Introduction

The practice of civilians wearing military combat clothing, particularly those relatives of veterans, has sparked a nuanced debate about honor, respect, and the commonality of military service. This article delves into the arguments surrounding this practice, exploring whether it demonstrates a disregard for soldiers' honor or merely reflects the changing perception of military service in contemporary society.

Respecting Soldiers' Honor

Despite the unique experiences and sacrifices that veterans make, there remains a sharp divide over the appropriateness of civilians wearing military attire. For many, such action is seen as a sign of honor and a way to pay tribute to their service. For instance, wearing medals or combat clothing for memorial services is a way to remember the sacrifices made by their loved ones.

One individual, reflecting on their personal experience of honoring their father who served in World War II on Remembrance Day, observed:

‘I wanted to honour my father who served in WW2 and all the Services on Remembrance Day. I found that it is permitted to wear Medals if you are a relative. So I did so for one Remembrance Day and then got the medals framed.’

This act not only serves a memorial purpose but also fosters a sense of connection and respect towards those who have served.

The Argument Against Over-Enthusiasm

However, others argue that the widespread use of military combat clothing by civilians could be seen as a form of over-enthusiasm. They point out the potential risks and confusion in a global context where various groups might seek to don these attire.

Considering the broader context:

‘my opinion is that if every tom dick and harry has access to army camouflage clothing even terrorist will have it too. Would it not be a risk and will it not be hard thing to differentiate btw terrorists and the army men’

This perspective emphasizes the need to distinguish between civilian and military use, highlighting the potential dangers of blurring these lines.

Perception of Exclusivity and Honor

The nobility of military service is often tied to the perception of exclusivity and honor. Those who serve, especially in periods of conflict, are indeed regarded with a sense of elevated status due to the danger and responsibility they bear.

Nonetheless, the article argues against the idea that wearing military attire or holding medals should confer any greater honor than that accorded to civilian life:

‘Absolutely not. People tend to over-glory the damn uniform too much. I feel only remf cads and over enthusiastic prudes are offended say if anybody says something bad about the military or tries to speak for it or identify with the trade of soldiering or even pins a friggin’ ‘commando’ pin to his ass. I mean, why should anyone care?’

This highlights the complexity of the issue, as some may view such acts as trivial, while others see them as deeply meaningful.

The Broader Context of Military Service

Military service is viewed not merely as a source of honor, but also as a trade that requires specific skills and choice. Soldiers, like any other worker, are part of a larger societal whole:

‘Army is where we work Alright we’re the real fu00fckin’ McCoys and love the flag to death and all that. But it wasn’t thrust upon us. That’s what Om Puri was saying when screwheads shut him up. It’s no big deal. A soldier is a tradesman of some particular kind by choice. He’s not god-sent or made of gold and his contract and work sends him to death every few weeks or so but that’s not deserving of any greater glory than the average citizen.’

This perspective draws a parallel between military and civilian life, emphasizing that the value of service should not be overemphasized.

Reevaluating the Heroic Narrative

The article questions the heroic narrative often associated with military service, suggesting that many other individuals, such as farmers, engineers, and entrepreneurs, also contribute significantly to the well-being of society:

‘In many ways the farmer of this great Nation is the bigger hero. Or the poor engineering graduate who naively decides to “rough it out” in his own motherland rather than fu00fck off to Dubai and adds to the value of enterprise in his own small way making the large base on which the gigantic “team India” stands. How is that guy to be told sorry the dweeb with the curled up mustache wearing the faggot scarf is the only one who may call himself this or that and bow to the fu00fckucker when y’see him. He’s your maibap.’

This reevaluation underscores the need to see military service in a more balanced and inclusive way, recognizing the contributions of all individuals to society.

Conclusion

The issue of civilian ownership of military combat clothing is multifaceted and should be approached with a nuanced understanding. While honoring veterans is essential, so too is recognizing the commonality of service across different fields. Ultimately, the value of military service, like any other form of labor, lies in the individual's commitment and the direct contributions they make to their society.