The Runcible Blog
Jump to navigationBetween Iraq and a Hard Place
Lately I've been hearing the "support the troops" mantra coming from different directions, and I'm sure we'll be hearing more of it in the weeks ahead. Most recently, Bob Novak (I think that's his name) from "Crossfire" asked, in an effort to divert opposition, an anti-war representative if he "supports the troops". It's a dastardly thing to say. Although I never felt comfortable with the phrase, the deviousness of it came to my attention while reading part of a Noam Chomsky book the other day. He argues (rightly so, I think) that "support the troops" is a meaningless phrase intended on drumming up support for a policy which is likely hard to agree with. The implication is that if you don't somehow support the military, you're an anti-American who wishes death to those brave soldiers. Supporting the troops is not really an issue -- the issue is the policy. But you can't agree with the policy and agree with what the soldiers are ordered to do.
Here's where I might be criticized. See, I don't "support the troops" because I know that we have an all-volunteer military, and I just don't buy the idea that those in the military are simply following orders. If someone in the Army was strongly against this war, he could lay down his weapon and refuse to fight. Of course, he'd probably go to jail as a result, but if his will is strong enough, he'd do it. You don't join the military if you don't "support" murder. Why is that hard to understand? With the possible exception of medics, even if your finger is not directly on the trigger, you are helping to kill other people -- many of them innocent. Someone could make the case that the military helps save American lives, but that places a higher value on American lives than innocent foreign lives. And that argument leads down a slippery slope.
So, let me say that I hope no American soldier dies in this inevitable war. But with no hesitation do I say that I hope no American soldier kills an innocent Iraqi. Oh, and what about the Iraqi military? Unlike our military, the Iraqis are conscripted to serve. If anyone is simply following orders, they are. And since they live in a dictatorship, the punishment for desertion is likely much worse than jail.
Isn't it weird that the United States (supposedly a peaceful nation) has 1.5 million people volunteering to be trained as killing machines? You could say that I'm being negative, or you could try to downplay the "killing machines" part, but it's true that soldiers are trained in such a way as to minimize any hesitation to kill the "enemy". It's unfortunate that so many people actually want to be involved with that behavior.
Anyway, my unrealistic and maybe controversial hope is for our troops to stay in the barracks and refuse to fight (and be thrown in jail) -- refuse to kill innocent people in the crossfire in this unjust, immoral war. As much as I disagree with the military, I don't hope that they die. I would hope that we could solve problems without jumping to war before "giving peace a chance." And I'm not cynical enough to say that it is impossible. Although I think that this country has a lot of problems (particularly in the government), I believe they can be solved. I guess that's the difference between being idealistic and cynical.
Comments
By: Dave on February 27, 2003 at 9:52 p.m.
All I know is that it must be really cool to have 150 stunt doubles.
Oh, and to throw the question back at you: how will we know if we've got Saddam once the war starts? I'll bet you a dollar he mysteriously gets away or otherwise goes missing. But by that time the name Saddam Hussein will be forgotten -- we'll all have the name Kim Jong-Il pounded into our collective conscious.
By: slick on February 27, 2003 at 8:02 p.m.
Dave: Which one of his 150 doubles would they assasinate? Word on the streets of baghdad has it Saddam hasn't been seen in public for more than 4 years.
By: Dave on February 25, 2003 at 11:45 p.m.
I didn't say that this page has information on the Gulf War syndrome. I said a google search would find the information. Here's the very first result:
from CNN
Don't blame me for your reluctance to find the information.
As far as "dealing" with Saddam, many many other bloggers have already provided more than enough alternatives to invasion and occupation of Iraq. I have no new earth-shattering things to say on the topic.
But please lay off the moral reasoning. If this was about removing Saddam, the U.S. could assasinate him and everyone he knows without resorting to all out war (not that I'm advocating assassination, but since Bush seems to thumb his nose at international law and treaties, why wouldn't they simply get rid of that one man?)
By: slick on February 25, 2003 at 11:14 p.m.
I came to this site hoping to find your link to your claim of 200,000 men sitting downwind of a botched weapon destruction and contributing to all the deaths and sicknesses you say are directly due to the gulf war. But of course there's nothing. As far as I'm concerned if you don't have proof, it doesn't exist. Oh wait that's the liberal outlook.
By: slick on February 25, 2003 at 11:01 p.m.
Dave:
No one has answered the question at hand. How do you propose we bring Saddam to trial in a " peaceful solution" environment? Or do you propose to let him keep his tortures and mass murders, 200,000 and still rising, going until his son takes over? Whether or not you believe in what the military is doing , they are still puting their lives on the line for you. To respect the first amendment you also have to respect where it came from and how you sustain it.
By: n8 on February 23, 2003 at 10:50 a.m.
supporting arguments:
Answering Moral Blackmail
molly ivins
By: Dave on February 22, 2003 at 10:50 p.m.
Although freedom for the Iraqi people is a noble goal, it simply isn't high on the list for this war. It's unfortunate that Bush and company are leveraging support based on this humanitarian issue when it is clear that there won't be democracy in Iraq for many many years, if at all. Don't forget that the first president Bush clearly had a chance to remove Saddam Hussein from power but instead opted to leave the country at the end of the Gulf War because Saddam was seen as a "stable" dictator. As long as he didn't invade Kuwait, he was free to torture whoever he wanted, as far as the U.S. was concerned.
I understand that the soldiers are "protecting" my freedom, but this war doesn't have much to do with preserving my safety. Clearly, there are many fundamentalist Muslims who will are just waiting for the U.S to invade Iraq so that they can have more reason to further their jihad against the west. If anything, I think this war will decrease your safety.
The problem with using the argument that Saddam is a tyrant who must be removed is that you can't just stop at Iraq. It's obvious that there are other regimes in the world that are much worse than Iraq and more dangerous (like North Korea), so are you saying we should invade all of those countries? Should we invade China because of its brutal oppression of the Tibetans? Whether we should or shouldn't, we won't. But this war with Iraq is an easy target -- they have a weak military and probably no WMD. By contrast, a war with China or N.Korea would be devastating for both sides.
It might be sad to say, but it is not (and should not) be the policy of the U.S to go into every country we see as as a threat and wipe them out. What is to stop another nation from using that justification to invade us?
And I know that the military plan is not to mass murder thousands of Iraqis, but you can't deny that they will die. We didn't plan to kill 3,000 Afghanis during that war, but it happened. So what can you say? Sorry?
The fact is that the previous inspectors in Iraq succeeded in disarming Iraq of 90% of its "weapons of mass destruction", and there is no reason not to let the inspectors continue.
As long as people continue to succumb to the fear that Bush is preaching (terrorists will attack us at any moment! oh no! buy duct tape!), his agenda will move through unopposed.
Even though you have good intentions (and I appreciate your comment), you are trusting this historically untrustworthy adminstration too much.
By: Melissa on February 22, 2003 at 8:56 p.m.
Don't you realize that American SOLDIERS fighting (and yes, sadly dying) for our country are what give you the right to your freedom of speech that you spill out like water?! No one WANTS a war, but it comes as a LAST resort (from giving peace a chance) to a man that we've been dealing and bargaining with for over SIXTEEN YEARS. Who, by the way, is BY FAR one of THE most horrible "killing machines" as you so nonchalantly put it. Look I'm the last person that wants a war, it's terrifying to me, and I'd absolutely love it if Sadam would just give up his reighn as dictator, but the truth is he's not going to do it and we as a free nation have a right to protect ourselves and others from a sadistic man. There have been COUNTLESS stories from people who have escaped Iraq about how awful he is. Do you realize he tortures people just for pure pleasure, he won't kill them just for the sake of torturing them, how awful is that. How awful has he got to be before SOMEONE stands up to him?! Our Military's plan is never to go in and mass murder innocent people, if you'd pay a bit more attention, they are ordered to go after Sadam and his regime. The point, that YOU stated so clearly in your tangent, is that those poor Iraqi people are REQUIRED to join and learn to torture and murder people! What kind of person (let alone a government) would force such a thing?! (One that is crazy and needs not to be leader of a country) You say "since they live in a dictatorship, the punishment for desertion is likely much worse than jail." but believe it or not, all people have a conscience, therefore if they believe in something strongly enough (such as not murdering/killing someone) they can do it, if death is the penalty, then that is a horrible, terrifying, and greatly immoral thing, but I would rather die than murder someone myself. I've gone on long enough and I fully realize that once a persons mind is set on something it won't change. But this country's freedoms are something I believe in strongly, therefore I will use them to the best of my ability and hope at least one person will see how important our freedoms are to us and how everyone even the innocent Iraqi people deserve freedom...
By: slick on March 6, 2003 at 2:41 p.m.
fingerprints! Who knows where he'll go. He won't be in control of Iraq though. Regime change.