I just cannot understand this mindset. "I wanted to see the world so instead of taking a gap year I thought I'd go to the middle-east and do a bit of invading".
Maybe you think the middle east invasion was the wrong call. Totally fair. But you should blame the correct actor for that call, and it certainly is not the individual soldier.
He joined while that war was ongoing (2007). I think it's perfectly fair to judge him in that case when the choice to take part was 100% his.
If he thought what they were doing over there in 2007 was morally/ethically indefensible and decided to join up anyway then, yes, judge away.
Probably more straightforward to lay the blame squarely where it's due, at those who made the high level decisions to engage in the war in the first place, especially in the context of the outcomes of said war.
The world doesn't work the way you wish it did. Atrocities are prevented and security is maintained through action and credible deterrence. This requires men and women willing or conscripted into service. Would be great if none of this were necessary, but it's simply not how the world works and there is ample historical evidence of what happens when a country lowers its guard. As I type this Germany is coming to grips with its own wishful thinking regarding Russia and its energy and food supplies.
If the US army in particular had a clear conscience, why would the US oppose the International Criminal Court in The Hague? Telling your soldies that their war crimes will go unpunished is a great way to invite them.
The ICJ is a political entity for political convenience. Its not the neutral arbiter of truth you wish it were.
The fault of bad wars is partly in military leadership but much more with politicians and voters. To blame anyone who serves for the choice occupy Afghanistan is misplaced. And who do you want to have in the military of a democracy? Only people from a particular class or culture? I'm glad that someone from the Hacker News crowd is doing this.
All wars are bad, but if you meant unsuccessful then until the Taliban again starts harboring terrorist intent on attacking the United States its a bit early to label it a 'bad war'. Similarly, Iraq is no longer a threat in the region and is instead a sink hole into which Iran must expend blood and treasure to maintain influence. Perhaps in time one or both can be clearly viewed as unsuccessful, but its not yet clear that is the case.
At that point you might as well believe what russia is doing is okay because in the very long run it's probably going to mean it will lead to less neo-nazis in ukraine? If we ignore the destruction and death caused by the russian invasion and focus on a very comparatively tiny upside to the war.
Geopolitics is a fluid system. Stability is always in play.
> the iraq war plunged the region into it's most unstable period
Really depends on whose instability we're talking about. Its been 'good' for some and 'bad' for others; all depends on what side of the thousand year conflict you find yourself on.
> If we ignore the destruction and death caused by the russian invasion
If you think Russia invaded Ukraine all on its own without being coaxed into doing so after years of US/UK intervention in Ukraine then you're poorly informed. Russia's arrogance, inhumanity and long-standing fears were used against it to great effect. If the risk of escalation can be managed Europe (and Ukraine) may eventually be free of Russia's stranglehold on energy.
> If we ignore the destruction and death
Strategic narcissism to think our generation can be free of war, have bloodless wars or find ourselves substantially more evolved than prior generations. Until we figure out how to prevent sociopaths from becoming leaders we are doomed to repeat history many times over.
2. In my opinion, anybody that joins the army when they aren't defending against an invasion (i.e. someone who travels thousands of miles to fight another country nowhere near their own) has a screw loose. There are times when fighting is necessary (e.g. WW2, Ukraine/Russia). There have been few of those times recently.
3. I have friends who have friends + relatives in the military. I've met those people at social events. I can't obviously say they represent all people in the military but the ones I've met have all been racist, homophobic and worse. Again, I believe you have to have a certain mentality to join the military when your country isn't actually at risk and this has been bore out by the people I've met.
4. The British military has committed countless crimes and atrocities over the last 50 years. I can't respect anyone who would decide to be part of that institution when it is not necessary to be.
Regardless - if you cannot afford to do some travelling after uni, spending time in a war zone is hardly a sound alternative.
Depends on the person.
"There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough, and liked it, never really care for anything else."