Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
"What Do We Call Them Again?" A Guest Post by Joel Smith and Mike Stinetorf
I have been busy for the past several days and have neglected the blog. I had meant to cross-post this Victoria Fontan offering, for example, on Carl Prine's blog but will instead link to it here and recommend you all read it.
I also want to give some space for a guest post from Joel Smith and Mike Stinetorf*, who work on our "Joining Forces" initiative here at CNAS. As these two guys have worked on issues related to active-duty servicemen veterans, they have run up against the question of what, exactly, we should call veterans of these recent campaigns and want some feedback from this blog's readership. Take it away, guys.
***
The U.S. military mission in Iraq is over and the war in Afghanistan (our involvement, anyway) is scheduled to end in 2014. As we transition out of the longest war in U.S. history, it is clear many questions remain, including the legacy of those who are serving during this period. What is not clear, however, is what we should call these individuals.
What do we call “the other 1%?” Is there an appropriate term for those who currently serve?
The most obvious place to look would be to the military itself. But, in an institution that prides itself on using more than its fair share of jargon, the military has a plethora of terms to describe its people: service members, service men and women, soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coasties, uniformed personnel, warriors, wounded warriors, warfighters, troops, grunts, officers, NCOs, commanders and the list goes on. Throw in a little civilian vernacular, and you get terms such as “hero.”
The media uses these terms interchangeably, often without knowing their meanings. “Troops” is perhaps the most over-used of them all; it seems neither the American public nor the media know the true meaning of the word, which refers to Army enlisted. There is an on-going debate regarding the usage of the term “hero;” the President used it (as well as “troops” and “men and women in uniform”) in his most recent State of the Union address. “Warrior” is also not a word that meets with common understanding or approval, and some in uniform do not believe they are warriors.
When we talk about the military community at large, what do we call the OEF/OIF era service member? Is “service member” sufficient and accurate albeit a bit bulky? Is “hero” an inclusive term or reserved for those who have performed extraordinary acts in uniform? Who or what is a “warfighter,” or a “warrior?” Do we differentiate between those who participate in combat and those who serve in other ways during a time of war? Is there an accurate word that journalists and historians can and should use to get it right?
As we attempt to understand this era and these wars, addressing these basic questions should be done with dignity, respect and perhaps above all else, accuracy.
*Joel is the son of a chaplain in the U.S. Army and has the good sense to date a girl from East Tennessee. Mike served as a U.S. Marine in Iraq and recently graduated from Dartmouth College. He was played by this dude on television.
I was so hoping this post was
I was so hoping this post was going to be a Little Mermaid reference.
*sigh*
@dongomezjr
Personally, I favor
Personally, I favor "brosephs".
Use to be we knew who we
Use to be we knew who we were, now we don't anymore. Throw in the unisex services and we are taxed for a clue.
No matter what it is, the future will change it. The label should come from within.
Well I read it, now what do I
Well I read it, now what do I do with with it?
What Victoria Fontan mentioned has been addressed and is just part of the past. I have no feelings about it either way.
The Iraqi's have been given everything and they have everything to lose, the only injustice left is if the Iraqis choose to keep fighting with themselves. I have all the confidence in the world that they will. They have only themselves to blame now.
I got rid of Iraq, and I do not what it back.
"An Iraqi Benedict
"An Iraqi Benedict Arnold"
Fortunately, Afghan culture allows for reconcilliation, so we won't be reading these kind of stories in 2015. In fact, it's already begun:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16821218
"Despite Nato's strategy to secure the country with Afghan forces, the secret document details widespread collaboration between the insurgents and Afghan police and military."
What should journalists do
What should journalists do if, in the course of writing an article, they deal with different types of army personnel? I have the feeling that constantly changing terms might be accurate, but would alienate some readers who might not know what, precisely, the writer is referring to.
I'm torn between accuracy and outreach here.
I've always preferred
I've always preferred veteran. Even after I left the peace-time army in 2000, I liked the term veteran, but I made sure people didn't confuse me with a war veteran. Now that I'm an OIF vet and a current TPU soldier in the Army, I still like veteran. I don't see why this era's war veterans need to distinguish themselves from other era's vets.
I highlight being an OIF
I highlight being an OIF veteran on my resume. Leadership in combat is experience that (I hope) employers recognize as relevant to my qualifications.
Outside of the futile job hunt, I make no effort to inform anyone that I am a veteran. It is not due to a lack satisfaction in my service or fond memories of my comrades. It is because we have been glorified, politicized, and portrayed as victims. We are heroes to some, neglected by our government to others, and, to some, we are depressing pawns in someone else's chess game. I want no part of that.
At a young age, I wanted to fight bad guys. I had the good fortune of being an Army Officer at a time when our country decided that the bad guys would be fought. Throughout my service, and since it ended, I marveled at the fact that I was generously compensated for something that I would happily have done in exchange for just food and shelter.
My status as a veteran is a reminder that I had the good fortune of serving in the military. My status as a combat veteran is a reminder that I am extremely fortunate, in that I had the opportunity to lead incredible men when their country called upon them to do something very challenging.
There is something distasteful about people who are extremely fortunate and wave that good fortune in everyone's face. I am extremely fortunate to have served as an Army Officer in a time of war. It strikes me as distasteful to use that good fortune to seek out sympathy, admiration, or excessive entitlements from others, or to support those who do.
I haven't figured out how to say "I'm a veteran" without people hearing "you owe me." It is not because I am completely lacking in eloquence. It is because much of our country has a very unhealthy view of military service, at the moment.
I would prefer that we simply "call them" by their names.
My status as a combat veteran
This writing is something I really marvel at. I can understand the mentality behind it, but still, it seems a marvel to me. This is because I am not an American.
I served my conscription in a small European country and was demobilized with an officer's rank. Since then, I've been regularly participating in peace-time exercises. Not once during this time have I yearned for a chance to be in actual combat with my men. Instead, that is a grave chance against which one should be prepared, a terrible burden that one must be able to shoulder, should the worst happen.
Now I really see how an officer of another army thinks that having been in combat is a fortunate experience. I think there is a clear difference here: If I were activated in earnest, I would be leading men in combat in a war zone that would include my home and family. And the enemy would have, even in the best of scenarios, a very large overpower. It is quite different for those who are fortunate enough to get their combat experience thousands of kilometers from home. For me, not having combat experience is a fortune I relish every time I take off my uniform. And I really hope I never will.
And about the main topic: where I come from, you are usually called "hero" only when they are talking about the "heroic death", i.e. KIA.
This leads me to think about
This leads me to think about all those National Guard videos that were played a few years ago in movie theaters nationwide. I remember Kid Rock singing about the National Guard as "Warriors" and wonder if that's necessarily how they would conceive of themselves (as opposed to 3 Doors Down's video, "Citizen-Soldier").
validated But if your head or
validated But if your head or your body is hit unexpectedly hard,or has a sudden impact, your brain can suddenly crash into your skull and temporarily stop working normally
"It is because we have been
"It is because we have been glorified, politicized, and portrayed as victims. We are heroes to some, neglected by our government to others, and, to some, we are depressing pawns in someone else's chess game. I want no part of that."
Very well said, Visitor 1:55.
Add your comment