Comments on: Soldier v. Warrior http://www.notquitecenter.com/2009/01/14/soldier-v-warrior/ Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:37:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Centrist http://www.notquitecenter.com/2009/01/14/soldier-v-warrior/#comment-283 Centrist Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:45:01 +0000 http://www.notquitecenter.com/?p=173#comment-283 One more comment on this: did no one proofread this Warrior's Creed? "I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States...." Am I deploying the enemies? Or am I only engaging and destroying them? Or is engage being used as an intransitive verb here? How about ""I stand ready to deploy and to engage and destroy the enemies of the United States...." Just a bur under the saddle of a grammar policeman. One more comment on this: did no one proofread this Warrior’s Creed? “I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States….” Am I deploying the enemies? Or am I only engaging and destroying them? Or is engage being used as an intransitive verb here? How about “”I stand ready to deploy and to engage and destroy the enemies of the United States….”

Just a bur under the saddle of a grammar policeman.

]]> By: Centrist http://www.notquitecenter.com/2009/01/14/soldier-v-warrior/#comment-282 Centrist Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:42:27 +0000 http://www.notquitecenter.com/?p=173#comment-282 Dustin, thanks for your comment. Part of it reinforces the twisted nature of the situation. Bringing "marketing" into a decision that should be based on morality, duty, love of country, an appreciation for life and death, and a personal decision on what's worth killing for cheapens the military. Is it just another opportunistic American corporation doing what it must to stay afloat? And the fact that we don't expect our 18-22 year-olds with the power to kill in their hands to think scares me. So the military is using glitzy, romanticized marketing to attract people who won't think and question? Do we as Americans want this? I agree that the battle where the enemy doesn't wear a uniform is more prone to cause psychological problems. But I also think that beyond that, trying to dehumanize a human opponent messes with the fundamental moorings of mind and spirit. "Doctor, my eyes / Cannot see the sky / Is this the prize for having learned how not to cry?" Dustin, thanks for your comment. Part of it reinforces the twisted nature of the situation. Bringing “marketing” into a decision that should be based on morality, duty, love of country, an appreciation for life and death, and a personal decision on what’s worth killing for cheapens the military. Is it just another opportunistic American corporation doing what it must to stay afloat?

And the fact that we don’t expect our 18-22 year-olds with the power to kill in their hands to think scares me. So the military is using glitzy, romanticized marketing to attract people who won’t think and question? Do we as Americans want this?

I agree that the battle where the enemy doesn’t wear a uniform is more prone to cause psychological problems. But I also think that beyond that, trying to dehumanize a human opponent messes with the fundamental moorings of mind and spirit.

“Doctor, my eyes / Cannot see the sky / Is this the prize for having learned how not to cry?”

]]> By: Dustin http://www.notquitecenter.com/2009/01/14/soldier-v-warrior/#comment-281 Dustin Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:39:39 +0000 http://www.notquitecenter.com/?p=173#comment-281 Soldier, warrior, whatever. It's a marketing scheme at best. The boots on the ground tend to be 18-22 years old, not typically the ones with the ability to think critically about the conflicts that they are engaged in. That's what the officer corp is for. As for the Iraq/WWII comparison, I believe that is more a product of the type of battles we fight today versus 60-some years ago. Our opponent is no longer a nation from which we can expect compliance to the rules of war. Different wars, not "soldier" vs. "warrior," are what bring our troops home with more issues. Then again, perhaps we had similar rates of depression, et al after WWII and it's just a better media that highlights all of these issues today. Soldier, warrior, whatever. It’s a marketing scheme at best. The boots on the ground tend to be 18-22 years old, not typically the ones with the ability to think critically about the conflicts that they are engaged in. That’s what the officer corp is for.

As for the Iraq/WWII comparison, I believe that is more a product of the type of battles we fight today versus 60-some years ago. Our opponent is no longer a nation from which we can expect compliance to the rules of war. Different wars, not “soldier” vs. “warrior,” are what bring our troops home with more issues.

Then again, perhaps we had similar rates of depression, et al after WWII and it’s just a better media that highlights all of these issues today.

]]>