No, not really. Someone was prepared to fly a war plane wherever the hell most people figured they should in order to sleep safe and sound in California.
The honour of the professional soldier in a modern western democracy is that they don't pick and choose the wars they fight in, they trust the judgement of the rest of us to figure that out. A mercenary picks the people he shoots at.
This is why it is so incredibly important to not only choose the wars we fight in - and the governments that start them - very carefully, but to ensure that our servicemen and women are respected appropriately.
There may come a time when a particular war is essential for our survival. We better have the people and skills to win it.
I find this mysticism around the US military to be puzzling. I mean really, "The honour of the professional soldier in a modern western democracy is that they don't pick and choose the wars they fight in"? As opposed to every other soldier ever? And when it's a volunteer military and you sign up after a war is declared, that's choosing to fight that war.
I'm not American, so I have no idea about whatever "mysticism" you are talking about.
All soldiers should be honoured for the fact that they volunteer for very dangerous activities, usually will little understanding of when and where those activities will be.
Your point regarding post-war sign ups is valid, but like I said, if you want to fight wars you can just join blackwater et al. If you want to serve your country you can join the nation's armed forces. There is an element in public service in the soldier that should be commended.
I think that's a little dismissive. What I read in the post was not so much a justification for the war effort as putting trials and tribulations in relative perspective. War could just as easily have been replaced by any other situation that is literally life threatening.
We Sleep Peaceably In Our Beds At Night Only Because
Rough Men Stand Ready To Do Violence On Our Behalf
so it's really odd to find that a Vietnam War story follows. Of course this is orthogonal to the main point of the article (cf. the title), but it's still odd.
I would downvote it, not only for the historical egocentrism of claiming that somehow those fighting the Vietnam War were protecting united-statesian lives (as if the conflict ever was anything other than wrestling for political influence), but because it's inflammatory. What does the GP propose, that every single person of every country should go and fight a stupid war on another country? Or else what, be shameful of not being on the glorious warrior caste?
There are several memes in the United States psyche that are quite puzzling for the rest of us (non USans), military fetichism being one of the weirdest.
That said, turning the experience of making sure bombers can safely carpet bomb Vietnam into a coming-of-age story yielding uplifting thoughts about entrepreneurship steps into bizarre territory. Like an Ayn Randesque version of Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow.
The honour of the professional soldier in a modern western democracy is that they don't pick and choose the wars they fight in, they trust the judgement of the rest of us to figure that out. A mercenary picks the people he shoots at.
This is why it is so incredibly important to not only choose the wars we fight in - and the governments that start them - very carefully, but to ensure that our servicemen and women are respected appropriately.
There may come a time when a particular war is essential for our survival. We better have the people and skills to win it.