No, you're totally right. I can see how I would have come off as sort of an insensitive jerk there, and I didn't mean to... I was just being lazy and making a strong comment without substantiating or explaining it at all, sorry about that.
What I meant to say was that I just think the military does it's soldiers a disservice (while admittedly also doing somewhat of a SERVICE) by militarizing EVERYTHING the way they do. I mean many of the soldiers there aren't going to be soldiers forever, and I think it's healthy for them to maintain some level of self-identity OUTSIDE of the military, so they retain some of their humanity independent of the military.
I feel like so many soldiers are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, after being discharged, and they have no idea how to interface with general (non-military) society anymore. I feel that the over-militarization of all spheres of life, medical being one, has contributed to this difficulty for x-soldiers trying to reintegrate into society. They have military stores, military hospitals, military food halls, military car insurance, the list goes on and on... (of course there are opportunities for military personnel to interact outside of the military... I know that, there's no need to mention them) I just feel like, if I were a soldier, when I went to the doctor (which yes, I would expect the government to pay for, of course), I'd just want it to be a normal doctor, seeing me as a normal human being. So what if they couldn't relate to my battle stories? So what if I had to deal with some long-haired, liberal, pretty-boy/girl doctor for a few minutes? For a second, I wouldn't want to think about being a "warrior," but just a person - just a patient visiting their doctor. (Of course, I'm talking about hospital/clinic-based care here, not field care... but most military health care happens in the clinic/hospital, not in the field).
And the "warriors" campaign is just that - a campaign. It's wrong because it one-dimensionalizes the individual HUMAN BEINGS who serve in our military. The problem is that these are NOT warriors first, they are human beings first. They are human beings who, in many cases, are risking their lives for the country because it was the most economically feasible option for them (they are undeniably recruited disproportionately from areas with high unemployment rates). That's not to say that their service is worth ANY less than if they did it because they truly wanted to become soldiers above all else... but it is to say that they are not organically "warriors," and we shouldn't try to morph their self-identities into that of "warriors," as evidenced by the increased incidence of spousal-abuse and hate crimes committed by x-soldiers upon attempting to re-integrate into society.
... Of course, there are benefits to militarizing the medical care of members of the military, and there are benefits to launching a "warriors" campaign to boost morale inside of the military... but for some reason both approaches just seemed sub-optimal to me, and the latter just struck me as insulting the rich multi-dimensionality of individuals in our military.
... But yeah, even upon reading my brief expansion here, I wouldn't blame anyone for disagreeing or even thinking I'm being an a**hole. I guess it all stems from my sincere desire to have a world where nobody is willing to do physical harm to their fellow man versus the reality that there will always be violence. In other words, I suppose my seemingly irrational conclusions/feelings above reflect my own internal conflict between my sincere respect and gratitude for those who risk their lives to protect our nation and my distaste for the very premise of miltaries in general.
Either way, I can see why you disagree. In fact, in a sense I disagree with myself, here.
Well, are they not warriors? I don't understand how this is insulting to our soldiers/country. The goal of military medicine is to heal those who serve in battle (warriors, perhaps? I don't know, I'm not a doctor.) and maintain the health of the military and support staff. Sure, it's about the military, but the military is made up of people, so in essence it is about the people.
Military docs are soldiers, and they tend to have more respect from military personnel than civilian doctors from my experiences doing research at an army hospital. I think it's similar to ethnic groups seeking a doctor of their own ethnic group. They feel more comfortable. That's just my musings, though.
Anyway, I mean no disrespect to you, Maja. I generally enjoy your posts, etc., I just disagree with your view of military medicine. Probably because I'm slightly biased from two summers spent at an army hospital.
I hope you don't see this as an argument but just try to follow me here: when someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they don't like you or are passing judgment on you...you seem to think it works that way 
