Now if a person behaves in a way that dishonors themself, then that is another issue. And there are the countries that use war and benefit from it, that is wrong (and sick)
My friend feels strongly that all soldiers are complicit with the death of innocents...especially in Iraq.
In WWII there was required a concerted effort to stop someone who was out of control. I think that was a good thing. But on reading Migeru's post above, I am reminded that nothing is always clear and simple, especially in war.
And lest I sound like I am romanticizing war...war is horror. "Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
I agree that we owe our current freedom and well-being to those who fought in WWII but I don't know what we'll owe to those fighting in Iraq today. Possibly an apology for allowing them to be sent there, but at some point soldiers have to be held acocuntable for following illegal orders. And you have to know what you're getting yourself into when you join the military. If the price of upholding human dignity is a court martial and (in time of war) possibly execution, you have to know you are in the wrong institution.
And your "lefty friend" is not alone in thinking soldiers are complicit in the deaths of civilians. The Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal agrees:
Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.
The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.
So, however justified it is to fight to defend your own, Gernika, the Battle of Britain or Manchuria are no excuse for Dresden, the firebombing of Tokyo or Hiroshima.
When Rumsfeld announced a "shock and awe" campaign and said "there won't be a safe place to hide in Baghdad" (a city of 6 million), what do you think he was talking about? Airdropping the flowers with which the American liberators would be greeted? So, the right thing to do for the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have been to hand Rummy and Bush their asses on a plate. As it is, they are all war criminals, by the laws the US itself enacted for Nuremberg. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Additionally, having been a psychologist and counselor for many years, I have worked with many veterans, including helping homeless Vietnam veterans get off the street. Whether one of these people committed atrocities, I would not know...it was not my job to wave my finger in their face and tell them how immoral or how un-ethical it was for them to have done that. In fact, it would have been extremely unethical for me to do that, when a person is coming to me for help. I have talked about it a few times when they initiated the discussion, but that person will have to come to terms with their own moral dilemmas.
My point in all this is: it is not so black and white... "Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
Blue-Collar Man: Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt, but what were you talking about? Randal: The ending of Return of the Jedi. Dante: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels. Blue-Collar Man: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer... (digs into pocket and produces business card) Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs. Randal: Like when? Blue-Collar Man: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was. Dante: Whose house was it? Blue-Collar Man: Dominick Bambino's. Randal: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster? Blue-Collar Man: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine. Dante: Based on personal politics. Blue-Collar Man: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling. Randal: No way! Blue-Collar Man: (paying for coffee) I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet.
"I don't want to sell anything, buy anything or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought or processed, or repair anything sold, bought or processed--you know--as a career. I don't want to do that. My father's in the Army. He wants me to join, but I can't work for that corporation. Um...so what I've been doing lately is kickboxing, which is a new sport, but I think it's got a good future."
For one, the military is the way out of the ghetto for many people of color in the US, and a way into the system. Like it or not, for many it is an opportunity, and Markos at dkos had a lot to say about that (being an ex-vet who gained a lot from that experience).
Since you mention psychological counseling of veterans, I have been trying to track down some excerpts of Dave Grossman's On Killing that I have quoted elsewhere, but I can't seem to find them now. Anyway, I read them as an indication that, in many ways, combat training possibly, and certainly the experience of war, seriously hinders people's ability to function normally in civilian society in time of peace. And this is over and above PTSD, as one component of basic training is conditioning recruits to be able to dehumanize other people in order to kill them. Stan Goff (see the sections on "gender" and "military") also writes eloquently and persuasively about the pathological masculinity that is pervasive in the military and, it would seem, tacitly understood to be essential to its function.
It may not be black and white, but it's pretty bleak. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
But...when it gets down to the individual person...it is just not that simple, is all. I have tried not to judge people who were warriors, but rather to be open to where they were at the moment they were talking with me, which was usually about some sort of pain they were in.
From another perspective, let's look at a person who is a policeman. I've been threatened by policemen before...but despite that, I generally feel good that there are people who have taken on the role of protecting society. I wouldn't do it, but glad someone is. I wish we didn't need the military, other than for relief operations... "Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
it is bigger than the 'me' and 'him' thing.
It has since long become a conglomerate which consists of publicly worshipping the flag, always reciting the pledge of allegiance, the continuous ritornello to 'support the troops', the insistent references made to ones military service (i.e. presidential candidates), the publicly rendered appraisal (on C-Span) to service man: 'thank you for your service', the way people introduce themselves on tv shows "I, as a Korean, Vietnam war veteran" etc., the earnest, somber marches of naval, army and air-force personnel 'trooping the flag(s)' at national (party) conventions, the singing of the national anthem at football, baseball games and at political party congresses,etc.pp.
And who could ever forget Kerry's opening remark at the Democratic Convention? 'Ready for duty'.
It is sick.
Sicker than what happened during the last 20 years of the East Block and the USSR. It is probaly worse than what goes on in China today. "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819
However, you know what else is sick? or possibly just stupid? railing against human nature. Refusing to discuss a problem that costs millions of lives among people who are obviously open to that discussion.
I understand that these sorts of events are often so painful that it's difficult not to have an emotional response, but I don't think we can afford to indulge in that.
I didn't think this thread was about war or the powers that have declared war. I didn't think there was any celebration or approval in it, but I could be wrong. As I explained earlier, I thought it was about people.
Now the argument seems to be being made here that the people who fight in wars should somehow stand up or not fight or refuse orders. And I can see that case being made in the abstract, or in very specific incidences, but not in general. Nuremburg was mentioned and "following orders" was not a defense. But that was for specific cases. Even in that instance, the whole military wasn't convicted.
Also, I admit I'm not that educated and don't study war because I hate it, but I've never heard of an example in all of history where a war didn't happen because all the soldiers decided not to fight. So far as I'm aware, people are led into war and later the ends are declared. These decisions come from the top, not some democratic process.
So to me, this argument that the soldiers are responsible for is just unrealistic. I also don't like a lot of things corporations do, but I'm not going to blame all of the employees and shareholders. Like Bob and Migeru, I don't like the police all that much -- in fact I think many of the policies they enforce in the name of the drug prohibition are just as bad as any other war -- but I'm not going to blame them for the laws.
I'm very much against the death penalty. But I don't think we'll get rid of it by shunning lawyers, or expecting judges and guards to simply refuse to do their jobs.
I feel the same about Veteran's day that I do about Labor day -- it's good and honorable to remember the people who have died. It's good to discuss what happens to the little guys when power becomes absolute. And from that remembrance, we should bring forth discussions about how to not let it happen again. It's also a very good time to find out things we have in common, from whatever side we're on, to connect shared experiences.
I posted a photo of my grandma upthread and also told a story about my (turns out 3rd) great-grandmother -- not because I'm a warmonger or was happy about them being involved in war, but to say this happened in my family, too. Maybe we have stuff in common. I haven't seen anyone here making judgments about one side or the other being right or better.
In fact, I'm quite sure that war my Irish gran died in was probably really bad and unjust. But I'm not going to judge her for going, because her people were dying of starvation. And if this was a labor day thread, I might post a photo of my gr-grandfather who went down into the mines when he was 11 and lost the sight in one eye.
He was also orphaned because his mother died in childbirth and his father died young of black lung. The coal industry has done terrible things and are responsible for countless deaths and illnesses, but I don't judge my ancestors for having worked for them. Remembering him and telling his story wouldn't mean I was praising the industry.
It's human nature to talk about the dead, and to honor them. Sadly, it's also human nature to fight. For the most part, we've acknowledged that people can act in ways that aren't very nice, and we have lots of laws, governments, and other constructs to protect us from each other. What we don't seem to have learned yet, though, is how to control the constructs.
Expecting regular people to not participate in systems that they've constructed doesn't seem very realistic to me. What the systems are doing now is sick, I agree. But I also think it's futile to rail against the low-end participants. You've pointed out some big problems, what do you think the solutions are? Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
I've never heard of an example in all of history where a war didn't happen because all the soldiers decided not to fight.
Now seriously, consider the German Revolution of 1918, which resulted in The Establishment of the Weimar Republic:
Rebellion broke out when, on October 29, the military command, without consultation with the government, ordered the German High Seas Fleet to sortie. This was not only entirely hopeless from a military standpoint, but was also certain to bring the peace negotiations to a halt. The crews of two ships in Wilhelmshaven mutinied. When the military arrested about 1,000 seamen and had them transported to Kiel, the local revolt turned into a general rebellion that quickly swept over most of Germany. Other seamen, soldiers and workers, in solidarity with the arrested, began electing worker and soldier councils modelled after the soviets of the Russian Revolution of 1917, and took over military and civil powers in many cities. On November 7, the revolution had reached Munich, causing Ludwig III of Bavaria to flee.
There are many cases in history where regimes collapse because the security forces refuse to follow the Government's orders to repress civil unrest. Ultimately, the police and the military are the people, and if pushed to the limit will refuse to carry out their orders. Foot soldiers are more likely to rebel than officers because they are less committed to the institution.
Regimes don't colapse as soon as their grip on society or their popular support lessens, but only when their lack of legitimacy becomes apparent. Usually this is exposed by some otherwise minor event. Revolutions are not caused by their triggers. The causes are what poise the system on the brink of collapse. The trigger is just what pushes it past the tipping point. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I knew this part and probably should've added something about "until overall conditions become unbearable." You yourself say "if pushed to the limit." So obviously, this will happen when the whole of the general populace is unhappy with the situation. A similar thing happened during Bolivia's last uprising.
So yes, I know that people start refusing to fight when the whole of the population's opinion has turned. But that's not the case now, and probably won't be for quite some time. Do we want to wait that long? My question, really, is how to change this without letting things run their ugly course? Are there ways to divert or prevent power from running amok? Or do we just have to let these brute forces play out to their ends? It's my opinion we don't. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
According to a documentary I saw on German television a few years ago, the US training methods are in significant part based on Nazi research - an especially inhuman part of Nazi war crimes.
After the Wehrmacht command was bothered by the high rate of soldiers with 'killing inhibition' (up to above 50% in all wars with conscripts until the Vietnam War) a special unit of Nazi scientists conducted 'live' tests, ordering soldiers to shoot selected groups of death camp inmates or PoWs, watching the soldiers' behavior. Dehumanizing was one thing focused on, group binding (i.e. not allegiance to the commander or the nation, but fellow unit members) was another strong factor. After WWII, the US Army seized documents and took it home. According to the documentary, 'lessons' were fully applied in training by the time of the Vietnam War.
(On the other hand, watching/reading any US WWII or earlier war stories with this in mind, I now notice that elements were already there earlier.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
