Lets look at what you're really saying.
Dec. 24th, 2008 04:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumLTC Robert Bateman appears to be a semi-regular commenter at Altercation. He’s in the military, in some wise and thinks “liberals” don’t do enough to understand, and bridge, the “disconnect” between themselves and “the military”.
Let’s just say I have some problems with his positions. First, he seems to think pissing everyone off means he occupies some happy medium.
Of course, for my troubles I am periodically called a "neo-con warmonger Bush/Cheney apologist" by some, and a "liberal mouthpiece in the pay of George Soros" from others.
We see this a lot, the myth of the “justified middle”; the MSM likes to claim this is, “objectivity”. It fails to consider the possibility that one of the sides is actually right, and being in the middle is not only wrong, but pushing for it is damaging.
But that’s not what rises to the level of blithering nonsense. Part of it is tone. He puts all the burden for understanding the other side on, “the liberals”. The question is, what are all of you doing from the outside to remove that theoretical gap? Are you encouraging your liberal sons and daughters to pursue national service in the Armed Forces...or do you try to dissuade them?.
What an amazing piece of hubris. He says he complains about his service. He fails to address the problem of service. The military is an arm of policy. If the policy is justifiable then the honorable person has no problems. If the policy is horrible immoral, the honorable person has problems, but the problems are more of repercussion than decision. The edge cases are the real problem. What does one do when a policy leads to orders which are lawful in the pursuit of ends which seem iffy (I had this problem with Iraq... I still don’t know that I made the right call, but I can’t see how I could have made any other. As a pilot said of his experience in WW2, “It was a million dollar experience you wouldn’t pay a nickel to do again”)?
If one is an employee that’s not a big deal. Quitting may be hard, but it’s doable. Walking away from the Army isn’t quite so simple as leaving a civilian employer. The officer has it a little easier than an enlisted member. An officer has the privilege to resign his commission if he likes. Such resignation isn't automatic (as Lt. Watada found out), but it's an option. The enlisted member can't do that.(just look at the guys who decided they conscientious objections. They were told they were wrong, and either had to go, or desert. Some of them are still dealing with the aftermath of that. Some of them are fugitive in Canada, because they couldn’t walk away. They are living in Limbo, appealing for refugee status, and looking prison in the face if they don’t get it).
Deciding to roll the dice that one’s gov’t won’t start to pursue terrible policies is hard to do. It’s a lot harder now. When I joined the Army the idea that my job was going to be front and center in the national discussion wasn’t completely beyond the pale. The core subject of that discussion turned out not to be what I’d have figured it would be.
That torture is the topic doesn’t surprise me, per se. That the “debate” is about how much we should engaging in. Just which tortures we wanted to institutionalise... that croggles me. I never imagined that would be the case. We didn’t do that.
But that’s a minor blind spot. Lots of people who are happy with their service (or, perhaps haven’t had to bump against that problem) don’t see that this is a thing which might be a deal breaker for people who otherwise think some sort of giving back to the nation is important.
No, the real failure in his arguments is how he attempts to justify the use of force.
Thus, when dealing with a hard-core anti-war protestor who is against all use of force, I use the Socratic method and ask, "You oppose Iraq, right?" (yes) "You also support women's rights?" (also usually a massive yes) "But you support cultural independence in all cases?" (usually a yes) "So you oppose going in to Afghanistan and would prefer that all women there must live as they did under the Taliban?" (sometimes, not often, but sometimes that gets a "yes") ... we will progress along these lines until the person has renounced fighting against the Holocaust, or re-uniting the Union and ending slavery ... at which point I'll usually give up, but hope that the person I engaged has second thoughts now. Sometimes they do. In the process I also hope that they have come to a better understanding about the military in general, the uses of force by our democracy, and have in some small way closed the divide on that side.
That is just stupid. Boiled down his argument is, “Might Makes Right.” conjoined with the idea that somehow the American Way of Life™ is so special that exercising that Might is something we can do anytime we think some other country isn’t acting properly.
It’s dressed up with being against Hitler, and ending slavery, but if you look in the middle part you find the meat of it. "You also support women's rights?" (also usually a massive yes) "But you support cultural independence in all cases?" (usually a yes) "So you oppose going in to Afghanistan and would prefer that all women there must live as they did under the Taliban?".
Got that... how a minority group is treated is justification for aggressive war. Now, this means one of two things. There is an absolute value for how to treat people, and we have to spend our treasure, blood and reputation to do that, it’s “Bear any burden” territory.
Or it means that the Taliban is justified in using force to spread its beliefs.
The first is a problem in that following it pretty much requires we put our own house in order. We are far from that, and more to the point I don’t see his appeals to the rights of women in Afghanistan being extended to blacks, hispanics, immigrants and women here. If our blood and treasure are so worth spending abroad, we can’t really expect much of a reputation if we don’t pursue it here.
The second... well that’s a real problem. In the simplest of reasoning it fails. No one ever has casus belli. The only complaint about al Qaeda attacking us would be they weren’t a state; and that defeats the attack on Afghanistan to respond to it.
I am not a pure pacifist. I think renaming the War Dept. the Department of Defense is the right way to go. Response to aggressive war is the only truly legitimate use of national power. All others have some level of quandary. World War 2 is the touchstone people like to use because the things Hitler did, and the atrocities Japan committed are so easy to look back on and say, “They should have been stopped.”
Which is true. It doesn’t, however, mean, that we have right to use our might, which is the core of his argument. There are far better ways to make things better for oppressed groups... making the people who are in charge hate you... making them want to kill you isn’t likely to get the improved conditions for women (which, as I recall wasn’t the point to invading Afghanistan, and [as I recall] I don’t recall a whole lot of “liberals” opposed to the invasion. What they complained about was the piss-poor level of resolution, topped off with the idiocy of invading Iraq without a good case for it).
Let’s just say I have some problems with his positions. First, he seems to think pissing everyone off means he occupies some happy medium.
Of course, for my troubles I am periodically called a "neo-con warmonger Bush/Cheney apologist" by some, and a "liberal mouthpiece in the pay of George Soros" from others.
We see this a lot, the myth of the “justified middle”; the MSM likes to claim this is, “objectivity”. It fails to consider the possibility that one of the sides is actually right, and being in the middle is not only wrong, but pushing for it is damaging.
But that’s not what rises to the level of blithering nonsense. Part of it is tone. He puts all the burden for understanding the other side on, “the liberals”. The question is, what are all of you doing from the outside to remove that theoretical gap? Are you encouraging your liberal sons and daughters to pursue national service in the Armed Forces...or do you try to dissuade them?.
What an amazing piece of hubris. He says he complains about his service. He fails to address the problem of service. The military is an arm of policy. If the policy is justifiable then the honorable person has no problems. If the policy is horrible immoral, the honorable person has problems, but the problems are more of repercussion than decision. The edge cases are the real problem. What does one do when a policy leads to orders which are lawful in the pursuit of ends which seem iffy (I had this problem with Iraq... I still don’t know that I made the right call, but I can’t see how I could have made any other. As a pilot said of his experience in WW2, “It was a million dollar experience you wouldn’t pay a nickel to do again”)?
If one is an employee that’s not a big deal. Quitting may be hard, but it’s doable. Walking away from the Army isn’t quite so simple as leaving a civilian employer. The officer has it a little easier than an enlisted member. An officer has the privilege to resign his commission if he likes. Such resignation isn't automatic (as Lt. Watada found out), but it's an option. The enlisted member can't do that.(just look at the guys who decided they conscientious objections. They were told they were wrong, and either had to go, or desert. Some of them are still dealing with the aftermath of that. Some of them are fugitive in Canada, because they couldn’t walk away. They are living in Limbo, appealing for refugee status, and looking prison in the face if they don’t get it).
Deciding to roll the dice that one’s gov’t won’t start to pursue terrible policies is hard to do. It’s a lot harder now. When I joined the Army the idea that my job was going to be front and center in the national discussion wasn’t completely beyond the pale. The core subject of that discussion turned out not to be what I’d have figured it would be.
That torture is the topic doesn’t surprise me, per se. That the “debate” is about how much we should engaging in. Just which tortures we wanted to institutionalise... that croggles me. I never imagined that would be the case. We didn’t do that.
But that’s a minor blind spot. Lots of people who are happy with their service (or, perhaps haven’t had to bump against that problem) don’t see that this is a thing which might be a deal breaker for people who otherwise think some sort of giving back to the nation is important.
No, the real failure in his arguments is how he attempts to justify the use of force.
Thus, when dealing with a hard-core anti-war protestor who is against all use of force, I use the Socratic method and ask, "You oppose Iraq, right?" (yes) "You also support women's rights?" (also usually a massive yes) "But you support cultural independence in all cases?" (usually a yes) "So you oppose going in to Afghanistan and would prefer that all women there must live as they did under the Taliban?" (sometimes, not often, but sometimes that gets a "yes") ... we will progress along these lines until the person has renounced fighting against the Holocaust, or re-uniting the Union and ending slavery ... at which point I'll usually give up, but hope that the person I engaged has second thoughts now. Sometimes they do. In the process I also hope that they have come to a better understanding about the military in general, the uses of force by our democracy, and have in some small way closed the divide on that side.
That is just stupid. Boiled down his argument is, “Might Makes Right.” conjoined with the idea that somehow the American Way of Life™ is so special that exercising that Might is something we can do anytime we think some other country isn’t acting properly.
It’s dressed up with being against Hitler, and ending slavery, but if you look in the middle part you find the meat of it. "You also support women's rights?" (also usually a massive yes) "But you support cultural independence in all cases?" (usually a yes) "So you oppose going in to Afghanistan and would prefer that all women there must live as they did under the Taliban?".
Got that... how a minority group is treated is justification for aggressive war. Now, this means one of two things. There is an absolute value for how to treat people, and we have to spend our treasure, blood and reputation to do that, it’s “Bear any burden” territory.
Or it means that the Taliban is justified in using force to spread its beliefs.
The first is a problem in that following it pretty much requires we put our own house in order. We are far from that, and more to the point I don’t see his appeals to the rights of women in Afghanistan being extended to blacks, hispanics, immigrants and women here. If our blood and treasure are so worth spending abroad, we can’t really expect much of a reputation if we don’t pursue it here.
The second... well that’s a real problem. In the simplest of reasoning it fails. No one ever has casus belli. The only complaint about al Qaeda attacking us would be they weren’t a state; and that defeats the attack on Afghanistan to respond to it.
I am not a pure pacifist. I think renaming the War Dept. the Department of Defense is the right way to go. Response to aggressive war is the only truly legitimate use of national power. All others have some level of quandary. World War 2 is the touchstone people like to use because the things Hitler did, and the atrocities Japan committed are so easy to look back on and say, “They should have been stopped.”
Which is true. It doesn’t, however, mean, that we have right to use our might, which is the core of his argument. There are far better ways to make things better for oppressed groups... making the people who are in charge hate you... making them want to kill you isn’t likely to get the improved conditions for women (which, as I recall wasn’t the point to invading Afghanistan, and [as I recall] I don’t recall a whole lot of “liberals” opposed to the invasion. What they complained about was the piss-poor level of resolution, topped off with the idiocy of invading Iraq without a good case for it).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-25 03:26 am (UTC)This thread on Boing Boing reminded me of that (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/24/us-air-forces-metal.html)
no subject
Date: 2008-12-25 07:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-26 02:08 am (UTC)The purpose of the military is to apply force to political conflicts. "Force" usually (but not always) means "killing people." (Sometimes, threat of force is enough. Sometimes force means breaking buildings. Sometimes it means something else.)
Being in the military means being trained to kill people (not specifically civilians), even if that training is not put to that use. It means signing an agreement that says "I will kill people when ordered by anyone wearing the appropriate bit of shoulder-jewelry." It means trusting the judgment of the hierarchy, rather than your own moral sense, in deciding who lives & who dies.
If the hierarchy is honorable, is staffed with honorable people and sound laws and accountability, so that *someone* is held responsible for every wrongful death or immoral act done under orders, then that's reasonable. Many actions work better in groups, and fighting invaders, terrorists or guerrilla drug cartels is much easier to do if the individual soldiers don't try to stop & interrogate everyone they meet... if you can tell 'em "anyone wearing a uniform and a gun is presumed to be The Enemy; take 'em down," you're a lot more likely to shut down whatever organization you were trying to take out.
However, if the laws are full of loopholes, and the higher-ups are not willing to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, then it becomes a dishonorable organization. Not because the soldiers have no honor, but because they have pledged it in service to corruption.
I don't believe it's as corrupt as some of my friends do. I believe there's plenty of nobility and plain good sense active in the military. However, I do believe the corruption is inherent; it is built into the very structure, and cannot be "fixed."
no subject
Date: 2008-12-26 06:28 pm (UTC)We have a problem in the US military. We refer to Nuremberg, and say "I was jst following orders" isn't a defense. We tell the troops they are to refuse to obey unlawful orders; and they are liable if they fail to so refuse. Then we make it almost impossible to discern the lawful from the unlawful (and the present mess about torture, with the insane argument that, "they did it with the best of intentions" washes away culpability, isn't helping).
It's not the clear cut ones (like My Lai; though again, see exculpation) but the gray bits. Order a troop to kill every man, woman, child and infant in a place and he will know to refuse. Tell him, "we know everyone who isn't a combatant has left, the city is a free-fire zone," and things get iffy.
As to accountable for every wrongful death...? I don' think it can be done. "Collateral damage" is wrongful deaths. Given the scale of carnage in war I don't think we can resolve all of them. I do think the system to deal with it has to be better.
We don't say, "I will kill people whenever a higher up tells me to." I swore to defend the Constitution, and to obey lawful orders. Threading that needle is hard. Am I compelled to foment mutiny if I see the domestic enemies as those in place above me?
Is "voting with my feet" the right thing to do, that I might with more freedom try to turn them out?
It's hard, all around it' hard.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-26 08:17 pm (UTC)Sure it can.
Not as an individual accounting. We don't have the actual numbers involved, much less enough info to know who-did-what. But someone in the chain of command could step in and say, "the deaths in that battle were my responsibility--even the ones I didn't order and didn't want."
I would like military commanders--going up the chain, and stopping at the President--to be willing to say, "the civilians shot in the crossfire were my fault, and I'm sorry, and I will make damn sure we have better intelligence next time. It might not be enough to stop it from happening again, but we will spend resources to avoid this." I want them to say, "the nine-year-old who turns prostitute in order to eat, because her father was killed, is my fault too. We're getting relief dollars, food & medicine into the area as fast as we can. We can't save everyone, but we can minimize the harm we've done." Want them to say, "we will pay for the therapy of healing & reshaping the bodies and minds of our soldiers who have seen and done atrocities at our orders--we will not pretend that they came back whole and complete and ready for 9-5 day jobs like the commercials claimed."
You don't promise to kill anyone under orders. You do promise that, when one of those higher-up says, "those people are taking guns across that border--take them down"--you won't stop & argue about how he knows that, and why you should believe his sources, and whether "those people" are reluctant 14-year-olds who could be persuaded to find another line of work. You have to put your trust in his information, his judgment, or the whole military system collapses.
Then we make it almost impossible to discern the lawful from the unlawful (and the present mess about torture, with the insane argument that, "they did it with the best of intentions" washes away culpability, isn't helping).
Yep. I'm getting sick of the "mistakes were made" soundbites. And annoyed that the next step is usually "here's a mid-level scapegoat, who knew what was going on, directed some activities, and didn't stop it--but no, we're not going to take any action against the people who made the decisions."
Am I compelled to foment mutiny if I see the domestic enemies as those in place above me?
Is "voting with my feet" the right thing to do, that I might with more freedom try to turn them out?
I cannot tell you how happy I am that those aren't among my personal burdens. (Not that I'm happy you have to deal with them, either.) If I had anything resembling coherent answers for those, I might've considered the military. I deal well with *useful* hierarchies, enjoy knowing my job & being able to rely on the skills of the people around me, and am not bothered by crowds, isolation, or quick changes in situation. And I not a pacifist by most people's definitions. However, the ethics tangle of just the initial oaths were enough to give me nightmares.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-26 08:58 pm (UTC)The Marine commander who executed the plans in Fallujah makes no bones about what his units did. They are probably going into the battle honors of them.
Somehow I don't think that's what you mean.
As to the example about the people with guns... not quite. Let's take a case closer to home.
Imagine my unit gets called out for a riot, and the ROE say anyone seen with a weapon is a fair target. I can tell you I will modify those ROE for my troops. I will tell my troops to refuse an order to shoot anyone who isn't posing a clear and preset danger to others.
I will also do my damndest to protest those ROE up the chain. Because those orders aren't justifiable, even if they are somehow lawful.
In the situation you describe, I don't know what I'd do, because you don't give me any context. If it's today in Afhganistan, I probably do question it. If it's 63 years ago, and I'm a German in Ukraine, I probably don't. Different wars, different problems (and that's ignoring the question of the cause of the war. Partisans in Ukraine were, within the confines of how to prosecute the war, once started, legitimate targets).