Hacker News Reader

Comment by jboydyhacker | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

"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."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com