Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alex Stroup
Ghoulish Delight, you still have the same problem even if you choose to infantilize the soldiers out of any responsibility for their actions. If our war is unjust how can you support the aims which the individual soldiers are trying to achieve? Otherwise you are supporting an idealized version of our troops (the mythical ones that have given up on bloodshed and returned home) not a reality (the ones attempting to kill other people while avoiding death themselves).
|
Is it a contradiction? I suppose. But if so, it's one I'm confortable with. As long as they are fighting enemies that have identified themselves as having the goal of killing American soldiers (by action, not necessarily by being uniformed and part of an actual army), then I have no qualms saying that I disagree with our reasons for being there while still "supporting" the individual troops (barring individual action such as torture).
And what do I mean by "support"? Well, I'll return to that in a second.
First let me go a little deeper into why I'm okay with the apparant contradiction. Despite being generally anti-war, I fully appreciate the need for an army to be "infantalized" as you put it. It's not a position I would put myself in, but when it comes down to it, the military could not function if its soldiers were continually deciding whether or not they agree with the moral justifications. And, while I'd certainly rather it not be the case, the fact is that a functioning military is a necessity.
Of course, this may all be kinda moot as I don't really consider the current state of the war "immoral". Futile, absolutely. Il-advised for sure. But immoral? No.