It’s probably going to backfire and you’ll be coming across as someone who doesn’t understand the importance of having civilian control of the military or the political reality of the military as a tool of diplomacy and national interest. Count me in as another who thinks this idea is foolish and probably horribly ineffectual.
Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly
I saw above that DinoR offered a counter. I’ll be a second.
Generally, I’m a lurker. I come to read what others think and see things from different perspectives. Typically by the time I get to a thread, somebody else has expressed what I feel, often better than I would have done. Also, while there’s a lot of good debate, I’ve seen a lot of people on this board who are interested mainly in scoring rhetorical points, and I’ve no real interest in verbal fencing for its own sake.
Firstly, I reject the idea that anyone supporting a war which they are unwilling to personally fight is necessarily a coward. Ascribing cowardice based on the above is just too broad a brush for me. I have little doubt that many of them may in fact be cowards, but many of them might have other reasons than fear. “I think this WarX needs to be fought, but my wife and kids have only me, and Uncle Sam already has the largest military force on the planet,” isn’t unreasonable in the slightest for example. You might argue that person is selfish, but devotion to his family isn’t the same thing as cowardice. And as has been pointed out above, enlistment isn’t a buffet where you can pick the war you like. Two years down the road you can’t say, “Hey, I was only in it for WarX! WarY is another story entirely and I think I’ll just sit this one out.” Serving in the military is a commitment made before you know the particulars, and it shouldn’t necessarily all hinge on what is happening the day you enlist.
Primarily though, I disagree wholeheartedly on the ‘tactical’ aspect espoused later of just trying to use the public shaming as a way to potentially avoid involvement in a war. I’ll leave aside questions of its effectiveness as a secondary issue, because I think it’s wrong even if it works.
What you are saying boils down to labeling, attacking, and dehumanizing a person you disagree with. That’s really all it is, a bully tactic. “But WAR!” I’ve heard you making that ends-justify-means case, and it sounds no different to me than leading souls to Jesus/rescuing unborn babies/defending the honor of Muhammed/saving the whales or any of the other causes out there that are just SO important that nothing should be allowed to stand in their way, and anything done to bring them about is justifiable.
We live in a world of ‘Libtards’ and ‘Deplorables’ because of things like this. Fox News, Huffington Post, and countless others in media large and small regularly denigrate the opposition not just as being wrong, but as being bad people. They’re stupid, blind, racist, sexist, greedy, or downright evil because they have a different opinion or values. Why bother discussing an issue when it’s so much easier to say the other person is an idiot or, even better, immoral? Once you’re comfortable with the idea that the “Other Side” is composed of morally bankrupt idiots you not only don’t need to think about what they are saying, but you don’t need to think too much about the holes in the arguments your “side” is spewing. The fact that immoral idiots are against it means it’s got to be pretty good after all. And compromise? How do you compromise with stupid, immoral people?
Sorry, but no. I really don’t care which side is doing it, what color the flag they are waving happens to be, or what their cause of the day is. Substituting emotion for thought, reactionism for argument, and bullying for dialogue does more harm in the long run than any short term good they might achieve.
I’m not sure what my proposal has to do with civilian control of the military.
As for the “political reality” you speak of, that sounds pretty close to the conventional wisdom that I’m trying to upend. I want war to truly be a last resort, not just another tool in our toolbox. War should be nigh-unthinkable unless the only alternative is genocide or some other form of immediate, preventable, and catastrophic loss of life. Maybe there are exceptions, but I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it, and when our country has a reasonable view of war. But when we’re a country in which warmongers have so much power and influence, drastic change is needed before we can even consider wars of choice.
Thanks for your thoughts. I’d welcome another way if I thought there was one… and maybe there is, I just haven’t seen it or heard it yet.
I’ll note that I have little expectation that my “solution” has any hope of being accepted instituted in society at large. It’s still interesting to talk about unlikely but hoped-for policies and changes in society, and this isn’t the only unlikely thing that I have advocated for.
CAH66,
That was really eloquent. You should post more. 
Well, you set up the Catch-22 that the civilians controlling the military should join the military if they want military action but then they can’t control the military once they stop being civilians. So under your moral code, only pacifists can be in charge of the military. Or I guess warmongers over recruitment age.
Oh no. It’s not unreasonable at all to say “There are many sole breadwinners in the military, like myself, but I am more deserving to stay home.”
There’s definitely a word, but ‘unreasonable’ isn’t it.
No I didn’t - I described numerous exceptions which would leave plenty of room for civilian control.
The interesting thing here is nobody in the “yes” side of this thread is suggesting constraining what people can or can’t do. We’re just suggesting certain moral judgments under certain circumstances.
In particular I don’t expect lawmakers to have enlistment papers ready when they vote to go to war with some country. But when I judge their decision, it matters whether they’ve served before. It matters whether they were asked to serve and avoided it. It matters whether their decision might cause other people’s children to go to war before their own.
And I will continue to express my mystification that conservatives and republicans, enlightened centrists, formerly champions and advocates of the military, in this thread devote such special pleading that they should be able to send others to harm while they themselves recline and say “I prefer others do it for me.”
The only one of these that matters to me is whether they were asked to serve and avoided it, and that would depend on their reasons and how they were asked.
I argued for exemptions for lawmakers even on the “yes” side in [POST=21654553]post #141[/POST]. Specifically, the lawmakers might represent veterans and they have a duty to represent no matter their own previous military service or the age of their children. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
~Max
Yep. Thanks, again, for explaining things differently (and probably better) than I did.
Well…hold on a sec. You did say you were trying to use shaming to ‘constraining what people can or can’t do’, to quote HMS Irruncible. That’s in fact, if I understand this whole thingy, the point. You can’t have it both ways. Either shaming works and it will constrain people and that IS what you are trying to do, or it doesn’t, in which case…well, there doesn’t seem any point.
I think it’s clear that this is exactly the effect you want to have, and that you do want to constrain and shape the discussion by calling people names who don’t meet your criteria of who can or can’t be advocates for US military intervention.
I don’t see it as “constraining”, but in any case I described plenty of exceptions that would allow civilian control of the military with no shaming of the leaders.
Influencing and motivating (potentially, anyway, at most) are not remotely the same as “constraining”.
I could probably come up with half a dozen examples that I know you would consider to be ‘constraining’ using the same sort of shaming tactics you are proposing (abortion springs to mind) but there doesn’t seem any real point. You are basically handwaving away everything everyone is saying and justifying your stance regardless. I think there is simply a fundamental disconnect that can’t be bridged wrt this subject and your OP. To me, it cuts to the heart of our democracy to do what you are proposing and smacks of elitism and license, especially the vague definitions and subjective justifications you are using. C’est la vie. It was an interesting discussion, as these things often are…saying a lot about the posters who responded, regardless of their stance.
I have no illusion that the tactics I propose can’t be (and haven’t been) used for evil. Of course social shaming can be a terrible thing, and often has been. But not always – shaming child molesters is one of the ways our society combats child molestation. I’ve been advocating that warmongering, at least in the vast majority of cases, should be seen similarly to child molestation – as beyond the pale for polite society, and totally unacceptable.
No one has even tried to make the argument that shaming child molesters is wrong. If not, then everyone accepts that sometimes shame can be a positive and acceptable force in society. Then what’s left is trying to convince me that warmongering isn’t as bad as I’m saying that it is – and some folks have tried to make that argument, but I remain unconvinced.
Child molestation was never part of any sort of US mainstream political discussion, so it’s a pretty weak example. It was part of public shaming because it wasn’t part of any sort of mainstream political discussion and was pretty much looked down on by the majority of society. But gay marriage or just being gay WAS…so was abortion. And that shaming stifled, until fairly recent history, any sort of political discourse. In the same way what you advocate would. Across the board, many things were part of public shaming and the effect was to stifle or constrain political discourse…because of said shaming people couldn’t and wouldn’t even stand up. Recall the Red Scare era in the 50’s. This is what you are advocating. It’s not like child molestation, which isn’t part of and won’t ever be part of any sort of political discourse in the US. Obviously, US military action is, and what you are proposing cuts out a large majority of citizens from being able to participate in that discourse for fear of being labeled coward and shamed publicly. I get that you don’t see it that way, but that’s what I see and you and the others at least nominally on your side haven’t said anything to change my mind…as, obviously, I haven’t changed yours. I didn’t and don’t expect to, and I suspect you don’t either.
This would bother me if I thought advocating for something like war with Iran was a legitimate political position. But it’s not, or at least it shouldn’t be considered as such. It should be considered as abominable and unacceptable as a proposal to legalize sex with children, IMO. And those Americans who are in favor of war with Iran might need a rhetorical shock to their system in order to rethink their abominable position.
Of course this is all hypothetical. My proposal is all but certain to go nowhere beyond this message board. But warmongering really is bad and doing terrible things to this country… and if all I’ve done is get some folks thinking a bit more about how damaging the conventional wisdom about military force for the last few decades has been and could continue to be, then I’ll be quite pleased.
Well, again I disagree. War with Iran under some circumstances is, IMHO, a ‘legitimate political position’. Saying that it isn’t, across the board is…well, it’s also a ‘legitimate political position’. The thing is, it depends on a lot of factors, just as all wars the US has or might engage in. And our political leadership, regardless of whether they served or have some special dispensation need to be able to discuss it openly. Our citizens do too, to make their feelings on it known to their political leadership…whether you or I agree or disagree with their assertions or conclusions. As it happens, I have made my own thoughts available on this, and I’m happy that I’m able to do so without anyone trying to shame me or actively discourage me from doing so, regardless of my current or past military status.
Yes, it is just a discussion, unlikely in the extreme to ever come to fruition. You’ve argued your side strenuously, and if I remain unconvinced you obviously did strike a cord with several other 'dopers, and you got a multi-page discussion out of it that was interesting and informative, so you should be happy.
Thanks for participating.