@fourofswords
"As far as ISIS/ISIL, thanks pangloss for telling me what they stand for. There simply aren't enough simple facts shared on the news. And yes, if somehow Hitler had gained influence in the US, our freedoms would have disappeared. This is certain."

I am unable to tell if you are being sarcastic or not. If you are being sincere, then I will ask you to explain precisely how our freedoms would have disappeared. Would Hitler have required a suspension of the Constitution? How would this be enforced?

@wjessop
"Remembrance is for all conflict, all lives lost. That's the official view of the UK government and the Ministry of Defence."

Cool. But I'm specifically talking about the argument that I should remember all these lives lost because these soldiers died defending my freedom.

@orathaic, I'm not sure that you're disagreeing with me.

@"I'm sorry you don't understand, but given our past interactions, I suspect you don't actually care and are just looking to waste my time. This conversation is considered resolved. "

Wow, just wow. Clearly i don't actually care, or i wouldn't have posted four times In.A.Row. addressing most of the previous responces on the thread.

That is the sign of a person who doesn't care.

I did some research and worked out that the Irish army is aproximately 6-10 times less deadly to it's own combatants than the US (counting from the 1946) which kinda disproved the point i was trying to make...

Clearly i have no interest in actual discussion.... You might aswell mute me.

Soldiers sacrifice for each other. The sacrifice should be viewed as more than death. The sacrifice is, at a minimum, the adherence to the accomplishment of a given mission whether it be in war or something less sexy. Dying to accomplish a given mission would represent the maximum. Between the minimum and the maximum also lies the sacrifice of time, morals, family, opportunities, relationships, etc. The self righteous pomp isn't what is important. The glorification of death isn't either. What is important is that a small % of people trust their country and make the above mentioned sacrifices when asked to do so.

@trip
"pangloss: I don't really think there's a way of knowing, with absolute certainty, if you'd be any less free. What I can say, without doubt, if that you do currently live in a free society. Would you be willing to risk everything you have right now to find out if it made a difference? I think (opinion) you'd find that there's a much greater chance of a worse outcome than a better one."

Boy, they should hire you in the public relations branch of your country's military!

Yes, I would trade everything I have right now in order to know the answer to this question. I also don't think that there would be a great change in the outcome for my country.

@domwnec, then the soldiers aren't dying for my freedom. They're dying for the national interest, patriotic glory, or something else. I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but it's certainly a lot less inspiring than these liberal ideals of freedom.

Again, there are no altruistic wars.

@ pangloss

"So Octavious, I think we can all agree that soldiers enlist and fight and die for something. That's not really my question. I want to know if that something is my freedom. The test for this isn't whether they say they do this or not"

Is it not? Surely that is the test that matters the most. Consider the French army in early WW2. They fought, many died, and France was defeated. By any measure France was a less free place in 42 than in 38. Should that count against them?

When the Communist revolutionaries first rose up against the Tsar they most certainly fought for freedom. What eventually resulted was a Stalinist nightmare. Does that make the sacrifice of those who died any less worthy?

"You mean, to protect US interests and allies, right? because a) it's not always about 'free' nations - lest we forget US support for Saudi Arabia"

Heh. US support for Saudi Arabia has everything to do with the welfare of free nations--and unfree nations, for that matter, and US enemies, and just about everyone. Saudi Arabia's a shit government, and we know it, but global energy security is one of the top global priorities, period, with literally billions of lives on the line, energy being essential to developed civilization and all that. The sooner the House of Saud isn't critical to global energy security (or even, in the best of all possible worlds, becomes less of a shit government), the better, but that doesn't change the present reality. One ugly, mundane, but important way in which the US military 'protects American freedom'.

Really, the main reason the US invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea, apart from the whole "unethical invasion and occupation based on lies that got half a million people killed and wasted a trillion dollars and ignited sectarian conflict" thing, was that it introduced a massive power vacuum right in the middle of this economically critical and politically volatile region. Stupid and unethical use of the US military has great potential to endanger the very freedoms it's meant to, and does, protect. Doesn't mean it's not also protecting those freedoms, though.

I think pangloss wonders if his freedom is in peril when fellow citizens die for another, third country. Certainly French people fighting against a German invasion of *France* are fighting and dying for French freedom, the connection there is clear. But are American/Canadian forces dying in the storming of Normandy securing American/Canadian freedoms?

Octavious, I am not saying that it is impossible for them to be fighting for my freedom. I'm saying that the statement "we are fighting for your freedom" is insufficient proof that they actually are. The reason for this is that they could be lying or misguided. Absent any stronger proof than the statements of military propagandists, why should I believe that they are not lying or misguided?

I am not saying that we should never venerate dead soldiers. I am saying that I think it silly to assume that (1) they died defending my freedom and (2) the fact that they died defending my freedom is the primary reason to venerate them.

@Lethologica, in your view it seems, freedom is a side perk that we sometimes get through the exercise of military power in the name of the national interest. I think this may be correct, but then that undermines the claim that soldiers died defending my freedom. They died defending the national interest, which may or may not include freedom and security for domestic residents.

The primary reason to venerate them is that they died because the representatives chosen by us put them in a situation where their life was at risk. They died in our service carrying out our will, and at least part of the reason they were willing to put themselves at risk was a trust that we had some damned good reasons to ask it of them, with freedom ranking high amongst them.

If that is not enough for you, I don't know what is.

I think we are getting into the realm of the common disconnect between the citizenry and the actions of the government. Because this necessarily opens your side, Octavious, to the critique that if our reasons for asking them to fight for us are proven false or that ulterior motives were pulling strings, would this then discredit their loss of life? In other words, do we need to achieve our ends in order to justify our means? And if so, does any end justify the means? What if there were no "damned good reasons"? Other than a few chickenhawks deciding that they were going to play General.

What then, also, of those that do not choose to volunteer their services but are conscripted or pressed into service? Is someone losing their life for nebulous reasons less of a sacrifice because they did not choose to carry out our will? Whatever that will may be...

Because then we are saying we should venerate and remember then because they fell as pawns do in a larger game of chess, not defending any inherent freedom or imperilled value, but merely for carrying out "our will". That seems to be trivializing their efforts and worth to a simple "they died because we made them go kill others for something we wanted", as is often the embodiment of the imposition of will.

It's easy to give someone a gun and then tell them to fight for freedom, easier still to commemorate their sacrifice in order to preserve the delicate mirage that "freedom" is why blood was spilled.

"Heh. US support for Saudi Arabia has everything to do with the welfare of free nations--and unfree nations, for that matter, and US enemies, and just about everyone. Saudi Arabia's a shit government, and we know it, but global energy security is one of the top global priorities, period, with literally billions of lives on the line, energy being essential to developed civilization and all that. The sooner the House of Saud isn't critical to global energy security (or even, in the best of all possible worlds, becomes less of a shit government), the better, but that doesn't change the present reality. One ugly, mundane, but important way in which the US military 'protects American freedom'."


So the phrase 'protects American freedom' actually translates as, 'protects the American economic interests' - which may seem fine.

But in a democracy we have 'one man, one vote' - if you are protecting freedoms then everyone is equal; in a capitalist economy, by contrast, we have 'one dollar, one vote' - so when protecting economic interests whoever has the most money is most important.

@"Stupid and unethical use of the US military has great potential to endanger the very freedoms it's meant to, and does, protect. "

You're saying it can endanger these freedoms. Have you examples of when it has protected them?

@Octavious: "The primary reason to venerate them is that they died because the representatives chosen by us put them in a situation where their life was at risk. They died in our service carrying out our will, and at least part of the reason they were willing to put themselves at risk was a trust that we had some damned good reasons to ask it of them, with freedom ranking high amongst them."

This pre-assumes that trust was well placed.

As discussed, i believe it is done for economic reasons, to bully the competition. And i don't believe this is just.

There reasons may be well intentioned. (ireland gains little from peacekeeping duties, except a well trained and experienced military) But the also serve self-interest.

The question remains, whose self-interest?

@pangloss: My view is *sort of* like your characterization, but with some very different emphases. Frankly, the fact that you're even wondering if Hitler's influence on the US wouldn't have pernicious effects on US freedom indicates that you've chosen an unreasonably high standard for what constitutes a threat to US freedom, such that the military could be said to be 'defending US freedom' by acting against said threat. Just how direct does the threat have to be?

My view is, first, that *yes of course* the US military is first and foremost a safeguard of US interests; but second, that US freedom is an important part of those interests, and closely tied to other parts. Just because the military is protecting *more things* about the American way of life than freedom doesn't mean freedom isn't an important part of what they're protecting!

@orothaic:
"So the phrase 'protects American freedom' actually translates as, 'protects the American economic interests' - which may seem fine."

No. I gave an example where those two points align; I didn't state that they were equivalent. Of course, it's only in the depths of theory that anyone can even pretend freedom isn't tied to economic security--and for that it doesn't matter if the economy being secured is capitalist or not, your pointless non sequitur aside. (By the way, said non sequitur did not constitute a refutation of the example, so when you ask for examples, I must ask you to reonsider the ones I've already provided.)

I should add--it behooves *us* to make sure American freedom remains an important component of the national interest. The military defends America; we decide whether America is worth defending.

I think we're getting a little distracted from the original question:
Do soldiers die for my freedom? Maybe we can take a step back if it is too difficult to establish that soldiers die for an individual's freedom, since we seem to think soldiers and military actions are (altruistically) the physical representation of a population's will.

So, do soldiers die for *any* conception of freedom? If so, whose? And is freedom a zero sum game?

Lets take a moment to define two different levels of freedom and see whether current soldiers either build or weaken our freedoms:

Tier one freedom: everyday freedom. To work, to associate with friends, to participate in enjoyable activities etc etc.

Tier two freedom: Freedom to define one's one life and construct one's one identity based upon ones own values.

Does the current military protect our tier 1 freedoms:

Current military operations are focused upon ISIS and other terrorist threats. ISIS is middle eastern based and doesn't influence many of the lives of people who live in western liberal democracies. I can really only identify acts such as Paris bombings as effecting our every day activities. My question is would those acts occur if the military didn't exist? Was ISIS motivated to attack Paris because France is part of NATO? If this is the case and ISIS chooses its western terrorist operations based upon who is opposing them then the military actually cause a loss of tier 1 freedom.

Tier 2 freedom:

It has been identified that the military represents the national interest. If the military is the embodiment of the national interest then it is directly opposed to tier two freedom. This is because the national interest is in direct contradiction to individual interests/identity. In this scenario the military is supporting values and acting in the name of your individual interests even though you may be against the military's choices. This co-opts the individual as an actor and aggregates everyone into the national interest in order to legitimize particular military action. This disallows individuals from being able to construct their own representation/identity of themselves because the military is acting in their name and all citizens of that country are being associated with that military action through the concept of national interest.

Therefore the military actually would weaken freedom in both the tier 1 and tier 2 level that I have outlined for those of us who live in western liberal democracies.

I think it's strange to take the military approach to ISIS as a first-order determinant of first-tier freedom, as it consumes a relatively small fraction of military activity from western powers. I also think it's strange to effectively take *any* form of collective action as adverse to second-tier freedom en route to concluding that the military is particularly adverse to second-tier freedom.

Are we still speaking English?

of course
do not be alarmed
i am a flesh bag just like yourself
*beep* *whirrr* *click* *ding* *parp*
pay no attention to any unusual sounds you may be hearing
they are a delusion
that's a thing that happens to flesh bags, you know

I'm not sure I entirely follow what Sultanofspin is getting at. But it seems to me that he has a wrong conception of the military in western democracies. The military doesn't just decide to invade other countries - our political leaders do that. And our political leaders are elected to represent us. Any individual may disagree with that decision, but that's kind of unavoidable in a democracy. We trade some of our freedom of choice away by electing representatives.

Sultan, you should claim independence for yourself, then you could raise your own army. Just make sure all of your soldiers have the exact same opinion as you on every subject matter known to man. If not you'll be ...sorry, it's hard to type through the tears... preventing them from defining their life and constructing their identity. Holy shit. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

My statement is about whether or not the military increases my individual freedom. Amwidkle identifies what the trip is getting at but with less eloquence. Both their arguments are about whether having a military is good or bad and is not about whether the military reduces individual freedom. We are giving up freedom when we elect politicians to represent us and we are giving up individual freedom when the military acts in our so-called interest. This freedom is traded off for other things whether it is economic or security reasons or whatever else that constitutes the national interest but in the end we are giving up freedom. I think it is clear that the military is inherently opposed to individual freedom, I think what we should be discussing is the terms in which giving up this freedom is better for both the society and the individual.

What does it mean to die for someone's freedom? I would say that if someone is protecting your freedom, in any sense, and they are killed for that, than that person died for your freedom.

Now, I have some personal experience and education in this. I'm going to address the US Navy specifically, because they are perhaps the most visible use of force protecting freedom.

The Navy has several main objectives besides out-and-out war fighting. Power projection, forward presence, freedom of the seas, etc. The US Navy is heavily involved in drug interdiction. It is also mainly responsible for any sort of freedom of the seas. 90% of the world's goods are transported by sea. They protect shipping lanes and respond to incidents at sea. Piracy, accidents, drug cartels, etc. The US military is also the #1 disaster relief organization (for lack of a better word) in the world. Do you enjoy chatting with strangers on the internet about soldiers? Because the Navy also protects under-sea fiber-optics cables. These are every day freedoms which you don't stop and think about, because you take them for granted. Mind you, these are freedoms for all people, not just the US. Ghana, Greece, Vietnam, etc. all enjoy the freedom of the seas that is for the most part maintained by the US Navy.

Do sailors, soldiers, airmen, and Marines die performing these tasks? Yes. They do. Training accidents, piracy raids, accidents, enemy fire, etc.

Now, do we fuck up? Yes. Look no further than the Middle East. Is every action of the US military some grand protection of freedom? No. The military gets sent where the politicians send them, and I don't think anyone honestly trusts politicians as a whole do to the right thing every time. But there are genuine times where American men and women die protecting American and other people's freedoms.

"They died in our service carrying out our will, and at least part of the reason they were willing to put themselves at risk was a trust that we had some damned good reasons to ask it of them, with freedom ranking high amongst them."

I think the only reason there was (is) is national interest. I'm not convinced that any standing army on the face of the earth ever fights for freedom. I mean, take a look at the US military's incursions into various parts of the world during the twentieth century. It'd be hard to say that they were defending freedom as they firebombed villages in Vietnam or overthrew a democratically elected prime minister in Iran.

"I think it's strange to take the military approach to ISIS as a first-order determinant of first-tier freedom, as it consumes a relatively small fraction of military activity from western powers."

Whether or not the coalition against IS takes up a dollar or two hundred billion of the military budget, his point is that Western foreign policy as realised through the military is antagonistic and may cause a direct loss of tier-1 freedom when the antagonised groups respond.

"I also think it's strange to effectively take *any* form of collective action as adverse to second-tier freedom en route to concluding that the military is particularly adverse to second-tier freedom."

K.

"I'm not sure I entirely follow what Sultanofspin is getting at. But it seems to me that he has a wrong conception of the military in western democracies. The military doesn't just decide to invade other countries - our political leaders do that."

OK, then on Remembrance Day, should I commemorate politicians for defending my freedoms? Your reasoning seems to remove agency from the military and therefore both the credit and the blame for its actions.