live.

[Courtney Massengale]

This issue was red hot a couple years ago at the height of the anti-war protests…

I very much disdain the legal implications that Soldiers – like all government employees – are public figures and therefore do not have the same rights to privacy and protections that private citizens do. The idea that I have no control over my name, image, or the ability for my family to do the same in the event of my passing infuriates me.

I understand and sympathize with this mother who has lost a child. It must be horrible to have your grief running parallel to a famous person or coincide with any event that makes you remember. In total seriousness, the death of Michael Jackson is always going to be linked to the death of her son. That the media coverage is effervescent can only delay her journey through the grieving process.

However, I do think this is an important watershed. The media and the forces who oppose the military in general, the war in particular, have moved on from using dead Soldiers as endorsements for their cause. While I understand her pain, I’m also reassured that her son’s name and image aren’t being used for purposes he may not have endorsed.

In other words, I would rather there be too little coverage than too much of the wrong kind.

[Ken White]

Hopefully Mrs. Gillis saw this article LINK.

As for this:

I very much disdain the legal implications that Soldiers – like all government employees – are public figures and therefore do not have the same rights to privacy and protections that private citizens do. The idea that I have no control over my name, image, or the ability for my family to do the same in the event of my passing infuriates me.

I think all that -- and a lot of other things -- go with the job. Most of that is known up front. It's a voluntary service.

I can sort of sympathize. My Wife from a totally civilian background could never understand that I did not care a whit that everyone knew how much money I made from the items on my uniform, to her that was an invasion of privacy. I pointed out that war is really an invasion of privacy. Thus my pay and allowances didn't seem to be a big issue. Nor would my death be one; I figured I wouldn't care...

[Courtney Massengale]

As for this:I think all that -- and a lot of other things -- go with the job. Most of that is known up front. It's a voluntary service.

Nobody ever told me that by joining the military, I gave up the rights to my image and likeness.

[Ken White]

We're all different and have varying ideas of what's important and what's not. What I will say is that if you do it right, it's a jarringly, sometimes achingly selfless line of work. Obviously, not everyone agrees with that but in the end, no matter what they believe, it most always works out that way. That's okay.

I'm luckier than many -- haven't got regret one...

Oh, only thing I told my kids -- no funeral for me, throw the ashes from the cardboard box in the river and shoot any religious or news person that appears.

[IntelTrooper]

The media and the forces who oppose the military in general, the war in particular, have moved on from using dead Soldiers as endorsements for their cause. While I understand her pain, I’m also reassured that her son’s name and image aren’t being used for purposes he may not have endorsed.

Well, the soldiers are acting on behalf of a different political party now, so it's not en vogue to dance on their graves.

[Tom Odom]

Thank you, CPT Adair and MSG Riley!

A Soldier Comes Home

On July 5, The Post published a letter from Martha Gillis of Springfield, whose nephew, Lt. Brian Bradshaw, was killed in Afghanistan on June 25, the day that Michael Jackson died. The letter criticized the extensive media coverage of Jackson's death compared with the brief coverage of Lt. Bradshaw's death. Among the responses was the following letter, written July 9 by an Air National Guard pilot and a fellow member of the crew that flew Lt. Bradshaw's body from a forward base in Afghanistan to Bagram Air Base. Capt. James Adair, one of the plane's pilots, asked the editorial page staff to forward the letter to the Bradshaw family. He and Brian Bradshaw's parents then agreed to publication of these excerpts.

Dear Bradshaw Family,

We were crew members on the C-130 that flew in to pick up Lt. Brian Bradshaw after he was killed. We are Georgia Air National Guardsmen deployed to Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom. We support the front-line troops by flying them food, water, fuel, ammunition and just about anything they need to fight. On occasion we have the privilege to begin the final journey home for our fallen troops. Below are the details to the best of our memory about what happened after Brian's death.

[George L. Singleton]

Outstanding honors for Lt. Brian Bradshaw.

Thanks for sharing this WASHINGTON POST letter to the editor with us.

George L. Singleton, Colonel, USAF, Ret.
Regular USAF, Tennessee Air National Guard & USAF
Reserve (USSOCOM)