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.
no subject
on 2005-01-25 19:50 (UTC)In part I know that my rabid stance comes from the family and friends I have had all my life that served in different branches of the armed services, but it is also the fact that I've spent the majority of my life in a military town and that accounts for a lot of it as well. I don't expect others who aren't in my position to agree with me, but the fact remains that the person in question here crossed several lines with me and that is what compelled me to say what I have said. I now feel that having done that, that there isn't much more for me to offer on the subject in that post.
I do understand his point, but I reject it. There was never a question of respecting this person as far as I'm concerned, particularly when he came into my personal space to troll. He has since been banned from commenting in my journal after being warned not to do so.
Again, I appreciate and thank you for this effort. It speaks volumes about you that you would even bother, and volumes more that you would so eloquently for the sake of really being heard. ;O}
Re: on supporting the troops
on 2005-01-25 20:17 (UTC)i think it'd be interesting to hear your views based on your background and experiences sometime when there's not somebody around who rubs you wrong. i'd certainly be interested; there's nobody in my chosen (or birth) family who's ever done career military service, and i come at it completely from the outside -- which means that there really is a gaping hole in my set of thoughts about this.
no subject
on 2005-01-26 06:40 (UTC)no subject
on 2005-01-26 09:16 (UTC)no subject
on 2005-01-26 10:40 (UTC)no subject
on 2005-01-26 11:11 (UTC)Troop education funds
on 2005-01-26 12:03 (UTC)Okay, so, given that, suppose that one wants to find a way of changing the world so that, decades down the road, the US military will not be what it is today. For the purposes of the argument, it doesn't really matter how one wants to change it. How are you going to convince that culture to change? People raised in the military culture are naturally going to be more supportive of it, be more strongly opposed to any attacks or hints of attacks against it (because they'll take it as a personal affront), and (while I don't have the statistics, it seems logical) be more likely to join the military themselves.
More education is the most reliable and most effective way of getting people to reconsider the cultures in which they were raised that I've ever seen. There are very good reasons why radical reactionaries across history are intensely suspicious of any educational establishment they didn't control. I would argue that if you want to change anything about military culture, it's in your best interests to help educate as many people in that culture as possible. Education in and of itself isn't going to change people's minds, but it gives them the background and breadth of understanding to let them reconsider core assumptions and understand arguments presented in ways that are foreign to their birth culture.
I think supporting education is one of the most effective actions of a progressive of any stripe, even if the education isn't directly related to the progressive cause.
Re: on supporting the troops
on 2005-01-26 12:43 (UTC)i generally support education for all people because i think it's incredibly important, both for the individuals who will be better able to take care of themselves, and for society as a whole. in fact i want this education to be as cheap for people as possible; i don't exactly view it as a basic human right, but it's right next to that.
no subject
on 2005-01-26 13:10 (UTC)Re: Troop education funds
on 2005-01-26 14:18 (UTC)you bring up some good points, but i can't say i agree with your rationale.