In discussions of politics and social issues, especially in the United States, it is not uncommon I've found for veterans, currently serving soldiers, or even people simply related to those who are/have served to cite their connection to the military as a way of lending a kind of greater legitimacy to their own opinions and viewpoints. Sometimes this behavior can branch beyond politics altogether and we get people who seem to think that having connections to military service grants them a sort of "wiser outlook" on life in general and that by merely reminding others of this connection, they have irreparably trumped anything anyone could possibly say in protest, because none of them could possibly understand the EYE-OPENING experience that is being a solider! It tends to be more common among conservatives though liberals are not immune.
Now look, I don't doubt for one minute that being in the military is a very daunting life choice that lend a person a lot of experience in areas such as the values of dicipline, hard work, and sacrifice, especially if you served in direct combat. But it seems that very few people (or at least Americans) are willing to draw a line in the sand as to where being a soldier lends greater weight to your opinions and where it does not. The simple act of responding to someone saying "I was a soldier" to boost their "cred" in a discussion with "That doesn't matter" comes across as an unspoken taboo in a lot of circles, and those who cross it are usually made to feel ashamed for suggesting... suggesting what? That being trained in combat doesn't do anything to teach you about properly budgeting the city's taxes, or what laws about public spaces should be passed, or who should be president? But it doesn't. Nobody denies that military service is rough, important work, but is there anything incorrect with pointing out that doing that work doesn't automatically make you an expert on every other function of society and life?
For one thing, soldiers and veterans do not all share the same opinions and views on everything. While one report found that while the US military is primarily conservative, it is not as conservative as some people might have you believe, and indeed this slant might be moreso due to the fact that people with pre-existing conservative viewpoints are more likely to join the military than it does with the military "granting" them those outlooks. Speaking from personal experience, I have at least three veterans in my family, one who was a marine and two who served in Korea, and all three were/are hardcore left-leaning liberals before and after service. Nothing about their services were any less hardcore or rough and yet they kept those views, a far cry from the, "All that hard work and getting my ass whipped in the military showed me how things work here in the REAL WORLD!" narrative some soldiers with opposing ideals would smugly pedal. I have seen videos and articles all preaching opposite positions from each other and yet all created by someone with connection to the military and tacitly if not outright stating this as a reason that they have more of a right to be listened to. They can't all be right "becuz military."
I think the problem is ultimately rooted in cofusing intention with qualification. Serving in the military can pretty much undoubtedly be cited as proof that one genuinely and strongly cares about the wellbeing of their country and is trying to make the best decisions for it - however, just because someone wants what's best doesn't mean that they know what's best. It seems to be easily forgotten in the heat of debate that hardly anyone out there is actively rooting for the destruction of their own country, people with opposing viewpoints more often than not truly, honest-to-god want the same things as you, they just think that those things are achieved in through different means. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. When one is bent on seeing "destructive" practices for their country as a result of an underlying malice, it can then be easy to see how one might start to assume that those whose good intentions for their country are clear must have all the answers, but that's simply not how this really works.
So where exactly do we draw a line in the sand as to where one's military experience lending them expertise ends, and how do we go about pointing this out in the event that someone fallaciously tries to use military connections to claim undue authority on subject matter? What sort of areas and skills would you argue that someone can legitimately claim military service lends them authority in versus which ones it definitely does not? Has playing the "I was in the military" card hurt public discourse by creating a convenient shutdown button for certain people, has it lead to mistakes in legislature, if so, how and what?
