A serving soldier, injured in the front line, has a 25 per cent better chance of survival, than a civilian with similar injuries.
Expertise is obviously there but is there a justification for the priority?
Hello Shirack,
A curious post, are you following someone else's thread or your own?
Expertise in what, surviving or treating the injury? Are you saying the soldier would take priority over the civilian for treatment?
In my opinion no, in the capitalist sense - yes! Capitalist ideologies often (maybe not always) underpin situations that invoke military response and therefore priority is abscribed to keeping the workforce going.
If it was my son that needed I would want him to receive the best possible treatment - regardless of whether he was a serving soldier or not!
An interesting question. The second sentence is perplexing, hailing almost from the 1980s.
You will obviously know your social history and the contributions to medical care that have stemmed from the armed services - the obvious one being Florence Nightingales influence during the Crimean War and beyond.
The question is, which 'similar injuries' will civilians get that are similar to "a serving solider, injured in the front line"?
Medical units invariably accompany all armed forces postings and barracked locations. In battlefield situations, as you are probably aware (one again from social history) a key source of morale is the knowledge that the serving solider will receive prompt and effective medical treatment if he (and increasingly, she) is wounded on the battlefield. The nature of modern military medical services revealed itself during the Second World War, in reaction to the horrors of the First World War, when infection and disease killed as many wounded as those killed on the battlefield.
Coming back to the first sentence, what would be the 'similar injuries'? Well gunshot wounds would be the obvious one. Some military medics and surgeons, certainly from the US and UK would expect to treat many more gunshot wounds than a civilian peer in even the busiest inner-city hospital. In addition a flow of staff and information between military and civilian medical services takes place. In the US it certainly unusual to find your doctor or surgeon is a National Guard Reserve too, whilst pioneering work performed by joint NHS/military staff in Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham has seen 'civilian' gunshot wounds treated more effectively using experience gained in first-line military medical establishments.
Yet the nature of what 'a serving solider, injured in the front line' is likely to injured by is somewhat different to what most civilians encounter. In civilian woundings, the most common injury comes from the 9mm bullet. Whilst such rounds are used in the military, the most common round that a Western solider will be shot with will be a soviet era 7.62x39mm rifle round. This round has considerably more energy than a pistol (9mm) round. Although soldiers wear armor, this will be a disadvantage if the round penetrates flesh, as the round with richochet, trapped by the inside of the armor. A 'dum'dum' round, although not so accurate, is even more damaging, as it will tumble.
In addition to gunshot wounds, the next source of injuries are IED's. Both the blast fragments and the overpressure from an explosive devce cause serious injuries that few civilian medics are (fortunately) unlikely to have to treat. The overpressure from an IED can seriously injure the most armored of soldiers, compressing and rupturing internal organs. Shrapnel from the blast, invariably in the form of nails or other sharp objects can cause multiple injuries, whilst lung damage can be caused by the inhalation of hot gases.
Your social history training will have taught you of the 'Military Covenant' (a British term) although there is an equivalent concept in most Western countries and beyond. In the UK, certainly up until recently there was expressed doubt that the unwritten Covenant, that determines that the trade-off a solider takes in putting his/her life and the line is offset by a willingness of society to provide high standards of battlefield care, was actually being adhered too (see for instance http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-in-breach-of-the-military-covenant-1634261.html) . The situatin was particularly worse just a few decades ago - documented in the Colin Firth-starring BBC play 'Tumbledown' that highlighted the failings of after-care and support for seriously wounded soldiers. PTSD is still an area that the military are weak on, and a high proportion of former soldiers (notably) develop mental illnesses, particularly those who have no useful skills after they leave service. In the US a highly-developed veteran programme ensures that many former soldiers, many originally from deprived backgrounds, are able to secure a degree.
In recent years, because of high number of limb amputations amongst front-line soldiers, huge advances in prosthetics have been made, reflected in the sight of civilian disabled individuals who have benefited from the technology, now being able to sprint quicker than most of us!
Finally I turn to the statement 'Expertise is obviously there but is there a justification for the priority?' This I thought was unusual to find on a social care website for professionals. Social history teaches us that the treatment of wounded military has not always been a priority. Yet advances in infection control, prosthetics, and most of all the recognition that speed is of the essence, have all fed back to the civilian world.
It is hard to contemplate how the 'priority' could be reduced. Could perhaps helicopters transporting severely wounded soldiers be made to fly a little slower to the medical unit, so to increase the number of statistical fatalities? Should perhaps the number of medical staff on the battlefield or front line be reduced, so perhaps a few more soldiers bleed to death of gunshot wounds (once again just to get the statistics in line)? Perhaps a better way would be to ask how the civilian world could benefit from the features that enable soldiers to survive horrifying injuries.
A visitor to this forum, perhaps a journalist or a serving soldier or the close relative of one currently at the front-line, might wonder at the mind-set that produced ' Expertise is obviously there but is there a justification for the priority?'
This stems from new military facility in Birmingham hospital opened last June. At that time soldiers were given police escorts from the airport and I just wondered how many civilian emergencies were afforded the same priority. How many heart attack ambulances are preceded by police?
Are people who kill in our name more important than people who do the opposite.
Since the unit has opened it appears the civvies are learning from the military so it's not all gloom.
I am sorry if I offend people, I just don't support wars or soldiers; sense of duty? bollo**s and conscription ended the middle of the last century.
RachelL - your penultimate paragraph is plainly stupid.
'I just don't support wars or soldiers'
Are there any other groups you don't particularly like? Does your dislike extend to say bereaved children and partners of soldiers killed? Does it extend to elderly veteran soldiers from say the fight against the Nazi's (1939-1945)? Or is it just 'modern' soldiers? But its a big jump from not supporting soldiers to complaining about the medical provision of those at the front line.
'At that time soldiers were given police escorts from the airport and I just wondered how many civilian emergencies were afforded the same priority.'
Have you actually ever worked with the emergency services? Have you ever worked, even briefly, even as an observer, in a casualty unit? Have you ever seen anyone with a gunshot wound? Unfortunately I can answer yes to all three. You probably have no comprehension about how disgusting your comment will read to some.
I have to presume you are a troll, because if people moan that the Press paint social workers as rotters in England, I dread to think what headlines could be made from this thread.
I don't support wars, and I distinctly didn't support the Iraqi war. As for Afghanistan...well, I'm inclined to believe that any regime that doesn't grant the right of education to girls and women is prime for intervention (I'm not a 'cultural relativist'). As for not liking soldiers as a profession, fine. Personally I'm quite grateful to them. Not being white, blond, blue-eyed and heterosexual, or not having a distinct dislike of Jews and/or gypsies, I tend to find I am quite grateful for the legacy of soldiers from the US and UK.
Why is 'Perhaps a better way would be to ask how the civilian world could benefit from the features that enable soldiers to survive horrifying injuries ' stupid?
This story was on BBC news this morning regarding a woman that received similar treatment to that of injured soldiers after a car crash. The information Shirack is pondering is from that news report.
Rachell; you seem very warlike to me. Not that it is particularly relevant but I am a qualified soldier as well as social worker. Unfortunately I failed my Troll course.
I have confess that I struggle with 'qualified soldier as well as social worker' and questioning priorities for soldiers medical care.
Just which profession are you trying to machine-gun in the foot?
RachelL: I have confess that I struggle with 'qualified soldier as well as social worker' and questioning priorities for soldiers medical care. Just which profession are you trying to machine-gun in the foot?
Ah, that's okay then;
'Cos I read this;
Shirak wrote;
"A serving soldier, injured in the front line"
And I could easily be mistaken for believing that it meant "A serving soldier, injured in the front line"
And let's not forget that levels of compensation for equivalent injuries are not the same between civilians and servicemen and women;
So, a civilian car passenger in the UK, be they a student, a nurse, a house-husband or other, sustaining a “simple” leg break in a road traffic accident might receive compensation for that injury in the range of £5,750 to £9,000.
A soldier, who sustained the same injury jumping down from an Armoured Personnel Carrier in Afghanistan to escape an attack by the Taliban, can expect to receive the same level of compensation for the same injury under the AFCS.
The same applies to the more serious cases. Cases of complete paralysis warrant awards of several hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The difficulty is that where there are multiple injuries, the full value of all of those several injuries are not fully recoverable under the AFCS whereas, the civilian in the UK car accident, can be compensated for all the injuries, subject to some allowance where two or more of the injuries genuinely overlap.
The other major difference, and the most important difference, is in how things like future care costs, accommodation and future loss of earnings are dealt with.
In simple terms, for the more serious injuries under the AFCS, a victim will receive a Guaranteed Income Payment or “GIP” which is a crude mathematical formula that attempts to recognise the future impact of the injury in terms on ongoing expense or loss.
In a civil claim, all those types of future losses and expenses are properly calculated and capable of being recovered in full. This difference between what is recoverable in a successful civil claim as compared with a payment out under AFCS can, in cases of those severely injured, run into several hundreds of thousands of pounds and even more in the cases of utmost severity.
From http://www.pension4army.co.uk/military-injury
OK Rachell bit more for you::::::::::: Injuries are an occupational hazard for soldiers. As I said before there is no compulsion.
No one volunteers for a car crash!!!!!!!
Injuries are an occupational hazard for soldiers.
Does that extend to any other professions?
How about if you read, on another forum?
Injuries are an occupational hazard for social workers.
How would you feel?
Or perhaps;
Injuries are an occupational hazard for police officers.
Injuries are an occupational hazard for teachers.
Injuries are an occupational hazard for nurses.
So, one of those occupationally hazarded soldiers reads this thread. Not hard to find. How about Major Phil Packer?
Maj Packer, who served with the Royal Military Police, was injured on 19 February last year in Basra. He was hit by a vehicle and dragged underneath it during an incident that followed a rocket attack.
He suffered a bruised heart and damage to his ribs and chest and became a complete paraplegic, losing the motor and sensory use of his legs. As a result of his injuries he was told he would never walk again.
However, almost a year later, Maj Packer has regained some feeling in his legs and is determined to walk once more.
From Paraplegic soldier rows Channel
There does seem to be a sentimental element attaching to combat injuries. More widely felt than car crash injuries, where it doesn't extend much beyond friends and family.
Shirack: Expertise is obviously there but is there a justification for the priority?
Shirack, I have been thinking along similar lines after seeing all the coverage the last few days. If the medical and surgical expertise, techniques and skills exist available to save the lives of servicemen and women who have been involved in serious and severe trauma injuries- why can't it be applied in our general hospitals too. Why is it restricted to these army hospitals and medical staff?
I have absolutely no problem with people who put their lives on the line in service for the country (in any situation- not just in battle) receiving the highest standards of care- however, I do have a problem when those same highest standards of care are not available to every citizen who is in need of that expertise.
Are you deliberately failing to understand the word volunteer? How about chosen career/ elected/ free will decision. Hope this helps you.
Nope. Not getting it at all.
I think what you mean, is that if you volunteer for a profession - particularly a dangerous one - I presume you don't limit it to just the military, then you are fair game and should expect the same treatment as anyone else.
If conscripted, I am once again presuming that is something else altogether.
Where I'm struggling is why the desire to get the soldiers injured down to the lowest common denominator (I guess we just ignore the compensation issue as being just a tad awkward, and their fault in the first place) rather than be grateful that the technology and processes are (and have for decades) would their way into the civilian field.
But what really bamboozles me; is why would social workers, on a public social work forum, want to be associated with;
Maybe that's just me, out-of-step with the majority, and completely wrong thinking that many people would be repulsed by the sentiments displayed.
RachelL: Nope. Not getting it at all. I think what you mean, is that if you volunteer for a profession - particularly a dangerous one - I presume you don't limit it to just the military, then you are fair game and should expect the same treatment as anyone else. If conscripted, I am once again presuming that is something else altogether. Where I'm struggling is why the desire to get the soldiers injured down to the lowest common denominator (I guess we just ignore the compensation issue as being just a tad awkward, and their fault in the first place) rather than be grateful that the technology and processes are (and have for decades) would their way into the civilian field. But what really bamboozles me; is why would social workers, on a public social work forum, want to be associated with; Injuries are an occupational hazard for soldiers. Maybe that's just me, out-of-step with the majority, and completely wrong thinking that many people would be repulsed by the sentiments displayed.
I had to answer this one. Although obvious it was scary from a social care point-of-view.
If you are a surgeon, just where does such experience for treating serious and severe trauma injuries come from? Such knowledge can be taught in the classroom, but where does practical knowledge and experience of such come from?
Well perhaps from having a regular source of injured humans - civilians, Army, say Afghan army, civilians, even Taleban volunteers - coming through the door, say to a field hospital such as 22 Field Hospital .
Fun though it is to imagine some Vast Conspiracy ensuring that us simple 'civvies' don't get access to the same knowledge and experience if we are accidentally run over by a bus, the sad reality is that such experience only comes from well, experience.
A bit like experienced social workers really; it isn't enough to be taught in the classroom.
RachelL: An interesting question. The second sentence is perplexing, hailing almost from the 1980s. You will obviously know your social history and the contributions to medical care that have stemmed from the armed services - the obvious one being Florence Nightingales influence during the Crimean War and beyond. The question is, which 'similar injuries' will civilians get that are similar to "a serving solider, injured in the front line"? Medical units invariably accompany all armed forces postings and barracked locations. In battlefield situations, as you are probably aware (one again from social history) a key source of morale is the knowledge that the serving solider will receive prompt and effective medical treatment if he (and increasingly, she) is wounded on the battlefield. The nature of modern military medical services revealed itself during the Second World War, in reaction to the horrors of the First World War, when infection and disease killed as many wounded as those killed on the battlefield. Coming back to the first sentence, what would be the 'similar injuries'? Well gunshot wounds would be the obvious one. Some military medics and surgeons, certainly from the US and UK would expect to treat many more gunshot wounds than a civilian peer in even the busiest inner-city hospital. In addition a flow of staff and information between military and civilian medical services takes place. In the US it certainly unusual to find your doctor or surgeon is a National Guard Reserve too, whilst pioneering work performed by joint NHS/military staff in Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham has seen 'civilian' gunshot wounds treated more effectively using experience gained in first-line military medical establishments. Yet the nature of what 'a serving solider, injured in the front line' is likely to injured by is somewhat different to what most civilians encounter. In civilian woundings, the most common injury comes from the 9mm bullet. Whilst such rounds are used in the military, the most common round that a Western solider will be shot with will be a soviet era 7.62x39mm rifle round. This round has considerably more energy than a pistol (9mm) round. Although soldiers wear armor, this will be a disadvantage if the round penetrates flesh, as the round with richochet, trapped by the inside of the armor. A 'dum'dum' round, although not so accurate, is even more damaging, as it will tumble. In addition to gunshot wounds, the next source of injuries are IED's. Both the blast fragments and the overpressure from an explosive devce cause serious injuries that few civilian medics are (fortunately) unlikely to have to treat. The overpressure from an IED can seriously injure the most armored of soldiers, compressing and rupturing internal organs. Shrapnel from the blast, invariably in the form of nails or other sharp objects can cause multiple injuries, whilst lung damage can be caused by the inhalation of hot gases. Your social history training will have taught you of the 'Military Covenant' (a British term) although there is an equivalent concept in most Western countries and beyond. In the UK, certainly up until recently there was expressed doubt that the unwritten Covenant, that determines that the trade-off a solider takes in putting his/her life and the line is offset by a willingness of society to provide high standards of battlefield care, was actually being adhered too (see for instance http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-in-breach-of-the-military-covenant-1634261.html) . The situatin was particularly worse just a few decades ago - documented in the Colin Firth-starring BBC play 'Tumbledown' that highlighted the failings of after-care and support for seriously wounded soldiers. PTSD is still an area that the military are weak on, and a high proportion of former soldiers (notably) develop mental illnesses, particularly those who have no useful skills after they leave service. In the US a highly-developed veteran programme ensures that many former soldiers, many originally from deprived backgrounds, are able to secure a degree. In recent years, because of high number of limb amputations amongst front-line soldiers, huge advances in prosthetics have been made, reflected in the sight of civilian disabled individuals who have benefited from the technology, now being able to sprint quicker than most of us! Finally I turn to the statement 'Expertise is obviously there but is there a justification for the priority?' This I thought was unusual to find on a social care website for professionals. Social history teaches us that the treatment of wounded military has not always been a priority. Yet advances in infection control, prosthetics, and most of all the recognition that speed is of the essence, have all fed back to the civilian world. It is hard to contemplate how the 'priority' could be reduced. Could perhaps helicopters transporting severely wounded soldiers be made to fly a little slower to the medical unit, so to increase the number of statistical fatalities? Should perhaps the number of medical staff on the battlefield or front line be reduced, so perhaps a few more soldiers bleed to death of gunshot wounds (once again just to get the statistics in line)? Perhaps a better way would be to ask how the civilian world could benefit from the features that enable soldiers to survive horrifying injuries. A visitor to this forum, perhaps a journalist or a serving soldier or the close relative of one currently at the front-line, might wonder at the mind-set that produced ' Expertise is obviously there but is there a justification for the priority?'
Thanks for that dose of reality Racheal - embarrassingly soldiers are fair game for a lot of people on the left
Soldiers clearly do not get a good deal and it is nonsense to suggest that that is the case
In complete agreement with you Rachael - Shirack is perpetuating the stereotype of social workers as marxist tree huggers - something the profession has definiely suffered for as it alienates service users who actually live in the real world!
Shirack: OK Rachell bit more for you::::::::::: Injuries are an occupational hazard for soldiers. As I said before there is no compulsion. No one volunteers for a car crash!!!!!!!
indeed they do not. however there are some who volounteer to defend britian and british interests around the world (that includes you). some of these 'volounteers are killed.
what a strange person you are, no wars,no soldiers.be glad of war and soldiers, its why you get to post here.
romeo2001: RachelL: Nope. Not getting it at all. I think what you mean, is that if you volunteer for a profession - particularly a dangerous one - I presume you don't limit it to just the military, then you are fair game and should expect the same treatment as anyone else. If conscripted, I am once again presuming that is something else altogether. Where I'm struggling is why the desire to get the soldiers injured down to the lowest common denominator (I guess we just ignore the compensation issue as being just a tad awkward, and their fault in the first place) rather than be grateful that the technology and processes are (and have for decades) would their way into the civilian field. But what really bamboozles me; is why would social workers, on a public social work forum, want to be associated with; Injuries are an occupational hazard for soldiers. Maybe that's just me, out-of-step with the majority, and completely wrong thinking that many people would be repulsed by the sentiments displayed. In complete agreement with you Rachael - Shirack is perpetuating the stereotype of social workers as marxist tree huggers - something the profession has definiely suffered for as it alienates service users who actually live in the real world!
hi No Rachel i can asure you that it is Shiack who is out of step with most social workers i suspect that he posts simply to wind people up
blackcat44: hi No Rachel i can asure you that it is Shiack who is out of step with most social workers i suspect that he posts simply to wind people up
titchmagoo: Shirack: OK Rachell bit more for you::::::::::: Injuries are an occupational hazard for soldiers. As I said before there is no compulsion. No one volunteers for a car crash!!!!!!! indeed they do not. however there are some who volounteer to defend britian and british interests around the world (that includes you). some of these 'volounteers are killed. what a strange person you are, no wars,no soldiers.be glad of war and soldiers, its why you get to post here.
I don't take offence at you calling me strange, in fact, looking at the source I take it as a compliment.
I suspect him of rating his own posts with five gold stars. On other forums that is prohibited.
And yet being both a soldier and a social worker Shirack, you will appreciate the effectiveness of say a battalion of British Royal Marines when disembarked to a region recently suffered an earthquake or tsunami. Modern Western soldiers, particularly the officers are taught and trained in rather more than simply finding new and imaginitive ways of killing enemy combatants.
Not all military are 'military'. The Pakistani air force routinely fly squadrons of helicopters at altitudes higher than any other helicopter unit in the world, and spend most of the summer recueing injured climbers and tourists. The US Coast Guard has an extraordinary number of assets, which when not employed hunting for drug smugglers, invariably spend their time rescuing sailors or performing distinct non-military roles such as pollution monitoring.
On occasions, not being sufficiently 'warlike' causes greater woe. As a soldier you will be perfectly aware of the atrocities that took place when the Dutch army were told to hold back , resulting in the Srebrenica massacre in 1995, the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II. If you are or were an officer or NCO, even in a territorial or reserve capacity, then you will have received training of collecting evidence for human rights abuses, though it seems unlikely that if British troops had been in Srebrenica they would have stood aside - other British units stationed on the hills around the city called-in airstrikes against Serb tanks at the time.
In the West, more so in Europe than in the US, our military are pretty much out-of-sight and out-of-mind. We keep them barracked, often in faraway place and rarely, very rarely actually see them. In the US its virtually impossible to miss not seeing a serviceman or servicewoman in an airport or train station, transiting to-and-from-leave. In a way this has removed soldiers from many concerns, though visiting an Army housing estate in the 1980s in England was a visit to a terrifying world of deprivation and poor quality housing. As a minority some like to label them, attributing all the world woes upon them. In reality they are followers of orders, and it is those who give them their instructions - the politicians, who have real blame.
Recognition that soldiers generally get a worse deal than normal paid citizens is certainly apparent. Using the idea of them being volunteers as being some kind of justification for poor insurance/poor conditions would not be valued if the same arguments were applied to other professions, such as social workers.
Rachell, not sure what point you are trying to make. I am talking about people with no compulsion, deciding they want to become soldiers and go and fight wars. By doing so they are participating in barbaric practises either directly or indirectly. Might is being used as a justification of cause. It,s not who's in the right wins, it is who has the greatest firepower. Surely a flawed solution. Look at Palestine.
Whether soldiers also do good things or live in bad conditions is totally irrelevant. As for the obeying orders bit I say stop it at the point of delivery and work backwards.
There is no real distinction between a soldier and a mercenary yet the press they get is very different. The world does not need wars and soldiers, it choses to have them. As long as we go on glorifying them we perpetuate their existence.
We should be looking for other ways.The greatest challenge in SW is caused by intolerance and aggression, we are either for it or against it. No double standards.
PaulBarton: blackcat44: hi No Rachel i can asure you that it is Shiack who is out of step with most social workers i suspect that he posts simply to wind people up I suspect him of rating his own posts with five gold stars. On other forums that is prohibited.
I would have to agree with much of this.
Yet humankind, long back through known human history have fought wars. It is our flaw. Racism, sexism and homophobia are human flaws that have been recorded throughout human history even before "Biblical" times. We're a species of extraordinary ability mixed with terrifying cruelty.
Yet the problem is, how to address it. In a perfect world war and war-makers could be banished, but other than the exception of having aliens descend to tell us we can't join the Galactic Club until we renounce war, I can't see an easy route to dispensing with it.
The alternatives to war is of course negotiation, compromise and of course Appeasement. In your unique position as both a soldier and social worker you will have been taught even the rudiments of military history, even that only pertaining to your regiments past history. In the years leading to the Second World War Appeasement was attempted, and even for a while believed successful. Czechoslovakia was invaded and occupied with little more than a murmur, and the hope was that would suffice. Only with the invasion of Poland came the realization that only aggression would suffice.
Yet a professional soldier in the West cannot be easily compared with a mercenary - certainly the pay for riflemen and gunners isn't high to claim that it is done for money. A degree of public duty accompanies military service, just as to a degree is accompanies social work, police work and healthcare. You will no doubt have noted that advertisements in the UK for the armed forces invariably follow the path of emphasizing the non-combat duties (the 'what would you do?' campaign).
However writing-off an entire profession as being immoral and beyond the pale, and thus suitable targets for justifying such things as reduced compensation payments in the event of injuries on-duty, doesn't sit well with myself, and perhaps doesn't reflect well on the dream of a world with aggression.
Maybe it is unrealistic but then so was flying.
"The best defense is no offense". Ivan Eland. (Not "attack")
If a survey of reasons for joining up was undertaken, I guess "Serve my country" would be number one reason.
Where did all these altruistic teenagers come from?
RachelL: I would have to agree with much of this. Yet humankind, long back through known human history have fought wars. It is our flaw. Racism, sexism and homophobia are human flaws that have been recorded throughout human history even before "Biblical" times. We're a species of extraordinary ability mixed with terrifying cruelty. Yet the problem is, how to address it. In a perfect world war and war-makers could be banished, but other than the exception of having aliens descend to tell us we can't join the Galactic Club until we renounce war, I can't see an easy route to dispensing with it. The alternatives to war is of course negotiation, compromise and of course Appeasement. In your unique position as both a soldier and social worker you will have been taught even the rudiments of military history, even that only pertaining to your regiments past history. In the years leading to the Second World War Appeasement was attempted, and even for a while believed successful. Czechoslovakia was invaded and occupied with little more than a murmur, and the hope was that would suffice. Only with the invasion of Poland came the realization that only aggression would suffice. Yet a professional soldier in the West cannot be easily compared with a mercenary - certainly the pay for riflemen and gunners isn't high to claim that it is done for money. A degree of public duty accompanies military service, just as to a degree is accompanies social work, police work and healthcare. You will no doubt have noted that advertisements in the UK for the armed forces invariably follow the path of emphasizing the non-combat duties (the 'what would you do?' campaign). However writing-off an entire profession as being immoral and beyond the pale, and thus suitable targets for justifying such things as reduced compensation payments in the event of injuries on-duty, doesn't sit well with myself, and perhaps doesn't reflect well on the dream of a world with aggression.
Excellent post and says it better than I could (tho Ive no doubt I'll ill-advisedly try at some point lol)