The following column was published in our school newspaper today.
quote: Should we support our troops? by Danny Kampf
Who among you do not support our troops? If asked on the street, in the classroom or on the news, you would be hard pressed to find a single hand go up. Whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, there is almost unanimous consent in American political discourse that our soldiers not only need our support, but they deserve it as well. Yet to what extent does the morality of the war cloud the morality of the soldiers fighting the war? In an immoral war, isn't it both hypocritical and unjust to support those waging the war, even if your sympathies lie with their personal predicaments?
In the war in Iraq, it could be argued that every bullet fired, every bomb dropped, every missile launched, was one that needn't be. Thus, those who perpetrate such acts are themselves individually responsible and should be held morally accountable. Such an assertion is more often than not repudiated by an insistence of the inherent innocence of tools. While it might not be phrased in such a way, it seems that the analogy is actually quite appropriate. In other words, our soldiers are morally neutral because they simply carry out the orders of their superiors, allowing themselves, as a collective, to be used at the behest of their commanders. Because military leaders, not soldiers, determine how such a collective is exercised, the soldiers are free from guilt. Therefore, even if the war in Iraq is illegitimate, the soldiers should not be held liable for fighting because the war was not, in concept or execution, of their design.
Yet are we nothing more than machines? Does the military strip the very humanity from our soldiers in order to craft and wield ethically neutral, flesh-and-bone automatons? Does war itself create a situation where the immediate impulse for survival overrides any notion of human morality? Whatever the case, it would seem that both sympathy and understanding for the troops is merited; but why support? What exactly are we supporting - their cause or their sacrifice?
It makes a great deal of sense to support their sacrifice. While we have an all-volunteer army, no amount of money can adequately pay the dead for their services. But don't the people of Iraq make the same sacrifice soldiers make? Indeed, don't they make it in far greater numbers than we do? I read in the paper that 1,381 U.S. soldiers have been killed since the invasion. Terrible as this is, how can it compare to the loss of civilian life in Iraq? According to the Brookings Institution, between 16,000 and 20,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives as a direct result of this war. Where is our support for them? It could be argued that support for both the troops and the citizens of Iraq is not mutually exclusive, but in the wake of Abu Ghraib and the recent Human Rights Watch report, this argument is made with ever increasing difficulty.
Morality aside, it seems almost ironic that perhaps our support for the troops in Iraq stems less from ethics than it does from team spirit. It would appear that whenever one's country is at war there is an impulsive, almost instinctive, desire to support our side and our troops, regardless of how we feel about the war itself. This sentiment was best encapsulated by Howard Dean, when he said of Iraq, "I did not support the policy, but I always support(ed) the troops." This seems natural, because everyone hopes that our soldiers, many of whom we know and love, will survive the war unscathed. But the truth of the matter is that war is a zero-sum game; when we don't die, they do.
There is no good way to fight this war and there is no quick and easy solution for Iraq. While I wish that after some 700 words I could say with confidence one thing or another, come to one solid conclusion, and summarize a laundry list of grievances, I'm afraid I cannot. When I sat down to write this piece it started as a black and white polemic; it has since devolved into so much muddy water. This column, more than anything else, has served as an introspective outlet to express the ambivalence towards supporting our troops that I, along with many others, feel. It is on such a note that I must end this piece with the very question that started it: who among you does not support our troops?
-The writer is a freshman majoring in political science.
The following was my response in a letter to the editor:
quote:Re: “Should we support our troops?”
The answer? Absolutely, unequivocally: yes. The men and women who govern our country were democratically elected, by and for the people. Our citizens, our vote, gave them the responsibility to protect our shores and preserve the integrity of our great nation. Our men and women in uniform have volunteered – indeed, made great sacrifices – so that our leaders can accomplish this essential goal. They have sacrificed so you don’t have to; they are the means to the freedom our Constitution guarantees you. Their sacrifices, and the sacrifices of the men and women who served before them, protect your right to publish such a column.
They are not responsible for the bombs and bullets, Mr. Kampf: you are. We are. Our democracy gives all of us a voice, and it also requires we respect and honor the choices of our fellow citizens. Even if you supported John Kerry (as I did) when you exercised your right to vote, you must realize with every right comes responsibility. We, the people of the United States of America, elected the men and women who took us to war, and for that we are responsible.
Speak out against leaders you disagree with, Mr. Kampf. Use your voice, your pen and your vote. But spitting on our troops is spitting on our freedom and on our country. Would you spit on the flag that allows you to express yourself so freely? A better question: would you spit on your ballot?
Thoughts? How do any of you respond to this?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Kasie, I think I generally agree with you. I'd also say Mr. Kampf also is too fresh from taking his SATs. While I can sling around 5-dollar words with the best of them if I choose to, writing clearly and concisely is far more valued in a newspaper. There will be a few diehard politicos on campus will read and debate his article. But,I bet more people will clearly understand your message over his. His article causes one's eyes to glaze over into an morbid stupor of obfuscatory verbiage.
I'm faced with the opposite problem - I live in a very Republican town, and anything I say against the war is automatically turned into "You don't support the troops! You're a traitor to their cause if you protest the war!"
It makes me so angry. I can support the troops - heavens, my little brother is one of them - without agreeing with the decision to be fighting the war. I liked a protest sign I saw once that read "Support the troops - bring them home!"
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like what you said. I think the time for debate is up until the time you decide to go in and then it’s over and time to support them as much as possible. Not that we can or should enforce no debate after the decision, its part of our freedom of speech. Guess it’s more sort of the point of it. I wonder what article they would have posted had the election in Iraq this weekend not went so well? I hope 50 years from now we can look back and know that we did the right thing by freeing Iraq and they will be a friend of ours like Japan and Germany are today. Oh gosh…. Does that mean we’ll be driving Iraqi hovercrafts in 50 years? It just shows how little we value our freedom. If we were under threat of being shot when going to the polls I wonder if our typical 40% or so turn out would drop down to 15% or less? Just a thought.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I agree with you -- I don't think speaking out against the war implies one is not supporting the men and women in the military, and I think claiming that is as erroneous as Kampf's article.
Jay,
I think debate and discourse should continue despite the fact that the war is going on, and I think we can do that without dishonoring the people serving us.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie, I would have also been snarkier in my reply though it would have destroyed the argument. I'm not sure I could have resisted a play on words and an urge to use "Mein Kampf" somewhere.
AJ (Also, my personal favorite phrase that I've ever written, because it might amuse you: "teetering on the brink of the abyss of philosophy")
posted
This guy's article is the kind of viewpoint I've been hoping would not surface. I think there is a very very thin line between not supporting a war while still supporting the troops and not supporting either. This guy has crossed that line. Regardless of whether or not you think this war is evil, calling the warrior evil is just a bad idea. If our soldiers get the idea that no one supports them, what happens to them? I think your response was perfect. Someone needs to pop this guy upside the head and tell him to get his priorities straight.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in supporting the troops by giving them what they need to complete their mission as safely as possible. And when they return they should get as much support as they need to slide neatly back into civilian life. But, can I support this war which I feel was started on shoddy intelligence and for an unclear purpose? No. I can't. I believe this war is morally wrong on many levels. But, what can be done about it? Nothing. Until Iraq is stable we can't leave. Our president and his administration got us into this mess. I did not vote for them. I don't agree with their principles, and now my honour has to get stained by being lumped in with these people. It makes me furious. I feel sorry for soldiers. They should be at home with their families, not risking life and limb without a clear, good solid purpose. They should not be coming home in body bags or coming home to injury like Vietnam all over again. But, what can be done? I think I agree with this student's editorial. Many people in the armed forces and outside of the armed forces will obey orders they don't agree with. The blood is on their hands and so many others.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My first reaction to the column was to wonder if Mr Kampf has ever bothered to look up "military" or "army" in the dictionary. That's what an army does. What, we're going to pay exorbitant amounts of money to teach them to fight, and them just have them wander around aimlessly?
I realize that a very large number of people (myself included) have doubts and misgivings about this war in Iraq. But hell, Bush is the democractically elected leader of a soverign country. Maybe it's bad politcs and bad ethics to do what you want as a country, but the US has that right.
It just makes me really mad to read something like that. "Support their sacrifice or their cause?" I support the people.
And frankly, Mr. Kampf, your questions about individual responsibility make me think most clearly of the trials of Nazi officials after WWII. Is a soldier acting in a wartime situation really comparable to Nazi war criminals? Because that's the sense I'm getting from you. Your whole arguement makes no sense!
posted
I guess I just see further debate and criticism after deciding to go to war as giving aide to the enemy. Look at how that helped in Vietnam and was probably a major cause of us loosing there. If everyone would have gotten behind our effort then the enemy wouldn’t have been so hopeful and confident. I think the terrorists in Iraq currently think the same way and are hopeful to further the political divide in America by continuing their attacks. Where as if they saw us as united and determined to finish the job they’d see less of a chance of their success. Even John Kerry has said we’re there and must finish it. To see the Iraqi people dancing in the street yesterday as they voted certainly sang of thanks for their freedom. They really united last week when the terrorists announced that Democracy is evil The people turned in tons of them after that. I’m happy for them. It’s very exciting and hopeful. And I bet our troops are thrilled about what they have given them.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
That's why the military has measures in place to ensure the military conducts itself in accordance with our democratic society. The perpetrators of Abu Ghraib, for example, are being brought to justice. This does extend to Guantanamo because practices there are implemented by superiors, and the soldiers are following orders -- not having fun. While torture gets murkier, and individual soldiers can and should be held accountable for their actions in those cases, the ultimate responsibility lies with the leaders who wrote those policies -- and it's they who deserve our criticism most of all.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I have to agree with you about the elections. I was excited and hopeful when I saw the news come back about how well the elections had gone, and how high the turnout was. If Iraq can develop a stable, institutionally democratic society, we will have done well.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, Kasie. Unfortunately, it doesn't require much imagination to see any military crossing the line from some questionable tactics and individual malfeasance to outright barbarity on a wide-spread scale. In those situations, it would be our job to not support them and, in fact to reign them in.
I don't think we're there yet. It was a hypothetical statement.
posted
I'm personally quite amazed by how smoothly the elections went. I expected it to be a major fiasco, considering all of the negative publicity leading up to the election.
quote: Unless the warrior is evil. If our troops were engaging in ethnic cleansing, I would expect us to not support them.
I would outraged if this happened. However, I don't see any chance of our military ever engaging in such acts. But here's what bothers me a little about this war. There are many people who call this war evil and would not stop short of calling anyone who supports it evil. That means there are people who, without even knowing who I am and my reasons for supporting the war, believe that I am evil. I do not believe that is either logical or even fair. I don't believe any of the people who don't support this war are evil. I believe they see this whole situation from a completely different view than me, and as such, are perfectly welcome to continue seeing the war from that viewpoint, but I do not refer to such people as unpatriotic or traitorous. I do believe, however, that a person who attempts to breed hatred for soldiers during a war needs to think about what he's saying a little longer before saying it. This guy really needs to think about who he is calling evil here.
[ January 31, 2005, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless the warrior is evil. If our troops were engaging in ethnic cleansing, I would expect us to not support them.
Important point, Dag. We should not support even those who, "following orders," commit atrocities. I do not support the troops who were responsible for Abu Ghraib, and I do not support those who violate the values they're supposed to be serving.
My support of the military is a sad sort of support, and I relate to the prophet Mormon in the Book of Mormon who was a military leader for a largely wicked group of soldiers. He fulfilled his duty as their captain as long as he could, until their wickedness became too heinous to bear. My little brother confided in me once that his girlfriend wanted to get married but he was hesitant to do so while still on active duty. He didn't want to leave a wife and a baby living on a base while he was sent on various assignments because, and I quote, "Marines are not good people." I think our military has reached a very crucial point. If they're not extra-vigilant, they can easily slide into abusive, tormenting roles. They need to be actively trying to serve the greater good even when that's contrary to a direct order. I'll support the troops who are doing their duty in accordance with their own conscience - I'll withdraw that support when they demonstrate that they've abused their power and position to do evil things.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the original essay was pretty solid.
I don't think your reply really refuted it, Kasie. I think it was kind of jingoistic, actually.
quote: The answer? Absolutely, unequivocally: yes. The men and women who govern our country were democratically elected, by and for the people. Our citizens, our vote, gave them the responsibility to protect our shores and preserve the integrity of our great nation. Our men and women in uniform have volunteered – indeed, made great sacrifices – so that our leaders can accomplish this essential goal. They have sacrificed so you don’t have to; they are the means to the freedom our Constitution guarantees you. Their sacrifices, and the sacrifices of the men and women who served before them, protect your right to publish such a column.
I get kind of irritated with responses like this, as it is used in every military action that is ever taken. Some things the military does can certainly be understood by some people as being necessary to the protection of the country and our way of life, but I think it's very debatable whether all of them can be seen in that way, or whether military action was the most necessary action on every occasion the military was used. I think it's reasonable that some people look at what's going on in Iraq as something that might work against the interests of the U.S. and her liberties. Since the troops are the ones engaging in these actions, it could be seen as reasonable to not support the troops. Others in this thread have touched on this.
As I've stated before, the military is just a part of what makes this country what it is and gives us our freedoms. Teachers, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, what have you, are all just as vital to our way of life. It's no more wrong to speak out against what members of some of these groups do than the military.
quote: They are not responsible for the bombs and bullets, Mr. Kampf: you are. We are. Our democracy gives all of us a voice, and it also requires we respect and honor the choices of our fellow citizens. Even if you supported John Kerry (as I did) when you exercised your right to vote, you must realize with every right comes responsibility. We, the people of the United States of America, elected the men and women who took us to war, and for that we are responsible.
But this doesn't speak against his point that each soldier ultimately must decide for herself whether or not to follow orders. Each soldier is responsible for her actions. Not us.
quote: Speak out against leaders you disagree with, Mr. Kampf. Use your voice, your pen and your vote. But spitting on our troops is spitting on our freedom and on our country. Would you spit on the flag that allows you to express yourself so freely? A better question: would you spit on your ballot?
He's not spitting on our troops, etc.. You are overreacting.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I wonder if our typical 40% or so turn out would drop down to 15% or less? Just a thought.
*Disclaimer--My thoughts are reflection of what I think about human behavior and are not meant to demean or belittle the bravery of the Iraqi people--I salute them in awe*
I don't think our voting would go down under the gun. I think it is easier for many people to do the big stuff then it is to do the little things.
Bah, I am not articulating well....
I was talking with a Mormon not too long ago. We were talking about morals and values and pioneers. What she said applies to my thoughts.
She said if the church came out and asked her to sell her house, give the money to the church, and follow the leaders to a different location because of a real need to support the Saints, she would. However, in the day to day drudgery of life, she has no problem with drinking coffee.
Big events motivate us and give us resolve in a way day to day life never can. Unfortunately, elections in the US are not felt to be big events.
Whether or not reality reflects our thoughts, I think most people do not see a real threat to their freedoms in America and therefore feel no need to vote—Status Quo is good enough.
Most of the citizens who were moved to vote last election were moved partly because they were concerned about loosing some type of freedom from the other candidate.
If polling stations were being blown up, you would see the American population energize and come together.
ick...I don't like how this is coming out, but I think you get my point.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't think our voting would go down under the gun."
Neither do I. In fact, I think telling Americans that they'd be likely to be shot if they voted is one of the few ways we could increase turnout.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some things the military does can certainly be understood by some people as being necessary to the protection of the country and our way of life, but I think it's very debatable whether all of them can be seen in that way, or whether military action was the most necessary action on every occasion the military was used. I think it's reasonable that some people look at what's going on in Iraq as something that might work against the interests of the U.S. and her liberties. Since the troops are the ones engaging in these actions, it could be seen as reasonable to not support the troops.
Storm,
I don't think the last sentence lines up with the other things you mentioned. I see your point. But at the same time, we do live in a republic -- we elect the leaders we think will lead us most effectively. If they take an unnecessary military action, it is their responbility, and our responsibility to vote them out of office at the next opportunity. That's how it works. Certainly, soldiers have the right -- and the duty, might I add -- to refuse orders that they know violate say, the Geneva Conventions. However, we need the men and women in the military to follow orders simply because lives are on the line. If one man decides he's fighting an unjust war and gives up his weapon, he's sacrificing the guy next to him as well.
I don't agree with the war in Iraq. But I find the idea of not standing with those who are willing to fight it replusive. They are giving up something so I can become a doctor or a lawyer or something else -- that you're right, will give me an equally important role in society -- but at the same time, I am not making the same sacrifice. I am not putting my life on the line. I think there's something to be said for that.
To put a disclaimer on that, though, I would say a solider is as much a hero as say, an inner-city schoolteacher or someone who volunteers for the Peace Corps. All three are sacrificing and risking things most of us are not willing to. That is what I find heroic: not killing or waging war, but sacrificing.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whenever the debate of "who's responsible for a soldier's action in the line of duty" comes up, I can't help but be reminded of Shakespeare's answer in Henry V the night before the battle at Agincourt.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’d like to think we’d vote too under the gun. But we’re so apathetic as a nation about it. Which was really what my point was about. I’ve been really surprised that we haven’t seen more terror here at home. Can you imagine the panic if snipers would strike anywhere at random? Or if we had to put up with suicide bombers all the time? I’m so thankful we don’t. One of the suicide bombers from the election yesterday was a kid with downs syndrome. I hope that means they’re getting desperate.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think your reply really refuted it, Kasie. I think it was kind of jingoistic, actually.
So tell me. When does something go from patriotic to jingoistic? Really, I wanna know. Cause the next time I'm out waving an American flag around, I'd rather like to make sure that no one thinks I'm being chauvanistically patriotic. Even though members of every country in the world are just as jingoistic as I am, yet, they are not CALLED jingoistic because they're not Americans, aparently. *sorry if this seems snarky, but I really think that term is being thrown around WAAAAAAAY too much.*
[ January 31, 2005, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article is much better on the second read. I found it slightly hard to follow -- his logic is circular, so it's hard to tell exactly what his conclusion is -- but he makes some sound points.
I should also mention (for Storm in particular) that I didn't find the article to spit on the troops, necessarily. That came out of how the public responded to Vietnam veterans -- quite literally spitting on them in the streets. I fear the sort of thinking espoused in this article could lead down that road, which is why I used that particular word/phrase.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know a couple of people who admittedly don't support our troops. I'm glad the troops support them, though. Even though they are wrong.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie, I think a lot of the problem lies in that 'support' is a pretty vague word and that waging war in general and what's going on in Iraq specifically has a lot of ethical permutations and combinations. On a lot of levels, I support the war in Iraq. On others, I don't.
quote: I don't think the last sentence lines up with the other things you mentioned. I see your point. But at the same time, we do live in a republic -- we elect the leaders we think will lead us most effectively. If they take an unnecessary military action, it is their responbility, and our responsibility to vote them out of office at the next opportunity. That's how it works.
I agree.
quote:
Certainly, soldiers have the right -- and the duty, might I add -- to refuse orders that they know violate say, the Geneva Conventions. However, we need the men and women in the military to follow orders simply because lives are on the line. If one man decides he's fighting an unjust war and gives up his weapon, he's sacrificing the guy next to him as well.
This is one of those problematic ethical conundrums that I guess depends on what kind of ethical reasoning you use. If some kind of absolutism, say, then the soldier should not do the action because it is always wrong. What's so special about the Geneva conventions that it must be the only determiner of when an action is right or wrong?
quote: I don't agree with the war in Iraq. But I find the idea of not standing with those who are willing to fight it replusive. They are giving up something so I can become a doctor or a lawyer or something else -- that you're right, will give me an equally important role in society -- but at the same time, I am not making the same sacrifice. I am not putting my life on the line. I think there's something to be said for that.
What if most of those people aren't making their 'sacrifice' for anyone but themselves and maybe the guy beside them. Does that change your thinking?
quote: To put a disclaimer on that, though, I would say a solider is as much a hero as say, an inner-city schoolteacher or someone who volunteers for the Peace Corps. All three are sacrificing and risking things most of us are not willing to. That is what I find heroic: not killing or waging war, but sacrificing.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to salute what someone does as heroic, and respect the fact that they believe what they're doing is right, but believe what they're doing is wrong.
And on that note...
quote: I should also mention (for Storm in particular) that I didn't find the article to spit on the troops, necessarily. That came out of how the public responded to Vietnam veterans -- quite literally spitting on them in the streets. I fear the sort of thinking espoused in this article could lead down that road, which is why I used that particular word/phrase.
Well, this is one of those cases where two wrongs don't make a right.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's take an opposite approach to this for a moment.
Wasn't Hitler elected?
Why should I support people that are following unconstitutional orders? (There still hasn't been an official declaration of war by congress.) Not to mention that I don't think we should be over there in the first place.
So why should I support the invasion of other countries? -Because I should be patriotic? NO. Being patriotic is much deeper than that; Being patriotic would fall more along the lines of trying to get our troops out of there by removing the people that put them there. (Or refusing to serve, such an unconsitutional war. Which some people are blindsided by the appearance that killing other people in another country is somehow patriotic.)
Why should we the United States of America restructure another country's government to match our own? Choices of the people in the country where they are being persecuted as I see them are: Leave to another country where you can be you. Replace your current leaders. Fix your government, by either destruction, or adapting it.
I haven't been to Iraq, I live here in the US. I wouldn't want some other country coming in to the US to take over our government because they thought it was THIER right to change how we do things... Would you?
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Wait a second, unconstitutional? There wasn't an official declaration of war? This I didn't know. Everything about this war disturbs me deeply and makes me feel weak and useless.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why should I support people that are following unconstitutional orders? (There still hasn't been an official declaration of war by congress.)
I'm wondering where in the Constitution you find a requirement that a formal declaration of war be issued before force may be used. It certainly wasn't in the Constitution I studied.
posted
Dag, maybe you should study the US constitution?
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Section. 8. Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
quote:I haven't been to Iraq, I live here in the US. I wouldn't want some other country coming in to the US to take over our government because they thought it was THIER right to change how we do things... Would you?
Although I'm against the war in Iraq, if another nation with a much better system of government were to successfully depose the US government with little loss of life, I would be glad.
Too bad there aren't any candidate invaders right now. Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am with Destineer. If the new system was actually an improvement, I would be fine with the new government. I would still hold the slaughter of non-combatants against the invaders, though. I doubt I would trust the motives of any invaders until I had seen proof. And America would really have to go down the tubes before I would assume that any possible new government the invaders instituted would be better no matter what motives they had. The US is at the low end of credibility or the high end of incredibility as far as our motives go, IMHO.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our founding fathers were not stupid by any means, they already went through the ardurous task of finding out what would work for the people, why wait for another country; that we don't know of or it's history to change what we believe?
You and I are seeing first hand what we should change, why wait for someone else to do the work?
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're speaking in wild hypotheticals here. I was just pointing out that I agree with the Bush administration's apparent principle that national sovereignty isn't really inviolable.
To be consistent, I noted that the same fact applies to the US as well as Iraq. Just as the Iraqis' sovereignty is less important than their freedom, our own sovereignty is less important than our freedom.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
raventh1, Congress has the right to declare war....but they don't have sole discresion over the military, nor does it say anywhere that a declaration of war is mandatory for hostilities.
The President has the right as Commander-in-Chief to instruct the troops, including limited hostilities, although that right is limited by Congress, both by funding requirements for it and in duration of the deployment.
Congress has approved both the funding for this war, and has passed a resolution...which they ARE allowed to do....supporting it.
posted
Wrong. We the people have that god given right. The president only has such power because we allow him to, by ignorance.
Article 2: Section 2: Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
We have a standing armed service, and as such the President always has the troops available.
He has the sole right to order the troops into battle, hence the name. That is why he outranks all the generals in the Army, and why they have to follow any plan he endorses, despite the logic of said plan.
I spent enough time in the military to know this, and I doubt the Congress would allow the President to usurp it's power....they are reluctant enough to allow the President to keep the powers intended for him by the Constitution.
I know for a fact that they are all far more versed in the Constitution, and Constitutional law, that we are, and they have a personal stake in holding tight to all the power the Constitution grants them.
Sorry, I have to go with Dag on this one. It's a no-brainer to me.
quote:I would still hold the slaughter of non-combatants against the invaders, though. I doubt I would trust the motives of any invaders until I had seen proof.
So uhh, how many civilians have been killed by suicide bomb-invaders? If you can call the US an invasion force, then a force of insurgents that consist mostly of people from seperate countries outside of Iraq can be called an invasion force as well. I think I like our invasion tactics a little better than theirs, personally. Plus, they didn't have to have an act of congress to start their invasion. All they did was get a bunch of angry militant Muslims together and say, "Let go kill us some Americans and their sympathizers." As such, I think the insurgency is arguably much MORE illegal than our own, if you want to argue about legalities. Oh, and let's not come back with the "There wouldn't be an insurgency in Iraq if we hadn't invaded" argument. Because you're right. There'd probably be an insurgency in Afghanistan. The people we're fighting right now don't give a flying rats butt about where they kill Americans. They've just chosen to kill Americans where it will get the most publicity. And with the constant argument over whether or not the Iraq invasion was legal or not, Iraq seems to be the best place to kill Americans.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea: Do you know when congress allowed the president to usurp thier powers? The War Powers Act of 1973.
Apparently, they are not versed in the Constitution.
Here is an example of what happens when you disagree with going to war: Kent State: Shootings of public protesters to the Vietnam War, all of the protesters were unarmed, and 60 - 700 feet away from the National Guard patrol. To quote William A. Gordon, "What I discovered that week, and that year, was that America in those times was perfectly willing to harass, beat and kill its own children if they disagreed with government policy."
Even if our original goal was to go in to Iraq and establish a democracy, or remove a murdering dictator from where we placed him, or even because they possibly had weapons of mass destruction; Our military's purpose is defense of our land, our nation.
It is the people's duty to balance and check the government.
"we must be the change we wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is going to take a while for me to hammer out, so bear with me ( I always talk/write too much its a disease). As a whole the entire issue with Iraq is simply who is right, and of course the whole problem with that is when it comes to things of that matter no one is really 100% correct. What matters is what type of thought you come from.
First off I'll just cover supporting soldiers in a generic fashion wether they be Vietnam, WWI, WWII, Korean, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, OIF Veterans, etc. You should support soldiers, wether you like them or not, simply for your love of a stable nation. Just go back in time and look at the things disgruntled veterans have done. What happens to family and persons when no one cares or simply forgets. Most people generally feel superior over an enlisted soldier. For the most part we're highschool graduates, if that at times, from lower income families and settings. We are not always the nicest people in the world, or even the smartest. There are some of us who might even be geniuses, and some of us who shouldn't even be wearing the uniform. You see what makes most soldiers special, at least the infantrymen I serve with, is there ability to go on. Their body goes out and yet they still step, their friends die and they keep living, and their country forgets them and they keep on serving.
The fact is that most people in the army who are here really don't like a lot of the things that happen in it. We have so many regulations, extra laws, harsher penalities, and of course most importantly actual enforcement of said things. That and of course so many of the soldiers that you see who speak up about something or brag about this and that are generally not the good ones. Most of the good NCOs etc. who I know in the army just go home and try to act like people. They don't flaunt being in the army all that much, they don't make up stories about being special forces or rangers. They just want to be able to live like you, to not have restricted areas and mileage limits. All I can ask you is treat the soldiers you meet with respect maybe buy them a drink , doesn't have to be beer, and don't go asking all your questions. Everyone wants to hear about how hard it was or how terrible it is. My general honest thought is that there are terrible things that happen in war and conflict. The worst things I have ever seen and done were in such an event. The thing is some of the best things I have ever seen were there as well. That and think on this one thought, its a statistical fact that soldiers main motivation to fight and win are their fellow soldiers, not the "people" or country they are dying for.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Second, the idea of innocents and the misconception of self defense. Americans, and a lot of cultures, have an odd , and in my view perverse, concept of self defense.
We are a people who believe that if an attacker has a knife and you pull a gun to defend your self you don't have the right to protect yourself until he gets into striking range. Whats the point of weapon that has range that you can't use until the attacker gets in close. That and if you only wound the attacker there is a good chance they can beat you in civil court.
Now what does this have to do with war and Iraq in particular? For one we believe that our interactions as persons are how we should interact as nations, states, and societies. We believe that conflict should be civil as possible, that one should be as good and kind as the situation allows. This thought is flawed however as war and conflict are something in which losing has massive consequences, as the author stated war is a zero-sum game. If we "lose' then every dollar, every life,every injury, argument for, and every soul lost were a complete waste. That all those things may have very well never existed. We do not line up in on the grassy field, display our colors, and then commence with the battle in the light of day. Now why is that you might ask? It is not technology so much as success over ethics.
Success has beaten out ethics in most of our major conflicts. We had a hard time displacing/destroying the native presence in America with our superior technology so we thought in what manner might we defeat them without pitched battle. Well if we took away their prime resources we will win, thus we began to destroy the buffalo and with them the native plains populace. Barbaric you might say, but also amazingly succesful with much less American loss of life,which is of course what national policy is supposed to be about. You might say a soul is forever lost, but then so are many nations.
That and far too many people have a hard time understanding other people, and thus have a hard time understanding soldiers. How could they do those awful things to those prisoners, etc. The fact is I bet most of you in this forum would break down faster than most soldiers I know. Most people like being in charge, lots of people who have been always been on the bottom all of a sudden are given complete control of "them." Sure I doubt you'll make them get into naked piles etc., but I bet you'll use excessive physical force, that you will use physical force when you could have always asked another time. You get bored, impatient, its the 26th time you've had to tell Achmed to get into line, to not talk, to simply tell him to stop doing whatever he is doing as its against the rules at your "cage." I honestly doubt you would understand, but then I'm the sort of person who is generally not outraged by a thing as most things don't surprise me. The way I see it don't apply your ethics and morality on a soldier. You can, but then I will say that at some point and time you will lose everything that you hold dear.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
(you could argue that "morbid stupor" is redundant hyperbole, but I liked how it all sounded together)
