Posted on Aug 29, 2017
After General Mattis addresses US troops, is a military coup in the cards?
2.04K
12
10
2
2
0
Mattis' address to troops in Jordan is not what interests me from this article. What I found intriguing was the argument that there's a perception of military moral superiority and exceptionalism; as well as, military is more virtuous than their civilian (never served) counterpart.
I've never felt that way and curious what others think of this premise.
Also curious if we think the military is losing it's role as a "politically neutral player devoted only to the Constitution and protection of the Nation"?
I've never felt that way and curious what others think of this premise.
Also curious if we think the military is losing it's role as a "politically neutral player devoted only to the Constitution and protection of the Nation"?
After General Mattis addresses US troops, is a military coup in the cards?
Posted from newsweek.comPosted in these groups: 
Politics
Politics
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
I think that there is something to be said about a level of moral superiority. The military defacto makes us all the same. Training breaks you down until you finally realize that there is nothing ideologically that sets you apart from any of your fellow soldiers. We are only judged upon our ability to complete the mission. It isn't that way outside of the military. Outside the confines of the military, we still have racism and bigotry and what have you, but ask any service member what color they see when they look at a comrade and they are going to tell you the color of the uniform t hat they are wearing.
I don't believe that the military has lost its way in regards to knowing its sole purpose though. I do believe that many people outside the military would like the masses to believe that propaganda though.
I don't believe that the military has lost its way in regards to knowing its sole purpose though. I do believe that many people outside the military would like the masses to believe that propaganda though.
(2)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
"Training breaks you down until you finally realize that there is nothing ideologically that sets you apart from any of your fellow soldiers. We are only judged upon our ability to complete the mission."
Your words and based on those words, gender and sexual orientation should never prevent a fellow soldier from serving in a capacity if they meet all training requisites. As we've seen so far, women have met the challenge so far. Same sex relationships haven't destroyed the military. If a Transgender passes all the same mental health and physical fitness exams everyone else takes, then that shouldn't be a problem either. Your statements are why this is a moral issue; denying someone fully capable of performing duties assigned to them based on a bias is a moral issue. There was a time it was argued to keep Black soldiers out of combat units and create segregated units because it was deduced with logic and not morality that they could not meet the same standards of the regular units of that era. We saw this in Civil War, American Indian War, and both World Wars. It took mounting evidence and debate to finally see change in 1948 and how illogical and immoral the military was being.
Your words and based on those words, gender and sexual orientation should never prevent a fellow soldier from serving in a capacity if they meet all training requisites. As we've seen so far, women have met the challenge so far. Same sex relationships haven't destroyed the military. If a Transgender passes all the same mental health and physical fitness exams everyone else takes, then that shouldn't be a problem either. Your statements are why this is a moral issue; denying someone fully capable of performing duties assigned to them based on a bias is a moral issue. There was a time it was argued to keep Black soldiers out of combat units and create segregated units because it was deduced with logic and not morality that they could not meet the same standards of the regular units of that era. We saw this in Civil War, American Indian War, and both World Wars. It took mounting evidence and debate to finally see change in 1948 and how illogical and immoral the military was being.
(0)
(0)
SGT Joseph Gunderson
Negative. If you have biological limitations then you cannot successfully complete the mission. In addition, trans people cannot fully pass any kind of psychological evaluation. They are inherently mentally broken. Still not a moral argument.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
They are not inherently mentally ill. Biological limitations based on gender is a falsehood. And I'll just end this discussion by saying we both clearly define what a moral argument differently. Good day.
(0)
(0)
SGT Joseph Gunderson
MAJ James Woods - aww, sir, don't get upset. I was just about to define a biological limitations and just why transgender are ALWAYS mentally I'll! Dang.... that's no fun.... lol
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
MAJ James Woods the military for a long time has been a tool of politicians. Desert Storm is a perfect example of this. Had Saddam Hussein invaded a nation that wasn't A) Friendly (or at least not adversarial) to the United States, and B) Oil rich, the military would not have been sent in to deal with it. Fighting a war against "Communist Aggression" is not about defending the United States, it is a war of ideology. Pushing our ideology by force against their ideology. The military does not have a say politically in which battles they partake. Politicians set the policy, military makes it happen.
As for moral superiority, in an all volunteer force, those who serve (regardless of the reason they joined) show that they have some devotion to something beyond themselves. The military is a cross section of American Society. There are drug addicts, sex offenders, wife beaters, church goers, regular folks, exceptional folks, and even subpar folks in the military as there are in the civilian world. Society has taken the travesty that was the treatment of Service Members and gone to the opposite extreme putting an almost reverent status on those who serve. To me the interesting line from article is:
They heard the “warrior monk ” encouraging fellow warriors and invoking a common theme of his: the lack of “friendliness” and civility in contemporary American society.
This is spot on. We have lost the ability in the United States to respectfully disagree on points and have a debate based on subject matter without it devolving into a personal statement. "If you Support/Don't Support (insert topic here) then you are a moron and Un-American." I disagree with my wife all the time about politics, but we are able to have a civil discussion before agreeing to disagree. In a lot of places, the civility of the discussion breaks down.
As for moral superiority, in an all volunteer force, those who serve (regardless of the reason they joined) show that they have some devotion to something beyond themselves. The military is a cross section of American Society. There are drug addicts, sex offenders, wife beaters, church goers, regular folks, exceptional folks, and even subpar folks in the military as there are in the civilian world. Society has taken the travesty that was the treatment of Service Members and gone to the opposite extreme putting an almost reverent status on those who serve. To me the interesting line from article is:
They heard the “warrior monk ” encouraging fellow warriors and invoking a common theme of his: the lack of “friendliness” and civility in contemporary American society.
This is spot on. We have lost the ability in the United States to respectfully disagree on points and have a debate based on subject matter without it devolving into a personal statement. "If you Support/Don't Support (insert topic here) then you are a moron and Un-American." I disagree with my wife all the time about politics, but we are able to have a civil discussion before agreeing to disagree. In a lot of places, the civility of the discussion breaks down.
(1)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
Thanks. Well said. I will note facing similar "you are a moron and In-American" responses from fellow veterans and active Servicemembers here on RP when you disagree with them has been disappointing.
Have to agree, if it wasn't for the demands by Saudi Arabia, Desert Storm would not have happened.
Military is a tool of the politicians but aren't our military generals and at times COLs and CSMs have taken more of a political mantle when they get to the Pentagon and other D.C. related organizations?
Have to agree, if it wasn't for the demands by Saudi Arabia, Desert Storm would not have happened.
Military is a tool of the politicians but aren't our military generals and at times COLs and CSMs have taken more of a political mantle when they get to the Pentagon and other D.C. related organizations?
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
MAJ James Woods - Pentagon is too close to DC. Those sent there, do so going in harm's way. You cannot work close to politicians without becoming politicized. It is like putting a magnet on a piece of metal. It will become magnetized, same effect. I am not saying it is right, or even good for the service as a whole, it simply is the reality. I say harm's way because an officer or senior NCO who doesn't learn to be political in DC can quickly see a promising career turn into latrine duty in Diego Garcia. You don't stomp through a minefield, and you don't speak plainly in DC if you want to survive either one.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google