Combat vets and non-combat vets

[FourDeuce]

I was on another message board discussing some other subjects when I ran into another person there who seems to hold the opinion that he is better than any other vet who served in the military but did not serve in combat. I've seen that attitude before a few times, but rarely do the people who feel that way come right out and say it. Anybody else agree with that?
I told the guy that I consider his statement an insult to every person who has worn the uniform during peacetime.:salute2:
I'm just glad I didn't hear much of that kind of talk during the 15 years I served.:wink:

 

[Team Infidel]

being in the Army and at a very large military post, I will tell you that non-combat vets are sized up within the first 5 seconds of a conversation and have no credibility if they haven't deployed. This goes for basically, CPTs and above. I am not saying I am better, but I will tell you what, street credibility for deployed combat officers is huge.

 

[LeEnfield]

The non combat people are always in the Majority, but with out them the fighting man could not operate.

 

[KJ]

Rarely JOE never deployed that sets the standard for the ones coming after to reach and surpass.

Should everyone that has served be shown respect, ofcourse.
Do I read a new guy I meet and grade his what TI called "street cred", ofcourse I do.

Some people go a whole career in the military without getting into a fight, some people volunteer to go to every fight that pops up while they are in.
Willingness to deploy are individual and will always be a part of the perception people have of you in the military, nothing wrong with that.
Everyone who has picked up a weapon and stood a post does however deserve respect in my book.

//KJ.

 

[Chief Bones]

I was on another message board discussing some other subjects when I ran into another person there who seems to hold the opinion that he is better than any other vet who served in the military but did not serve in combat. I've seen that attitude before a few times, but rarely do the people who feel that way come right out and say it. Anybody else agree with that?
I told the guy that I consider his statement an insult to every person who has worn the uniform during peacetime.:salute2:
I'm just glad I didn't hear much of that kind of talk during the 15 years I served.:wink:

EVERY PERSON WHO SERVED A HITCH IN THE MILITARY DESERVES RESPECT .....

- HOWEVER -

Those who have served in a combat zone deserve a respect above and beyond those who have not. I am NOT advocating you disrespect a non-combat soldier ... what I AM saying, is the combatant has EARNED a respect that the non-combatabt has NOT easrned.

No non-combatant has ever had a best friend die in his/her arms .. no non-combatant has ever heard the sound of enemy bullets zinging around his/her head and known that enemy was trying to kill you as hard as you were trying to kill them. The non-combatant has never been wounded and ended up shedding their blood.

Get the picture??? Unless you were there, you can NEVER understand how we feel .. you will NEVER know the connection that combatants have with one asnother.

WHILE I WILL ALWAYS RESPECT THOSE WHO NEVER SERVED IN COMBAT, I WILL ALWAYS RESERVE MY GREATEST RESPECT FOR MY FELLOW WARIORS WHO HAVE HEARD THE SOUND OF GUNFIRE .. THEY ARE THE FRIENDS OF MY CHILHOOD WHO SERVED IN EVERY CORNER OF THE WORLD, THAT MY FELLOW CITIZENS WOULDN'T HAVE TO.

If some people have a problem with that ... it is their problem .. NOT mine. For info .. Vietnam was a scary place for a young man just turned 18. Of a 13 man squad, there are only 2 of us still alive. Many of my childhood friends are STILL suffering from PTSD ... are still off the map, living on the streets of a country that forgot them. (Whoa ... I didn't mean to get on my soapbox).

Suffice it to say that combatants have earned a respect that much of the world has chosen to not give them and leave it at that.

 

[PJ24]

"Served in a combat zone." For many, in fact, a great majority, that includes sitting on a FOB, getting coffee from the Green Bean maybe a taco from Taco Bell and heading back to their CHU to watch a little TV. Never actually experiencing "combat" besides the occasional IDF.

Frankly, unless they are infantry or one of my peers (including those weird foreign types like KJ,) I just figure they did their rotation like everyone else and came home sporting their OIF/OEF ribbons, "combat" awards and patches. And unless they step out of their lane, I don't give them any less respect than I do everyone else. Mostly because I don't care, but also because I figure we all have a role. Stay out of mine, I'll stay out of yours.

 

[Naddoður]

PJ, It sounds like you have been to KAF. :-D

I have respect for all who choose to wear a uniform regardless of whether they have one or the other function. I feel a mutual respect with those of us who have been in combat. I also have the greatest respect for the medical personnel who may never come close to combat.

When said; I will say that a soldier who has been in a fight has some skills that you can not learn otherwise, and if you use people with this special competence rather than denigrate them then it's really something that can lift the level of a unit.

 

[FourDeuce]

"Some people go a whole career in the military without getting into a fight, some people volunteer to go to every fight that pops up while they are in."

I was at Fort Benning, Georgia when Desert Storm(part 1) started. Most of the people there did not deploy, but within a few weeks I requested reassignment to one of the few units from Benning that deployed. Got turned down, but just volunteering won't always get you there, either.

 

[senojekips]

Where does it all end though?

What do you call "combat"?
Making up pay slips in the office in the rear of a war zone,
servicing the equipment that keeps men safe and in the field,
being subjected to random occasional enemy fire,
patrolling,
being engaged in the exchange of fire?

I gave up going to Vietnam Veteran's get togethers after about the first two or three meetings, because of this crap. I was not personally targeted, but I was disgusted with those who made statements belittling the service of "Pogos" (Personnel On Garrison Operations) and those other than "Grunts".

I made myself decidedly unpopular when I suggested that none of the above persons slung too much **** about Pogos when the choppers arrived to take them back inside the wire, or to deliver a hot meal or mail etc. No doubt my service was also called into disrepute when I departed, but true to their type not much was said to my face.

So, it just goes to show that being a Combat veteran doesn't make some people worthy of any special respect. After all is said and done 99% of us were only there because we were obeying orders.

Yes,... there were some who would have gladly volunteered, many did. But just being a "Combat Vet" is doesn't necessarily make you a better man or worthy of particular respect.

 

[A Can of Man]

I tried to volunteer for duty in Iraq but the transfer to a unit in the rotation cycle didn't work out.
So it's not that I didn't want to go, it just didn't work out for me.

 

[LeMask]

Well, there is a lot of unfair things.

Some armies give combat badges to their soldiers if they were under fire at some point... Like "oh a mortar round landed there on the hill, it's not very far, congratulations, you just gained a combat badge guys."

And some wars like the war in Iraq have no well defined front line... I say that everybody who drove a car in Baghdad, even if it's in the green zone, should get a combat badge. In fact, anyone who landed in Iraq or Afghanistan should be considered as a combat veteran.

It would be very sad to refuse a combat badge to a soldier or a Marine who had to patrol in Iraq, with the fear and the risk of taking a bullet,mortar round, IED that is constant all over the country, just because he wasnt really in an actual battle taking fire and returning fire...

If he didnt piss his pants and started running like a coward, he is good enough...

And in the other hand, there is people who were in actual combat who didnt have time to do much...

And what about the pilots in the air force? they are high in the sky, safe in their cockpits. We should wait until they are in a dogfight with another pilot or shot down by anti air in enemy territory to consider them as real veterans...

What the point of such a status? experience? courage? credibility? ... I dont see it.

 

[MikeP]

All the guys I served with were multiple volunteers.
Airborne, Infantry, SF, and VN.
Most served several tours in direct combat positions in VN and subsequent actions.
Guys who asked for, and went into harms way on a regular basis.

I won't go so far as to say they were better soldiers, but they sure are the type I preferred to associate with.
I attend the conventions and most of us feel we have a common comfort of association and state of mind we are unable to share with outsiders.

Like previously posted-you won't get it unless you done it.

 

[LeEnfield]

Personally speaking I think that any one that goes into the forces and wears the uniform regardless of what they do is worthy of respect. Yet those they get up front and personal with the enemy and have to kill or see there mates killed are they not worth an extra thought. They are the ones that lomg after they have left the Army they often wake up in the night screaming, or turn to the bottle to try and dull the memories of what they saw and often suffer from this for the rest of their lives. In my opinion for what it is worth these people are different from the ones in the rear that support them and yes they could not do their job with out that support.

 

[LeMask]

I spoke with a man in Morocco who was a resistant, he fought the french and spanish trying to gain independence.

He said many things about the horrors of war. That he saw some terrible things. He went to war with his brothers, uncles, his father etc...
At that time, it was very tribal. They went to war with the people living next to them. They took rifles and knives and went to war together.

So the man lost members of his family in battle. People he grew up with. And yes, he expressed a lot of sadness. But I didnt notice any give away about nightmares, drinking problems or anything like that...

In fact, he expressed clearly that all time he knew exactly what was happening. He said that the only surprise he had was how scared he was. He was a proud young man who would never admit that he is scared of anyone... But once in combat, he had to deal with the fear of losing his life or the lives of the people who joined him.

I wont give you all the detail, but the conclusion I pulled from it is that when you know exactly what you are doing and what can happen, you wont lose your sanity whatever what you could see in battle.

It's my personal conclusion, but every time I tried to ask him (some language barriers I had to deal with) about how to deal with these traumatic experiences. he told me that everything you could see in war happens in times of war... You have to accept it.

If you are not ready to see a bullet go through the head of one of your people, well, stay home... You arent ready for war. You have to understand exactly what's going on.

And now it sounds obvious to me. Some psychiatrist tell their patient "Dont worry. you are too intelligent to turn crazy."

The military should invest in the education of the soldiers. The more educated they are, the more able to rationalize what they see, the more ready they will be in dealing with what they will see in the battlefield. Then it will be less suicides and smarter people in the uniforms.

 

[03USMC]

Well, there is a lot of unfair things.

Some armies give combat badges to their soldiers if they were under fire at some point... Like "oh a mortar round landed there on the hill, it's not very far, congratulations, you just gained a combat badge guys."

And some wars like the war in Iraq have no well defined front line... I say that everybody who drove a car in Baghdad, even if it's in the green zone, should get a combat badge. In fact, anyone who landed in Iraq or Afghanistan should be considered as a combat veteran.

It would be very sad to refuse a combat badge to a soldier or a Marine who had to patrol in Iraq, with the fear and the risk of taking a bullet,mortar round, IED that is constant all over the country, just because he wasnt really in an actual battle taking fire and returning fire...

If he didnt piss his pants and started running like a coward, he is good enough...

And in the other hand, there is people who were in actual combat who didnt have time to do much...

And what about the pilots in the air force? they are high in the sky, safe in their cockpits. We should wait until they are in a dogfight with another pilot or shot down by anti air in enemy territory to consider them as real veterans...

What the point of such a status? experience? courage? credibility? ... I dont see it.

Uh no to the above. The CIB, CAB and CAR have a criteria for award and not evryone in country has been engaged or engaged despite the fact that they may have at some point left the wire. Just being in country does not and should not be the only criteria for a CIB,CAB or CAR.

 

[PJ24]

I spoke with a man in Morocco who was a resistant, he fought the french and spanish trying to gain independence.

He said many things about the horrors of war. That he saw some terrible things. He went to war with his brothers, uncles, his father etc...
At that time, it was very tribal. They went to war with the people living next to them. They took rifles and knives and went to war together.

So the man lost members of his family in battle. People he grew up with. And yes, he expressed a lot of sadness. But I didnt notice any give away about nightmares, drinking problems or anything like that...

In fact, he expressed clearly that all time he knew exactly what was happening. He said that the only surprise he had was how scared he was. He was a proud young man who would never admit that he is scared of anyone... But once in combat, he had to deal with the fear of losing his life or the lives of the people who joined him.

I wont give you all the detail, but the conclusion I pulled from it is that when you know exactly what you are doing and what can happen, you wont lose your sanity whatever what you could see in battle.

It's my personal conclusion, but every time I tried to ask him (some language barriers I had to deal with) about how to deal with these traumatic experiences. he told me that everything you could see in war happens in times of war... You have to accept it.

If you are not ready to see a bullet go through the head of one of your people, well, stay home... You arent ready for war. You have to understand exactly what's going on.

And now it sounds obvious to me. Some psychiatrist tell their patient "Dont worry. you are too intelligent to turn crazy."

The military should invest in the education of the soldiers. The more educated they are, the more able to rationalize what they see, the more ready they will be in dealing with what they will see in the battlefield. Then it will be less suicides and smarter people in the uniforms.

No one is ready to see a bullet go through anything until they see it, and anyone that claims they are is either a moron or naive. You can decide.

The fact is, individuals handle the stresses and memories of combat operations differently. It is not because they were not prepared nor is it because they lacked the education and training for war. Rationalize what you see? There's a lot that cannot be rationalized in war and trying to rationalize it WILL make one go crazy.

You can't sit in a classroom, surf the internet, listen to stories, look at pictures and think you know a damn thing about war. It's something that has to be experienced.

You basically said that individuals that have problems dealing with what they've seen are neither smart nor mentally strong and well, that's just b******t, quite frankly.

 

[03USMC]

No one is ready to see a bullet go through anything until they see it, and anyone that claims they are is either a moron or naive. You can decide.

The fact is, individuals handle the stresses and memories of combat operations differently. It is not because they were not prepared nor is it because they lacked the education and training for war. Rationalize what you see? There's a lot that cannot be rationalized in war and trying to rationalize it WILL make one go crazy.

You can't sit in a classroom, surf the internet, listen to stories, look at pictures and think you know a damn thing about war. It's something that has to be experienced.

You basically said that individuals that have problems dealing with what they've seen are neither smart nor mentally strong and well, that's just b******t, quite frankly.

But, but, but, in HALO 2:firedevi:

 

[LeMask]

Well 03USMC, as an example, some say that the women soldiers are never sent to the front line. But the front line isnt well defined. In particular when it's a low intensity war where violence can spawn in an already secured area.

The risk of being hit or ambushed is constant. Even in the green zone, you can take a mortar round or a bullet from a sniper hiding in some buildings...

How can you say that you never been in harms way in such conditions? I say that they should see again the definition of the vet status.

And PJ24, some soldiers are more naive than others. Some go to war believing that it will be like a vacation... Join the big adventure, kill some bad guys and be a hero. While others are more pessimists, they join the battle thinking that it will be messy, that people will die and that they have to suffer and work hard to make it out of this hell hole.

Some think that they will be spared, or that their friends will be spared... others know that anything can happen, that they might die at any moment...

When I said "ready", I didnt mean that he will take it without flinching...

And I strongly believe that some men are like born ready for warfare. Religious people are on that list.

They see life and death differently... For some, death on the battlefield is the end of everything, while others see it as a stairway to heaven...

edit:
A little something about the vet status.
Some said that the biggest source of courage in the battlefield is fear. But a particular fear, the fear of shame. The fear to be seen as a coward.
Some military units build as part of the esprit de corp a sense of pride.

And maybe that the veteran status adds to the fear of being ashamed. They give you this status... And then you have "more to lose".

But as in these days, we have professional soldiers... retreating if the odds are really bad can be an option. There is no point in joining a battle you know you are going to lose...

What do you think guys?

 

[03USMC]

Go look up the requirements and criteria for the award of the CAR and the CAB (I'll leave out the CIB since you mentioned women) the criteria is the same regardless of gender, if you meet the criteria you get the award, if you don't you don't.

 

[KJ]

No one is ready to see a bullet go through anything until they see it, and anyone that claims they are is either a moron or naive. You can decide.

The fact is, individuals handle the stresses and memories of combat operations differently. It is not because they were not prepared nor is it because they lacked the education and training for war. Rationalize what you see? There's a lot that cannot be rationalized in war and trying to rationalize it WILL make one go crazy.

You can't sit in a classroom, surf the internet, listen to stories, look at pictures and think you know a damn thing about war. It's something that has to be experienced.

You basically said that individuals that have problems dealing with what they've seen are neither smart nor mentally strong and well, that's just b******t, quite frankly.

Now that is the most eloquent and well thought out post I have seen in a while, I just hope it doesn´t fall on deaf ears(eyes).
I would probably have ended up with, "If you haven´t seen it, noone can explain it to you."

A smarter man then me once told me.
"A well trained soldier with a moving intellect capable of imagening anything is the deadliest thing we can put on the battlefield.
He will find a way to solve any problem with the assets at his disposal.
He will pay a higher price on the personal level then the soldier who just does what he is told without thinking because he can imagine the consequences of his actions to a higher degree.
But that is the type of man we need."

I dunno the older I get, the more this rings true.

FWIW.
//KJ.