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

[Nephythys]

At any time, or just during these times?

[Ghoulish Delight]

As far as I'm concerned, as long as they are not ordered to commit war crimes, I do not consider individual actions of soldiers to be immoral, even if I don't agree with the rationale for the war. I have no problem separating that view from the "we were just following orders" defense of Nazi death camp guards. They were not engaged against a combatitve enemy, they were killing civilians. HUGE difference. When an American soldier is fighting a member of Al Quaida in Iraq, a die-hard ex member of Sadaam's red guard, or an inidividual Iraqi citizen with a gun and a grudge, both players have agreed in principle to the implicit contract of war.

It's an ugly reality, and the very reason that, while I'm not an absolute pacifist, I believe war should be a last resort, not the first. But I don't see it as being as black-and-white as that for a soldier. Unless there are egregious, tangible violations of the "rules" of war, not just political disagreements regarding the justification, then I will not blame a soldier for doing what they signed on to do.

[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.)

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So in one breath you say, WB, that it immoral to use the tax dollars of those who oppose the war to support it and also that it is acceptable and even morally required (based on what I interpret your tone to be) to use the tax dollars of others to pay for welfare, housing, and medicare regardless of how they feel about those programs. It is not my intent to debate those programs now. I just find it interesting that tax dollars for what you support is OK, but not for what you don't support.

I, too, find your priorities most interesting. The people that are the most vocal against helping those at home are the most eager to shovel it out to the Pentagon and Halliburton, etc, whose excesses, waste and flat out ineptitude are the stuff of legend. (How is the body armor situation these days? The water purification that Halliburton was paid a fortune to do and didn't, exposing our troops to all sorts of horrid diseases from the wastewater they were drinking?) Meh. Tell me about how it feels to have some people abusing a system you pay into- pretty damned frustrating, isn't it? What really sucks is that it's the people in charge that are doing it.

[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.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

Ok, and again then you're excluded from what I'm saying about moral decisions. Because according the general anti-war talking points the war we have fought and are fighting is an illegal war, it is an immoral war.

And on your point about "suppor" I have no problem with what you're saying there. If I am paraphrasing correctly, you don't actually support what they are doing, you just hope that they don't get killed and you won't retaliate against them when they return. That's fine, but that's not support (as you said you wouldn't choose that word).

But when presented with "support the troops!" I don't like the tactic iSm endorses above of saying "ok. We do support the troops" and then in a whispered aside "as long as we define to support to mean something other than support."

As Prudence suggested way above and agreed. That is simply a disingenous marketing slogan designed to deflect criticism. I would prefer (and no, my preferences are no more effective at shaping the world than your preferences) that people just say what they believe and stand behind it. But then I'm the guy that told a roomful of Baptist mothers that I think it is essentially child abuse to raise children with religion.

It's artifice that masks the ability to discuss things. I won't hold it against you if you don't actually support the troops. I don't think that not supporting the troops means you want them all to die. Just as hopefully you don't think that because I feel life has no inherent value that doesn't mean I want to kill people. But when we all pick words to use so that we can pretend to agree while each maintains their own secret dictionary then that is a far greater harm to a society than just about anything else we can do.

And now I've been told I better get some real work done today or I'll be in trouble. I've enjoyed (and am enjoying) the back and forth. It's fun. But I promise I won't drag it on into tomorrow. Anybody after me on this topic is guaranteed the last word.

[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?