When Veterans Day rolled around in my current country (the UK), I posed this piece: The Soldier Gives Us Neither Freedom Nor Peace. I want to be clear that in this piece and my short remarks to follow, that I desire to accent my displeasure with war itself and an aggressive philosophy of militarism, rather than soldiers.
Today is memorial day in my country of birth – the United States. In this country, so often the soldier is seen to be the archetype of American heroism. Much like in ancient Rome, an individual hero, made of moral selflessness, who submits himself to the collective, ordered machinery of the military to provide for the defence of his family, community and nation.
I see things quite differently.
Throughout history, the soldier has often come from the poorest of backgrounds, having been told by the propaganda of the state that the military is his best option in life. His individuality is broken down, and his is used on behalf of those elites which control and direct the military to kill other people who have been similarly conditioned.
We should remember soldiers as victims of the state. The state lied to them with false promises, and exploited their very lives as the means to control some resource, obtain some territory, advance some ideology or, at worst, eliminate or subjugate some peoples. We should mourn the American soldier as we mourn the German Soldiers from 1939-1945: men and women who could have produced so much for the benefit of humanity, but who were instead sucked dry, and summarily discarded like so much trash.
There is nothing glorious about the military. There is nothing glorious about war.
We should mourn and weep for the soldiers who have died. We should see them as the victims of sinful, fallen man and cease to demand their service, except only in the most dire need of defence.
You may also be interested in:
“Throughout history, the soldier has often come from the poorest of backgrounds”…
That’s not accurate, and you know it. Sure, plenty of men from poor backgrounds have been soldiers… but until recently (at least as late as the Korean War), a huge portion of soldiers were from well-to-do backgrounds (at least in America).
“except only in the most dire need of defence.”
Another vacuous statement that belies your idealistic tendencies. If you don’t have soldiers when things are NOT “dire”, then no one will be there to defend when it does get bad. It is the little things that lead to the big things. If a country is weak on little stuff, then its enemies will push harder and into bigger stuff. Just ask Israel how well it works for them to show a “reserved” response to an attack…
Darius, the bulk of the military has been the poor. This was the case in ancient times (e.g. Rome), as is in early America (e.g. the Revolutionary War) and today. During Roman times, they joined in order to get money, looking very similar to mercenaries for hire. This isn’t to say that absolutely everyone in the military came from poor backgrounds (and Colin isn’t saying that), but that the GI grunt in every period is usually poor. Sure, there are some elites who join but always on a fast path to leadership. More recently (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, etc), children from wealthier backgrounds joined in order to escape going to the front lines in a draft. We hear about these stories all too often during election time because every political candidate wants to be a ‘war hero’ (but very few actually saw combat).
You realise when you say something like that first statement, you are accusing someone of deliberately and maliciously lying?
There are middle and upper-class soldiers, without question, however the vast majority are working-class. The military also deliberately targets these classes – I mean, look at their own advertising. It’s all about getting paid, getting job skills and a possible higher education – things the middle classes and above accept as standard.
Just look at Iraq, where there is effectively no official standing opposition army – they seem to be holding their own against the greatest military force the world has ever known just fine. Same with the revolutionaries in the US during the War of Independence. A defensive army is not a standing, professional army, but a citizen army – much like the Swiss Army (at times). The more decentralised an army, the more able it is to defend the homeland, and also, the more resistant it is to imperialism and aggressive military. There is no question that a military is a good thing – however, it simply needs to be ready for defence, not actively employed in offensive war.
I’d have to say that I’m not very comfortable with the “go where we send you whether you understand why we’re going or not” model that is common to the military. I’d be much more comfortable if the troops fighting in a given conflict know and agree with the fundamental human rights they are protecting (where fundamental human rights are life, liberty, and property), including whose behalf the conflict is being fought for and the ways that innocent harm is being avoided. The problem with the modern military mindset is that an army can be used for any purpose, whether just or not, if the top leaders decide to do so. This allows things like the Nazi invasions or native genocides to occur with no responsibility being placed upon the hands actually committing the crime.
Defending yourself against someone who is assaulting you in your home, on your property, or while not acting as an aggressor is a simple defense of your own right to live. When putting on a military uniform though, you immediately make yourself identified with every offense or obligation of that military. On 9/11 the attacks on the WTC were terrorist, targeting civilian targets. The attack on the Pentagon was arguably a legitimate retaliation for actions by the US military. The “arguably” part depends on whether the retaliation was for legitimate offenses.
Wearing a uniform means that you are identifying with both the strengths and faults of others who wear the uniform. Nobody should do so unless they are comfortable with this fact. I do believe the justification for the US involvement in most (all?) recent engagements is legitimate based on just war doctrine. Whether the rules of engagement are is another questions (for example, in Panama the ROE were most likely not just). Joining a military that engages in unjust actions DOES make you responsible for those actions. It is an important fact to keep in mind when considering the armed forces as a career.
RE the morality of war: Natural rights don’t enforce themselves. If we want to protect the natural rights of ourselves and others, it will at times require armed conflict. Any position that categorically condemns war effectively negates the presence of any form of natural law.
I am not opposed to defence, I am opposed to war. The former is legitimate and doesn’t require a state. The latter requires at least one aggressive party, in which case – someone is having their rights violated.
Yes, Colin, but that doesn’t mean everyone involved in said war is illegitimately or immorally involved in it.
Colin, if you’re going to play semantics games you need to define your terms. The word “war” typically just means a large scale violent exchange between two autonomous bodies of individuals. Just war theory requires that a nation’s rights be violated before entering into a war. Resisting an invasion force would fit the common definition of “war”, making it impossible to support “defense” while opposing “war” unless you first define highly abnormal meanings for each term. Wikipedia definition (for a common usage perspective):
Recent wars:
In Afghanistan, we were pursuing perpetrators of a physical attack. This should be clearly justified. In Iraq, we were pursuing Sadaam for breech of a contract which was signed to end hostilities after Sadaam invaded a neighbor. I think we had just cause to engage in hostilities since 1998, and the belief that Sadaam had weapons which could threaten us resulting in our deciding to act on that justification. Now, we’ve stayed in both nations afterward to “nation build”, a goal which is only valid if the local people actually want us there. Helping keep another nation safe from internal threats would also be a justified use of force, but one whose expense may outweigh it’s value to us. Again, just rules of engagement are required in all cases.
Darius, I would never say “everyone.” In fact, my criticism is almost entirely levied at those who are making the decisions. And regardless of whether or not people are wearing a general’s uniform or hold a political title – they are still responsible for their actions, including the lives of the soldiers they put into battle.
Atanamis, I am not attempting to play a semantics game. I am attempting to clarify my position. I’ve obviously failed in that regard.
My point is simply to articulate that I do not agree with aggressive, offensive war. However, defensive war is perfectly justified in my opinion.
Good to hear.
Yet you don’t like it when Israel does that very thing… there is a disconnect, Colin.
Darius, I think my article made it clear that I am not blaming Israel – just the opposite, I am saying let’s not be quick to blame Israel.
I understand that, Colin. However, when one is not willing to condemn those who are obviously at fault (due to clear video evidence in this case), it’s about the same as condemning the innocent party. Moral distinctions matter.
Darius, the article also makes it clear that there are larger issues here than just what happened in that video. We have to determine who was defending and who was aggressing, and that moves into evidence way, way outside of that video.