I don’t see this distinction you are trying to draw at all.
The war is an action. A soldier is an occupation.
Policemen, Firemen, Fishermen, etc are all occupations. But, fighting crime, fighting fires, and fishing are all actions. Just like fighting war.
It’s apples to apples, and all three are perfectly valid comparisons. I support “the law”, but I don’t personally kick in the door of the crack house. I support “fishing” but I don’t personally go and fish. I support “the war” but I don’t personally go and fight.
The distinction is over a specific war to a general occupation.
I read the title of the thread to be asking to what extent does one support the war if he/she isn’t willing to send his/her own kids. Just so we’re all on the same page, “support the war” refers to the military action currently on going in Iraq, not a hypothetical war fought for hypothetical reasons. In my view, people who are willing to send other people’s children but not their own may support the war, but to a whole order of magnitude less than those who would put their children in harm’s way. The whole fisherman, fireman, policeman thing digresses from the OP.
The OP’s proposition as phrased in the title of the thread doesn’t stand up to debate as we’ve seen. Soldiers in the US and UK Army today are volunteers, and you can’t “send your kids”. (Although you can join the UK army at the age of 17 I think; when you are still a minor by some people’s definition.)
What I think is more worthy of debate is the modified proposition:
If you weren’t willing to fight yourself when you had the chance, for a war you apparently supported, how can you support THIS war?
I’m referring of course to well known “chicken-hawks” in the administration who were instrumental in the decision to take us to war in Iraq. Many of them had the chance to fight in Vietnam, but avoided the draft by various means.
No they are not right.
The jobs they do in the analogy are not controversial, like this war is.
The analogy would be more apt if the fishermen were fishing and slaughtering dolphins. If the firemen were rescuing Bin Laden from a burning building. If the cops put their life on the line protecting a child molester from an angry crowd.
World War II was for the most part a war that brought little controversy. We were attacked, and then declared war. Pretty simple. Yet most of the current rules we have concerning our treatment of conscientious objectors came about because of conscientious objection to that war.
The first part of the quote just serves to prove our point, doesn’t it?
There was genuine and large popular support for the troops.
So you obfuscate with conscientious objectors?
Where these objectors refusing duty because they thought the war unjust or were they from the Jehova Witness/Pacifist kind that just objected to killing other people?
Just an observation that the justice of war can’t be measured by it’s attendant controversy, as people do have different notions of what constitutes justice.
From my experience in the military it is illegal to kill enemy soldiers who do not wish to fight and throw down their arms. There are specific rules of engagement for a soldier similar to what a cop has to work under. If a cop sees a guy with a gun pointing it at him or someone else he can shoot that person. If a soldier sees a guy with a gun he can shoot that person. There might be more latitude for a soldier in a combat situation than for a cop in a crack house, but the analogy is very similar and appropriate.
Like I said earlier, when it comes to life-threatening actions that are not vital to the well-being of society (e.g. aggressive war) comparisons to life-threatening actions that are vital to the well-being of society (e.g. law enforcement) are weak.
War in Iraq may or may not be a good thing, but whatever it is, it was not necessary for the functioning of our society. Iraq did not pose a threat to us so much that we needed to go and invade them. Can we all agree on that? If we had left the country alone, there’s no evidence to suggest life as Americans know it would be worse. Groceries would still be available at the Kroger. Electricity would still be on. Kids would still be going to college. Much sex would still be had.
Take away cops and inarguably society would be worse off. Crimes would go unpunished because there would be no one there to catch the perps. Drivers would have no reason beyond their own sense of ethics to not run any red lights, drive drunk, or speed race on I-95. Vigilantes would take over the street and justice would be determined by lynch mobs.
Take away fire-fighters and there would be little anyone could do when their property catches fire or when a forest fire threatens hundreds of acres of wilderness. One apartment fire could result in the destruction of a whole complex, because there is no organized force to take it out. Badness all around.
So what, you say? Well, jobs that inherently cause carnage and are not vital to the well-being of our society should be viewed differently than jobs that incidentally cause loss of life (and are explicitly there to protect it) and are completely vital to the well-being of our society. At least when it comes to the “support” question. Very few people will say they don’t support law enforcment, because just about everyone sees the value in having a police force. It’s taken as a given that the police is a good thing. Same thing with fire-fighters. People don’t use their support of these groups as a political poker chip; they don’t hold press conferences about the importance and necessity of fire-fighters, and pundits don’t spend a whole lot of breath trying to convince us that law enforcement is important to society. These things are obvious to us already.
Here’s what I see as being a more appropriate anaology to support the OP. Imagine that I think reproduction should be encouraged in society. I view children as our greatest resource and I preach that every American family should strive to have at least four kids, nevermind the great amount of sacrifice and hard-work involved in maintaining a family that size. But despite my “support” of that idea, I don’t want to have 4 kids myself and choose to only have one, even though it’s possible for me to have more than that.
Isn’t that a bit hypocritical of me? Why or why not? And how is that any different than supporting a war but not wanting to contribute to the effort beyond increased taxes?
Well I cannot imagine you have much combat experience then. I do. We shot any goddamned thing that moved. I was fired on by Brittish troops and several times by Americans. In combat you do not have the luxury of looking to see if they are trying to kill you. If they are in an area where you are told contains hostiles, you shoot first then look for weapons. So no the analogy is still not appropriate.
No combat experince, but in training things got pretty hairy and you are correct that anything that moves is pretty much fair game… Well, except the little old lady crossing the street, did you shoot her just because she was there? I bet not, so you did use some judgment as to what your targets were and weren’t. And the guy coming towards you with his hands in the air, did you shoot him? Again probably not. If a cop is in a crack house and a firefight breaks out, how much judgment does he use in who is a target and who isn’t? Probably a bit more than you might, but the situation is very similar. I don’t see how you can make the statement that it isn’t.
A good solution would be to make a law that any soldier who comes to disagree with U.S. war policy or who just wants out of the Army is allowed out immediately. Then these analogies to police officers and firefighters might make some sense.
