Why is it that certain news media and certain polital figures against Putting our troops "IN HARMS WAY"?

Question

I am not tring to spark a political debated or tring to play a political roll. I have family members whom are military. I am confused. The media and certain public officials always complain about placing our troops in harms way. I always thought that when joining the army that was a given. You chose to protect our way of life and to put yourself into harms way to protect the citizens of the United States of America. It is only in recent years the Military is used as a scholorship for college. I want to know how you feel and your opinion. Please no badgering each other or being rude. Just a question.

I definantly in No way was saying any person in our militery should not benefit from theses services. I was tring to use it as a point maker. A bad one I think. I was just simply tring to say that you dont join the military just for the scholorships and benefits availible. Because in just joining the military itself may place you in harms way..

Answer 1

It IS a given that a person in the armed forces will have to face battle. Those on the outside, who've never served and would never serve, will always have something negative to say. That's especially true of the left.

There were those who joined up when I did who only wanted to use the army for college money. Most of those individuals didn't make it out of basic training and were dumped. They didn't have what it takes.

It is an honor and privalige to serve in the armed forces. That is why those who do are given more benefits than those who do not.

Answer 2

My father, after WWII, was one of the first to benefit from the GI bill, which provided college education and help in financing homes for veterans. The returning soldiers deserved these benefits BECAUSE they put themselves in harm's way for their country, and they won the war.
In military service, not every soldier or sailor will be put in harm's way, but the possibility is always there; that is why even soldiers who never see combat deserve these benefits. They are willing to risk their lives if needed.
At the same time, it is the duty of those in charge not to risk the soldiers' lives needlessly.
So, it comes back to the political question in the end: is a given conflict worth risking the lives of our soldiers?

Answer 3

"We" don't have an army, rather the U.S. wealthy elite do. If the military was guarding the U.S. coastlines and we were attacked, that would be one thing. But our military is an invading force used to promote U.S. imperialism -- and that is only designed to benefit the wealthiest Americans. In fact, it must come at the very expense of the underclass -- both financially and in lives lost.

Major General Smedley Butler explains it well in War is a Racket.

---------------------------------------------

War is a Racket
By Major General Smedley Butler

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the many.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.