[nradov]

How many military avionics technicians or dental assistants or petroleum supply specialists end up committing war crimes or suffering from PTSD? Come on.

We should be more judicious about using military forces as part of foreign policy, and provide better support to the combat troops who are deployed into impossible situations. But the majority of personnel are in low risk support jobs that aren't much different from typical civilian jobs. Lose the hyperbole.

[hulitu]

> How many military avionics technicians or dental assistants or petroleum supply specialists end up committing war crimes or suffering from PTSD? Come on

In some countries, working for a criminal organization, will land you in jail.

[amanaplanacanal]

You don’t get to choose, once you signed up. They can send you wherever they want.

[nradov]

Bullshit. Most enlistment contracts specify a particular career field. The troops in combat arms are there because they chose that option. The Pentagon isn't going to take a dental assistant and reassign them to infantry unless they specifically request that change (and meet various eligibility criteria).

[amanaplanacanal]

That doesn’t mean that you can’t be sent to a war zone. I’m sure they needed dental assistants in Iraq and Afghanistan too.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

You can choose. Get it in the contract or don't sign.

[amanaplanacanal]

Your contract specified that you wouldn’t be sent to a war zone? I don’t believe that. You might be able to find a job that’s unlikely to get you deployed.

[justrealist]

If the US military starts wantonly changing enlistment contracts, we aren't that far from a national draft anyway, so the distinction is kind of meaningless.

[Nullabillity]

Yes, I'd call all of those (at the very least) accomplices when in a military context.

Good luck bombing anything without mechanics or gasoline, and medical staff helps lower the perceived stakes of war (however slightly).