"Fought for your freedom."

[Dayman]

Before we even start, let me preface this: I come from a military family. In my generation we have an Army reservist and a Marine. Previous we have an Air Force major, a ton of Navy guys in Vietnam, and a Marine in Vietnam. Half my family fought in WWII, my grandfather won two bronze stars in the Pacific. My Italian side fought in WWI, people with my last name fought for the Union during the Civil War - so this is coming from a guy who knows the sacrifices made, and a guy who will probably be in the Coast Guard within the next three-four years. This goes in the VV because it encompasses history and has a (slightly) better level of discourse than the 'pit.

When we talk about the reasons why soldiers fight and die, here in the U.S. you hear, "They fought for your freedom. They fought to protect you." But lets be honest here - when was the last time our freedoms were threatened? Threats to our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I'm not talking about fighting the good fight or stopping communism or spreading democracy. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people saying, "I/they fought for your freedom". You hear this a lot these days, especially regarding Iraq/A-stan vets.

But is it true? Were my freedoms at threat by the Taliban? Saddam Hussein? Al-Qaida I get - they directly attacked us. But Iraq? My freedoms were never attacked by Hussein. Neither were they in the first Iraq War. Vietnam? They only freedoms being attacked were that of young men to live a peaceful life. Korea, same, none of my freedoms were threatened. WWII is a tricky issue - we fought the good fight there (although we did firebomb and nuke - but that's neither here nor there) against an enemy whose leaders wanted despicable goals, and Japan was certainly a threat. So I can understand it there, especially Pacific vets. WWI? No. Spanish-American? No. Civil War? Yes, certainly, although our freedoms would only have been curtained if the South had occupied parts of the North. Mexican-American? No. 1812? Unequivocally - and of course so was the Revolution.

I don't think this degrades the service of those who fought in recent wars, they did their duty to their country, they followed orders like they were supposed to. But they weren't fighting for my freedom. I don't think that justification is necessary. Say they were fighting to bring democracy or to stop communism - we can debate the merits of those goals but at least be honest. They still sacrificed and they died and they were scarred for life - but lets be honest what for.

What do you think?

[conon394]

Civil War? Yes, certainly, although our freedoms would only have been curtained if the South had occupied parts of the North

Aside from that it did settle two issues no more black slavery in North America, and no more enlarged southern aristocratic influence in the US government on the backs of their slaves. I suppose if they is understood in as small 'our' freedom kind of way simply letting the CSA go and become part of the third world with its low test scores would have solved that too, but if the 'our' includes all blacks in the USA now than it certainly did amount to a fight for their freedom...

[Dayman]

Certainly the case - especially that blacks are part of "us" as Americans.

[Azog 150]

I was under the impression that the War of 1812 was fought to try and invade British land in Canada as well as advance into British-allied Native American land while we were busy taking on Napoleon? The impressment of Merchant sailors wasn't much more then an excuse used by war hawks to hit Britain while they were distracted?



I don't necessarily buy the 'fighting for our freedom' line, although it depends on the war. But as you said, I don't really think they have to be fighting for my freedom for their actions to be justified and supported.

[motiv-8]

I was under the impression that the War of 1812 was fought to try and invade British land in Canada as well as advance into British-allied Native American land while we were busy taking on Napoleon? The impressment of Merchant sailors wasn't much more then an excuse used by war hawks to hit Britain while they were distracted?

Woah now. The impressment of sailors and the unwarranted seizure of ships was a direct violation of American sovereignty and the rights of those sailors as American nationals. We had just as much a right to go to war with Britain over this issue as we did with the Barbary states over their piracy. I won't lie though, operationally the war did involve aggressively finding a way to strip the British of their largest Canadian territories in order to weaken their position in the Americas and reduce the threat to America's northern territories in the longterm, an abysmal failure ultimately. It did however solve the issue of British violation of sovereignty and made it so that when the two countries were at odds again (over the Oregon Territory in the 1840s) cooler heads prevailed and the issue was settled amicably.

I don't necessarily buy the 'fighting for our freedom' line, although it depends on the war. But as you said, I don't really think they have to be fighting for my freedom for their actions to be justified and supported.

I think it's something that gets really overused the point of trivializing the endeavor. Iraq and Vietnam didn't serve any American freedoms, unless you consider a very narrow definition of freedom and a narrower definition of "American." Afghanistan is a little bit different; the results are in absract, wherein an Afghanistan free of the Taliban means an Afghanistan free of al-Qaeda influence, which means an America freer from the possibility of terror attacks from al-Qaeda.

Ultimately I think that very few of the wars America has fought in have actually served to actively and legitimately protect the constitutional freedoms of American citizens and/or "subjects." I also agree that this is not necessarily the only legitimizing cause for the country to get itself involved in conflict, but this is dangerously subjective territory.

[Emperador Carlos]

I was under the impression that the War of 1812 was fought to try and invade British land in Canada as well as advance into British-allied Native American land while we were busy taking on Napoleon? The impressment of Merchant sailors wasn't much more then an excuse used by war hawks to hit Britain while they were distracted?



I don't necessarily buy the 'fighting for our freedom' line, although it depends on the war. But as you said, I don't really think they have to be fighting for my freedom for their actions to be justified and supported.

Ugh... Only the British would try and sidestep their defeat/draw in the War 1812 by playing the "Invasion of Canada" Card. The impressment was a serious issue. And most of the legitimate, successful operations were undertaken by the British. Who burned whose capital here, eh?

[Azog 150]

Ugh... Only the British would try and sidestep their defeat/draw in the War 1812 by playing the "Invasion of Canada" Card. The impressment was a serious issue. And most of the legitimate, successful operations were undertaken by the British. Who burned whose capital here, eh?

Where did I say it wasn't a draw?

I think Poach's post is a pretty good summary of the war. I don't think there was much moral high-ground on either side.

The US might have been fighting for British deserters and American merchant navy mens freedom, but you could argue Britain was fighting for Natives and Canadian freedom, as well as actively encouraging slaves to come over to Britain's side with the promise of freedom.

You can't deny that the oppurtunity of taking land in Canada and from the Natives was a massive reason for the US going to war. You didn't see the US waging war on France for impressment.

[Mr. Scott]

I was under the impression that the War of 1812 was fought to try and invade British land in Canada as well as advance into British-allied Native American land while we were busy taking on Napoleon? The impressment of Merchant sailors wasn't much more then an excuse used by war hawks to hit Britain while they were distracted?



I don't necessarily buy the 'fighting for our freedom' line, although it depends on the war. But as you said, I don't really think they have to be fighting for my freedom for their actions to be justified and supported.

The reason for the War of 1812 was british seizing neutral american merchant ships and forcing hundreds of americans into serving the british navy. It was also because the british payed and supplied indian forces that combated US settlers and forces. The justification for war was solid. Also, a good majority of the US population wanted a Anglo-american alliance, but were enraged by the british acts on the frontier and at sea.

The french did this too in the Quasi-war a decade and a half earlier and the US and France narrowly avoided formal war. Luckily the US didn't go to war, or the French would not have been so generous in the Lousiana purchase.

The invasion of canada was something that the US saw that it could gain, along with getting the British to stop its practices.

The British did burn the capital (although it was only a few decades old and made of wood) and turn back the invasion of Canada, but they failed at New Orleans, Baltimore and in the Great lakes. Had the diplomats heard of New Orleans then the treaty may have favored the Americans more.

Overall, the war was a stalemate, however symbolically it was an american victory as it gave the US some much needed national unity and identity. Plus, the US was able to take on Britain and survive.

[Okuto]

As far as I'm concerned I'm gonna be fighting so my children don't have to fight them. I don't buy that fight for your freedom, in the end of the day it's for your family and friends. As least thats the general idea, it's what I tell myself when the instructors lecture us in leadership classes.....

[HunGeneral]

Well I ain't no american, but the way I see it the US had fought fot its freedom or integrity a few times - War of Independence, Civil War - like it had already been said before in this thread - and for other reasons aswell.
I think the reason many countries claim to go to war and fight "for freedom" is because its the easiest way to legitimze your actions and make your soldiers think they fight for a good cause. This has been done by many before not just the US.

Most wars are started for many reasons and its often better to express, enlargen the more positive reasons (or those which the larger part of the population would agree to) or argmunets behind it. Therefore I think its natural that mostly such answers are brought up when the question "What are we fighting for" comes up.

Atleast thats my opinion.

[Gatsby]

The US has never fought for it's freedom, IMO. When the thriteen original colonies were ruled by Britain they were by most standards "free". It's not like they were being mis-treated, Britian was just un-fair over some laws, and they didn't have any real representation, but the people were "free".
The ACW was a conquest of the South, even though it wanted freedom.
WW1 didn't see the US put in peril.
WW2 saw the US fleet attacked, but the US homeland was in no danger.
Korea was an intervention in a conflict.
Vietnam was an intervention in another conflict.
The Gulf Wars, no threat to the US, at all.
Afghanistan, 9/11 was technically an attack on the US, but it's unlikely to happen again, even if they hadn't invaded Afghanistan.

[Katsumoto]

WW2 saw the US fleet attacked, but the US homeland was in no danger.

Eventually it would have been threatened if the Japanese and Germans weren't kept in check.

[Azog 150]

For Britain, I can only think of two wars out of the 80 or so fought in which the freedom of British citizens has directly been at stake (World War 2 and the Falklands- and even then World War 2 is debatable as we didn't actually have to get involved in that and it was only by doing so that British freedoms were at stake)

Thats not to say that the other 78 wars were not justified (Although that is certainly the case for some of them)



Saying that, the line between what counts as British citizens and protecting freedoms becomes pretty blurred when you have an Empire spanning a 2/5ths of the worlds surface and 1/4 of the worlds population. e.g. Was Britain defending the freedom of American loyalists during the American Revolution?

And maybe we have had to fight directly for our freedoms so few times because of all those other wars we have fought? As motiv said, the lines are very blurred

[conon394]

WW2 saw the US fleet attacked, but the US homeland was in no danger..

Because you know the US would be so much better off with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan dominating the old world...

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

The answer is simple. It legitmizes war.

[Lysimachos11]

Freedom is simply an idea popular in Western tradition, and more so than in other cultures. If the stakes are high, such as during the Second World War, society or government needs an appeal so that people fight for an ideal that is also seen as a necessity. The British, Americans, Germans and Soviets all fought for freedom for their population but with different views on freedom.

[Mr. Scott]

I guess its not so much fighting for american freedom, rather its fighting for world stability... American freedom is secure from foreign threat, but internally...

[Lord Rahl]

It is a simple phrase that's meaning is very complex.

If you take it literally then you're missing the point although I understand that it is used for political purposes you may not agree with. If you ask most servicemen they won't be saying that directly to your face. When they're fighting over there politics go out the window once they're getting shot at. However, when they get back to the United States and some anti-war person comes up to them and chastises them I think it's easy enough to understand why the, "I fought for your freedom," would be used. The military acts as a sort of representative of the United States and it is no doubt that the men and women in Iraq (less there now, thankfully) and Afghanistan fight terrorists that want to kill Americans. Now, those terrorists might not ever directly attack United States soil but they are still a part of the contemporary anti-US/West terrorism that is an obvious threat day after day. So someone saying they fought for someone else's freedom because they fought terrorists isn't much of a stretch of the truth to me. Besides, when left wing people coming straight from blogging from the local cafe protest against men and women who put their lives on the line day after day, the hippies deserve some verbal lashing(s).

I don't think the same phrase was said back in the day as much as it is now and frankly I don't think it matters when it comes to some wars. But to say that the phrase doesn't mean anything or isn't right because it didn't effect you directly is a little foolish in my opinion. The majority of wars in all of history were not about fighting for freedom, at least for the invaders, and even then no one side is ever totally innocent.

You can say we didn't fight in Korea or Vietnam for our personal freedoms but tell that to the oppressed North Koreans or the thousands upon thousands killed in the genocide after we left Vietnam. You can say we don't fight in Iraq for our personal freedoms but we don't know the future benefits (or no) for the United States and the world from the oil if the country remains stable or those killed by Saddam's evil regime. You can say we don't fight in Afghanistan for our personal freedoms, but as I said the terrorists we fight there are a part of the worldwide terrorism we fight today, and I really don't understand how anyone can say that in hindsight after 9/11. There terrorists in Afghanistan weren't a direct threat to us...until they killed over 3,000 of us on 9/11. And in order to fight Al-Qaida we needed to fight the Taliban so I don't see how that can be an argument.

The phrase, "I fought for your freedom," is used by the pro-war to fully legitimize and the anti-war to fully discredit the current wars for purely political purposes. Justification of wars never were and shouldn't be purely political and that is why dwelling on it doesn't get anyone anywhere.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well... my Grandfather was a science teacher who went to war when the UK declared war on Germany in response to the invasion of Poland. That he went, fought in Africa, Italy and The Netherlands rising to a Major of the Desert Rats was, imo, him fighting for in part the freedom, security and prosperity of his family.

That he also had to administer part of the Mandate of Palestine and suffer terrorist attacks from people he had liberated is less arguable, and he certainly did feel so.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Before we even start, let me preface this: I come from a military family. In my generation we have an Army reservist and a Marine. Previous we have an Air Force major, a ton of Navy guys in Vietnam, and a Marine in Vietnam. Half my family fought in WWII, my grandfather won two bronze stars in the Pacific. My Italian side fought in WWI, people with my last name fought for the Union during the Civil War - so this is coming from a guy who knows the sacrifices made, and a guy who will probably be in the Coast Guard within the next three-four years. This goes in the VV because it encompasses history and has a (slightly) better level of discourse than the 'pit.

When we talk about the reasons why soldiers fight and die, here in the U.S. you hear, "They fought for your freedom. They fought to protect you." But lets be honest here - when was the last time our freedoms were threatened? Threats to our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I'm not talking about fighting the good fight or stopping communism or spreading democracy. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people saying, "I/they fought for your freedom". You hear this a lot these days, especially regarding Iraq/A-stan vets.

But is it true? Were my freedoms at threat by the Taliban? Saddam Hussein? Al-Qaida I get - they directly attacked us. But Iraq? My freedoms were never attacked by Hussein. Neither were they in the first Iraq War. Vietnam? They only freedoms being attacked were that of young men to live a peaceful life. Korea, same, none of my freedoms were threatened. WWII is a tricky issue - we fought the good fight there (although we did firebomb and nuke - but that's neither here nor there) against an enemy whose leaders wanted despicable goals, and Japan was certainly a threat. So I can understand it there, especially Pacific vets. WWI? No. Spanish-American? No. Civil War? Yes, certainly, although our freedoms would only have been curtained if the South had occupied parts of the North. Mexican-American? No. 1812? Unequivocally - and of course so was the Revolution.

I don't think this degrades the service of those who fought in recent wars, they did their duty to their country, they followed orders like they were supposed to. But they weren't fighting for my freedom. I don't think that justification is necessary. Say they were fighting to bring democracy or to stop communism - we can debate the merits of those goals but at least be honest. They still sacrificed and they died and they were scarred for life - but lets be honest what for.

What do you think?

A tough question, and I believe an excellent one.

The wars that were fought for the survival of the US include (IMO) the Revolution, 1812, the Civil War, and WWII.

The rest deal with the idea of America projecting power overseas.

You have the Mexican-American War, which was clearly imperialist, as well as the Phillippine-American War...which is often ignored by many but included far more questionable ethics and involved many more American troops than the Spanish-American War that preceeded it.

We have the Korean War, which after was deemed a failure or draw (thus the "Conflict" tag), but was later seen as a sucess in light of the later events in Vietnam.

I would support the effort in Afganistan, but in retrospect it's hard to say if an all-out invasion of the country was really necessary.

This question really comes down to the American Empire. Yes, it pretty much is an Empire. Is it worth it?

I don't think any combat vet would say "I fought for your freedom". That's mostly the talk of non-military types. The bottom line is, and it doesn't matter what war we are talking about in American history, they fought for each other.

When talking about the history of our grunts, that's what matters.