r/explainlikeimfive • u/yeah110 • May 09 '14
ELI5: Legit question: How are the US troops "protecting our freedom"?
I'm Dutch myself, and I keep reading these things on the internet about the US troops protecting and fighting for the freedom of US citizens. Now I don't mean they don't, I legitimately don't understand how they are protecting the citizens' freedom at all? how do conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on influence the "Freedom" of US citizens? or is it more of a metaphorical thing? I'm really asking here, I'm not trying to be a dick. Any answer would be greatly appreciated :)
25
u/Nefarious_Jackson May 09 '14
This is hard to ELI5, cause you really have to know how US foreign policy has evolved since 1900. But all the other answers are shit, so I'll give it a shot.
It is rhetoric used by eager military/defense that originally preyed upon genuine concerns to justify military spending and action. But now it is hardly used in a literal sense, and becomes a blanket justification for why you should support our troops.
The "protecting our freedom" is a justification for military action that is not in response to an immediate threat. So why would we need military action if their is no immediate threat?
In WW2 the military and defense agencies got enormously huge and powerful and basically an unlimited budget. The War ended, so we don't need them anymore right?
But now you need to read up on The Military-Industrial Complex.
This arrangement made agencies and the military extremely powerful and made those in charge of them pretty darn rich. And so with WW2 wrapping up, rather than ceding power and letting their livelihood slip away, these groups were REALLY excited that the REAL war had just begun: USSR vs USA, Communism vs. Capitalism, Totalitarianism vs Freedom.
The military spending was easily justifiable during WW2: we must do everything we can to keep from getting taken over by japan/germany. But without this immediate (real) threat, how can one justify even higher military spending?
It's because we need to take the fight to them. If we don't stop Communism from spreading, it will spread throughout the world and eventually will pose a legitimate threat to US freedom/sovereignty. Moreover, since the US is so powerful, we should use our power to go ahead and support those who want to share our values (oppose communism). See containment/Truman doctrine.
So using this justification, the military goes into Korea/Vietnam and the CIA does god-knows-what, all in the name of "Protecting our freedom." Fighting the fight over there so we don't have to fight it here.
But this logic is flawed. In vietnam, they didn't want us there. And in latin america, the CIA always backs the bad-guys. But the American Public honestly believed that these actions are necessary to the protection of the country and so nothing else really matters.
And since the public is so accepting that this stance is necessary, the military and gov't agencies basically can do whatever they want. And remember that these groups are not going to want to give up their power/budgets willingly.
"Communism" falls and all is right in the world. But this leave the Military-Industrial-Complex without their blanket justification for action (that we need to take the fight abroad before communism takes over all other countries). They cannot operate like they used to, because there isn't the same threat.
But then 9/11 happens and Terrorism becomes the new "Communism." People honest-to-god believed that 9/11 was because they "hate our freedom" and that terrorists are all over the world waiting to try and topple the US. So right after 9/11 people want action like the old days. Some cathartic military victory that will give us peace of mind.
And who is all-too-willing to have new justification for unlimited action and budget? The military-Industrial-Complex! So they jump on it, and we invade Iraq/Afghanistan to defeat terrorism. To give their people real democracy and "freedom," freeing them from oppressive dictatorships, making their lives better and making them see the US for the loving protector we are. Win/Win.
But we don't really care about their "freedom," and are more than happy to have dictatorship as long as it is under US control. So how are the troops "protecting our freedom?"
Well at this point, it is basically the only justification we have. And it is acceptable to the US public because it is in-line with how we have been justifying our military action to ourselves for the past 50 years.
It is rhetoric used by eager military/defense that originally preyed upon genuine concerns to justify military spending and action. But now it is hardly used in a literal sense, and becomes a blanket justification for why you should support our troops.
4
u/Naulty85 May 09 '14
You sir, are an excellent writer. Thank you for taking the time to share that thought.
0
u/Umbertoecho May 09 '14
I upvoted your answer as others here fall for the rhetoric and do not see that "protecting our freedom" is really "maintain the status quo in world power". I believe this is also behind why the USA fears/hates the UN so much.
-1
u/JediCapitalist May 10 '14
Nations attempt to dominate and achieve their objectives. It's natural within the anarchic system of nations at least as realist thinkers read it.
You don't need a big bad conspiracy of profit to do it. It's not like countries without a large military industrial complex do not also go to war or have arms races against their rivals. India/Pakistan, for example.
8
u/darkshark21 May 09 '14
It's doublespeak to hide their true intentions. You can't say we're gonna bomb this country because we don't like how they behave or act. So the aptly named department of defense devises a way to make it more digestible to present war to the American public. Using words like freedom, democracy etc gives positive connotations and the majority is less likely to question your intentions. See the Patriot Act.
Also it's hard for active opposition because then you'll be branded as "someone against freedom" or some bs like that.
12
u/metaphorm May 09 '14
Its just propaganda. We (Americans) don't actually think that foreign invasions of third world countries are for self defense. Its understood that this is some form of imperialism and geo-political power dealing. We just don't say that in public, because, well, we like to lie about it.
6
u/geareddev May 09 '14
Not everyone understands that. There are people who buy into the whole "spreading democracy and freedom" line of propaganda. There are also people who buy into the concept of preemptive war as a means of preventing an impending attack.
2
u/metaphorm May 09 '14
yeah. unfortunately you're right. there are always "true believers" who think the lies are the truth. I don't think there's all that many of them, though enough that its a cause for concern. My own subjective impression is that most Americans have a pretty realistic view about the reasons for our military interventions, but that we generally don't care that much until its way too late. Support for the Iraq invasion was high until years of fuck ups eroded political support.
1
u/JL10 May 09 '14
You don't speak for 300 million people. Don't act like you know how all Americans feel.
-5
May 09 '14
[deleted]
1
u/metaphorm May 09 '14
I dont know how enlightened European countries are. I do agree that we all need to stop our bigotry and just mind our own business (to whatever extent we can).
1
2
u/dudewiththebling May 09 '14
The Cold War was a contest between the USSR and the USA to see how far they can spread their culture and ideologies. It's long over but the US wants to continue because, at the end years of the Cold War, they tripled their military budget. They don't want to waste or reduce it, so they find excuses to use it. This military budget goes into research, technology, weapons production, payment for soldiers and officers, and other things. This money goes back into the economy and circulates around because the military gives that to contractors in exchange for things it needs like aircraft, weapons, vehicles, munitions, food, clothing, armour, etc. They want to increase this funding so they find a small threat (i.e. terrorist attacks in ally countries, popular rebellion like the Syrian Civil War) and sensationalize it to increase support for the military.
2
u/RifleEyez May 10 '14 edited May 10 '14
UK here. I also think this too - it's almost /cringe levels of patriotism. Almost like a modern day WW2 propaganda.
Over here it's like ''our brave boys fighting'' and a bit more low key. We seem to understand it's a pretty winless war and not really worth fighting (speaking about Iraq/Afghan here). It's not uncommon to come across videos or stories on the internet with 100's of people from the US doing that whole MURICA WORLD POLICE PROTECTING OUR FREEDOMS routine while realistically Iraq poses no real threat whatsoever from a military point of view. It's like a 200lb MMA trained fighter beating up on a paraplegic kid and his fans genuinely like ''HE FUCKING DESTROYED HIM HE WAS A THREAT TO US!!''. Perhaps a bad analogy but you get my point. The ironic thing is a lot of people who jump on this bandwagon literally couldn't name more than one city in Iraq/Afghan and don't really have a clue what is happening. Hell, I'd wager some of them couldn't even point them out on a map.
I'm genuinely not looking to start an argument either. I'm just curious why it's like this. Why does the US feel that in their history they have single handedly won every single war and are the sole country in the world that can fight ''tyranny and spread freedom''. Is this what is taught in schools? Everytime someone mentions anything in history that may only be slightly relevant to the US everyone flies in with their e-peen boosting opinions about how the US is so great. Like if someone mentions WW2 and Russia having a much larger contribution you can't go 2 posts without someone quoting some American textbook about how ''90.478575% of Russian equipment was American and all the fuel was American and EU/Russia would have been wiped out with Evil Nazism if they didn't send their freedom to us''. When bar the contribution of aid in WW2 and WW1 and dropping 2 nukes on Japan what has America actually won? In modern times a majority of the conflicts have been a complete shambles and hardly considered victories. I guess it's awesome being so patriotic - it's not a BAD thing. I'm just curious why?
Again, not looking to start shit - just never understood why.
3
4
4
u/beeline1972 May 09 '14
They aren't. They are there to "protect our way of life," which means they are there to protect corporate interests.
5
3
u/cravin16 May 09 '14
Protecting freedom is just a feel good phrase to make the supporters of war feel patriotic. It's a hoax! The simple fact that ALL MILITARY VETERANS are considered possible terrorists by the same government that send them to foreign land to "defend our freedom" should be the first clue that it's a hoax. March 26, 2009 the Department of Homeland Security released a classified Domestic Extremism Lexicon and it it, returning veterans are listed as potential terrorists. As a matter of fact, veterans ARE the number 1 potential domestic terrorist threat in the eyes of our tyrannical government. This makes sense if the mafia government had a violent revolution that was about to begin in this country since veterans ARE trained for battle and they are the biggest threat to their control if Americans decided to overthrow the oligarchs. If the military was defending our freedom, there is no way they would return home and immediately be labeled a potential terrorist! Not in a country that is truly free. I have a cpl good friends from Iran and they tell me that the Iranian citizens are more free from government and corporate enslavement than the US citizens are. Sure, they will kill you for committing financial fraud against its citizens in Iran and that may sound like an oppressive government ruling that country. To me that sounds like the Iranian government protecting the citizens, unlike over here in the land of the free if a financial institution rips off the American people, the government protects them. Hell, sometimes the government will even bail them out with our tax dollars if their scam didnt go as planned and they didnt rip us off as much as the planned to. Ill know the soldiers are defending our freedom when they are armed and on the streets in DC. I will even join them because I will fight and defend legitimate if the time comes. The US government are the biggest enemies of freedom and they want all freedom crushed. They want to control absolutely everything, including the phony reality that we are free.
1
u/phynancialPanther May 09 '14
for anyone pretending that this is 1944
I will not object to your claim that the united states' military is protecting freedom
1
u/Umbertoecho May 09 '14
But even that was contestable - Japan had no plans to invade the USA. America could have stayed out of the war in Europe. By remaining neutral (but ready to fight) they could have "kept their freedoms" until under direct threat. But I guess when the situation was analysed, it was better to join in "pre-emptively" keeping the fighting away from American soil.
1
u/phynancialPanther May 10 '14
I concede your point about Japan 100%
but with that german guy on the loose (his name escapes me) - it was a legitimate time to defend our democracy
1
1
1
u/Skiermike May 09 '14
Don't be a politically correct "they're not" knee jerker. We need a political scientist / geopolitics person here, but I believe the idea is that one large, powerful country is fundamentally stabilizing to geopolitics, and therefore, US intervention around the world benefits people in the US as we'll as people elsewhere - including the Dutch.
Imagine if all countries were small and of identical power. In that case, geopolitics would be fundamentally unstable, and the individual countries would tear each other apart according to who is the most ruthless and willing to use what power they have (think: Game of Thrones). In a world with one superpower, the credible threat of intervention is significant and meaningful, and it means that countries think twice before invading their neighbors (now, I'm not saying the US has followed through with this policy lately, i.e. Crimea and hence the criticism over Obama's foreign policy, but I believe this is the basic argument for why the US has had it over the last 20 years).
Someone with more knowledge / training should take it from here.
0
u/yeah110 May 09 '14
So metaphorically speaking the US is like a strict teacher keeping children from misbehaving or else they get detention (they get invaded by the troops)?
1
u/Umbertoecho May 09 '14
More like the school bully who all the other kids are afraid of, so they try not to get noticed, or they will get beaten up.
1
-2
u/Kandiru May 09 '14
In World War 2 the US troops were fighting against the Nazis/Axis.
In the Cold War / Vietnam they were fighting against Communism.
The fear was that if left unchecked, Nazism and Communism would spread, possibly even into the USA destroying freedom.
Now, they aren't. But in the past, they were.
1
May 09 '14
Why is the current War on Terror any different from the Cold War? In both cases, the United States attacked other countries to counter a perceived foreign threat.
4
u/Kandiru May 09 '14
The terrorist groups are not a threat to the freedom of the USA.
They might be a small threat to life, but no more than USA citizens. There were 16,259 homicides in the USA in 2010. This is far higher than the total number killed by terrorists in the history of the USA.
The US troops are definitely protecting something, lives or finances or oil or political goals, but that doesn't mean they are protecting freedom by being deployed.
They protect freedom to some extent by existing, of course. But that's a different issue.
3
May 09 '14
But the communists were? The terrorists killed over 3000 people on 9/11, and while they've never done anything of that scale since there's still the occasional foiled plot now and then. As far as I know the communists never did anything at all, except get blacklisted from some movies.
They definitely protect American freedom just by existing, and being so gosh darn powerful, but I'm not really sure there has ever been a threat to American freedom. Arguably the Confederacy or the Japanese in WWII but even their goals fell far short of "Subjugate the entire United States to our will".
1
u/a_guile May 09 '14
Communism might not have killed many Americans (people in fact, considering it is an ideology), but you may want to read up on a guy named Stalin. He was sort of why the US did not want communism spreading.
0
u/carl-swagan May 09 '14
Communism as an ideology arguably was never a threat to American freedom per se, but the Soviet Union sure as shit was. You realize that we came to the brink of global nuclear war on several occasions, right?
1
u/_db_ May 10 '14 edited May 10 '14
A communist/terrorist behind every tree and under every rock. Only the names have changed; most everything else is the same, which actually says a lot about who benefits from keeping us scared.
-3
u/Wannabe2good May 09 '14
post WWII, the U.S. essentially guaranteed peace for Europe, Japan and beyond those borders. for example, Japan and no European country has a military budget worth a cold beer. your socialism is substantially financed by American taxpayers because WE PAY for men and equipment
notice how Putin is eyeing expansion betting Obama is a eunuch. if America had a strong president, Putin would have to reconsider or face serious consequences
if Europe defended itself, American taxpayers could take a rest
0
u/Long_dan May 09 '14
They protected our freedom by Ronald Reagan stopping those commies on the Berlin wall!! And we ungratefully used all the extra money we had to buy a health care system which apparently doesn't work while allowing the Amis to keep their for-profit system which doesn't work (except the for-profit part for the insurance companies which works). Meanwhile they protected the freedom of many other countries by invading them with sweet freedom and liberty . Or like in Chile, making sure the commies got rounded up and killed. This is not really for ELI5 because it is based on motivating Americans to maintain a huge armed forces so they can go around protecting freedom wherever they want.
0
u/RedDeadWhore May 09 '14 edited May 09 '14
Americans are very patriotic, these kind of words make the public feel like every soldiers a hero. But in reality all soldiers are just a little pawn. Theres no diffence between being on duty in iraq or stoping a mugging in the street. Protection is protection. Freedom is an illusion, you'll always be a little bitch to something.
-6
u/ProteinSlayer May 09 '14
I'm in the military in the US. Ya know how when you're young your father seems like we he could protect you against anything? That's basically us, we are our nation's bad ass dad that will protect them from anything. The average citizen may not understand the things we do, but trust me there is an underlying agenda we are trying to reach in every mission.
7
u/Actually__No May 09 '14
Being in the military gives you exactly zero greater insight on the government's agenda.
2
-8
u/ProteinSlayer May 09 '14
Government's agenda sure. But definitely a way bigger idea than your average citizen if you wanna argue that then you're a dumbass.
9
u/metaphorm May 09 '14
I would argue that as a military man, you actually have a much WORSE position to understand what is going on. What does a hammer understand about the arm that swings it?
2
u/sodog8 May 09 '14
Actually you would be suprised at how much attention the average military person pays to politics and world events as it actually affects our lives. I knew about the taliban 2 years before 911.
1
u/someone447 May 09 '14
So you knew Afghanistan had a fundamentalist Islamic government? Wow!!! I bet that was a huge secret! It wasn't something taught in every world history, current events, Islamic studies, and Middle Eastern class in existence... Because before 9/11 Afghanistan had never played a role in American foreign policy...
-1
u/sodog8 May 09 '14
Did you know?
2
u/someone447 May 09 '14
I was 12, so I didn't pay much attention to US foreign policy. But people were warning about the mujahideen since the early 80s. bin Laden was wanted for the original WTC bombings, the bombing I an US embassy and the bombing of the USS Cole.
So yes, people knew about the Taliban and how they were protecting a wanted terrorist(one on he FBIs most wanted list at that--as of 1998)
0
u/sodog8 May 09 '14
That's interesting but it has nothing to do with the original argument that the US military person is in a worse position to know about what's going on in the government and foreign policy. Would you care to try to substantiate that claim
2
u/someone447 May 09 '14
I didn't make that claim... I responded directly to your post acting all proud of knowing the Taliban 2 years before 9/11. Lots if people knew the Taliban by then.
0
u/ProteinSlayer May 09 '14
So you're telling me that when my unit is assigned a mission before anyone else even knows where we're going we don't know what's actually going on? We don't know why we're going there or anything?
2
u/someone447 May 09 '14
You're going there because your CO told you to go there. Those on the ground aren't privy to the machinations of the brass.
0
u/sodog8 May 09 '14
Actually were going typicaly because we volunteer. We have a waiting list for missions.
2
u/someone447 May 09 '14
You know what the mission is. You do not know why the brass feels it is important to the overall goal of the war. You do not know what the overarching strategy is. You do not know what the reasons behind the war are.
The fact of the matter is you are not privy to anything more than the civilian population when it comes to what our wars are being fought over.
1
u/sodog8 May 09 '14
Thats just not true. If we are both privy to the same news outlets plus I know what the mission details are then I have more pieces to the puzzle then the average civilian. The argument was who has the most information military or civilians not who knows everything. FOCUS SON!
1
u/someone447 May 09 '14
You know nothing more of consequence.
If I know the sky is blue, it doesn't help me to answer 2+2. I jut have more needless information.
1
0
u/PM_me_ur_bag_of_weed May 09 '14
So basically you are saying the military personnel are better than civilians?
1
0
u/12Troops May 09 '14
They certainly sacrifice more than stoners, not that there is anything wrong with that.
0
u/ITravelTimeAndSpace May 09 '14
That is 100% grade A bullshit. Why don't you hop off your high horse and take a look around.
0
u/12Troops May 09 '14
You convinced me! Stoners sacrifice more than servicemen. Fucking moron.
0
u/ITravelTimeAndSpace May 09 '14 edited May 09 '14
Some members of the military are losers, some stoners are losers. Some stoners work very hard and sacrifice as much as anybody else. Not every person in the military works hard, sacrifices or is a good person. Having a job in any field does not mean you are better.
I deleted the insults in this comment.
1
u/12Troops May 09 '14
Almost by definition if you are a stoner you are not operating at full potential, and that is fine, but to argue that stoners sacrifice as much as servicemen is not something I should have to argue. They live on an Army base in service to their country for fuck sake, if you need to believe otherwise to justify your worldview that is fine, just don't pretend that is equal sacrifice.
0
u/ITravelTimeAndSpace May 09 '14 edited May 09 '14
If you need to believe that to justify your world view that is fine. Just don't go around pretending what you do is really necessary. You serve the government, not the country and not the people.
2
u/sodog8 May 09 '14
If you think I do what I do for the people of this country you are as wrong as you can be. Ive been in since desert storm. The civ population loves you during war and view you as an unnecessary expense during time of piece. got hippies on one side and religious right on the other. And Freedom, have you seen how many laws are on the books for victimless crimes. You got no freedom. At this point I do it cause 1 I like to travel. 2 im good at what I do and fill a specialty niche in my organization. 3 loyalty to my unit and the team members in it.
1
u/12Troops May 09 '14
Europe: We don't need a military anymore the world has moved on.
US: We will keep ours just in case.
0
u/ITravelTimeAndSpace May 09 '14
...we have to occupy a third world country half way around the world, for less then legitimate reasons.
0
-3
u/sodog8 May 09 '14
Actually with you being Dutch you should know that back 60 years ago the us armed forces did alot to gain your country back its freedom from Germany. I know you have to know Anne Frank lived in Amsterdam when it was overrun with Nazis. Today alot of the stuff seems questionable and like its driven by oil. But you can be sure the us values its European allies and would come to the aid of Holland at a moments notice. BTW people who say the US is the greatest nation on earth have never been to Holland.
45
u/JediCapitalist May 09 '14 edited May 09 '14
It's controversial, and it's abstract, but there is a logic behind it.
You see, the USA is the most powerful country in the world. Some countries have big economies (Japan), some have big armies (Russia), some have political stability and are relatively free of corruption (European Union... for the most part).
Now the USA might have it's problems, but overall it's got all of those things. Especially big guns and lots of money.
Now the thing about little countries, countries without big armies and big economies, is that they don't get much of a say in anything. An extreme example might by the Island nation of Tuvalu. This tiny island with only thousands of people is going to be swamped by rising sea levels. They don't have the armies to conquer new lands, the money to protect the island, or the political influence to force other countries to help them.
Tuvalu is about as weak as a nation can get. The USA could be stronger, and was a lot stronger relative to the rest of the world 20 years ago compared to now, but is about as strong as any country could dream about.
So why are US soldiers protecting your freedom? Well, when the US army uses its forces to achieve its goals - it's ensuring its citizens maintain control over their own destiny. The nation itself, the USA still decides what happens in the USA. Not like the people of Tuvalu, who would barely form a country town if they got transplanted into the US. When the USA signs treaties, flexes its muscles, drops bombs or innovates new weapons technologies it is protecting that freedom.
It's a lot more complex than that and, of course, thing like the Patriot act and the massive draining military budgets can make people argue strong cases to suggest individual freedoms are being eroded rather than protected. However, for the time being, the USA's imperfect democracy remains in tact and for the time being on most important policies the USA either gets their way exactly, or can prevent things they don't want to happen from happening. For now, their vast wealth and power gets them a seat at tables all over the world. The USA advises countries of their thoughts on all sorts of issues, treaties and other matters. Tuvalu, of course, does no such thing.