<<Re. your assertion that the military has increasingly, in recent years, relied on a strategy of preserving the lives of its combatants over lives of civilians on the other side -- perhaps you would put a date on the beginning of "recent".>>
I'm no military historian, of course, but I would probably put the turning-point AFTER the First World War, which (if I remember correctly) was the last major war since the early 18th century in which civilians were spared, and in which the war was primarily between armies.
World War II, of course, was another story; and Truman justified using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima precisely in terms of the need to preserve the lives of American soldiers. Of course, most of those soldiers were draftees (essentially, mobilized civilians), and I've indicated that I make a distinction between draftees and the professional ("voluntary") military.
More recent examples: the Gulf War; the NATO operation in Yugoslavia; and the present Russian offensive in Chechnya. In each case, the reliance was/is primarily on long-range bombardment, which makes casualties among one's own forces less likely, but far more likely among "enemy" civilians.
Were you drafted into the military, MM, or did you volunteer for military service? If you volunteered, didn't you think that part of the job was to risk your life to defend your country? And I did not mean the word "perks" in any invidious (or trivial) sense: I meant such things as early retirement, free treatment for veterans in places like Walter Reed, preferment for veterans in civil service, etc.
Joan
|
