You are ignoring my point. Total war against Japan was both moral and ethical because Imperial Japan in 1941 was an evil state. Whether Japan did or did not launch the first strike may be useful as a political talking point, much as the talk of whether Iraq had WMDs or not is, but it is irrelevent when we are discussing the morality of the war. In the same way, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a moral and ethical action regardless of what Bush says, and the soldiers who participated in his overthrow have nothing to be ashamed of.
So how many death camps and gas chambers are the US military running in Iraq? That’s what the Nuremberg trials were about, in case it slipped your mind.
How is it that in the last 3 posts you continue to put this “inevitable” and “you didn’t serve, you have no right to criticize” BS in my mouth when I’ve never said any such thing and in fact stated more than once that I AGREE with you? Please cite where I even hinted at what you are alleging. Is this from the Karl Rove School of Discourse and Debate? Continuously make up false, ridiculous allegations about your opponent and then when he denies them, accuse him of “resurrecting the issue”?
I am quite certain the United States could win a war against Mexico, which doesn’t make it right or make the deaths of the soldiers who would be killed worth it. Winning doesn’t automatically make a war justified. The Soviets won their war against Hungary in 1956.
]QUOTE] You’re arguing under the assumption that everything has already been lost.
[/QUOTE]
I quite honestly have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. I did not once say anything about wars not being justified based on whether a country was winning or losing. That would simply a retarded position to take; in the war between Germany and Poland in 1939, who won? Now, who was on the right side? You seriously need to slow down when you read other people’s posts.
As a matter of fact, I DIDN’T EVEN COMMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT THE IRAQ WAR WAS JUSTIFIED. Do you like arguing with straw men?
Go read some Harry Turtledove novels if you want to play make-believe.
YOU started the Vietnam tangent. Shall we try this again?
Let’s move a little more slowly this time. First of all, Do you or do you not agree that a democratic, western friendly, prosperous Vietnam would have been a desirable outcome?
I agree. However, the heart of the thread has left you and me behind. It is now not even about Iraq, but about what constitutes a just war – which makes for a way better bull session than whether our culture is becoming too militaristic. After all, real men care about geopolitics; culture is for wimps.
Lest Brain Wreck and Rickjay further muddy the water( in any case I shall follow them no more after this point), let me just restate my position for the benefit of our readers.
I disagree with Der Trhis and Brain Wreck’s assertion that soldiers participating in the Iraq War must neccesarily be unethical or evil, because GW Bush was unethical and dishonest in instigating the war. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime and the implementation of free elections, representative goverment, and civil liberties is (IMO) a worthwhile endeavour and any soldier who fights for the above stated goals can do so with a completely clear conscience, without any inconsistencies to his/her own code of ethics. This fact is independent of the strategic soundness of the Iraq invasion, which I agree is highly questionable.
I am also calling into question the assertion that “bringing the troops home” must neccesarily be to their benefit. I can’t speak for all soldiers, but I don’t think it is so hard to believe that someone may want to become a soldier because he/she believes in goals like freeing the oppressed and bring peace and prosperity to areas wrecked by war. In the specific example of Iraq, Bringing them home before these goals are achieved will certainly NOT be to their benefit, as it completely disregards the sacrifices that they have made towards that goal. Is it a sunk cost? only if you believe that the war is already lost, “sunk” as it were. I do not.
I mostly agree with Wesley Clark about the pitfalls of run away millitarism. I would also like to recommend John Keegan’s A History of Warfare, where he counters Clauswtz’s assertion that War is policy by alternate means with his own, that war is in fact a social and cultural manifestation.
No, it was moral and ethical because Imperal Japan in 1941 was armed to the teeth, was already occupying China, was poised to occupy all the Pacific, and directly attacked the US. Iraq was a fully contained entity, militarily insignificant, and economically devastated. If you honestly think there’s any kind of valid comparison between the two, well, it just goes to show the military’s lack of sophistication in policy matters.
The relevant lesson about Nuremburg was how it doesn’t wash to do things that you know to be wrong and say “I was just doing my job” or “I was just doing what I was told.” This directly bears on the debate; any soldier who says they know this war is wrong should be clamoring to withdraw instead of setting one’s jaw and saying “I want to do my job”. If I’ve understood you correctly, you understand this war is wrong but you still want to stay there and “do your job”… if you know you’re in the wrong place then what job is there left to do? See if this disaster that was fucked up by force can be unfucked by force as well?
Firstly, I didn’t put anything in your mouth, I never attributed it to you personally, you would not be able to cite where I did so. I think I explained clearly that when one opposes the war and mindless militarism, the no-service accusation frequently is put forth, thus I am in the habit of pre-emptively deflecting it by mentioning my previous service. I never said that you personally said it; it was for the benefit of you or any spectators in the thread who might have been inclined to say it. And after all, you had already wheeled out your military service for credibility, you are hardly in a position to complain about me mentioning mine.
When you obey evil orders, you are evil. If my employer orders me to shoot children, should I ? Am I off the ethical hook for doing so just because my boss said to ?
Even assuming that you can have “free” elections and a non-puppet government under the guns of a foreign enemy army, where’s your evidence they are more free ? Everything I’ve heard says that most people - especially women - were freer, safer, and more prosperous under Saddam’s rule.
And no, that’s not support for Saddam; it just shows how vile and incompetent our side is.
Don’t be silly. Most Americans despise everyone who isn’t American. I don’t believe for one moment that the average American soldier would shed a tear if every Iraqi died in agony tomorrow.
Not THIS again. “Who wants to be the last person to die for a mistake ?”
It is as valid as any example one can glean from history. I will state again my position that the military overthrow of Sadam Hussein may not have been the best decision from a purely geopolitical standpoint, but there is nothing inherently unethical about it.
Well you haven’t. I think the Iraq war is wrong in the sense that the Operation Market Garden was “wrong”. i.e. a poorly executed disaster that led to many needless deaths, but hardly unethical or evil. See previous post.
Well, quite frankly, yes. But as I say, the debate on whether cutting and running is the best possible strategy can be left for another thread, but again, I can’t see why my solution is any more unethical or “evil” than cutting or running.
And there he goes again! When did I “complain” about you mentioning your prior military service? WHEN?! Just in case there was ANY confusion, a few posts ago I even went and stated exactly the opposite:
What the fuck?!
I had a scathing Rove-esque rebuttal all typed out, but decided against it before hitting the submit button. Maybe this is just a frustrating misunderstanding. Will you agree that I never took anyone to task about their military service, or lack thereof, and was not going to do so “inevitably”, and kindly stop accusing me of such?
No disagreement there. Now show me where any US soldier was ordered to shoot children. Please stop trying to pin this Nuremberg meme on me.
The results will take years and probably many lives to come to fruition. If Bush had convinced you otherwise, then he was wrong. I’m sorry you have him for a leader. There’s nothing I can do up here, get more friends to vote next time.
You’ll excuse me if I don’t share this view.
I’ve already given you my response. I don’t operate under the assumption that the war is already lost. If you insist on doing so then I’m afraid we won’t be coming to a meeting of minds. Maybe we can just call it a glass half full/empty kind of thing.
All war is bad. Killing is bad. There are VERY very very few times in which war can be justified. As of this present time, I’m not up to giving out specific examples.
Convenient how most of those lives are Iraqi lives.
I’ve never believed a word he said; not until confirmed by someone not an American ally. Bush is dishonesty and error incarnate.
I expect the Iraqis do share that view.
Oh, it’s won. We have control of the oil, we’re using Iraq to funnel money to Bush & Cheney’s friends; oil prices are up; lots of brown heathen people are dead; Saddam is out of power; and we have Iraq as a base in the middle of the ME. For the war supporters those are all victories.
In general I agree with the above risk and while I disagree that it’s currently occurring at a dangerous level,I would most heartily be in agreement that it’s a risk we must always be vigilant against.
I’m going to repeat myself a bit because this thread as gone rather awry [it was a great OP] and I’d just like to summarize my opinion in one post before I see the rest of the thread spiral off into places unkn… never mind, places fairly well known.
Service members are venerated, in my opinion, because it is recognized that they have given up a large degree of their personal autonomy over to their nation with the understanding that they will be used for the good of that nation. As such, citizens recognize the stewardship they hold over service members lives and return a degree of respect in turn. While I am biased, I don’t believe this is a bad thing.
As such, I do agree with Wesley Clark that there is a danger when the veneration felt for individual service members is transferred to uses the military is put to; given that those uses have little to do with the individual service member and everything to do with the aims and desires of the government and by proxy, its citizens.
To use a clumsy analogy. I like Bob. I think Bob is an all around great guy. Bob volunteers to be the one to deal with angry drunks, muggers, and our loud obnoxious neighbors and he’s damn good at it. However, to make sure Bob doesn’t take over the group Bob vows to only act by group vote. I still like Bob and think that’s very noble of him. However, just because I like Bob that doesn’t mean I have to approve of our group voting to use him to go beat up kids for their lunch money, even if that might hurt Bob because he might not feel he’s being put to good use… At the same time, I shouldn’t blame Bob, I should blame those who voted to go take those kids’ lunch money. Bob is neutral in this.
Service members make a pact with their nation that they will give up a large degree of autonomy and follow the lawful orders of that nation as expressed through its government. The nation in turn, makes a pact with service members to only use them for moral purposes.
As such, the military should not be criticized for attempting to achieve the lawful goals that are put before them except, as the military as a whole or individual service members, use unlawful means to achieve those goals. The reason for this is, the military as a whole [quite correctly] doesn’t have a role in setting those goals.
Now I realize I’m starting to ramble so I’ll try to wrap this up.
Veneration for the military/individual service members should not be transferred to the uses those service members are put to. Likewise, criticism of the goals the military is put to should not be transferred to the military. Now, methods the military/individual service members use to to go about achieving those goals… fair game.
Currently I don’t believe veneration is being transferred to the uses they are put to the degree that it interferes with criticism of those goals however I believe this is something we must always be vigilant against; not only because it’s dangerous to a democratic society, but because it also just makes no logical sense.
Finally in regards to Nuremberg trials. Part of the pact military members take is that they will obey all lawful orders… and disobey all unlawful ones. Thus, if someone fails to disobey an unlawful order, gives an unlawful order or simply performs and unlawful act then they are operating outside the bounds of their role as service members. If someone believes that showing up for duty in Iraq should constitute an unlawful order then by all means start a new thread to debate the subject.
And now to wade into the other part of this thread.
You’re right, bringing the troops home before the nation’s original goals are achieved is not too their benefit.
At the same time, bringing them home after the nation’s original goals are achieved is also, not to their benefit.
The only things which are to the troops’ benefit is putting them to good use and treating them as well as possible in return. That’s it.
Once this is understood the question becomes, “Is keeping troops in Iraq a good policy?” it’s certainly a debatable point but the question of which is in the “troops’ benefit” doesn’t enter into the picture.
The military is there to advance the policies of the nation. The troops, except in their role as citizens, shouldn’t be a factor in determining the rightness or wrongness of those policies.
Well anyone who shoots a child not out of self defence is a murderer. What are you getting at here, exactly?
There’s nothing convenient about it, and every loss is a tragedy.
Well, you’ll be heartened to know that it isn’t true.
Well Saddam out of power IS a victory, but I don’t think any of the other ones are and I don’t see why any soldier would see them as victories. That was all I wanted to say.
Yes, any service member [or citizen for that matter] who thinks this war is wrong should be clamoring [in their lawful capacity as a citizen] to change the policies of their nation. However, unless you believe that participation in the occupation of Iraq constitutes an unlawful order [as opposed to a really bad foreign policy] the lessons of Nuremburg are irrevelent.
Not that it matters(see below), but there is something the troops want: They want to win.
You’re right, it shouldn’t matter. I was merely trying to correct the erronous impression many people have that the troops are being help there against their will, and that they are all anxious to escape from the war at all costs. In turn I was also trying to illustrate that a soldier in Iraq can continue to perform his mission without holding any inconsistent moral and ethical positions.
Yes I agree that alot of them do. Of course that all depends on what the individual member thinks of as a “win” but that’s neither here nor there. Likewise, some want to come home right now for personal reasons, some want to come home because they think its bad policy, some want to stay for personal reasons and some want to stay because they think leaving would be bad policy. My main point was that it shouldn’t influence national policy and upon reading the rest of your quote it looks like we’re agreed.
[QUOTE
You’re right, it shouldn’t matter. I was merely trying to correct the erronous impression many people have that the troops are being help there against their will, and that they are all anxious to escape from the war at all costs.
In turn I was also trying to illustrate that a soldier in Iraq can continue to perform his mission without holding any inconsistent moral and ethical positions.[/QUOTE]
I entirely agree. A soldier who is entirely against a policy and attemping to change that policy in a citizen’s capacity while simultaneously carrying out his or her duties as a servicemember under that policy is a wholly ethical position. Sorry if I misunderstood.
I should have added, “bringing home troops so they don’t get hurt” is also not in “the troops’ benefit” in my original post.
That our wonderful troops are murderers, of course. They are killing thousands of people, not one out of self defense. Yes, that includes those that shoot at them, given that we have no business there.
That doesn’t seem to dim your enthusiasm for killing them.
Prove it. Last I heard, between 45%-65% supported killing foreign troops, depending on where you asked; less than 1% supported the occupation.
Getting Saddam out has made things worse for us; I fail to see how it’s a victory.
Right. I’ll believe that when you provide the proof that US soldiers are willfully killing thousands of children in cold blood. You can take your time, I won’t be holding my breath.
Well, if your sole purpose for going is to kill “them”, I suppose it’s best that you don’t involve yourself in such things.
It isn’t true that
If you truly believe that, then we must be meeting very different groups of Americans, we will just have to agree to disagree.
And I’ll believe your numbers when I see a cite. Again, take your time.
And what about the Iraqis?
In any case, if you hold a completely isolationist view of foreign policy, as I suspect you do, then I’m afraid we are too much at odds in basic worldview to come to a meeting of minds. More’s the pity.
