Monday, May 29, 2006
Theory # 24: Soldiers
I wasn't going to write a Memorial Day post. In fact, I may not post this after I write it, but a couple of things made me want to write down my theory about soldiers.
First, there was an article in the KA (Kaiserslautern American--local military paper) quoting a statistic that said "ranked military personnel (officer and enlisted) are among the top 40 occupations likely to be involved in an accident and to receive speeding and moving violation citations." (and believe me, there'll be a post about statistics one of these days)
Second was an episode of 60 Minutes or something like that showing injured soldiers. I didn't watch the episode, but I gather it was similar to others I've seen, showing an idealized account of preternaturally upbeat saints.
Other popular images of soldiers are equally as false. A good friend, a savvy, intelligent person, asked me, at the start of the Iraq war, if the military in general wasn't happy about the prospect of going to war.
The misconceptions drive me up a wall, so here's what I think soldiers are like.
In general, I love soldiers. Not just because I was one, or because I'm married to one. Granted, the ones I know best are in the AMEDD (Army Medical Department), and that is a whole different army, but I think a lot of traits carry over.
Keep in mind that these are generalities only. The military is made up of people, of individuals, and there are always exceptions. They're also only my opinion and based only on my experience.
Categories: Theories
First, there was an article in the KA (Kaiserslautern American--local military paper) quoting a statistic that said "ranked military personnel (officer and enlisted) are among the top 40 occupations likely to be involved in an accident and to receive speeding and moving violation citations." (and believe me, there'll be a post about statistics one of these days)
Second was an episode of 60 Minutes or something like that showing injured soldiers. I didn't watch the episode, but I gather it was similar to others I've seen, showing an idealized account of preternaturally upbeat saints.
Other popular images of soldiers are equally as false. A good friend, a savvy, intelligent person, asked me, at the start of the Iraq war, if the military in general wasn't happy about the prospect of going to war.
The misconceptions drive me up a wall, so here's what I think soldiers are like.
In general, I love soldiers. Not just because I was one, or because I'm married to one. Granted, the ones I know best are in the AMEDD (Army Medical Department), and that is a whole different army, but I think a lot of traits carry over.
Keep in mind that these are generalities only. The military is made up of people, of individuals, and there are always exceptions. They're also only my opinion and based only on my experience.
- Honor, duty, country. That's the marines, right? But it holds true for other branches. There's a level of patriotism that the biggest flag-waver can't touch. Spouting platitudes is a far cry from actually serving your country. Interestingly, most servicemembers I know aren't overtly patriotic. I don't see a lot of flags on houses or quarters, very little red, white, & blue attire. It seems to be if you live it, you don't have to advertise it.
- Soldiers are not war-mongers. That's politicians. MacArthur's quote says it all: "The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war." Sure, they get hyped up when they deploy. How else are they going to do their jobs, and survive? And particularly in the combat arms field, there has to be a certain attraction to adrenaline--a pacifist poet couldn't do the job. But they're not starting the wars, and they're not all barely-restrained serial killers.
- Soldiers are not saints. They're human. Despite the rhetoric on TV, they're not happy to have their limbs blown off and their futures cut short.
- Despite reports of rape and sexual harrassment in the military, I've found a certain level of chivalry there. I know there are a lot of people who disagree with me on this one, but I was in the army, and was never once harrassed. Ever. I didn't have my head in the sand--I knew women who had sex with drill sergeants, who had men making crude comments to them, but they were not innocent victims. I don't know how better to explain this, but a woman who grabs a guy's crotch and makes a suggestive comment to him is not a victim if he makes suggestive comments or gropes her back. Yes, I know the rhetoric--I don't buy it. Women are not helpless. Also, the military is very vigilant on the topic, which accounts for high reporting levels. I'm not stupid--I know rape and true harrassment does occur, but I don't think it's any worse in the military than in the civilian world.
- Soldiers are young. I don't think people realize how very young they are. Most enlisted soldiers can retire from the military (though not retire-retire unless they've got some other source of income) before they're 40. Even officers aren't all that old. Promotion to field officer generally occurs in the mid-30s, full-bird colonel in the mid-40s. Someone in charge of hundreds of lives could be only in their 20s. It's a quick way to grow up, and a fast track to responsibility, but they're still young. And that accounts for a lot of the negatives--speeding and car accidents, for example.
- Soldiers are responsible. Yes, I should have put this up with Duty, honor, & country. But they get put in leadership positions very young, and that fosters a sense of responsibility. They're also forced to be responsible. The army holds them accountable for their behavior far beyond what a civilian employer would, or could. Drunk driving? Your career is on the line there. And don't even think about doing drugs. Commanders can and do require soldiers to attend parenting classes, anger management classes, drug & alcohol rehab, etc.
- Soldiers are physically fit. Probably goes without saying, but given the general level of fitness, or lack of it, in the general population, it's worth mentioning. They've got to take PT tests every 6 months, and pass weight &/or body fat standards. They're not, however, all bodybuilders like in the movies. There are always some on the "fat boy program" (nutrition counseling and exercise), and it's almost a cliche, at least in the AMEDD, that officers over a certain age are on permanent profile that keeps them from having to take PT tests (it's a point of pride in this house that Carl always does well on his PT tests). Still, compared to a cross-section of Americans, they're very fit.
- They're not soldiers just because they can't make it in the civilian world. Sure, some are, but fewer than you'd think. A doc who recently retired is staying on as a civilian contractor. Why? He's had non-military civilian offers, but, as he said, it's an opportunity to practice medicine without having to be a businessman as well. My husband is an environmental engineer. He was a project engineer as a young lieutenant, years before his classmates at Penn State were trusted to head their own projects. And he's had a much more varied career than he'd likely have had as a civilian.
- Soldiers are not paid to be killed. This is the one statement that's guaranteed to turn me into a raving lunatic: "they knew the risks when they signed on the dotted line." Or "that's what they're paid for." Or any statement resembling those two. They are paid--$250 a month--to be separated from their families, but it doesn't make up for it, and is not an excuse to withhold compassion. It's a nice comforting thing for civilians to think--a nice comfortable us vs. them attitude to make it okay not to care what happens to soldiers. But the thing is--us vs. them is all wrong.
- Soldiers are just human. Maybe taken as a group they're a little more patriotic than average, but mostly, they're just regular people who happen to wear camouflage to work, tend to move around a lot and get to work in exotic places, and sometimes have to be separated from their families, and sometimes get put in harm's way. But they're still just regular people. I wish more people would recognize that.
Categories: Theories
Labels: theories
Comments:
<< Home
There seems to be quite a lot of evidence of sexual harassment in the UK's army: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1783535,00.html
Also, what about the people who leave the military but have been badly affected by what happened to them while they were in service? Things like Gulf War Syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder?
It seems to me that it must be a job which does shape people in particular ways, not all of which will be positive. Events like those at Abu Ghraib and at Haditha http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1785027,00.html seem to me to demonstrate that there are some soldiers who are under a lot of stress, to the extent that they forget the rules of combat/treatment of prisoners and civilians.
Obviously only a minority of soldiers will be/are involved in things like this, but I do worry about it, and I wonder if the soldiers put into these extremely stressful situations have really all got the emotional resources to cope with it. As you say, some of them are very young and they're being given huge responsibility/power.
Hope I haven't offended you. I was trying to add to your list of 'impressions people have of the military', and I didn't think you'd touched on all of this. It is a tricky topic though, because you're in the military and so the subject is obviously one close to your heart.
Also, what about the people who leave the military but have been badly affected by what happened to them while they were in service? Things like Gulf War Syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder?
It seems to me that it must be a job which does shape people in particular ways, not all of which will be positive. Events like those at Abu Ghraib and at Haditha http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1785027,00.html seem to me to demonstrate that there are some soldiers who are under a lot of stress, to the extent that they forget the rules of combat/treatment of prisoners and civilians.
Obviously only a minority of soldiers will be/are involved in things like this, but I do worry about it, and I wonder if the soldiers put into these extremely stressful situations have really all got the emotional resources to cope with it. As you say, some of them are very young and they're being given huge responsibility/power.
Hope I haven't offended you. I was trying to add to your list of 'impressions people have of the military', and I didn't think you'd touched on all of this. It is a tricky topic though, because you're in the military and so the subject is obviously one close to your heart.
# posted by 
: 5/30/2006 2:59 PM
: 5/30/2006 2:59 PM
Nope, not offended at all. In fact, you kind of make my point--they are just people, and there's good and bad, and yes, the youth and stress combo is a dangerous one. I'm just tired of seeing the extremes touted as the norm.
"I'm just tired of seeing the extremes touted as the norm."
I think it happens to a lot of professions. Take lawyers, for example. Is the media portrayal of them fair? My father-in-law's a solicitor, mostly dealing with house sales and writing people's wills. It's not glamorous, he's scrupulously honest, and the job isn't very exciting. But that's not what you see on TV. With academics, you get portrayals of either mad boffins or lascivious lecturers. But that's not realistic either. Doctors - do they behave like they do in hospital series? Maybe occasionally and there are some nasty stats about them too, for example to do with alcohol abuse, because they can be under a lot of stress too, but I really don't think it's representative of the whole profession. And so on.
I suppose in romance there are rather a lot of SEALs. As you say, soldiers will tend to be physically fit. So there's a good excuse for another clinch cover (not that the art department needs an excuse - and why do regency heroes wander around bare-chested on cliff-tops, yet wearing a cloak? Sorry, off-topic ;-) ) I suppose the thing about SEALs, cowboys, business tycoons, regency rakes, vampires etc is that most people haven't met many of them (well, in the case of my last two examples, no-one has, I'd think) so it's easy to construct fantasies around them. And much as I prefer more realistic romances, most people seem to prefer to read about fantasies, where men are archetypes and women love them for it. It would be harder to make an office-worker into an archetypal fantasy-lover. So authors will probably tend to go for professions which (a) many of the readers don't know about, (b) which have elements of danger/physical fitness about them which appeal to readers and (c) help move the plot along.
I think it happens to a lot of professions. Take lawyers, for example. Is the media portrayal of them fair? My father-in-law's a solicitor, mostly dealing with house sales and writing people's wills. It's not glamorous, he's scrupulously honest, and the job isn't very exciting. But that's not what you see on TV. With academics, you get portrayals of either mad boffins or lascivious lecturers. But that's not realistic either. Doctors - do they behave like they do in hospital series? Maybe occasionally and there are some nasty stats about them too, for example to do with alcohol abuse, because they can be under a lot of stress too, but I really don't think it's representative of the whole profession. And so on.
I suppose in romance there are rather a lot of SEALs. As you say, soldiers will tend to be physically fit. So there's a good excuse for another clinch cover (not that the art department needs an excuse - and why do regency heroes wander around bare-chested on cliff-tops, yet wearing a cloak? Sorry, off-topic ;-) ) I suppose the thing about SEALs, cowboys, business tycoons, regency rakes, vampires etc is that most people haven't met many of them (well, in the case of my last two examples, no-one has, I'd think) so it's easy to construct fantasies around them. And much as I prefer more realistic romances, most people seem to prefer to read about fantasies, where men are archetypes and women love them for it. It would be harder to make an office-worker into an archetypal fantasy-lover. So authors will probably tend to go for professions which (a) many of the readers don't know about, (b) which have elements of danger/physical fitness about them which appeal to readers and (c) help move the plot along.
# posted by : 5/30/2006 4:18 PM
: 5/30/2006 4:18 PM
Great post, Darla. I suspect this is an accurate portrayal of the non-Iraq soldier, but given the stressors, sleep deprivation, and mission impossible over there, I think the profile of the Iraq soldier would differ significantly. More PTSD, more room for error.
# posted by : 5/30/2006 7:36 PM
: 5/30/2006 7:36 PM
Thank you for this post, Darla. My husband is a state trooper in Missouri, and while he doesn't leave home for extended periods, there are quite a few similarities between the military and domestic police [is that a proper term?]
I've noticed that a lot of people think cops are all egomaniacal jerks who want to make their lives miserable for exceeding the speed limit, but the truth is, my husband literally risks his life every time he puts on the uniform and goes out. And he does it because he wants to protect people, not torment them. I think that's the case for most police officers.
We have a disturbing tendency to generalize in the US [maybe all humans do it]. I always try to remember that first and foremost, we are all just human, and most of us are truly good people.
Missouri lost four troopers last year [we have between 800-900 on the road in the state] and that was horrible for me. I'd never met any of them, but they all had young children about the same age as mine.
One was murdered in his driveway, and one died in a car accident, but two of them died because people weren't paying attention to what they were doing. They weren't drunk, just careless, and that is something I think about every time my husband pulls out of the driveway.
I can't imagine what it must be like for military families whose loved ones are deployed. That whole 'they knew what they were getting into' crap makes me crazy, too. Every life lost is a human being who somebody loved and depended on, and that's something no one should try to minimize.
I have nothing but respect for members of the military and their families. I am saddened when I hear of abuses, but I would never generalize and say that every soldier/lawyer/cop/doctor/priest etc. is bad, because it just isn't true.
Sorry for taking up so much room in your comments, Darla. I hope this ramble made some sense!
I've noticed that a lot of people think cops are all egomaniacal jerks who want to make their lives miserable for exceeding the speed limit, but the truth is, my husband literally risks his life every time he puts on the uniform and goes out. And he does it because he wants to protect people, not torment them. I think that's the case for most police officers.
We have a disturbing tendency to generalize in the US [maybe all humans do it]. I always try to remember that first and foremost, we are all just human, and most of us are truly good people.
Missouri lost four troopers last year [we have between 800-900 on the road in the state] and that was horrible for me. I'd never met any of them, but they all had young children about the same age as mine.
One was murdered in his driveway, and one died in a car accident, but two of them died because people weren't paying attention to what they were doing. They weren't drunk, just careless, and that is something I think about every time my husband pulls out of the driveway.
I can't imagine what it must be like for military families whose loved ones are deployed. That whole 'they knew what they were getting into' crap makes me crazy, too. Every life lost is a human being who somebody loved and depended on, and that's something no one should try to minimize.
I have nothing but respect for members of the military and their families. I am saddened when I hear of abuses, but I would never generalize and say that every soldier/lawyer/cop/doctor/priest etc. is bad, because it just isn't true.
Sorry for taking up so much room in your comments, Darla. I hope this ramble made some sense!
Laura: Yes, exaggerated stereotypes are common for a lot of professions. This is my little public service post. On an email list a long time ago, we had a thread about that: everyone posted what they wanted other people to know about their jobs. It was very enlightening.
Doug: Ah, but they started out as regular ordinary people. No question that a lot of them come back changed.
Shelbi: Thanks for rambling! There are a lot of similarities, and police officers have my respect as well, as do their families. The stresses might not be identical, but they're more the same than they are different.
Doug: Ah, but they started out as regular ordinary people. No question that a lot of them come back changed.
Shelbi: Thanks for rambling! There are a lot of similarities, and police officers have my respect as well, as do their families. The stresses might not be identical, but they're more the same than they are different.
I agree with this 100%: Drunk driving? Your career is on the line there. And don't even think about doing drugs. Commanders can and do require soldiers to attend parenting classes, anger management classes, drug & alcohol rehab, etc.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 12/29/2006 6:27 PM
: 12/29/2006 6:27 PM << Home
