There's another comment of mine down thread where I distinguish recruitment advertising from propaganda. That explains my point.
And the cost is not the issue. In fact due to how missions are structured I doubt flying over a football stadium is in any way net cost free.
I was treated great during all of my deployments, so were all of the various units I was attached too. Actually they made a huge effort to treat us better during the actual fighting than during any training. I mean, it's a war zone so no luxuries or anything, but overall my time deployed was my favorite time of my enlistment.
I don't know what you're talking about
Seems like the military is acting in the citizens best interest.
My idea of being behind troops is to not send them into a combat zone for the private interests of politicians, and participating in our democracy by educating oneself and voting. Or perhaps holding the elected officials to account for Veterans Affairs issues. Flying a flag and singing a song and giving someone a military discount have nothing to do with patriotism.
First: you make a false dichotomy: one can be behind troops without a hagiographic approach to discussing the military (or any subject). In fact the best way to support troopers is to keep them out of harm's way. Consider WWII in Europe: Eisenhower set the invasion a year later than the other allies wanted in order to manage the supply chain better (supporting the troops) and to make sure the real bleeding of the enemy was done by non-US troops. In terms of materiel and logistics, the US won the war in Europe; in terms of fighting, the Russians unquestioningly did. Excellent call by the US if you ask me.
Second: there are other means of being a superpower than military might (which is only one tool in the toolbox....and as history has shown, usually not the right one). If you don't criticize the military, how can you reasonably discuss tradeoffs between military intervention / negotiation / economic hegemony / ignoring the issue?
And I know it's just an HN comment, but the phrase "the military is acting in the citizens best interest" is worrisome on its face: the military should be under civilian control and thus acting in the interests the citizens have specified. The military is the organization that should act in its own interests the least since it has the weapons.
If you are serious, it's important to note that at the time of its founding, US law forbade the creation of a national military, precisely because of the fear of too much centralized control of lethal force.
In the centuries since, we've seen that this fear was very well founded. The founders did not want to prevent the US from having a strong military, but they wanted the rallying and dispatch of it to require significantly more consensus than even a super-majority vote from congress.
Imagine if the Iraq war had required even a super-majority vote... millions of lives would not have been lost. Imagine if the Vietnam war had required a super-majority vote how many more people would be alive today.
Knee-jerk use of power is arguably as American as a six shooter drawn quickly from the holster at the slightest provocation. Many associate this sort of hot-tempered use of force with power and machismo.
But is it really an indication of strength to rob the people of trillions of dollars for a folly in Iraq without true democratic approval? I'd argue that it's a sign of weakness and of failed checks and balances.
Anyway, how did you equate "military spending on propaganda" to mean that "the nation is behind the troops"? Obviously the nation is not behind them if they have to brainwash people into behaving a certain way.
That being said, I don't know how to respond. I disagree wholeheartedly. I don't think that the military acts with the best interest of most citizens.
We should just have military parades and drive our missiles and tanks around D.C. Just look how Russia and North Korea do it.
And sport is a private sector activity -- why should the government be involved?
Only US citizens should recite the pledge of allegiance. Non US citizens owe their loyalty to another country. But schools don't do that, because it would mean identifying US citizens.
I'm firmly convinced that no child, citizen or not, should engage in a daily ritual like that, especially not at school. The worst aspect of contemporary education -- not only in the US, but in many other countries -- is teaching through indoctrination. Instead of encouraging our kids to develop their critical thinking, our educational systems focus on making them learn by repetition and trust the authority.
These differences my seem subtle or even trivial, but history has shown that it is dangerous.
Note that in the US soldiers and other holders of the public trust swear to uphold the country's constitution, not its flag.
It all comes down to the order of primacy: the country, constitution, civil institutions, chain of command etc are all in service to the support of the citizenry not the other way around.
Individually and collectively perhaps, but not only the Republic.
Also, a lot of other countries don't have such extreme levels of jingoism, certainly not in Europe we don't. World War II taught us where such extreme patriotism leads. Trump is a natural and direct result of jingoism; but yet it continues.
Jingoism is alive and well in some parts of the UK print media.
I think you're thinking of the Soviet Union during WWII or the Cold War era.
It's been only one year for a decade or so.
In the past, the attitude toward conscripted service (rather than a career choice as a commissioned officer) was ranging from a nuisance to something to be avoided at all costs, depending on the class and region the conscript was from.
Now while it's considered as a nuisance by many, military service is also seen as a type of social elevator by others, particularly in the Caucusus. Drafts from Chechnya and Dagestan are generally oversubscribed and having to pay bribes to be conscripted is not uncommon [1].
There's absolutely nothing like the disturbing hero worship Americans have.
Seconded. Furthermore, the threshold for being considered a hero is very high. Being called a hero just for putting on the uniform is unthinkable.