RE: Jim's "RE: How to approach the troops?"

[Juan Fajardo <fajardos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-------------
> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:13:20 -0800
> From: "Craven, Jim" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxx>

> ... When there is a contradiciton between facts vs
> beliefs; facts vs emotions (interests); beliefs versus emotions/interests;
> it sets up cognitive dissonance in need of resolution. [...]
> How to resolve that dissonance? A Common way is to
> celebrate not only your "heroism" but also the "Cause" for which you gave a
> limb. Or, if you were one of those who volunteered to go into the military,
> didn't give as shit about "patriotism" but only a paycheck and help with
> college, are you going to say that openly--especially while still in the
> military? And if you come home maimed, are you going to say you wound up
> disabled as a result of just trying to score a paycheck and some help with
> college? No, it washes better, and is more profitable personally, if you
> dress it up as "giving your all for freedom, god, Country,...



There is also the sense that is gaining currency (and may have its
origins in the argument that it wasn't the soldiers but the politicians
who "lost" Viet Nam) that soldiers aren't responsible for policy, nor
are they told all the ins and outs of it, and in the end it doesn't
involve or concern them; so when it comes down to it as a soldier "you
fight for the man on your right, and you fight for the man on your left."

This certainly came out in films like "The Four Feathers" and "Black
Hawk Down", with the variant in the latter film that this can only be
understood fully by those who have faced combat and therefore no on
outside the military has a right to criticise those within the
institution (and no one inside whould even think of it, of course).

- Juan