Why do people join the army....? and why should we honour them?

[LittleRedSparke]

Ok - i have my tin hat at the ready, and am ready to be flamed.....

This is genuine (i post a bit so you can see this is not my first and i havent nc'd)

First off - I appreciate those who fight for the rights of my country.... but I am not sure why we should raise them to a 'god-like' status, like you see on facebook etc

Yes, they're doing a good job - but no one forces them to do it, as far as I know (prepared to be told i am wrong of course) they join up of their own free will? I read 'how wonderful they are, and how they only do it because of some saint like calling they have'

I dont mean to offend anyone - but I have a friend who is ex-forces, and on occasion he mentions stuff about forces being let down by the government - even though he wasnt there for long, only joined up as he didnt have anywhere to live and no prospects, he's come out - and now has no prospects and has some kind of (non army related) injury, and I just got to thinking.....

Totally agree Maud my first memory of the Irish army is their peacekeeping missions in Lebanon. Apparently if they don't use force though, what's the point of them ?

You're brain washed radical

My ex was military, we discussed the "they knew what they were signing up for" thing.

Things he said he didn't know he was signing up for included:
Mass graves in Bosnia.
Finding friends who had hung themselves in their shared accommodation.
Abuse from the public (largely in NI)
Going to work after a car bomb had gone off outside camp.
Missing the birth of his first child.
His first child nearly dying because of lack of medical facilities in the country he was stationed in.

Just a few things that aren't in the brochure.

I joined up because I'd spent most of my childhood watching Kellys Heroes, Battle of the Bulge, A Bridge Too Far and reading Battle, Commando Comics etc.

I remember watching Frederic Forsythes series on war and it was the episode on where there was a clip of a tank crew in the woods, cooking breakfast and having a wash. There was some banter & it looked the coolest thing in the world.

I was down the careers office the next week & joined up at 17 1/2.

Loved it & never regretted it - did some good and helped stop some people dying.

Drank tonnes of beer, smoked millions of fags, fired billions of bullets & all with the craziest, hardest working people I've ever met.

Our life expectancy was 6 minutes if Ivan ever came over the border, so it was very much a case of "Work hard, play hard".

Happy Days, I left after 14 years & don't regret either joining or leaving.

It's made me the person I am today outlook, humour & skill wise.

There is a lot of "over enthusiastic" support on FB and it's very cringeworthy. Don't personally subscribe to that - it was a job and a way of life, but I've moved on now.....

Presumably the Irish army were peacekeeping with guns and they had no more choice over what they did or where they went than any other soldier.

I'm really grateful that other people's children fulfill this role so that my own don't have to.

Yes I know how bad that sounds. And that's why I think they deserve respect.

As I understand it, merrymouse, Irish soldiers volunteer/apply to go on peacekeeping missions. There is a significant additional salary as well.

The Irish army never had to enter invade a country and kill innocent people. They were and still are there to protect the innocent.
The reality is British and American soldiers are not entering countries as peacekeepers..

I don't get the argument that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were risking their lives for our safety and so that we could sleep in our beds - let alone that it gives us the freedom to prat about on the Internet. So far as I am aware, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were planning on launching an invasion. I know it absolutely wasn't the army's fault, but arguably if anything it was their presence in those countries that put us in danger given that our own and US campaigns there were a major boost to terrorist recruitment.

Mrsmorton It's hard to read your post. I honestly don't think any of them truly know what they are signing up for, what they could potentially witness, what they might miss and how their career could completely alter their life.

I watched DIYSOS on Wednesday night with tears rolling down my cheeks. How PTSD had affected that veteran and his family upset me so much. The poor young lad with brain damage. None of them expect that.

They're just trying to do their job in the best way they can, with what they are given. They don't deserve the slagging off they get by some people, they truly don't.

A lot of the soldiers who went to Iraq and Afghanistan risked their lives fighting to protect the lives of afghanis and Iraqis they will never meet and have no connection to. Honestly I am extremely proud to be married to a man who will risk his life to protect others.

I am not denying that much of the wars in the Middle East was to do with politics, however western forces helped restore order in countries overrun by taliban and other such evils, the horrors of which they committed against their own innocent civilians are truly unspeakable.

By the way I am not saying that all military deserve god like status, far from it! Some of the soliders under DHs command are lazy, racist little shits who've never seen a tour.

Maud, accepting that UN peacekeepers volunteer for that role, there is no point having an army that doesn't follow orders - even if they are working as peacekeepers.

lucy if you want to make a political point about US and British foreign policy, fair enough. Ireland is a small country in the north west corner of Europe that would be able to rely on other countries for military aid so being neutral may be logical and beneficial.

However none of that is relevant to the fact that military personnel must follow orders. You seem to struggle to differentiate between the incumbent government and the armed forces.

I don't get the argument that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were risking their lives for our safety and so that we could sleep in our beds

You do get the point that when you join the army you don't get to choose where you are sent, don't you?

But Irish soldiers did have choice as to where they went, merrymouse, which was the point you were trying to make. Now you seem to be making a different point about following orders.

You sound really judgmental about the reasons your friend joined the army OP.

I used to do gigs with an amateur band years ago, we went to army bases in UK. I never had much time for the whole army thing really..but doing those gigs and seeing injured soldiers really upset me. They're people like any other.

I don't see any point whatsoever in picking apart what they earn or what they do to earn it. Its just odious

As is the pitting one "career hero" against another ie nurses vs soldiers. Its entirely possible to respect both.

Whatever point you feel you need to make on this I can't see it, it just sounds insensitive Im really hoping there isn't anybody here who's lost a partner in the forces.

They're the same person. The person that does what they're told, regardless. because as a soldier, you don't pick and choose, you don't whine. You just bloody do it, so that others can get on with their fucking lives.

They fucking aren't. One was forced to go or be imprisoned or shot. The other wanted to go, signed up on purpose knowing exactly what they would be doing. Soldiers now do it because they WANT TO, not for some noble calling to serve us all. Their "service" serves the political interests of the government, not the needs of the people.

its the same point - members of turned forces don't get to decide where or what they do.

The argument you seem to be making is that Irish soldiers have time on their hands and therefore can choose to be seconded elsewhere. However being a member of a un peacekeeping force also involves getting involved in another country's conflict and people get killed.

There is no nice clean morally correct neutral way to avoid mess and bloodshed,

Their "service" serves the political interests of the government, not the needs of the people.

Because if it weren't for the government there would be no natural disasters, dictators, brutal regimes or ethical dilemmas.

members of armed forces don't get to decide where or what they do.

Er, Irish soldiers do, insofar as they choose to sign up for overseas service or not. Not sure why you find this so hard to grasp.

Peace-keeping forces are there to, well, keep the peace. Not cause bloodshed or mayhem. Bloodshed and mayhem are usually the reasons that peacekeeping forces are sent in. The goal is not to kill people, either civilians or opposing forces. It's not 'getting involved in another country's conflict' in the same way that, say, invading another country is.

Protecting Iraqi and afghan civilians is a joke. How many of themhave the allies maimed killed orphaned?

It's a complicated issue.

I come from a family with several generations of service personnel male and female. Ex is also serving currently. I would have joined up but was medically ineligible.

I cannot think of one person I know that joined up purely for the good opportunities (but I'm not denying they are there), everyone I know that joined up was escaping something. Poverty, unemployment, gangs, crime, abuse, unhappy marriages are some of the reasons I know of. But from this thread I see that others have different experiences.

Not all service personnel are brave, or even good people. A lot are but not all of them. I have a lot of respect for those that have seen front line service or worked in extreme conditions eg helping deal with the aftermath of natural disasters. There are certain areas you can sign up to that will all but guarantee no front line service, sometimes that happens by chance. My father never saw front line service even though he served for over 20 years. He did, however, support people in a developing country to rebuild following a civil war and found that very rewarding and he did lose friends to front line service. Friends of mine have lost parents or had parents injured or become ill as a direct result of their service.

My observations and experiences are that while there are benefits to a service life there are also disadvantages. Eg as someone has already mentioned the albeit subsidised housing is dreadful. It used to at least be clean when you moved in as march outs were properly monitored, until it was passed to a civilian agency. Kitchens and bathrooms from the 70's isn't that bad, my parents were in a prefab built in the 40's while dad finished up in the 90's.

When they leave they're unprepared, untrained and not generally well educated for civvy St. Ex freely admits he wouldn't last 5 mins on civvy St as he wouldn't stand for the pay and conditions. Also he's woefully inadequately trained wrt the equivalent job, he's very specifically trained for his military position. I can't actually think of anyone I know that's left and is working in civvy St that isn't either actually (for civilian companies contracted by the mod) doing the exact same job in the same place for less pay and perks or doing an extremely similar job to that which they did (things like police, fire service). The rest have retired or are unable to work due to disability and mental illness. Some places and employers are reluctant to employ ex-service personnel too for all sorts of reasons.

Personally I have just as much respect for the spouses. They don't get the recognition or the pay or other perks. They're the ones doing all the work at home with the dc, running the home, little to no chance of a career of their own (unless they're also in), often missing out on support from their spouses at difficult times eg bereavement, just after having a baby. Often in the position of not knowing if their spouse is safe, not hearing from them with any certainty when they're away. Then God forbid their spouse is injured, becomes ill or is killed while serving, they're the ones that have to deal with the practicalities and repercussions of that.

There are problems insofar as the govt and military are appallingly bad at recognising acknowledging and providing enough support for those injured, made mentally ill, killed as a direct result of service and I apply this to support for their families too. Mental illness in particular is still in my experience stigmatised, under diagnosed, poorly treated if at all and sufferers under supported. Yes this is true in civvy St too but its ime more true wrt the military.

'what threat to your freedom has there been, exactly, within your lifetime, that the military has affected at all?" The cold war, terrorism from several different enemies.

Sorry Lucy while I personally don't always agree with where our soldiers are sent I don't consider them the murderers. If the choice you had was kill or be killed would you choose death? Recruitment processes are actually designed to weed out anyone who gets a kick out of hurting people. Soldiers understand it may be necessary but generally they'd rather avoid hurting or being hurt while still doing their job. Weirdly I was about to say you remind me of someone I knew from Sweden who had a similar outlook but even Sweden has a military force. While they're assigned as a peacekeeping unit they are prepared to defend themselves if necessary with force. I'm afraid I view neutrality in many cases as being cowardly. With the possible exception of Ireland as there were clear issues regarding the idea of them fighting alongside soldiers from countries they were already in conflict with over other issues. Frankly the fact your country enjoys peace is due to the efforts of other countries being willing to defend the surrounding countries.

The notion that peace keepers never utilise weaponry I find most odd.

Vintagebeads please don't presume to speak for me or my family or anyone other than yourself. You're entitled to an opinion but not to assume others feel the same or should. Actually my grandparents - 3 of whom saw active service, one who supported the effort at home in WWII would be deeply offended at the idea that they fought in a war against a dictatorial tyrant who wanted to suppress open thought and discussion (amongst other issues) only for us now to be prevented from questioning anything and everything. My own parents raised me not to blindly accept anything I'm not about to start now.

Welsh I am sorry for your and your familys' loss.

Of course I get that, merrymouse - if you had read my post properly you would realise that. My post was addressed to people who claim that soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq were there to keep us safe.

Redannie

it's all very well saying "all wars could have been avoided"- some definitely could have been prevented/never entered into (e.g. our most recent exploits in Iraq). I think for some that is less certain, and only preventable with the knowledge of hindsight.

Take WWII for instance- I don't see that a "peaceful" solution could have been found with the nazi's. Or at least not one that would prevented great evil in terms of further genocide of the jews, romany's, disabled, homosexuals etc. Many men and women did give their lives to defend this country and to bring about the end of the Nazi regime. They do deserve our respect and thanks, in my view.

That is not to say the victims of war do not also deserve our thoughts, they do also.

I think the wider point people were making was that the armed forces exist to keep us safe. Whether or not there is any point in sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan is another issue. However, there seems to be a desire to classify soldiers as good and bad depending on which conflicts they are sent to. The reality is they don't have a choice.

I don't believe that the Irish army is a more grown up version of the scouts where you get given a travel brochure by the UN and get to go somewhere with no ethical dilemmas where you never have to kill anyone. However if it were it would only be on the basis that e.g. The U.S. Forces would come to the rescue as necessary. It's easier not to join NATO when you are geographically and politically protected by NATO countries.

Armed combat is sometimes necessary, it will involve loss of civilian life and it will not be clear that one choice is better than another. (Even with a blue hat).