It must be nice for those of you who live in a black & white world where all decisions can be made with absolute certainty.
Most of us, however, realize we live in a world where the gray areas between the black & white are large indeed.
Did President Bush lie to the American public and the world and embark on a less than noble crusade against Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Possibly (I personally think so) but for the sake of argument let’s say he did. Given that does Bush’s actions rise him to the level of Adolf Hitler?
Not even close.
Only with the benefit of hindsight can some people here claim with certainty that they would have opposed the Wermacht/Nazis in 1930s and 1940s Germany. I maintain that you have NO idea what you might have done in those circumstances. I went to a seminar in college given by a Jew who was interned in a Nazi death camp and a death camp guard (yes…they shared the same stage). Some of my jewish friends were vehemently telling the former guard how he should have opposed his orders. The Jewish lady told my friends (or rather the audience but directed at my friend’s statements) that things weren’t so clear in Germany in those days and that initially even she and her family had supported the Nazis (or at least tolerated them but by no means worked against them).
Even in the case of Hitler and WWII the allies did not punish the individual soldiers for their participation in the war. Certainly some were prosecuted for war crimes but on the whole Gustav Grunt got to go home and get on with his life. So too after the American Civil War…southern soldiers were left to return home. This is usually the case in any war throughout history. The people that are generally held responsible are the political leaders and, maybe, generals who pushed the war forward. My Lai is different in character because what happened there constituted a war crime and some people’s efforts to stop that crime. That does not equate to those same people undermining the military’s efforts overall.
You simply cannot have soldiers picking and choosing their own battles and only going to the ones they agree with. This would be similar to having police who pick and choose only those laws they personally agree with to enforce. Down that road lies anarchy. Presumably the Commander in Chief and his aids have access to information we do not possess. We entrust our leaders and commanders to make decisions and support them even if on the face of it those decisions don’t make sense to us. Consider a general ordering a squad up a hill that is heavily defended. The squad sees the attack as a death sentence. What they don’t know is it may be a key to a position in the battle and their following orders might kill them but save thousands at a later time.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that our leaders always make good decisions or decisions based on what is best for the country. If that happens one would hope those leaders lose their job and are replaced with people who will do a better job.
I have no problem supporting US troops and wishing them the best in the task they were given. I hope every one of them returns home safely and I will thank them personally (at least those I meet) for their service. I will also almost certainly vote against President Bush in the next election, donate to groups that oppose him and his actions (and do so in a legal fashion…not terrorists), post here against him and talk to friends and family and try sway them to my way of thinking.
Pacifism looks nice on paper but the uncertain world I live in doesn’t allow for pacifism as a viable strategy. The world I live in is too complex for easy answers and I, for one, am thrilled Airman Doors, USAF and his brothers and sisters in the miltary are out there protecting me.