Army
Definitely one of the more interesting takes on ’supporting’ the troops I’ve read in a while. Fundamentally the question is flawed. I come from a country, and was raised in another one, which both had mandatory conscription. The mantra always was:
leave logic at the door when you enter the army.
The reason was simple, in the army you take orders and you do as you’re told. The thing is though, and this is only starting to take form in my head as I’m writing this, does this mean that by joining the army you believe in the path that your country takes when employing said army?
I’ll be more specific. After University the plan was ALWAYS for me to join the army. Now I’m not a violent man however I felt that the Lebanese army wasn’t going to be taking over the world any time soon. By joining the army I would be part of that group of people that would try and defend the country. It wasn’t an agressive force, but rather a force for protection. Regardless of how effective it is, it seemed like I wouldn’t be expediting my morals. I wouldn’t be asked to take over countries and fight for imposing my country’s opinion for someone else’s, as I have seen what that actually means unlike the plethora of idiots that support war, in ANY form.
Which brings me to the American troops. When you join the American army you really should know what that actually entails. You join on your own free will. It’s not mandatory, but rather a decision you make in your life. When you join the American army you KNOW that there is a REMOTE (read the sarcasm) possibility that you will be sent in to take over countries, in a hostile manner. You will be sent in to ‘fight for the good guys’. You’d have to be pretty ill informed not to know that little fact that you are not a peace keeper. You are not a defender in the traditional sense, you are part of the aggressors. Oh sure you are given to believe that what you are doing it the righteous thing, however I don’t agree with this as the proof is in the results. History keeps repeating itself time and time again and history has definitely not been kind to American foreign policy.
Yes I know that there are some good guys in the army who just want to make sure that their country is defended properly, however going into all other countries and destroying them does not in my book constitute as defending anything. Of course the obvious question is doesn’t America need an army? You cant’ join the army and say you don’t want to be stationed anywhere but in America, that’s not how it works, which I know. As a human being though I make my decisions and I live my life based on those decisions I make.
By joining the army and going to Iraq, you’re not defending your country, you’re defending you’re country and it’s business partner’s financial interests. That puts you in a group of people that I cannot offer any support towards. That might seem harsh, but the truth of the matter is you have MADE the decision to continue to give your LIFE to a group of people (be they the government or the army itself) who is there to exploit another group of people, not to defend.
Interesting post, ever watched Jarhead?
↓ Quote | 19/3/2007
Interesting post.
↓ Quote | 19/3/2007
Nope, didn’t get a chance to watch Jarhead, but definitely intrigued (I like the director, it’s Sam Mendes right?).
↓ Quote | 19/3/2007
One group that definitely lied to me when I enlisted was the Marines. Luckily, I am out now.
↓ Quote | 19/3/2007
Kinda refreshing to see a political post here. Anyways, most of the world by now knows why and what exactly the American (Govt.) empire is doing all across the globe. But like you said, history will repeat itself, just like any empire, they will eventually crumble.
↓ Quote | 19/3/2007
Why blame the troops who are, as you say, just following orders? They didn’t sign up to take over countries, they’re just doing what their superiors tell them to do. Sure I don’t agree with what’s going on in Iraq, but it’s certainly not their fault that they’re there.
Fix the problem, not a symptom of it…
↓ Quote | 19/3/2007
I’m in the Air Force - I joined right at the beginning of the invasion of Iraq. Personally, I don’t agree with the that particular effort - but I do as I am told. I am not in the position to argue, just as you said - I’m here to take orders not dissent.
When you referred to the Lebanon Army you said you don’t predict them invading and taking over a country anytime soon. That’s the way many of us felt immediately after 9/11. We were defending ourselves - from what we were told, Afghanistan houses Bin Laden and we need to get that bastard, Iraq has WMD and they’re going to get us. End of story - that was the truth.
What if Lebanon invaded someone tomorrow - in the name of self defense. What if they told you everything you needed to hear to be okay with it? You’d go and do your job - like everyone else.
Now fast-forward 4 years - the effort is falling to pieces, but you are comfortable. You love your job, the benefits are nice, and you’ve been in the desert so much you really haven’t had time to finish up all of that college they said you would be able to do. What do you do?
For me - and my wife and baby girl - I’m reenlisting. I’ve seen the medical bills a pregnancy and child birth can rack up - I tried living as a civilian before I enlisted and it didn’t work. I need a steady, guaranteed job, that puts food on the table, keeps my family medically cared for, and provides a future in terms of retirement.
↓ Quote | 19/3/2007
It’s good to see this question being discussed. I like seeing these thought processes, even when I disagree with some of your conclusions, as opposed to the idiotic “Support the troops, not the war” statements. (Full disclosure, US Navy Reserve enlisted.)
↓ Quote | 19/3/2007
Strange as it is, I’ve never seen the US military as a conquering/occupying force. And full disclosure, I am not an american, im a Chilean former Air force pilot and casual observer.
Historically, the US military has always been a defensive force. The few instances to the contrary were, the Spanish-American War and the Mexican-American War. That’s about it.
On the other hand, historically, the Persian, British, Ottoman, etc. Empires’ armies, were always a conquering and occupying force.
As far as I know, the US Military is 100% voluntary, and everyone volunteering does so for their own personal reasons, believe me, not one of them have to do with the willingness to occupy or conquer another country.
Now, as you point out, the military is the military, whether it be American, Chilean, Lebanese or Nepalese. Once you’re in…you do as you’re told. You’re part of the bigger picture, the bigger machine. That moves regardless of the individual members’ beliefs or opinions.
And like someone else posted above, all empires invariably fall. Just a reminder, the Persian was a purely occupying and conquering military force. It was not defensive. Same with the British Empire, same with the Franks, etc.
Bottom line is, a military force serves its purpose, and that is to achieve goals by use of force. Goals set for the administration in charge a the time. It is not up to the individuals to decide whether they will obey or not. You just do.
Your moral conundrums are better served once you’re back, or when you’re thinking about re-enlisting, etc. But while you’re wearing the uniform, you’re it buddy.
↓ Quote | 19/3/2007
@ Michael Wales - There seems to be a bit of contradiction in your comments so I’m going to do my best to address them as best I can.
Michael Wales said:
America has been engaging in war outside it’s boundaries since the first attack on American soil at Pearl Harbour. That’s a truth. Iraq having WMD to take out America however is not a truth. That is a lie. 4 years and the American government is still looking.
Invading someone is not self defense. That’s attacking. Defending oneself involves the act of being attacked. Your country was attacked during 9/11. The question which was on everyone’s lips of course was who was doing the attacking? This of course had nothing to do with the country of Iraq.
You ask me a question of whether or not I would be okay with my country invading someone in ’self defence’. You see that’s the difference and effectively what I was trying to explain in my post. As a military man you make a DECISION. That decision is that you follow orders to enact forceful measures to carry out orders given to you through a chain of command. Your personnal opinion is not regarded in these decisions. However it all comes down to the fact that you make that decision NO ONE ELSE. No sir I would not be ok with that, because I KNOW and have seen what WAR can do. A situation that I can assure you NO ONE should ever have to go through. Ever.
I was talking to my brother about this post yesterday, he’s currently living in America and he obviously gave me the human line. Much in the same way that you’ve commented about the benefits and the human aspect of getting through. There are several ways to address this particular case, however I think the only proper way to address this problem is to attack the obvious social economical problem that faces America when the government cannot provide for the people that it is meant to serve. When they have to go to the army to get the funds to progress with things like education and medical treatment. Surely that should be a bigger priority for the government? Making the lives of it’s citizens better? Isn’t that what should be their mandate, rather than the interests of the lobbiest that fund their roads to power in the first place?
Patrick said:
Thanks Patrick, also much appreciated is your manner of commenting.
Hector Rojas said:
Really Hector, you don’t see the US military as an occupying force? Honestly I’ve got to say that I am somewhat surprised. They may not be in the traditional sense of years gone by where the occupied nation would then effectively become part of the conquering nation, however America sends it’s troops all over the world and occupies those countries, militarily, time and time again. Hell the largest military number outside of America still reside in Germany
I guess we could argue semantics here about the word occupation but I think it’s fair to say that the current war in Iraq was a hostile takeover of a sovereign country, which they are currently occupying and placing their own puppet government etc.
↓ Quote | 19/3/2007
Khaled, I’m sensing you’re a tad pissed off about something here. Let’s see what I can do to add to that anger and still come out the other side as your friend.
The third place on that Wikipedia list is Korea. They’re not there as an occupying force. They’re at war. They’ve been at war since the time when the rest of the world decided the Korean War had ended. It hasn’t. There’s an armistice. That armistice is enforced by U.S. troops.
I’m pretty sure Korea was the first conflict the world got into following the second World War. I’m also pretty sure that was mandated by the new United Nations and was supported by numerous nations not just the United States, though the United States still bears the brunt of that war.
Next up, Vietnam, a proxy war between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was, in effect, a civil war between southern democrats and northern communists. The southern democrats requested the assistance of US military advisors and Kennedy sent them. Then, the conflict grew and the advisors needed US protection. The next thing you know, 20 years goes by and we’re finally leaving Vietnam.
Next conflict? Grenada. That was over in about 24 hours. The United States was there at the request of the OECS. In December of that same year the United States withdrew.
Next, Iraq. What the US calls the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. By authority of the United Nations a coalition lead by the United States pushes Saddam out of Kuwait. Military forces are left in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to enforce certain UN restrictions on Saddam.
Next, Kosovo. A genocide that threatens to once again enflame Europe. US forces under NATO authority move to suppress Slobodan Milosevic. NATO bases operations from Germany. Result, Milosevic is put on trial for crimes against Humanity.
That brings us up to the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, in which instance did the United States invade and conquer a nation since WWII? I won’t argue the current conflict because, honestly, I’ve taken up enough space and my hand is cramping.
Perhaps, the next time you try to portray my nation as bloodthirsty conquistadors you should examine the propoganda you’re swallowing. The list you linked to shows US forces in Germany (tried to conquer the world), Japan (Tried to conquer the Pacific), South Korea (trying to keep from being conquered), Italy (joined forces with Germany then tried to conquer the world), United Kingdom (invaded the US twice, did conquer much of the world, now the US greatest ally).
And so, Afghanistan. Another of our “puppet” governments. You call Hamid Karzai a puppet. See what he thinks of that. Conflict unresolved.
Iraq. Conflict unresolved.
So, it looks like if you invade the US or try to conquer the world then yes, The Unites States puts a few troops in your backyard.
As far as puppet governments go, The United States has started the Afghani government and the Iraqi government and we’ll just have to wait a little while to see if they turn out to be puppets or not. Now, here’s the bit where we don’t have to be friends anymore if you don’t want.
That’s from the Wikipedia entry on Lebanon. Now who’s the puppet? By your arguments against US troops the very same could be said in a similar way for Lebanon. Should I support Lebanon? But they allow Hezbollah. They take orders from Syria. They must be awful people. Why don’t they just kick Hezbollah out?
Maybe, Khaled, it’s just a little more fucking complicated than that.
↓ Quote | 20/3/2007
Chris, I am Khaled’s brother and although I certainly do not speak for him, Im going to answer this question as to what I have understood from my brother about the post when we spoke extensivly on the phone about it,
Firstly copying bits and pieces out of wikipedia is far from knowledgable information.
The parliament elects the president for a non-renewable six-year term. At the urging of the Syrian government, this constitutional rule has been bypassed by ad hoc amendment twice in recent history.
Im not sure if you realised this or not when reading (if you did) however the Former Prime Minister Rafik El Hariri, on Feb.14 2005 was assasinated due to this very problem you have quoted. He had rejected it. The President of Lebanon is a puppet. And that puppet is controlled by Syria and Iran.
Which leads to Hizboallah. Ever took a minute to read the History of the politcal group. They emereged when the US Backed STATE of Israel invaded a soverign country, Lebanon. Hizboallah didn’t emerge for the fcuk of it. It emerged to make the IDF who are equiped by America, to retreat out of LEBANESE LAND, of which today has still not all been returned. As of that time, until 1995, Hizbollah was a group that was fighting to return the rightoues land that belonged to Lebanon.
As for Kicking Hezballah out…Thats a far more fucking complicated situation than you think. Lebanon has gone from war, to civil war, to war. You think they want another war? No. And So the country accepts the fact that they are an organization in the country.
Chris, It seems your post went off a wrong tangent. Khaled is far from talking about America being bloodshirty, however he is discussing very rationally, that the American Army is formed by Individuals who voluenteer to participate in an organzition that has shown time and time again what it is truely about. That goes mainly and especially for those people who decide to join the army at this point and at the start of the Iraq War.
↓ Quote | 20/3/2007
Chris, I’ve obviously sent the wrong message, which is one of the reasons that I tend not to write political debates on the kode, mainly because my views are always ones that rub some people (most people) the wrong way. I don’t do this intentionally, it just happens this way.
I think you know that I’m not one of these guys that starts burning the American flag on a Sunday shouting ‘Death to all Americans’. I have never had any hatred for the American people and it’s culture, hell I talk and am immersed in it enough (the culture, not the people) that if I did, that would make me the world’s biggest hypocrite.
However I’m sorry to say that I definitely do not appreciate nor care for your government and more specifically their foreign policy which directly effects my life and those around me. Of course the main difference is that I had no say in it’s election nor will I ever have any say and yet it continues to peruse conflicts around the world as it’s self appointed ‘world police force’.
Now I honestly don’t want to get into every point you mentioned above because you know how much of a verbose asshole I can be and I’m sure to piss more people off by doing that but bloodthirsty was not how I intended to describe the government, nor am I throwing my opinion because I woke up one morning and decided to have an innate hate of the American government and decided that propaganda was the correct way to express myself on this. If that’s how it come up for that I apologise.
Remember Chris I don’t actually know what it’s like to live in my country. Now I can land a small portion of this shit squarely on the shoulders of one of your president’s circa 1945. Yes I understand there are thousands more reasons, however the argument still stands as a decision the American government took in it’s foray into foreign policies which have effected a region for over 60 years. Unfortunately for me their involvement in the region has not stopped since then, and will likely not stop for a long time to come, and most probably not in my lifetime.
Yes Chris it is more fucking complicated than that, and maybe one day I’ll attempt to write my thoughts about the subject as this particular post was only meant to express my thoughts about whether or not I can support the US troops and the reasons why I personally cannot do that.
Final point Chris, I genuinely appreciate people like yourself, who actually care about what their country does outside it’s borders. For someone living on the outside, the impression I get is that the majority of the American people don’t really care for actions taken by their country abroad and done in their names. Maybe if more did take a more active interest we wouldn’t be in the position we’re in? Maybe that’s just wishful thinking, although I have always been a natural born optimist.
↓ Quote | 20/3/2007
Hey Khaled,
It’s been a while since I’ve chimed in here. I do read your things, though.
In this case, I think you and I fundamentally agree. On that higher level where “no communication is needed”, I think we agree on the bulk of the same topics and share mostly the same moral values.
Your post here, is enticing, though, and I want to comment one one thing I think has sparked the most debate here.
I don’t think that’s accurate. You might know what it entails on the higher level (”defending your country”), but the concrete, bloody, moody and visceral consequences I think only a few know, mainly the mercenaries. I’ve seen several US recruitment “ads”, glorifying the US military. Judging by documentaries alone (which I admit, isn’t the best source of info), many US families believe a military career is a good one.
Thucyclides said, a long time ago:
I think some join the army for just that: glory and bravour, but without the clearest of visions. That’s one of the points I want to make.
The other is related to the “Should know”.
There are many things people should know, in my opinion. People should know that 4×4s pollute more than regular cars, that pollution causes harm to our planet. People should know that Fox News is blatant right-wing nutjob propaganda. People should know that Bush is incompetent. People should have voted differently.
My point is: “should” is a point of view, and while I share that point of view with you, I don’t think we share that point of view with the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the US army.
↓ Quote | 20/3/2007
Correction to my post, it should’a said “bloody, muddy and visceral consequences”. Feel free to delete this.
↓ Quote | 20/3/2007
Fadi, you’re right. Quoting Wikipedia isn’t really understanding something. Honestly, I just picked the first thing I saw. And, you’re right, it is more complicated than that. So is joining the US armed forces. And, while the rest of the world may see US military action as overtly hostile that’s not how its seen by a great many Americans. Our myth is that, for the most part, the US military tries to help people. Americans take a measure of pride when they see US helicopters ferrying people to safety after something like The Tsunami. That’s just one touch point. But, American military history is rife with accounts of the United States being the one and only force standing between what many would characterize as Good and Evil. So, it’s just massively wrong to think that Americans join the armed forces knowing that America supported the Shah. Or knowing that America was the seconding vote at the UN when Israel declared themselves a nation. Or knowing about what happened at My Lai.
They also join knowing that the American military has done a number of good things and has done them with honor.
Khaled, glad we can still talk to each other. I think if we had these conversations over coffee any passersby would think we just needed to chill out but you and I know that some things must simply be argued.
Now, I think we can agree that the war in Iraq is a wrong thing. I think a great many soldiers would agree with that too. And, if we knew then what we know now none of us would have ever trusted Colin Powell.
That’s the thing most folks miss in all of this. We didn’t go to war because George Bush said so. We went to war because Congress trusted that Colin Powell was telling the truth and that Saddam Hussein really was a threat. Most of America trusted Colin Powell. I, personally, listened to Colin Powell address the Security Council and he scared the crap out of me and I’m bloody fearless. No one said, “You can’t trust Colin Powell.” No one expected that a President would lie about something like this. Sure, politicians lie but they don’t lie like this.
You can go on and on about how Americans should have “just known”. We didn’t. Maybe we’re just dumb and naieve. I like that about us. We’re not all cynics, yet. Maybe we’re stupid for thinking America is on the side of right. Maybe the rest of the world hates us for that.
Now, about supporting the troops. It may come easy for you to say, “I don’t support the troops. They should just know better.” That’s not something any American will ever do. We did that once. During Vietnam we didn’t ’supoort the troops’. Now, for 30 years since then, we have felt ashamed for having done that.
Lastly, the troops may now know that they were sent to war on false pretenses. Why don’t they just refuse to fight? How? How do we just walk out of Iraq without leaving a genocide in our wake? Or Iran ready to step in and further enflame a hatred that has already cost us two towers? Or Turkey ready to settle things on their own if the Kurds get antsy? It’s a fine mess we’re in. I predict we’ll stay until its cleaned up. The troops will stay until their comrades are safe. They don’t stay for George. They stay for the man next to them. Try to convince them to give that up.
I could never say, “I don’t support the troops”. I do. They are my friends. They are my family. I could no more denounce them than I could you, or Joen.
↓ Quote | 20/3/2007
There is always a difference between any volunteer army and a conscripted one.
Conscripts often don’t have any choice in the matter.
The Israeli Defence Force has encountered an interesting little problem with this - National Conscription is mandatory in Israel (though they also have a standing professional army of volunteers). The problem is the Refuzniks. Conscripts and (I believe) some volunteers who object to the occupation of Palestine and the recent aggression against Lebanon. They ‘refuse’ to act in a conflict they feel is morally wrong. I met one of the more senior refuzniks (a major in the army) who explained just how much pressure they were under to conform, to follow orders etc.
They like many others before them in other countries and in other wars were branded mutineers and traitors - and punished accordingly. What is interesting with this group however is that they do not object to defending their country. They are prepared to fight for, kill for and ultimately die for Israel - should she be attacked, but participating in the collective punishment of refugees in places like Jenin went against their beliefs - which they argue are simply based in moral patriotism.
These young men and women have suffered for this belief, but they have stood their ground and fought for their principles. It is easy to side with this group as they have no choice but to serve their National Service, but can we extend this sympathy to those who have volunteered?
The US situation is peculiar as there are very strong allegations of young men and women being hired after aggressive marketing campaigns which have wholly distorted the truth of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bare in mind the unfortunate fact that the bulk of US media reportage on these wars is highly biased politically speaking with a total lack of even handed coverage. We in the rest of the world are shown a closer report of what is actually going on - but throughout the US what little coverage of atrocities (like the Free Fire Zone centred on Tikrit) is usually dumbed down and given a political spin and in some cases (usually with Fox News) the truth is either suppressed, distorted or destroyed.
The result, many soldiers, air crews, marines and sailors effectively being sent to Iraq under false pretences. They have been lied to, they have been denied access to the facts and their views and opinions have very subtly been manipulated by the Right Wing and the military (eg the suppression of images of deceased US service personnel returning to the US in hundreds of flag covered coffins). To these volunteers I feel that they can be supported - should they choose to defy their orders, should they decide having experienced the truth first hand, that the war is wrong.
Conversely, until they develop this realisation, I consider them to be victims of the propaganda war. Volunteers who have been manipulated into combat. As such I believe they should be supported, many are patriots who believe the B.S. that Iraq had WMDs or was in league with Al Q and Ossama. They fell for the clever lies and rhetoric that blinded an entire nation who knew no better, and very rarely have access to the truth.
This support, however, shouldn’t be unconditional. It should be with the caveat that these troops be given access to the truth, to all the facts as they stand, and to be allowed to make their own minds up. No man or woman (or child - given the relative age being 18 - 21) should ever be expected to give up their lives just on the say so of a politician.
↓ Quote | 21/3/2007
That’s my point - we all know it is a lie now, but at the time it wasn’t. It was the truth and many of us made decisions based on that truth.
I fully agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Unfortunately, our people and our government felt that if we don’t stop the terrorist first they will come after us. Then we were told Iraq was a terrorist nation. Based on the info fed to us, our only option was to stop them before they attacked us.
Don’t get me wrong - I hate this war. I feel it’s illegal, I don’t like it one bit, and it sucks over there. I’ve spent the past 1.5 years of the 4 years of my career in the desert.
I’m just trying to express my reasons for believing in the war when it first started, the reasons I enlisted, and the reasons in which I will re-enlist.
You addressed some issues as to the status of the American economy - why people must join the military to afford the basics of a good life. That is definitely an issue that deserves addressing - unfortunately, addressing that issue incites little change in my family’s life - therefore, I reenlist.
↓ Quote | 21/3/2007