Daily Blague

I think you meant your last sentence to say that
" they must be assured that the meaning of their sacrifices does NOT drop to zero if and when their leaders determine that the bravest course of action is to withdraw from fighting."

Thanks, Ozma! What an unbelievably blooper. It's fixed.

To the leaders---Presidents, dictators, Czars, Generals---wars are totally bound up in victory or defeat. Bush, the LIC, made it clear when he said we would prevail and spread our glorious good over the region. Just yesterday, in fact.

No one in the peace movement in the 60s blamed the troops--we blamed Johnson, and the students brought him down. We wanted the troops home to pursue their lives, not follow the French into the cesspool of Vietnam and then to die needlessly, if heroically and honorably. Another war fought against an enemy we were told could cause our downfall, but in truth for economic dominance over a region. (Anyone who wants insight into the time and the options available to Johnson should watch the compelling made for HBO movie, "The Path of War, which has an extraordinary performance of LBJ by Michael Gambon. He made me cringe -- he had LBJ down to perfection.)

But the lessons of Vietnam are wasted on this administration and thus young men and women will die for oil, to avenge Poppy, because of the lack of coherent intelligence, because because because.

I admire the men and women who fight our wars, who police our streets, who fight our fires. But I do loathe political systems which seem to have learnt nothing from the past.

Indeed, soldiers are not "at liberty to judge." I suppose today's soldiers have enlisted and are serving for "the defense of their homeland," but I think we've pretty well determined that this war isn't so much about defense. And withdrawal is an onerous alternative to remaining. Therefore, I feel sick at heart about their sacrifice, the extended tours of duty, and the low profile of their losses in spite of today's instant communications, pictures, and video. My father fought in WWII and would point out (as he does in his newly published "Taught to Kill," Potomac Books) that the armed forces don't care about individual lives. They do care about winning -- whatever that is -- overall. It was a sober moment when he realized that once deployed he was but tactical human ammunition -- and target. It was tricky staying alive while still doing one's duty. War is about one thing: killing. Chris Hedges writes clearly about this in "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning," a deceptive title in the end. RJ, you would have no more -- and no less -- in common with today's enlisted men and women than you do most of society, so knowing you, I would call the distinction moot. Take any number of classifictions of people, and you might be able to make the same claim. That's probably why you're having trouble expiating. I have very mixed feelings about those soldiers, young and many middle-aged men and women, 40% of whom are married and many of whom have children, risking their lives for dubious goals. Are we close in the modern world to this being an unacceptable level of sacrifice? My father is proud: to have survived. Even "the good war" wasn't good for the soliders, and he squirms in the spotlight of Tom Brokaw's reverence for The Greatest Generation, great though they may be. He's an old-fashioned, died-in-the-wool Republican, and cringed as we amassed troops in advance of "deciding" whether or not we'd invade. He knew. And he knew it is no longer, and never has been, an effective way to resolve conflict, "save lives" (which ones? better ones? more valuable ones?), or defend oneself or one's country. I know this has gotten beside the point, but I hope I may let these comments stand.

I have never been able to articulate my thoughts on this topic in a coherent fashion - but yesterday's events in London finally brought them clearly to my forebrain. Understand that I am a person who avoids watching or listening to violence on television, in the movies or in real life - it makes me nauseated, haunts my dreams and appears in flashbacks during the day.

Neverthless, my first (fantasy) reaction to the Underground bombings was that we should round up all the terrorists in the world and execute them immediately…no questions asked. More rationally, I fear that today's terrorists will ultimately only understand, and hence be defeated by, a campaign of death and destruction even more savage and relentless than their own. I am often reminded of the scene in the "Usual Suspects" when a character describes the efficacy of Keyser Soze's methods. He explains that Soze's vengeance extends not only to the traitor himself, but also to the traitor's wife, children,other family members, servants and animals. In fact, the traitor's entire community is laid waste.

This is an effective approach, but one completely inconsisent with civilised behavior. I believe that if people become involved with violent and inhumane activities, their instinctive reaction of horror begins to diminish, and if these acts are performed repeatedly, people will either become inured to them, or go mad. So, how to devise a civilised solution to an uncivilised problem? How to help disadvantaged peoples become masters of their own destiny (economically, politically, religiously, culturally etc.) when some of the same people actively desire the reverse and will kill/maim many of their own as well as outsiders (and die themselves) for a return to the old ways. At what point do we decide that the problem is so vast or so entrenched that the only answer is Keyser Soze's: to lay waste to the terrorists’ community and annihilate some group of people in vengeance for the death of other civilians who were merely conducting their normal lives? Should we ever make this decision after Hiroshima and Nagasaki- even if we don’t use nuclear weapons?

At least I can end this ramble by saying that I find some rays of hope in the news that certain Muslim groups have condemned the so-called Islamic group that took “credit” for the bombings.

You've got it Ozma, at what point to we make such an ominous decision?

The developed world no longer seems to have the will nor the taste for effective warfare, to kill and kill again with such ferocity and scope that the enemy no longer resists.

I think such reluctance to employ real warfare is good, it's not indicative of cowardice but just good sense. However, the increased general reluctance to really go to war has unfortunately given rise to a growing tendency to employ limited war like methods to achieve short term political goals with at best mixed results in some cases and just plain failure in most - think Bosnia, Haiti, Panama, Korea, Vietnam, and now, likely, Iraq.

Powell and Shinseki were apparently right, go in with overpowering destruction followed with more than enough troops and material to secure, truly secure, the area. The web is littered with discussions of this topic; one of the best appears in MilitaryWeek back in April of 2004. Bush, Rumsfeldt, Wolfowitz et al have chosen to ignore these suggestions and our troops are punished daily under the poor planning.

What's needed is so easy to state in a general way, multinational planning and assistance that serves rather than enslaves the underdeveloped world, particularly the resource rich underdeveloped world. Implementing this idea is very difficult because it goes against "centuries of economic self-interest" as PPOQ mentioned yesterday on Shards.

What we need are real leaders and real trade and development agreements that give everyone a stake in the global economy not leaders and policies that only promote an ever growing disparity between large segments of the global population.

There has to be not so much an accommodation of the disaffected as an integration and that will require some serious changes of values systems on all sides.