Sometimes you don't have a choice, as you so blithely put it. Many people join the military because they would otherwise have no other career, or because they need a leg up, or health insurance (pre-affordable care act). So if someone offered you an extra years salary that would allow you to put your kids through college for doing something that you feel serves the people of your country, wouldn't you take it? How about if your kid had cancer, and you and your wife after working 3 jobs couldn't make a dent in the 150K medical debt created through our medical industrial complex? Wouldn't you take a change at giving your family a better life if you had no other way to do so? Not sure where you're getting the idea of "combat tourism," but please be my guest and sign up...enjoy!

Many people joined the Taliban for those reasons, and ISIS and Al Quaeda. Many common criminals commit crime because they need money too. Just because you're desperate, doesn't give you the right to kill people. Just because you feel it serves your country doesn't make it OK to ruin someone else's country. These soldiers complaining about their money helped to destroy Iraq and caused the deaths of 100s of thousands of people.

The military in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. It can be used to do bad things. Soldiers in the military who do bad things are responsible for their actions. Is this a fair paraphrasing of your position? If not, please correct me.

If I'm understanding that correctly, I can follow that chain of reasoning.

It looks like you're also making the claim that if they've done bad things they're not allowed to complain if something bad happens to them. I don't know if that's an accurate interpretation of what you're saying, so please do correct or clarify.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or critical. I'm trying to understand your position. The politics and tragedy that surrounds the situation can make these discussions problematic.

Thanks!

Edit: I worked on the wording on this and I'm still not happy with it because I think it can still be read as being condescending or uncharitable. That is definitely not the intent. I'm open to suggestions for wording improvements as well!

Thanks for your civil response.

I mean soldiers know when they sign up that they might be required to do bad things. They agree to do those bad things to save themselves from poverty/unemployment/etc. I don't think that's right. They're using their own problems to justify creating worse problems for other people.

Not so general as "if you do bad things, you can't complain" but more like "If you do very bad things and kill people and get away with it, you can't complain about minor inconveniences like refinancing your house". Although they are separate issues, since soldiers aren't going to face justice for their crimes, why not look at their lost money as a kind of coincidental punishment?

And thanks for your clarifications!

I'd like to separate the determination of which acts are good and which are bad from the reasoning of the argument itself. Is that fair?

I think there are many reasons people sign up, and that most people sign up in good faith and don't expect to be asked to do bad things. I don't think they perform some mental calculus like "I'm willing to risk doing bad things to escape poverty".

I can see how one might find a sort of karmic justice in the situation. And it's a part of human psychology to tend to wish bad things on bad people. After all, they deserve it, right? :) I know I'm guilty of feeling this on occasion.

However, I don't agree with it. If you believe the soldiers did very bad things, I wouldn't think the lost money--not associated with the bad acts--would be satisfying justice. Linking them this way could even weaken your stance, opening you up to accusations of wishing ill rather than seeking justice. I don't think such accusations are a good or fair argument--and not one I'm making or implying--but I can imagine someone uncharitably making it.

Does this make sense? I admit it's got aspects of reasoning combined with perception, but I think both need to be taken into account, especially when discussing issues that are potentially controversial.

What do you think?

I agree linking the two unrelated things is a weak argument. My comment was more of a reaction to the opposite linking shown so commonly by many people, which is "They deserve to be treated fairly because they're soldiers". That's they same type of argument as mine but in reverse.

Gotcha. Thanks!

Your heading down a slippery slope. If they did something wrong, they have a right to face and defend themselves against that crime. It seems like you're advocating against due process.

And maybe...maybe, I'd agree that the ends justify the means IF that was the intent. But since this is the Pentagon doling out the punishment . . .

If you believe that the wars were illegal, this is a double whammy. The Pentagon is by far the biggest criminal and they benefit the most from this punishment.

Perhaps soldiers should be exempt from due process because they don't apply it to the people they kill. Even if they don't directly kill anyone, they're stomping all over laws and rights in the countries they attack.

Not your parent. This is a complicated situation, but I think you guys are conflating two points.

Is superior orders a valid defense? No. [1]

And while I'm loosely in the camp that feels that the 2nd Iraq war was a war of aggression, this action by the Pentagon is completely unrelated.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

> Not your parent.

I'm still wet behind the ears here and am not familiar with all of the jargon. What does this mean? I take it you're scoping your response in some way but it's not clear to me what scope is intended.

If you're responding to my comment ("The military in and of itself isn't necessarily bad"), my only intent was to make sure I understood Hondor, not to make any claims myself. If that wasn't clear, I'll endeavor to be clearer in the future.

For the jargon:

I'm making it clear that I'm responding but I'm not Hondor (aka, the parent comment to your comment). You don't generally have to be explicit, but since your questions were very much directed at him, I didn't want you to accidentally read that and think it was from "Hondor". I also didn't want Hondor to think I was putting words in his mouth (again, because it was a very one-on-one discussion).

The reason I did reply though was that regardless of any individual belief, there's some facts / laws about this that should be considered.

Thanks for clarifying the jargon. That makes sense.

Yeah, your points were useful, and close to ones I was thinking as well. I was just a little confused by the "you guys are conflating" as I wasn't making any claims, but that's minor, and I should have probably just let it go. Pedantry will get me nowhere!

> The military in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. It can be used to do bad things.

Of course, the military fulfils a necessary function. Unfortunately, it is often used for ill, and there's no sign of that ending. So, one might choose to not offer oneself as a tool to be used by corrupt or evil masters, except in the most direct cases of self-defence.

To clarify, I don't see "combat tourism" as the only explanation. I think the military can provide a useful hand up to those in difficult situations. We just need to be clear that that is essentially a selfish argument, not one for service.

Regarding the scenario you've laid out: in general, people will do what they need to do for family survival, me included. But, if I steal or I kill to save my family you are right to criticise me.

Additionally, how is that any different from the choices in front of the people whose countries we go and invade?

In Restreppo, e.g. the captain lectures villagers after an Apache strike kills and maims a number of civilians. It was basically, why do you allow the Taliban to shoot from your village, so that I have to come and kill your sons?

Exactly the same argument applies in reverse. If you voluntarily join the aggressive American military machine, you're no better than the villagers who we kill for failing to root out the Taliban.

If you're a Sunni in Iraq and you're being massacred by Shia death-squads, then why is it wrong to support this ISIL gang who promise to protect you? You see where this argument leads?

I have sympathy for US soldiers, but I have more sympathy for civilians facing worse choices in the countries that we tend to invade or intervene in.

There are ways to serve that do not make you part of a machine that has historically been used to commit mayhem and murder on a vast scale.

EDIT> None of the above means that I think it is justifiable to claw back these enlistment bonuses. A promise was made to these enlistees, and it should be honoured. Is there an estimate of the total cost to forgive all of these repayments?

Wow, you somehow made this about you again.