Why are soldiers treated with so much respect?

Saddam wasn't a nice guy, but those deaths are still laid on America's doorstep. I'm not saying that every Iraqi who died in the last 13 years died because of America's invasion, but the estimates of up to a million plus directly attribute those deaths to the conflict, deaths that otherwise would not have occurred.

 

Those deaths to the Iraq conflict. Much of the Iraq conflict was groups like the AQI using suicide bombers in civilian marketplaces and maiming civilians that had nothing to do with the U.S. military. The U.S. obviously is not innocent in the initial cause for the deaths and I am aware of the many civilian deaths at the hand of the U.S., but I simply do not think it is reasonable to lay every death at the feet of the U.S. in Iraq.

We are not sure such events would have never occured. We don't know that, we are dealing with an un-testable scenario. It is plenty possible a sectarian conflict could have broken out in Iraq in the coming years w/o any U.S. intervention in the first place leading to a multitude of deaths in Iraq. Saddam was not coup proof and plenty of attempts had already been made.

 

AQI is a direct result of the US invasion. No, the US didn't directly kill all of those people, but they are responsible for destabilizing the region and not implementing any clear plan for a power transition. The US created a power vacuum which AQI tried to fill. Those deaths weren't by American bullets, but they were by American lack of planning. You can bear a degree of responsibility for something even if you didn't pull the trigger.

I agree that it's an untestable scenario, but the fact that somebody might have done the same thing further on down the line doesn't make it okay when the US does it. If I shoot somebody who has a lot of people trying to kill him, I'm not absolved of murder.

 

That is incorrect. The AQI was originally called the JTJ (Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad) which was funded directly by Bin Laden and al-khadia. Zarqawi was the individual that was given the funds and was the founder of the JTJ and the likes of the AQI respectively. The JTJ was founded between 99-2001 with the original intent to train 2000-300 salafi terrorists. While this was its original incarnation, Zarqawi gave it a life of its own and AQI quickly rocketed to "stardom" with its very brutal and extremely sectarian methods that even the likes of al-khadia criticized. (source: my research for my future thesis; however, feel free to fact-check any of that). Now, what you could argue is that the Iraq invasion propelled the AQI to larger heights than they would have been w/o the Iraq invasion.

The U.S. further destabilized the region. Iraq invaded Kuwait 10 years prior and the U.S. kicked them out and Iraq was fighting Iran shortly before that. The region has not exactly been stable for quite sometime.

The U.S. created power vacuum was hardly a thing until the U.S. mostly backed out of Iraq. There was no power vacuum in early 2000s, the U.S. was there and in combat and militant groups were fighting back. Iraq became somewhat stable after the Sunni awakening (2007) and the AQI becoming the first iteration of the IS in 2007, was effectively pushed backed by the Sunni awakening (through alienating the own people they were trying to appeal to), and all but destroyed in 2010. IS may be the follow up of AQI (later called itself IS as well), but it was not directly due to the U.S.; rather, the Syrian civil war and the likes of the prime minister of Iraq (Marsi) severely alienating the Sunni population while also severely undermining his own military.

There was not a lack of planning on part of the U.S.; rather, a lack of coordination and the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and John Bremmer completely undermining the entirity of U.S.-Iraq relations. Iraq became a shit show due to poor plan implementation and the fact that the DOD was attempting to handle a mission that is the expertise of the state department. Rumsfeld and Bremmer fueled the insurgency in Iraq and this was not due to a power vacuum; rather, poor plan implementation and the U.S. shift from liberators to occupiers. There are also more specific aspects related to the insurgency mainly: suspension of interim government, the disbandment of the Iraqi military, and total de-ba'athification of the government. Not counting the U.S. could not feasibly help maintain peace in the country since we went in with only a handful of troops (over 100,000 less than suggested by the likes of the general of the air force) due to Rumsfeld.

A degree of the responsibility, not the brunt. I'm simply stating that the U.S. did not directly kill all those people.

I don't find that to be all-that-good of a comparison mainly due to the idea of a single murder and then terrorist activity in a fairly unstable region. I get what you're saying, I just don't find the butterfly effect a reasonable justification for laying absolutely everything at the U.S.'s feet. I do think they are responsible for an enormous amount, but I find everything to be a stretch.

 

Fair point. What I should have said is that AQI wouldn't have such a foothold in Iraq without the invasion.

When I say destabilized, I mean relatively. The US pushed it further along the path, yes.

Right, but the US still created the power vacuum. Whether they did it while there or caused it by leaving doesn't matter - it's still their fault.

Fair enough, but whether it's a lack of planning, or poor implementation, it had the same effect.

I never said they did. My original point was that I could never thank a member of the American military for, directly or indirectly, causing a situation that caused more people to die than otherwise would have.

I agree. I don't mean to absolve AQI and others of their role.

 

I don't feel that respected at all...

 

Boots on the ground keeping extremist from spreading Islam on the U.S main land period.

 

they do an unimaginable job nearly none of us would want to do lol thats respect

 

Can you be more specific with one or two examples?

If I sign up to be a logger, steel worker, or fisherman, do I get more respect? Because those are pretty unimaginable jobs very few of us would want to do.

 

they deserve it

 

Okay but WHY?

 

Because they have enlisted there time and life in order to help citizens in the country have a better life.

 

First, do you grant everybody who enlists in some service to better their country the exact same respect? The Peace Corps? The local volunteer firefighters group? The little old lady who walks around my neighbourhood picking up trash?

Second, to use the U.S. as an example, how the hell are soldiers stationed in Afghanistan helping your average U.S. citizen have a better life?

 

Because they have gone to battle to defend their country and their people. If someone put their lives in risk for you wouldn't you respect them appreciate them? This is what they do but a lot of people also don't see it this way and don't respect soliders. Think they are under respected imo.

 

I'm assuming you live in the U.S., please correct me if I'm wrong.

When do you think the last time U.S. soldiers fought to defend the country and its people?

 

i don't live in the us, a lot of soliders do fight to defend people and their country. WW2 british had voluntary soliders to defend their country and many other countries aswell.

 

Right now, soldiers are fighting to defend each and every country, not just U.S., but in a different way than what you think.

After 9/11, warfare tactics were reworked with the focus of preventing possible future tragedies, thus warfare is more tactical (Operation-based rather than battle-based) and sedetary (preventing terror/propaganda online, drone strikes on target sites)

People who say they feel secured and don't need no army seem to overlook the fact, that security is derived from having people enlisted and/or stationed somewhere. The "fighting" of the old days is gone, but the soldiers still deserve respect for being ready and preventing war on the vast seas of the internet.

 

Not all soldiers deserve respect but most of them do. However, politicians using them as pawns for shitty wars don't deserve any respect whatsoever.

 

If you're a member of a military only used for national defense, that makes sense, but what if you join the military knowing that you're attacking other countries without a just cause? I lose a lot of respect for people when I learn that they ever served in the U.S. military for that exact reason.

 

When someone joins the military just for the reason to go and kill people in a different country, I do not condone that at all. That is psychotic (only 15%-20% of military soldiers shoot with the intent to kill). And those you should not respect in the current modern world that we live in.

But somebody has to do that dirty work, in rare cases, to prevent an attack that could happen at your doorstep. Because after it happens, it becomes a tragedy and that cripples a country. So, whether it's a person who joined with a greater cause in mind or somebody who joined just with the intent to hunt and kill, they deserve at least a bit of respect for doing a job that is morally (PTSD) and physically difficult.