Propaganda and glorification of the US Military

Post Reply New Topic

This is something that's been on mind for a while and I wanted to talk about it.

I want to make it clear that this is a discussion about the politics surrounding the US military, and is not meant to disrespect or attack individuals who serve in said military.

It has become commonplace in the US to glorify the military and wars. This is seen from depictions in popular cultural to everyday language surrounding military service. I even take some issue with the word "serve" itself being reserved exclusively for the military; why do we never acknowledge teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers, first responders, or engineers as serving their country? The reality is that the US military engages in enforcing US imperialism far more frequently than doing anything which protects the American public.

We are often told that the military "protects our freedoms", but how often is that true IRL? When was the last time the US actually fought a truly defensive? When was the last time a battle was fought against an enemy invading US soil? It is always the US invading other countries. The Bush administration swore up and down for years that they had evidence that Iraq possessed WMDs. But then after Iraq was invaded and it was made clear that no such WMDs had ever existed they faced no consequences. They said their goal was to liberate the Iraqi people from tyranny, but their action only resulted in an even larger humanitarian crisis. And that was their game all along. It always has been.

Operation: Iraqi Freedom created a power vacuum that allowed ISIS to rise and take over. The US could have taken steps to end ISIS before it got a foothold, but stood by and allowed them to take over Iraq instead. Obama's excuse was that he didn't want to be perceived as taking a side in the Sunni-Shia conflict; but the truth is that the White House wanted them to become a threat big enough to justify more excessive military spending.

The American Military Industrial complex exists to create wars to profit from. This is what their game has always been: create rogue states and terrorists that can be used as "boogy men" to scare the American public to support more wars in foreign lands. For decades the threat of the Russians and the "Red Scare". But once the Cold War ended, they needed a new boogy man. And Muslims fit the bill perfectly. This is how the system works: create some scarry threat to justify going to war to "protect our freedoms". Then in the course of that war we bomb civilians.

"Acceptable losses" is what they like to call them, justifying the killing of children as necessary for the greater good. What I would like to ask out military leaders is this: what if it was your loved one who was deemed an "acceptable loss"?! What is it was your father? Or your baby girl? Would they be an acceptable loss to you? Because every man, woman, and child killed by American bombs is somebody's loved one. And what do you think happens when you tell someone that their mother, their brother, their child was an "acceptable loss" in the grander scheme of the great American war machine? That is how terrorists are born. And make no mistake: this is completely deliberate; the Military Industrial Complex needs to keep creating more boogy men to justify more wars and more military spending. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Back in the 1980's, it was the US who supplied arms to Saddam Hussein back when he was our ally against Iran, and the Mujahidin when they were our allies against Russia. It was the US who created Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. And none of it was by accident.

But now let's talk about the propaganda the American people have been unsuspectingly being fed for nearly a century at this point. For the Americans on here: think about all the military recruitment ads we've been seeing all our lives. We're always shown images of strength and patriotism. Slogans about being strong, proud, and capable. But how many times have any of these ads shown us the dangers faced by soldiers? How many times have these ads shown us gun fire or explosions? How many times did they show us how soldiers die?

Why is 18 not old enough to drink a beer, yet old enough to die in a war? Think about it: how often have you seen any 18-year-old make an intelligent well-thought-out decision? So why do you think the military recruits soldiers at such a mentally immature age? Is it because they don't want young people to think things through? Could it be that the military and government doesn't want to give young people the time to carefully think about what they are singing up for? The military is allowed to go into schools and recruit minors to agree to enlist even before they turn 18. Does this bother nobody???

tl,dr

Every country’s military is the physical extension of its political system.

If you were a veteran, you would understand this.

So if you intervene, you’re fuelling the military industrial complex by starting a war… but if you don’t intervene, you’re fuelling the military industrial complex by allowing a threat to grow?

The result is the toxic brew of cynicism, mistrust, and “conspiracy theories” that defines American politics. Things that should be trusted are viewed as nefarious.

I recall in the past watching some like war movies, where of course the U.S soldiers were depicted as hereos and the enemy less so. I think it was Saving Private Ryan or something, but in that movie it had some good parts I thought kind of depecting a platoon leader and ptsd symptoms getting to him. But it also had some gross stuff, like one scene showed germans surrendering and the americans shooting them anyways. Or another point where they used a flame-thrower or something and got some of the german forces on fire with it and when the soldiers were going to shoot them down their leader suggested to hold fire to just let them burn to death and suffer more than they would with a bullet putting them out of the misery.

I was legitimately disgusted by those parts in the movie. Like if enemies legit surrender seems really f*cked up to shoot them anyways. And ordering troops to not shoot burning enemies and let them suffer more, also seemed gross and wrong. LIke for me 'the americans are the good guys' narrative of such movies did not make the atrocities they were depicted committing any less bad to me. Just made me question if there even was a legit good side because evidence seems to suggest both sides acted disgustingly.

*also just read the rest of your post and I agree with you. For sure the young age military recruitment bothers me quite a bit to. For sure not old enough to drink a beer but old enough to die a violent death beause some a**hole recruiter pressured you to join up...yeah that is messed up.

last week, the new German chancellor - so far only notable for several allegations of corruption, for which there were investigations, in one of which he just didn't answer any questions and sat there, mute, for minutes - announced there would be an expansion of the military budget by 100 billion Euros.

That's quite remarkable in itself, but it should be looked at in context: the US, and by extension, the West, have had an abysmal track record over the last generation. The public doesn't want its governments to go to war. That's bad, because to uphold an empire, you have to defend its borders, or at least throw enemies into chaos, like the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars weren't lost, in the sense that: those countries are wrecked for a generation or two.

Putin is serving as a good opportunity to turn public opinion and buy some new guns, while it's at the same time clear the Germans will not use them against Putin - if Putin moved any further west, he'd be attacking Nato, and with it, American nukes.
In turn, no one is going to attack Russia head on either, because nukes.
The way the Ukrainians are stylized into a freedom loving, democratic up-and-coming economy feels incredibly weird, given that a few months ago, they were mainly famous for being very far up on the list of the most corrupt governments in the world, and only a few years ago had a very strong fascist party - which since has lost some of its strength.
That's not a justification for Putin attacking, and I am not trying to justify his crimes.

but the whole situation is leading the Western public to support military spending "against Russia".
Who will they go to war against, really, in the coming decade? China? Iran?

or just against some refugees, drowning in the mediterranean, fleeing some war the West did not get into because it wasn't connected to any of the West's interests?

TL;DR

I'll say this, whenever I hear someone say "I served", I pause and think about whose interests they actually "served". Especially if that is followed by "thank you for your service" from someone else.

For the most part it's just people who have been used by those in charge, and the special interests that motivate them.

At the time they raked Trump over the coals for those remarks. Since the invasion began I have seen those remarks brought back up a lot.

Should we honor and respect people who put their lives on the line for our country? Of course! But is everyone who has ever served beyond reproach, solely based on that service? I think not, as plenty of the fascistic cretins who had taken part in the January 6th riot had been former military. They are as fallible as anyone else, and need to be called out when they do something knuckle headed or hateful.