Are soldiers heroes? [Archive]

The Idler

12th July 2009, 13:24

Pogue

12th July 2009, 13:33

No one is forced to join the British Army. Regardless of whether or not your a 'desperate working class lad', you still have personal choice and responsibility. They are definately not heroes, they are being paid to do fucked up shit on behalf of the state and are the enemies of the working class. I blame the state, the officers, etc, more, and I don't think they are all scum but that doesn't mean they are innocent let alone heroes. I hope maybe some would defect and come to their senses but I doubt it.

Fuck the British Army.

Il Medico

12th July 2009, 14:05

Fuck the British Army.
Fuck all Armies.
I don't entirely blame soldiers, but they certainly aren't heroes. And some, the cruel and vindictive that join to "kill some A-rabs" deserve to be spit upon. For these people the word murder come to mind long before hero. However, the leader, officers and all others who make the decisions to kill innocent people in the name of their overlords' profit deserve nothing but condemnation and revilement.

Dust Bunnies

12th July 2009, 15:14

The only "hero soldiers" are revolutionaries who fight against Capitalism. Fuck Imperialism.

Trystan

12th July 2009, 16:21

No, they are not necessarily heroes. True, it is a dangerous job. In actual fact, the most dangerous job to have is to be a fisherman (I mean a real fisherman, at sea).

12th July 2009, 16:21

moved

NecroCommie

12th July 2009, 16:32

Lynx

12th July 2009, 16:48

Hero worship is infantile.

Sarah Palin

12th July 2009, 16:48

Everyone in the US (I don't know how it is in Britain) will tell me (after I have said that x war was horrible, imperialistic, and illegal) that soldiers there (in war x) died for my right to say that. It's the most annoying thing I've ever heard. I then tell them that the war had nothing to do with rights and was an imperialistic extension of the US and they look at me, obviously not knowing the meaning of what I have just said, and then talk about how communists are always trying to bend the truth and make life horrible. It is bullshit.

FreeFocus

12th July 2009, 16:52

Bah! They go with the flow and have no civilian courage. This is class war, and the army fights for the rulers, not the workers. They might be heroes for the foul nationalists, but in my eyes soldiers are worse than the lumpen.

And why are lumpen bad? They are oppressed under capitalism and conditioned by capitalism, especially if you consider the homeless to be "lumpen." The actions of gang members or drug dealers aren't defensible, but are explainable.

sascha

12th July 2009, 17:23

soldiers are shit, lumpen are not.
from enDOTwikipediaDOTorg wiki Lumpenproletariat:
In the late 1960s, Huey P. Newton and the Black Panther Party came to believe that the lumpen proletariat could have a progressive role. Newton argued that the economic and social system of his time was fundamentally different from that which Marx based his analysis on, saying, "As the ruling circle continue to build their technocracy, more and more of the proletariat will become unemployable, become lumpen, until they have become the popular class, the revolutionary class."

Atrus

12th July 2009, 17:31

No, soldiers are not heroes. They're anyone else doing a job. It's dangerous, but they know that and feel that their pay is worth the risk, otherwise they'd not take that job. If they do it for more than that, because they believe in the cause, then they become even worse than just regular people doing a job, they are then taking a portion of the blame for the war, rather than just being pawns in it.

NecroCommie

12th July 2009, 17:34

And why are lumpen bad? They are oppressed under capitalism and conditioned by capitalism, especially if you consider the homeless to be "lumpen." The actions of gang members or drug dealers aren't defensible, but are explainable.
I dont see the criminals that do crimes for necessity as lumpen. I meant the people who do crimes for the sake of feeling superior. Might be that my exact definition of the lumpen proletariat is not theoretically correct, but thats what I meant.

I have nothing against crimes of necessity.

Nwoye

12th July 2009, 18:41

to say "soldiers are shit woooh anarchy" is just immature ranting. I'm not going to defend american imperialism, or the rabid nationalism of many americans, but most soldiers get into their profession for one of two reasons: 1. a desire to protect their country or 2. financial stability. The former, while we certainly disagree with it, is a legitimate and in my opinion usually sincere belief, and the latter is something we can all sympathize with.

Nwoye

12th July 2009, 18:42

JimmyJazz

12th July 2009, 19:32

IMO, soldiers run the gamut from dumb and poor to intelligent and evil. Officers tend toward the latter end of the spectrum--just as executives in a capitalist economy do. And as Sedrox points out, people on all points of this spectrum can be sincerely deluded by the "defense of the homeland" shit, though in the case of the higher-ups within the military, it is pure self-delusion to reduce their own cognitive dissonance. Educated people are not, and cannot claim to be, duped by simplistic media narratives.

To counter the idea that they are heroes, you would have to deal more with the insanity of war itself than with the personal characteristics of soldiers--for example, by pointing out that it only took a few months into the Afghanistan war before more civilians had been killed there than were killed on 9/11. But I seriously question whether the type of person who supports a "help for heroes" charity is worth wasting your time on. I think it's a small segment of the population that supports imperialist war so strongly it would actually donate its personal income to the war effort.

FreeFocus

12th July 2009, 19:38

I dont see the criminals that do crimes for necessity as lumpen. I meant the people who do crimes for the sake of feeling superior. Might be that my exact definition of the lumpen proletariat is not theoretically correct, but thats what I meant.

I have nothing against crimes of necessity.

Well, I personally wouldn't say I have "nothing against crimes of necessity" - that opens the doors to all sorts of horrors, including mugging and murdering innocent people because you need food. You can condemn the crime while understanding the reasons, but the crime sure as hell shouldn't be excused, especially when people's lives and livelihoods are on the line.

jake williams

12th July 2009, 19:40

I'm going to post here what I posted in the thread about the draft, which is turning out to be pretty similar to this:

Fuck the army, fuck the draft. At this point I have no sympathy for soldiers in imperialist armies. I don't care if you're poor. Starve to death. I don't care if you're uneducated. If you don't think war is fucking horrendous, you're too stupid to walk, never mind participate in one.

...

People who care more about imperialist soldiers (armies are made up of soldiers, believe it or not) than about their victims are the ones who are too common on the American "left". Precisely because it is a volunteer army - yes, a coerced volunteer army, but a volunteer army nonetheless - the soldiers are all at least partly responsible for the consequences of their actions. And the consequences of their actions are mass murder. I have no sympathy for even partially responsible mass murderers.

Capitalist coercion justifies a lot of things. It doesn't justify murdering for the state.

Sam_b

12th July 2009, 19:47

No one is forced to join the British Army. Regardless of whether or not your a 'desperate working class lad', you still have personal choice and responsibility.
What a load of crap. Allow me to link from some of my posts on the subject:

Is the army an imperialist and reactionary organisation? Yes. Is everyone in the army a reactionary? No.

The fact of the matter is that the army deliberately preys and recruits from impoverished areas, tapping into the cycle of despair in many of these places. The army offers a salary, opportunities to study and all sorts of other incentives, as well as playing the propaganda card of 'you can see the world' 'its your duty to protect your country' and all that bollocks. Like it or not these incentives are very appealing to someone who has let school with little or no qualifications, and is faced with signing on for years due to the lack of jobs available.

So yes, we can say that in some instances some of the soldiers in this conflict are victims. However, that doesn't and shouldn't stop us from supporting the right of the people of Afghanistan to resist the occupation by force.

A lot of your fellow working class people didn't though, and were faced with the prospect of a starvation living on government unemployment benefits. Which is hardly enough to live on, and yes i've been on it before.

So i'm not condonimg people entering the army, I'm understanding of why they would go and join the army, at the same time as holding these people up as victims of the army propaganda and how it flexes most of its recruitment muscles in these areas. In one high school in Ibrox, for example, they even took a helicopter with them.

It is our duty to fight to get the army off campus and to fight for alternatives. What about Rose Gentle and the work that Military Familes Against the War do? Her son Gordon was nineteen, joined the army from a working class background, and was sent to die with shoddy equipment - an enquiry found his death to be 'unlawful'. Its not lie Gordon was class conscious or a revolutionary. Is he an enemy of the class as well then?

Pogue

12th July 2009, 19:50

What a load of crap. Allow me to link from some of my posts on the subject:

It is our duty to fight to get the army off campus and to fight for alternatives. What about Rose Gentle and the work that Military Familes Against the War do? Her son Gordon was nineteen, joined the army from a working class background, and was sent to die with shoddy equipment - an enquiry found his death to be 'unlawful'. Its not lie Gordon was class conscious or a revolutionary. Is he an enemy of the class as well then?

I'm not denying any of this, I'm saying that when a soldier is in the army he is an enemy of the working class until the point at which he defects, because naturally as part of the army his role will be to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Sam_b

12th July 2009, 19:53

It is the line I quoted that I have a problem with.

Pogue

12th July 2009, 19:58

It is the line I quoted that I have a problem with.

I don't think you really dealt with it with those quoted pieces, which is what confused me. I think anyone has the choice of whether or not they join the army, obviously, because they actively have to do it. And they have responsibility for their actions. I don't believe they are neccesarily all evil twisted fucktards but nor do I think they are poor oppressed working class people who have been forced into it.

Tower of Bebel

12th July 2009, 19:59

Soldiers can be heroes. Of course. Sometimes they are on the battlefield; sometimes they are at home. But that does not mean we shouldn't attack the capitalist state for killing them.

It also doesn't mean we haven't got the task to fight for genuine democracy reforms within the army. The more soldiers can participate in the proces of decision-making the sooner the army can desintegrate under favorable conditions (two of them are again the break-up of the capitalist state, but also the formation of strong working class organizations capable of posing the question of power). All the circumstances necessary could already mean a developing social revolution. Of course.

Misanthrope

12th July 2009, 20:07

This is class war,

:rolleyes: You have to realize that not everyone is class conscious and you cannot blame a soldier for being uneducated anymore than you can blame a worker that does not organize and fight for better conditions. Many would rather join the army and receive the benefits offered then be homeless or unemployed. The economic system forces them into the military.

Soldiers are not heroes, they are victimized tools.

FreeFocus

12th July 2009, 20:09

:rolleyes: You have to realize that not everyone is class conscious and you cannot blame a soldier for being uneducated anymore than you can blame a worker that does not organize and fight for better conditions. Many would rather join the army and receive the benefits offered then be homeless or unemployed. The economic system forces them into the military.

Soldiers are not heroes, they are victimized tools.

A worker that doesn't organize and fight for better conditions doesn't kill people and isn't involved in an institution that is used to threaten and browbeat entire nations into submission.

Soldiers, on the other hand, kill people and are involved in an institution that is used to threaten and browbeat entire nations into submission.

Vincent P.

12th July 2009, 20:12

Soldiers do what they are told, no more, no less. And who tells them what to do? Our enemy Mr. State.

The army protects the interests of the state. If the state is assaulted by foreigners, they will protect the state, and incidently those who happen to be inhabiting the state. If the state is endengered by its inhabitant, in the case of a revolution, our dear heros will be shooting at the people, protecting Mr State.

Ask the Communards, they know a big deal about it.

ArrowLance

12th July 2009, 20:20

Even though I'm basically just repeating what has already been said (many times).

No soldiers are not heroes, and if anything, they are enemies. Regardless of whether or not they are aware of x and y they are in the armed forces of our enemies and must be dealt with as an enemy.

Misanthrope

12th July 2009, 20:27

A worker that doesn't organize and fight for better conditions doesn't kill people and isn't involved in an institution that is used to threaten and browbeat entire nations into submission.

Soldiers, on the other hand, kill people and are involved in an institution that is used to threaten and browbeat entire nations into submission.

The workers still support the system that benefit the ultra-capitalist class, they are still apart of the imperial machine. This social class has major business interests in foreign countries and that is why most imperialist wars are waged, to protect business and state interests.

What about workers that say, work for a weapons manufacturer, the people that produce the weapons that are used to threaten and browbeat nations? Are they not victims of the system?

JimmyJazz

12th July 2009, 20:51

A worker that doesn't organize and fight for better conditions doesn't kill people and isn't involved in an institution that is used to threaten and browbeat entire nations into submission.

Soldiers, on the other hand, kill people and are involved in an institution that is used to threaten and browbeat entire nations into submission.

I think that your and my disagreement over foot soldiers (from the other thread) comes down to the bolded part. Every foot soldier knows that s/he is going to kill. Most grunts, however, do not see that browbeating entire nations into submission is the role of the U.S. military in the world. I think that convinced leftists like you and I easily forget that we are swimming directly upstream from the current of popular thought. It is not hard to be fooled by the all-pervasive propaganda that portrays the U.S. military as a democracy-spreading machine, and many people genuinely are, especially those to whom capitalism has denied the right to a decent education on history and world affairs.

Redmau5

13th July 2009, 03:28

Red Rebel

13th July 2009, 06:21

Read History Will Absolve Me (http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1953/10/16.htm) by Fidel Castro. Fidel attributes his survival at the Moncada Barracks to soldiers with a great feeling of justice and refuse to follow the corrupt orders of dictators. At the same time he calls other officiers butchers for mass killings/tortures of prisoners

LOLseph Stalin

13th July 2009, 06:27

Soldiers are only heroes for Nationalistic and Imperialistic interests. If you look at many of the operations involving military, many of them have involved invading other countries and causing suffering of the civilians(Iraq is a great example). you're basically supporting Capitalist and Imperialist interests by enlisting in the armed forces. That's why as a Communist I don't recommend anybody enlisting. you would just be forced to support the very thing you're trying to oppose.

Red Rebel

13th July 2009, 06:31

I currently know three people in the armed forces creating dissent against US and their imperialist wars. Those people are heors who volunteered.

Another fact why soldiers are heros: Russian, Chinese, Cuban Revolution, ect. ect. the workers won it by the soldiers they were facing refused to back dictators. Most workers (excluding police & soldiers) don't have combat experience. It really helps a revolution when the people you are shooting at:
1. don't shoot back
2. don't follow orders of the capitalists, imperialists, dictators ect.
3. they join the revolution

Hexen

13th July 2009, 06:49

Soldiers are not heroes but rather devoted servants/slaves/pawns doing someone else's dirty work.

Manifesto

13th July 2009, 06:53

Soldiers are not heroes. Every war has been for profit, not to save people or a country.

shadowmare

13th July 2009, 07:25

Hopefully you guys won't flame me for this but I DO BELIEVE that many (Not all) soldiers are heroes in their own ways. I'm well aware that Soldiers are very much capable of committing atrocities and that the modern day "War on Terror" is just another Capitalist scheme to feed their ever growing greed
However in the second world war for example, I believe there really was something worth fighting for, We were directly endangered by the Fascist sheep and their Cowardly leader and I do have nothing but respect for ALL veterans of that war, for both sides... Except the SS... A bunch of Sadistic and power hungry pricks they were...
All Allied nations, Even the Common German and Japanese Soldier I have respect for
That is my personal view...
If you want a coward, check out Bush and his "Military Service" in the Champagne Unit of the US Army during Vietnam... Daddy had enough influence to keep him out of the fight but still tarnish the uniform by letting him wear it

khad

13th July 2009, 07:36

I do have nothing but respect for ALL veterans of that war, for both sides... Except the SS... A bunch of Sadistic and power hungry pricks they were...
All Allied nations, Even the Common German and Japanese Soldier I have respect for
That is my personal view...
Fetishizing military service for the sake of military service--we know exactly what sort of ideological camp promotes this pattern of thought.

And another thing. The SS were also "just following orders." Plenty of crimes were done by the regular Wehrmacht and Japanese imperial troops.

shadowmare

13th July 2009, 07:41

I've seen lots of vets: Canadian, British, American, German, Japanese, Italian, Russian, etc and most of them were very good people
I'm not trying to "Fetishize" anything. Just casting my own two cents on the matter

FreeFocus

13th July 2009, 12:16

If you want a coward, check out Bush and his "Military Service" in the Champagne Unit of the US Army during Vietnam... Daddy had enough influence to keep him out of the fight but still tarnish the uniform by letting him wear it

In order to "tarnish" something, it must be honorable in the first place. That's your position, then? If so, absolutely disgusting.

NecroCommie

13th July 2009, 12:28

Well, I personally wouldn't say I have "nothing against crimes of necessity" - that opens the doors to all sorts of horrors, including mugging and murdering innocent people because you need food. You can condemn the crime while understanding the reasons, but the crime sure as hell shouldn't be excused, especially when people's lives and livelihoods are on the line.
OK, perhaps I was being a bit too general about my statement.

NecroCommie

13th July 2009, 12:34

The workers still support the system that benefit the ultra-capitalist class, they are still apart of the imperial machine. This social class has major business interests in foreign countries and that is why most imperialist wars are waged, to protect business and state interests.

What about workers that say, work for a weapons manufacturer, the people that produce the weapons that are used to threaten and browbeat nations? Are they not victims of the system?
I'd say that even for a non-class concious person accepting the army is a clear statement. "I accept that I kill fellow workers and steal their livelihood and friends, all because I have no courage to stand up to my recruiters." True friend of humanity, whether communist or not, goes concious objector when necessary.

Oh, by the way. Soldiers are... "From hero to zero, just like that"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRCteeZTrjE&feature=PlayList&p=B2876F5D4884CEE0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2

Forward Union

13th July 2009, 12:51

A charity for the armed forces is getting a lot of positive publicity in the UK lately. It has also attracted support from national newspapers in the United Kingdom (UK), such as The Sun and The Sunday Times. How can I respond intelligently to pleas for Help for Heroes (http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/)? It reminds me a little of one of the most controversial groups on Facebook entitled Soldiers are not heroes (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8456292284) but also of a Christmas charity appeal for children of Eastern Europe explicitly forbidding military related toys. I wonder why!

As somebody who has been in the British army, and regularly goes Airsofting, I've met a lot of HoH organisers and supporters. And can happily say I have never donated a penny to it and never will.

Their prop claims that it's a strictly non-political charity which neither supports nor opposes the war, that it simply wants to provide care for the wounded. But this is simply populist jargon to get liberals to chuck a few pounds in which they otherwise wouldn't. Of course it's a political charity, it's picked a side, it's not providing care for the wounded civilians or the Taliban, it's not a charity for anyone wounded in war like the land mine charities. It's strictly pro-imperialist. It's like a charity set up for rapists who get hurt when raping.

And while I don't hope for any casualties, I politically support desertion as the best means of avoiding suffering. Communists have always historically assisted deserters and attempted to encourage it along with Mutiny and sabotage.

Misanthrope

13th July 2009, 16:41

I'd say that even for a non-class concious person accepting the army is a clear statement. "I accept that I kill fellow workers and steal their livelihood and friends, all because I have no courage to stand up to my recruiters." True friend of humanity, whether communist or not, goes concious objector when necessary.

Oh, by the way. Soldiers are... "From hero to zero, just like that"
qRCteeZTrjE

But what about workers that work for a weapons manufacturer? Aren't they just as bad as the soldiers in your eyes?

So ordinary workers, who are employed by the likes of McDonald's and Walmart, are on an equal footing with the soldiers of imperialist armies?

I'm saying everyone who participates in the capitalist system plays a part in the imperial war machine. For you to sit on your moral high horse and criticize soldiers as a whole for enlisting regardless of their economic conditions is elitist and not helpful. Soldiers shouldn't be made an enemy of the movement.

Pogue

13th July 2009, 16:48

But what about workers that work for a weapons manufacturer? Aren't they just as bad as the soldiers in your eyes?

I'm saying everyone who participates in the capitalist system plays a part in the imperial war machine. For you to sit on your moral high horse and criticize soldiers as a whole for enlisting regardless of their economic conditions is elitist and not helpful. Soldiers shouldn't be made an enemy of the movement.

But they are an enemy of the movement, until they refuse orders and defect.

Dimentio

13th July 2009, 16:55

Redmau5

13th July 2009, 17:46

I'm saying everyone who participates in the capitalist system plays a part in the imperial war machine. For you to sit on your moral high horse and criticize soldiers as a whole for enlisting regardless of their economic conditions is elitist and not helpful. Soldiers shouldn't be made an enemy of the movement.

But there is a clear difference between, say, paying taxes to the "imperial war machine" and actually being an active agent of that war machine.

I completely understand that a person's class situation often dictates what sort of career they end up choosing, along with other factors that have been mentioned previously. Capitalist media outlets often portray the army as glamourous and adventurous, and it's easy to understand why so many young men and women enlist. But are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't be critical of people who join imperial armies?

Understanding why people join the army is one thing. However, simply because they are working-class doesn't mean they are in anyway deserving of our support.

jake williams

13th July 2009, 17:59

But there is a clear difference between, say, paying taxes to the "imperial war machine" and actually being an active agent of that war machine.
At any rate, I do feel terrible for the albeit much, much smaller role I play in it.

NecroCommie

13th July 2009, 18:02

But what about workers that work for a weapons manufacturer? Aren't they just as bad as the soldiers in your eyes?

I'm saying everyone who participates in the capitalist system plays a part in the imperial war machine. For you to sit on your moral high horse and criticize soldiers as a whole for enlisting regardless of their economic conditions is elitist and not helpful. Soldiers shouldn't be made an enemy of the movement.
Armies can have all the weapons and ammunition they want, but without soldiers they are harmless.

Radical

13th July 2009, 18:14

Calling anybody a heroe is only down to an opinion. And in my opinion Soldiers are not "heroes"

rednordman

13th July 2009, 23:45

I dont really know what to say about the 'are soldiers heroes?' question, but all i can say is that I sort of feel sorry for them a little bit. After all, when you get past all this rubbish and blatant properganda, they are simply just porns. I mean are any wars today, just to liberate people or are there other agendas involved? The latter i think is strongly to the case. (problem is that we are not allowed to say it out loud)

I dont know what its like for the rest of you, but it always makes me cringe when the media use slogans like 'they risk their lives abroad to keep us safe at home!'. Its not that im desputing that this isnt true, its just it is kind of more complicated than that isnt it?

Infact one could argue that its their exact being abroad that is enticing terrorism with in our country.

I think that young kids are growing up and getting lied to about the military. They are made to believe that they will be 'instant heroes' and being in combat will be just like playing a game on x-box and ps3 or something, then they go and see what its like and it effects them badly for the rest of their lives.

To get back to the point though, I think alot of this soldiers are heroes media that we get now is mainly just a token jesture, because I think that if someone has truely experienced war, they will not give a shit for any thanks or paper titles, as they will have seen exactly how nasty it is. And thus, something not to be celebrated...Saying that, i would really like to know whether actual soldiers see themselves as heroes? or just doing their job?

TheCultofAbeLincoln

14th July 2009, 03:10

I have no doubt that many of the soldiers the British Army sent to Iraq acted with heroism and bravery in the line of fire, under conditions in which the untrained civilian would turn and flee. I also have no doubt that many of the deaths, British or American, which occurred during that illegal conflict were of soldiers who were fighting to protect their comrades or non-combatants.

To sacrifice ones own life for your comrades is a heroic act. To say that because the war was illegal does not cheapen the actions of the soldiers in the field who had absolutely no say in the decision to launch or carry out the war in any way.

A few months ago the mother of a deceased United States Marine was presented with the Medal of Honor for her sons actions in Iraq. The action taken was the smothering of a grenade which would easily have wiped out half of his platoon had he not acted decisively or with any thought towards his own well being. He gave his life for his comrades, and in that instance it is almost sickeningly heroic, almost on the level with a suicide bomber.

Misanthrope

14th July 2009, 03:55

But there is a clear difference between, say, paying taxes to the "imperial war machine" and actually being an active agent of that war machine.

I completely understand that a person's class situation often dictates what sort of career they end up choosing, along with other factors that have been mentioned previously. Capitalist media outlets often portray the army as glamourous and adventurous, and it's easy to understand why so many young men and women enlist. But are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't be critical of people who join imperial armies?

Understanding why people join the army is one thing. However, simply because they are working-class doesn't mean they are in anyway deserving of our support.

There is a difference but they both support the same cause. I'm not saying support, I'm saying we should sympathize with them but of course we should sympathize with the victims of imperialism as well. The soldiers aren't the imperialists, they do not start the wars.

Armies can have all the weapons and ammunition they want, but without soldiers they are harmless.

Without funds they are harmless as well.

NecroCommie

14th July 2009, 16:56

There is a difference but they both support the same cause. I'm not saying support, I'm saying we should sympathize with them but of course we should sympathize with the victims of imperialism as well. The soldiers aren't the imperialists, they do not start the wars.

Without funds they are harmless as well.
We should by no means sympathize with soldiers! They are the very enemy we fight! Their job is to hold the old world intact by acts of violence. Even more critically: If we sympathize with soldiers, we will lose the support of those they kill. Their victims, it seems, are apparently more numerous than the soldiers themselves.

If my community would be attacked, I would not take your support for a squat if you simultaneously "sympathize" with the very folk that attempt to shoot me. Or is it some pseudo-nationalism to think that the soldiers' support is more valuable because they are closer?

As to the harmless topic: Incorrect. Without weapons their name would simply change to political mobs. Their function as violent enforcers of state would remain.