That's a bastardisation of loyalty though. Yes, people volunteer, because they are expected to.
What about speaking up about a situation that is going to get people killed? What about the people who didn't volunteer, where they fine with the whole thing as long as they weren't affected? Is the commander visiting his guys after years and year when they are dealing with PTSD?
The military selectively decides what part of these virtues that are valued. That's why I'm saying it's a cliché and I think it's a major contributor to "fucking people up".
> That's a bastardisation of loyalty though. Yes, people volunteer, because they are expected to.
It is pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. You know that you can dislike people in general, but still recognize positive qualities right? Here is another example: Sergeant Major Bradley Kasal. This guy used his own body as a bullet stop to protect his Marines, nobody expects that.
> What about speaking up about a situation that is going to get people killed?
There was a lot of that, we got it shut down at the eleventh hour.
> What about the people who didn't volunteer, where they fine with the whole thing as long as they weren't affected?
I didn't poll everybody, but I'm pretty confident in saying that nobody was fine with the situation. At lot of those guys were pretty torn between loyalty to their families, the guys that they'd just been in combat with and their fellow Marines in the artillery battalion. There were many private conversation had were they tried to talk volunteers out of it, and more than one anonymous letter to a General.
> Is the commander visiting his guys after years and year when they are dealing with PTSD?
Do you think that is practical? In their careers they will have commanded thousands of men. There is a strong bond though, for example: another personal story :) When I got out of the Corps I drove all the way across the country, for a job in DC. After a few days of searching, I found a basement apartment for rent - the landlord lived upstairs with his wife and toddler daughter. Purely by chance, the landlord was a Colonel in the USMC, and he instantly treated me like an old family friend - standing invitation to dinner, long conversation on the porch, etc. The wife was not a big fan of this, and I'm pretty sure my new buddy was constantly catching hell for it. Until one day, several months later, when I came home from work and found the front door wide open and heard panicked footsteps inside. Now this was in pretty much the worst part of DC, and I could have easily just made my way to my private entrance and ignored the possibility that the landlord was getting burgled. Instead, I began clearing the house room by room - armed with a paring knife from the kitchen. I gave the cleaning lady quite a shock, she had forgotten the alarm code and was rushing around trying to find it. I was sure that I'd get the boot for that, but instead I got a dinner invitation from the wife. The cleaning lady informed her of what happened, and it suddenly clicked for her - I was family.
> The military selectively decides what part of these virtues that are valued.
Again, spoken like somebody who has no idea what they're talking about. Outside of the philosophy department in college, I've never seen an organization focus as much on morality as the USMC. Of course, the perspective is that of the state. So any flaws you find in the logic of military morality will be rooted in the state, not the military.
"It is pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about."
That's no way to have a discussion. You clearly didn't either read or understand my previous comment. You should probably stick to speaking to your loyal colleges who has everything figured out.
Please explain to me how the US military isn't breaking their loyalty to their soldiers when more people die of suicide than was killed in action, when soldiers requesting psychological assistance (which is hard to do by itself) after carrying the bloody children left behind by a gunship just to hear that they should "suck it up" or when the soldiers with blisters from chemical weapons aren't believed their damages are real in a war that was supposedly about finding those kinds o weapons.
As long as the miliary's loyalty doesn't also encompass those scenarios, how is it not a bastardisation of the word?
> No, I don't understand you since you have no arguments.
Seems pretty clear to me:
1. You say that Captain Kudo's loyalty to his Marines is "mostly a cliché"
2. I disagree and provide personal examples (which isn't really necessary, because examples of loyalty among soldiers are pretty well known)
3. You say that I don't know what loyalty really is
> As long as the miliary's loyalty doesn't also encompass those scenarios, how is it not a bastardisation of the word?
Your definition of loyalty seems to require the meeting of impossible goals. The military would not be able to meet its obligations and also fully protect all soldiers. PTSD is an unavoidable reality that comes with the job, and the military has really made massive improvements in handling it in the last decade. There are plenty of examples that demonstrate failures, but that is true of every system that has ever existed.
Maybe you should provide an example of loyalty that meets your lofty definition of unfaltering perfection.
> Or maybe I should understand you by your lack of arguments?
Or the more obvious answer: We aren't going to come to agreement on anything because we can't agree on a definition for "loyalty".
I'm not a newbie, this isn't my first account. In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things. I'm also quite sure that the Marines can speak for themselves.
I'm being fairly civil, I don't appreciate people telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Especially when they in their previous statements have recognized their own bias in the form of "psychological conditioning".
"In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things."
Because as soon as they mention their profession, they stand out. Because they stand out it makes them a target. A lightening-rod to anyone who is looking to rant and let off steam about their POV, Ad-nauseam. @woodman has clearly answered your points. Marine & service men & women just want to be treated like everyone else, no more, no less. Polite, tactful, restrained, but won't back down. This is called bearing.
> In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things.
He is probably cautioning you against antagonizing Marines, because we'll resort to telling jokes about the Army, and quoting Eleanor Roosevelt. Nobody wants that.
> Especially when they in their previous statements have recognized their own bias...
Hmm, who to trust between two individuals - one who recognizes his own biases, or the other without such introspection?
What about speaking up about a situation that is going to get people killed? What about the people who didn't volunteer, where they fine with the whole thing as long as they weren't affected? Is the commander visiting his guys after years and year when they are dealing with PTSD?
The military selectively decides what part of these virtues that are valued. That's why I'm saying it's a cliché and I think it's a major contributor to "fucking people up".