See other Editorial Articles
Title: Why Support the Troops?
Source:
Future of Freedom Foundation
URL Source: http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-09-21.asp
Published: Sep 22, 2012
Author: Jacob G. Hornberger
Post Date: 2012-09-22 12:45:35 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 670
Comments: 42
One of the most fascinating phenomena of our time is the extreme reverence that the American people have been taught to have for the military. Wherever you go -- airports, sports events, church -- there is a god-like worship of the military. "Let us all stand and express our sincerest thanks to our troops for the wonderful service they perform for our country," declare the sports broadcasters. "Let us pray for the troops, especially those in harm's way," church ministers exhort their parishioners. "Let us give a big hand to our troops who are traveling with us today," exclaim airline officials. Every time I see this reverence for the military being expressed, I wonder if people ever give any thought to what exactly the troops are doing. No one seems to ask that question. It just doesn't seem to matter. The assumption is that whatever the troops are doing, they are protecting our "rights and freedoms." As one sports broadcaster I recently heard put it, "We wouldn't be here playing this game if it weren't for the troops." There is at least one big problem with this phenomenon, however: The troops are engaged in actions that are harmful to the American people, including most of the people who have a reverential attitude toward them. Consider the following hypothetical. Suppose a family lives out in the country on a 50-acre spread in the middle of a wooded area. In the trees are dozens of hornets' nests. The hornets leave the family alone because the family leaves the hornets' nests alone. One day U.S. troops arrive, come on to the property, and begin poking every hornets' nest they can find. For the next several days, the members of the family and their friends and visitors are stung by the hornets. The following week, the troops arrive and do the same thing, with the same results. This goes on indefinitely. Suppose we were to encounter the family and ask them how they feel about the troops. We could easily imagine them saying, "Oh, we love the troops and we support them. Without them, we wouldn't have this nice property. Thank goodness for the troops because they are keeping us free." What about all weekly stings from the hornets? We could easily imagine the family responding, "Oh, that's not the troops' fault. For some reason, the hornets are just mad these days, but it has nothing to do with the fact that the troops are poking their nests. Anyway, the troops are just following orders. It's not their fault. We love the troops." Does that make any sense? It seems to me that when people are doing the right thing, they are entitled to be supported. But when they're engaged in wrongful or harmful conduct, then they shouldn't be supported. Why should the military be exempt from normal moral and ethical principles? Consider the threat of terrorism, which Americans have lived under now for some 11 years. Did you ever think that 9/11 would change our country so fundamentally? There wasn't any "war on terrorism" before 9/11. Torture and assassination weren't official policy. There was no detention center at Guantanamo Bay. There were no official kidnappings, rendition, and torture partnerships with brutal dictatorial regimes. There was no indefinite incarceration without trial. So, why must everything be different just because of 9/11? Why can't we live in a normally functioning society, one in which people are not living under the constant fear of terrorism and one in which the government isn't adopting and employing permanent "emergency" powers that constitute severe infringements on the freedoms of the people. What was it that produced the anger and rage that brought on 9/11? Was it hatred for America's "freedom and values," as U.S. officials maintain? Or was it anger and rage arising from what the troops and other U.S. officials were doing to people in the months and years leading up to 9/11? That obviously gets us into U.S. foreign policy, an area that makes many people who support the troops very uncomfortable. Why? Because if they conclude that the troops are doing things to people overseas that are producing the anti-American anger and rage that culminates in anti-American terrorism, then that presents a problem for them. How do they in good conscience continue supporting the people who are causing their problems? Yet, the reality is that the troops are doing things to people overseas that are making people angry at the United States. Examples include the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and ever-increasing drone assassinations. As everyone knows, such actions have succeeded in killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people, including women and children. On top of that has been the torture, the kidnappings, Gitmo, the support of brutal dictatorships and the Israeli government, the U.S. troops on Islamic holy lands, the illegal no-fly zone over Iraq, the sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, and the current sanctions on Iran. It's the troops who enforce many of those programs. Now, it might be said that the troops aren't at fault because they're just following orders. Even if that's true, is that any reason to support them? For one thing, no one forced them to join an organization that would require them to do whatever they were ordered to do. They did that on their own volition. Moreover, even though they're following orders, the fact remains that what they're doing is nonetheless counterproductive to the best interests of the American people. That is, for those of us who want a normally functioning society, rather than the aberrant post-911 society in which we now live, what the troops are doing is an obstacle to the achievement of our goal, whether they are doing it willingly or simply on orders of their commanders. For those Americans who like the direction our country has been taking for the past 11 years and would like things to continue as they are, the best thing they can do is simply continue supporting the troops. But for people who are sick and tired of all this, for them it's necessary to confront the root causes of America's problems. And like it or not, one of the root causes of America's woes is the U.S. military establishment and the entire national-security state, not only with respect to the anti-American anger and hatred they produce by their actions overseas but also by contributing to the out-of-control spending and debt that now constitute a grave threat to the economic well-being of our nation. Why would anyone want to support people who are doing things that are detrimental to us and our country?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 41.
#2. To: All (#0)
Perhaps it would be fair to identify who the "troops" are and who is representative as the "United States". In all of history and as is current now, the "troops" are constituted of ninety per cent from the lowest class of American society. The remaining ten per cent is the officer class, professional people, from the upper classes. Who is the "United states"? Perhaps one needs to look inward for that answer. The United States are the people that years ago were delirious with joy when the crime of military servitude was taken off the backs of the people. Those people voted then and now with great fervor for the elected representatives, that would "hire" the dregs of the lowest class of American society, to fulfill the needs of the military, so they, their offspring, would never be called upon again to kill or be killed. Now all the evils of this country are visited upon the backs of the lowest of the low, the dregs of the lowest of society that we scorn so easily. Our cry is that they should just walk away, refuse to kill, TO DO THEIR DUTY and defy this government. They HAVE A DUTY, we have none? Sad. Pvt. Eddie Slovik in the past, refused to kill anymore, for that he was shot on the orders of a man that became President of the ....UNITED STATES... Self righteousness accompanied with hate, is indicative of people that do not walk in the shoes of the lowest of the the low.
Do you consider Pat Tillman to have been a "dreg of the lowest class of American society"?
What I believe is not relevant. The perception of many of this forum and a large segment of Americans is that these "murderers" that join the military because they ENJOY doing such work are indeed the dregs of our society. That these "dregs" do come from the lowest class is indeed without question. The military is quite open with that. Few elitists sons join the military for two thousand dollars a month. History is replete with endless references of the constitution of mass armies. It is a fact, it has always been a fact, the vast majority of "soldiers" in any army comes from the lower class. So the characterization of the dregs of society is indeed not mine, it is a historical record. Exceptions to the record, of course.
Yes it is with question and you are making things up. Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11 You are doing nothing but spewing the liberal talking points of people like Charles Rangel. From the above report: "We found that recruits tend to come from middle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas. Overall, the income distribution of military enlistees is more similar to than different from the income distribution of the general population." Military Enlistees by Neighborhood Income Levels Poorest Quintile: 1999 recruits 18%, 2003 recruits 15% Quintile 2: 1999 recruits 21%, 2003 recruits 20% Quintile 3: 1999 recruits 21%, 2003 recruits 21% Quintile 4: 1999 recruits 21%, 2003 recruits 23% Richest Quintile 5: 1999 recruits 19%, 2003 recruits 22% Your uneducated, preconceived notions do not match the reality of the situation.
The so called murderers, are the ones that are on the ground, that pull the triggers, they are indeed the ones you post about. There are no MIT grads, nor millionaires out doing the grunt work, it is the lowest of the low. The world loves self righteous people, especially those that point fingers and pontificate at endless length AT WHAT OTHERS SHOULD DO. There is a way to stop these "voluntary murderers", all we have to do is DEMAND A DRAFT. Put self righteous citizens in Afghanistan with rifles AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.
You got a point because if they draft me, and I'm forced to shoot their enemy, I will refuse and lay down my weapon because I am a child of the light and my master is Jesus Christ and I do not believe in killing for my government. I guess what will happen to me is I'll be shot in the back or back of the head by one of my own brothers in arms for aiding the enemy. Because from my perspective of being self-righteous, I refuse to shoot an innocent human being whom my own government views as "a terrorist".
Militarys the world over and for endless time, have had a solution for that. Our military has been very careful about using their authority to take lives. The last I recall was Slovik during WW2. Before that time we were not as compassionate. Many other armies in the past have taken instant justice, shot or hung on the spot, no trial, nothing. Germans, Russians and Japanese shot thousands on the spot during WW2. It does tend to make the others think twice about refusing "orders". Recall Picketts charge? General Robert E. Lee ordered a frontal suicide charge at Gettysburg, the other Generals were aghast, surely he was not serious? It would be fruitless suicide to do so. Lee did not relent, the charge went ahead and hundreds of men died for...NOTHING. General Lee mounted his horse and started south. It took days to tend to the dead and dying. Pickett did not lead the charge and survived to olde age. The dregs of southern society died there that day.
I'd argue they were involved at both Ruby Ridge and Waco. If I give it some more thought, I bet I can come up with more recent examples.
Agreed... My intent was shooting their own, not civilians. The military hierarchy has great disdain for the common cannon fodder at the bottom. As a grunt in the military, regardless of how you got there, you are quick to realize that you are NOTHING, you are totally expendable and should you speak out, you can and will be squashed like a grape. When any youngster awakes in the military, to find himself in a very dangerous position, two things come to mind. One, what must and can I do to SURVIVE. Two, what can I do in my own small way to thwart the government and the military. Short of being shot of course.
But they did shoot and kill civilians. Vicky Weaver was shot in the face while holding her baby in her arms during the Ruby Ridge standoff. The DOJ never issued any formal apology for their blatant egregious actions either. And as for those people who died in Waco April 19, 1993, it was Janet Reno who ordered the raid and ordered all of those people be killed with fatal gas fumes, and gas grenades which caused their bodies to bend backwards and break apart. I hope she burns in hell for this. I really do.
Gen. Wesley Clark was the military in charge person. Later wanted to be President.
But Reno was the one who ordered the raid and tear gassing of the Waco civilians. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H...feature=player_embedded#! Sonny Bono grilled Reno on this in '95 and in Jan of '98 he was murdered.
Isn't it amazing how some people believe that a skilled skier like Bono managed to find a tree with his head not long after his hard questioning of Reno. I forget who said, "In politics there are no accidents" but he was dead on.
#42. To: Jethro Tull (#41)
What I find very disturbing is that the late Bono's wife told the media that Sonny had been on some prescribed medication. However, the autopsy results concluded that he had no prescription drugs in him at that time. Furthermore, his clothes were missing upon the discovery of his "accident". And much of the blood found on him belonged to somebody else. Yes, he was a skilled skier but this was no accident. Foul play was involved and you can damn well bet that Reno made the call on this one too! But that's ok. Her days are also numbered.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYet, the reality is that the troops are doing things to people overseas that are making people angry at the....... United States.....
#13. To: Cynicom (#2)
Those people voted then and now with great fervor for the elected representatives, that would "hire" the dregs of the lowest class of American society, to fulfill the needs of the military, so they, their offspring, would never be called upon again to kill or be killed.
#21. To: FormerLurker (#13)
Do you consider Pat Tillman to have been a "dreg of the lowest class of American society"?
#24. To: Cynicom, FormerLurker (#21)
That these "dregs" do come from the lowest class is indeed without question. The military is quite open with that.
#26. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#24)
Military Enlistees by Neighborhood Income Levels
#32. To: Cynicom (#26)
There is a way to stop these "voluntary murderers", all we have to do is DEMAND A DRAFT. Put self righteous citizens in Afghanistan with rifles AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.
#33. To: purplerose (#32)
, I will refuse and lay down my weapon
#34. To: Cynicom (#33)
Our military has been very careful about using their authority to take lives. The last I recall was Slovik during WW2.
#37. To: Jethro Tull (#34)
I'd argue they were involved at both Ruby Ridge and Waco
#38. To: Cynicom (#37)
My intent was shooting their own, not civilians.
#39. To: purplerose (#38)
#40. To: Cynicom (#39)
(Edited)
#41. To: purplerose (#40)
Sonny Bono grilled Reno on this in '95 and in Jan of '98 he was murdered.
Replies to Comment # 41.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 41.
