The official Sebastian Junger community
yes, junger writes abouts the universality of wair, but....
a lot has already been said about how sebatian's boook speaks to the universsal experience of men and war........and while i don't want to trample on that, I feel its nimportoant to point outb out a nfew things thgat distinguish THIS war from every other.
as a volunrty army: between afghan and ira, essentially since 2001: thi is this the fie first war where we have asked ourn soliders to serve on average, : 2 3 tours of duty. and that, at the age of 20 -b 21. if you look back at our pfevious wars, the age of the average tropp thrn was 26, and he srbved one tour, adn tyhen came home to get the GI BILL.
where ARE theese yewllow flag wqaving people now? Are thry stannding behind the troops once they have returned, having lost a limb, or some other member of themsleves that makes it difficult to live.
Views: 14
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kanani Fong on -
Huh?
If you go through these forums, through military "milblogs," you'll see a support system stronger than anything since the Vietnam war. I think we learned a lot with that experience when thousands of Vietnam Veterans came home and were summarily dismissed. When it came to the gulf wars and the desert storm wars, I still think to an extent, the support was there but it wasn't as strong as web as we have today. So a lot of people said (and greatly helped by the internet), "Never again."
I recently compiled a list of over 60 groups who help the troops. This is a minute fraction of them, because we know that in addition to official 501 c(c)(3) organizations, there are loosely organized ones, and also individuals who knock themselves out for veterans. I've found everything from people who sew blankets for VA hospitals, field hospitals, Landsthul, groups that offer free yoga classes, and also others who work on a legislative angle lobbying for increased funding, efficiency, and fairness for veterans benefits.
By no means is it perfect, nor can every need be met. But yes, the answer to your question is that support has never been as high, and many persons are willing to put aside differences and work to help the men and women who have served.
-
Permalink Reply by mouse on -
Actually, this book doesn't speak to the universality of war, as in your above title. It is a specific portrait of a small group of young men in battle.
I hope you'll get a chance to read the book, gracious. I understand that you had a particular question you wanted to put forth, although I wasn't exactly sure what it was until Kanani posted her reply.
I think, fortunately, that most people in America today do make the distinction between being anti-war and being against the troops. There will always be those with an agenda who will twist the facts, reporting events out of context, but I believe their numbers are minuscule (though they often have the loudest mouths so that it seems as if there are more of them!)
I live in Massachusetts, the most politically liberal state in the United States, except for, perhaps, California. Everywhere I go I see evidence of support for our warriors. I have heard these past years, as I'm sure you have, a great many opinions (in a variety of media) expressing a lack of general support for going into Iraq. I have never heard those opinions trickle down to include a lack of support for our soldiers.
I really do believe - as Kanani touched upon - that America did learn her lesson, and that the shame we still carry as a nation for not supporting our Vietnam veterans will prevent us from ever again making that mistake.
I'm optimistic!
mouse
-
Permalink Reply by AH Regier on -
Mouse...I like your optimism. thank you. It's contagious, and I'll try to spread the wealth.
My understanding of the book is that it considers the bittersweet love affair with young men and combat --whether it's iraq, afghanistan, or world war 11-- hence the term "universal;" it's one of the most ancient of rites, and as Junger suggests, doesn't change much from one war or one century to another. That is my understanding of what Junger is writing about, even as he focuses on one specific group. I could be wrong in this, but that's what I've heard him say in interviews and read in his work. Givven this, and this isn't a criticism, more a musing, I find iit an interesting question that young men in combat NOW are, on average, 6 years younger than in the wars of the past century, AND they are serving far longer than any US soldier has ever done -- again, I think the average amount of deployments is 2.8
Again, I like the optimism of lots of support systems in place, yet every vet I've talked to has some real challenges when they return to civilian life and reassimilate into their culture. They've said the VA is not the most functional of systems -- gettiing a Dr's appt or their medication, or even the right benefits.....and getting a job. Some employers don't want to hire because they might get deployed again...or just getting completely lost in the system....those are just some of the challenges I've heard about. Those bread and butter issues were what II meant by "support."
mouse said:Actually, this book doesn't speak to the universality of war, as in your above title. It is a specific portrait of a small group of young men in battle.
I hope you'll get a chance to read the book, gracious. I understand that you had a particular question you wanted to put forth, although I wasn't exactly sure what it was until Kanani posted her reply.
I think, fortunately, that most people in America today do make the distinction between being anti-war and being against the troops. There will always be those with an agenda who will twist the facts, reporting events out of context, but I believe their numbers are minuscule (though they often have the loudest mouths so that it seems as if there are more of them!)
I live in Massachusetts, the most politically liberal state in the United States, except for, perhaps, California. Everywhere I go I see evidence of support for our warriors. I have heard these past years, as I'm sure you have, a great many opinions (in a variety of media) expressing a lack of general support for going into Iraq. I have never heard those opinions trickle down to include a lack of support for our soldiers.
I really do believe - as Kanani touched upon - that America did learn her lesson, and that the shame we still carry as a nation for not supporting our Vietnam veterans will prevent us from ever again making that mistake.
I'm optimistic!
mouse
-
Permalink Reply by Kanani Fong on
-
Well Gracious Kamikaze,
Yes, those issues are well documented in Milblogs. And milbloggers and troop support groups address them daily as we speak on all levels --national, state and local.
So, the ball is in your court.
What are YOU going to do about it?
There are many groups for you to be involved with, all you have to do is make a move.
Good luck, enjoy!
Kanani
gracious kamikaze said:Mouse...I like your optimism. thank you. It's contagious, and I'll try to spread the wealth.
My understanding of the book is that it considers the bittersweet love affair with young men and combat --whether it's iraq, afghanistan, or world war 11-- hence the term "universal;" it's one of the most ancient of rites, and as Junger suggests, doesn't change much from one war or one century to another. That is my understanding of what Junger is writing about, even as he focuses on one specific group. I could be wrong in this, but that's what I've heard him say in interviews and read in his work. Givven this, and this isn't a criticism, more a musing, I find iit an interesting question that young men in combat NOW are, on average, 6 years younger than in the wars of the past century, AND they are serving far longer than any US soldier has ever done -- again, I think the average amount of deployments is 2.8
Again, I like the optimism of lots of support systems in place, yet every vet I've talked to has some real challenges when they return to civilian life and reassimilate into their culture. They've said the VA is not the most functional of systems -- gettiing a Dr's appt or their medication, or even the right benefits.....and getting a job. Some employers don't want to hire because they might get deployed again...or just getting completely lost in the system....those are just some of the challenges I've heard about. Those bread and butter issues were what II meant by "support."
mouse said:Actually, this book doesn't speak to the universality of war, as in your above title. It is a specific portrait of a small group of young men in battle.
I hope you'll get a chance to read the book, gracious. I understand that you had a particular question you wanted to put forth, although I wasn't exactly sure what it was until Kanani posted her reply.
I think, fortunately, that most people in America today do make the distinction between being anti-war and being against the troops. There will always be those with an agenda who will twist the facts, reporting events out of context, but I believe their numbers are minuscule (though they often have the loudest mouths so that it seems as if there are more of them!)
I live in Massachusetts, the most politically liberal state in the United States, except for, perhaps, California. Everywhere I go I see evidence of support for our warriors. I have heard these past years, as I'm sure you have, a great many opinions (in a variety of media) expressing a lack of general support for going into Iraq. I have never heard those opinions trickle down to include a lack of support for our soldiers.
I really do believe - as Kanani touched upon - that America did learn her lesson, and that the shame we still carry as a nation for not supporting our Vietnam veterans will prevent us from ever again making that mistake.
I'm optimistic!
mouse
-
Permalink Reply by mouse on
-
Hi gracious, thanks for your reply!
My take on the book was pretty much the same as yours. I don't have any information of my own on the median age of enlistees, so I'll trust your statistics. One guess of mine would be that the age of enlistment is directly proportional to the state of American culture today. That's pretty vague, so I'll clarify a bit, (and this is just sort of a first blush, hazarding-a-guess response.)
More so now than ever before it is virtually impossible for an American citizen to afford - on his or her own - an apartment, a car payment, insurance, food and sundries without an extremely good job. Good jobs have always been in short supply without higher education and/or training, but even more so in this time of recession and unemployment. Enlisting is, perhaps for some young people, a more attractive alternative to living at home post-high school and working a crappy retail job into the foreseeable future. I've read several biographies of soldiers and marines, including boot camp detail, and one of the themes that always arises when setting the stage for those new recruits is the lack of desire to continue drifting in one's life. There's a desire for structure and discipline but there's also a lack of information or motivation regarding how to go about this on one's own. So what I'm basically saying is that the current economic environment is very likely a major contributing factor to the all-time average low age of those who serve.
The volunteer aspect of the military in this day and age may also contribute. Boys (and now, girls) aren't waiting around to be drafted and are signing up sooner, of their own volition. When wars have arisen in the past, the draft has required service of "able-bodied men", which has no doubt translated to a much broader age-range.
Concerning multiple re-enlistments, I think economics feeds into it, but I also think American culture as it now exists plays a large role. People don't connect now the way they did in the past. There is so little face-to-face interaction and support. If you aren't adept at (or satisfied by) navigating chat rooms, electronic bulletin boards, and forums, how do you re-socialize if you're a virtual stranger in your own city? (Other than going to a bar and drinking every night, which isn't necessarily going to improve one's situation in any aspect of life.)
Small communities aren't as plentiful as they once were. It's much more of an anomaly to be able to go home to a town where everyone knows you and they all join in to make a point of welcoming you back into the fold, handing you a job, and bringing over a hot meal now and then.
Then there's the whole terrible issue of modern warfare with all its unique elements. In some situations fighters are more divorced from the results of the actions they take (long-range weaponry), and in other ways, war (physical, chemical, biological, psychological) and interrogation are more brutal and sophisticated than they've ever been. Asking warriors to return to civilian life, to shift gears so dramatically, has always seemed to me to be a strange request. It's also one that I am amazed they accomplish as well as they do (even when they don't.)
mouse
-
Permalink Reply by AH Regier on
-
Mouse,
I agree with you that economics play a large role in some of those decisions...and that alienation plays into it, all against a backdrop of a larger American culture that doesn't necessarily help.
Kanani -- what I do now, and what I've been doing for many years while two wars were going on is to listen to a lot of veterans tell me their stories, and then to listen some more (even when I find it too sad). I work in the press, so I do my own little part, in spite of my own sense of powerlessness over what goes on, by keeping certain questions alive, and making sure other people do get heard.
mouse said:Hi gracious, thanks for your reply!
My take on the book was pretty much the same as yours. I don't have any information of my own on the median age of enlistees, so I'll trust your statistics. One guess of mine would be that the age of enlistment is directly proportional to the state of American culture today. That's pretty vague, so I'll clarify a bit, (and this is just sort of a first blush, hazarding-a-guess response.)
More so now than ever before it is virtually impossible for an American citizen to afford - on his or her own - an apartment, a car payment, insurance, food and sundries without an extremely good job. Good jobs have always been in short supply without higher education and/or training, but even more so in this time of recession and unemployment. Enlisting is, perhaps for some young people, a more attractive alternative to living at home post-high school and working a crappy retail job into the foreseeable future. I've read several biographies of soldiers and marines, including boot camp detail, and one of the themes that always arises when setting the stage for those new recruits is the lack of desire to continue drifting in one's life. There's a desire for structure and discipline but there's also a lack of information or motivation regarding how to go about this on one's own. So what I'm basically saying is that the current economic environment is very likely a major contributing factor to the all-time average low age of those who serve.
The volunteer aspect of the military in this day and age may also contribute. Boys (and now, girls) aren't waiting around to be drafted and are signing up sooner, of their own volition. When wars have arisen in the past, the draft has required service of "able-bodied men", which has no doubt translated to a much broader age-range.
Concerning multiple re-enlistments, I think economics feeds into it, but I also think American culture as it now exists plays a large role. People don't connect now the way they did in the past. There is so little face-to-face interaction and support. If you aren't adept at (or satisfied by) navigating chat rooms, electronic bulletin boards, and forums, how do you re-socialize if you're a virtual stranger in your own city? (Other than going to a bar and drinking every night, which isn't necessarily going to improve one's situation in any aspect of life.)
Small communities aren't as plentiful as they once were. It's much more of an anomaly to be able to go home to a town where everyone knows you and they all join in to make a point of welcoming you back into the fold, handing you a job, and bringing over a hot meal now and then.
Then there's the whole terrible issue of modern warfare with all its unique elements. In some situations fighters are more divorced from the results of the actions they take (long-range weaponry), and in other ways, war (physical, chemical, biological, psychological) and interrogation are more brutal and sophisticated than they've ever been. Asking warriors to return to civilian life, to shift gears so dramatically, has always seemed to me to be a strange request. It's also one that I am amazed they accomplish as well as they do (even when they don't.)
mouse
© 2013 Created by Clay.
Powered by
