on supporting the troops
Jan. 25th, 2005 15:07![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
piranhasomebody whom i don't know well, but whose journal i read because i like him (especially his enthusiasm and passion) is upset about another person who's not supporting the troops. he's drawing a strong distinction between not supporting the iraq war, but supporting the troops, and seems not to understand and respect the other person's viewpoint. i do, but i don't want to contribute to the brouhaha in that LJ, so i'll write about it here.
in a less violent world pacifism would be a my preferred solution, but i don't think homo sapiens is quite there yet. i do generally consider forceful self-defense to be ethical. i therefore support defensive forces, whether in the form of a true national guard, or swiss-style training of adults for a citizen's militia. i am partly ok with the canadian armed forces because they are used as peace keepers, and i don't necessarily view that as an oxymoron though i see the problem inherent in having people with weapons try to show "peace" to others. i view it more as an attempt of insurance for those people who would otherwise be killed by warlords or ethnic bigots. but anyway. i am ok with it, for now. if i were a swiss citizen, i'd want to participate in the citizen militia training. if canada were to institute something like it, i'd take part in it.
i am not ok with the US american armed forces because they are built and used primarily as an aggressive force that initiates acts of war, instead of being used defensively against a direct threat. soldiers who sign up know that -- how could anyone have missed it? the US hasn't fought a war on its own soil since its own civil war. why should i hold soldiers not responsible for that choice? they're adults. even if they just join to get an education (something i consider wrong with US society; people should not have to sign their life away for that), they know they might get sent somewhere to kill other people for no other reason than that an administration considers it useful to the US's interests.
the claim is sometimes made that i only have my freedoms because those people are willing to give their lives for me. those are usually people who don't understand that i have a consent fetish: i didn't ask for their sacrifice, and i wasn't asked whether i wanted it. i would rather see much of the money invested in armies go towards peaceful conflict resolution. or how about a war on poverty? and, as i said above, i'd be perfectly willing to take up weapons for the active defense of my country of residence from invaders myself. i would, however, not take up weapons to spread my personal ideology to other countries, and i refuse to consider that a legitimate use of force. (yes, there are grey areas. iraq isn't one of them for me.) somebody who does something for me that i do not want and have not agreed to doesn't gain my respect -- i didn't thank my birth family for trying to force christianity on me to save my immortal soul either. i need to consent before i owe anyone gratitude for what they do in my name.
i consider this aggressive use of armed forces to be ethically wrong. and i can't entirely separate the people who carry out this administration's actions from those actions. if they stood up en masse and protested, yeah, they'd have my full support, and my money in their legal defense funds. but they're following their orders and are killing people in places that have not invaded or directly threatened the US. they knew that this was possible (even likely) when they signed up. just following orders is not a "get out of all responsibility free" card IMO. the administration carries the main responsibility, but each person needs to decide their ethics for themselves, and if somebody thinks it's good enough that bush says so, and then goes and kills people, that is on their heads as well. i consider them an accessory. without soldiers, this administration couldn't commit some of the crimes it is committing. what is it the NRA says? guns don't kill people, people do.
that doesn't mean i'll spit on them when they come home. i've sent books and goodies to help some soldiers get a small emotional lift in their bad situation; i feel especially for those who're barely of age and find themselves thrown into hell on earth. i have no problem with funds that try to establish educational opportunities for the children of those who died. btw, i think the government should, dammit, pay for the education of all children, and especially of those with parents who died in its service. but i can see why somebody who shares my general attitude wouldn't want to do those things either, because they do indirectly support an unethical mission. i do small, peaceful things for all sides embroiled in a conflict because i believe that in the long run peace is best reached by demonstrating it personally. it's a separate thing from supporting their mission or their choice in life, for me.
but no, i don't support the troops in the way that those with the yellow ribbons do. i hold them partly responsible.
in a less violent world pacifism would be a my preferred solution, but i don't think homo sapiens is quite there yet. i do generally consider forceful self-defense to be ethical. i therefore support defensive forces, whether in the form of a true national guard, or swiss-style training of adults for a citizen's militia. i am partly ok with the canadian armed forces because they are used as peace keepers, and i don't necessarily view that as an oxymoron though i see the problem inherent in having people with weapons try to show "peace" to others. i view it more as an attempt of insurance for those people who would otherwise be killed by warlords or ethnic bigots. but anyway. i am ok with it, for now. if i were a swiss citizen, i'd want to participate in the citizen militia training. if canada were to institute something like it, i'd take part in it.
i am not ok with the US american armed forces because they are built and used primarily as an aggressive force that initiates acts of war, instead of being used defensively against a direct threat. soldiers who sign up know that -- how could anyone have missed it? the US hasn't fought a war on its own soil since its own civil war. why should i hold soldiers not responsible for that choice? they're adults. even if they just join to get an education (something i consider wrong with US society; people should not have to sign their life away for that), they know they might get sent somewhere to kill other people for no other reason than that an administration considers it useful to the US's interests.
the claim is sometimes made that i only have my freedoms because those people are willing to give their lives for me. those are usually people who don't understand that i have a consent fetish: i didn't ask for their sacrifice, and i wasn't asked whether i wanted it. i would rather see much of the money invested in armies go towards peaceful conflict resolution. or how about a war on poverty? and, as i said above, i'd be perfectly willing to take up weapons for the active defense of my country of residence from invaders myself. i would, however, not take up weapons to spread my personal ideology to other countries, and i refuse to consider that a legitimate use of force. (yes, there are grey areas. iraq isn't one of them for me.) somebody who does something for me that i do not want and have not agreed to doesn't gain my respect -- i didn't thank my birth family for trying to force christianity on me to save my immortal soul either. i need to consent before i owe anyone gratitude for what they do in my name.
i consider this aggressive use of armed forces to be ethically wrong. and i can't entirely separate the people who carry out this administration's actions from those actions. if they stood up en masse and protested, yeah, they'd have my full support, and my money in their legal defense funds. but they're following their orders and are killing people in places that have not invaded or directly threatened the US. they knew that this was possible (even likely) when they signed up. just following orders is not a "get out of all responsibility free" card IMO. the administration carries the main responsibility, but each person needs to decide their ethics for themselves, and if somebody thinks it's good enough that bush says so, and then goes and kills people, that is on their heads as well. i consider them an accessory. without soldiers, this administration couldn't commit some of the crimes it is committing. what is it the NRA says? guns don't kill people, people do.
that doesn't mean i'll spit on them when they come home. i've sent books and goodies to help some soldiers get a small emotional lift in their bad situation; i feel especially for those who're barely of age and find themselves thrown into hell on earth. i have no problem with funds that try to establish educational opportunities for the children of those who died. btw, i think the government should, dammit, pay for the education of all children, and especially of those with parents who died in its service. but i can see why somebody who shares my general attitude wouldn't want to do those things either, because they do indirectly support an unethical mission. i do small, peaceful things for all sides embroiled in a conflict because i believe that in the long run peace is best reached by demonstrating it personally. it's a separate thing from supporting their mission or their choice in life, for me.
but no, i don't support the troops in the way that those with the yellow ribbons do. i hold them partly responsible.