Anti-war people, support the troops?

[tclouie]

In case anybody hasn’t guessed it yet, I’m arguing from an ANTI-MILITARY point of view. I’m against the institution of the military, in concept and in practice, because I’m anti-war and pro-non-violence. I’m not just against this war.

As such, I support civil disobedience, conscientious objection, and refusal to fight by soldiers in any war. Yes, the whole Quaker/Thoreau/King/Gandhi/Berrigan thing, all the way. I’m not so sure the protests ended the Vietnam War – I think it might have been the disobedience and mutinies by the troops in the field. To me, the true heroes in war are the people who refuse to fight: the Israeli refuseniks, the Quakers, St. Martin of Tours, and many, many others.

At this point, someone is going to say, “What about the just wars? We fought for our nation’s freedom, we fought to end slavery, we fought to stop Hitler.” That is definitely a tough point to oppose. However, it should be brought up that even at the time of and immediately after the Revolutionary War, there were people who thought independence could have been achieved without recourse to violence. The Civil War: it was fought to preserve the Union, and the liberation of the slaves was mostly a strategic move. World War II: a real toughie, but it is possible there were opportunities to stop Hitler before 1939 that Western diplomats did not take advantage of. Basically, Hitler saw diplomatic weakness and took advantage of it. CMIIW, but perhaps a stronger stand by Chamberlain at Munich could have forestalled the attack on Poland? (Non-violence is NOT the same as weakness.)

Would I have fought in any of these wars? Quite possibly. Would I fight to protect my mother from a mugger (the favorite question of draft boards for CO’s)? Sure. But my point here is that there are always avenues for peaceful resolution of conflicts that go unexplored. Violence should be a last resort, as the diplomats say, but in practice I don’t think it really has been the last available alternative. More creativity and determination are needed to find ways to avoid war.

In any case, I think the massive killing capacity of modern warfare precludes any war from being a “just war” anymore. Up until Sherman’s march through Georgia, 18th and 19th century troops generally avoided cities and engaged each other in the field. And then aerial bombing was invented, changing the whole character of war and bringing Guernica, Dresden, Hiroshima, Vietnam and “collateral damage.”

As a non-violence ideologue, I realize I’m a minority among the American public, but I’ve always been in good company. Our point of view is so rarely heard in the media these days that I feel obligated to put it forth wherever I can.

Some people here have expressed concern that I am showing a certain lack of respect, empathy or compassion for the human beings who are now serving as soldiers. As I said in my OP, I do support human beings. However, that does not mean I have to respect the job or office they are carrying out. Let me turn around the whole “respect” question: how much respect, empathy or compassion are you showing when your main job is to destroy other human beings?

Spitting on soldiers: I’m against it, unless that individual soldier has consciously committed an atrocity. Would it have been wrong to spit on the commander who said “Kill 'em” at My Lai? However, when it comes to most soldiers, who are presumably not psychopathic or morally stunted, what I want to do is reach out to them, not alienate them. How could I encourage them to not fight if I showed them such insulting contempt?

Yes, I remember that the “support the troops” slogan in Gulf War I was partially coined as a reaction to the treatment of veterans who came back from Vietnam. To paraphrase my OP, I support human beings when they have come home and are no longer troops. Well, veterans have come home and are no longer troops. Some of the most committed and conscientious anti-war activists have been veterans. (I already mentioned Brian Willson, and Charlie Liteky, another Vietnam veteran, is risking his life as a human shield in Iraq RIGHT NOW.) I would give the veterans anything. If I were in Congress, I would vote to give them everything. Unfortunately, veterans have often been given the shaft, not only by unkind civilians but by the government.

You know, that whole “spitting on soldiers” thing has been a stereotype about the Vietnam era for a long time. I’m sure it must have happened sometime, but can anybody provide a cite for an incident when it really happened? How widespread was that? I know there were anti-war protesters who tried to speak kindly to soldiers, and a good number of those soldiers became war protesters themselves. I have even heard rumors of pro-war people spitting on returning soldiers because they “lost”! (Sorry, I can’t back that up. Can anybody jump in here with facts?)

Comparing World War II to Gulf War I: obviously, our side never herded people into camps for the purpose of exterminating them. However, like all modern wars, this war did have atrocities. Three I can think of that were committed by our side: 1) incinerating hundreds of Iraqi families in that bomb shelter, 2) using bulldozers to bury thousands of Iraqi troops alive in their trenches, and 3) incinerating vehicles on the “Highway of Death.” (To me, killing troops who have quit the field and are in full retreat is indeed an atrocity, and it wasn’t just troops on that highway.) Does anybody doubt that similar things are about to happen, perpetrated by us???

Oh yes, and Barry McCaffrey massacring a column of retreating Iraqi troops after the war was already over, as reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker.

In conclusion:

Positive values fostered by the military:

1. physical courage
2. teamwork
3. discipline
4. a sense of public service, working for the interests of the larger community
5. a sense of selflessness and sacrifice

Negative values fostered by the military:

1. violence and brutality
2. unquestioning obedience to orders
3. moral cowardice
4. conformity
5. “groupism” or hostility to anybody not in the group
6. intolerance of dissent and diversity

In my opinion, the harm done by the negatives outweighs the good done by the positives. So, I’m anti-military and anti-war.

[Rhum_Runner]

How nice for you that the very people you condem have fought and died to allow you the freedom to take the position you have. How silly of us to fight a war about slavery, when in fact it was just a ‘strategic consideration.’ How, pray tell, would Chamberlin have negotiated from a position of strength with Hitler, if he were committed to non-violence as you propose? Do you expect that they could have sat down to tea and talked about their ‘feelings’ and ‘values’ and made nice and solved the whole thing? Are you possibly that naïve? I could go on, but it would belong in the pit. <Expletives Deleted>

[5-HT]

I’m anti-war, but I will absolutely support the troops once the war starts. I’m not anti-military though. I basically oppose this war on the basis that it will make the world less safe rather than more. Once it starts though, I think a quick win with a minimum of death and destruction is in everyone’s best interests. Pulling out of the fight part way through would likely be worse for international stability then a decisive win.

[tclouie]

*Originally posted by Rhum Runner *
** <Expletives Deleted> **

[post redacted] “I don’t like pacifism, it’s dumb.” [/post redacted]

And you’re entitled to your opinion.

But you’re wrong. Nobody ever made me free by fighting. Even if the United States had never fought any wars, including the Revolutionary War, I would still have my freedom of speech.

The war that just started tonight isn’t going to make or keep me free either. Bush may yet use it as an excuse to *take away *my freedom.

[Rhum_Runner]

*Originally posted by tclouie *
[B Even if the United States had never fought any wars, including the Revolutionary War, I would still have my freedom of speech.
**

Yep, I guess you are right. I mean, all those people around the world that face prison or death for speaking out, clearly they still have freedom of speech. Sure, the choice is between speaking out and suffering a painful death or keeping quiet and living in fear, but it is a choice, and therefore they are free. Nice way to live.

[Dogface]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
serve in the armed forces did so not because they were expecting to get sent off to war and have the opportunity to kill foreigners, but because of the educational and employment opportunities offered them through the advertising and recruitment blitz they got on TV and in school

“Stupid is as stupid does.” pretty much sums up that behavior, I’d say. It’s a military. I understood that, and I’m no genius. Anybody stupid enough to really believe that there was never any chance of seeing action these days deserves whatever he gets. Maybe, just maybe some moron might be able to have justified it twelve years ago, but these days, that’s no excuse at all. Anybody who tries to pull that one out is very obviously either being dishonest or severely self-delusional.

[Sofa_King]

Well, I’m not happy about this bullshit unilateral war, and I’ve said as much elsewhere.

But now that the balloon has gone up, I think the very fastest way to get most of our men and women home and out of harm’s way is to kick the living shit out of Iraq.

I lament the death and injury which will be levied upon our soldiers and theirs, our civilians and theirs. But the best way to end a fight once it starts is to win, quickly and convincingly.

I don’t feel the need to reign in my contempt for this Administration’s near-complete diplomatic failure–contempt for the fools who brought us to this juncture is not contempt for those who have their asses on the line. And you can bet your ass I’ll be actively working to defeat this Administration in the next election. But in the meantime I find myself guided by John J. Crittenden’s comment in the midst of another bullshit American war:

“I hope to find my country in the right: however, I will stand by her, right or wrong.”

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by tclouie *
You know, that whole “spitting on soldiers” thing has been a stereotype about the Vietnam era for a long time. I’m sure it must have happened sometime, but can anybody provide a cite for an incident when it really happened? How widespread was that?

Two names come up in Googling on the subject - Jerry Lembke and his book The Spitting Image, and Bob Greene, who authored Homecoming. Lembke’s book asserts that it never happened, or at least not documentably so, while Greene’s book collects veterans’ first-hand accounts of harassment.

This essay by a vet named Vincent Pillari examines both sides of the argument and concludes that, yes, harassment certainly did happen, but it was not just from the “hippies” and anti-war protestors. Also that harassment was certainly not universal, and really only intensified after 1968, after the Tet offensive (when the country realized it wasn’t going to be short or easy, despite the Johnson administration’s claims to the contrary) and the revelations about My Lai (when the country realized the fighting wasn’t all clean, either).

To all those who would condemn soldiers for expressing their opinions on their orders and government policy during their tour of duty, I’d like to point to this essay by H. Bruce Franklin, called “The Anti-War Movement We’re Supposed to Forget”. There’s quite a bit in it of interest:

In September 1945 the Viet Minh issued the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence, which began with a long quotation from the U.S. Declaration of Independence, proclaiming the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The regional leaders of the O.S.S. (predecessor of the C.I.A.) and U.S. military forces joined in the celebration, with General Philip Gallagher, chief of the U.S. Military Advisory and Assistance Group, singing the Viet Minh’s national anthem on Hanoi radio.

But in the following two months, the United States committed its first act of warfare against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. At least 8 and possibly 12 U.S. troopships were diverted from their task of bringing American troops home from World War II and instead began transporting U.S.-armed French troops and Foreign Legionnaires from France to recolonize Vietnam. The enlisted crewmen of these ships, all members of the U.S. Merchant Marine, immediately began organized protests. On arriving in Vietnam, for example, the entire crews of four troopships met together in Saigon and drew up a resolution condemning the U.S. government for using American ships to transport troops “to subjugate the native population” of Vietnam.

The number of draft evaders and resisters was dwarfed by the number of deserters from the activeduty armed forces. During the 1971 fiscal year alone, 98,324 servicemen deserted, an astonishing rate of 142.2 for every 1,000 men on duty… According to the Department of Defense, there were 503,926 “incidents of desertion” between July 1, 1966, and December 31, 1973. From 1963 through 1973 (a period almost half again as long), only 13,518 men were prosecuted for draft evasion or resistance. The admitted total of deserters still officially “at large” at the time was 28,661–six and a half times the 4,400 draft evaders or resisters still “at large.” These numbers only begin to tell the story.

This article by Joel Geier in the International Socialist Review continues that story:

Until 1967, open defiance of orders was rare and harshly repressed, with sentences of two to ten years for minor infractions. Hostility to search-and-destroy missions took the form of covert combat avoidance, called “sandbagging” by the grunts. A platoon sent out to “hump the boonies” might look for a safe cover from which to file fabricated reports of imaginary activity.

But after Tet, there was a massive shift from combat avoidance to mutiny. One Pentagon official reflected that “mutiny became so common that the army was forced to disguise its frequency by talking instead of ‘combat refusal.’” Combat refusal, one commentator observed, “resembled a strike and occurred when GIs refused, disobeyed, or negotiated an order into combat.”

Acts of mutiny took place on a scale previously only encountered in revolutions. The first mutinies in 1968 were unit and platoon-level rejections of the order to fight. The army recorded 68 such mutinies that year. By 1970, in the 1st Air Cavalry Division alone, there were 35 acts of combat refusal. One military study concluded that combat refusal was “unlike mutinous outbreaks of the past, which were usually sporadic, short-lived events. The progressive unwillingness of American soldiers to fight to the point of open disobedience took place over a four-year period between 1968-71.”

These mutinies became so frequent and so large in numbers participating that the standard pattern of dealing with them was simply to relieve the line officers of their command and not charge the muntinous soldiers with anything.

Mutinies weren’t the extent of it, either:

For every defiance in combat, there were hundreds of minor acts of insubordination in rear base camps. As one infantry officer reported, “You can’t give orders and expect them to be obeyed.” This democratic upsurge from below was so extensive that discipline was replaced by a new command technique called ‘‘working it out.’’ Working it out was a form of collective bargaining in which negotiations went on between officers and men to determine orders.

I certainly would support US soldiers doing the same thing in Iraq today.

Sofa King, a question - if you’re unhappy about the war, why support Bush’s intended conduct of it? He wants a short, easy, major victory too.

[Sofa_King]

Sofa King, a question - if you’re unhappy about the war, why support Bush’s intended conduct of it? He wants a short, easy, major victory too. –Olenzero

That’s a fair enough question. I can best describe it like this: I didn’t want a war; Bush did. Bush got his war. I lost.

Now I’m presented with a fait accompli. There is a war, and I cannot envision any scenario in which the fate of my nation is improved by prolonging, hamstringing, or God forbid losing the war. Suddenly, Bush and I have the same goals: a quick action which hopefully preserves as many lives and as much property as possible.

Our fellow Americans are on the line out there, in a dangerous situation, with orders and a mission to prosecute this war. I have to support the course of action which best protects them, and right now I think that course of action is victory.

There is, of course, one other possibility: some political solution might present itself in the next few hours (minutes?) which allows most of our troops to simply pack up and go home. Unfortunately, I consider that possibility to be unrealistically remote.

I promise you, Olentzero, my distaste for this Administration and its actions has only increased, but the war itself–that’s off limits to me once we’re committed, until it’s “over” in some sense of the word. I cannot oppose the President on this matter simply because I oppose virtually everything else he does and is doing. I will, however, continue to oppose him on everything else.

Hey, when are we gonna go get that beer, anyway?

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by tclouie *
But you’re wrong. Nobody ever made me free by fighting. Even if the United States had never fought any wars, including the Revolutionary War, I would still have my freedom of speech.

The war that just started tonight isn’t going to make or keep me free either. Bush may yet use it as an excuse to *take away *my freedom. **

Must be nice to live in such ignorant bliss. There are places in the world where people slaughter each other by the thousands over race or religeon, live in slavery, are oppressed by real dictators, or have little or no rights at all. The reason we have a military is to protect us from those people who would come in here and take away all those rights you hold so precious.

You criticize soldiers for being killers. If someone was trying to kill you or your family, wouldn’t you try to kill them first?

No one ever won their freedom by dieing for it.

[Alessan]

*Originally posted by tclouie *
if the United States had never fought any wars, including the Revolutionary War, I would still have my freedom of speech.

Unless you were black, of course.

Or would you oppose that war, too?

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Sofa King *
I promise you, Olentzero, my distaste for this Administration and its actions has only increased, but the war itself–that’s off limits to me once we’re committed, until it’s “over” in some sense of the word.

But it’s this administration and its actions that brought about this war, isn’t it?

**Hey, when are we gonna go get that beer, anyway? **

Hell, I had no idea you were still even in the area - haven’t heard from you in a dog’s age. I’m still up for it if you are. Is Dremo’s still open?

[AHunter3]

I am, philosophically and politically, an anarchist, and as such I believe having official leaders (in the sense of people having power over other people) is ultimately not the way to go. Certainly as a subset of that notion, I’m against nations and I’m against the military.

These long-range goals do not prevent me from making strategic evaluations that lead me to (at times) support nations, police officers, my boss, and the army. I did not oppose the invasion of Afghanistan: it seemed reasonable on the face of the evidence that the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center were harbored there, and the Taliban was bad news all around, and we went about it in an appropriate way with the support and understanding of most other nations of the world.

I’m anti-war this time around. I support the troops in the sense that I hope they come home safely and soon, whether in defeat, in victory, or in open rebellion against those who sent them there. I do not support the troops by putting my blessing on their objectives.

Distinction reasonable?

[Spavined_Gelding]

Just in case no one has noticed it yet, the position taken both the originator of this post and the position taken by the “shut up and support the troops” people is intellectually, politically and morally bankrupt. These are words I have chosen carefully.

High Private Six-pack, rifleman in the Bravo team of the Third Squad of the Third Platoon of Delta Company of the Umpty-ump Infantry Battalion has no voice in foreign policy. He has taken the King’s Shilling and undertaken to do what the leaders appointed over him by the representatives of the whole nation tell him to do, with some obvious caveats about criminal acts in the ordinarily understood sense of the words. What he does he does because the American people told him to do with full confidence in his fidelity, skill and courage. What he does he does in the name and on the behalf of the whole people. To condemn that young soldier along with the originators of policy because you don’t like that policy is foolish and pointless and deliberately obtuse.

As a person who was on active duty through most of a war I personally thought was bad policy and counter productive, I expect that every soldier, Marine, sailor and aircrew will do his (her) duty and will be seen as an honorable representative of our nation. I think that the service member who does his duty, no matter my disapproval of the policy, is deserving of my regard and respect.

The point is this. The kids have a job to do. A dirty, dangerous and often highly disgusting job. They do it in your name and, whether you like it or not, at your direction. Honor and respect the kids for the job. Beat the people who told them to do it about the head and shoulders, blame your self for putting those people in a position to implement policy you find wrong, foolish or reprehensible.

To restate the obvious, as Uncle Billy Sherman said, war is cruelty—it cannot be defined any more distinctly. There is no such thing as a humane war. This is why war is the last and final argument of governments. Terrible things will happen in the next days and weeks. Men, women and children will die and suffer and be left maimed. Homes will be destroyed. Lives will de ruined. To protest that it should not be so is as futile as protesting the progress of the stars in their courses. If you find all this unacceptable, don’t heap your contempt on Private Six-pack. Go deal with the people who are responsible and who are supposed to be responsive to your will—the President and your members of Congress.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Open rebellion would ROCK!!!

[Sofa_King]

Said Olentzero:

But it’s this administration and its actions that brought about this war, isn’t it?

Yes, most unfortunately. But again, now it’s war and now I agree that the best way to finish the war on favorable terms is to win.

It’s sort of like if I had a little brother who was playing with matches in the garage. I tell him not to play with matches, I beg him not to play with matches, and the little bastard goes ahead and sets the garage on fire anyway.

I’m going to help him put out the fire, because it would be folly to stand back and say, “now you’ve done it; just watch the house burn down, too.”

But when the fire’s out, I’m gonna kick that kid’s sorry ass.
And yes, Dremo is still open, at least as of last month. I was away for awhile, but now I’m within easy staggering distance of there, so by all means let’s hang.

[CTB]

*Originally posted by tclouie *
Nobody ever made me free by fighting. Even if the United States had never fought any wars, including the Revolutionary War, I would still have my freedom of speech.

Your unstated contract as an American, or a member of any society for that matter contains an implicit restriction upon your freedoms, so I suppose in some ways you are correct. No society can increase your inherent freedom to think, speak, or act in any way you desire. Society can only protect you from certain possible outcomes of your action. You have the freedom to live your life in any way you deem fit. Society provides you a degree of protection from those either internal to the society or external who might wish to take what you have for themseleves, or exercise the freedom to deprive you of your life. In the case of external threats, it is the military that performs this role.

That’s it. It really is that simple. You have abrogated some of your freedoms in exchange for the protection society provides from others whose exercise of their freedoms may impinge upon your life. You can attempt to convince yourself that those external threats do not exist, but I believe you would find little evidence to support such a proposition.

American society has decided to protect you in your ability to state your opposition to the US military. To assume that such protections are inherent to society or would be available to you no matter who ruled your society again is difficult to support with the historical record.

There are many leaders of nations that will listen to reason and see that it is in their best interests to interact with others in a non-violent way. For these people we have the art of diplomacy. There are also others to whom non-violence is not an option. For them we have the military. Society cannot suitably protect you against both threats without both tools.

CTB