Chicks Get In the Way

So it would be better to sleep under the blanket of the security a military system provides, and not question the manner in which they provide it? (That also sounds familiar.)

If we want a system where civilians answer to armed forces (instead of the other way around), there are plenty of governments like that. Ours is not one of them. Democracy doesn't run on blind citizen obedience; it runs on voluntary support and voluntary dissent. Since our military officers have to follow orders, the policy-making burden of the war falls on civilians and the officials they elect. That's what the Constitution stipulates, and that's what we're called to do.

That should not mitigate the respect we have for people who have to kill and die for our government's policies--but since our participation ultimately determines those policies, we're kidding ourselves if we pretend that blind support is always a morally safe option. Blind support can get our soldiers killed, and that's no sign of respect. We have to pay attention. We can't trust politicians--any politicians--to do it for us.


Peace,

 

The amazing part is I agree with everything that DCross has said, but as I educate myself more, and am able to articulate my feeling, I choose not to present my case as such. I appreciate those who do say it like it is (like above), but my brother who served in Vietnam would come across more like DCross.

The men of our nation I love, and I back them 100% - men meaning those who protected me and the freedom I love.

 

Tom,

Of course you make great points. Of course democracy is awesome. Of course it is our duty to challenge our government and exercise our freedoms. I am just blowing off steam that has built up from hearing the often shallow and self-righteous arguments that are youthfully idealistic, but fall apart with any type of semi psuedo itelligent counter. I also find it amusing that some seem to not realize that the right they have to speak freely is on some level protected by those they often speak out against. In other words, If they got what they want, they would have the freedoms to speak out as they do. This can go on forever.

Sorry If I came across as a jerk!

 

In any situation you get strange people (military, civilian life, etc). We live in a violent culture where kids sit around on video games and blow peoples heads off. This has been a theory by those that study such things as to why some of the teenage school shooters were such great markmen. Don't we indeed have one of the highest murder rates in the civilized world.

As to the soldiers. You may get a screwy comment or two born of a military culture that for better or for worse necessitates killing. You have to understand that a seeminly callous attitude may be an emotional survival skill. I know that folks who investigate abuse/neglect become somewhat detached from it in order to stay emotionally able to job. They see and talk about things that others are shocked by in a manner that sometimes seems heartless (facts & cases) but those outside do not understand (the same could be said for cops, etc). I think we should be careful of judging troops in a situation that most of us cannot understand.

As to the new laws. Some of them may be coming from a reaction to some of the peace protests that have involved things such as blocking shipping of items needed by our troops, peace protesters attacking cops with rocks, and an attack by kids on a female National Guard Sergeant (Vermont??). I agree we do not want to go overboard in reacting to something (this is America). I think folks are just getting tired of seeing protesters (example those protesting the G-8, the WTO, attacking police, looting stores, etc).

Lastly, we all need to be civlized to one another. I have a friend at work who disagrees with the war and has made off hand comments about Rumsfeld, etc. I respect her sincerely held beliefs and we do not talk about the issue too much so that we do not end up saying things that could cause hurt to one another. I know I get irritated by people who make comments elsewhere (eg We do not really know if Sadaam has murdered that many people) or 'My President' (a term used frequently by Phil Donahue) has not really made a case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (UN to the contrary that 10,000 litres of serin?? was missing), or really made a case that he is too bad, we should sit around and see what happens (last, last, last, last, last chance),etc. Those beliefs may be sincerely held but to me they seem niave, anti intellectual & often sanctimoniousness. The key is that this is america and folks can hold niave unintelligent beliefs and espouse them in an sanctimonious way. They can also believe that my postion is unintelligent, etc.

Okay so not lastly, when you see things like MSNBC's visit to the Iraqi torture chambers of the Secret Police and hear the stories of Iraqi's who are touring the rubble it makes you think. Bob Arnott spoke about the torture and death of so many people within these walls. Maybe we can help ensure that this does not happen again and in that sense maybe we will be a moral force for good. It is easy for folks at home to say 'stay out of Iraq', 'It's not our business', 'There are so many other dictators' but maybe we have a moral responsibility and maybe the folks protesting from the perspective of their comfortable western lifestyle (suburbans, latte's, freedoms) may have a different perspective if they had to live under the Iraqi regime.

North

 

I had something similar at Fort Benning circa 1983;

Drill Sergeant: "What's a bayonet for?"

Trainees: "Kill, kill, kill!!!!!"

Drill Sergeant: "What makes the grass grow?"

Trainees: "Blood, blood, blood!!!!"




Bruce

 

U.S. Soldiers

Of course, being a part of the armed forces currently - I have read this thread with interest. On the one hand, I can understand how reading "...the chick went down" would inflame civilians (particularly those who haven't been in a combat zone---or as Bruce said M-16 in hand, humping a ruck, part of an evolving chaos). It also stirs disdain in me, a soldier.

However, having spent my time in a combat zone (Panama '89), I can attest to the chaos of the battlefield. Fortunately, I didn't have to kill any civilians - and if I had I wouldn't have commented on it to the press. When it's your life or there's, and your adrenaline is pumping, I can understand where civilian casualties might ensue. Geesh, the Panamanian Defense Force even tried the "golly-I'll-just-wear-civilian-clothes" offense. When weapons were observed they were taken out...period. It might seem cold, callous, disconnected, etc. but as it has been stated - this is par and parcel of war. We can hate it and debate it but it won't change anything.

I am happy that we do not live under martial law. It is hard enough accepting the "reality" of being on active duty, let alone how screwy it would be if the military were in charge of the civilian populace. Civilian authorities do have some input into war policy - but you would be amazed at the power of the Army Chief of Staff. I think I like President Bush's tactics best: let the ground commanders make the best decisions for their situation (within limits, of course).

Being a soldier has always brought a certain amount of derision, particularly from those who do not have the gumption, intestinal fortitude, or courage to put on the uniform. How quickly we forget that our precious freedoms in America have been purchased by the blood of those willing to sacrifice ALL to ensure it. Soldiers work long hours, earn low wages, and still are derided by "Americans". What a vicious circle. Who would want to live in a world without the military? Would unfettered anarchy please you more? I think America should implement a policy requiring all of its citizens to serve for two years...with this caveat - for every year you serve, the government gives you a year of college or vocational education. Want a four year degree? Serve four years. Associates? Serve two years. Imagine the difference in public opinion and the difference that impact would make on the workforce. WOW.

Sorry, if this seems like ranting - I haven't meant to offend anyone and I haven't had the time to check this board in the recent past. The threat of deployment still looms over my head and I'm prepared to go and ensure America's freedom and way of life.

Proudly, A Soldier,
Steven King

 

Steven, as a Veteran and more importantly a US Citizen, I'd like to thank you for your service to our country.


Bruce

 

Bruce,
I had missed this post - you're very welcome.

God Bless America!

Steven King †

 

I have been missing in action for the past few days (Finals in Tulsa), I made it a point to shake the hand of every solider I saw (all at the airports). God, what a great country, I love our men (and women)!!!

 

Why is war Hell? And why does it matter?

I like Kristie's reply to Jeff's very valid qualms. I hope I may put some academic bones on the bloodied flesh alluded to by many respondents.

The "Hell" that war is, so famously attributed to General Sherman, consists in the fact that war--if not before, certainly after it commences--imposes a standard of justice and social choice-making that many feel, if not also believe, to be either immoral, amoral, or beneath our humanity. It smites us. It conflicts with the Angels of our better nature. And it mocks us.

I'm referring to utilitarian standards of justice and cost-benefit calculi. Every human life has infinite worth, we, in a Judeo-Christian based culture, will say. Yet such sentiments conflict with efficient decision-making since no human has infinite time to consider action.

While this calculus of cruelty is--quite properly--a course of last choice, it cannot be the option of infinite choice as, for instance, Senator George McGovern apparently believes in The Nation (recent cover piece). On his account, further delaying of war was rational at almost all costs. Apparently, for him, only the cost of a nuclear attack on US soil would justify an attack on Baghdad, which could lead to incinerating 5 million innocent lives. This delayed eventuality--an even crueler and more horrific political choice than the one just excercised--would be far worse, far more immoral, and far more tempting than the situation recently faced. Yet--somehow--McGovern offers us no guidance whatsoever as to how we meet the challenge and threat of anti-Western terrorism except keep hoping ("praying" is rather suspect to him) for the best! Praying at the alter of Multicultural equivocation leads to no choice at all--except possibly the worst.

It seems these considerations are entirely lost in a traditional Muslim culture that favors the fatalism of "If Allah wills it" (a favorite cliche) over these kinds of debates. However, I think these (Jeff's et al) qualms show the superiority of western culture that Arab's, at least--and most Muslims, perhaps--have yet to ries to. WE weep our loses, and we weep for the costs imposed upon others like little Ali, the 12 year-old armless survivor of a US bombing.

As Pascal Bruckner sagely writes (Dissent, Spring, 2003):
"For too many countries, particularly in the Arab world, self-criticism is confused with the search for a convenient scapegoat: it's never their fault, always someone else's.

"Christianity and Islam are both imperialist religions.... But Christianity, worn down by four centuries of opposition from within Europe, has given ground and accepted the principle of secularism.... The day on which [Islam's] authorities ask forgiveness for crimes committed in the name of the Quran against infidels, unbelievers, and women will be a day of progress for all humanity. It will help to dissipate the mistrust many nations feel for this sacrificial monotheism. Not only is criticism of Islam not 'reactionary,' it is the only authentically Voltairean attitude to adopt at a time when millions of Muslims wish to practice their religion in peace, without the interference of doctrinal extremists."

Even these debates and disturbing circumstances will not save those unlucky few from the continuing terror of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, classically observed in soldiers and civilian war-victims alike. For these people, the war may NEVER end! I recall reading a journal article on a 90-some year old WWI veteran in a nursing home, still re-living battlefield trauma in night-terrors, shortly before his death. (I read it in terror I could personally relate to, even though my sufferings were never from combat--but it's still the same unending "haywire" tormenting craziness of PTSD.)

In sum, the political and social instrument of war is the crudest and most terrible one of all weilded by the state. But I believe in this case, the war in Iraq, it may achieve a greater good.

Let's hope so.

--Orson

 

No music here

Hmmm. Saw this thread and thought it was about the Dixie Chicks. Interesting.

Roscoe