SM Profilee – Lt (now Captain) Neil Prakash is now a radio star. Sort of. PunditReview has a recording of a tribute to Neil carried on talk radio detailing the actions which earned him a Silver Star in Iraq. A few excerpts of which are quoted –
One thing you’ve gotta know about Neil – he runs to the sound of gunfire…. There were hundreds of men firing at his small platoon of 4 tanks… They tried to approach the tank and drop hand grenades into the hatches..The battle raged on for about an hour… all in all, Lt Neil Prakash’s platoon were hit by 23 IED’s and over 20 RPG’s. Prakash’s tank alone … took 4-8 direct RPG’s. Neil personally killed 8 machine gun and RPG teams and the platoon had 25 confirmed kills with an estimated 60 additional insurgents
For his valor on Jun 24, 1st LT Neil Prakash was awarded the Silver Star…. He was also later awarded a Bronze Star [for a different engagement]”
Now some will sneer about the Americanized pronounciation of brother Neil’s name – “Neil Prack-ish”. Others about the patriotic/romantic music in the background while his tribute is read. And still others will sneer about Neil’s engagement overall in the business of the Iraq war. Not me.
But hopefully, regardless of how you feel, we can take a moment to commend an individual who’s risked far more for an abstract cause than many of us who sit comfortably in our air-conditioned offices.
Neil was first covered in Sepia Mutiny’s youth back in November 2004 and that initial coverage was, in part, responsible for leading Neil to join the ranks of milbloggers. Neil recorded his exploits in a wonderful narrative style on his own blog – Armor Geddon – and a few posts have been expanded into a recently published compendium book written by milbloggers – The Blog of War.
Bravo.
Previous SM Coverage of Neil’s Silver Star. Neil’s blog entry on the eve of his foray into Fallujah.
The right has become a parody of itself
And irrational extremists like you have become a millstone around the neck of democrats.
Ennis – Amreicans were harmed. No?
Some of the things that are happening in American foreign policy today are straight out of the movies; my thinking was that it is the movies that helps make this acceptable.
Ah yes – the power of entertainment to influence. I mean, after Roots came out – all of America’s racial problems were solved. When Schindler’s List hit the big screen – there was never any genocide ever again.
Of course if it were straight out of the movies – we would find that the true cause of all this global instability is a band of well-heeled neo-Nazis.
Every culture has portrayed heroic warriors and noble wars in their epics… from the Mahabharata to the Trojan War. One can argue till the end of time about the merits of those (real or fictional) wars too. But the heroic soldiers who fought have been remembered irrespective of the history of the conflict. Erwin Rommel was admired as a master war tactician by his Allied adversaries as much as he was by his own German troops. If it makes you feel any better, two Americans have also acted in “Valley of the Wolves” a very anti-US Iraq war film that has been shown in movie festivals in the US.
Gautham:
“You can’t separate the military from the soldiers; they choose to join.”
I don’t think it’s this black and white, sometimes that choice is not really much of a choice at all. It’s well known that certain areas are targetted for military recruitment much stronger than others, and done so in very unscrupulous ways. Yes, a draft doesn’t exist, and it’s a voluntary army, but more often than not it’s people living in impoverished areas signing up to pay for school, or simply because they have nothing else to do.
It cannot be categorically stated that each and every soldier agrees 100% with the decisions their government makes.
But I do agree that having the kneejerk “support the troops” response isn’t without problems for someone who doesn’t agree with the current US military action. Most of the time, it’s something we must say in order to defend ourselves against being labelled “unpatriotic.”
Gautham – By your [deeply flawed, imo] logic, all of India should be one big happy family, where the young sing and dance aroud trees.
And irrational extremists like you have become a millstone around the neck of democrats.
Sue me for not lionizing the US military. I am sure the US military has brave troops just as the Indian, Israeli, Iranian armies have brave troops who would perform heroically in a battlefield. Romanticizing the soldiers when they are in the middle of a war against a country which did not present an imminent threat is in bad taste. Cheering on their war exploits and gleefully narrating their mowing down of the other side does nothing for me. I donÂ’t get wargasms when I hear stories about the killing efficiency of fellow desi US soldiers. If that makes me an extremist, so be it.
Shitting on troops who’re fighting an unpopular war isn’t constructive. No one is every going to agree whether to admire troops or not. Or to look upon them neutrally at least.
War, as much as any of us would like to have it ‘sanitized’ or go away because it may fit our sensibilities, won’t. Heck, there were groups of people opposed to war even after the US joined the fight in WWII. One of the Iwo Jima flag raisers (the second raising) mother/family was from a religious background that opposed war on any account. She wasn’t too happy when her son joined the Marines with rest of his high school buddies.
This is where I believe you and those who make this argument are making this too simplistic. Many who fought from 2001-2003/4 joined a peace time military. These wars were not their choice. If you are gravitating to the idea that the very fact they decided to join up and ultimately fight is a reprehensible act, well, you’re entitled to an opinion. However, once you’ve decided to join, you sign on and submit yourself to an order. The order/chain of command exists because that is how effective fighting forces have worked since the beginning of conflict/human civilization. If individual choice and a ‘democratic’ setup was used, you’d see your own guys get slaughtered by the dozens even if the chose to fight. Military does what they’re told to do because it is understood that they can’t hold public opinion or a tool as vital and dangerous as the military hostage with their own opinions. A minority of the population with such power is dangerous in itself. When troops start picking and choosing it sets a very, very, very dangerous precedent. Civilian control of when and where to fight is absolutely necessary. So is personnel in uniform following the decisions of said civilian personnel responsible for the republic.
If troops started to revolt everytime they felt a war was ‘unpopular’, ‘immoral’,’unecessary’, there would only be chaos. It just can’t work that way.
As the drumbeat for an invasion of Iran gets louder it is high time that we pull back from the ‘I heart soldiers’ platitudes and seriously consider the consequences of the coming war for the Iranian people and the soul of this nation. Would we still be expected to cheer the soldiers as they march on to Iran? Then Syria? Can the soldiers do no wrong? After all the soldiers would only be following orders when they invade Iran/Syria. I am sure most of the soldiers would again believe that they are fighting them in Tehran so we dont have to fight them in Tampa.
A fair point to keep in the mix of things to think about. One also might point to the unprecedented use of National Guard and Reserves in this war, not to mention the class and race disproportionalities associated even with the “all-volunteer” military.
Um, which society doesn’t glorify their own warriors, current, or of the past?
You’re reading far too much into it. Dude, bollywood films have a ton of fighting in it and have made war movies, too. If they (or anyone else for that matter) had the budget us Americans work with, they’d make em the same/similar way, too. What about all those martial arts movies from Hong Kong or China? Warriors will be glorified to some extent as long as conflict exists. Some will like it, some won’t. That is life.
The soldiers are not the ones who make the decision about declaring war, so your ire is misdirected. You don’t have a problem defending questionable people in your line of work even if you personally disagree with their social views as you have said. So why not extend that same logic here ?
Once again just trying to appreciate a different point of view:
AMfD, do you in any case support war ? Or you just plain oppose war no matter what? Do you think going into Afghanistan and taking out the Taliban was a good or a bad thing? Do you believe that US shouldn’t intervene militarily in other countrys’ affairs no matter how oppressing its regime is? Or do you think it’s upto that country’s oppressed to start a revolution? What if they don’t have the means or guts to but desperately want out? I don’t have a particular country in mind, consider these questions hypothetical.
You talk about the impending invasion of Iran. You make it sound like Americans go and kill, colonize and set up empires. I haven’t seen that.
As the drumbeat for an invasion of Iran gets louder it is high time that we pull back from the ‘I heart soldiers’ platitudes and seriously consider the consequences of the coming war for the Iranian people and the soul of this nation. Would we still be expected to cheer the soldiers as they march on to Iran? Then Syria? Can the soldiers do no wrong? After all the soldiers would only be following orders when they invade Iran/Syria. I am sure most of the soldiers would again believe that they are fighting them in Tehran so we dont have to fight them in Tampa.
Uh – and exactly which soldiers are itching to fight Iran? Soldiers in general do not voice opinion on policy. I know there are plenty of neo-conservatives who want war with Iran (most of whom have not served in uniform). Remember, it was a man in uniform (Shinseki) who was arguing for several hundred thousand troops to pacify Iraq. It was a soldier in Iraq that asked Rumsfeld where the armor was for their vehicles? If you believe the policy is misguided, then level your criticism at the civilian architects of that policy.
Gujudude, militaries are there to kill people and destroy things. The ends of an army might be up for debate, but not its means. So, no, the “joined a peacetime military” thing doesn’t wash with me. What they joined was a Grand Narrative, a very old one, and they knew full well that it involved killing people in foreign countries.
By the way, I’m not saying people shouldn’t participate in state-sponsored mass slaughter. If that’s what they’re going to do, it’s what they’re going to do. I’m just saying I don’t find it as admirable as others do. I refuse to join the applause.
For the same reason I don’t believe Jesus died to save me from my sins, I don’t believe Captain Prakash machine-gunned eight people to preserve my freedom. They’re both very stirring stories, but neither of them is true for me.
As for choice, well there’s always a choice, and there are many, many choices in life that are more difficult than an honorable discharge from the army, or even a dishonorable one.
(And, yes, I’m very much aware that my views are in the minority.)
Please stop believing the CAIR propaganda on Iran. Only an idiot would invade Iran.
I would be willing to bet a 100 dollars of my wife’s hard earned money, Amfd, on the claim that the U.S. will not invade Iran anytime soon. Ofcourse, If Iran launches a nuke on Israel, then as much as you may dislike it, all bets are off.
p.s. strikes on persian nuclear installations, whether by air or commando action is another matter.
Yes and yes. Yes, they can do wrong – look at Abu ghraib but the decision to go to war was made by the President and as a soldier who voluntered you understand that you go when asked. Like the rest of the country (at least the majority) they believed that they were in Iraq to protect American lives and free Iraq. We have to honor the sacrifices of the people who take orders and sometimes lose their life and limb in the process. there is inherent honor in their job
I am worried that the incompetence of the civilian leadership will turn the American public against neccessary wars in the future. Case and point Iran. Hopefully Bush will not allow Iran to go nuclear. Pacifists are trying to argue that since Iraq was a failure, we have no business going to Iran or any other nation where genuine American (and it’s allies) interests are at stake..
to the Iraq war critcs – Did you also oppose the war against Serbia ?
The United States is in no position to fight Iran or Syria for that matter. Say a war did break out for hypothetical discussion, would it make a difference to you and the public if Iran decided to nuke Israel? Or if they took steps that clearly not only rattled the cage of the US, but the world at large? How would that change your perspective if world public opinion swung to an anti-Iranian one?
Civilian leaders are well aware that they’d be shooting the United States in the temple if they ran their horse completely into the ground. Morale issues, break down in discipline, lower recruitment, etc. etc. etc. would eventually plague the forces to a point, if decisions back to back were SO unpopular that no would would vote for it. Hence no war.
We are not going to Iran or Syria anytime soon, unless Ahmadinejad does something so crazy that not even the Europeans/other world powers would ignore it. Iran isn’t isolated like Iraq from the Global economy either. They are major oil providers to China and Japan, the USA’s major economic trading partners. Unless there is consensus, no one is going to Iran
Here is a breakdown of the military figures. Yes, minorities are slightly overrepsented in the military, however, it isn’t as dramatic as the media has made it out to be. The all volunteer military not only includes combat troops, but also far more logistics support, technicians, maintenence, etc. Think of the Navy and Airforce. Their strike/fighting personnel are a minority (I’m excluding the USMC from this, I’m simply talking Sailors). Most of the folks do very technical work.
In terms of economic disparity, I’ve discussed this before, but joining because they were poor is a factor to some, but not the be all end all for folks who are poor. Many have joined to get away from broken homes and find social stability among comrades and a whole host of others (some actually want to serve, they like the spartan lifestyle, are looking for mentors/role models, family tradition, all your friends are joining up, looking for skills, college, adventure, some have no idea what to do in life and are looking for direction…).
Take broken/dysfucntional homes for example. This may well cross socio-economic lines because families can be screwed up with or without money.
An all volunteer military may not be the gold plated perfect solution, but it is the best one out there. Conscription/drafts are a slow and time consuming process. With a global information age upon us, speed is very important. You want quality over quantity (in the volume necessary), which you can only get from volunteers.
National Guard depolyments are not unprecedented. It is the ratio of active duty-national guard that has been different. The first Gulf War called up a lot of national guardsmen and reserves, too. However, the Government hadn’t embarked upon its draw down of active duty forces of the 90s. Does it suck that national guardsmen are on a heavy deployment rotation? Yes. But that was part of the deal when they signed on. Taking care of their needs when they’re gone is something that needs better attention.
Discovery Times had a series of the Arkansas or Alabama national guard. These were rural folk who, despite the hardship, did what they had to do because they understood that is what they signed up for. Do troops bitch? Hell yes. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be troops.
The solution isn’t not to fight because you have to call up reserves, it is to either give them the right tools to manage their lives or beef up active duty in the volume necessary to ensure you don’t run the National Guard/Reserve component into the ground if you ever fight a large scale conventional war.
Yes. And the war in Afghanistan
So you must be for the continuation of the Taliban then. Right? Or probably for their removal by peaceful means like diplomacy or for dialogue with them so as to gradually make them see light. Or you just want the Afghans to fend for themselves?
I think I am beginning to have an appreciation for a different perspective on this issue.
Gautham – In that case, much respect.
Kritic,
That wasn’t the raison d’etre for the sanctions post-Gulf War I nor the reason for this war now was it?
Vinod – How about a meetup in NYC, for the warmongering desis?
I don’t know Gautham. Don’t believe a word of what I say. Each writes out of his own darkness, and some of us are more troubled than others.
I agree with you here. You join to fight, but I was probing to get certain questions answered. Peace time or not, you sign on to fight or support the fight.
Ok, but you also realize it is more than ‘fighting’ that holds military personnel together. It is the social bonds they develop and trust they put in each other that makes a choice of not fighting when asked a very difficult one, beyond the legal consequences of their actions.
Again, if the war is THAT unpopular, troops will get withrdawn at some point and time. It is easy for you and me to say “you have the choice, if you oppose the war, take the punishment that comes”, but you do know that refusing to go to war isn’t a mere dishonorable discharge based upon UCMJ? Right?
I don’t believe Captain Prakash is fighting for my freedom. Yea, you heard me right. In this case, I don’t. But I do think he is still serving the nation’s intrests and for that I am thankful. I don’t thank these folks only when they’re protecting my freedom. The right and left on the country are focused in on the ideas that troops only protect ‘freedom’ of the nation. No, they are tools of foreign policy that will do everything from assist friendly nations, train them, work with them, fight drug lords to dictators, be peacekeepers, humanitarian aid, patrol seas for pirates, etc. Protecting freedom is a subset of the militaries duties.
I do respect that you’re clear about your positions, though I’ll agree to disagree.
I agree with all of that (though you accidentally left out, “advance economic interests through the covert or overt use of deadly force”- a major function of the military).
Respect.
Actually, I say it with considerable difficulty.
Bas! I have work to do…
For those who are opposed to the war in Iraq – were you also opposed to the sanctions that were in place in the 90’s as well? Iraqis were dying every month from lack of medicine – but there was no hue and cry about our misguided policy then. While we did not have troops there, our policy certainly contributed to Iraqi misery.
The right and left on the country are focused in on the ideas that troops only protect ‘freedom’ of the nation. No, they are tools of foreign policy that will do everything from assist friendly nations, train them, work with them, fight drug lords to dictators, be peacekeepers, humanitarian aid, patrol seas for pirates, etc. Protecting freedom is a subset of the militaries duties.
I agree. We must ask ourselves where the world would be without American dominance. Where would East Asia be, or Europe be? Where would global trade be given that its the American Navy that protects its most crucial conduits? And what are the long term alternatives to American dominance? Red China? I dread, I dread. That being said, I have to agree with Mr. Kobayashi. The war is immoral, illegal – and woefully ineffectual.
EVERYBODY should listen to this episode of THIS AMERICAN LIFE. It methodically discusses and dissects a study that appeared in the Journal Lancet that claimed the U.S. led war has resulted in 100,000 civilian deaths (much of it through smart bombing that wasn’t so smart). The facts surprised me. I think it has a lot of bearing on this conversation because of one of the perspectives it offers. A former U.S. soldier who worked in the Pentagon and who’s job was to select high-value targets (e.g. people in the deck of cards), later visits the targets he had bombed as a new employee of Human Rights Watch. Great perspective and insight onto what is going wrong and why even though some soldiers try to do it right.
This war is immoral, illegal …. I will also add that the attack on Fallujah to avenge the deaths of 4 American mercenaries, was the worst case of collective punishment in a long while. The 4 Blackwater (or whatever was the name of the private security company providing mercenaries) mercs were killed by local population is because locals equated the mercs with the ones who were doing those nasty things in Abu-Gharaib.
BTW, extremely little real reporting is done about Fallujah.
Okay, these message boards are getting a little boring. It’s a damn post about a guy of indian desent fighting in a war. Next thing you know people are writing essay’s on war in Serbia. Your opinon’s are never going to change anyone’s mind. You do know that, right? Its’s all rich powerfull people playing games with poor people. It’s the history of the world no matter what race religion or nationality.
The End.
I came to the U.S. ten years ago for graduate studies. And do not have any American born desi friends. Thus my query.
Do you guys, the U.S. born desis ever query your parents on why they immigrated to this vile, warmongering nation ? That too, at a time, when America was doing some very unsavory things, least of which was the overthrowing of legitimately elected govts and replacing them with despotic, albeit “America friendly” regimes.
Not to mention, to the country, which was built on the back of slaves and “bought” from Indians/Natives.
RC, Falluja is not so black and white. Despite the destruction, Americans did follow the correct counterinsurgency tactics there. The local poulation WAS in fact terrified of the insurgents there.
That’s because it is too dangerous for reporters there. If you listen to the This American Life story I linked up above you will see what I mean.
Kritic, Despite your disclaimer your question is still utterly specious.
Very good discussion. Superb posts by GujuDude and Desitude in particular, along with some thought-provoking comments by Kobayashi-San too.
Hmmm. As a Sikh and also as someone with a fair amount of Rajput blood in him, I can sympathise with the notion of “the warrior” having a certain amount of inherent honour due to his martial role. For obvious reasons (especially due to the latter part of my ancestry), I would be the first person to agree that there can be a certain glamour and nobility which is conferred on people taking up arms and “bravely fighting for what’s right”, even more so when you consider the extreme danger they are exposing themselves to, along with the sheer guts it must take to face large numbers of people trying to killing you. However, I would have to respectfully disagree with the quoted statement.
There is nothing inherently honourable about being a soldier. What makes it honourable is the reason one is fighting (in the immediate conflict and one’s motivations for being a soldier in the first place), and the context of the overall battle.
Fighting for glory : No. Fighting to gain territory : No. Fighting to gain wealth and/or power : No. Fighting due to hatred of the “enemy” : No.
Fighting to defend oneself and one’s territory against unwarranted aggression : Yes. Fighting to defend an innocent third-party against similarly unjustified attacks : Yes.
This doesn’t mean that soldiers engaged in battle purely/predominantly because they have to put food on the table should be condemned, and — up to a certain point — neither does it mean that people who are “just following orders” should be dismissed out of hand. As has been mentioned by a couple of other commenters here, people have all kinds of personal reasons as to why they become soldiers, and it is one of the factors of modern warfare that professional soldiers are expected to follow the commands of their superiors regardless of whether they agree with them. Using a historical example, Guru Gobind Singh himself factored all this into the equation in his own attitude towards enemy combatants. It’s not always a black and white issue. However, there comes a point when people have to take personal responsibility for their actions, and the claim that “I had no choice, it was my duty as a soldier of the [insert name of country/military group here] Army” isn’t acceptable.
Much easier said than done, of course. But then killing someone is no small matter, and although taking another person’s life in the cause of warfare is often “nothing personal”, I guess the soldiers concerned have to make a judgement call on whether they really are fighting the right war for the right reasons, and if not, whether the blood on their hands will have an effect on their conscience and psyche.
Ideally, of course, one way to constructively deal with this is to ensure that the “right” people are at the top of the chain of command, so that they really can be trusted to lead their people into war for all the “right” reasons and only when all other peaceful means have failed.
This applies to any acts of war conducted by humans; I’m not just referring to Iraq here by any means.
Most FOBs who emigrated to the US now lean conservative even though back in India they leaned liberal. Interestingly in India they were relatively privileged whereas in America they had to start anew and are relatively marginalized. Most desis born in the US lean liberal and are relatively privileged.
The irony is that these two sentences are separated by just a single blank line
“I came to the U.S. ten years ago for graduate studies”
“Do you guys, the U.S. born desis ever query your parents on why they immigrated to this vile, warmongering nation “
RC: Have you read Bing West’s ‘No True Glory’ about the events in Fallujah? If so, I’d recommend it. I know we probably disagree on a whole Noah’s Ark of issues, but it is well worth the read.
The USMC did NOT want to go in full force into the town the first time around, they were thinking of using something similar to the Vietnam era CAP program (which was extremely successful as a COIN operation) that placed squads of Marines intimately close with the local population, living with them, interacting with them, using unconventional warfare techniques to flush out insurgent leaders who were looking for one thing – power. Marines worked with Special Forces and Deltas in one case to collect intelligence and conduct a raid.
It has its share of thanks to Marines and whatnot, and coming from a former Marine, it is expected, but he does dissect the choas and missteps that surrounded the decisions made to go, then not to, then to go back into Fallujah. The confusing in decision making generated by having parellel authorities (Coalition Provisional Authority and CENTCOM), and miscommunication or lack of communication as a result of it is documented. I noticed a few errors, but I’d probably put that as editing errors.
The contractors weren’t even on any ‘armed’ duty. They were on their way to delivering or picking up food and food equipment, got lost, and presented an excellent target of opportunity for local insurgents. Among the insurgents different groups had different agendas, which is documented in the book as well. The local sheiks, mullahs, external foreign fighters, etc. were all vying for power in the area, trying to establish themselves as the top dog.
The fog of war, lack of clarity in decision making, and ultimately stutter stepping into combat made a bad situation worse.
I have to dispute this (partly). I know that the local population was anti-US military, within days of the fall of Baghdad due to a specific incident of bombing. I will get the details later. Cant spend a lot of time on SM now, as I have just started this new job. Damn SM .. so addictive. I will post something that backs up my claim tonight.
To add to the Falljuah stuff – The USMC ultimately made the call on the ground (General Conway) behind the Pentagon’s and CPA back because he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. They wouldn’t let him finish off the insurgents cornered in a small area, yet they wanted him to hold the lines and expose his men.
He turned the city over to the quickly formed Fallujah Brigade (made of locals including insurgents) and moved out. Smart choice that recongized the mission wasn’t going to be completed since it was poorly defined and they’ll have to take a step back to reform and reorganize.
In other places in order to stop the violence to spread, the USMC took the right steps to counter the threats (Ramadi and other villages). They talked to local mullahs with General Mattis (who probably had the best picture of what was going on of all the Flag officiers) leading the way – projecting force, talking to locals, striking where necessary, etc.
Yup. While moving through the town the Marines stumbled upon locations where locals were killed and every journalist recongized that walking into Fallujah meant certain death, unless they were in embedded units with protection.
It is one source among others that have been published, but a good start. Read Bing West’s ‘No True Glory’.
I wish more of you had immediate relatives who were active duty. I wonder if you’d still say and think the things which you do. I know that the only reason I feel the way I do is because of my close contact with my sister and that before she joined the AF, I knew next to nothing about the military (not that I’m any expert now). Before she was active, I babbled on about foreign policy in high school debates about what we “should” and “should not” do without realizing that there are real people whose lives, and yes, limbs are what are lost when some jackass draft-dodger whose own children are too precious to enlist decides that his ‘roids are itching and it’s time to kill some furriners.
I remember exactly what desi people said and did when they heard what my younger sister had chosen to do with her life. I don’t think that the majority of my brown friends have even an acquaintance who serves, let alone a sibling, because for the most part, the military is not something which “we” affluent 2nd Genners do. I was ashamed of Abu Gharaib as any decent human and Christian should be; my sister was even more horrified because she takes her her job seriously.
I do believe in the “they have to follow orders” contention, especially when reminding people that the decisions we like to rail against are made by some civilian in an air-conditioned office a few miles from where I type this, not by the scared 19-year olds who are tasked with being pawns in this excessively deadly game. I do not, however, believe in “following orders” to the Nth degree; my sister said that as difficult or dangerous as it was, it’s a soldier’s duty to tell someone that prisoners are being put on leashes for the amusement of some sadistic fuck with a camera. I don’t crow gleefully about collateral damage or delude myself in to thinking that killing Iraqis is a fun thing or even a means to protecting America. I do believe in that bumper sticker I almost purchased in Berkeley, that we are creating terrorists faster than we can kill them. Despite holding such consistently anti-war views, I still have compassion for the men and women who are serving and I am anxious about what will happen when they come back battered, amputated and permanently scarred in physical and not-so-physical ways.
I just have a little sister, just one, who made a choice I didn’t want to accept but eventually respected. If you are deployed and you think the war is wrong, it’s not as simple as stating an objection and then dealing with some minor fallout. There are very serious consequences which occur when someone deviates from their orders and I am bitter when people on the other side of this issue aren’t able to conceive of that. It is not so black and white and I think it’s a little bit heartless to say, “tough shit, I have no sympathy for volunteers” when at the end of the day, said volunteers are someone’s child, spouse or loved one.
Do you really think that people would have joined or stayed if they knew something like this was coming? I don’t, even though I want to point out that my sister has never complained to me; she merely reminds me that she knew what she signed up for and that yes, war was possible, though she certainly isn’t a fan of “war” in and of itself. I can’t help but be a little disgusted with some of the hypocrisy I encounter…when it comes to Affirmative Action, I’m supposed to believe that we have to take all these extenuating circumstances in to account, that we need to level the playing field etc for people who weren’t as privileged as I am (and quite probably as you were). I’m supposed to agree that underrepresented groups are placed in suboptimal situations which leave them without many options. I guess there’s compassion for minorities when people are getting in to college, but not when they make a different, less pretty choice.
I dont think any of us lack compassion for the US soldiers. There is a difference between showing compassion/sympathy for the lives of the US soldiers and mindless cheering and ‘rock on’ support which is shown to them in some corners.
I own the 100th spot!
I’m a little confused here, are you saying AA should be more prevalent when choosing people for enlistment?
HMF- no, not at all. just that we support people who were relatively limited in their choices when it comes to good things (college) but not “bad” (military). i.e. when they enlist, they’re on their own with their incorrect “choice” to volunteer.
And I’m sure I don’t need to get into the whole 4 marines raping a 13 year old girl incident. It makes it a lot tougher to support the troops when things like that happen
You don’t need to – but you did anyway. But, if we are going to get into the area of collective guilt, we are approaching the 5th anniversary of when a handful of Muslims killed several thousand people. It makes it a lot tougher to support Muslims when things like that happen.
In fact, the far more common move is the calculated effort to morph legitimate criticism of policy and practices into lack of compassion/support for soldiers — perhaps, if you prefer, “sneering” — and implicitly lack of patriotism. In short, to politicize the lives of US soldiers and treat them merely as pawns to be used against one’s political opponents. (“Mission Accomplished,” anyone?) That move is at least as disrespectful and demeaning to folks like ANNA’s sister as any other, and has the collateral damage of undermining public discourse by implying that political opponents are akin to internal enemies.
Yes, and half as many U.S. troops as well as about fifty times more Muslims have died as a result. Not to mention the next 25 years of backlash we will probably be facing. Thankfully, by then my ass will be out of America.
…yes india has such equanimous muslim-non-muslim relations :=)
I believe Anna’s larger point is that poor black and Latino kids are often lured into the military under half-true pretexts. And that does happen, it happens a lot.
However, I don’t think that being poor or black or undereducated frees your from your existential responsibility to yourself. To suggest otherwise would itself be a racist point of view.
The society might structurally make things difficult for you, but at the end of the day, it’s you and your choices.
Anna, believe me: I don’t use the word “choice” lightly at all. I respect the total gravity involved in the term. A choice is often between two appalling options. It is the reason why some of the people I admire most in the world are the conscientious objectors from the IDF. I can hardly imagine how difficult that choice has made their lives. And the same goes for those who, for personal reasons, have made the difficult choice not to participate in the current American military misadventure.