We thank the troops, but for what?

You are right in that the military is an instrument of the U.S. government, but the military, in order to function properly, must be unanimous. Instead of questioning the military we might have better luck question policy from D.C., which is basically the point of democracy. We should always say "thank you," to our service men because they are doing what our democratically elected government has told them to do. We need the military, not to force our beliefs on other people or to parade our might internationally, but to protect U.S. citizens from external threats. Increasingly, however, we as a country have taken it upon ourselves through various acts of legislation to also protect the citizens of various countries mostly because instability in any international market can have profound effects on America and American citizens. To say "thank you," is the least a person can do for a service member who has done everything he could to protect our way of life, which like it or not, may include policy decisions with which many people do not agree.

Aaron I recommend you retake your high school civics course. The military is one of the few great American institutions that is actually neutral. A little research will show you that many service members, especially high profile ones, have gone to great lengths to remain politically neutral.

"It has wrought enormous violence and destruction on the world." Sounds like you lifted this from a Writing the Essay paper. The sacrifices of the US military have provided us freedom from the British Crown, ended the Civil War, ended two World Wars, and have provided unfathomable amounts of human aid to those in need.

Being in the military is arduous; the pay is low, training never ends, and deployments are long. Yet still millions of Americans make a choice to spend the best years of their life in uniform to help their countrymen.

You thank them because they're willing to risk their life for you, yes you Aaron. Do service members think your an idiot for writing this article? Do they feel outrage at your editors for publish this? Would they like to punch you? Probably a resounding YES on all accounts. Despite this the only action they'll take is to keep on moving with their mission.

I knew this article would get slammed by commentators, and while it was a bit of a rant, I commend the author for having the courage to express this controversial position. Unfortunately most people, like Eric above, still have this deluded view that the military protects us personally and that as an institution it is above all criticism.

What I find hard to believe is this: many people think the war in Iraq is unjust and a violation of international law, and yet refuse to criticize the military in any way for its execution. In every community, there is constant talk of how locals in the armed forces are heroes and how one must constantly do nice things for them. Local businesses flout "We Support Our Troops" stickers on their front doors; supermarkets donate a dollar or more from every purchase for charities that send care packages to the troops (often regardless of the customer's wishes), school events are crammed with activities such as making cards for the soldiers and so on. Inherent in every "act of kindness" for the troops is the sentiment that "those unfortunate people are risking their lives everyday and deserve a nice gesture."

All this would be understandable if there was still a draft and 18-21 year olds were rounded up by the thousands and sent to fight regardless of whether they wanted to or not. In fact, I find it sad that people spat on Vietnam vets who often had no choice about the matter. But with a purely voluntary recruitment policy, that kind of sympathy is no longer valid. These folks joined the military knowing full well that they may well be sent to fight in a dangerous and unpopular war. (For all I know, they joined so that they may partake in the execution of the US's almost globally despised foreign policy). By carrying out the execution of said wars, which kill hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians, they are automatically guilty by association of crimes against humanity.

The prisoner abuses at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib are but two examples of exactly what is wrong with an America that is in love with its military. Claiming the role of world police does not mean the US military has a legitimate claim to that role. Unfortunately, in my opinion, every person who has every fired a gun or driven a tank for the military disqualifies him/herself from earning respect from anyone who believes in human dignity. Use of force to "win hearts and minds" does not endear the average soldier to anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I don't see why anyone should support them either.

In closing, I would like to quote JFK: "War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today." Unfortunately that day does not seem any closer thanks to the idolatry and hero-worship that servicemen and women enjoy today.

As a writer and columnist, it is Aaron's duty to inform and he is really good at that. He covers topics that a lot of writers won't touch and I commend him for that. I'm always amazed at the insight he provides. In this particular piece, I couldn't help but wonder about what we don't know. Aaron tells about the various places/missions our military is currently engaged in, and at the same time, I'm sure we have a presence in places we don't even know about. He never ceases to educate and bring things to light. My message to his critics is "Don't shoot the messenger!"

Eric,
Citizens fought the British Crown.
Citizens fought each other in the Civil War.
Citizens fought for unions.
Citizens fought for womens sufferage.
Citizens fought for civil rights.
Citizens are fighting for gay rights.