Most troops lack real combat experience and are gears within the logistics of the imperialist machine known as the US military. They are no different from any other civilian worker, in which case, why roll out the red carpet for them? I know a vet whose entire service could be summed as being a warehouse worker in a base in Germany. We can find plenty of warehouse workers, some of them organized into unions, without having to specifically target vets.
The troops with actual combat experience are either serial killers who got off of committing warcrimes, drones who do as they’re fucking told which amounts to committing warcrimes, and normal people who are completely broken inside from PTSD because they were either forced to commit warcrimes or watch the first two groups commit warcrimes without doing anything to stop them.
The US soldier who simultaneously has substantial combat experience that they can pass down to civilians, doesn’t suffer from PTSD or any other ailments that would lead them to receiving help instead of giving help, and has been sufficiently radicalized to become a genuine anti-imperialist leftist, doesn’t exist in meaningful numbers, so none of our organizing should factor in what is essentially rounding error. If a unicorn vet who’s actually legit falls on our laps from the sky, great, but we shouldn’t structure our organizing to specifically target them.
And even for him, his military experience is being stuck in an aircraft carrier as a sailor. How much has his stuck-in-an-aircraft-carrier experience translate to on-the-ground organizing? It really doesn’t, certainly not enough that justifies the way many people make fools out of themselves by practically rolling out the red carpet for vets with almost no tacticalTM combat experience. Ball is cool for the other stuff he did. All his navy experience did was “introduced to an appreciation for reading and studying history,” presumably because serving in an aircraft carrier that never goes to port is mind-numbingly boring.
These are good points. Maybe this needs to be a separate thread at this point, but I’m wondering why in the past the only successful revolutionary movements required guys with guns and how the military differed in places like China to allow a revolution to happen? Is this a universal thing and we have to build forces from within, because honestly I see 99.9% of conrades will not, or should not, pick up a rifle anytime soon.
This is a US take so maybe things are different where you live.
Most troops lack real combat experience and are gears within the logistics of the imperialist machine known as the US military. They are no different from any other civilian worker, in which case, why roll out the red carpet for them? I know a vet whose entire service could be summed as being a warehouse worker in a base in Germany. We can find plenty of warehouse workers, some of them organized into unions, without having to specifically target vets.
The troops with actual combat experience are either serial killers who got off of committing warcrimes, drones who do as they’re fucking told which amounts to committing warcrimes, and normal people who are completely broken inside from PTSD because they were either forced to commit warcrimes or watch the first two groups commit warcrimes without doing anything to stop them.
The US soldier who simultaneously has substantial combat experience that they can pass down to civilians, doesn’t suffer from PTSD or any other ailments that would lead them to receiving help instead of giving help, and has been sufficiently radicalized to become a genuine anti-imperialist leftist, doesn’t exist in meaningful numbers, so none of our organizing should factor in what is essentially rounding error. If a unicorn vet who’s actually legit falls on our laps from the sky, great, but we shouldn’t structure our organizing to specifically target them.
You just made me think about how Dr Jared Ball is literally a 1 in a billion guy. They don’t make them like that very often, generally.
And even for him, his military experience is being stuck in an aircraft carrier as a sailor. How much has his stuck-in-an-aircraft-carrier experience translate to on-the-ground organizing? It really doesn’t, certainly not enough that justifies the way many people make fools out of themselves by practically rolling out the red carpet for vets with almost no tacticalTM combat experience. Ball is cool for the other stuff he did. All his navy experience did was “introduced to an appreciation for reading and studying history,” presumably because serving in an aircraft carrier that never goes to port is mind-numbingly boring.
These are good points. Maybe this needs to be a separate thread at this point, but I’m wondering why in the past the only successful revolutionary movements required guys with guns and how the military differed in places like China to allow a revolution to happen? Is this a universal thing and we have to build forces from within, because honestly I see 99.9% of conrades will not, or should not, pick up a rifle anytime soon.
This is a US take so maybe things are different where you live.