as if I don't understand that there's risk of being in harm's way during all such periods. Did you read what I wrote about my dad's experience? Not sure what "political prejudices" you think I may have with regard to military service and how those would impact these questions.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 6:49 pmAs a matter of historical perspective, to better appreciate your differential perspective of those who served --MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:13 pm And yes, Salty, I quite understand "differential risk"; I separately responded to cradle, which he's apparently ignored, about my father's experience during peacetime service.
Moreover, I find it offensive when one pretends to have done the same thing in combat training in peacetime as those who have actually signed up to serve in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, knowing they'd be taking a heck of a lot more "differential risk". I know several such and it ain't the same thing. Which doesn't subtract from the 'service' of the peacetime soldier/sailor, etc.
Do you consider the Cold War "peacetime" -- with the Korean War, Hungarian uprising, Prague Spring, Pueblo incident, Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam, Iran hostage crisis, Granada, Panama, Balkan conflicts, Somalia (Blackhawk down) et. al. ?
Post Cold War/pre 9-11 -- Balkan conflicts, Somalia (Blackhawk down), Desert Shield. Desert Storm, Provide Comfort, Northern & Southern Watch no-fly zones, Desert Fox, USS Stark, USS Cole
Do you differentiate those who chose to enter service, or remain beyond initial obligation, before & after the draft existed ?
Or do you perhaps have a sliding scale of regard which better aligns with your political prejudices ?
Although not as well publicized (or as politicized) as the "dignified transfer of remains" via Dover (a horrible military term used to describe the final journey home), service members who perish during your malleable definition of "peacetime" are still afforded full military honors.
When you take the oath to serve you are not assured "peacetime" for your entire term of obligated service.
But yeah, I do "differentiate" the risk taken between those who entered service specifically because there was a hot war to be fought, knowing that's very likely what they would be doing, and actually did go into combat, and those who did so during peacetime because they'd f'd up in HS and had few college or career choices. Much less those who phonied up an excuse or pulled strings to avoid danger, service in a hot war.
The latter doesn't apply to you, as I understand it (Annapolis?), but does for many who enter service that way. Though I "differentiate" the risk involved in that choice, and the motivation of that choice, I'm certainly not denigrating the latter choice in life path. Indeed, lots of those who do so grow up and turn out to be terrific people, contributing members of society...and some die in that service. I certainly wouldn't have it any other way in terms of 'full military honors'.
However, I also don't automatically impute "honor" to anyone simply because they "served", though my tendency would be to give the benefit of the doubt of such absent evidence to the contrary. But not all who served, at any particular level, did so honorably regardless of how long they were in or what their official exit from service was. But those who did so honorably and bravely certainly do deserve respect and appreciation for that service.
So, too, do others who serve and contribute to their communities honorably, just not in the military.
That's my view, not black and white, more nuanced...not sure how "political prejudices" would have anything to do with it.