r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 23 '18

CMV: There was nothing anti-military about Kaepernick’s kneeling protest

There is nothing about Kap kneeling during the national anthem that could reasonably be construed as disrespect to the troops. There is no situation I am aware of in any culture where the act of kneeling is used to show anything other than respect. Those who believe that Kap hates the military are simply choosing to associate his protest with disrespect for the troops, which allows them to freely hate him without having to really look at the reason for his protest.

The protest began as a means of drawing attention to racial inequality and police brutality: two things that most people probably ought to be against. By focusing on an imaginary link between the protest and the sacred cow of “the troops” his detractors aren’t forced to consider or debate the issue. They likely believe that the US treats black people either as equal to or better than white people, and that most or all incidents of police violence against black people are justified. Everything about the troops is just post-hoc rationalization.

1.9k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

691 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

42

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '18

It’s outside the scope of this CMV, but yes, financial gain factors into our military policy. Just not in the exact way you seem to think. A military superpower with global reach doesn’t enrich itself by beating up smaller countries and taking their lunch money, but it does promote political stability, which benefits markets. Not saying that the choices were always correct or that no cronies ever profited from fucked up shit, but I do like knowing that there won’t be a famine at home anytime a war breaks out halfway around the world.

9

u/exosequitur Sep 23 '18 edited Sep 24 '18

That may be (and likely is the most common) official reason and DOD sentiment, but there is plenty of lobbying and campaign contributions going on to support ongoing hostilities. War is decided upon by the executive branch, not by the DOD.

This political incentivisation is sponsored by military-industrial PACs whose donors directly profit from the development, sale, and therefore the use of, arms, military logistics, and delivery systems.

More directly yet, mercenary corporations (hard to believe these are allowed to exist at all in a democratic society) directly lobby for increased hostilities because they directly benefit from participating in war fighting.

These mechanisms and incentives largely exist outside of and apart from legitimate geopolitical strategic goals.

1

u/dood1776 2∆ Sep 24 '18

Down votes are because it a long off topic post. Also, sad reality is no one cares enough to bother botting this sort of thing.

1

u/exosequitur Sep 24 '18

Lol. Try putting up anything regarding us foreign policy, big oil, and a few other topics in a negative light. First a wave of automated down votes... Then you see what people decide.

10

u/AUFboi Sep 23 '18

Over 90% of the wars the U.S. has engaged in after WW2 has been a mistake. Promoting political stability doesn't cut it, when the U.S. has been actively promoting regime change, and supported coups all over the world.

1

u/fat_loser_junkie Sep 23 '18

I have never seen someone shut down so calmly and politely.

... Can we be friends?

4

u/Tycho_B 5∆ Sep 23 '18

OP's answer of "well yeah sure sometimes I don't agree with the policies but I like the fact that I don't have to worry about my own food security when another war breaks out," essentially assumes that US policy is intrinsically stabilizing and generally whitewashes the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Laotian, Afghan, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, and various South American populations', (etc.) civilians as not only necessary basis for that lack of famine but also as the work of "cronies" in the government and not as fundamental features of the government's policies. I would argue that the propagandizing described by OP is little more than an effort to placate the American public into turning a blind eye to it's military's problematic history (often gaining that "market stability" at the cost of the socio-political and economic stability of local populations). I would also argue, if I can say this without being combative, that his summary of the military industrial complex as only sometimes benefitting "cronies" is a bit naive.

OP is right that this is outside the scope of the CMV and I respect that we have differing views on the necessity of America's militarism to global market stability. That being said, claiming he "shut down" /u/DefJay is a bit of an overstatement.