Do anyone of you resent soldiers who fought in a war, but only served in an office job, or some other safe position? For example, Al Gore had an office job during his stay in Vietnam. Of course, I know some safe jobs need to be done. However, shouldn't all soldiers do at least some dangerous work? On the flip side, in fairness, shouldn't all soldiers be allowed to do some safe work, as opposed to all dangerous work?
I was so far behind our lines.... Not only that but I had MPs to protect me. On the flip-side, like in Windtalkers, the movie, I was not to be allowed to be captured. Luckily it was peacetime.
Nope, nope. I do not believe that "all soldiers should do at least some dangerous work." What would that accomplish? If someone doesn't want to be in the front lines for whatever reason, and grumbles about having to be there, doesn't that make him a liability to those comrades around him? I really wouldn't want someone who's continually dreaming about being at a desk job and not having a heart in what needs to be done, to be in MY foxhole, ya know? By the same token, would you really want to put a highly trained combat soldier at a desk to push papers just for "fairness?"
It's difficult to rotate soldiers between office jobs and frontline duties. We should note that many office positions consist of specialised duties which are critical to the effectiveness of frontline duties. The office in some instance may be near the battlefield, and if it should be overrun by the enemy, office staff would also be taken as prisoners of war.
Very true, Theodore... very many of those office jobs aren't just meaningless "can't do anything else, let's stick 'em at a desk" positions, but positions that are trained for just like the combat duties. I think when law enforcement officers have trouble on the job, or trouble coping, they may be given "a desk job" for a period of time, but it's not like that in the military.
