That is true. One of the main reasons why I served two tours in the Navy was because of the superior component-level technical/engineering training, which served as the foundation for my career today. However, the other main reason why I took the oath, was because I knew I needed a kick in the pants to jumpstart my life. In fact, I would put that reason *over* the technical training one, because I could've just as easily taken one of the several regency scholarships I was offered when I graduated high school. But I chose the military, because I had the clarity of mind to know that I exploited the bell curve back in those days, where I wouldn't do a single homework assignment, but I was an extremely good test-taker, and would literally walk-in and kill the test. (The bell curve back in those days placed more emphasis on mid-terms and finals to determine your overall grade.) I had the clarity of mind to know that I would NEVER make it through college like that, because assignments are a crucial part of your performance. So it was 1.) kick in the pants, then 2.) serving my country (closely related to the kick in the pants part), then 3.) technical/engineering training, for me. All three very high on the scale, but if I had to put weight on those factors, that's how they shook out.
So while recruiters do try to sell the military as just like any other job, not all of us who join select the military just for that aspect. Some of us actually do do it for other reasons than merely the "job" part.
I disagree. You're picking nits in "how" someone served. Just because someone walks into the recruiters office with the credentials to be able to select a "job" in the service that just happens to be less likely to see face-to-face action (armed combat), they deserve less respect than the guy who didn't have those credentials (i.e. low performance in high school, poor ASVAB test scores or what-have-you) and was only offered a "job" carrying a rifle? That's a double standard on your part. Or, opportunistic categorization to serve your purposes.
That argument can be spun against you. Again, let's look at it from the recruiter angle. Perhaps that person had no choice based on the credentials he/she brought into the recruiter's office. The recruiter has a job to do (and a quota to fill, mind you), so that recruiter will place that person based on the credentials he/she brought into the office. Many times a person will go off to war, having been sold this as the right thing to do based on his/her credentials.
That's not to say that the person sleeping with his rifle in a foxhole deserves any less respect than the person who had the credentials to be able to select a job that wasn't sleeping in a foxhole. It's to say they ALL deserve respect, because they ALL are serving the military for that common goal.
I personally saw action (armed conflict) during the first
Libya / Gulf of Sidra conflict in 1986. Everyone who serves on Navy ships has to be qual'ed on basic small arms -- so you can't "hide" behind whatever your job is (in my case, data systems technician). I was qual'ed on the typical shipboard small arms at the time, like the model 1911 .45, the M-16, the M-14 (.308, with grenade launcher), and the .50 cal Browning machine gun. (In fact, I served several watches manning the Browning during the Libya conflict, with live fire.) You can see pictures on my Facebook wall if you don't believe me.
Do I deserve less respect than a guy who was serving shore duty at that time? I don't think so -- it's all a common goal, and my ship happened to be in that area at that time. You can believe that shore duty guy was doing his part towards that goal, too. Perhaps even doing the paperwork to give my ship the authorization to fire upon Muammar Gaddafi's forces.
And why does that matter? So a person that walks into the recruiters office with less credentials (and therefore more likely to be offered only "front line" rifle-toting positions) somehow, in your mind, deserves more respect that the guy who walks in with higher credentials and is able to select a job that has a higher calling in the overall common goal of the military?
Bragging is one thing, and I agree, should be abhorred. But other than the brag notion, pegging at someone just because you see an opening to diminish one's service to his country should equally be abhorred.
Wait a minute -- so you're now belittling people who've recognized the point at which they want to change chapters, and experience their life from other than a service perspective? So now every retiree of every company "that only put in 20 years" (as you seem to infer) now has their dedication to their company put into question?
So you're saying that if I, for example, use my information technology skills (grounded from the Navy) to recognize when someone's full of it in relating faulty computer/networking/security information, that I should have my job in the Navy examined and made fun of?
Jeez, what difference does that make? Show me a job that's "customer-facing" that ISN'T about leveraging information to present a face favorable to the employer. You know my stance on marketing, and how I feel about it. However, I'm not about to undermine one's career just because I don't agree with that person's stance on, oh, aiming systems. I'll attack the stance, but I won't attack the person. You are, John. And then you hide behind the "but he did it to me first" playground excuse.
Baloney. For all the reasons I wrote above.
See, here's the thing. You know that I've had my run-ins with Lou, and there are times I want to crack him over the head with something heavy and makes a lot of noise for his dismissive stance against any debate opponent. I'll attack the stance. But I won't attack the person beyond his stance (i.e. going after his career or his person) nor make it an ongoing personal feud. You have to know when something's worth it to pursue. Life is too short for that kind of bull.
-Sean
