Now, this is not intended to be a debate about John McCain per se, but more the sentiment he’s expressing and the conflict I feel it presents.
It is obvious to see why war should be hated. It is the cause of great suffering and death, and I am aware of no exceptions. And yet, it is also obvious that there is a romantic and glorious aspect of war that we often dismiss (and John McCain does so here as well). We speak of valor, of battles won, of heroes made. And there can be no doubt that many in history have gone to war in search of this glory and recognition.
And the military is not simply a war machine–I’d never claim otherwise–but that is it’s primary function, is it not? Of course the military researches, worships, maintains infrastructure, engages in rescue operations, and is a source of community and support for many. But when the chips are down–you joined the military at least knowing that you may be called to make war.
So when a military man says “I hate war” is that a logically consistent position? Again, I really don’t mean to pick on John McCain specifically here, he’s just the most visible person making this sort of statement lately. In his case it is undoubtedly an oversimplification of a complex relationship with combat made for the purposes of a concise political advertisement. But more generally, can one really hate warfare and still be enthusiastic about military service? Is war merely an unpleasant aspect of the military career in the same way that filing paperwork is an unpleasant part of being a doctor? Or, do we simply lie to ourselves about the degree to which we enjoy warfare?
This may surprise some folks who know me as a critic of the US military (i.e., I believe it is unethical to enlist in the modern US military), but I see no inconsistency. War is a dirty job, but in the case on a just war, somebody’s gotta do it. It’s not like a doctor filing paperwork; it’s like a doctor amputating limbs. She might hate to amputate limbs, but she is trained to do it because failing to do so, or doing so poorly, leads to something even worse than a lost limb.
I believe so, yes. Certainly if your country isn’t inclined towards wars of choice, a strong military can prevent other countries from starting wars with yours.
The problem with McCain is that he has given every evidence, even before 9/11, of being rather inclined towards wars of choice, and more recently for keeping the existing war going until we ‘win’ it, without any sense of costs or tradeoffs. That’s what makes it ring hollow in McCain’s case.
I think McCain is very aware of the “costs and tradeoffs”. He just prioritizes them differently than you or I would.
As for the OP, I agree with Lefty and Arty here. Unless you’re a warmonger, there is nothing inconsistent about hating war and having a deep sense of pride in the military. It would be inconsistent to say you hated war and wanted to abolish the military. Any such country that did swould be at dire risk of war from many different fronts-- especially one as wealthy as the US.
I do agree with that, but how do you hate war and still wage it — even escalate it? I don’t do things I hate to do. Why is McCain making every possible excuse to be allowed to do something he hates to do? If you hate doing something, just stop.
I think the idea is that the alternative is worse. It’s perfectly consistent to wage war, even escalate it, when you think it’s necessary to stop something even worse from happening.
Exactly. Sometimes you are left with only 2 bad choices, both of which you hate, so you choose the one you hate least. Kinda like what a lot of us do every four years in November.
Also, although it may not apply to this particular situation, in some cases the war may already exist whether we’re involved or not, and our participation may help to bring it to a swifter or juster conclusion (think W W’s I & II).
No problem there, either. Hopefully, Obama will point out McCain’s degrees of hatred as you have for your own. He may hate war just as you hate washing dishes. But he obviously hates stopping war even more than waging war, just as you hate disgusting houses even more than washing dishes.
Apparently, there are any number of worse alternatives — like capturing Osama Bin Laden, for example. He is not in Iraq. I’m surprised to see you two using the essence of Bush’s own argument for going into Iraq: the alternatives are worse, and we just gotta do it.
I don’t want to have this discussion again, but i feel compelled to at least give my 2 cents.
Only a crazy person wants war. I think we can all agree on that. A lot of people join the military for different reasons. That, I think would be fairly obvious…and that goes for any country with a military.
I’ve been on active duty for nearly 19 years in the US Army. Do you think we like war? Hell no. Soldiers are the ones that have to face it first. No one wants to put their own life in danger…unless they are, as I said, crazy. I signed up initially for the chance to travel and to get experience. Some people sign up for the adventure or the college money or a financial bonus, whatever. Few people sign up just because they “like war.” At least when I was recruiting people like that never could pass the tests anyway.
I can understand when people say they love the military. My wife was a soldier, too, (she got out when we got married so we could start a family, and my particular MOS military occupational Specialty was better suited for that than hers was) I’ve met so many spectacular, dedicated, wonderful people in the past 19 years. I’ve met men and women that will stand by you and risk their own safety to protect not only their country, but their friends, and people in general.
I’d tell you that any war issues you might have should be taken up with the elected officials that send us into war, but I’m sure someone will come along and tell you how evil and twisted we all are for signing up in the first place.
Well, it was a perfectly good argument; it was just dishonest and wrong. We didn’t have to do it, and the alternatives were better. What we and Bush did was the equivalent of bursting into someone’s house, shooting everyone there, and then claiming self defense; self defense is a valid reason to shoot people, it’s just not why we were shooting people.
Eisenhower
I hate war as only a soldier who had lived it can. Only as one who has seen its brutality. the futility. it’s stupidity.
Sometimes soldiers see the big picture.
Let me be perfectly clear: I have no axe to grind with the armed forces. Maybe I will take this in a slightly different direction to illustrate where my sticking point is–
Combat is fun, at least for many of us. I think to some extent we all need to acknowledge this, though we will certainly disagree on what degree of combat is no longer entertaining. I used to engage in drunken boxing matches in college. That was extremely fun. You might say: “That’s fun because nobody really got hurt.” True. I like paintball, and that hurts quite a bit. You might say: “That’s fun because you won’t die.” True. But I could point to any number of combat-related pursuits with reasonably high mortality rates (for example, Buzkashi) and blur the line even farther.
And the fact is, military combat is a more or less socially acceptable form of engaging in violent acts. And while real violence itself is disturbing (although certainly something that humans are clearly able to take a somewhat voyeuristic pleasure from itself), I think it’s unfair to say that there are not aspects of it that we embrace on some level. War on the other hand is different; it is greater in scope and magnitude. But I keep coming back to the fact that we are entertained by war films and games, and entertained by combat situations, and we perhaps take pride in heroic acts that our soldiers perform or in the battles they have won, and it becomes increasingly difficult for me to reconcile this with a general distaste for war.
And again, I’m not saying this because I believe war is inherently evil or that soldiers are psychopaths or anything so facile, but I think it is a little harder to reconcile “I hate war” and “I am a soldier” than it might seem.
Not at all. It is valid but has an incorrect premise.
Some wars are better than the alternative.
Not all wars are better than the alternative.
This war is not better than the alternative.
Even so, someone may sincerely believe that this war is better than the alternative, may hate war, and yet may hate what they believe to be the alternative even worse.
I hope you are unable to find some loophole in these few sentences through which you may drastically misinterpret them; if you’d like to give me a lecture on my writing abilities, though, it’s certainly the time in this dance for that post.
Thanks. I’d forgotten this quote. This is exactly the sentiment I am trying to get at here. There is a certain human fondness for conflict. I think it is folly to deny it.
I wonder if you’re approaching this from a USA perspective – essentially a parochial pov.
There is a romanticism and warm feeling that I sense in many Americans because they associate so much of what their military does in their name with ‘good’, this is almost entirely bogus and a particularly notable success for the propaganda industry whether it be the Hollywood branch or Washington.
In wars where history has finally placed the USA in less than a good light, the emphasis falls on good soldiers doing the right thing and perhaps paying the price of duty, honour and representing true American values even when the politicians have let them down.
It is, however, WW2 that seems to offer the biggest clue; of all the hundred or more imperial wars the USA has fought since the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century it is WW2 – the one war in which ‘good’ is simple and unequivocal – which dominates. It’s the feel good war with the USA as a shining beacon, as the bringer of peace, democracy and freedom to the oppressed masses of Europe. Never mind, just as examples, the millions of civilians killed in central and South America or in SE Asia in the name of imperial conquest, lets tune into Audie Murphy one more time or, his western equivalent, John Wayne.
In the end, like with any product, the subconscious is influenced; that’s why Saatchi and Saatchi and Hollywood do what they do. And, of course, it makes Iraq easier to happen and easier to manage when things go wrong.
