Hacker News Reader

Comment by gumby | Hacker News Reader

The money and involvement have had quite an effect. Just look at the percentage of combat films Hollywood makes and compare to 30 years ago. To go by Hollywood the country is on a war footing.

And don't forget other entertainment industries like sports. The Pentagon paid millions of dollars a year just for cross promotion with NFL football (not for recruitment advertising): "honor our troops" and the like.

On the other hand the "think for yourself" crowd... :-(

Edit: in changing "hundreds of thousands" into "millions" I ended up with "hundreds of millions"

View on HN

The ludicrous propaganda of military jet fly overs, national anthem spectacles, huge flags, and people in the military standing on the side of the field at private for profit sports game in a stadium paid for by taxpayers for the team owner's benefit is hilarious.

Military jet fly-overs cost basically nothing at the margin. Pilots need X hours of air-time a month to stay trained, so it costs very little to do it over public events. It's money that will be spent either way.

So it doesn't matter where they are flying? The comment to which you are replying isn't talking about the cost, but the propaganda value. Plus if they have to fly, let them fly over a military base, not a populated area.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If they're going to fly anyway, and it doesn't cost extra, why not get free advertising out of it and entertain some people? I don't get what the downsides of the flyby are.

The point is not to make exposure to military hardware, and especially the sanitized and sexy parts of the military, a routine element of civilian entertainment.

There's another comment of mine down thread where I distinguish recruitment advertising from propaganda. That explains my point.

And the cost is not the issue. In fact due to how missions are structured I doubt flying over a football stadium is in any way net cost free.

Its not really that hillarious when you consider how effective it has been. The "support our troops" propaganda has successfully disconnected the average citizens perspective of the soldier from the war it's self. Compare how returning veterans from Vietnam were treated to how returning Iraq/Afghanistan veterans have been treated for the past 15 years.

Not to mention, if you talk to anyone who was in theatre, how they were treated while actually in the war. There's been massive profiteering at the expense of the troops.

What? No.

I was treated great during all of my deployments, so were all of the various units I was attached too. Actually they made a huge effort to treat us better during the actual fighting than during any training. I mean, it's a war zone so no luxuries or anything, but overall my time deployed was my favorite time of my enlistment.

I don't know what you're talking about

Why is that hilarious. The alternative would be a nation that's not behind it's troops. The us would likely not be a super power. US citizens greatly benefit off the super power status.

Seems like the military is acting in the citizens best interest.

What a scary statement.

First: you make a false dichotomy: one can be behind troops without a hagiographic approach to discussing the military (or any subject). In fact the best way to support troopers is to keep them out of harm's way. Consider WWII in Europe: Eisenhower set the invasion a year later than the other allies wanted in order to manage the supply chain better (supporting the troops) and to make sure the real bleeding of the enemy was done by non-US troops. In terms of materiel and logistics, the US won the war in Europe; in terms of fighting, the Russians unquestioningly did. Excellent call by the US if you ask me.

Second: there are other means of being a superpower than military might (which is only one tool in the toolbox....and as history has shown, usually not the right one). If you don't criticize the military, how can you reasonably discuss tradeoffs between military intervention / negotiation / economic hegemony / ignoring the issue?

And I know it's just an HN comment, but the phrase "the military is acting in the citizens best interest" is worrisome on its face: the military should be under civilian control and thus acting in the interests the citizens have specified. The military is the organization that should act in its own interests the least since it has the weapons.

I'm not sure if you are making this comment seriously, or intending it as hyperbole.

If you are serious, it's important to note that at the time of its founding, US law forbade the creation of a national military, precisely because of the fear of too much centralized control of lethal force.

In the centuries since, we've seen that this fear was very well founded. The founders did not want to prevent the US from having a strong military, but they wanted the rallying and dispatch of it to require significantly more consensus than even a super-majority vote from congress.

Imagine if the Iraq war had required even a super-majority vote... millions of lives would not have been lost. Imagine if the Vietnam war had required a super-majority vote how many more people would be alive today.

Knee-jerk use of power is arguably as American as a six shooter drawn quickly from the holster at the slightest provocation. Many associate this sort of hot-tempered use of force with power and machismo.

But is it really an indication of strength to rob the people of trillions of dollars for a folly in Iraq without true democratic approval? I'd argue that it's a sign of weakness and of failed checks and balances.

Feigning patriotism at a commercial sporting event is not being behind one's troops.

My idea of being behind troops is to not send them into a combat zone for the private interests of politicians, and participating in our democracy by educating oneself and voting. Or perhaps holding the elected officials to account for Veterans Affairs issues. Flying a flag and singing a song and giving someone a military discount have nothing to do with patriotism.

This is the type of logic that leads to mandatory military parades, the banning of religion as a distraction and "Dear Leader"-style propaganda and mythology. If the military would like to do something in my benefit I request they stop destabilizing the world and causing death for profit instead of glorifying and normalizing it through state-sponsored propaganda.

Why should I celebrate a member my country's military any more than say a sewage plant employee or a school teacher?

I'd prefer that the troops be behind our nation and not the other way around, thanks!

Anyway, how did you equate "military spending on propaganda" to mean that "the nation is behind the troops"? Obviously the nation is not behind them if they have to brainwash people into behaving a certain way.

I'd much rather all that money be spent improving the VA, or numerous other problems veterans face after serving. Then we can talk about football flyovers.

Just because people disagree doesn't mean they should downvote you, so I upvoted you.

That being said, I don't know how to respond. I disagree wholeheartedly. I don't think that the military acts with the best interest of most citizens.

Right it's outrageous the military gets to attend for profit games and for America to show its pride. It's not like they don't do the same exact things in other Countries...

We should just have military parades and drive our missiles and tanks around D.C. Just look how Russia and North Korea do it.

As someone who's actually visited Russia (and is married to a Russian), you can't compare Russia and the US at all. Russians deeply respect the people who lost their lives in the past but in the present, a few years military service is mandatory for all males, so service doesn't have nearly as much glory. There's absolutely nothing like the disturbing hero worship Americans have. As for military parades, typically they only happen on Victory Day, the day that celebrates the end of WWII. Parades like that aren't uncommon throughout Europe. Here's a French one for an event of similar significance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastille_Day_military_parade#/...

I think you're thinking of the Soviet Union during WWII or the Cold War era.

in the present, a few years military service is mandatory for all males, so service doesn't have nearly as much glory

It's been only one year for a decade or so.

In the past, the attitude toward conscripted service (rather than a career choice as a commissioned officer) was ranging from a nuisance to something to be avoided at all costs, depending on the class and region the conscript was from.

Now while it's considered as a nuisance by many, military service is also seen as a type of social elevator by others, particularly in the Caucusus. Drafts from Chechnya and Dagestan are generally oversubscribed and having to pay bribes to be conscripted is not uncommon [1].

There's absolutely nothing like the disturbing hero worship Americans have.

Seconded. Furthermore, the threshold for being considered a hero is very high. Being called a hero just for putting on the uniform is unthinkable.

[1] http://vestnikkavkaza.net/articles/society/34432.html

You're really defending the US by comparing it to NK and Russia? That's a very low bar indeed.

Also, a lot of other countries don't have such extreme levels of jingoism, certainly not in Europe we don't. World War II taught us where such extreme patriotism leads. Trump is a natural and direct result of jingoism; but yet it continues.

"certainly not in Europe we don't"

Jingoism is alive and well in some parts of the UK print media.

True but can the UK be truly considered part of Europe when we are talking about the US?

The whole post was sacastic.

Supposing that's true, you might need to get acquainted with Poe's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

This kind of nationalistic-militaristic crossover with sports is not a thing anywhere in Europe, as far as I know. It's super cringey. Same category as having kids in school recite the pledge of allegiance every day. Just really weird.

I know: when I was a kid I was taught that the countries that needed these ritualistic pledges of patriotism and flag worship were the totalitarian ones (USSR, GDR, Turkey, Imperial Japan, etc). It was a shock to see my kid have to learn a flag prayer in the USA.

And sport is a private sector activity -- why should the government be involved?

"Flag Prayer"? The Pledge of Allegiance?

Only US citizens should recite the pledge of allegiance. Non US citizens owe their loyalty to another country. But schools don't do that, because it would mean identifying US citizens.

I would respectfully disagree that US citizens "should" recite the pledge of allegiance every day at school. I understand that you probably meant something along the lines of "it makes no sense for non-US citizens to recite the pledge of allegiance at all", but I'd still like to address the point you happened to write.

I'm firmly convinced that no child, citizen or not, should engage in a daily ritual like that, especially not at school. The worst aspect of contemporary education -- not only in the US, but in many other countries -- is teaching through indoctrination. Instead of encouraging our kids to develop their critical thinking, our educational systems focus on making them learn by repetition and trust the authority.

If you were not already convinced, just one photograph of American schoolchildren doing the "Bellamy salute" to the US flag would probably do so.

Nobody should make the pledge because it's a downright lie. Liberty and justice do not exist in the US.

Yes, that's what I mean. Pledging allegiance to a flag is dangerous (remember the roman legionaries swore allegiance to their standard, not to the republic, and took the sides of their generals in civil wars). Perhaps to you, steeped in it, it doesn't look like a prayer, but to an outsider it appears little different from a religious invocation.

These differences my seem subtle or even trivial, but history has shown that it is dangerous.

Note that in the US soldiers and other holders of the public trust swear to uphold the country's constitution, not its flag.

It all comes down to the order of primacy: the country, constitution, civil institutions, chain of command etc are all in service to the support of the citizenry not the other way around.

Have you read the pledge? The flag stands for "the republic". It is a pledge to the United States itself...

I think you're confused. The first objective clause is pretty direct.

"...the flag, and to the republic for which it stands

Right. The flag and the Republic.

Individually and collectively perhaps, but not only the Republic.

I guess it depends on the definition of "Stands". If it literally means the flag standing up, I guess you're right.

The day after a holiday celebrating independence from another nation is a hilarious one on which to be defending a trumped-up loyalty oath.

53 million over 3 years, or 17 million dollars a year over multiple sports. A far cry from "hundreds of millions of dollars"

And I'm pretty sure that advertising in sports is common sense. Advertising during daytime TV isn't likely to have the same bang for your buck.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/defense-military-tribute...

> And I'm pretty sure that advertising in sports is common sense.

There are two sorts of advertising. One is recruitment ("join the army, blow shit up, have fun") targeted at potential employees.

The other is a broad-based effort to change public perception in the interests of the advertising organization. "Honor our troops" is an example of this, in the effort of sustaining the military-industrial complex (term coined by a 5 star general officer, FWIW).

Note that the commonplace perception of the US military through the 1970s was one bureaucratic incompetence that nevertheless got the job done (just look at Stars and Stripes even from WWII). Perhaps a necessary burden taken up and then discarded. We made fun of countries like Turkey who exalted their military at the expense of civilian culture.

Now the military, locked in endless remote warfare and sucking up huge chunks of the economy, is the most respected entity in the country.

(and note that the original word for what we call "advertising" was, in fact, "propaganda" -- propagating the message. The name took on some, umm, unsavory overtones and was replaced by "advertising". But remember Goebbels was Germany's minister of "advertising")

How originally do you mean? In Henry James's novel The Ambassadors (1903), a character speaks of going into advertising "Advertising scientifically worked presented itself thus as the great new force."

Consider Bernay's book "Propaganda"

(BTW Bernays was Freud's nephew).

I am aware of the relationship. But it appears that this book Propaganda appeared in 1928.

If you mean that pro-military or simply pro-government advertising has been termed "propaganda", then I guess I see what you mean.

"Public Relations" is the rebranding of propaganda

Thanks, I made an editing typo, so updated my comment.

> The money and involvement have had quite an effect. Just look at the percentage of combat films Hollywood makes and compare to 30 years ago. To go by Hollywood the country is on a war footing.

But the US has been at war in Iraq/Afghanistan for the past 16 years, so the "war footing" is actually just a fact of life, not something spurred by US military throwing money at Hollywood. There are many many movie-going age people for whom war has been a constant for over half of their lives. Of course there's going to be a lot of war movies now.

I would not call that being on a "war footing." Sure, tax dollars have gone to blow stuff up around the globe but it's day-to-day impact on the vast majority of Americans' lives is negligible. Horrific for many veterans and their families of course but they are a small proportion of the population. It's been a bonanza for military contractors of all sorts as well.

Compare it to pre-vietnam-war activity: no bond drives, no rationing, no sense that there is an existential threat that needs combating and then all involved can go back to the farm and "study war no more." In fact it was hardly a topic in the 2016 elections.

So no, war is simply another background activity conducted by others and visible on the screen. Its most visible influence in daily life is a made up "war on drugs" and a made up "war on terrorism". Neither of which, of course, has anything to do with improving citizens' life expectancy much less quality of life.

Sure, we're not rationing food and supplies, but I'd argue that many people think there is an existential threat that needs combating. The war on terror, which you mentioned, can be viewed as another front to the war in Iraq/Afghanistan (or vice versa), and I think you'll find that many people in the US view them as directly related. The threat a lot of people perceive is from "terrorists" or "Islam" or even just "middle easterners". And that was at least part of the reason the current US president was elected. The travel bans in the US are not normal everyday business. They are part of that. The US might not be in a WWII-style war footing, and it might not affect you specifically very much that you're aware of, but it's definitely still in a war footing.

Which brings this full circle: a state of lowgrade permanent fear is created and maintained through jingoistic propaganda in order to control the populace and keep the money flowing with minimal dissent. Since the US doesn't face an existential terrorism threat (compared even to the 70s), the idea of a few have been created -- and are just remote enough that people will be afraid but not ask questions.

Jeez reading that over I sound like a conspiracy theorist. But it in fact is straight out of the playbook.

I guess we differ in our perception of whether the US is at war with anyone or not.

Yep, the us is definitely killing foreigners, and its own people for that matter, but the direct impact on citizens' everyday life is pretty minimal. No war has been declared, and apart from a distortion to the budget and impact on GDP it's essentially invisible.

> no sense that there is an existential threat that needs combating and then all involved can go back to the farm and "study war no more."

That much, at least, I'd call a good thing. A watchful peace, or a world where violence simmers rather than boils, is a realistic goal, but attempts to permanently end war have a history of semi-permanently ending peace instead. Think of the Peace of Versailles, which will be 100 years old in two years...

I haven't watched a single current-day military movie since 9/11. I just assume it is all propaganda in some way or another.

according to the article the involvement includes such "military movies" as Meet the Parents, America’s Got Talent, Oprah and Jay Leno to Cupcake Wars.

It's like High Fructose Corn Syrup -- in everything whether you expect it or not.

> Meet the Parents

Ah yeah, isn't the stern father in that movie supposed to be ex-CIA or something?

As of 2009 Fox News indicated that the DoD has over 27,000 "recruitment, advertsing , and public relations" employees. Even the Fox writer back then seems slightly perturbed by the bursting-at-the-seams state of the war industry.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/05/pentagon-spending...

There is also good evidence from the Stratfor hacks that the DoD is engaging in astroturfing.

And if you're younger they come to your school and speak at assemblies, call your home phone every few months (at least in my time), etc. I once humored the army recruitment guys by talking on the phone for about 2 minutes, but I was absolutely clear that I had no interest in joining before hanging up. A day later though, two soldiers in uniform showed up at my parent's house and demanded to see me!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com