1

Your post is amazing. The glib tone in Stein's article ("Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on," etc.) and his apparent know-nothing stance on the war that was revealed in his interview with Hugh Hewitt would tend to suggest that he is unworthy of the mantle of martyrdom you are trying to place on him.

Unless, of course, you can't differentiate the morality of a petulent child like Stein with that of a Mother Theresa. In which case, how can we take you seriously.

2

Stein says, "Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on."

The T-shirts, decals, and other paraphernalia of "Calvin" peeing are libertarian frauds of Bill Waterson's comic strip character. You won't find an authentic drawing by Waterson depicting Calvin peeing on anything. The kind of maliciousness seen in those rip-offs can only be seen an adult. Someone who profits off of discipline and virtue but thinks that they are being daring or brave by pissing on what has been given to them at the cost of blood, sweat, toil, and tears.

Joe, I don't salute the "honesty" of people like Stein. As Matthew Arnold said, hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. When people no longer feel the need to pay that tribute, it means that vice has overthrown virtue. The fact that Stein is taking heat, perhaps even from those that wish they could say what he does, means that virtue still has some authority around here after all.

3

I support Stein wholeheartedly.

I think he's a typical airhead leftist that bends his knee at the altar of leftist ideology - folk Marxism, if you will - and really has nothing of value to add to the conversation beyond the usual sloganeering and talking points of leftism.

But his admission is simply a public statement that shows more courage than John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or John Murtha have been able to muster.

I delight in Stein's honesty because, if nothing else, it serves as a bright line to help people discern for themselves which side of the debate they come down on. It's certainly much better than: "I support the troops, they're great people, I voted for them before I voted against them, and I wish they'd stop terrorizing women and children in the dead of night."

4

George, honesty, in the sense in which you are using it--sincerity--is waaaaay overrated as a virtue.

Consistency or coherence, maybe, is what you are identifying. I too appreciate these qualities in the likes of those you listed. But only because, as you say, they make it easier to expose these people for what they are.

5

The whole "support the troops, but not the war" mantra of the left reminds me of another seeming contradiction: those who "personally" oppose abortion but support a woman's right to choose.

I'll bet Stein's getting some nasty email now. He hasn't known depravity and degradation until he gets on the receiving end of hate mail from his lefty brigades.

6

Stein and his ilk have nothing but contempt for the type of individuals who he depends on for his own protection. I do not admire him because he is consistent in his contempt. Big deal. If anything, it shows that he has no shame in his dismissive attitude regarding people with ideals.

George, You think he has courage?? Kerry, Kennedy and Murtha may lack moral fortitude, but they at least had the courage to serve in the military. Stein wouldn't have survived the first week of training.

I could never understand the logic behind declaring yourself to be extremely selfish, but also proclaiming that your "honesty" to admit this was somehow a redeeming factor. To me it's like eating those 3 Big Mac's, large fries and then drinking a diet Coke.

7

Joe (and anyone else),

Permit me to ask a question out of my ignorance. Frankly, I don't know how to feel about the war. I tend to favor it, but I have a number of reservations. But with regards to your comments about the moral culpability of the troops if they are, in fact, engaged in immoral activity, I'm not sure that you are being realistic or practical in your implications.

Could anyone really hold to the idea that troops, in the midst of a conflict like this, ought to be sitting around when they've nothing else to do, sorting out the morality of their involvement in a conflict so politically and morally complex that there is vast disagreements among people who actually do have nothing else to do than to sit around and think about it? Are soldiers really to be acquainted fully with all of the political details of their mission? Are soldiers really to be experts in Just War Theory? Must soldiers exhaustively formulate their fully comprehensive worldview, including all of its moral implications, in the midst of war?

It seems that saying that ignorance and cowardice are the only possible explanations for a soldier being involved in an immoral war is overly simplistic. Is there not something to be said for the soldier who has not had the time or resources to sort all of these things out, but simply trusts the people who make these decisions (even if those people turn out to be immoral)? Surely, that soldier cannot be considered morally culpable for being involved in an unjust war, can he?

8

You're either being dishonest or completely and/or willfully ignorant of military history and military science.

Quite simply, we support the troops because we don't want them dead; taking your logic on its head would imply that you want the troops dead, and for any silly old adventure George W. Bush would engage in.

All military personnel are volunteers who, of their own free will and based on rational choice, have decided to participate in a war on Iraq.

Ah yes, let's not talk about how really "free" many of these kids were to "rationally" make that choice.

Let's not talk about how the Army recruits with little information given about the stuff you can't do in the military, how they don't exactly furnish prospective recruits with casualty rates for those recruits lucky enough to land in the infantry in a conflict.

They're "free" and they're "rational."

And you call yourself pro-life.

Let's not talk about what the military is, in effect: it strikes based on orders from the CiC, and those designated by him.

The effort in Iraq was flawed militarily from the start; that's why I joined millions of others in the streets.

You and Hewitt can't say you "support the troops" if you support a mission that is doomed to failure because of cockamamie military "theories" that fly in the face of history and statistics.

Any fool could have seen it when the Iraqi army "melted away"; me, I simply did the math beforehand (you know, the stat that says it takes 10:1 to 50:1 troops to quell a potential insurgency).

Which leaves you in a quandary, Mr. Pro-lifer: either you don’t know that you're sacrificing thousands to needlessly die, in which case you're morally ignorant, or you're actively encouraging a pointless slaughter, in which case you're not simply a moral coward, but something far more gruesome.

9

Aren't we all hypocrites (inconsistent would be a better word) to some degree? How many people are pro-life yet are in favor of the death penalty and a pre-emptive war? How many people are in favor of science when it supports a pro-life cause (e.g., the embryo's DNA is different from the mother's so it is not just an appendage of her body, hence abortion is murder) yet are against science when it raises difficult questions for young earth creationists?

As for me, I have no trouble saying that I support the troops, and that I was not in favor of this war. When I say that I support the troops, I mean that I respect them, and their willingness to sacrifice their time and their lives. I respect that they are willing to serve obediently, as they committed to do. I was against the war because the rationale for it was weak and inconsistent, and because it did not target bin Laden, who attacked us. Now that we are there, I think we should finish the mission, whatever it is today.

10

Joe,

I agree with you that Joel Stein's honesty and consistency are admirable, refreshing even.

But I disagree with your reason why.

His honesty is admirable because he is exposing himself to harsh criticism from potentially millions of Americans who detest his beliefs and/or his unwillingness to lend moral support to our troops in wartime. He is showing the courage of his convictions.

Where I disagree with you is when you say it would be hypocritical to be against the war in Iraq and to support the troops at the same time. This is very, very not true.

Joe, there are soldiers fighting the war on the ground in Iraq who are against the war. They may be a relatively small percentage of the troops, but they are certainly there. Are you saying those soldiers don't support the troops?!?

Think about it, Joe. Private John Smith is a patriotic American fighting on our behalf but who firmly believes the campaign in Iraq is just so much b___ s___, a waste of blood and treasure perhaps, or a misguided adventure in imperialism. You seem to be saying that Private Smith is a moral coward and a hypocrite -- please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm sure you remember that I am an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq (see here for example). I still am, but I also know that opponents of the war can be just as principled as I aspire to be. They can oppose the war and support the troops without being hypocritical. Opponents of the war deserve our respect, and doubly so if they support our troops as well.

11

I think you can truthfully support soldiers while opposing the war they are in if your opposition is procedural; whether there should be a "declaration of war" by Congress prior to fighting, if an engagement is actually worth the cost in strategic value, or if you believe we have limited resources best spent elsewhere.

I think you CAN'T truthfully support soldiers and oppose the war on moral grounds. If a war is immoral, so are those waging it. Soldiers have an obligation to not carry out illegal orders. I would think it is even more important to not carry out immoral orders, since the peril is to your soul and not just the body. Someone who can't be bothered to determine if their actions are moral should properly be called immoral (perhaps "amoral" if you want to put a fine point on it).

In short, you can rationally support soldiers and claim that Iraq was a strategic blunder (which I do not believe but some do) but you can't logically claim that a war is immoral/evil/"attack on humanity" and support the soldiers while not endorsing the immoral actions they collectively engage in.

12

How many people are pro-life yet are in favor of the death penalty and a pre-emptive war?

There's no inconsistency in these positions, because the issue isn't just life per se. It's the distinction between innocent life and non-innocent life.

The death penalty (assuming it's properly administered, which is a whole 'nother ball of wax) punishes guilty life. Pre-emptive war (same caveat) strikes at guilty life to preserve innocent life.

13

Dan,

Having more courage than Kerry, Kennedy, or Murtha is analogous to Sharps beer having more alcohol than Kool-Aid. It's kind of a distinction without a difference.

However, the pack of liars listed above not only fail to support the troops (that horde of Jenn-Jis Khan terrorists who prey on women and children), but they lack the scintilla of courage to bluntly say so (if you don't believe me, ask Mary Jo Kopechne - no, wait, you can't do that). Stein has the scintilla of courage required to say so from the redoubt of a major "news" outlet.

Just don't question their patriotism.

14

"If a war is immoral, so are those waging it."

"Someone who can't be bothered to determine if their actions are moral should properly be called immoral ..."

How about this take on it - instead of calling those fighting it either moral dupes or moral cowards - maybe they could simply say that "I don't support the war, but I support your freedom to disagree with me, and if you believe that this is an appropriate action, then I support you for taking it, and while I disagree with your decision, I wish you the success and safety."

Joe, it seems to me that your "You can hate the sin, just don’t claim to 'support' the sinner" line won't hold unless you assume that people can't have a reasonable difference of opinion about the morality of this situation.

That's exactly the reason why I believe Stein is both mistaken, and arrogant about making the mistake, at the same time. Mistaken, because contrary to his (and your) argument, you can accept that someone disagrees with you without being morally incompetent, and - in Stein's case - arrogant, because he simply can't see any other way of thinking, and thus sets himself up as the arbitrator of moral truth.

15

Ah, the ravings of mumon. I could paraphrase mumon by saying "I supports da troops cus dey too dumb to know no better." I can only assume that he prefers to support his troops from afar, and not have to personally associate with such dim bulbs. Let's look at this little gem:

Let's not talk about how the Army recruits with little information given about the stuff you can't do in the military, how they don't exactly furnish prospective recruits with casualty rates for those recruits lucky enough to land in the infantry in a conflict.

Now if mumon had ever actually met a infantryman he would know that soldiers volunteer to be in the infantry, they don't land in it. He would also know that the infantry training course requires soldiers that are highly intelligent as well as highly motivated and the course itself is actually pretty difficult and requires a very high score on the ASVAB test to qualify to even attempt the school. The Army doesn't put their dummies in the infantry.

16

Scott …would tend to suggest that he is unworthy of the mantle of martyrdom you are trying to place on him.

Martyrdom? That’s reading more into my post than is there. I’m simply saying that its rather silly to bash Stein for saying in public what 90% of the anti-war supporters think in private. Is it better that he lie and play the game like most of his fellow travelers?

Kam Joe, I don't salute the "honesty" of people like Stein. As Matthew Arnold said, hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

Are you saying that it is better for Stein to be dishonest just to appease people who he disagrees with?

George I delight in Stein's honesty because, if nothing else, it serves as a bright line to help people discern for themselves which side of the debate they come down on.

Exactly!

Bryan Could anyone really hold to the idea that troops, in the midst of a conflict like this, ought to be sitting around when they've nothing else to do, sorting out the morality of their involvement in a conflict so politically and morally complex that there is vast disagreements among people who actually do have nothing else to do than to sit around and think about it?

Well, yes. If most Americans can form a reasonable opinion about the war, I don’t see why the troops can’t do so as well.

Are soldiers really to be acquainted fully with all of the political details of their mission?

No, the political details are not what they have to base their decision on.

Are soldiers really to be experts in Just War Theory?

Absolutely. Soldiers (and Marines, sailors, and airmen) have expertise in a wide range of basic and advanced skills, from knowing how to fire a rifle to launching nuclear weapons. And if they can learn the Laws of War I don’t see why they can’t understand something as relatively straightforward as Just War theory.

Must soldiers exhaustively formulate their fully comprehensive worldview, including all of its moral implications, in the midst of war?

No, they should have it formulated before the war starts. They are supposed to be professionals. Keep in mind that a service member is not only responsible for themselves. In the last couple of years before I left the Marines, I sent dozens of young men over to Iraq. If the war is immoral then it was immoral for me to send them. My view on the war did not just affect me, but those entrusted to my care and leadership.

It seems that saying that ignorance and cowardice are the only possible explanations for a soldier being involved in an immoral war is overly simplistic.

Maybe they aren’t the only explanations but I think they cover roughly 75% of all cases.
Is there not something to be said for the soldier who has not had the time or resources to sort all of these things out, but simply trusts the people who make these decisions (even if those people turn out to be immoral)? Surely, that soldier cannot be considered morally culpable for being involved in an unjust war, can he?
Are the Nazis morally culpable for their actions in WWII?

Mumon Quite simply, we support the troops because we don't want them dead;

I don’t want the child molester who lives down the block to die. Does that mean I support child molesters? You are willfully ignorant of history if you think supporting the troops means nothing more than not wishing them dead.

Ah yes, let's not talk about how really "free" many of these kids were to "rationally" make that choice.

I put up with a lot of nonsense from you. But I draw the line when you start implying that the members of our military are too stupid or weak willed to make “free” and “rational” decisions. Why don’t you go peddle your anti-Americanism somewhere else? I’m getting rather bored with it.

The effort in Iraq was flawed militarily from the start; that's why I joined millions of others in the streets.

Millions of others? What, do you live on the “Arab Street?” You obviously live somewhere in the Middle East because I don’t recall seeing millions of Americans marching in the U.S.

Any fool could have seen it when the Iraqi army "melted away"; me, I simply did the math beforehand (you know, the stat that says it takes 10:1 to 50:1 troops to quell a potential insurgency).

Seriously, dude, you are making a fool of yourself. Your ignorance of the military is starting to show through.

rdsmith3 How many people are pro-life yet are in favor of the death penalty and a pre-emptive war?

That’s not hypocritical. I favor the death penalty and just war precisely because I am pro-life.

How many people are in favor of science when it supports a pro-life cause (e.g., the embryo's DNA is different from the mother's so it is not just an appendage of her body, hence abortion is murder) yet are against science when it raises difficult questions for young earth creationists?

That’s an either/or fallacy, not an example of hypocrisy.

As for me, I have no trouble saying that I support the troops, and that I was not in favor of this war.

Are you not in favor of the war because of political or moral reasons? There is a huge difference. Someone can think that the war is illegal or unwise while not thinking it is immoral.

Where I disagree with you is when you say it would be hypocritical to be against the war in Iraq and to support the troops at the same time. This is very, very not true.

Let me qualify my previous statement by saying that it should apply only to those who think the war is immoral or unjust. For example, the leftist French intellectual Bernard-Henri Levy thinks the war is illegal but not immoral. I can respect that and respect his position if he says he “supports the troops.”

But if you believe the war is immoral then how can you support the people who are knowingly, willingly, engaging in a war that you consider to be unjust? The only alternative to being a hypocrite, in this situation, is to be like Mumon and think that the troops are ignorant automatons who can’t be held responsible for their actions. We didn’t buy that argument at Nuremberg so why are we buying it now?

You seem to be saying that Private Smith is a moral coward and a hypocrite -- please correct me if I'm wrong.

No, you're correct. That is exactly what I am saying. You don’t escape the charge of being a hypocrite or moral coward simply because you put on a uniform. If a Marine is willing to go to a war he considers immoral and kill people simply because he wants to avoid the repercussions of having to take a courageous stand, then I have no respect for them. If you value your own reputation more than the lives of the innocent, then you don’t deserve to wear the uniform in the first place.

Alexander In short, you can rationally support soldiers and claim that Iraq was a strategic blunder (which I do not believe but some do) but you can't logically claim that a war is immoral/evil/"attack on humanity" and support the soldiers while not endorsing the immoral actions they collectively engage in.

Exactly! Well said, Alexander.

Paul Joe, it seems to me that your "You can hate the sin, just don’t claim to 'support' the sinner" line won't hold unless you assume that people can't have a reasonable difference of opinion about the morality of this situation.

Of course you can have a reasonable difference of opinion about the morality of the war. I respectfully disagree with those who say that war is immoral.

What I don’t respect is thinking that the “war” is some abstract thing rather than the collective actions of the people engaging in it. If the war is immoral than the actions of the actors (the troops) is also immoral. Saying that you support their immoral actions while not supporting the immoral “war” strikes me as absurd.

17

Joel Stein is D-U-M dumb. He's undoubtedly a product of self-involved education who doesn't have the serious cultural, poltical or social knowledge to run a blog, much less be a column in one of the leading newspapers in the United States. Does Joel Stein think that the military is like summer camp, where, if it gets too hard his doting parents will swoop in and carry him home to his Playstation and PB&J sandwiches with the crusts trimmed off?

Anyone who thinks that soldiers, sailors and marines choose who and where they fight is stupid. These people volunteered to serve their country and are required to respond to commands as the centurion describes in Matthew 8:9 :

For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this [man], Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth [it].

The warriors of our society volunteer to protect us, and, more importantly, follow our orders. We, the citizens of the United States, are ultimately repsonsible for them, it is our duty to provide their (inadequate) pay, care, feeding, solace to their injury and illness and honor for their sacrifice. We are the ultimate authority that the military turns to for direction.

Joel is a weak man ultimately trying to dodge his own responsibility for the mistakes we have all made, icompetently prosecuting the wrong war in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.

To quote Atrios:

If our military rank and file have been betrayed by their civilian leadership they deserve our respect doubly.

18

Joe: "Are you saying that it is better for Stein to be dishonest just to appease people who he disagrees with?"

Until recently I didn't see an important distinction between two types of hypocrisy (the subject of your post). Call the first "two-faced" hypocrisy. Here the person acts one way in one situation and another way in another situation. This doesn't come up much--does it come up at all?--in the New Testament, or in the teaching of Jesus, because it is so obviously wrong to everyone. Jesus doesn't condemn it because it's so evidently wrong. But--here's the point with application far beyond this question--neither is anyone commended for avoiding this sin by being consistently sinful. Prostitutes and tax collectors and other obvious sinners were not commended for consistency or honesty in their sinfulness. The Pharisees knew they were sinners. Jesus knew they were sinners. THEY knew they were sinners. They were commended for owning up to the fact that they were sinners.

Contrast this with the "inside-outside" hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Jesus didn't condemn them for being two-faced. They were NOT two-faced. By all the rules, albeit accommodatingly interpreted, they were faultless. They looked--from all angles--as pure as a white marble mausoleum. But INSIDE... foul and rotten cadavers of a person. They thought that because they were visibly law-abiding, they were OK. Jesus says they too need an extreme makeover. They are no less sinners. But what neither Jesus nor the Pharisees could commend, nor many Christians until recently could commend, is consistet or "honest' sinfulness.

OK, I'm on thin ice in drawing an analogy with Stein here, because I don't want to equate his wrongness with prostitution or extortion. But that caveat aside...

Joe, I think the principle behind your post misses--and I myself missed until it was explained to me--this distinction in hypocrisies. Hypocrisy of the two-faced type is such a straw man that it can lead us to commend consistency that we should never commend. Because it is consistently WRONG.

So, to your concluding statement in the main post, I think that it's not so much that what good soldiers and good people of all walks of life want is "honest" opponents like Stein as much as they really and rightfully detest dishonest ones. Not the same thing, though, is it.

I know you are NOT commending consistent wrongfulness, but in condemning hypocrisy of the two-faced sort and commending consistency/honesty/sincerity as an abstract principle, you blur, for me, the importance of being in the right.

I guess I'm looking at a state of affairs in which the Stein's can be honest and get away with it over against a state of affairs where they have to hide their positions because they are widely recognized as wrong. I'll take the latter. Which we seem to have. Which is good.

19

"They can oppose the war and support the troops without being hypocritical. Opponents of the war deserve our respect, and doubly so if they support our troops as well."

Thank you, Matthew. I oppose the war in Iraq, but I support the troops in that I want them to have adequate equipment to do their jobs while maximizing their personal safety. I want them to be adequately compensated for the work they do. I think we should send them gifts and letters that show our appreciation for their efforts and the risks they face, even if we oppose the context of those actions. Soldiers obey lawful orders. I can support that, even if I feel the lawful orders should never have been given.

I think what is going on here is not anti-war people trying to have it both ways; it is pro- Iraq war people trying to portray anti-Iraq war people as unpatriotic.

20

ucfengr:

If you had bothered to keep track of news, you'd find that even Air Force personnel are being relegated to tasks traditionally given over to the Army...

They have to follow orders; didn't you get the memo?

Of course, Joe Carter, if he's really concerned about the troops, can always re-enlist...

21

Rob Thank you, Matthew. I oppose the war in Iraq,...

When you say you oppose the war, is it because the war is inherently immoral or just that it is a just war, just not a wise use of our military?

Mumon Of course, Joe Carter, if he's really concerned about the troops, can always re-enlist...

Of course, Mumon, if he's really concerned about the troops, can always enlist...

22

Joe Carter wrote:

I put up with a lot of nonsense from you. But I draw the line when you start implying that the members of our military are too stupid or weak willed to make “free” and “rational” decisions. Why don’t you go peddle your anti-Americanism somewhere else? I’m getting rather bored with it.

Why do you seem to have this animus against Americans, most of whom indeed do support the troops but oppose the war?

I'm not implying that the troops are "stupid" or "weak," I'm saying they're not given full disclosure.

Anybody here can show this to be the case: go over to the Army recruiting sites, and look to see if there's a scintilla of information about the likelihood of becoming a casualty.

They military has reams of statistics on this. It's been culled from campaigns at least as far back as WWII.

The 10:1/50:1 numbers are themselves culled from campaigns against insurgents in Greece, Algeria, Malaysia, Vietnam, and elsewhere.

This argument was in fact made by folks like Gen. Shinseki; who, I think knows a bit about military affairs than you do.

Moreover, the proof is in the pudding: Have we quelled the insurgency with the numbers of troops we have? Everyone knows the answer to that question.

23

Sorry, Joe the comments are flying today.

And, at the age of 48, I'm afraid I'm too old to enlist.

And even so, I'd likely be doing research at DARPA or ONR a place like that, which wouldn't exactly help the boots on the ground any time soon.

24

If you had bothered to keep track of news, you'd find that even Air Force personnel are being relegated to tasks traditionally given over to the Army...

Which means exactly what? That you know absolutely nothing about how the military operates. What specific tasks is the Air Force performing that are "traditionally" the role of the Army? There is a lot of redundancy built into the US military, it's not surprising or unusal that there is a lot of overlap.

25

And even so, I'd likely be doing research at DARPA or ONR a place like that, which wouldn't exactly help the boots on the ground any time soon.

My, we think a lot of ourselves, don't we?

26

Mumon I'm not implying that the troops are "stupid" or "weak," I'm saying they're not given full disclosure.

Anybody here can show this to be the case: go over to the Army recruiting sites, and look to see if there's a scintilla of information about the likelihood of becoming a casualty.

So you’re not saying that they are “stupid” but yet you’re saying that they couldn’t figure out that joining the military might be dangerous because it isn’t mentioned on an Army recruiting site? Do you even read what you write?

They military has reams of statistics on this. It's been culled from campaigns at least as far back as WWII.

Um, yeah. And if we used WWII statistics we can conclude that it was impossible for us to overtake Afghanistan with so few troops.

The 10:1/50:1 numbers are themselves culled from campaigns against insurgents in Greece, Algeria, Malaysia, Vietnam, and elsewhere.

Anything from, oh let’s say, the past 30 years? Do you think the military is the same as it was in the Vietnam-era?

This argument was in fact made by folks like Gen. Shinseki; who, I think knows a bit about military affairs than you do.

Perhaps he does. But there are other generals (including General Powell) who disagreed. Who should we believe?

Moreover, the proof is in the pudding: Have we quelled the insurgency with the numbers of troops we have? Everyone knows the answer to that question.

You don’t seem to. Do you even have any idea what is happening in Iraq? Do you know anything about the “insurgency?” Tell us how many people are in this “insurgency” so we can calculate how many troops we’ll need.

And even so, I'd likely be doing research at DARPA or ONR a place like that, which wouldn't exactly help the boots on the ground any time soon.

Um, yeah, I don’t think so. They tend to only take really smart people.

27

Extremely lucid post and subsequent comments, Mr. Carter. Thank you.

28

It was good to hear Hewitt dismantle Stein on Radio Blogger - the guy is so amateurish, he literally knows nothing about the people doing the heavy lifting to protect his right to bloviate, i.e., the U.S. military.

29

Joe Carter and Tom challenged my assertion that it is inconsistent to be pro-life and for the death penalty.

First, I was giving some examples of how we are all inconsistent in our personal beliefs. If these examples do not fit for you, then pick another. Do you disagree that we may all be guilty of being inconsistent? I know I am.

Second, being pro-life means (I believe) that we respect that we are all created in God's image, and we respect the sanctity of human life. Murderers are created in God's image, just as you and I are. Therefore, I am against the death penalty because there is not a sinning, imperfect human being on this earth who can determine that another human's life should be extinguished. These are my sincerely held Christian beliefs.

Aside from my Christian view, I also oppose it because:
1) It has not been proven to be a deterrent. People still commit horrible crimes. Obviously, they think they can get away with it. The notion of a deterrent presumes rational thinking, but many criminals show an absence of long-term, rational thinking, so why would it be a deterrent? Alternatively, as with drug-related crimes, a criminal may feel that the economic rewards are so great that they are worth the risk. This is an example of rational thinking, but the death penalty is still not a deterrent. It is just a variable in an equation.
2) It is sometimes administered incorrectly. In other words, we are human and we make mistakes. Even if the mistake rate is a mere 5%, that means, in this country, 50 people have been killed erroneously in modern times. Which leads to the most important point --
3) By what authority does a nation claim to be able to execute people? When you move from incarceration to execution, you take the punishment to a higher level. Do states think they have some higher moral authority that grants them authority to kill people? In the U.S., there is no state-established religion, so the state cannot claim religious reasons for execution. So what is the basis for the states' ability to execute people? If one of the functions of government is to maintain order, it would seem that lifetime incarceration meets that goal, without moving to the next, final, level of punishment. There is no "divine right of kings" in this country.

Sorry if I hijacked this. Now back to the war ...

30

Rob Ryan,

Hi Rob, how are you doing?

I accept your thanks, but it would be very wrong for me not to respect you and your views, and I am just acknowledging that. Your views are highly intelligent and commendable, and your support for the troops is entirely consistent with your opposition to the war.

I strongly disagree with your position, but I think I understand where you are coming from, and I would certainly be happy to engage your views and learn in more detail why you are still opposed to what we have been doing in Iraq.

Joe,

If you decided to resign from the Marine Corps because you felt you were being ordered to fight an unjust, immoral, or sorely misguided war, I would certainly support your decision wholeheartedly and commend you for it.

If you decided to stay in the Marine Corps despite being ordered to fight in an unjust, immoral, or sorely misguided war, then I could not unreservedly support your decision without getting further information about what went into your decision.

But if I were to conclude that you had decided to defer to the collective judgement and wisdom of the duly-constituted authorities of your nation, and were willing to put your personal misgivings aside out of a sense of professional duty, then I would likewise wholeheartedly support your decision and commend you for it.

A soldier is duty-bound to serve his country. He must decide whether his duty demands fighting or conscientiously objecting. But agreeing or disagreeing with the morality/justice of a particular war is not necessarily going to be the sole factor, or even the most important factor, in making that decision.

Deciding whether to participate in a war is perhaps the most important decision a soldier has to make, but it is by no means as easy as voting in favor or in opposition to a war. Reality is not so black-and-white as that, Mr. Carter.

31

Do you disagree that we may all be guilty of being inconsistent? I know I am.

I’m sure that at some time or other, all of us are guilty of hypocrisy. When I lauded Stein for not being hypocritical on this issue I wasn’t implying that he is never in any way a hypocrite. That is certainly more than I can know.

Therefore, I am against the death penalty because there is not a sinning, imperfect human being on this earth who can determine that another human's life should be extinguished. These are my sincerely held Christian beliefs.

While I can respect that opinion, I too hold sincere beliefs on the issue. Beliefs which come from what I consider to be the ultimate source on questions of life an death: The Bible. The death penalty was established in the Noachic covenant and, as far as I know, has not been revoked.

Aside from my Christian view, I also oppose it because:

While I agree that many of these reasons is a valid concern, they should not, in themselves, be the reason we set aside God’s word on the matter.
Sorry if I hijacked this. Now back to the war ...

Yes, back to more solid ground. War, hypocrites, and the inane musings of Mumon. ; )

32

Matthew But if I were to conclude that you had decided to defer to the collective judgement and wisdom of the duly-constituted authorities of your nation, and were willing to put your personal misgivings aside out of a sense of professional duty, then I would likewise wholeheartedly support your decision and commend you for it.

Would you apply this historically? What if you were living in America during the late 1930’s and one of your childhood friends moved to Germany. While there he decides to enlist in the army and ends up serving with the Nazis during WWII. Would you support your friend’s actions since has deferred to the collective judgment and wisdom of the duly-constituted authorities of his nation? If not, then why does it change simply because we are in the U.S.? An immoral war, whether undertaken by Nazis or neo-cons, is still immoral. How would you make a legitimate distinction?

A soldier is duty-bound to serve his country.

A soldier is duty-bound to serve his conscience first, his country second.

He must decide whether his duty demands fighting or conscientiously objecting. But agreeing or disagreeing with the morality/justice of a particular war is not necessarily going to be the sole factor, or even the most important factor, in making that decision.

What should be the most important factor in deciding whether to go against one’s conscience and participate in a war that one considers immoral and unjust?

Deciding whether to participate in a war is perhaps the most important decision a soldier has to make, but it is by no means as easy as voting in favor or in opposition to a war. Reality is not so black-and-white as that, Mr. Carter.

Reality is, I think, just that black and white. The problem is that too often people don't have the courage to live as they truly believe.

What is the worst that would happen to someone who refuses to go to Iraq? They spend a few days in the brig and are discharged (likely a general discharge rather than a dishonorable one). And what happens if they choose to go against their conscience? They could end up killing people for what they consider to be immoral and unjust reasons. I see that as a starkly black and white choice.

If given the choice between suffering minor humiliation and killing an innocent person what would you choose to do?
I suspect that you wouldn’t see the choice as much of a choice at all. I think you’d do the right thing. Why shouldn’t we expect soldiers do the same?

33

Joe Carter:

...they couldn’t figure out that joining the military might be dangerous because it isn’t mentioned on an Army recruiting site?

There's dangerous and there's dangerous. Obviously, any recruit who doesn't think he's going to be in personal danger in action shouldn't be joining the Army... the Marines, maybe... (sorry couldn't resist).

But soldiers should reasonably expect that they should have enough equipment to accomplish their misssion, that there should be enough troops available for the mission so that they're not kept in action so long they become catatonic, they should be free from stuff like depleted uranium, etc.

And I have no problem with soldiers knowing what kind of risks prevail today. The casualty rates (including wounded) are not a negligible portion of the original forces.

But you know that; the troops know that too.

Does the guy who's being courted with promises of paid-for college know it?

Do you think the military is the same as it was in the Vietnam-era?

Do you think the insurgents are all going around in pajamas with WWI issue rifles?

Let me 'splain this to you: the insurgents, like the guys in the uniforms, aren't stupid. In case you didn't read about it, because of inadequate force strength going in, the insurgents got hold of a huge cache of high explosives and other thing s that are dangerous to life and limb.

But in another sense, the military is the same as it was way back when. As Dunnigan's pointed out, mines tend to be unpopular with soldiers because there's no one to get credit for 'em.

Insurgents typically don't have that problem (except for those stupid enough to become suicide bombers, and who apparently do so for the same reason that mines are unpopular with soldiers); hence the proliferation and evolution of IEDs.

Tell us how many people are in this “insurgency” so we can calculate how many troops we’ll need.

Well, I'd start with an estimate of the Iraqi Army prior to the invasion: 50K to 100K, which I would imagine was the number that Shinseki started with.

You can do the math.

The "estimated" number of insurgents today look suspiciously like some folks in the Pentagon have worked backwards from the number of troops present, and they seem to change a lot.

34

Joe,

I read the Bible, too! In fact, I was reading Ezekiel at lunch time today. From Ezekiel 33:11 (NIV)

Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'

I am sure we could both find scriptures to support our different positions. I am at work, and time precludes me from doing it justice now. But this is not a new debate, and there are many Christians who are against the death penalty for Biblical reasons. God's word on the matter is not easily deduced. Moreover, if we are going to adhere to the Mosaic laws, then should we not use the death penalty for adultery and not keeping holy the Sabbath? In fact, I have threatened my 16 year old son with Deuteronomy 21:18-21 which allows me to have the elders stone him if he is repeatedly rebellious.

Also, even if you believe that the death penalty is in accordance with God's will, how can you ensure that the administration of it by non-believers is in accordance with God's will? In the Old Testament, the leaders were men of God (and if they weren't then God took care of it Himself). With today's secular governments, how can you ensure that the judge, jury and executioner are not being guided by satan? Hence, my point that governments today have no moral authority to administer the death penalty.

Finally, I always find it incredibly ironic that we followers of Jesus -- the ultimate example of an improperly, politically administered death penalty -- can support the death penalty.

35

"When you say you oppose the war, is it because the war is inherently immoral or just that it is a just war, just not a wise use of our military?"

Both in this case. The war is providing a poor return on our investment, in my opinion. Also, the deaths of innocents at our hands, while practically inevitable, cannot be characterized as just. In that sense, there is no "just" war. That doesn't mean, however, that there is no war I could support. Sometimes, as in the case of WWII, war is by far the lesser of two evils. Let's not sugarcoat it by calling it a just war, though. It was relatively, but not absolutely, just.

36

Joe,

My response to your article:
Is there not something to be said for the soldier who has not had the time or resources to sort all of these things out, but simply trusts the people who make these decisions (even if those people turn out to be immoral)? Surely, that soldier cannot be considered morally culpable for being involved in an unjust war, can he?

Your response to my response:
Are the Nazis morally culpable for their actions in WWII?

I haven't studied your "Know Your Logical Fallacies" sections as much as I'd like, but your response has to fall under one of them. You're making an incredibly difficult case the rule. Clearly, a soldier should know that he is wrong to trust his superiors when they're ordering him to execute hundreds of defenseless Jews. It's an entirely different thing when your superiors ask you to go to Iraq. What the soldiers in Iraq are being ordered to do is far more complex. In their situation, I believe there is much to be said for the soldier who simply follows the orders of his superiors in such a morally ambiguous situation.

37

Murderers are created in God's image, just as you and I are. Therefore, I am against the death penalty because there is not a sinning, imperfect human being on this earth who can determine that another human's life should be extinguished. These are my sincerely held Christian beliefs.

Bob, I don't doubt your sincerity. But here's my response: it's precisely because murderers are created in God's image, as were their victims, that I support the death penalty. It assumes that they are morally cognizant and therefore morally culpable when they commit a murder. The focus should also be on the victim.

The Bible's prescription for capital punishment is the only punishment in Scripture that is predicated on man's being created in God's image. OT scholar Walt Kaiser likens murder to killing God in effigy. (Gen. 9:6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.") Note that the prescription specifically states that the punishment is to be administered by man. The point is reitterated in the NT in Romans 13.

It has not been proven to be a deterrent.

So what? Jail has not proved to be a deterrent to any number of crimes. Should we then do away with jail? No, a person should be punished for the sole reason that he deserves to be punished. Whatever deterrrent effect there might or might not be is purely secondary, if not irrelevant to the moral calculus.

It is sometimes administered incorrectly.

I agree, which is why I included my caveat in the original statement. One can be for capital punishment in theory (as I am) and still recognize that, practically speaking, it should be administered rarely. But in cases where they is no doubt to the guilt of the murder, then it is an affront to justice and to the victims that he gets to live while the innocent victim is dead.

By what authority does a nation claim to be able to execute people? ... Do states think they have some higher moral authority that grants them authority to kill people?

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:1-4)

This, by the way, is the response to vigilante "justice." Such actions are not under God's authority.

38

As Dunnigan's pointed out, mines tend to be unpopular with soldiers because there's no one to get credit for 'em.

Huh!? You've obviously never been in the infanty. We loved mines (and artillery) because they protected us without us having to stick our heads up. Who cares who gets the "credit."

39

My first sentence in my last comment was an error. I would not characterize the war as inherently immoral; that implies a moral absolute. Neither would I characterize it as a just war, although I think some wars have been, on balance, just. The distinction may seem insignificant to some, but I don't want to alarm those who know me by coming across as an objectivist. ;-)

40

The distinction may seem insignificant to some, but I don't want to alarm those who know me by coming across as an objectivist. ;-)

But the fact that you instinctively resorted to such language shows that, at heart, you work under those assumptions and only when you cognitively "turned off" these instincts did you have to go back to "correct" yourself. It's ever so with moral relativists and other non-objectivists.

41

Bryan I haven't studied your "Know Your Logical Fallacies" sections as much as I'd like, but your response has to fall under one of them.

You may disagree with the analogy but I don’t think there is a logical fallacy there.

You're making an incredibly difficult case the rule.

Actually, I was trying to clarify the rule by looking at an unambiguous case. Let me see if I can’t clarify what I mean.

I believe that it is immoral to participate in a clearly immoral war. In other words, I would say that:

If P (If a war is immoral), then Q (It is immoral to participate in it).

I believe that the Germans were fighting an immoral war during WWII (P), therefore it follows that it was immoral for them to participate in what is clearly an immoral war (Q).

Modus ponens:

If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q.

You seem to disagree with me on Q. For example, you say:

Clearly, a soldier should know that he is wrong to trust his superiors when they're ordering him to execute hundreds of defenseless Jews.

I’m not sure if that is so clear since thousands of German soldiers did just that. But what you are saying is that the soldiers should have followed their conscience despite what their superiors ordered them to do. Since the Nuremburg trials, this has been an agreed upon moral axiom.

This is basically the same thing as Q. It is clearly immoral to participate in a war when you know that what you are ordered to do is wrong.

But then you add:

It's an entirely different thing when your superiors ask you to go to Iraq. What the soldiers in Iraq are being ordered to do is far more complex. In their situation, I believe there is much to be said for the soldier who simply follows the orders of his superiors in such a morally ambiguous situation.

You haven’t abandoned Q (I don’t think) but are simply saying that it does not apply to the Iraq war. If the war was clearly immoral then the soldiers would not be wrong to trust their superiors. But you are saying that this is a morally ambiguous situation and therefore the soldiers can’t be held responsible.

In other words, you appear to be saying that it is not clear that the Iraq war is immoral. If the war was clearly immoral then the soldiers would be without excuse. But since they can be excused, the war is clearly not immoral.

At least that is what you appear to be saying. Am I wrong in my interpretation?

42

But in another sense, the military is the same as it was way back when. As Dunnigan's pointed out, mines tend to be unpopular with soldiers because there's no one to get credit for 'em.

Who's Dunnigan and what unit was he in? Seriously though, I really must question mumon's moral compass. How can he support a bunch of dumb, bloodthirsty killers who sit around and worry about the number of notches they can carve on their guns?

The "estimated" number of insurgents today look suspiciously like some folks in the Pentagon have worked backwards from the number of troops present, and they seem to change a lot.

Seems mumon is using the same slight of hand. Make "the insurgency" so large that we would never be able to mobilize enough troops to quell it and then sit back and bitch that we don't have enough troops and the plan sucked and Bush is evil.

43

ucfengr:
Who's Dunnigan and what unit was he in?

He's a mensch.

How can he support a bunch of dumb, bloodthirsty killers who sit around and worry about the number of notches they can carve on their guns?

Like I said, I don't want them dead.

How can you claim to be pro-life and want them dead? Seems to be a problem with your moral compass.

Seems mumon is using the same slight of hand. Make "the insurgency" so large that we would never be able to mobilize enough troops to quell it...

Ummm... you could be able to mobilize enough troops to quell it. But you'd need a D-R-A-F-T.

But if ol Jack Megachurch with the yellow "support our troops" bumpersticker on his SUV had to send his son to Iraq...well, there's a reason we have an "all-volunteer" Army today.

44

I don't get why Joe doesn't support the United States of America?

By that I mean there's a long history here of civilian rule over the military. In other words we do not have the military making policy decisions but they carry out the orders of the civilian government, even in times of war.

So to keep this clear let's take an easy example and apply it to the big picture. If I think the speed limit should be 75 and not 65 should I blame the cops or the gov't? If I campaign for increasing the speed limit am I not "showing support" for cops? Is it a contradiction to say that I support the cops but not the low speed limit?

Any intelligent person, and even many regulars here, will know instantly the answer to the above question. They'd immediately see the difference between advocating a change in policy and respecting those whose duty it is to carry out whatever policy a democratic gov't decides on.

But the problem here is not what 'the left' did to Vietnam vets but what the right did in Vietnam & later on. They equated opposition to a military policy to disrespecting the troops. (BTW, this 'rule' was happily ignored when the military action happened to be ordered by a certain recent President who was not a Republican)

Hence many people feel they have to head off such bogus accusations by emphasizing that they do not disagree with those who implement a policy but those who make a policy. This is a very told trick. Over 100 years ago Abe Lincoln had to do the same thing to dodge accusations that his opposition to the war with Mexico was also opposition to the American soldier.

Both Stein and Carter are wrong on this one. To 'support' or 'not support' 'the troops' has nothing to do with whether or not one supports the war. Carter, being an ex-military man, though, should really know better. To equate 'the troops' with a particular policy implies that out gov't is something other than civilian run. A military run gov't should be abhorant to any sensible person but it should be especially abhorant to a member of the US armed forces.

Sadly this failure to think clearly and remember American ideals leads Joe to this silly conclusion:

This puts the protesters in a quandary. Either the “troops” don’t know what they’re doing is wrong, in which case they’re morally ignorant, or they’re forced to obey immoral orders, in which case they’re moral cowards. Since neither ignorance nor cowardice excuses moral culpability (see: Nazi Germany) the protesters have no alternative but to attribute some form of moral deficiency to the “troops.” Which brings up the question: What exactly is it that the protesters are “supporting?” (Fortunately for them, the Left doesn’t place a high priority on rational consistency.)

As Joe should know very well, the military member is only expected to disobey immoral orders when they rise to a very high level of immorality. The military member is not expected to disobey orders from the civilian gov't they feel are immoral unless a very high threshold is meet. They are not, therefore, to be expected to evaluate Bush's claims of 'necessity' when he ordered the invasion of Iraq and then refuse to comply if they found it wanting. No decent leftist would want this since it is basically saying one wants a military dictatorship where the military has veto on democratic gov't. (Of course, a good student will also recognize that the military that can refuse an order to invade a country can just as easily defy an order NOT to invade).

45

Brandon Snider commented about this subject several months ago....
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/snider1.html

46

Joe:
I believe that it is immoral to participate in a clearly immoral war.

Hi Joe,

Would you favor changing the laws governing conscientious objector status? As I understand it, a soldier may be eligible for a discharge as a conscientious objector, if he can demonstrate that he has come to believe all war is immoral. However, if he believes that a particular war is immoral, but not all war, he is not considered a conscientious objector and would be required to continue serving. AFAIK, the law makes no distinction between believing that a particular war is a strategic blunder and believing that it is immoral. Your statement above indicates that soldiers should be making moral judgements about particular wars, not just war in general. In that case, wouldn't it be a good idea for the law to recognize that moral responsibility?

47

I hope that's not the case Nick. It would be a shame if Joe decided he did not support America anymore!

48

Boonton,
What about when the politicians pass a law that instructs the state police to round up all Jews and the police comply?
Speed limits on the surface are not largely a moral issue.

I agree with you an Mumon for once.

I think we need to make a distinction between the individual men and women and the "military".
The "military" is the administrative unit that consists of the careers of millions, and eats up a huge chunk of our federal budget. The "men and women" are individuals, all of whom entered the military for personal reasons.
That these men and women served does not create a positive obligation on my part to provide them with anything. Most of them probably entered the military for personal reasons, not just to "protect our freedoms". Reasons like adventure, an income, a large sign on bonus, promises of money for college, and federal benefits. I did not ask these people to serve.
I would be inclined to believe our military was "defending our freedoms" if they would limit themselves to defending our borders...and if they did it successfully. Remember 9/11? They couldn't even defend their headquarters--the Pentagon.
It's much more reasonable to believe that the military is just a tool for Congress and the White House to enact their foreign policy goals.

And if the military is sooooo good at defending our freedoms, why do we need a Dept. of Homeland Security?

49

I said: It is sometimes administered incorrectly.

Tom said: I agree, which is why I included my caveat in the original statement. One can be for capital punishment in theory (as I am) and still recognize that, practically speaking, it should be administered rarely. But in cases where they is no doubt to the guilt of the murder, then it is an affront to justice and to the victims that he gets to live while the innocent victim is dead.
-----
Tom -- that is an opinion. I respect your opinion. I hold a different opinion.
-----
I said: By what authority does a nation claim to be able to execute people? ... Do states think they have some higher moral authority that grants them authority to kill people?

Tom said: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:1-4)
-----
Tom -- clearly this is not literally true in all cases. I am not sure what Paul meant exactly. Would you say this to the Iraqis under Saddam? Would you say this to the Jews under Hitler? That would win a lot of converts, right? ;)

So there must be situations in which, if the ruler is doing something that is against God's will, then it is God's will for us to rebel. For in rebelling we are doing His will. Did not Daniel refuse to eat the royal food and drink the royal wine?
-----

50

Boonton,
What about when the politicians pass a law that instructs the state police to round up all Jews and the police comply?Speed limits on the surface are not largely a moral issue.

I would think opposing such a law would not be opposint the police but rather the politicians who passed it.

Here's another example that's less extreme. What about people who feel that pot should be legalized or at least that people should not get 20 years in jail simply because they sometimes use pot without hurting anyone? Does taking that position mean you have to not "support the police" who enforce such laws that you are seeking to change? Does feeling that the law is wrong mean that you feel the police should but their judgement above their fellow citizens and declare they will not enforce it?

The problem with "but I support the troops" is not that it is not true. Many congressmen who opposed the war, for example, have been all over the administration for not giving the troops the proper body armour. Does not supporting the war mean you have to be against protecting the troops that we have in Iraq or else Joe Carter will find you guilty of hypocrisy?

The problem with "but I support the troops" is the assumption that it has to be said. It is, quite frankly, an insult and the left should be calling the right out on it. There is no more need for a liberal who opposes the war to remind people that he supports the troops than there is for a libertarian who opposed public schools to remind people that he 'supports the children' or a conservative who disagrees with affirmative action to remind people that he doesn't hate black people.

51

I've read How to Make War by Dunnigan. It's a good read but it's definitely stuck in the past. That's not to say that a lot of it isn't relevant, but you can't fight a new war by using past war standards. Also, I read quite a bit of military history and I've never seen anyone complain about mines unless they were on the receiving end.

well, there's a reason we have an "all-volunteer" Army today

It's called Vietnam. I find it funny that the same type of people who complained about the draft in the past, complain now that we don't have one.

52

I am not sure what Paul meant exactly. Would you say this to the Iraqis under Saddam? Would you say this to the Jews under Hitler? That would win a lot of converts, right? ;) So there must be situations in which, if the ruler is doing something that is against God's will, then it is God's will for us to rebel.

And what about our Founding Fathers? But remember that Paul was writing Romans 13 when the utterly wicked Nero was the Roman emperor.

I admit it is not absolutely cut-and-dried, but the key part of your phrase is "against God's will." Punsihing evil-doers is clearly not against God's will. And Genesis 9:6 gives a clear reason why capital punishment is God's will, a command not fulfilled or superceded by Christ's life and death.

It's the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime.

53

Mumon,

President Bush has not taken me into his confidence on this, so I cannot guarantee that what I am about to say is correct. But I suspect that one reason we invaded Iraq with only about 200,000 of our own troops is because we wanted to avoid repeating an error we made in Vietnam. That error was turning South Vietnam into Fortress U.S.A. by sending too many troops (and support personnel) for too long.

Our error in Vietnam, while made with the best of intentions, generated several problems for our side. We created a garrison state that inflamed nationalist passions in both the North and the South, we horribly distorted both the economy and the politics of the South, and we provided a bright, huge, tempting target to the Viet Cong guerillas and the North Vietnamese army.

So while we enjoyed a long string of battlefield victories during that conflict, our strategic oversight helped to create a mess that we eventually chose to deal with by abandoning the South to the communist North.

Rob,

Also, the deaths of innocents at our hands, while practically inevitable, cannot be characterized as just.

We killed a lot more innocent civilians in France during 1944-45 than we killed in Iraq. If those deaths were unjust, then it seems to me you are, with all due respect, just an unreconstructed pacifist who is reluctant to show his true colors.

I have a question for you: would you characterize the death of enemy soldiers at our hands as just? I don't see a huge difference between annihilating a platoon of unwilling Iraqi conscripts and accidentally killing some Iraqi civilians with a bomb that has gone astray.

Joe,

What if you were living in America during the late 1930’s and one of your childhood friends moved to Germany. While there he decides to enlist in the army and ends up serving with the Nazis during WWII. Would you support your friend’s actions since has deferred to the collective judgment and wisdom of the duly-constituted authorities of his nation? If not, then why does it change simply because we are in the U.S.? An immoral war, whether undertaken by Nazis or neo-cons, is still immoral. How would you make a legitimate distinction?

I would disagree with what my friend was doing, but I would withhold judgement on his character. He finds himself in a horrible situation, so I cannot from my comfortable and safe perch in the U.S.A. judge him too harshly.

And I would encourage and admire him if he decided to take the personal risk of joining the resistance to Hitler's criminal and evil regime.

A soldier is duty-bound to serve his conscience first, his country second.

Not only do I agree with you, it is exactly the point that I was making.

What should be the most important factor in deciding whether to go against one’s conscience and participate in a war that one considers immoral and unjust?

I think your question cuts to the heart of this debate. It's an excellent question.

Different people will have different answers. Here's my answer: look at all the consequences of participating versus not-participating versus actively opposing the war, and figure out which course of action leads to the best consequences.

Fighting in an unjust or mistaken war might actually lead to the best consequences, because losing an unjust war might be far worse than winning one.

Reality is, I think, just that black and white. The problem is that too often people don't have the courage to live as they truly believe.

While I disagree with you, I do think there is some truth to what you say. But you take that truth and apply it to situations where it doesn't fit.

And what happens if they choose to go against their conscience? They could end up killing people for what they consider to be immoral and unjust reasons. I see that as a starkly black and white choice.

You might be right about that.

But what if Private John Smith, who believes the war is B.S., cannot prove the war is B.S.? After all, he ain't the President, he's not privy to all the intelligence reports and strategic considerations that are involved in making the decision to go to war. After all, war is, generally speaking, an option of last resort, and who is to say, who is competent to judge better than our elected representatives, whether or not all other options have been sufficiently played out?

Should Private Smith really put his very self-interested judgement above that of the Commander-in-Chief, who is supposed to be weighing and balancing the interests of the whole nation? At some point, a soldier has to be willing to be obedient, not because he doesn't trust his own conscience or judgement, but because he's willing sometimes to trust the conscience and judgement of others who have more responsibility and experience.

If given the choice between suffering minor humiliation and killing an innocent person what would you choose to do?
I suspect that you wouldn’t see the choice as much of a choice at all. I think you’d do the right thing. Why shouldn’t we expect soldiers do the same?

I hope I would not be a coward and a hypocrite. I hope I would choose the minor humiliation.

But very few American soldiers are ever given such a clear choice. There is almost always some ambiguity, and most of the time the ambiguity is quite substantial.

Joe, your heart is firmly in the right place. A soldier has the power to do great good and great evil, and must strive at all times to do good.

But war (life in general?) is such that we often cannot recognize what is "good" and what is "evil" until after we have made our decisions and carried out our duties.

54

Chris Lutz:

I'd like to thank you for the post.

Anyway, Dunnigan's book has been through I think serveral editions; I haven't read a new one since the early 90s. But, as I said, neither the insurgents nor us use past standards for war; they do evolve.

But IEDs and mines, with greater lethality today, still pose problems.

I find it funny that the same type of people who complained about the draft in the past, complain now that we don't have one.

Actually, I'm quite conflicted about a draft; my point was though that we could prevail over an insurgency, albeit at a political cost the Republicans - and many on the center and left- would be unwilling to bear.

But if you want to win, you've got to have the strength to do it.

55

What specific tasks is the Air Force performing that are "traditionally" the role of the Army?

Convoy duty. I knew a communications 2Lt who was tasked with taking 2 other airmen out to ride shotgun with an army convoy.

I'm not jumping into the argument one way or another here, just pointing out that the AF is indeed being tasked with things that have traditionally been army duties due to the traditional ground forces being streatched thin.

56

Matthew Goggins:

I think the other "mistake" we made in Vietnam was taking on an enemy righteously peeved at centuries of colonialism who was willing to take casualties at 10X the rate at which we were to achieve their objectives.

57

Boonton:

You say: "The problem with 'but I support the troops' is the assumption that it has to be said."

It doesn't have to be said. It is perfectly possible to not support the war and not support the troops. One can not support the war and think that the "troops" are a bunch of violence-loving jingoistic cretins. You know, the kind of guys who wantonly kill animals in the field and terrorize women and children.

One can "support" the troops for a variety of reasons, as well. For example, one could think of the troops as a bunch of gullible ninnies that volunteered for the job beacuse they weren't bright enough to know that joining the military could involve some personal risk or were simply misled by slogans. But that's really prideful pity in drag, not support.

Personally, I support the troops because I agree that Saddam Hussein was a radical socialist like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao with the same sadistic disregard for human life. He's a poster child for capital punishment. The planet, possibly excepting the French and Russian oligarchs, is better off without him.

But I think it is important for people to be candid about their position on this issue. Stein is simply honest where some of our prominent politicians are lying to avoid losing appeal to the majority of the electorate. I can't fault him for being candid.

58

Mumon,

We made a lot more than two mistakes in Vietnam. Maybe our biggest mistake was aping some of the criminal and savage tactics of our enemy.

59

joe:

The problem is that too often people don't have the courage to live as they truly believe.

More like the problem is that too often people don't have the courage to admit what they truly believe.

60

I love the troops, but I do not support their mission. Does that mean I do not support the troops?

I will pray for the troops safety, but I also pray that they never kill or maim a human being. Does that mean I do not support the troops?

I will gladly lay down my life to save the troops, but I will never lay down my life to kill the enemy. Does that mean I do not support the troops?

I do not support soldiers. I support men and women. I do not support killing. I support killers, by loving them, by forgiving them, by giving them my entire being.

Is it impossible to love killers? Is it impossible to love those who bomb babies? It is impossible to love those who fly planes into towers?

I've always heard that we had to love our enemies. And that's what I'm going to do - no matter what flag or uniform they might be wearing.

If loving the sinner and hating the sin is evil, then call me evil. I call it divine.

61

"But the fact that you instinctively resorted to such language shows that, at heart, you work under those assumptions and only when you cognitively "turned off" these instincts did you have to go back to "correct" yourself. It's ever so with moral relativists and other non-objectivists."

Your amateur psychology notwithstanding, the reason I corrected myself is that I re-read Joe's comment, noticed the objectivist slant, and decided to clarify my position. Don't quit your day job, Tom! ;-)

"We killed a lot more innocent civilians in France during 1944-45 than we killed in Iraq. If those deaths were unjust, then it seems to me you are, with all due respect, just an unreconstructed pacifist who is reluctant to show his true colors."

Of course those deaths were unjust; could they be otherwise? If you define "pacifist" as one strongly and actively opposed to war, maybe I am. I am also opposed to killing in general, but I would kill a thug who imminently threatened my family. I think I made it clear that I approved of the U.S. entry into WWII. I am not reluctant to show my true colors; on the contrary, I've laid it out as clearly as I can. If it seems unclear, it is because I am more pragmatic than dogmatic.

"I have a question for you: would you characterize the death of enemy soldiers at our hands as just? I don't see a huge difference between annihilating a platoon of unwilling Iraqi conscripts and accidentally killing some Iraqi civilians with a bomb that has gone astray."

I see quite a bit of difference, Matthew.

62

I have trouble getting too excited about this, since I have never quite understood what it means to "support our troops." Nearly all of those opposed to this war are paying a good chunk of their taxes to support it. Some of them even fly flags. Does it mean that you pray that none of our troops will get killed? That hasn't apparently worked. You put a magnetic yellow ribbon on your SUV (filled with gasoline from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela)? Does it mean you send care packages? Or buy Jessica Simpson posters since she went to Iraq?

Assuming he doesn't write a nationally syndicated article, how would I tell from his behavior whether or not my neighbor supports the troops?

63

Actually, I'm quite conflicted about a draft; my point was though that we could prevail over an insurgency, albeit at a political cost the Republicans - and many on the center and left- would be unwilling to bear.

I agree with you there. I agreed with invading Iraq, but I haven't been real happy with the post invasion strategy. We've fought insurgencies before and won, the Phillippines. I think I know where you are heading with the political cost statement, but I don't think the draft in and of itself would be the problem. I think how you have to prosecute wars against insurgencies would be the problem. If you follow the Phillipines model, you get the following:

1. Carrot - reward those loyal to you (we seem to reward everyone)
2. Stick - You oppose us, we squash you regardless of civilian casualties (in Mogadishu, the combatants marched women and children in front of them). We try to avoid them, but if you have a stronghold, we'll level it. Opposition leaders get a long drop from a short rope and anyone else is going to spend some uncomfortable time in prison.
3. We hold territory and use mobility to hit trouble spots. You have to hold territory to prevent the bad guys from controlling areas. Search and destroy doesn't work ("Soldier" by Herbert is an interesting read). Insurgencies really come down to will protect the populace. With our superior mobility and command and control we should be able to control territory with troops and rush support to hotspots.

Sorry, I rambling here. The point is that insurgencies are messy and to quell them you are going to have to take some actions that go against the normal rules of warfare. I don't believe the people in this country are willing to go through with those steps.

One problem with my analysis is that the areas that still were difficult when the Phillipines were finally under control were the Muslim areas. I think that Islam represents unique challenges in this case also.

64

Rob,

Of course those deaths were unjust; could they be otherwise?

The deaths are unjust in the sense that the people didn't deserve to die. But they are not unjust in the sense that we should not have killed them.

If the only way, or the best way, to get Hitler out of France was to fight in a way that resulted in those people dying, then their deaths were just in the sense of being justified. To borrow your phrase, how could be it be otherwise?

I see quite a bit of difference, Matthew.

There's a big difference in that the civilian deaths seem more random and senseless, and may lead to greater feelings of loss and tragedy among the survivors.

But there's no difference at all in terms of deserving to die. The Iraqi conscripts didn't deserve to die either.

If you define "pacifist" as one strongly and actively opposed to war, maybe I am.

By this definition, I am just as big a pacifist as you are.

However, the best way (the only way?) to avoid a war is to be prepared to fight one. And sometimes you can't avoid a war without risking having to fight a much larger and deadlier war down the road.

65

"If the only way, or the best way, to get Hitler out of France was to fight in a way that resulted in those people dying, then their deaths were just in the sense of being justified."

I agree with this statement precisely as you stated it.

"There's a big difference in that the civilian deaths seem more random and senseless, and may lead to greater feelings of loss and tragedy among the survivors."

For me the difference is the threat posed to our troops. The uniformed enemy, regardless of his willingness to serve, is clearly a greater threat than the (most likely) innocent civilian asleep in his home with his family.

My definition of "pacifist" is borrowed from my Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, which lies open by my keyboard at all times.

66

Chris Lutz:

The problem with the stick is that today much of that would be considered war crimes, but obviously, if you're willing to go after civilians, eventually there will be enough dead that the insurgency won't go on.

But to be honest, I think the real problem, the elephant in the living room, is oil. Why is the Middle East of "strategic importance?" Oil.

That's not to say simplistically "it was a war for oil;" the war came about because of a confluence of factors (Saddam Hussein really was an unstable monster, albeit neutered by the Gulf War, plus some strange Project for a New American Century ideology, plus likely a general distaste for the "non-fly zone" standoff from the Gulf War plus oil). But oil is the Middle East.

If we were able to reconstruct our economy in such a way that Americans were at the same level they were in the 60s, but without the need for oil, the Middle East would again be strategically irrelevant to the rest of the world.

True, there'd still be Israel and the fact that there really are Islamic fascists who hate anything non-Islamic, but if oil was 10 cents per barrel instead of $65 a barrel there'd be a lot less at stake.

Eventually, if humanity survives, oil will again be politically irrelevant to the world, if only because we'll learn how to live post-peak oil.

From where I sit, the sooner the US gets to a prosperous post-peak oil economy, the sooner the Middle East becomes as politically relevant as Mali.

67

Rob,

For me the difference is the threat posed to our troops. The uniformed enemy, regardless of his willingness to serve, is clearly a greater threat than the (most likely) innocent civilian asleep in his home with his family.

As I said above, the uniformed enemy does not deserve to die. (Maybe some of them do, but the vast majority do not. Just like the vast majority of civilians do not deserve to die.)

The difference, as you point out, between combatant and non-combatant is the difference between threat and not-a-threat. And that distinction is precisely what determines our rules of engagement: we target the threat, and we do everything in our power to avoid hitting the non-threat.

And in this war, the rules of engagement happen to be a major distinction between our side and the terrorist enemy. Our enemies not only target combatant and non-combatant alike, they actually go out of their way on a regular basis to target the non-combatant, the non-threat. And that is one huge reason why they are evil, and richly deserve to be defeated.

Rob, I would like to know why you are so reluctant to have the American coalition liberate and reconstruct Iraq. Is it merely prudential considerations (you think we're biting off too much), or do you think it is unjustified to invade Iraq and depose Saddam, even if we could handle it?

As always, I strongly appreciate your thoughtful views and I respect your judgement, even when I disagree with you.

68

Stein's position is morally superior to that of those who support the war, but who refuse to support the troops.

By the way, did I mention Rumsfeld and the Pentagon have again delayed the deployment of adequate body armor for our troops? Did you know the Pentagon has again delayed the shipping of adequatly armed vehicles? Do you remember when Bush threatened to veto the bill to give adequate body armor to our troops, because it was more than Bush asked for?

69

Like I said, I don't want them dead.

If that's your standard, I guess you could say you support me, since I assume you don't want me dead. Heck, I could probably even assume you support President Bush;).

How can you claim to be pro-life and want them dead?

I don't claim to be pro-life, but I don't see an inconsistency in being against abortion and wanting to see certain people dead. For example, I didn't shed any tears over that old murderer, Arafat, and I won't over Castro or Kim Il Jung. I might even throw a party when Castro shuffles off.

Ummm... you could be able to mobilize enough troops to quell it. But you'd need a D-R-A-F-T.

Does you vaunted GEN Shinseki(?spelling) even think we need a draft to mobilize more troops? Nobody else in the military wants one. The only people I remember calling for a draft seemed to want to limit it to rich, white kids in the mistaken (and IMO racist) assumption that the military is full of dumb Blacks and Hispanics.

70

Convoy duty. I knew a communications 2Lt who was tasked with taking 2 other airmen out to ride shotgun with an army convoy.

I've never been in the Air Force, but I assume that Air Force personnel ride shotgun on Air Force convoys (yes, the Air Force does have truck convoys), so I don't see this as a "traditional Army" task. If you had told me that AF personnel were acting as tankers, artillerymen, or infantry, I would have been suprised, but this appears to be reaching to me. This would be like saying that Air Force cooks are working in Army mess halls.

71

By the way, did I mention Rumsfeld and the Pentagon have again delayed the deployment of adequate body armor for our troops? Did you know the Pentagon has again delayed the shipping of adequatly armed vehicles? Do you remember when Bush threatened to veto the bill to give adequate body armor to our troops, because it was more than Bush asked for?

Let's assume that all this is true, what does it mean? Does it mean that Rumsfeld wants more troops to die? Do we have this "adequate" body armor sitting in a warehouse some where, and Rumsfeld doesn't feel like shipping it because he needs the trucks to help build a golf course in his backyard? What is meant by "adequately armed vehicles"? Adequately armed for what purpose? What about this bill that Bush supposedly threatened to veto? Why did he threaten to veto it? Was it because he didn't want the troops to have adequate body armor or was their something else in there that caused him to make this threat? Without any context, this statement is meaningless and designed to inflame passions more than pass on any relevent information.

72

"The only people I remember calling for a draft seemed to want to limit it to rich, white kids in the mistaken (and IMO racist) assumption that the military is full of dumb Blacks and Hispanics."

I have never heard of anyone calling for anything other than an across-the-board draft, ucfengr. Perhaps you can support your memory with some evidence.

"Rob, I would like to know why you are so reluctant to have the American coalition liberate and reconstruct Iraq. Is it merely prudential considerations (you think we're biting off too much), or do you think it is unjustified to invade Iraq and depose Saddam, even if we could handle it?"

Too late to be reluctant now, Matthew, as we're already in up to our eyeballs. I do not advocate immediate total withdrawal, either. We have taken on a responsibility. Sadly, we missed the opportunity to do the smart thing, which was to let the Iraqis deal with their own problems.

But as for your questions: I think our Iraq project is more costly than it's worth, both in terms of money and lives. I cannot foresee an outcome so rosy that the enormous expense could be justified. The money would have been better spent on securing our borders, education, or any number of ways. Heck, we could have just let the taxpayers keep it or eliminated our suddenly-bloated deficit. I thought republicans were supposed to be fiscally responsible, but this administration spends like a drunken democrat!

Nor do I buy the argument that this is part of the war on terrorism. Iraq threa