[nickik]

> Also by teaching military history you actually form trust in the institution of the military.

An easy argument can be made that the pretty absurd deference the US population has for its military is harmful both to the military and the population.

For me we don't need claims of the use of military history, other then that it is history. If we measure by impact on history, military history is undeniably important.

[WalterBright]

> the pretty absurd deference the US population has for its military is harmful

I'm still going to have some respect for the people who rush to stand between me and the bullets aimed at me. The local Starbucks, for example, has a sign that says free coffee for military personnel. A relative who used to run a coffee shop also always offered free coffee to military people. It's a small thing, but important.

It's not about glorifying the military, but about acknowledging the risks they take on our behalf.

[isbvhodnvemrwvn]

They don't stand between you and the bullets, they are the ones firing bullets at others. There is next to no military risk of the US being invaded, if only because you are surrounded by two oceans.

[skybrian]

Yes, it's often the wrong kind of deference, one that puts people on a pedestal but doesn't try to get to understand what's going on well enough to discuss war and military issues in a serious way.

I'm reminded of James Fallow's article:

The Tragedy of the American Military https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tra...

[kodah]

> An easy argument can be made that the pretty absurd deference the US population has for its military is harmful both to the military and the population.

I wouldn't call what I see in modern times deference. As I described it in my post it's more nationalistic and chauvinistic. There's a big difference.

[nickik]

I disagree. When hearing Americans talk or in American media its not 'raw raw nationalism' its more like 'the army is really good and you should always honer and support them even when shitty politicians give them shitty jobs'.

The amount of deference to veterans and how they are all heroes is not about nationalism or chauvinism, its about the genuine believe that everybody who served in the military has served the country. Saying anything against the military is often interpreted as a direct attack on veterans and soldiers. Giving out metal before ever sports match is not exactly normal in most of the Western world.

The people in the US have a incredible deference to military, they trust it more then almost anybody else. The military as a institution specifically, not the nation. This is true even for people who have no trust in the presidency, congress or literally any other federal institution. Consistently the military is the most trusted institution.

Even people who are not very nationalistic or chauvinistic almost universally support the military, are happy with or want to increase military spending. Decreasing military spending in US politics basically gets you labeled as a traitor and despite people voting for anti-war candidates, they don't vote for 'reduce military spending candidates'.

All this without people even having the slightest understanding of what the military does and why. This goes even for politicians, most couldn't tell you the difference between Sunni and Shia or point out Afghanistan on a map. That of course doesn't matter, all that matter is that we are supporting the bois, a couple 10s of billions for new <thingding> that help even 1 solider is worth the cost. Just never ever question why any of this is done in the first place, those boring details don't matter.

Something actual military history could help people understand, but that is besides the point.

[phist_mcgee]

I understand your sentiment, but your arguments are presented as facts and not as reasoned arguments. You might be right in the general sense, but the assertion that 'most couldn't tell you the difference between Sunni and Shia or point out Afghanistan on a map.' is probably not true.

This is a long running debate inside and outside America, and while your opinion is useful, presenting it as fact is not.

[nickik]

Are you talking about politicians or normal people? Avg people have no idea what Sunni and Shia mean. And we have many examples of high level politicians and bureaucrats who don't know what it means.

And that is before getting into any even remotely complex questions about Iraq and the Middle East.

[_ktx2]

> The people in the US have a incredible deference to military, they trust it more then almost anybody else.

This is probably situational. I moved from the South to the West Coast and I've observed the behavior you described as well as people who exhibit a total breakdown of rationale as soon as they hear the word military. I'd say both perspectives are worthless.

> Decreasing military spending in US politics basically gets you labeled as a traitor and despite people voting for anti-war candidates, they don't vote for 'reduce military spending candidates'.

and

> Saying anything against the military is often interpreted as a direct attack on veterans and soldiers. Giving out metal before ever sports match is not exactly normal in most of the Western world.

Not quite. I served from 2009-2013 which means I got to witness "The Tea Party" and it's affect on the military by cutting DOD funding. [1] These efforts garnered some good support of Democrats as well, it was an unholy alliance of sorts. [2] Did they cut a couple planes, tanks, trucks, and programs? Maybe, but they also closed the Single Marine Program and our commissary on base. I was going to the range less and sitting in the field more. You likely didn't hear about this stuff in the news because the nature of a base is a bubble. I think taking a good honest looks at spending and decision making are worthwhile endeavors that should be reviewed constantly but the outcomes cannot be like when I served and all too often they are.

Spending decisions also play personally into the lives of troops, so I think it affects how they view someone who wants to take that money away. If you go down to Camp Lejeune to some random barracks room and ask to see their gear you might find some units with new gear but for the most part it's heavily worn, heavily used, heavily abused equipment that we try to replace before deployment. My plate carrier had some nasty fraying on my deployment that made it difficult to attach MOLLE gear but others have had to deal with. [4]

Even policy decisions play important factors in how veterans end up viewing people, motives, and parties. The notable rules of engagement change during Obama's presidency remains in a lot of peoples minds and was sparsely covered by news outlets who preferred putting lists of the dead on TV [3].

I think Republicans often are in a position where they're trying to do something beneficial for military members or veterans but it's often for show. If you want a good example of what "for show" looks like with veterans then simply examine how Veteran's Choice has evolved over the times. The problem was clear and yet it took us three different presidents to get it where it needed to be. What's too much is when they begin to use us as a political pawn and create some adoration culture out of it. I was personally shocked when I saw a veteran returning home used in a speech more than once and I think this sends a really terrible message to the American people. We can't descend into the 70's when liberals thought it okay to spit on military members but we can't be walking around thinking they're gods either. The latter I don't think is really happening outside of small circles but it's good to watch out for.

Democrats often don't realize their policy and fiscal positions with the military have impacts on troops which are seen and remembered when those troops are veterans. Having some empathy and understanding for these scenarios could totally be aided by teaching military history but I also think it necessitates some change in the anti-war constituent rhetoric. Learning to talk about and criticizing a war without insulting the people who fought in it or had their lives changed by it is a tricky business, but it's one you subscribe to when you get into the business of critiquing war. This rhetoric probably deserves it's own thread but it's one that I think can't be had online.

All the same, as a veteran and someone who falls on both sides of this debate, I understand your frustration.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/fe... [2] https://www.pri.org/stories/2011-08-05/trimming-defense-budg... [3] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/26/rules-of-en... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/in-afghani...