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

[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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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.

Just for clarification I generally regard it as an illegal war fought in a legal manner (still separating diplomatic reasoning from military reality).

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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."

Whoa, hold on a minute. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't endorse that tactic. I understand its efficiency. I can commerserate with, for example, politians who - in a sound bite world - could never under any circumstances make such a statement as "I don't support our troops."

But for those who truly do not support our troops, such as myself, I would rather they be honest and say so ... as I have done. Honesty is really the only policy that I will "endorse."



* * * * *

As for the National Guard, MBC, I think they got rooked. I might have to give them a pass (as I would to any pre-Vietnam era U.S. soldier - to answer Nephy's earlier question to me).

But they did agree to take up arms against whomever the Pentagon ordered them to. And now that it has become clear what exactly that can mean ... today's National Guard entlistees will be the last to get the iSm free pass.