Irony?

[SimonS]

Biden pulled the US Forces out of Afghanistan because the cost, in lives, was too high.

In the 20 years they were there the US falatalies, military and civilian contractors ,totalled 4000.

in 2021 so far , in the US there have been in excess of 31,000 deaths by gun violence (14000 homicides/murders/ unintentional, 17000 suicides) and 28000 wounded.

It's admitted that a substantial number of the suicides are ex-forces unable to make the adjustment back to 'peace'.

There's almost a case for complaint from the forces that by bringing them out of a warzone, their lives have been made more dangerous or perhaps for running a constant wargamer area, like some dystopian story, where the weapons are non-lethal and the intention is rehabilitation.

SimonS

[bungeejumper]

There's almost a case for complaint from the forces that by bringing them out of a warzone, their lives have been made more dangerous or perhaps for running a constant wargamer area, like some dystopian story, where the weapons are non-lethal and the intention is rehabilitation.

It's more than just a case. When UK troops were first withdrawn from Iraq, the number of dreadful road accidents on Salisbury Plain went up dramatically. It was mainly down to squaddies with PTSD who'd become used to driving like bats out of hell in combat situations - or who were simply addicted to taking life-or-death risks and didn't know how to break the habit. I also read somewhere that one in six returning servicemen had been arrested for beating somebody up - usually their wives and girlfriends.

I'm not convinced that any of this amounts to a case for complaint about their having been withdrawn from combat. But it does raise questions about the rehab which so many of them have clearly needed.

BJ

[UncleEbenezer]

Chicken and egg. In a society where wartime conscription has passed into history, who signs up for state-sponsored violence in the first place? We should not be surprised if the military get a disproportionate number of those naturally inclined to serious violence. I've heard said that in the US, military service is sometimes offered as an alternative to prison for crimes of violence. I haven't heard that of the UK, but it seems at least plausible that individuals might be guided towards an outlet for aggression. The army, at its best, instils comradeship and discipline that relieves and channels the latent aggression of a would-be violent thug, but (as with prison) where does that leave them coming out of that regime?

As for how many innocent Afghans were killed by the occupiers and as collateral consequences of the occupation, I doubt we'll ever have reliable numbers. But they're the innocent victims in this.

[SimonS]

Chicken and egg. In a society where wartime conscription has passed into history, who signs up for state-sponsored violence in the first place? We should not be surprised if the military get a disproportionate number of those naturally inclined to serious violence. I've heard said that in the US, military service is sometimes offered as an alternative to prison for crimes of violence. I haven't heard that of the UK, but it seems at least plausible that individuals might be guided towards an outlet for aggression. The army, at its best, instils comradeship and discipline that relieves and channels the latent aggression of a would-be violent thug, but (as with prison) where does that leave them coming out of that regime?

As for how many innocent Afghans were killed by the occupiers and as collateral consequences of the occupation, I doubt we'll ever have reliable numbers. But they're the innocent victims in this.

1) The UK military spent most of its time in civilian type activities for decades. The last 2 decades have been taken up by Blair's foray into Legacyland, trying to make the US beholden to us for supporting them in their requirement to go to war in Iraq. People did not join to go to war but because the Forces offered a structured society with adventure sports thrown in. In the time before Extreme Sports it was often the easiest / only way to experince lots of things people now pay money (sometimes serious money) to enjoy.

2) The Forces have changed their nature drastically, to the point where some people in the service believe that the security of the country is at risk.Politicians who often have no experience of what is involved prefer to spend the money on buttering up their voters (which is after all how they get their perks in the first place) have no qualms about sending people whom they imagined 'joined up to commit state sponsored violence' and are therefore unworthy of consideration as humans into frequent and risky situations involving harm, The size of the Services has dropped as well. A friend who joined the Navy in '67 recently went back to Dartmouth for a reunion. Despite the five decades and a noticeable loss of contemporaries, the survivors numbered more than the entire intake of new officers for the current year! Some ridiculous percentage of the current intake will spend a large part of their careers on only two ships, the carriers, because of the distortion these vanity projects have made to the RN. Another friend currently in the Army has racked up more conflicts each year than seems reasonable. This year has seen Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali and Chad.

3) Unlike Prison, the Services insist on education and teaching useful trades, many of which translate into commercially saleable and desirable attributes. They insist on teamwork, discipline, excellence and some useful management skills, planning, project management and human resources for example. Some modern company management staff would not get far in the services, because while the number of incidents has declined, one only gets one chance to avoid being fragged (comparatively popular in VietNam for REMFs who disdained their people.

4) It has been estimated that as far as US forces were concerned, one in 5 took part in illegal abuses of military power. So much so that the President gave a pre-emptive pardon to the mercenaries they hired to avoid the services getting tarred with unacceptable. So when Abu Ghraib hit the fan, the military stopped running it and the mercs took over completely unaccountably.
But one has to consider who was at fault; was it the people who carried out the activities, the people who ordered the activities or the people who elected the politicians who oversaw the activities?