Its not about patriotism, its about intellectual honesty Posted by: McQ
on Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Let me make this abundently clear. What follows is not questioning of anyone's patriotism. Patriots are going to disagree.
Instead, I question one side's intellectual honesty on the issue of supporting the troops. What brought this to my attention were a pair of articles. One by Acel Moore of the Philadelphia Inquirer in which he ays:
It's not so much whether you are Republican or Democrat, nor whether you're liberal or conservative. And there's little disagreement that terrorism is a clear and present evil: Most Americans were on the same page on that score as of 9/11.
Nor is the divide over whether we should support our troops in Iraq. I know few people who do not support our people in uniform, who go into harm's way in our name.
The divide is between those who support the war and those who don't. And a growing majority of Americans have serious doubts about the efficacy of the war in Iraq and about whether we were told the truth about why we went there in the first place.
The side you take in this divide has nothing to do with your patriotism.
Got that last line? It has nothing to do with your patriotism. Good. Now that that's clear, I want to say it has everything to do with intellectual dishonesty. I still contend that one cannot support the troops but not the mission of the troops and be intellectually consistent. The troops and their mission are inseparable. And Dennis Prager provides an excellent example to make the point.
First he outlines the primary argument on the left:
But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."
Now I've heard every one of those arguments from parts of the left. Obviously not everyone on the left agrees, but a significant portion of the left use those arguments when they argue against the Iraqi intervention. "It's an immoral war for [pick your reason], but I support the troops". Just review our comments section for verification.
So we have an illegal and/or immoral war but we support our troops.
Really!?
Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."
OK, sure, Prager broke Godwin's law, but we'll forgive him that for the point his paragraph makes. The extreme example provides a perfect counterpoint to the "hate the illegal, immoral war, but support the troops" argument, unless, of course, you agree that you could actually do what he suggests. And to do so, you have to take two naturally contradictory positions at the same time.
The German army was the blunt instrument of Nazi policy. Our military, any military, is nothing more or less. It is how that policy gets done. So the troops are the means to an end, and their mission and its accomplishment is integral to who and what they are.
Prager goes into a second example:
A second example is the oft-repeated line, found on liberal bumper stickers, "War is not the answer." Aside from the idiocy of this claim—war has solved slavery, ended the Holocaust, destroyed Japanese Fascism, preserved half the Korean peninsula from near-genocide, and saved Israel from extinction, among other noble achievements—the claim offers no support to those who do engage in war.
An example of that (and Prager's first point) is found in the first article:
"I am against the war [in Iraq] and was from its beginning," says Braxton. "We were misled and lied to about why we went over there. I support our troops. I respect all of the men and women who serve, who meet their responsibility and follow their orders despite having doubts about why they are there.
"As a veteran of Vietnam," he says, "I know how the lack of support makes a soldier feel. When I came home, there were no greetings and no hero's welcome. People then were against the war - and against me as well."
That's why Braxton makes sure everyone knows he supports our soldiers in Iraq.
For all his heroism, Lazar holds a dim view of war in general. Like Braxton, he feels the American people were misled into the Iraq war.
"Nobody really wins in any war. War is just people who die, cry and lie," he said.
"Nobody really wins in any war". As Prager points out, that's simply not true. It's a nice line, but it ignores history. I certainly is helpful to justify and rationalize an anti-war stance, but it doesn't really mean anything since its premise is false.
Prager moves on to his last example:
A third example is the Left's opposition to military recruitment on most of the elite and many other college campuses. So deep is leftist disdain for troops that most on the Left regard the mere presence of military personnel on a university campus as a form of contamination. Yet, the Left claims to "support the troops."
Now its no secret that recruiters have been barred or booed from campuses, recruiting stations have been vandalized, and groups are out there telling those in the service how to desert, kill their officers or apply for consciencious objector status. So where does this come from? It comes from the left's old egalitarian argument, even with a volunteer military:
As I watched the Fourth of July celebrations and the raising of the American flag, my thoughts were on the war in Iraq and the inequality of sacrifice by Americans.
The casualties, to invert a phrase, do not look like America. It is the working class, the lower middle class, and rural America who disproportionately make up the military and have thus borne the burden, and it is those segments of society that are blacker and browner than America as a whole.
What makes the military less white, less prosperous? For many of those who joined, the military was the only opportunity available for them to get training or to go to college.
First of all, as Dale notes above, its just not true. And one of our commenters, JWG, destroys the rest of the myth in the comments section of the same post.
More imporantly, though, I find it insulting and demeaning to those who are serving in our military, especially knowing the caliber of the young men and women in the military today. The condescending attitude of "victimization" which many try to pin on our soldiers casts them as life's losers who only had the choice of military service to turn too in their bleak and unpromising future.
That is just not so. This is the most highly educated military we've ever had. Almost all who join are high school grads. And the military doesn't accept felons (despite the continuing stereotype of "the judge gave me a choice of the army or jail"). These young people are anything but the losers in life. In fact, if you spend any time at all with them you come away impressed with their intelligence, dedication, work ethic, humor, professionalism and patriotism. They are among the brightest and best we have.
Seek out and talk to a 20 year old PFC in the 75th Ranger Regiment sometime and tell me who's "life's loser".
But you'd never know that if you buy into the argument of Moore, above.
The long and short of it is I agree with Prager's assessement and conclusion. It's also an opportunity to again stress my first point about patriotism as well as the second about intellectual honesty:
An honest leftist would say: "Because I view this war as immoral, I cannot support our troops." What is not honest is their saying, "Support the troops—bring them home." Supporting people who wish to fight entails supporting their fight; and if that fight is opposed, those waging it are also opposed.
Many on the Left angrily accuse the Right of disparaging their patriotism. That charge, too, is false. I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals. But as regards their attitude toward our troops, the patriotism of those on the Left is not the issue. The issue is their honesty.
Presumably, McQ, you’d be against an invasion of North Korea, or Saudi Arabia. (at least, I hope you’d be opposed to such madness!) In such a circumstance, would you be willing to say "I don’t support our troops"?
I’m not sure I can agree with this premise. In this instance I’m not convinced of the usefulness of engaging in armed conflict with Iraq. I also have been in the Military. For the libertarian ideal which respects the individual, you seem to want to use a collectivist argument for this. That somehow the Military as a collective entity is one and the same as the individual soldier. All the other BS about who is is isn’t in the military aside, I’d have to say that just because the military is use as an instrument and that I can diasagree with the resons for the use of the intstument does not in any way shape or form mean that I cannot be supportive of the individuals who are putting their lives on the line and following the duty placed on them by the military they serve.
There were certainly things done by military policy that were done when I was enlisted (proudly, mind you) that I did not agree with. Yet I felt it my duty and responsibility to uphold the contract with the military that I had. I still do so to this day as a military contractor. But disagreement with how the military is used as a collective and willingness to support the need fot that institution and the needs and desires of the individual soldier are easily seperable.
I don’t think that is intelectual dishonesty at all. That is simply making a distinction between a collective entity and the individuals in that entity.
Now we sure can say on the individual level that I don’t support ALL soldiers. After all, I don’t support their commander in chief, but why should I be forced to hold that against the individual troops, especially those who may also disgree with the reasons for this war, but diligently uphold their end of the contract they have with our government anyway?
Maybe we should be discussing what you mean by the word "support" as opposed that what I might mean by that? ;)
Presumably, McQ, you’d be against an invasion of North Korea, or Saudi Arabia. (at least, I hope you’d be opposed to such madness!) In such a circumstance, would you be willing to say "I don’t support our troops"?
Yes.
Just as I didn’t support the war in Kosovo or the employment of our troops there.
I can’t, in good conscience, say "I support our troops but not their mission". They’re inextricably linked. Their mission IS the war.
That, of course, doesn’t mean I’m going to vandalize recruiting offices, spit on them or call them baby killers, encourage them to desert or kill their officers or any a number of things, and will I mourn if they’re killed.
Presumably, McQ, you’d be against an invasion of North Korea, or Saudi Arabia. (at least, I hope you’d be opposed to such madness!) In such a circumstance, would you be willing to say "I don’t support our troops"?
I’d say as a former Army officer that I’d support their winning that conflict even if I didn’t agree that we should be doing it the first place. Defeat has many costs, all bad.
I can’t, in good conscience, say "I support our troops but not their mission". They’re inextricably linked. Their mission IS the war.
I think Lenny and Mark have the right tack on this. There’s a difference between "not supporting the mission" and "hoping they lose". If you disagree with Mission X (Kosovo, Iraq, etc), you can still support our troops in the sense that you hope they win/are successful in whatever it is they are doing. Hoping they succeed does not imply that you think they ought to have been sent there, and opposing the war does not imply that you hope they lose.
Now, hoping our troops actually lose is certainly not "supporting the troops", but that’s very different than "opposing the war".
I think it’s exceedingly incorrect to conflate the two.
So what you’re saying, Jon, is that the statement below, which Prager used as an exampe, is perfectly agreeable to you and the others as something you and they feel is intellectually honest:
"The Nazi regime’s army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."
You see no conflicts there?
You see no links the policy and the instrument of the policy, the war and the warrior?
How does it get executed then?
If you truly find the war to be immoral and unjust but you want our troops to win, which of those ideas do you really not believe in?
Because honestly, unless you are giving lip service to one or the other, I don’t see how you can reconcile them.
But, you see Lenny, "Where do you draw the line" is the question. OK to support the war, but send your kid to Canada to avoid the draft? To college? Get him a nice sinecure in the Pentagon? Take money to write pro-aq articles? It isn’t simple and it never has been, but the rule cannot be and has never been that each citizen decides. Our COLLECTIVE SECURITY demands that we band together under a leader and we will survive only if we do so. Labeling the dissenters the patriots and the supporters the traitors won’t work, you see. We are lucky that we can afford the luxury of having loud dissenting voices. We hold ELECTIONS so that the dissenters can become the patriots. Need I point out that we held one. So be a dissenter if you want to, but don’t try to destroy the system by claiming patriotism as well. The patriots are those who swallow their disagreement between elections and support our government AND the troops. The dissenters can choose between being the respectful opposition and traitors. It really is that simple (except for figuring out the limits for the respectful opposition - that is what we are arguing about here).
A third example is the Left’s opposition to military recruitment on most of the elite and many other college campuses. So deep is leftist disdain for troops that most on the Left regard the mere presence of military personnel on a university campus as a form of contamination. Yet, the Left claims to "support the troops."
Very interesting. The very same left that demeans the military for recruiting the poor, people from bad neighborhoods, and the people who "never had a chance to go to college" is now trying to restrict the military from recruiting the people that go to college? Wouldn’t those people, on average, be much less poor and downtrodden than the people they claim the military is "exploiting" with recruitment?
Does anyone else see the disconnect here?
It seems to me that they’re trying to stop the military from recruiting anybody does it not?
Again, I think you’re conflating positions here, McQ. A lot of the people who view the war as "immoral" don’t actually view the other side as "moral". They just think that initiating such a war is immoral, that it is immoral to put civilians in such harm, or that it is immoral to go to war based on (lies/oil/etc).
That doesn’t mean they also hope we lose.
If we were to invade North Korea, then (based on current info) I’d believe that to be a very, very bad policy choice. But I’d also hope our troops won.
If President Clinton had, indeed, launched an attack to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal (which I don’t believe, but bear with me), then I’d believe that to be an immoral justification for war....but I wouldn’t be pulling for our fighters to be shot out of the sky.
Ridiculous hyperpartisan rhetoric aside (Bithead, I’m looking at you), the Left (in general) wants our troops to win, and they support our troops in what they have to do. They just think that our troops should not have been put in such a position.
Maybe I’m over-analyzing it, but maybe I think you are over-simplifying it.
"The Nazi regime’s army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."
Ok, let’s take a look at this. Do you think that every German troop in WWII should have been tried before the War Crimes Tribunal?
They weren’t and I agree. The vast majority of those troops had nothing to do, directly, with the atrocities commited by the Nazi regime. Most of them were soldiers carrying out the duties expected of a soldier in a time of war.
Now those troops that were involved in the atrocities commited in places like concentration camps absolutely should have been tried for their crimes. The same as any soldier in our own armed forces who commit atrocities should be answerable for their crimes. I definitely don’t support those guys. But I recognize they are individuals who must make decisions about the legality of what they may have been asked to do. I don’t know about you, but when I was in the military I was mad aware many, many times of the fact that it was the solemn duty of every soldier to only follow lawful orders. And we were often made aware of what the Geneva Conventions spelled out as being the lawfulness of our orders.
War crimes are war crimes. Disagreeing with the reasons for going to war, however, does not make the war itself a war crime. War is war and those soldiers in Iraq are only following lawful orders. I support them in doing their duty and winning their mission and will never spit on those kinds of soldiers and will be happy to hail them as heros. I don’t support the government’s reasons for entering this war, however. I still fail to see the disconnect there.
Disagreeing with the reasons for going to war, however, does not make the war itself a war crime. War is war and those soldiers in Iraq are only following lawful orders. I support them in doing their duty and winning their mission and will never spit on those kinds of soldiers and will be happy to hail them as heros. I don’t support the government’s reasons for entering this war, however.
Sounds like loyal opposition to me. And a patriot. I don’t see any disconnect either.
Actually I didn’t pull up the term patriotism at all. I do see a lot of this as simply where we draw the line. I never made an argument at all about labeling anyone, dissenters or not, as "patriots". So I’m sorry to say I’m not sure of the relevance of that. I’m only arguing the intellectual honesty or dishonesty of having a position that claims support for the troops, but not for the policy that may send them into a particular conflict.
Again, I think you’re conflating positions here, McQ. A lot of the people who view the war as "immoral" don’t actually view the other side as "moral". They just think that initiating such a war is immoral, that it is immoral to put civilians in such harm, or that it is immoral to go to war based on (lies/oil/etc).
The other side is really not relevant to my point.
There are only two answers here. You either consider it a moral or just war or an immmoral or unjust war, for whatever reasons.
That doesn’t mean they also hope we lose.
Never said it did. What I’m pointing out is declaring non-support for an "immoral war" but hoping our troops win are naturally contradictory postions. And that takes us back to Prager’s example.
If we were to invade North Korea, then (based on current info) I’d believe that to be a very, very bad policy choice. But I’d also hope our troops won.
You’d hope our troops won why? That’s the crux. I suspect its because defeat would mean an immense loss of life for our soldiers and no one wants to see that (and that speaks to the patriotic aspect of this argument).
But that’s not the point here.
If you hope our troops won, well, because they’re there, then you have no real problem with the implementation of the policy choice. The results of their victory, then, are acceptable to you. That speaks quite strongly against any "immorality" argument as a basis for opposition.
If President Clinton had, indeed, launched an attack to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal (which I don’t believe, but bear with me), then I’d believe that to be an immoral justification for war....but I wouldn’t be pulling for our fighters to be shot out of the sky.
I certainly would.
Ridiculous hyperpartisan rhetoric aside (Bithead, I’m looking at you), the Left (in general) wants our troops to win, and they support our troops in what they have to do. They just think that our troops should not have been put in such a position.
Fine. But that speaks to an acceptance of the mission, Jon. "Hey, I wasn’t for it, but since they’re there, let’s win." That’s not the crew I’m talking about.
I’m talking about those who declare and maintain the war as immoral (for whatever reason) but also claim support for the troops.
That’s not inconsistent.
It is indeed inconsistent. Either they want them to accomplish the mission (win the "immoral war") or they don’t. If they do then they really have no honest (note the word) objection to the morality of the war as they’ve declared they want to see the instrument of the policy they’ve condemned as immoral to triumph.
Tell me how that’s different than Prager’s point?
So which should I discount when I hear it? The "I don’t support this immoral war" or the "but I support our troops?"
Disagreeing with the reasons for going to war, however, does not make the war itself a war crime.
They only one even hinting that’s the case is you.
The fact is that there is a portion of the population out there who have DECLARED the war to be immoral. Not me, them. They are also trying to have it both ways by declaring the war immoral but by professing the support for the instrument of achieving victory in that war.
I have to doubt they’re serious about either the war being immoral or the their support of the troops, because frankly you can’t hold one of those positions if you believe in the other.
War is war and those soldiers in Iraq are only following lawful orders. I support them in doing their duty and winning their mission and will never spit on those kinds of soldiers and will be happy to hail them as heros. I don’t support the government’s reasons for entering this war, however. I still fail to see the disconnect there.
That’s because you are missing the "morality component". You may not see the war as immoral.
You may have just disagreed, and then said, "OK, I had my say, now that the decision is made, let’s win this thing".
This is about those declaring the US involvement immoral (for whatever reason), not those who just disagreed for whatever reason having nothing to do necessarily with morality and were willing to live with the result of the democratic process.
Let me ask you, when you see something as immoral, do you support those committing the immoral act?
If a gang is stealing an old lady’s purse, do you declare "theft is immoral, but I support the gang?"
What I’m driving at here is those are two naturally contradictory positions. I can’t reconcile them personally. How do you do so?
I think that there is a problem that McQ’s comment brings to mind:
Is a war immoral for its objective, or for its methods? Of course, in a few cases, it may be immoral in both areas, but I think that there are relatively few wars whose objectives are immoral.
(Interestingly, Davidowicz characterized the Holocaust as "The War Against the Jews," and that would therefore make it one of the few wars whose fundamental aims was immoral.)
If we argue, then, that there are policy differences, but not morality differences, in terms of war-as-policy, then one finds it possible to accept the characterization: I disagree w/ the war (as policy) but support the troops.
In the German case, one could argue that one might oppose German war aims (bad policy, excessive aims, bound to lose) yet support German soldaten. This would, in fact, probably be the case of many Germans in the case of World War I (including the Socialists, who opposed the war initially).
The point here is that there are relatively few immoral wars. It is easy to claim, for example, that offensive wars are immoral, yet France launched its invasion of Germany in Plan XVII at the very outset of war. Did this make the French as immoral as the Germans?
Was Israel truly immoral for firing the first shot in June 1967?
It becomes much more difficult, however, to argue that one supports a war fought by immoral means (say, replete w/ beheadings, rape, and torture) yet supports the troops, b/c those immoral methods are (for the most part) being executed by the soldiers themselves.
In that case, one cannot say that one opposes the German war against the Jews yet support the Einsatzgruppen. Because the very methods are themselves abhorrent.
Ah, I see where you are trying to come from now. Not that there is a problem with those who say the disagree with the war, but support the troops, on that there is a problem with those who would declare the war itself immoral and/or illegal and say that they support the troops. That clarifies the premise of the position for me. Gotcha.
So, under the premise that the war itself is truly immoral and/or unlawful, then you’re right. In that case I don’t see supporting troops that would carry out otherwise apparently unlawful orders. In most situations I just don’t seem to see those lines very clearly drawn that way. Like in this case you are quite right, I disagree with the reasons for entering into this war, but I would not go so far as to call it outright immoral or illegal.
Of course I’d also go with Lurking Observer in better clarifying the stance of morality as to whether it as for the premise of the war as opposed to the methods of the war.
(Sorry to bring stuff up like this, it’s just in the past couple of blog posts I’ve commented on the fully defined premise hasn’t seemed as clear cut as how you eventually made it. Fully understanding your premise is what helps me to better understand your position, or at least why you so vehemently stand in some particular way on a position.)
In the German case, one could argue that one might oppose German war aims (bad policy, excessive aims, bound to lose) yet support German soldaten. This would, in fact, probably be the case of many Germans in the case of World War I (including the Socialists, who opposed the war initially).
Were they supporting the soldiers or their soldier?
Big difference there. Most were supporting their soldier.
The point here is that there are relatively few immoral wars.
Obviously that depends on your morality and your point of view. Tell that to a Quaker.
Of course I’d also go with Lurking Observer in better clarifying the stance of morality as to whether it as for the premise of the war as opposed to the methods of the war.
We can do that if you wish, but what I was trying to bring to the fore is the natural contradiction of the two positions if morality (or in this case, immorality) is part of the objection.
Obviously I can’t classify every moral objection, and I’m not sure if there’s a huge differentiation between moral opposition to the war or how the war is being waged. In both cases, the troops are the instrument. If it has to do with method, then it seems rather difficult, once again, to support those using whatever methods you find immoral.
(Sorry to bring stuff up like this, it’s just in the past couple of blog posts I’ve commented on the fully defined premise hasn’t seemed as clear cut as how you eventually made it. Fully understanding your premise is what helps me to better understand your position, or at least why you so vehemently stand in some particular way on a position.)
That’s why we have a comment section Lenny and why I try to respond to legitimate questions and comments. Yours have been excellent and I appreciate that. The lack of clarity may be because I have a tendency, due to lack of time in some instances, to dash something off and get it up there and then, at later times in the day, go back and do a bit of editing and clarifying.
In this case, though, I thought it was pretty clear:
First he outlines the primary arument on the left:
But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left’s message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left’s generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."
Now I’ve heard every one of those arguments from parts of the left. Obviously not everyone on the left agrees, but a significant portion of the left uses those arguments when they argue against the Iraqi intervention. Just review our comments section for verification.
So we have an illegal and immoral war but we support our troops. Really?
Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime’s army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."
OK, sure, Prager broke Godwin’s law, but we’ll forgive him that for the point his paragraph makes. The extreme example provides a perfect counterpoint to the "hate the illegal, immoral war, but support the troops" argument, unless, of course, you agree that you could actually do what he suggests.
"Immoral" war is mentioned prominantly 3 times in those passages. We’ve fleshed it out here, but that was certainly the premise under which I understood Prager to be operating, and so was I.
Yes, but McQ, I think the problem is the following:
The Left is arguing that policy differences (I think this war is a bad idea) equates with immorality (therefore this war is WRONG).
And few people, outside the Left (genuine pacifists, e.g., Quakers are probably one of the few), would agree w/ that stance.
Thus, Jon Henke can say, "I disagree w/ invading North Korea" w/o promptly leaping to the conclusion "and therefore it is an immoral war."
As we saw in previous threads, the Left does not, in fact, take all wars, even all aggressive wars, as immoral. There are those who supported going to war in Kosovo, frex, despite the absence of a larger threat, no UN support, and the fact that it posed no threat to any neighboring country (certainly no member of NATO). Kosovo, of course, had also long been a part of Serbia.
It would be hard to argue that Milosevic’s actions were more in violation of international law (including UNSC Resolutions of the CH VII variety) than Saddam. Yet the Kosovo war was rarely considered immoral, and Iraq always is, by this ilk.
For the remaining folks, then, who oppose the war w/o resorting to "immoral" arguments, the morality issue is more often in methods than in aims.
Well, McQ, we all tend to start with some preconcieved notions that color our view of the world and what, and how, we read these things. Hence, while you did point out several places where immorality was fully mentioned, the beginning of the piece was a bit softer on that and, frankly, what is or is not being defined as "immoral" on the left can be pretty debatable in and of itself. Sometimes the word is just tossed out as an emotional attention grabber rather than an accurate representation of factual opinion, i.e. those using the term sometimes don’t think through the full implications of what the term means instead of using it to garner an emtional response. And hence my not reading it the way you obviously intended. I guess I just have a hard time seeing absolutes. :) (And I’m a computer geek, go figure. Easy to see absolutes in the digital world, but the human world never seems that clear cut for me.)
Yes, but McQ, I think the problem is the following:
The Left is arguing that policy differences (I think this war is a bad idea) equates with immorality (therefore this war is WRONG).
That’s their problem, LO. What I’m pointing out is if the basis of opposition is "immorality" (however they define it and however they arrive there) the follow on "but I support the troops" is naturally contradictory.
And few people, outside the Left (genuine pacifists, e.g., Quakers are probably one of the few), would agree w/ that stance.
Thus, Jon Henke can say, "I disagree w/ invading North Korea" w/o promptly leaping to the conclusion "and therefore it is an immoral war."
Agreed ... that’s not, however, the point of this discussion. If you say "I’m against it because I think we ought to spend more time on diplomacy", then you’re not arguing morality. You’re arguing process. What would naturally come from that would be "ok, the discussion has been had and the decision made, let’s go get ’em". Then you could still say "I think the war is a mistake, but I support the troops".
But if you call the war immoral (or evil, or illegal, etc.) how do you make the same argument with any credibility?
As we saw in previous threads, the Left does not, in fact, take all wars, even all aggressive wars, as immoral.
But I’m not addressing all the left. I’m addressing that portion of the left which calls the war "immoral" but then wants to claim support for the instrument of that which they call immoral.
It would be hard to argue that Milosevic’s actions were more in violation of international law (including UNSC Resolutions of the CH VII variety) than Saddam. Yet the Kosovo war was rarely considered immoral, and Iraq always is, by this ilk.
As I saw it, the "war" in Kosovo was illegal, and thus I didn’t support it (not to mention the fact that it had nothing to do with us ... it was a European problem).
For the remaining folks, then, who oppose the war w/o resorting to "immoral" arguments, the morality issue is more often in methods than in aims.
Understood, but again, how do you support the instrument of the methods with which you object?
Sometimes the word is just tossed out as an emotional attention grabber rather than an accurate representation of factual opinion, i.e. those using the term sometimes don’t think through the full implications of what the term means instead of using it to garner an emtional response.
Heh ... well, here’s a logical way to make that point, Lenny.
"Do you really mean this war is immoral or not, because here is the implication of that belief as it pertains to the support of the troops you also profess?"
Lenny hit it right on the head. I don’t think these people really mean "immoral," other than as a club to hit the listener over the head.
And your response, McQ, I think is correct. "Do you understand the implications of your charge?"
I think that, at that point, some percentage of folks will back off the "immoral" charge. I think that some will try to claim that the war IS immoral, but for various reasons, they "support" the troops. I think, scarily, some will take the point to heart, and conclude that they don’t support the troops.
This latter is seen from sites like this. Now, maybe they’re not serious. But, logically, that is where the folks who really believe the war is "immoral" wind up, for all the reasons you suggest.
Of course, that also means one is questioning their patriotism. Mustn’t do that!
Obviously that depends on your morality and your point of view. Tell that to a Quaker.
Perhaps this is simply urban legend, but didn’t at least some Quakers become Navy Corpsmen in WWII and accompany the Marines on various amphibious assaults in the Pacific AO? From what I remember being told, those guys had a higher casualty rate than the Marines themselves. (No surprise, really.)
Is a war fought as an aggressor to wipe-out the local population and loot their property an immoral war?
If so then you must believe America is concieved from original sin and needs to give the Indians their land back. So go down to your local casino and give them the deeds to your house, if you do not do this you are a hypocrite.
An example of why winning is so much more important than morality.
Perhaps this is simply urban legend, but didn’t at least some Quakers become Navy Corpsmen in WWII and accompany the Marines on various amphibious assaults in the Pacific AO? From what I remember being told, those guys had a higher casualty rate than the Marines themselves.
Absolutely true. In fact, a Quaker almost gets an automatic CO if drafted. But many of them volunteered to be medics and served heroically. None would touch a weapon though, even to defend themselves.
Is a war fought as an aggressor to wipe-out the local population and loot their property an immoral war?
If so then you must believe America is concieved from original sin and needs to give the Indians their land back. So go down to your local casino and give them the deeds to your house, if you do not do this you are a hypocrite.
Really? Me thinks you need to do a little studying about how all that occurred. Start with Allan Eckert’s series, then read Alexander Thom. You seem, on the surface, to perhaps have suffered a little too much of the public school’s (or Wade Churchill’s) pc version of "American history."
But many of them volunteered to be medics and served heroically. None would touch a weapon though, even to defend themselves.
Even so, they were aiding a war that their faith would tag as immoral, did they not?
[Hey, in my mind there’s few things more heroic than a good battlefield medic. Those that go in with the assault waves especially so. I’m busy needling McQ here, not those Quakers. :-) ]
I believe that settlers arrived and proceeded to move westward and eventually took over 98% of the country. I also believe that military force, superior numbers and firepower had something significant to do with that expansion. I belive that the 2% of the country ruled by Indian law is not all they could desire it to be.
Geez mcQ. I know you have broad shoulders, but are you really moved to defend Manifest Destiny? I can hardly cope with this election cycle, much less take a position on Typhoid Mary, the Lusitania and the brown bag contoversy. Ms. Unhappy Clothespins has issues about native American stuff. I guess we took Iraq like the settlers took the Indian lands, but I don’t see how focusing on that aspect is going to help anyone except those who are excited about increasing the taxes on casinos. Ms. UC should either get with America today or find a left wing online magazine that specializes in liberal guilt. IMHO
What I’m pointing out is declaring non-support for an "immoral war" but hoping our troops win are naturally contradictory postions.
Ok, I think I see your point here. We need to be careful to parse out various forms of "immoral", though. Theoretically, I could believe that the way we got into the war was immoral, that it’s immoral to invade another country without imminent casus belli, or that it’s immoral to act without international approval. I could believe that the war was immoral at that level, without believing our troops were acting immorally, and without "not supporting" the troops.
What I could not do is simultaneously believe that our troops were acting immorally and still "support the troops".
If President Clinton had, indeed, launched an attack to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal (which I don’t believe, but bear with me), then I’d believe that to be an immoral justification for war....but I wouldn’t be pulling for our fighters to be shot out of the sky.
I certainly would.
Really? You’d rather see a US plane shot down than see a questionable Sudanese aspirin factory attacked because the timing might help a political cause? (again, I’m in the realm of the hypothetical)
It is indeed inconsistent. Either they want them to accomplish the mission (win the "immoral war") or they don’t. If they do then they really have no honest (note the word) objection to the morality of the war as they’ve declared they want to see the instrument of the policy they’ve condemned as immoral to triumph.
I think there are more versions of "immoral" than simply "what the troops are currently doing is, itself, immoral". Clearly, those who think what the troops are doing is immoral cannot—should not—be said to be supporting the troops. That, I think, is fair.
Ok, I think I see your point here. We need to be careful to parse out various forms of "immoral", though.
I’m not the one using the word "immoral" Jon. It’s up to those using it to think that through, not me.
Really? You’d rather see a US plane shot down than see a questionable Sudanese aspirin factory attacked because the timing might help a political cause? (again, I’m in the realm of the hypothetical)
OK, I completely misread that one. I thought you’d written "I wouldn’t be for pulling our fighters from the sky". Completely missed the "shooting down part". My bad.
No, I would be for that (shooting them down), but I’d certainly be for pulling them from the sky and off the battlefield.
I think there are more versions of "immoral" than simply "what the troops are currently doing is, itself, immoral". Clearly, those who think what the troops are doing is immoral cannot—should not—be said to be supporting the troops. That, I think, is fair.
I disagree. I broaden that to any argument of "immorality" about the war since the position requires two naturally contradictory positions if you want to also "support the troops".
I disagree. I broaden that to any argument of "immorality" about the war since the position requires two naturally contradictory positions if you want to also "support the troops".
Well, somebody could believe the war was "immoral, because it was initiated to get oil!", but still believe that since we’re over there and in charge, we ought to do the right thing and provide security, too.
Essentially, they could believe that the motives and principles of the architects of the war are immoral, while still believing that the actions of the troops are not immoral...or that there are "not-immoral" things occurring parallel to the immoral components of the war.
We’re just speculating here, though. What we need is a real, live "immoral war!" proponent. Where’s MKUltra when you actually need him?
I am missing my point aren’t I? - probably stems from me believing strongly in relative morality, I just cannot make moral arguement.
About the Indian Wars - you do not, but some people think that the conquest of America was a war of agression and hence immoral. These same people (the very liberal) are not giving the land back, partly because there is no one to give it back to, partly because they are not that stupid.
At the time of the wars there were some groups portraying the wars as immoral. They failed to convince the vast majority of Americans because the wars were being won. Plentiful benefits were flowing from the victories, the wars were popular. Victory - popular; immorality - irrelevant.
It is vitally important to be victorious in war. No war has yet been won or lost based on it’s morality. The moral question only becomes important as a secondary morale issue, if a war stagnates or goes badly then morale will suffer - "immorality of war" can be used to kick morale down a little bit more.
Well, somebody could believe the war was "immoral, because it was initiated to get oil!", but still believe that since we’re over there and in charge, we ought to do the right thing and provide security, too.
Then they don’t really believe it’s immoral. They may disagree about the reason. They may think we shouldn’t be there. But they really don’t believe it to be immoral.
That’s the point, unless you find it intellectually consistent to hold something as immoral and yet support the instrument of achieving that to which you subscribe "immorality". It’s an intellectually contradictory position.
Essentially, they could believe that the motives and principles of the architects of the war are immoral, while still believing that the actions of the troops are not immoral...or that there are "not-immoral" things occurring parallel to the immoral components of the war.
Well, you may be able to do such intellectual gymnastics, but I find it hard to believe that I would support anything about something I deemed immoral for whatever reason.
I am missing my point aren’t I? - probably stems from me believing strongly in relative morality, I just cannot make moral arguement.
About the Indian Wars - you do not, but some people think that the conquest of America was a war of agression and hence immoral. These same people (the very liberal) are not giving the land back, partly because there is no one to give it back to, partly because they are not that stupid.
Got it ... see where you’re headed with it now.
And yes, in the case of war, the morality is relative based on core beliefs. In some cases, though, it’s a politically motivated "morality" which some deem to be "selective morality". Frankly that’s what I see with most of the anti-war types who find this particular war to be "immoral". So the point here is to call their rhetorical hand.
If it is really immoral in their eyes, how do they then expect us to believe they can hold the contradictory position of supporting the instrument of achieving the ends of that "immoral war?"
If it is really immoral in their eyes, how do they then expect us to believe they can hold the contradictory position of supporting the instrument of achieving the ends of that "immoral war?"
They can save the morals of the troops by stopping them from committing immoral acts. Hate the sin and not the sinner, believe that salvation can occur.
Well, UC, like someone else said, that sort of line is about as believable to most (and especially the troops) as the evangelical line of hating the act of homosexuals but loving the homosexual.
And yet it is an appealing meme. I imagine reaching past someones sinful exterior to rescue their soul provides a nobility of purpose to an adherent. There are a lot of adherents to this meme.
It’s not the "salvation meme" as you call it, its about whether, in a moral sense, two naturally conflicting positions are intellectually reconcilable: the war is immoral, but I love the warrior—homosexuality is immoral, but I love homosexuals.
I’m saying if you’re intellectually honest, you will find them irreconcilable. Thus their use, in either form, is intellectually dishonest.
I’m saying if you’re intellectually honest, you will find them irreconcilable. Thus their use, in either form, is intellectually dishonest.
As a Christian, I’m not buying this argument. It seems to me that Jesus did not have a problem disapproving of the sin but loving the sinner. Is your argument more subtle than this, or are you trying to argue that even Jesus is intellectually dishonest?
