US Soldiers may not be the "good guys" but they are still my guys.

[Selwynn]

In another thread, someone posted that the the men and woman in Iraq are not the good guys. They are an occupational force. This was in defense of a guy who suggested and encoraged violence against our men and women in Iraq.

All I can say in response is that they may not be the "good guys" but they are still my guys, and all I want is for them to come home soon and come home safe. Many of them did not want to be there. Many of them do not agree with what's happening, so much so that at least 50% are planning to leave the military - that's according to latest polls and may or may not be scientific in nature.

They may not be the "good guys" but neither are they the real "bad guys" either. They are a bunch of kids caught in a desperately rotten situation not of their own making, many of whom believed the hype that serving one's country was the highest form of patriotism.

I accept the fact that the longer they remain in Iraq under the current policies of occupation dictated by Washington, they will be targets for violent resistance. And while I do understand the motivation behind Iraqis resistance, and probably even acknowledge that right, such affirmations of the mind cannot overcome the desire of my heart for our kids to make it home from this mess in one piece.

I understand that very few people here honestly desire for someone's son or daughter, brother or sister to be killed in Iraq just to make a political point. I also understand that many people here recognize that our war with Iraq is unjust, and was based on lies and motivated by greed and tyranny - and because of this there has to be sympathy in our hearts for an oppressed people fighting against this force through any and all of their limited means. I understand that.

But quite honestly I feel like all this talk about whether or not we should "support" the troops or whether or not Iraqis are justified in killing American soldiers is really a great distraction. There is nothing we can do here to physically prevent Iraqis from whatever means they choose for whatever ends. And none of us here thousands of miles away can do anything to directly shelter or protect our loved ones from the possibility of resistance violence.

What we can do however is everything possible on the political side and everything within our power here at home. There really isn't a day that goes by that I don't speak out about the unjust war in Iraq at home where I live (in Idaho no less where I nearly put my life on the line!) I am alert, informed and involved in the political process during these times, taking as much action as I can to help continue to turn the tide of public opinion against the war and against Bush and is tyrannical regime. I want to do everything I can to help take back the White House in 2004, and I want it so much that I will support any candidate, from anywhere that represents the best possible chance of beating George Bush and outing his band of evil, evil men and women(an). For the first time in my young life (I am 26 years old) I intend to budget out what little money I have so that I can financially support the candidate I believe both stands against the tyranny of Bush and comes closest to supporting my progressive beliefs.

I must admit, I don't honestly believe any current candidate, with the exception of Kucinich really comes close to reflecting all my views accurately, but I also understand that the nature of politics is to be engaged in a war of attrition. We won't win massive crisis battles that result in instantaneous radical change. Instead we will slowing win more and more battles, one small step at a time, until we change the course of history. And so I am wholly committed to supporting whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being, on those grounds - the grounds that we work slowly towards revolutionary change; Rome wasn't built in a day.

In the end, I believe that it is more important that we aggressively focus our attention on beating Bush at home, and returning some measure of Justice in Iraq through our aggressive commitment to domestic outspokenness, protest, lobbying, fundraising, campaigning and yes, even civil disobedience if necessary. So I both understand the plight of Iraqis in resisting an oppressive occupational force, and I also do not desire that a single American boy or girl is hurt in Iraq - I simply want them home, I want for the Bush doctrine to be exposed as the hypocritical immorality that it is, I want for his Administration to be thoroughly discredited, and for our next great leader to unequivocally apologize to the world for our arrogance and our ignorance, and set about the business of repairing our international relations, and assisting the United Nations as it begins the process of true rebuilding and restoration in Iraq.

Our American soldiers over there may not be the "good guys" - but they themselves aren't the "bad guys" either. Just think of IrateCitizen, who may be compelled to ship out to Iraq very soon -- he represents the boys and girls over there -- people we need to bring back safe and whole. And I deeply wish that our unanimous, unequivocal message from DU would be one that ones and for all puts to bed the fringe calls for violence against our brothers and sisters, and instead desires nothing and expresses nothing but our deep and painful longing for them to get out of there quickly and safely and reverse the policy of Iraqi occupation that was so immoral and misguided. We can do this best not by debating whether or not we should support or troops, or whether or not we should support violence against our loved ones trapping in a mess they never wanted to be in....

...we can do this best by fighting the war at home, and never stopping until it is won.

Sel

[thebigidea]

1. this all sounds like fans arguing about sports teams

All this "support" stuff pretty much boils down to the same thing: wave the flag, wave the pennant. Buy the t-shirt, etc etc.

As my Army dad would say: "the troops don't want to be supported, they wanna get the fuck home."

I don't understand the need for Americans to Disneyfy the troops as "boys and girls" - these are grown adults with powerful weaponry. The days of sandboxes are over, the playground is a lot more deadly.

The only "boys and girls" in Iraq are the ones getting run over by tanks and shot at.

[frank frankly]

2. well said

no one will better spit on these kids when they return.

my mom is a Social Worker at a VA. the first troops are coming back and they need us to listen to them and fight for them.

[leftyandproud]

3. the soldiers ARE the good guys

the administration....They are the evil ones. THEY and they alone are responsible, not our boys.

[shance]

4. We can do this best by fighting the war at home,

and never stopping until it is won"

Couldnt have put it better myself.****

Thanks.

:)

[VolcanoJen]

5. Eloquent post, Sel. Thank you.

Anytime we attack the troops for their long suffering, we play into Republican hands.

I can sympathize with those who are so angry about the war (I'm angry, too, we're all angry), but I can't sympathize, or support, for one damned second, anyone who chooses to aim their vitriol at 19-year-olds. It's horrible. And it doesn't win popular support from potential voters, either.

Anytime you tell a stranger at the bar that you don't support the troops, you create another Bush voter. Sad, that.

I support the troops, and want them home. End of story, for me.

I really became dismayed at the earlier talk around here, from soldier-haters.

:-(

[tom_paine]

7. I agree completely, VolcanoJen

Bring the boys (and girls) back home!

[aquart]

8. I want them home and safe.

But I recognize that we invaded Iraq without cause, and the people we call terrorists are calling themselves freedom fighters and they're right.

They are entitled to kill us any way they can. I just can't hate them for it.

But, God, I want our troops back and safe. All here. All accounted for. All back with their families and friends.

And what I want for Bushco is full and final and public.

[Semi_subversive]

6. All this reminds me of

is Sgt. Jerry Bobbitt, Age 19, killed in Viet Nam in 1971 at age 19. He left behind a new bride and a child he never saw. One of my brother's friends that never minded having the little brother, me, hang out with them. I remember seeing the traveling "Wall" in the Sacramento area and pencilling his name on a Saturday, with my kids asking me, why are you crying Daddy, and then seeing a picture in the Sacramento Bee on Monday of his widow kneeling and crying at the Wall. We can't let this happen again. To do so is criminal.

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. Every human being is responsible for his own actions

He who gives an order, for giving it, he who obeys it, for obeying it.

Each person has his own values, his own moral code, and in the final analysis, everything he does, whether he goes to war, or not, and what he does when he gets there will be determined by that.

It would be disingenuous to trivialize the gravity and enormity of the moral and ethical decisions that these young people are called on to make, often without the benefit of a great deal of life experience, formal education or sophistication.

At the same time, it would be patronizing to suggest that conscience and values are dependent on formal education, sophistication, or even experience.

The best way to support the troops is to hope, and pray if you pray, that they will find the strength to stand taller than their General, taller than their government, and conduct themselves in the way you would hope that soldiers who had, for better or worse, followed orders to deploy to your street would conduct themselves.

[Selwynn]

11. But can they really be said to be making an informed choice?

My question in response to your posts centers around a great uncertainty: I'm not sure how many of these very young men and women really understand the scope of the actions they are ordered to take.

I completely agree that it would be patronizing to act as though the ability to act justly is completely contingent on ones education, sophistication or experience. But in addition to the complicating factors of enormous moral and ethical decisions forced on these young people, there are also a few other factors that concern me.

For one thing, soldiers are conditioned. This is one of the most important things my father, a Vietnam combat veteran, taught me, a person who has never served in the military. They are conditioned to kill. They are conditioned to follow orders. They are conditioned to believe in the justness and "American way" of the institution of which they are a part. As a philosophical question I ask: to what extent can these young soldiers be expected to make an informed decision or even understand the scope and consequence of what is going on around them. Soldiers are, in the opinion of my father, basically trained from day one to do two things: kill and not think (ie. follow orders without reflection).

This is an open question that I don't think has an easy answer. I also know that it was not your intention to imply otherwise, but I feel the need to say that regardless of whether a young solider refuses an order of his superior on the grounds that he understands the action in Iraq to be unjust, we ought still to desire to bring them home safe and as soon as possible, we ought still to understand them primarily as victim-pawns in somebody else’s bloody game, and we ought still to understand that our real power and influence lies in relentlessly fighting the war at home, not debating whether or not its justified to kill American boys and girls abroad.

[DuctapeFatwa]

15. Well, maybe the time to support the troops is when they are children :)

I share your trepidation, and news reports indicate that there are definitely some who do not have the kind of courage I would want to see in a soldier who was ordered to harm my family.

I definitely believe that they should be brought home safely, or taken safely to the Hague for a fair and open trial, according to the decisions they made on the ground in Iraq.

But I think that about the IDF and Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, too, and LURD down in Africa, and the commercials in Colombia, and zog zog zog.

This is one of those questions where all any of us has is our own opinion, our own values, just like the soldiers, and mine is that violence and war does not solve problems, it only postpones them or smears them around like cleaning your monitor with the rag you just used to check your oil, and that in the best of circumstances, if there can be such, let alone an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation that we had just spent the last 12 years starving and drip-bombing all because our bitch there got uppity and wanted a bigger cut of the Kuwait money.

It is easy to say that wars have always been, and that non-violence is impossible because we are such a brutal species, and Lord knows it would be embarrassing as hell if intelligent life from another galaxy showed up and you had to say "um, I'm a human being from Earth," but slowly, slowly, progress has been made, and as hard as it is for those young men who DO find the courage, and as hard as it is for those of us who are honor bound to expect them to do so the way Miss Marva Collins expects her students to do their homework, about all we can take comfort in is that it was probably just as hard for those first hominids who trembling, stretched hesitantly up - until they bore all their weight on - two legs.

[Selwynn]

23. I very much agree --

-- on all points.

[Selwynn]

31. I wanted to say one more thing...

..though I don't know if you'll see it, the thread has gotten longer.

I was thinking more about what you said here:


I definitely believe that they should be brought home safely, or taken safely to the Hague for a fair and open trial, according to the decisions they made on the ground in Iraq.


Again, this is another place where I'm not assuming that you would necessarily disagree with what I'm about to say but I feel the need to say it. I agree that a solider who is ordered by his commander to shoot an unarmed innocent Iraqi woman in the face and obeys should get to have the experience of visiting the Hauge.

But what I do not accept, is that simply the fact of refusing to break the law by not going to Iraq when ordered or called up means that a war crime has been committed for which that solider is culpable. And this reality has never been brought closer to home than it has by hearing of IrateCitizen's impending reserve activation and likely deployment to Iraq. If you've read his thread, I'm confident you would agree that his decision is just.

[DuctapeFatwa]

36. Not at all, there will be many, I hope most of them

will not commit war crimes there. while I cannot agree with their decision to go, neither can I say that the act of going itself should mean a trip to the Hague.

I realize that I am opening myself up to charges of hypocrisy, if they go, are they not abetting, accomplices, etc, and all I can say is, I would hope that they would not go, but if they do go, that they do whatever they have to do to either get away, get on a photo op detail that doesn't involve hurting anybody, or find a way to play Schindler.

What the act of going does, aside from aiding and abetting etc, is brings the soldier one step closer - in another thread, I suggested that someone talk to elderly Germans about those successive steps that lead up to that Moment when the soldier must make the decision that will determine life or death for someone else, and life or living death for himself.


"Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it."
Albert Einstein


edit typo

[RamboLiberal]

10. Great Post Selwynn - I couldn't agree with you more

I believe the majority of the US troops in Iraq are good people at heart and that most do not want to be there yet while there are doing their best to help Iraqis. And sometimes the intense 24/7 fear plus the wounding and killing of friends may make some too agressive, but I still think they're doing the best they can. I wonder how some of us would react in the same situation.

Let's not make the mistake some in the peace movement in the 60's/70's made in not separating the war from the warrior.

[Dr Satan]

12. I guess nazi soldiers

were just doing thier job? No responsibility at all huh?

[IranianDemocrat]

13. Come on.

To compare what the soldiers are doing to what the Nazis did is foolish and false.

[thebigidea]

14. yeah, the Nazis never invaded countries and established provisional autho-

- oh wait.

[IranianDemocrat]

16. U.S. soldiers aren't systematically wiping out millions of Iraqis.

I thought that was the action of the nazis you were referring to.

[thebigidea]

18. ask Trent Lott about that plan

"I thought that was the action of the nazis you were referring to."

then you need to take a closer look and who you're replying to.

[Minstrel Boy]

44. Nazis were about more than killing millions of innocents

Genocide was their greatest crime, but their agenda didn't begin and end at the gates of Auchwitz. They were also about the more prosaic things of empire building: protecting the fatherland by dominating continental Europe; asserting German industry through force of arms and the exploitation of foreign resources; establishing quisling regimes as the native face of occupation.

In all this and more, the agenda of Bush's America and its purpose in Iraq greatly recalls that of Hitler's Germany and its purpose in Europe.

[Selwynn]

17. I can't believe I'm dignifying this with a response, but...

I guess my response to you would be this:

Responsibility or lack thereof has little bearing on my desire that not another life be lost in Iraq nor on my belief that our best chance for making that a reality sooner rather than later lies in actively and aggressively fighting the "war" against this administration at home.

If you feel our soldiers are "responsible" for this horror, then I guess you should be wishing for their safe return and subsequent trial for crimes when they come home. And that's a completely different "debate" that I have zero desire to engage. But whether you feel they bear "responsibility" or not, the fact remains that we should want to bring them home and bring them home safely and now. The best way to do this is not to focus on the Iraqi resistance, but rather to focus on our own responsibility to resist this administration at home.

I don't want another dead American in Iraq - I don't want another dead person in Iraq. And I don't care who bears "responsibility" for what when it comes to my desire that their be no more lives lost in that place. I think that's a reasonable position.

[VolcanoJen]

28. Even Bonzo went to Bitburg.

It opens up an entirely different moral discussion, but no, I personally don't hold many of the German soldiers responsible for their actions during WWII.

In our modern situation, the blood is on the hands of the leaders. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Powell. These are the people who sent our most precious resource, our nation's sons and daughters, into an immoral and illegal war. They are the ones who should pay, and they are the ones who I hope lose sleep at night.

I think it's tragic that many of us here can't even, for one moment, feel sorry for, as an example, the 101st AD soldier who was shot point-blank in the head in the wee hours of October 24th, while guarding a goddamned grain silo. He wasn't evil, and he didn't deserve to die.

Isn't it even more horrific that I don't even know his name? Because I've thought about him, almost hourly, ever since I heard the news of his death.

[thebigidea]

29. just curious - why is Powell less responsible?

his speech before the UN was enough to push him firmly into the Cheney camp...

[VolcanoJen]

32. I don't want to thread-hijack here...

... but, in my opinion, he's responsible to a lesser degree than the Evil Witchkings that got us into this horrific mess.

When plans of the war first emerged (publically, that is; didn't we all know Chimpy would attack Iraq at his earliest post-election opportunity, which was provided him for him after 9/11?), rumors were rampant that Powell and his State Department were bitterly engaged against the Pentagon's plans, and that Powell was the one who really pushed taking this thing to the UN. Sure, in the end, he signed on, and sold his soul for a vial of fake anthrax.

I don't mean to imply that he's not responsible. I just think he's slightly less responsible. That likely makes no sense at all, but it's just my feeling on the issue.

- Jennifer

[thebigidea]

33. I think that's just the good cop/bad cop routine

don't fall for that classic con... when push came to shove, Powell stepped up to the plate and read his cue cards. There is no integrity there.

[VolcanoJen]

35. I think you're reading my words as very black-or-white

I never absolved Powell. Not for one moment. I included him in my line of guilty parties.

[WindRavenX]

19. I think it's horrible to wish death/pain upon the soldiers...

Although I disagree with everything they fight for, they are still human beings and it's just wrong, IMO, to wish them to be hurt. They believe they are doing right, many believe they are doing wrong and want out. Regardless of what they belief, I wish for them all to return safely back to their homes and loved ones.
Honestly, it sickens me to read stuff that calls for pain to be inflicted upon them ;(

[RichM]

20. That's a very nice speech, but this topic is getting nauseating.

The topic is conducive to melodramatic breast-beating & mass quantities of self-righteousness.

I don't see the necessity or value of any of it. The issue isn't that complicated. It only GETS complicated if one insists on confusing the soldier-as-individual with the soldier-as-US-govt-agent. These are 2 separate roles; anyone who confuses them is muddying things unnecessarily.

Insofar as the soldiers are human beings who didn't make the decisions that put them in Iraq, it's easy to feel sympathetic & supportive towards them. Insofar as they are US government agents, they are participants in an unjustifiable criminal occupation - and it's not too easy to feel supportive towards that.

What is so difficult about holding both of these ideas in your head at the same time? If we're going to talk about our feelings towards individuals now serving in Iraq, we can talk about our sympathy, pain & worry. If we're going to talk about the politics of it, that's entirely different. There's only trouble when someone who wants conversation #1 hears someone else having conversation #2.

[thebigidea]

21. you sound like you could use some MORAL CLARITY

someone get Bill Bennett on the line!

[RichM]

25. Well of course, we can always partake of Bill's wisdom.

Maybe we can reach him at Caesar's in Vegas, right about now...

[Selwynn]

26. No the problem is when someone having conversation #2...

...tries to apply the same principles to conversation #1, and does not appreciate the validity and place of both conversations, not one or the other.

But I don't completely disagree with the point that you are making, so I'm not implying that this represents you.

[atreides1]

22. Our Soldiers Must Be Held Accountable For Their Actions

Our soldiers are not all good, just as they are not all bad. There is a mix of both.

But to think that soldiers should not be held responsible for their actions just because they are conditioned is crap. If any soldier has
committed a crime or has intentionally violated the rules of war, the UCMJ, or the Geneva Conventions, they should be held accountable.

It would take more then 12 weeks of basic training to condition anyone
to the point that they forget or disregard what is morally right. Unless they started out with little or no moral compass.

The large problem is that there have already been some violations but little has been done. 74 Iraqi civilians have died under questionable circumstances, yet the results of every investigation cleared the military of any wrong doing.

By saying that it is the regime that is evil, not the soldiers, then the Greman soldiers were not responsible for their actions, because they were "Conditioned", and following orders, and had didn't know the difference between right and wrong. The same can be said for the Japanese, Russians, French, British, and let's not forget Lt Calley.

If what is said is true then, no soldier in the past , present , or future should ever be held responsible for their actions.

I will not spit on our troops, I have sent care packages to two soldiers that SoCalDem provided addresses for, and I will support them and do what I can.

But I do not condone the actions that some have taken, and I do believe that they who have committed violations should be held to account, and not given a free ride just because of the big, mean man in the White House and his minions.

Every soldier knows what they can and cannot do, they are given classes on the Geneva Conventions, UCMJ, and the Laws of War. So they know what's right and what's wrong.

It won't be the one who faces fire, who is the bravest. The bravest soldier will be the one who sees evil being done by his fellow soldiers, and refuses to take part in it. That is the bravest soldier.

[Selwynn]

27. I didn't say otherwise, I merely mentioned a complicating factor..

But to think that soldiers should not be held responsible for their actions just because they are conditioned is crap. If any soldier has
committed a crime or has intentionally violated the rules of war, the UCMJ, or the Geneva Conventions, they should be held accountable.


I agree. But as you might also agree, this "accountability" to which they should be held should not be their murder, but their safe removal from this immoral action followed by, if necessary and justified, their trial for war crimes.

Essentially I agree with everything you've said. If anything in my first post led your to believe I did not, allow me to clarify. If anything in my question to DuctapeFatwa left you with the impression I was doing anything other than pointing out additional complicating questions (which is not the same as delivering conclusions) let met clarify. Although right in that response I said that I was merely asking the question, not giving an answer. :)

EDIT - *laughs* changed "I've said" to "you've said"

[RamboLiberal]

34. I agree that yes our soldiers should be held to a moral code

and if they violate it they should be prosecuted under the UCMJ. I've always thought that US soldiers should be held to the highest standards. If they're not then what was exposed just recently with the Tiger Force in Vietnam is what can happen.

I can understand agression as I mentioned in a previous post - with all the stress it happens, but it has to be tightly controlled by the non-coms and the officers of a unit and the command.

We all know besides that our troops should not be there at all, or at the least they should be there with a broad UN force, that much of the danger they've been put in is because of the incompetence and arrogance at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

I'm really hoping that these guys and gals and their family quit buying the Repugs "wave the flag, support the troops" lies.

I want to bring them home, make sure Iraqis get the government they want, and make sure we give the troops a new Commander in Chief.

[maggrwaggr]

24. our soldiers are the biggest victims next to the Iraqis

of this whole stinking mess.

Who's getting killed? Our soldiers, and the Iraqis.

Who's getting maimed? Our soldiers, and the Iraqis.

Who's getting orphaned? Our soldier's children and the Iraqis.

Who's getting rich? FOB's and Halliburton.

Who's are the treasonous sonsofbitches who lied and got our soldiers killed?

Well, you know who ...

[VolcanoJen]

37. Spot ON, mag.

My sentiments. Exactly.

[Tinoire]

30. Beautiful post Sel- it brought tears to my eyes

Thank you for posting that...

And not to pitch Kucinich but you stated that he comes closest to your views on this. Please vote for him in the Primaries. Please anybody who believes in bringing our young men and women home, please vote for the only candidate up there whh has been unequivocally against this war, and all unjust wars, from the beginning. Not even an occupation will be kind to our soldiers- they need to get out now.

Peace

[rman]

38. Certainly the grunts don't carry more responsibility then the leaders

I for one can't blame the soldiers for 'doing their job'; the circumstances aren't such (yet) that they could rebel against the leaders. It's not like the soldiers thought up this war on their own. For the most part the soldiers are as much victims of the leaders as are the people who stay home, arguably more so since it may cost them their life.
Each soldier may be judged individually for certain acts during time of war. But i think it is unjust to convict all of them simply for following orders.

[Minstrel Boy]

45. beware the "following orders" defence

Orders can be indefensible, and demanding principled resistance.

[Scott Lee]

39. "Our Guys" volunteered for this, Selwynn

Tell me, how responsible should people be for their decisions? Volunteering for military service under a nutcase like George W Bush is, shall we say, less than a glowing endorsement of one's powers of reason and perception.

Ne?

[VLC98]

40. Why assume...

they volunteered for military service under AWOL? My hubby volunteered in 1985, under a different nutcase, but I imagine many of those serving today volunteered under Clinton. Are they responsible because they didn't visit a fortune teller?

[Scott Lee]

52. Anyone volunteering for the US military should be aware....

that they will likely be put in harms way for questionable reasons, if they take even a cursory look at American military history. I would think such a history would give anyone pause before they put their signature to the enlistment forms.

Certainly you are not excusing those in the military for failing to note their nation's history in this matter, are you?

[VLC98]

53. I'll be brief....

because I have to leave in a moment. Firstly, US history is not taught properly in US schools. Secondly, one hopes that governments would become more civilized with the passage of time. Thirdly and most importantly, many 18 year olds have so few opportunities to even provide the basics of shelter and health care for themselves, they feel they have no choice but to sign up and keep their fingers crossed.

[Scott Lee]

63. Those are fair arguments

But let me give my gut reaction to your points....

Firstly, US history is not taught properly in US schools.

Oh you got that one right. Have you read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by Prof. Jeff Lowen? It should be standard reading in school itself!

Secondly, one hopes that governments would become more civilized with the passage of time.

Right - but if wishes were fishes, huh?

The sad fact is that, as resources get thinner and world population makes greater demands on them, the corporate American structure that seeks over all to take and retain control of such resources is going to get more severe in it's measures. Translated, this means we'll see MORE Iraqs in the future, not less.

Thirdly and most importantly, many 18 year olds have so few opportunities to even provide the basics of shelter and health care for themselves, they feel they have no choice but to sign up and keep their fingers crossed.

Again I would agree. But I think 18 year olds are smarter than we often think. I would take your first point, about the lousy state of history education in our schools, as a great excuse to change and rememdy point three! In other words, lets start teaching the truth so that more 18 year olds are informed about consequences of seeking a military solution to their economic woes.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[VLC98]

68. Thank you!

I didn't think you would agree with me at all. Funnily enough, I am reading, "Lies My Teacher Told Me" at the moment. I'm British btw, so my teachers didn't do a lot of lying. Instead they taught things like the bubonic plague over and over to avoid talking about Britains violent history.

Of course you're right on the second point, which is sad.

On the third point, I don't mean to be rude, but I wonder if you know how bad some of the enlistees have it? My husband, for example, came from a dysfunctional family. At 17, his useless parents shunted him off to live with his grandparents who were religious fanatics. He didn't live up to their high standards, so he then relied on the kindness of various friends with spare rooms or basements, while working part-time in a restaurant. (This was in western NY, which has been depressed for a long time). So with no permanent address and no health insurance, let alone the option of going to college, he joined the Air Force. He has had a great career and until recently would've recommended it to anyone from a similar background.

[Selwynn]

43. No, no they didn't.

I don't no that many people said "we're going to Iraq I'm going to go join the Army!"

Most were already soldiers.

Unless your saying that the Army is always bad and we should have no military under any circumstances ever. You're not saying that are you? Well then, many of these people made a decision that believed was about giving back to their country a long time before they were ORDERED to go to Iraq.

Our guys did not "volunteer" for this. They "volunteer" to protect and defend the United States of America - and that noble duty has been perverted, twisted and defiled by this administration forcing a lot of good men and woman to go into a very bad situation.

But besides all of that, the point is that lack of reason or perception is not enough reason to wish for someone's murder. Reasonable or perceptive or not, I still want them home safe and soon, and still believe the most important work we can do to help accomplish that is to fight the political war at home.

[Scott Lee]

50. Excuse me - our military is VOLUNTEER right now

And has been for quite some time. Are you trying to say that all these folks joined up with nary a thought that they might be placed in harm's way for no good reason?

If you are, that doesn't speak well at all for the average intelligence of the current US soldier. If you AREN'T, then you are excusing them from responsibility for their own actions.

What shall it be?

[Selwynn]

54. No, excuse me -

But I think I made what I'm saying pretty clear.

Unless you are saying that the military on the whole is altogether evil and that no one should ever join or hold the belief that military service is an hororable way to express a sense of duty and patriotism, then you're argument makes little sense.

Are you suggesting that anyone who ever choses to join the military is by default doing something immoral?

It not, then maybe the real issue is not the people who joined the military because the believed it was honorable, and instead the real issue is the people in THIS ADMINISTRATION who have made military service dishonorable?

Well.. which is it? I asked you a question first, that you never answered.

[Scott Lee]

65. You sure love them strawman arguments, doncha!

Are you suggesting that anyone who ever choses to join the military is by default doing something immoral?

Never have, never will (my gods you love putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you!)

What I did say is that those who choose to volunteer in today's US military are lacking a brain stem if they fail to take into account that they well could wind up in some other Iraq. A brief look at our military adventures over the last century would make the case strongly enough.

Such unaware folks also need to consider that human rights pertain to humans all over the planet, not just here in the home of the brave. That means, if Johnny Soldier finds himself as a shock troop for another invasion of yet another soveriegn nation, he better damn well understand that he's going to be shot at.

It not, then maybe the real issue is not the people who joined the military because the believed it was honorable, and instead the real issue is the people in THIS ADMINISTRATION who have made military service dishonorable?

Now it's my turn.....ahem....are you suggesting that everyone who volunteers with this military is doing it for "honor"? How about as a good way to make money for college (a front running reason for joining up, actually)?

Well.. which is it? I asked you a question first, that you never answered.


Considering you still haven't answered my questions to you from two weeks ago - regarding exactly what the Iraqis should do to fight for their freedom - I would say you're behind the curve here.

[Minstrel Boy]

41. I will never call an army of occupation "my guys"

I've avoided these threads because, well, they're not "my guys" one way or the other. But let me put my thoughts together this way...

In the early '90s Canadian forces were deployed to Somalia obsentably as peace-keepers. In the course of the mission, an Airborne unit tortured to death a young Somali who had strayed into their camp to scavenge. When the news broke, despite an attempted cover up, it was a national scandal and let to the disbanding of the Airborne.

They were never "my guys." They were brutes and had disgraced my country. And while most Canadian troops behaved honourably, the actions of a few cast the whole mission into disrepute.

Now, Iraq.

US troops, most of us are agreed, ought not be there in the first place. They are not "keeping the peace"; they are the occupying force of an imperial power. Their mission is corrupt and criminal. And regardless of whether or not most of them try to conduct themselves with some measure of honour, we've all read enough horror stories of how cheap Iraqi lives are to many of them. The actions of more than a few would have cast the mission into disrepute even if the mission had not been founded on wicked lies.

The troops may be "your boys", but in much of the rest of the world, they are Roman legions. So long as they occupy Iraq I cannot condone any of their actions. I cannot cheer for them. I do not wish them "success," because that means the triumph of a will I wish to see crushed and cast into eternal disrepute. I wish the troops godspeed home, but I know how unlikely that is so long as PNAC is shaping policy.

I'm reminded of a lyric by Alistair Huwitt, written before the war, in a song called "The New Age of the Fist":

Defeat for a superpower,
Even at the hands of a dictator,
Means breathing space for the rest of the human race.

Chris Hedges said it at the commencement address last Spring, and he was booed and shouted down for it, and had his microphone cut (an atavistic response of the blood not unlike some posts I've seen here lately): The war in Iraq was not a war of liberation, but it is now. A war by Iraqis to liberate their land from the American occupiers.

A hard truth, but "your guys" are the ones in the black hats here. If the troops cannot be brought home, they don't need supporting. They need resisting.

[mike_c]

48. I agree with you MB, and you've nicely put the case that...

...I made last night, in one of the posts that started this latest round of chest-pounding and cheering for the home team. I'm an American, and they're not "my guys" either. They're not defending my country. They're not defending my social institutions. They're acting as instruments of a repressive and violent foreign policy. The degree to which they're responsible for the own actions is certainly not relevant to the Iraqis whose civilians they're killing and whose country they're grinding under the boot heel of occupation. If the situation was reversed, and Iraqi soldiers were occupying American towns, I wonder how many of these folks would urge us to understand them as "kids" who are "only following orders" or who only enlisted to improve their circumstances?

[Selwynn]

49. Tell that to IrateCitizen...

Sorry, but IrateCitizen is likely to be deployed soon.

He is most definitely "my guy." I am proud of him, I respect him, in fact I honor him, and I pray for his saftey and quick return.

He doesn't wear a black hat, nor is it your place to judge for him the personal decisions about whether or not to honor the call to deployment or break the law. In his case according to his own words, he decided to go because he would rather be there to take care of the boys and girls under him than expose them to someone else with a different perspective or less concern for the men. He represents the common understanding that you do what you do for the guy standing next to you.

I'm sorry but I won't demonize fellow DUers like IrateCitizen and the thousands of other men and woman over there who are just like him - liberal, disagreeing with the war, willing to refuse an order that is immoral, but not willing to desert his/her men and woman that are dependant -- it is arrogant and it is ignorant to assume that all the soldiers in Iraq are hateful right-wing fanatics who are there because they support the role of occupation. And I'm rethinking my position on reinstating the draft, because quite frankly, I'd like a lot of the people here waxing eloquent in the decisions of others to serve to be drafted, and the see what kind of pause it gives to them.

The troops are not the ones that need resisting - the Administration that keeps putting more troops on the ground need resisting. And you cannot expect mothers and fathers to actively be for "resisting" the troops, when that is just more palatable code for being for killing Americans.


The troops may be "your boys", but in much of the rest of the world, they are Roman legions. So long as they occupy Iraq I cannot condone any of their actions. I cannot cheer for them. I do not wish them "success," because that means the triumph of a will I wish to see crushed and cast into eternal disrepute. I wish the troops Godspeed home, but I know how unlikely that is so long as PNAC is shaping policy.


I don’t condone the war. I don't cheer for action in Iraq. I don't wish them "success." I also wish them Godspeed home. So what do we disagree on? Nothing. In fact I said all of this in my first post, if you bothered to read it. I said I understand the Iraqi right to resist, and I understand and agree in acknowledging the immorality of the war.

But I don't misplace my blame on folks like IrateCitizen who are ordered to serve. I place my blame in the Administration giving the orders. And as I said, even if I acknowledge that we may not be the "good guys" -those boys and girls are still my guys, some of them my loved ones. And just like a son or a daughter doesn't stop being your son or daughter when he/she screws up, neither to those boys and girls stop being my boys and girls even when they are the arm of a bad administration.

If there needs to be consequences for any actions taken in Iraq, so be it. But even then, they will not stop being my guys. I grew up in a home where my mother and father made it abundantly clear to me that there was absolutely nothing that could ever happen to me or that I could ever do that would stop me from being their son, or stop them from loving me.

These boys and girls will never stop being my boys and girls, and there's nothing they could do that would make me stop loving them or wishing for their safety. Things may break my heart, and some of them may have to face consequences for their criminal actions, and all of them may bear the pain of being involved in a situation we should never have been involved in, but they don't stop being my guys, and I don't stop loving them, caring for them, or wishing for their safety - ever.

And by the way, that is the attitude that wins people to the party. You go down to your local bar and tell people that you support "resisting" our US boys and girls and that they "deserve" what they get and see who many people rush down to support the Democratic party. It's not only bad for the party, its barely human.

There is nothing in anything I've said that can be misconstrued as support for the war. I do not support the war, I recognize that Iraqis have a right to defend themselves, I recognize that our soldiers are fulfilling the role of an occupying force. But I also know a lot of our "soldiers" personally, and at least one of them is a extraordinary fellow DUer most likely to be deployed soon. These are real flesh and blood folks and I want them home now and I want them home safe.

[Minstrel Boy]

57. Troops have no choice which colour hat they don

And so long as military policy is mapped by PNAC, the standard issue is black. This is how low they have brought America. It's what fascists do.

This is not a reflection upon the character of the individual soldier. There are always good people on the wrong side, fighting wars in which they have no stake but their own survival. And it's one of war's tragedies that many of them must perish before the criminal regimes which sent them marching fall.

I appreciate that resisting the empire from within is a greater moral challenge than from without. And I tell you, out here, among my companions there's no quandry about who needs supporting and who needs resisting. Because unless Bush's imperial march is stopped in Iraq, it won't stop. Can you assure me it's ridiculous to fear that one day I could see Abrams tanks rumbling through the streets of Toronto? I hope you can. Because I promise you, the day it happens, I won't be wishing "your boys" well.

[Selwynn]

60. I never asked you to wish "our boys" well.

I said that while I hate the war, I wish that MY boys would come home safe and soon, and I said that I desired to fight the war against this adminstration by focusing on what I can do at home, rather than all that I have no control of overseas. A sentament we ought all be able to share.

[Karenina]

64. Selwynn, here is exactly where it gets muddled

"Sorry, but IrateCitizen is likely to be deployed soon."

When I read Chris's thread I got totally bent out of shape. I cried and spewed obscenities and would really like to kidnap him and lock him in a closet till the danger has passed. The *dauphin who would endanger his life is not someone I would allow to kiss the sole of Chris's boot, even if it were covered with dogshit. However, Chris's decision about deployment is HIS ALONE to make. I have a high regard for him and the very thought of his being used in this clusterfuck is more than I can bear. What I KNOW is that he will bring light into every situation he enters.

At the same time it is clear that each and every man and woman deployed to Iraq is being used to perpetuate an imperialist agenda. That the American public will refuse to acknowledge the "cost" of this invasion until American blood is running like a flash flood through the sewers of Iraq gives me no solace. It INFURIATES me that this is ALREADY HAPPENING and totally under the radar screen. They are TWO DIFFERENT TRAINS OF THOUGHT.

It GALLS me that the *misadministration garners so much "support" by invoking jingorgasmic chants of "Support our troops" when any cursory look at how they are actually being used would give any clear thinking person pause.

The only interests they are serving are the financial interests of a corrupt cabal. So when an Iraqi expresses his rage to me at having had familiy members "mowed down" and wishing American troops dead, I am NOT offended. To say that the only thing that will get the American populace's attention is MASSIVE casualties (it IS a fact... ever wonder why such a horror is true? Pehaps the answer to THAT question will shed more light on our predicament), is NOT the same as wishing death upon those we know and love who are caught in this black widow spiders' web. THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES bound together by our relationships.

[msmcghee]

42. There are many perspectives on this.

Each is a window that shows part of the truth. Each window must be looked through. Here's a couple of windows.

One unfortunate result of these situations (as in Viet Nam) is that the only thing that will bring them home is a politically unsustainable rate of casualties. It's like Twain's frog in the pot of slowly warming water on the stove. As long as the casualty rate remains in the current area - the US will probably accept it as the cost of being there - and almost all the pols say we must remain. So, unless the Iraquis score a big hit, like several hundred casualties in one bombing or 20 or more repeatedly - they're going to stay - and probably more Americans and Iraquis are going to be dead at the end of the year than otherwise.

It's doubly ironic that a big Iraqi hit that creates hundreds of US casualties at once will only affect Bush* negatively if he cuts and runs - implicitly admitting the moral bankruptcy of his war. If he somehow manages to rally the troops (and the voters) and re-affirm his resolve - it would probably be almost impossible for him to lose in 2004.

Another window. When they signed up, they may have been looking for some help to get through college or whatever - but they also signed up to follow orders - even if those orders required them to kill innocent civilians in an unjust war. They must have known this could happen - or maybe they never heard of Viet Nam. My call is they knew it and it didn't make any difference to them.

I doubt many of them questioned their recruiting officer about the possibility they might have to do some unsavory things. In my experience - the vast majority of recruits at the time they sign up have bought in completely to the idea of "getting some" - regardless of who is right and who is wrong - and would consider their military experience lacking if they never got the chance. By the time they get out of basic training and AIT they are all pretty much ready to be the killing machines they were trained to be. Of course when they actually face what real death by high power weapons is all about - the ones who survive will wonder how they could have been that stupid. But that's how it always is with the young and the military.

I'm sure they'd appreciate a gung ho, united populace back home when they are sent off to fight in some conflict. But there won't be many second guessers when they get there - when their sargeant tells them to kill the people in that approaching vehicle.

Another window: The officers know that real infantry experience in a war zone is what makes careers - and they do what they can to get a command in the zone. That's why the military as a whole is very Repuke. They know which political party will give them the most opportunity to do their thing, command others, with the full force of military law backing them up, in a time of mortal crisis and survive - and to retire with more decorations at a higher grade.

I have no doubt that there were hundereds if not thousands of military absentee ballots added to the FL count after the polls were closed. They got their guy in. They got their war. How ironic that the only thing that might save some of their lives now is if a large number of their comrades are killed in a very short period of time.

[Karenina]

58. Bingo! It is SO PEVERSE, yet fact:

"How ironic that the only thing that might save some of their lives now is if a large number of their comrades are killed in a very short period of time."

THIS is the crux of the Starpass rant that got so many knickers in a wad. At every social gathering I attend I hear frustrated expressions about the Amis deserving to get their butts kicked. Taking any particular speaker's point of reference into account, I am never offended because they ARE CORRECT.

The FACT that the troops are being misused, abused, deceived, betrayed, lied to, FUCKING HUNG OUT TO DRY by the BFEE seems to be lost in all the rhetoric. Never mind how many will die or have their families destroyed by current policy. Just don't dare suggest that if they suffer a major bloodbath where their numbers can no longer be hidden, that perhaps they will NOT have died in vain. That perhaps such a scenario beamed into the living rooms of Americas will be the jolt that awakens them from their *corporate-media-controlled somnambulance.

[msmcghee]

61. Yes, and we are all being . . .

. . misused, abused, deceived, betrayed, lied to, FUCKING HUNG OUT TO DRY by the BFEE!

My favorite expression about the RW (that I've noticed from personal experience) is their strong tendency to believe their own bullshit.

In this case the BFEE wants to believe - exactly what justifies the actions they decided they were going to take.

Unfortunately, a large number of Americans, probably a majority - want to believe the same lies. That's what makes it an easy sell. Deep down I think a very large number of Americans are happy to see and hear about Muslims being killed. They don't care about their guilt or innocence. Bush* - in his blathering about evil and Crusades and such - has made it OK for them to hate Muslims and enjoy their deaths.

I think the masses, when they are fearful, are prone to despicable actions, racism, lynchings, etc. Leadership can either face down the mob and show a more honorable way to address our problems, it's called civilization - or they can become an enabler for the worst in us.

The latter is what has happened in this country. The wrong people were in charge on 9/11 - and now we have been hopelessly sucked down - as a nation - to the worst that humanity can offer.

Sometimes I think that all that is left is for us to make an indelible, unmistakable outcry against this perversion. So that twenty years from now after millions more have died as a result of this administration's pandering to the worst in human nature for it's own ends - when they try to claim they were caught up in the anguish over 9/11 - at least we can show them that was not true - that there were many saner voices crying out against the mob.

[Karenina]

67. Why is this not happening now?

"...all that is left is for us to make an indelible, unmistakable outcry against this perversion."

On this board are many who have a clue. Their voices, outrage, desperation and clear sight into where the problems lie are DROWNED OUT by a corporate controlled media.

The Palestinian and Israeli peacemakers have YEARS of experience with this. Many in America are not even aware of those who risk their lives DAILY to combat the RW machine. And it IS a woodchipping machine that makes pulp of anything in its path.

At this point only an uprising by American citizens can change the trajecory of this train wreck. They have already been economically RAPED and AMAZINGLY still spout the party line. The ONLY issue that will motivate them to do so is their OWN KIDS RETURNING IN "TRANSFER TUBES" FILM AT 11.

[VOX]

46. The foot soldier's plight: "Rich man's war, poor man's fight."

Throughout history, the young men and women (of any nationality or ideology) who kill and die on the battlefield have usually served -- willingly or unwillingly -- to further the cause and interests of the power-brokers and the wealthy.

The privileged classes (who dodge harm's way by pulling strings and greasing palms) whip up the emotions of those who must fight by repeatedly drumming home the message that their actions -- and consequently, their own blood -- are for God and country, and nothing could be nobler than to lay down life for the cause, whatever that cause may be.

Our troops in Iraq are no different. They deserve to be brought home quickly, alive and emotionally intact.

[msmcghee]

47. What you say is true, but . . .

. . are you ready to say that both sides in any war are immoral?

How about those who fight to repel an invasion of their own nation by a more militant neighbor?

How about those who rebel against the moneyed powerbrokers and start a revolution to regain power for their masses?

Perhaps it is just as immoral to refuse to fight for the right reasons as it is to volunteer to kill for the wrong reasons.

It is that fine line between loyalty and treason - and to which set of ideals - that makes the choice so difficult for those who care that they take the right path.

[RandomUser]

51. Take a look through the soldier's eyes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=638648

Check out the soldier blogs. Chief Wiggles and Turning Tables will show you two sensible soldiers. One who supports the occupation, and who hates it. Both are good people.

[Kanary]

55. Terrific question, selwyn

You're right..... they're *our* guys (and gals, dagnabbit!), and they didn't get there by themselves.... they were sent in our name, and we owe them some respect and concern, and certainly, a decent living when they return.

I agree that they were conditioned, and it's extremely difficult to climb out of that conditioning, especially when surrounded by other conditioned minds, and in a life-threatening situation.

On the other hand, yes, everyone, in the final analysis, is responsible for what they do. We have much behavior to be ashamed of in every war that the US has fought. Some horrendous things have been done in our name.

Somehow weaving those two "givens" together is quite the challenge.

Thanks for the thought provoking thread, Selwyn! This is the kind of deep discussion I've sought, and hope to learn much.

However, my head hurts now. ^_^

Kanary

[Selwynn]

56. Welcome Welcome Welcome!

To DU! :toast:

[thebigidea]

59. "in the name of the father, maybe - but not in MY name."

[Zynx]

62. I agree.

I may not agree with why they are there, but they are good people and deserve to come home safely.

[BeFree]

66. Hey Andrew Sullivan, et al...

Put that in your paper!!

This is what most of the people I know want. Bring our troops home without another death.