Hacker News Reader

Comment by plinkplonk | Hacker News Reader

(I hope I get the tone right on this. I don't mean to insult any person or institution)

The interesting thing here is how military service is respected to such a high degree, bordering on worship, in the United States.

Other countries have voluntary armies too,and yes soldiers get some respect as people who do a necessary and dangerous job, but you don't see the "start your conversation with "Thank You for your service" " style everyday deference outside the United States. This is a little baffling to a non American,especially since America's wars post WW2 are mostly invasions of random third world countries against underequipped,and mostly untrained enemies, and even then the victory/defeat ratio is very mixed.

Genuine question, why does a soldier deserve so much more respect than a doctor or teacher or fireman or policeman or engineer?

Specifically wrt the article under discussion,(to a non American) this article is a generic feel good article which doesn't say very much at all. (I am sure Dan is a great person. Just saying there wasn't (imo) much meat to the article).

View on HN

Others have stated some of the big reasons why service members get so much respect: they risk their lives for their country, they give up some of their Constitutional rights (although they also gain some extra rights, such as Article 31 rights), and they generally accept lower compensation than they might get on the outside (still true, but not nearly as true as it used to be). I would add another reason: they accept the burden of spending many years of their lives away from home, often missing major life events (weddings, graduations, even the births of their own children), as well as the lesser burden of having to move every 2-3 years.

However, there's another side to your question: why is the U.S. like this, and not other countries?

My initial response would be to turn that around: why don't people in other countries hold military service to a higher level of respect, especially considering that some of the reasons given here for respecting the military (e.g. giving up rights or accepting lower pay) are more applicable in some other countries? Just because the U.S. is unique in this regard, doesn't mean we're the ones doing it wrong. There have been others who felt their nations didn't give their troops enough respect: http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Poetry/Anthology/Kipling/T...

That being said, I think that there are some important differences in U.S. culture that help to explain the difference. One thing relatively unique about the U.S. is that, unlike most nations, we do not have an ethnic identity. For example, Spaniards can feel united in the fact that they are all Spaniards, the Japanese can feel united in the fact that they are all Japanese, etc. Certainly there are ethnic sub-groups within most countries, but for the most part they have a national identity that is rooted in their shared ancestry, and of a shared history that in almost all cases predates the existing government by centuries. Since the U.S. lacks that, we have a national identity rooted in ideals, embodied specifically in the Constitution. There is certainly a great deal of political disagreement about the specifics of those ideals (and of the meaning of the Constitution), but the generalities are largely agreed upon.

So what does this have to do with the regard in which we hold military service? Well, part of it is an awareness, dating back to our war of independence, that our Constitutionally guaranteed rights were underwritten by a lot of individuals who left their homes to fight for those shared ideals which define us. We literally would never have come to exist as a nation if it were not for our military services.

We also have an ideal in this country of "Citizen Soldiers." It is not unique to the U.S. (I believe it originated in ancient Greece, but please correct me if I'm wrong), but I think that the only nations that currently subscribe strongly to this idea are the U.S. and Israel. It's the idea that our military consists primarily of individuals who are not lifelong military professionals: most of the people in our military serve for only a few years, then go back to being ordinary Americans. This means that we have a lot of veterans spread throughout our society, so that almost everyone knows at least one veteran, raising cultural awareness of military life. Conversely, in a nation where the military consists primarily of individuals who make a lifelong career of it, the military tends to be a little less visible to the bulk of the population because they don't have as many veterans to interact with. There are quite a few nations with universal conscription (everybody has to serve for a few years), but with the exception of Israel, I haven't seen this same "citizen soldier" meme in such nations. I think there are two reasons for this. First, the time spent is very short (usually 2-3 years, as opposed to the minimum enlistment in the U.S., which is 4-5 years) and at the end of that time the choice is "get out, or commit to a life-long career," as opposed to the U.S. military, which allows a succession of short re-enlistments. The second reason is most important: in countries with universal conscription, it's just seen as something everyone has to go through, like high school, and the conscripts are not fully integrated into the military: they are given minimal combat training and are used primarily for drudgework, with more thorough combat training coming only after an individual commits to a professional military career.

Finally, I can't end without addressing this:

>America's wars post WW2 are mostly invasions of random third world countries against underequipped,and mostly untrained enemies, and even then the victory/defeat ratio is very mixed.

Our two biggest wars since WWII were Korea and Vietnam. The Korean war was really a war fought against China on Korean soil. The People's Army is hardly something to sneeze at. The NVA was also a modern army, equipped and trained by the Soviets and the Chinese. Our next-biggest war (and longest, by far) was Iraq, which showed that "underequipped, and mostly untrained enemies" can be quite deadly.

This statement also seems to imply that we should judge the merits of military service on the basis of our political views about the particular wars fought, and on the degree of success achieved. In reality, we judge the merits of military service on the basis that these individuals volunteered to make tremendous sacrifices in service to a noble ideal: our Constitution, and the concept it embodies (a self-governed people).

Let's not forget our anti-war movements, which are just as much a part of our culture as apple pie and militancy. Mark Twain wrote:

"Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood of his hands and works for 'the universal brotherhood of man'—with his mouth."

Mark Twain, for those who don't know, is one of the US's most defining authors; I read his fiction as a schoolchild.

I think the answer to the OP's question is simpler: We're the world's most warlike people, spending probably more than the rest of the world combined on military. So it stands to reason we'll have a pro-war propaganda budget.

That's a more hacker-like explanation, at any rate, as I imagine hackers tend to avoid anything that smells like ideology, and prefer realpolitik arguments.

(BTW, I also think there definitely is an ethnic component; that of the European peoples who are categorized as "white". It's reflected in the language we're speaking now, as well as culturally and racially. Those who come from elsewhere are referred to as "ethnic minorities", pretty much implying an ethnic majority. Plus, we have developed many national mythologies during our centuries, to make up for history only starting with our conquering of the land from the mostly exterminated indigenous population.)

Your last paragraph really goes to the heart of the matter. In order to earn my respect, soldiers need to fight for a cause that I consider necessary for humanity as a whole and one that absolutely requires the use of force. Serving any nation's interests alone is not enough even if that country's constitution includes some noble goals.

In my view, many veterans are simply misguided, confused, dangerous instruments of populist politicians. Some are criminals, and some others are true heroes. Throwing them all into the same "veterans" bucket and honoring them all doesn't do justice to any of them.

I'm also skeptical that things learned in a life threatening situation within a militarized kind of structure are very useful in other situations. In fact, many countries are blighted by military thinking and many noble causes have been perverted by that kind of mindset.

I'm a veteran. Served time in Kabul in 2008/09 with the US Army.

While I don't expect anyone to thank me for my service (tbh, it makes me uncomfortable), I'm offended that you find it so easy to throw all Soldiers into a single bucket to be judged based on your own ethical standards.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot choose our commander, or our mission, but we trust that our leaders do their best to do what's right...the same way we try to trust politicians to do their duties. While it might be true that there are many bad leaders, Soldiers, and politicians, that doesn't mean we're all as ignorant as you might think.

What did I learn in life threatening situations?

1. If I can survive that, I can survive anything. 2. I am more confident in making immediate decisions. 3. I trust myself, and I trust the people around me. 4. Hard work and discipline goes a long way.

While I have no interest in a lifetime of military service (I separated honorably in 2010), if it weren't for my time in the military I don't feel I would be nearly as willful, determined, and successful as I am today.

Soldier != Servant

When it comes earning _my_ personal respect for (possibly) killing others and (possibly) getting killed, I can only apply my own personal ethical standards. I cannot possibly defer to the government to make that judgement for me.

It's interesting how the criticism of supporting those that serve usually come from people that have never enlisted.

Anyone that has served in a war deserves total respect for the sacrifices & suffering they endured every day, regardless of the ethics of the cause. All war is bad, not just those we think are 'worth it', so either give soldiers the respect they deserve every day or be quiet, because many of the liberties we personally enjoy (not just in US, but every country) have come through countless lives, right or wrong.

I realize it can make you uncomfortable, but I'll never stop thanking soldiers in uniform for standing in to defend our country so that I don't have to. Thank you.

Yes, many soldiers have given their lives to fight for the freedoms we enjoy and other soldiers have given their lives to take away those freedoms. That's exactly why I insist on making a distinction and pay respect only to some of them.

For instance, I do respect nhangen for defending Kabul against the Taliban. I do not respect the Taliban soldiers for trying to enforce some weird version of sharia law in Kabul even though they are also suffering and dying in a war.

> Spaniards can feel united in the fact that they are all Spaniards

I see your point, but Spain is not the best example. See: the Basques, Catalans, etc...

Good points. But as to this,

" we judge the merits of military service on the basis that these individuals volunteered to make tremendous sacrifices in service to a noble ideal: our Constitution, and the concept it embodies (a self-governed people)."

If that were true, policemen and firemen, who face danger and death every day, and teachers, who have low pay for doing a very vital social task should be getting equal or greater respect. This was precisely my point.

The assumption that everyone in the US army joined up to serve the Constitution etc and is universally motivated by "sacrifice" is very suspect. This maybe true for a minority, or for people who join up in a national emergency or just after an attack on the country, say Pearl Harbour or 9/11, impelled by patriotism.

Plenty of people join because they want a steady job, because they can't pay for college, want a fast track to citizenship, want something to belong to, are subject to a draft, (as for the Vietnam War ) etc. Why should someone who joins the military for such reasons ( and I suspect those are the majority) be worthy of a special respect denied to (say) a fireman or a nurse?

The notion of respecting someone for an assumed intent, and not any objective metric of success or competence or totally independent of morality or political view point is highly suspect and naive.

The Japanese soldiers at Nanking, though not all volunteers, were people who respected their political system highly and were willing to sacrifice their lives for the Emperor and Japan. The willingness to sacrifice their lives for a cause their society deemed just doesn't make them automatically worthy of respect, or any less war criminals, as some of the Japanese hardliners would insist.

To quote a fictional character, "A knight is a sword with a horse. The rest, the vows and the sacred oils and the lady’s favors, they’re silk ribbons tied round the sword. Maybe the sword’s prettier with ribbons hanging off it, but it will kill you just as dead".

A soldier is a man with a gun whose job, stripped to the essence, is to kill. What distinguishes him from a mafia hitman is that society deems his work to be necessary, and he is part of an organization subject to socially approved rules and regulations, and he is trained to do his job.

So far so good. One can agree it is a necessary job, a (sometimes) dangerous one, without choosing to automatically respect every soldier just because one assumes he sacrificed a lot to "serve the nation". I suspect that the selfless "sacrificers" motivated by a "higher cause" are a minority in any army.

And a description like, "individuals volunteered to make tremendous sacrifices in service to a noble ideal" would fit a policeman perfectly, if you happen to assume that every policeman chose his job only because he wanted to dedicate his life to justice and protecting his fellow citizens. And yet we don't expect random people to thank every policemen "for his service".

And with that, I exit this overlong thread. Thank you for your extensive reply. It has helped me clarify my thinking.

>If that were true, policemen and firemen, who face danger and death every day, and teachers, who have low pay for doing a very vital social task should be getting equal or greater respect. This was precisely my point.

First of all, police and firemen in the U.S. get a similar level of respect to the military. We just celebrated Veteran's day, so the emphasis was on the military, but at other times the police and firemen get the focus (to see an example of this, spend next September 11th in New York City).

That being said, the military experiences sacrifices (which I and others have mentioned) that police and firefighters don't: frequent moves, long time away from home, loss of rights, etc. Also, while I won't comment on the quantitative difference in danger levels between law enforcement and the military because I don't have statistics handy, I will say that there is an enormous qualitative difference in knowing that you are in proximity to an armed organization that exists for the express purpose of killing you and your fellow citizens.

>The assumption that everyone in the US army joined up to serve the Constitution etc and is universally motivated by "sacrifice" is very suspect.

Every single person who joins the U.S. military swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution, so even those who join for other reasons know what is expected of them.

You talk a lot about motivations for military service, but it's clear that you don't understand the U.S. military. The reality is that almost nobody joins for any single reason. For example, the OP gave a very complex and not entirely clear explanation for why he had joined, which included a certain amount of patriotism. There are certainly some folks who join just to get something they want or need, but the overwhelming majority are motivated at least in part by a genuine desire to serve their nation and the ideals it embodies. Also, I never said that anyone was motivated by sacrifice: I said that they accept sacrifice because they are motivated by other factors. (That being said, there probably are some individuals who really do seek sacrifice as an end unto itself.)

However, even those individuals who joined the military for purely selfish reasons deserve respect and gratitude: they did make sacrifices, and those sacrifices did support our nation.

In regards to your example of Japanese soldiers at Nanking: the moral worth of a cause is not completely subjective. If a person believes that spreading totalitarian rule is noble, that person is morally wrong. On the other hand, preserving a system of self-government is morally good. You can certainly argue that a particular war didn't actually do anything to preserve said system, but our service members don't sign up for particular wars, they sign up to serve our nation.

You contradict yourself here:

>The rest, the vows and the sacred oils and the lady’s favors, they’re silk ribbons tied round the sword.

>What distinguishes him from a mafia hitman is that...he is part of an organization subject to socially approved rules and regulations...

Those "vows" that your fictional character dismisses as "silk ribbons tied round the sword" are the same as the "approved rules and regulations." Furthermore, they are not merely "socially" approved. The rules of war as they exist today have been refined over the course of generations for the purpose of making sure that wars are fought between legitimate combatants, with everyone else left out of the violence to the greatest degree possible.

>And a description like, "individuals volunteered to make tremendous sacrifices in service to a noble ideal" would fit a policeman perfectly, if you happen to assume that every policeman chose his job only because he wanted to dedicate his life to justice and protecting his fellow citizens.

Actually, you don't have to make any such assumption because his motivations don't really matter: whatever his reasons for taking the job, he is making sacrifices, and his work directly contributes to justice and the safety of his fellow citizens. It doesn't matter why he chose to take the job, it only matters that he knowingly accepted the sacrifices that come with it and that he diligently pursues his duties.

>And yet we don't expect random people to thank every policemen "for his service".

First, nobody "expects" anyone to thank veterans. Second, I have seen plenty of people thank policemen, firemen, and teachers for what they do.

On Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg you can find a monument to a company of 200 Minnesotans. They probably couldn't articulate their motivations, they were probably, to the extent they cared, pro-slavery. These men attacked a formation of 10,000 Confederates, holding an otherwise fatal gap for the scant minutes needed for reinforcement. Lincoln later explained that they fought "so that government of the people, for the people, by the people shall not perish from this earth". Those that heard Lincoln probably felt he explained something they felt but couldn't say. But there weren't many of them, the company suffered 90% casualties in five minutes.

Those losses couldn't have surprised them, the company complement was the survivors of a 30% casualty rate on the prior day.

Previously George Washington caused a Continental Army, which had not been _paid_, to resign and disperse in submission to a frankly contemptible Continental Congress.

America's is government by reasoned principles, but that reason sometimes seems little more than explication of some generous impulse of freedom and justice. In the American soldier we've seen that impulse cause young men to lay down their lives, and strong men lay down arms rather than pursue their just complaints. Only later did they understand the logical necessity of their sacrifice for human freedom.

The justice of America's wars isn't always so clear, but that is not the fault of the soldier, who _must_ subordinate his own judgment to that of his countrymen lest he himself become a tyrant.

Until the lion lies down with the lamb, societies will need armies. Democracies will need armies with power to meet tyrants without using that power to become tyrants. If America's first miracle was democratic government, its second is the emergence of soldiers willing to die for it. I don't know what impulses brought forward such soldiers among us, but I suspect those same impulses today inspire our reverence for them. I know I'll always regret that I didn't take my turn at a lousy but absolutely necessary job.

Well they get a special amount of respect for two reasons. The obvious one is that they offer to give up their life in the service of their country. The second reason is, in the past it's been viewed as a far less lucrative career. So while we might all be making a ton of money in Silicon Valley- these guys are in Afghanistan risking their lives (irrespective of your support of a particular war, the sacrifice is still being made). Also, there is still a lingering guilt over how servicemen were treated returning home from Vietnam. That still informs how the military is viewed as being owed a bit more respect than say an investment banker.

"The obvious one is that they offer to give up their life in the service of their country."

Sure, but how is this particularly unique? Every country has people who do exactly that and they don't get this degree of deference on HN. Just as an example,this is true for the Afghani insurgent who tries to blow up Americans, or a member of the Viet Cong. I am sure they see the(ir respective) wars as a fight for independence against evil rapacious invaders. The Redcoat who served in the American War of Independence (the English Army, not the Hessians etc) was risking his life for King and Country.

Do we (or should we) unequivocally respect anyone who risks their lives for a "higher" cause and low pay? As a thought experiment, if an Afghani hacker who joined the Taliban were to write a "What I learned from ten years of Jihad" article, would that be on the front page of HN? (hmm that might be an interesting article. I probably wouldn't agree with it, but it would be interesting )

Your other points are very helpful, specifically the one about the Vietnam backlash. I think I understand better now.Thank You.

I'm not certain a soldier deserves more respect than a doctor, teacher, fireman, policeman or engineer. I'm not even certain a soldier gets more respect than many of those occupations listed. Soldiers do not ask for respect. It is given to them. I don't know why, but let me throw out a few possibilities:

1. It's a national holiday. This draws national attention to the sacrifices made - even in post WWII invasions. Perhaps, more than any other career, more lives have been lost, or negatively mentally/physically altered, by military members. I don't know the stats here - so it's an assumption.

2. Maybe it's related to the sacrifices made by soldiers. I'm not limiting this to just the soldiers that get killed or seriously wounded either. Are you aware that lower ranking enlisted members (the majority that will do 3 to 5 years and then get out) are at, or very near, poverty level? They don't do it for the money.

3. People admire/respect bravery. This goes for police officers and firemen too. This, I think, is why a lot of women like a "man in uniform."

4. Many American families have lost loved ones in wars dating back a long way. They recognize the sacrifices their ancestors made for the country. These memories and feelings carry forward generations.

I was writing this response before jboydyhacker chimed in.

So to address your latest comments:

1. Soldiers don't always agree with the battle they are fighting.

2. You shouldn't respect anyone unless you respect them. If your choice is to not respect a soldier, that's your right!

3. It's quite likely if an Afghani hacker who joined the Taliban wrote the article mentioned that it would get great press - somewhere. Maybe not here, but somewhere. Had I written this particular article, it would not have made front page. In fact, it would not have received 3 upvotes. People respect the GOOG as much as they respect the soldier. Combine the two, and...this is what happens. There - your engineer just got some respect! ;-) I will bet my next paycheck that if an Afghani hacker joined the Taliban and then came to America, worked for GOOG and published the article referenced - yes, it will make it to the front page of HN.

4. I am at war against my company's competition every time I try to convince someone our software solution is better than the alternative. I believe in what I try to sell. If I went to one of my competitors tomorrow, I'm sure I would fight just as hard for them. Does that translate to an answer for your Viet Cong argument?

Mostly good points (except one see below). Thank you.

fwiw it was a genuine question. I am not trying to be anti American, anti US army etc. I am very pro American in real life and get flak for that attitude hereabouts.

I was just puzzled to wake up in the morning and find a fairly content-lite article on the front page of HN. It does happen occasionally, but this one felt really weird to me.It doesn't say anything particularly interesting (imo). Other cultures are different and working with a diverse set of people teaches you tolerance? Well duh.

Fwiw I suspect what Dan really learned from the war will be discussed only over drinks with his fellow soldiers and not on any public forum.

"I am at war against my company's competition every time I try to convince someone our software solution is better than the alternative."

I suspect using the word "war" as a substitute for "competition" obscures the point. Reductio ad absurdum that means every investment banker (say) is a soldier and so worthy of respect.

"If I went to one of my competitors tomorrow, I'm sure I would fight just as hard for them. Does that translate to an answer for your Viet Cong argument?"

No :). Because my point was not on whether the Vietnamese soldier fought for his country as hard as the American soldier would do for his. That is a given (or close enough).

I am not sure if a Vietnamese (or Afghan or whoever) wrote such a content free article, it would get upvoted so heavily. It seemed to me ( I freely admit I could be wrong) that the upvotes for this article stemmed from some kind of patriotic impulse than because its content was intellectually stimulating, or even relevant to the community.

I am (or was) surprised at this (imo very content lite) article being on the front page of HN and getting so many upvotes and (perhaps unjustifiably) attributed it to the (imo) excess respect Americans have for their military.

Your reply helps me understand better. Thank You.

I would hardly describe the article as "content-lite." I think that maybe you are not getting the same lessons from this article that others are.

To me, one of the big take-aways that is relevant to HN is that military service, especially in wartime, gives you experiences that you cannot get anywhere else, and that these experiences prove extremely valuable to veterans in the civilian workplace. The first part (unique experiences) is not surprising, but the second part (military experience translates well to civilian work) is surprising or even counterintuitive to some people.

Another reason why this might seem content-lite to you is actually something you got almost right:

>I suspect what Dan really learned from the war will be discussed only over drinks with his fellow soldiers and not on any public forum.

I get the impression that he would be more than happy to share his most valuable lessons with anyone who asks, but the problem is that anyone who hasn't had military experience will not be able to truly understand the full extent of what he's trying to say. Your statement would be more correct if rephrased as:

"I suspect what Dan learned from the war will only be really discussed over drinks with his fellow soldiers and not on any public forum."

The reason being that those are the only people who can really understand what he's saying.

You actually demonstrate this effect in action:

>It doesn't say anything particularly interesting (imo). Other cultures are different and working with a diverse set of people teaches you tolerance? Well duh.

He learned, from the Afghans, a level of patience that most Americans (westerners in general, really) are simply incapable of comprehending. He tried to express this, but to you it just came across as a minimally interesting anecdote about differences in cultures. You can't really understand what he was trying to say unless you have been through a similar experience. Similarly, the military has a level of racial integration that just doesn't exist in most of the rest of American culture. He probably thought of himself as being comfortable in diverse crowds before he joined the military, and then he found out what it's like to work with a truly diverse group of people. He tried to explain this, but to you it just came across as an obvious point about diversity and tolerance. Again, you can't really understand what he was saying until you've been in immersed that kind of environment.

"Do we (or should we) unequivocally respect anyone who risks their lives for a "higher" cause?"

Sure. I think one can acknowledge the value of a sacrifice without necessarily agreeing with the cause which motivated that sacrifice.

In a more civilized time (in some ways) men used to pay their respects to fallen enemies as well as fallen friends. I remember stories where American servicemen in the navy would salute dead kamikaze pilots. On one level, they absolutly hated those pilots and with good reason. And yet, on another level, they respected that they were fellow soldiers who willing to die for their country as well. I think it's important to remember that everyone, even those who might want to harm us or we might need to harm, are human too.

Soldiers have always held worthy adversaries in high regard, respecting them even more highly than allies perceived as unworthy (i.e. allies who are craven, weak, incompetent, etc.). However, the key word there is "worthy." I don't see a lot of vets coming back with a lot of respect for the enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. At most, there is the kind of "respect" you give to a dangerous animal: you know it's not just a "dumb" animal, and you know it could strike at any moment without warning, so you have to keep your guard up without fail. I think a big part of this has to do with how they fight: deliberately targeting civilians in order to create terror, killing entire families who are suspected of American sympathies, etc.

So if the question is:

>Do we (or should we) unequivocally respect anyone who risks their lives for a "higher" cause?

I think there are two criteria to consider:

1: Is the cause truly noble? If not, then we might be able to respect those who risk their lives for it, but we do not revere or praise them.

2: Do they fight honorably? If not, then they do not deserve respect (except maybe for the "dangerous animal" kind of respect I mentioned previously). Even if the cause is noble, those who fight for it only deserve respect if they fight honorably.

"I think there are two criteria to consider:

1: Is the cause truly noble? If not, then we might be able to respect those who risk their lives for it, but we do not revere or praise them.

So an Englishman of the 18th century were to judge an American militiaman as a "dangerous animal" for (a) committing treason to his king to whom he had sworn an oath (b) bushwhacking officers from a forest without standing in straight lines, within gunshot range s in full view of the enemy,- thus fighting "dishonorably" as per the prevailing notions of "honor", he would be right?

Whether a cause is "noble" or not depends on who is doing the judgement. An Islamic fanatic who joins the Taliban can sincerely believe that he is fighting on the side of virtue and killing hellbound infidels who disobey God's word. To you his cause isn't noble. As for deliberately targeting citizens, that is precisely what bombing German cities, or Hanoi was.

Was dropping the Atom bomb or Hiroshima "honorable"?(Not saying Americans are particularly ignoble. Every army in history does what it takes to win and calls it "honorable", while the oppositions effective, uncounterable tactics often get called "dishonorable". )

What "fighting honorably" means, evolves over time and is almost always out of date. Knights called muskets dishonorable because a peasant could kill a knight from afar. Oh the horror. As did the Samurai. Hey Afghan insurgents think drones are dishonorable. American soldiers think IEDs and suicide bombers are dishonorable. Hmm.

English commanders complained that the American soldiers in the American War of Independence didn't fight "honorably" or 'like gentlemen'. Targeting officers was considered dishonorable and criminal. Wellington refused an artillery officer under his command permission to fire his battery at Napoleon because it was 'dishonorable'. Of course, Americans paid no heed because the tactic was effective. Sherman burned Georgia,and after the Civil War used the same tactics against the remnants of the American Indian tribes. These days, incinerating a city full of civilians from the air is "honorable". Poor Sherman was accused of barbarism for burning one city.

Coming to modern times, how is a drone attack blowing up a house full of civilians to target one insurgent commander "honorable"? You can argue it is effective. But honorable? You are fighting people with a technology they can't fight back against.

Should the Afghan insurgents fight F16s and Abrams with AK 47s while wearing distinctive uniforms so they can be picked off? That doesn't make any sense.

As a thought experiment, if you were an Afghan whose family were killed because drone operators half the world away mistook a wedding party for an insurgent group, would you be worried about conforming to the invaders notion of "honor"?

Martin Van Creveld has written a whole book, aptly titled "The Transformation of War" where he gives dozens of examples of practices that switched from "honorable" to dishonorable and vice versa with the passage of time.

(From Wikipedia).

The book's significance is attested to by the fact that until the middle of 2008, it was included on the list of required reading for United States Army officers, and (with Sun Tzu and Clausewitz) the third non-American entry on the list..

Well worth reading. Here is a sample of his writing. "Knowing Why Not To Bomb Iran Is Half the Battle" http://www.forward.com/articles/1254/ I don't always agree with Van Creveld but he makes me think.

I agree to a certain extent that the definition of "noble" is subject to a degree of interpretation. However, I reject the idea that it is completely subjective. You might make an argument either way that fighting to impose representative government is noble or not (or effective or not, etc.), but fighting to impose an oppressive regime is always evil.

In regards to fighting "honorably," you set up a huge strawman there. Note that I never said anything about ambushes or roadside bombs. I agree that particular tactics and weapons are, for the most part, orthogonal to the concept of "fighting honorably." When I talked about "dishonorable combat," I talked about the deliberate targeting of civilians. Other examples might include perfidy (e.g. wearing the enemy's uniforms), fighting without any sort of uniform or identifying insignia, using human shields, or fighting from a protected location (e.g. a sniper in a hospital or church/mosque). War should be fought between combatants, and acts that either deliberately target non-combatants, or which deliberately make it harder for your enemy to tell you apart from non-combatants are dishonorable.

As an aside, I doubt very highly if your notional American militiaman had sworn any oath to the King of England.

The closest you get to actually addressing my statements about honor are your examples of collateral damage. One example (the wedding party) is easy to refute: it was not deliberate. The others all involve the destruction of civilian targets in concert with legitimate military targets. This has always happened, and will always happen, in war. Whether or not a particular instance is justified must be judged by the criterion of proportionality[1]. Interestingly, your examples show how, under this concept, acceptable levels of collateral damage of lowered with the improvement of technology in recent history: in WWII, it was sometimes necessary to destroy entire cities in order to achieve legitimate military goals. Today, precision weapons can take out individual structures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#Internati...

"You might make an argument either way that fighting to impose representative government is noble or not (or effective or not, etc.), but fighting to impose an oppressive regime is always evil."

So the Americans are evil to impose Karzai's regime on Afghanistan and maintain it by winking at massive election fraud? ;). No elections were held in South Vietnam because it was widely known in the American Administration that Ho and co would have won hands down.

"I doubt very highly if your notional American militiaman had sworn any oath to the King of England."

It didn't matter. For a subject (and pre independence, the people who lived in America were the subjects of George 3) to take up arms against his sovereign was treason, by the laws in place at the time, and the notions of honor in place at the time. Kings had "God given" rights to rule as they pleased.

Of course,in practice, rebellions happned all the time, noble or not, legal or not and if you won, you weren't a traitor anymore. viz the Shakespearean quote about how treason never prospers because if you prosper in treason then you can redefine the meaning to make yourself a hero. The Americans won. So they are "freedom fighters". If they had lost they would be mutinous traitors.

"in WWII, it was sometimes necessary to destroy entire cities in order to achieve legitimate military goals. "

And it was sometimes necessary to destroy Vietnamese villages to save them. Or waterboard and torture people to get information. Or drop an atom bomb on civilians to avoid casualties to your own armies in "honorable" combat against uniform wearing (but stubborn) foes. Use napalm against unarmed villagers. etc etc. Rendition and torture innocents. Protect mercenaries from prosecution etc.

If the people who do the defining of what a "legitimate military goal" is , can break the "laws of war" at will (the Geneva Conventions, which you quote also ban torture for example. By a strict interpretation, everyone from GW Bush down is a war criminal), and quote "military necessity" then they have no meaning any more except as political fig leaves.

All your examples of "dishonourable" fighting serves to illustrate my point that tactics which are effective against the dominant powers of the day are 'dishonorable' and as soon as they are adopted by them they become "honorable."

However if it makes you uncomfortable not to think of the US Army as some kind of paragons of honor and virtue fighting the forces of evil, go right ahead. To each his illusions.

>So the Americans are evil to impose Karzai's regime on Afghanistan and maintain it by winking at massive election fraud?

That situation is actually much more morally and ethically complex than you seem to imply. Let's consider the alternatives:

1: If the Americans had forced Karzai to concede, or otherwise directly interfered in the election process, it would have destroyed the sovereignty of Afghanistan, and been no more democratic than the election fraud it would have displaced.

2: If the Americans had instead withdrawn support completely from Karzai and allowed his regime to collapse, it would not have been his electoral competitor who would have taken power, it would have been the Taliban. And then there would have been no more elections.

The situation there is far from perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was before, and there is at least a chance of a legitimate election in the future, which brings me to:

>No elections were held in South Vietnam because it was widely known in the American Administration that Ho and co would have won hands down.

After the American withdrawal, once the pressure of communist conquest was (temporarily) alleviated, the South had a legitimate election that rejected communism. Then we allowed them to be conquered by the communist NVA.

>It didn't matter.

Then why did you say it?

>And it was sometimes necessary to destroy Vietnamese villages to save them. Or waterboard and torture people to get information. Or drop an atom bomb on civilians to avoid casualties to your own armies in "honorable" combat against uniform wearing (but stubborn) foes. Use napalm against unarmed villagers. etc etc. Rendition and torture innocents. Protect mercenaries from prosecution etc.

You have mixed up a sampling of real war crimes, apocryphal incidents, and legitimate actions. The fact that war crimes are sometimes committed does not invalidate the principle of proportionality.

>By a strict interpretation, everyone from GW Bush down is a war criminal

Only if waterboarding is torture, a point over which there is considerable disagreement. In my profession, everyone must undergo training which includes being subjected to coercive interrogation techniques, up to and including waterboarding. This training is facilitated by individuals who have been subjected to acts that are indisputably torture. The general consensus among my peers is that waterboarding is not torture. YMMV

>All your examples of "dishonourable" fighting serves to illustrate my point that tactics which are effective against the dominant powers of the day are 'dishonorable' and as soon as they are adopted by them they become "honorable."

You obviously missed this point:

>War should be fought between combatants, and acts that either deliberately target non-combatants, or which deliberately make it harder for your enemy to tell you apart from non-combatants are dishonorable.

So I'll elaborate a little bit more: there is a clear and precise factor that distinguishes what I am calling "honorable" from what I call "dishonorable:" whether or not civilians are respected as illegitimate targets. This is completely independent of who happens to be dominant at the time.

>However if it makes you uncomfortable not to think of the US Army as some kind of paragons of honor and virtue fighting the forces of evil, go right ahead.

I have no such illusions. Even the best-run fighting forces include at least a small but significant minority of individuals who do illegal and/or dishonorable things, both on and off the battlefield. This does not mean that we shouldn't honor and respect the overwhelming majority who serve with professionalism and honor. As I said elsewhere:

>[Your] statement also seems to imply that we should judge the merits of military service on the basis of our political views about the particular wars fought, and on the degree of success achieved. In reality, we judge the merits of military service on the basis that these individuals volunteered to make tremendous sacrifices in service to a noble ideal: our Constitution, and the concept it embodies (a self-governed people).

The fact that some individuals fail to uphold these ideals, or that even some entire wars arguably do not serve them, does not change the fact that all members of our military are sworn to uphold them and that the overwhelming majority do so honorably.

I agree with most of what you've said here, I don't know why folks have voted you down for it.

"Also, there is still a lingering guilt over how servicemen were treated returning home from Vietnam."

You might be interested to read a book called "The Spitting Image":

  "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam" is a 1998
  book by sociologist Jerry Lembcke. The book argues that the common
  claim that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by anti-war
  protesters upon returning home from the Vietnam War is an urban legend
  intended to discredit the anti-war movement.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Spitting_...

I have several friends and relatives who personally received this exact treatment. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the Vietnam veterans I personally know did. When my father left the service, he went to work for Pan Am and spent his first few years flying troops between the U.S. and Vietnam, and witnessed this sort of behavior on a regular basis. My sampling is hardly large enough to be representative, but I think that the author of this book is completely out of touch with reality.

Also, FWIW, it apparently still happens today: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-prot...

"I have several friends and relatives who personally received this exact treatment. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the Vietnam veterans I personally know did. When my father left the service, he went to work for Pan Am and spent his first few years flying troops between the U.S. and Vietnam, and witnessed this sort of behavior on a regular basis."

These are certainly some significant data points, if what they told you actually happened. It would be interesting to know whether they spoke about this sort of treatment in the 60's and 70's, rather than waiting until much later -- when the "antiwar protestors spitting on war vets" image has become so much a part of American folklore.

"Also, FWIW, it apparently still happens today: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-prot...

FOX has a long and sordid history of outright lies and incredibly biased reporting. This particular story doesn't even mention the alleged victim's name. Nor does it mention whether there were any witnesses.

>These are certainly some significant data points, if what they told you actually happened. I would be interested to know whether they spoke about this sort of treatment in the 60's and 70's rather than waiting until much later -- when the "antiwar protestors spitting on war vets" image has become so much a part of American folklore.
That looks like a fun game to play. Let me try:
So your mother and aunts told you stories about how they were sexually harrassed in the workplace? These are certainly some interesting data points, if what they told you actually happened. I would be interested to know whether they spoke about this sort of treatment in the 60's and 70's rather than waiting until much later -- when the "male-chauvanist bosses hit on their female employees and passed them over to promote less-qualified men" image has become so much a part of American folklore.
>FOX has a long and sordid history of outright lies and incredibly biased reporting.
Please cite examples of outright lies.
>This particular story doesn't even mention the alleged victim's name. Nor does it mention whether there were any witnesses.
The first sentence of the story is:
"The Coast Guard in Boston confirmed that a woman in uniform was harrassed and spat upon near Occupy Boston protesters."
The Coast Guard would be prohibited by the privacy act from naming the woman.
The only point in dispute is whether or not the individuals responsible were part of Occupy Boston. The spokesperson said that they weren't part of Occupy Boston, which is sort of an interesting variatikn on "No true Scotsman:" Those rowdy protesters who do ugly things? No, no, they're not real* Occupy members."

"So your mother and aunts told you stories about how they were sexually harrassed in the workplace? These are certainly some interesting data points, if what they told you actually happened. I would be interested to know whether they spoke about this sort of treatment in the 60's and 70's rather than waiting until much later -- when the "male-chauvanist bosses hit on their female employees and passed them over to promote less-qualified men" image has become so much a part of American folklore."
There's a difference between believing someone I know and trust (in this case, my mother), and some random guy on HN (who I don't know at all, much less trust) who claims some of his friends (who I don't even know exist) claimed something.
Now, if he wants to believe them, that's his business. But if he expects me to believe his claims, he's going to have to do better than just say he knows some guys who told him something happened 40 or 50 years ago.
"Please cite examples of [FOX's] outright lies."
You must be joking.
"The Coast Guard would be prohibited by the privacy act from naming the woman."
Assuming the source of the initial report of the woman getting spat on was the Coast Guard, this might be true. But there is no indication in the FOX story that this was the case. They don't mention any reason at all for not revealing her name (not that I'd believe any reason they gave).

>There's a difference between believing someone I know and trust (in this case, my mother), and some random guy on HN (who I don't know at all, much less trust) who claims some of his friends (who I don't even know exist) claimed something.
I can play that game, too:
There's a difference between believing someone I know and trust (in this case, my father, uncle, and the fathers and uncles of close friends), and some random guy on HN (who I don't know at all, much less trust) who claims some sociologist (who I never previously heard of) claimed something.
>You must be joking.
If it's as prevalent as you seem to believe, you should have no problem producing some concrete examples.
>Assuming the source of the initial report of the woman getting spat on was the Coast Guard, this might be true. But there is no indication in the FOX story that this was the case.
Since you clearly missed it the first time, I'll repeat myself:
>The first sentence of the story is: "The Coast Guard in Boston confirmed that a woman in uniform was harrassed and spat upon near Occupy Boston protesters."

As a current active duty soldier, I think you are confusing gratitude with respect. I have often come across grateful American's who pat me on the back, but have not yet come across an American who respected my skills over a doctor, teacher, etc.

I would happily welcome any collective respect for voluntary soldiers stretched to a totally overboard, ridiculous and even hypocritical extent instead of having a mandatory all-encompassing military or civil service as does, for example, Finland—and this is in the 2000's.

> Genuine question, why does a soldier deserve so much more respect than a doctor or teacher or fireman or policeman or engineer?
Unique to the soldier among these professions is that the soldier gives up many of his civil rights to do his job. Personally that is a large contributor to the respect I have for servicemen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com