Is there no good news in the world? There's precious little in this thread.

[Alex]

As I see it, Motorboat Cruiser, you are supporting what you wish they would do (come home safe), not what they are actually doing (killing and subduing Iraq). You're not really supporting them, you're offering them support if they do what you want. Admiration is not support.

As for the idea that you and BarTopDancer above you state: how does monetary incentive absolve a soldier from the moral content of their actions? If killing Iraqis is unjust, does it become less so because someone was offered a $20,000 re-enlistment bonus.

Also, to say that someone is absolved of moral responsibility simply because they signed up for one thing and then were ordered to do another is to reward moral cowardice. Every soldier has the ability to not be in Iraq. If the government told me to go kill someone I did not agree was justified I would go to jail first. As soon as we start shooting soldiers who refuse deployment to Iraq then I'll begin to feel they are absolved of moral responsibility for their acts. It is ok to unjustly kill Iraqis because you are unwilling to go to jail? I don't buy that.

Despite the fact that they were "just following orders" any soldiers who participated in the invasion of Panama are responsible for their actions and did not have my support (though I certainly did not want them to die unless them doing so was the only way that the invasion of Panama would fail).

[innerSpaceman]

And yet we cannot say "we don't support the troops" and remotely hope to persuade others to our peaceful point of view. That's quite a paradox right there.

Are we morally reprehensible for telling a lie in order to gain support for what we believe will prevent more death? It's quite a balancing act necessary to prioritize moral transgressions. It would be great if pure truth could achieve world peace. I would be wonderful if our soldiers could kill only terrorists and not Iraqi's fighting from their freedom from an occupying army.


I don't buy this bit about soldiers not enlisting for service in Iraq. They enlisted to be warriors wherever the Pentagon tells them to be warriors.

And yet I don't want to treat them as shabily as returning Vietnam vets were treated. I don't hate them. I pity them. They have made terrible choices and will have to live with the consequences. I feel no need to add any measure of my displeasure.

But they lost my support the minute they signed up.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And yet we cannot say "we don't support the troops" and remotely hope to persuade others to our peaceful point of view. That's quite a paradox right there.

By lying and saying "we oppose the war but support the troops" who exactly have you converted to your side? Besides, I've been heartily assured here that "we support the troops" is most certainly not the lying half of the equation. I'm willing to take that at face value. Therefore it is my contention that if you truly support the troops that you do not truly oppose the war (though you may want it to end as soon as possible, while it is going on despite your protestations you support its means).

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).

[Ghoulish Delight]

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.

[Alex]

And that's what I'm talking about, moral opposition to this war. It is the rare person on the anti-war left that I've seen couch their opposition entirely on non-moral arguments (a lot of people on the right do arguing that while we were justified in taking out Saddam Hussein by force it was unwise to actually go that route).

On the infantilization issue: if ordered to torture are they absolved of any personal responsibility? If ordered to shoot into a crowd that they are pretty sure consists entirely of civilians (but their commanders insists is not)? How far up the chain does this absolution extend, because then it could be argued that no one in the military other than the president ever makes a moral decision for which they can be held responsible (other than the one to disobey an order).

If we invaded Canada because their new prime minister said our president has bad taste in ties, would the decision of Soldier A to follow orders and start killing resisting Canadians be morally equivelant to the decision of Soldier B to go to jail rather than follow orders?

[Alex]

Out of curiosity for anybody still reading. If you support our troops simply because they're following orders and have no personal responsibility invested, did you also support the Taliban and Republican Guard soldiers who were just following orders?

I'm looking forward to GD's explanation of what he means by "support." (Not nagging, just reminding in case he forgot to get back to it in his post.)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

On the infantilization issue: if ordered to torture are they absolved of any personal responsibility? If ordered to shoot into a crowd that they are pretty sure consists entirely of civilians (but their commanders insists is not)? How far up the chain does this absolution extend, because then it could be argued that no one in the military other than the president ever makes a moral decision for which they can be held responsible (other than the one to disobey an order).

I draw the line at war crimes. And so does the military. It's obviously a difficult thing to do, but the military rules (at least US military rules) actually require a soldier to disobey an order if carrying out would be illegal according to internationally accepted definitions of the rules of law. There's a difference between "I disagree with the justification for initiating this war" and "I believe this war is being fought in an illegal manner." My sentiments fall in line with the first statement.

If we invaded Canada because their new prime minister said our president has bad taste in ties, would the decision of Soldier A to follow orders and start killing resisting Canadians be morally equivelant to the decision of Soldier B to go to jail rather than follow orders?

In such an extreme case, of course not. And no, I don't know where the line that divides one side from the other is. But the existence of gray area does not preclude making differing decissions cases at opposite extremes. And while I think we had no good technical footing to be starting this war, I am not so naive as to think the isolated result of taking out Sadaam is a "bad" thing. So I'll happily exist in the gray area of separating the macro diplomatic justification game that I think was played quite "illegally" from the mirco world of a soldier's sworn duty and the operational realities of the military which I think was done quite "legally".

As for what I mean by "support", it's not a word I would choose to use if it weren't defined as part of the lexicon of the debate. But if and when I say it, I mean it in the reactionary sense to the accusation that's implied by the chorus of "Suppor the Troops!" from those that support the war. Namely, that while I disagree with the war, that does NOT mean I'm hoping our troops get killed, nor will I spit on them, protest against them, or disparage them. You won't find me at any sort of rally or associating with large troop-supporting organizations, but that would be true even if I did support this war, that's not really my MO. But I would, and do, things such as sending cards and care packages to those soldiers that I know.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I don't buy this bit about soldiers not enlisting for service in Iraq. They enlisted to be warriors wherever the Pentagon tells them to be warriors.

You think those that joined the national guard did so to go fight in Iraq?

[Alex]

One last thing before Lani cuts the Ethernet cable. I know I'm probably the only person who actually reads books that get recommended in coversations like this but I would like to strongly recommend anyone interested in thinking about the moral dimensions of war to read Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations by Michael Walzer. It is perhaps* the most impactful book I've ever read (not that everything I've said in this thread in echoed in there; it's not and I'm sure Walzer would be appalled at times). It was written originally in 1977 and has been revised since, with the most recent in 2000. Obviously it doesn't include any direct comment on the current situation.



*It has to compete for that title with Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water.

[Nephythys]

At any time, or just during these times?