Progressive Boink

[Jon]

In the "Life Upates [sic] That Carry Some Weight" thread, B touched on why he has a negative perception of military people:

One of the reasons I'm so negative against the armed forces is because so many of the people I've known who have been in the army have beaten the shit out of women. I don't understand it. I guess it messes you up or whatever, but yeah, I'm sorry.

B didn't want to derail the thread with this, but I figure that this is a discussion worth having, so I'll kick things off. Specifically, I want to explore the issue of how to perceive the people who, either directly or indirectly, engage in the most horrible thing about the human race.

It's kind of unbelievable that everyone doesn't stand up and say, "Jesus Christ, war is fucking abominable, we need to stop doing this," but it's just taken as a given. You grow up and you just figure that war is something that happens and is supposed to happen, like it's the occasional tornado.

Here's the difficult thing for me: I have... seven close friends who are/were in the military. They are all outstanding people. Some of them are exceptionally intelligent, mature, and good-natured people. None of them would ever think of abusing a woman (though I imagine that there's data to support the idea that violence toward women is higher among military personnel).

Here's the question: war is always, in every case, terrible beyond words and, in almost every case, inexcusable. We are close to people who are employed in the industry of killing people. How do we reconcile the two? Discuss!

(This is a very touchy discussion, but I promise not to get butthurt.)

[Jon]

Also worth fitting into this discussion: Barack Obama is a very likable guy who many of us voted for. He has also commissioned the killing of thousands of people, and anyone who does that is necessarily a horrible person. Is war just what comes natural to people, or what?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

"upate" was necessary to fit the "g" in "weig"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

just gonna post that and leave now

[blacktoothgrin]

The guys who I know who express an admiration for the military (including a former best friend of mine) are fucking insane. They are either competitive beyond belief or have ridiculous anger issues, they're just fucknuts. I can't see how you can look at war as anything other than an abomination, and how you can look at joining the armed forced as anything beyond sacrificing yourself for your country. The idea of that kind of patriotism, to me, is bewildering, I genuinely can't understand how someone could love their country, it's a make-believe thing. In becoming a soldier, you are asking for a tragedy to befall your family, and you're asking for death.

[AudeSapere]

How do folks feel about military interventions in serious human rights situations? Say, Rwanda, 1994.

[Patrick]

The guys who I know who express an admiration for the military (including a former best friend of mine) are fucking insane. They are either competitive beyond belief or have ridiculous anger issues, they're just fucknuts. I can't see how you can look at war as anything other than an abomination, and how you can look at joining the armed forced as anything beyond sacrificing yourself for your country. The idea of that kind of patriotism, to me, is bewildering, I genuinely can't understand how someone could love their country, it's a make-believe thing. In becoming a soldier, you are asking for a tragedy to befall your family, and you're asking for death.

Pretty much this.

I think if someone joins the military they are making a major life mistake. That doesn't mean I hate them, it doesn't mean I won't be friends with them or feed them or clothe them, but it's just my belief. I'm a pacifist pussy who doesn't even like to get mean with anyone, either, so my thoughts on killing anyone for any reason is subject to change depending on where my mind is at. But I know there's a big difference between protecting your home, and looking to pick a fight.

It's become such a common, regular thing to be okay with people going out to die in the desert for fun. So many good men fall for this trap...or maybe not even that, this whole guise of "FREEDOM" has just been conditioned since birth. Obama is a good man who hasn't shed his militaristic skin. Neither has my father, or my grandfather, or that guy in my high school history classes sitting there learning all about the trappings of war, or that girl who was on chatroulette all stoked about getting to kill some towelheads. But they're all still great to me, great to their immediate others. They're good people who haven't yet recognized their hypocrisy.

[Patrick]

Also, while I love where I live, one day it will fall. As every country does.

Sacrificing yourself for such a ridiculous concept as a "country" is a waste of life. I would rather fight and die for my wife, or my children, or my parents or my friends, or people I don't even know, or just the planet Earth, but not a set of imaginary boundaries.

[Terry Cheesecake]

How do folks feel about military interventions in serious human rights situations? Say, Rwanda, 1994.

No-one is clamouring to invade the U.S. because of Guantanamo Bay or the fact that they are one of the few first world countries where is is ok for the government to execute a child or the mentally handicapped. There's no great rush to invade China or North Korea for their numerous human rights situations. Or any of the other fucking hundreds of other countries where human rights abuses occur on a daily basis. Interventions in human rights situations invariably boil down to a situation where someone sees the opportunity to gain political capital. It is a crock of shit.

[Terry Cheesecake]

Also people have wildly varying interpretations of what constitutes a human rights violation.

[Captain Hot Stuff]

Just want to mention that there is a huge, huge difference between the U.S. Army and the armies of other countries. The enormous profile the US Army has in normal society and the slavering worship accorded to the troops is, through Australian eyes, very disturbing.

I think I have met one person in my entire life who was in the ADF and he seemed fairly well-adjusted. The bulk of our military's activities are police/peacekeeping actions in the South Pacific. We had (and still have) recruitment ads on TV that are about building playgrounds in East Timor or learning mechanical skills. There is absolutely nothing in the ADF's PR about patriotism or serving your country or whatever. I have seen US Army recruitment ads that aired after 9/11 and they creeped me the fuck out. It was really just one step up from "JOIN NOW FOR SWEET REVENGE!"

Basically what I'm saying is that the American military is just one facet of America being fairly dysfunctional in general, at least as far as first-world societies go.

[Andy]

How do folks feel about military interventions in serious human rights situations? Say, Rwanda, 1994.

No-one is clamouring to invade the U.S. because of Guantanamo Bay or the fact that they are one of the few first world countries where is is ok for the government to execute a child or the mentally handicapped. There's no great rush to invade China or North Korea for their numerous human rights situations. Or any of the other fucking hundreds of other countries where human rights abuses occur on a daily basis. Interventions in human rights situations invariably boil down to a situation where someone sees the opportunity to gain political capital. It is a crock of shit.

Political capital aside, though, would you have rather the US Military not intervened at all? I can't pretend to know the full extent of this conflict, but sometimes when things happen like this, you just kind of have to say "at least someone is getting the assistance" and try not to let the political ambition backing it destroy what is effectively a positive thing.


On the broader level of the topic, I am not against the military. It's my opinion that war, while abominable, is inevitable. Someone somewhere always gets power and then gets greedy. Not necessarily in that order. And then their greed infects others, and their power overpowers others and then you have violent conflict looming in the background just waiting to be unleashed. I think that fucked up as our current situation is, we can't possibly justify not having an army at all. Even if tomorrow America was suddenly the most peaceable country on Earth (not happening) we would still have to be able to stand up when a threat comes down our pipes. I don't know that anyone is arguing abolishing military presence, and I doubt it, but it's just something to consider. I don't like war in the least and I myself dont relish in conflicts, but it's naive to think a fight wont come looking for you eventually. I agree that our need for conflict and our insane testosterone and paranoia driven outlook on the military, outside and in, is an incredibly massive social psychology problem that could take decades or more to fix (not that we're really trying to).

More specific thoughts that crossed my mind: the way America trains soldiers is the most insane thing ever. It can straighten out troubled cases, and at the same time stoke angry hearts into barely recessed violent madness. People sign up because they want to murder people, and people sign up to put themselves through college to become a contractor or something. It's the most destructive and constructive process I can imagine for the human psyche, and we really should put more effort into screening people for capability to handle the transition. But we are too self interested and bloated on our own shitty jingoistic monikers and slogans that I cant really imagine us ever being able to do that.

[Patrick]

Even if tomorrow America was suddenly the most peaceable country on Earth (not happening) we would still have to be able to stand up when a threat comes down our pipes. I don't know that anyone is arguing abolishing military presence, and I doubt it, but it's just something to consider. I don't like war in the least and I myself dont relish in conflicts, but it's naive to think a fight wont come looking for you eventually.

The problem is that I don't think America really cares about preventing attack; it only cares about attacking back. If we spent a millionth as much on defense as we do on offense, something like 9/11 might not have occurred in the first place.

[AudeSapere]

andy bein' m'dude itt

How do folks feel about military interventions in serious human rights situations? Say, Rwanda, 1994.

No-one is clamouring to invade the U.S. because of Guantanamo Bay or the fact that they are one of the few first world countries where is is ok for the government to execute a child or the mentally handicapped. There's no great rush to invade China or North Korea for their numerous human rights situations. Or any of the other fucking hundreds of other countries where human rights abuses occur on a daily basis. Interventions in human rights situations invariably boil down to a situation where someone sees the opportunity to gain political capital. It is a crock of shit.

Political capital aside, though, would you have rather the US Military not intervened at all? I can't pretend to know the full extent of this conflict, but sometimes when things happen like this, you just kind of have to say "at least someone is getting the assistance" and try not to let the political ambition backing it destroy what is effectively a positive thing.


On the broader level of the topic, I am not against the military. It's my opinion that war, while abominable, is inevitable. Someone somewhere always gets power and then gets greedy. Not necessarily in that order. And then their greed infects others, and their power overpowers others and then you have violent conflict looming in the background just waiting to be unleashed. I think that fucked up as our current situation is, we can't possibly justify not having an army at all. Even if tomorrow America was suddenly the most peaceable country on Earth (not happening) we would still have to be able to stand up when a threat comes down our pipes. I don't know that anyone is arguing abolishing military presence, and I doubt it, but it's just something to consider. I don't like war in the least and I myself dont relish in conflicts, but it's naive to think a fight wont come looking for you eventually. I agree that our need for conflict and our insane testosterone and paranoia driven outlook on the military, outside and in, is an incredibly massive social psychology problem that could take decades or more to fix (not that we're really trying to).

More specific thoughts that crossed my mind: the way America trains soldiers is the most insane thing ever. It can straighten out troubled cases, and at the same time stoke angry hearts into barely recessed violent madness. People sign up because they want to murder people, and people sign up to put themselves through college to become a contractor or something. It's the most destructive and constructive process I can imagine for the human psyche, and we really should put more effort into screening people for capability to handle the transition. But we are too self interested and bloated on our own shitty jingoistic monikers and slogans that I cant really imagine us ever being able to do that.

[AudeSapere]

Why didn't anybody call in NATO troops to Rwanda?

[Terry Cheesecake]

What makes Rwanda more worthy than North Korea or China or Israel/Palestine or anywhere else? It's great that the Rwandans got assistance but why stop there? Where do you draw the line for situations that necessitate intervention? When does an intervention become an act of western aggression?

I'm not saying I have the answers or that military intervention is necessarily a bad thing but in my opinion it doesn't make much of an argument for the need for a large military.

[Andy]

I guess that without hardlined rules about when to intervene, I ca understand the feeling that we should just take a back seat. But for my money, as long as people are getting saved in mortal crisises (is that the right word?) I don't really care that Obama or Bush or Clinton want to make a big show of it, and use the connections that got them over there in the first place. It's not altruism, for sure, but the relief I feel for the people involved way outweighs my indignation at the reasons for our being there.

The biggest argument I could have against interference is that with that door open you could end up in a vast array of places you aren't wanted, and can only do further harm. Obviously we have done this a number of times already, so that's a pretty proven slippery slope scenario. But I'm split on the issue, because this isn't always the case and with less self interested leadership it doesn't have to be at all. My real despair comes from the fact that I don't believe this country is capable of finding, supporting, and electing a person that altruistic, and have them remain uncorrupted by self interest. But that's a separate issue.

[Andy]

Even if tomorrow America was suddenly the most peaceable country on Earth (not happening) we would still have to be able to stand up when a threat comes down our pipes. I don't know that anyone is arguing abolishing military presence, and I doubt it, but it's just something to consider. I don't like war in the least and I myself dont relish in conflicts, but it's naive to think a fight wont come looking for you eventually.

The problem is that I don't think America really cares about preventing attack; it only cares about attacking back. If we spent a millionth as much on defense as we do on offense, something like 9/11 might not have occurred in the first place.

True

[DGMacphee]

I think a lot of people who've posted so far have kinda forgotten to answer Jon's question and I think we're going off on a tangent instead of exploring a more interesting issue.

How do we reconcile?

I guess it depends on whether your justification for a henious act can outweight your moral repulsion for the henious act. I reckon a lot of families of soldiers justify their actions by thinking they signed up for a good cause (and, yes, some may disagree, but that's beside the point I'm making). I think a lot of families try as hard as they can to find the best intentions to justify the actions of family members who've seen combat.

Consider human rights abuses. How would the family of Lynndie England rationalise what she had done? The justification for her actions was essentially that she was acting under orders of a superior officer. You could go one step further and say the military as an institution is as much at fault for ingraining a grunt-level mentality as part of her values a la Full Metal Jacket. When you consider things from this perspective you can't fully blame the soliders for a lot of the human rights abuses that happen in war. I'd say in this instance the soliders are less at fault and it's more the powers that be who dictate a system that trains people to become killing machines who essentially become indifferent to the dignity of other human beings. That doesn't excuse their actions, but it does rationalise in your head how these things happen.

This isn't limited to the military, mind you. How do parents reconcile their love for a son who's murdered someone? Could they justify self-defence? Mental problems? Poverty? Pride? If they can't justify any of those things, could they justify simply because they love thier son unconditionally?

Here's another example borrowed from It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia: you have a Grandpa. He loves you and you love him. He's slightly racist, but you think it's normal for guys of his generation. But then you discover he's actually a Nazi war criminal. Do you even try to justify your love for him? Do you stop loving him? Do you blame the man or the National Socialist system of 1930s Germany or making him the man he is?

Forget murder. What if you know someone who is essentially a good person: he/she loves his wife/husband, is good with the kids, donates time and money to charity, etc. But then one day you find out he/she is having an affair with someone else. The first question that I think would pop into anyone's head is "Why?" Why would someone who essentially has everything, who've know to be essentially is good at heart, would do something so wrong? And that's the point when you try to justify your reasons.

So, why do we justify these terrible things?

It think it's because most people want one reason to justify the negative actions of someone they care about if only because they don't want all those years of caring to go to waste.

[DGMacphee]

As for the Obama question, that's a lot harder to answer. I don't know if war comes natural to people. I'd say it's difficult for anyone to be completely removed from what is happening in a conflict they're responsible for.

I'd say it becomes more natural over time, like how after the first kill each subsequent kill chips more and more at your conscience until the guilt has consumed you completely..

Here's how I rationalise it: Obama has to live with the decisions he's made. How he rationalises them is up to him, but he (and everyone else responsible for the wars) has to live with the dead on their consciences. Knowing his decisions have led to x number of people dead -- that's something he has to live with.

[AudeSapere]

IT IS BECAUSE WE ARE ALL CONSEQUENTIALISTS

also he wasn't just a nazi, he was like king nazi