The heart of the thing isn't gratitude for specific actions performed per se, but something very different: obedience.
Boddi writes:
Do you really want soldiers making their own law? Or, do you want them to follow the law? Think about it. When soldiers don't follow the law, it hasn't generally worked out well for left-wingers, women, and minorities, has it? In fact, when soldiers have decided to make their own law it has really worked out horribly for humanity.
...
The counter arguments have been built upon the question, 'what am I thanking them for?' followed by a list of aggressive actions (bombing civilians, for ex) and critiques of imperialism.
But all that misses the target. Boddi wants us to thank military personnel for obeying their civilian commanders, for not challenging the chain of command, despite whatever misgivings individuals in uniform might have about their assignments.
Boddi writes (in response to Yohie's statement about the need for soldiers to protest):
...protesting soldiers have proved very powerful in history. Well-armed people tend to get themselves listened to. That particular form of protest is generally known as a "coup d'etat" or "armed sedition" but it is quite powerful, no question.
...
Again, the focus is on obedience. The thank you should be explicitly phrased so its background 'concerns' are clear: thank you soldiers, for not rebelling against your commanders.
In Boddi's view (and correct me if I'm wrong) the proper place to question immoral aggression is via the democratic process, not at the level of individual resistance by soldiers.
Needless to say, this is a liberal argument and not a radical one built as it is upon the belief that the US' democratic structures are effective as a means for determining military action.
A prediction: you, Boddi, will respond that these structures are indeed sound inasmuch as we elect our representatives and can express our displeasure with national policy through them.
.d.