Respect?
I’ve noticed a sentiment appearing in a few places that has me a bit puzzled. That sentiment is that discussion about the war on Iraq, and any pro-peace discussion, is somehow insulting to the people participating in the fighting, and that it is no longer appropriate. People who originally seemed open minded about the war, and willing to discuss anti-war options in an intelligent manner now seem reluctant to do so. I see people closing the comments on their blogs and discussion boards, and MTV Europe is, under mandate from the ITC, censoring their playback of music videos that contain “representations of war, soldiers, bombing, destruction of buildings and public unrest at home” due to “heightened sensitivity.”
Its been explained to me that it insults the soldiers and their families to suggest that they don’t need to be there, that they are risking their lives for nothing. What puzzles me though is that it doesn’t seem to be insulting for us to stand by and say, “You just stay out there in the desert risking your life, until we tell you to come back.” If someone is out in the desert waiting to die, and you believe that they shouldn’t have to be there, then it is your duty as a compassionate human being to do everything in your power to get them out of there. War is not a time to stop struggling for peace, its a time to struggle even harder.
There seems to be a rationalization for war that follows the conceptual line of, “The soldiers are brave and strong, and they are willing to die to protect us! We should respect that courage by sending them out to fight.” I seem to hear this all the time. I took a class recently with a guy in the Army Reserves. He was dreading a war. He didn’t want to go out and be expected to kill, and possibly be killed. His sentiment seems to be common. The soldiers might be willing, which is admirably courageous, but most of them probably don’t want to be out there. What about their families and friends? Do you think the mother’s of those soldiers want them out in the desert rather than back at home? I seriously doubt it.
War is hell. If you don’t believe that then you have watched too many Clint Eastwood movies, and haven’t read enough about Vietnam, World Wars I and II, Hiroshima, the Serbian conflict, and thousands of other bloody, hellish conflicts. When you resign yourself to war, and agree to be complacent and let it go on as long as the president pleases, then you are condemning those soldiers you claim to be ‘honoring’ to a hateful life in the desert. You treat them like expendable thugs when you say, “I’m not going to bother arguing for peace anymore, I’m going to just let you stay out there.”
I can’t stand hearing all the, “Lets not say anything bad about the war, we have to be sensitive” talk out there right now. Anyone who respects human life will do whatever they can to prevent war. Even those who believe war is necessary to deal with Saddam should agree that ending the war in the fastest way, by whatever means, be it victory in battle or some democratic end, is the most sane and preferable solution, and that discussing ways to end the war, including democratic ‘pro-peace’ solutions, should be a priority. War is not a time to stop trying to end it.
Tuesday 25 Mar 2003 | Sam | Rants
right the crap on.
i support our troops in their efforts to make it home quickly and safely. i denounce our leaders for doing their best to ensure that won’t happen anytime soon.
Well stated, son.
I’ve also noted such sentiments but also directed at the actions of the president. I have heard a great many people say that they don’t agree with the war but that its our duty to support the president. Phooey! It’s not America without dissent.
I think we all want the war to end as soon as possible – including the leaders who have sent people out there. I do think that protesting the fact that we have indeed already gone to war is an action that is not useful (we can’t easily change the past). I do believe that constructive discussion about how to end the war as soon as possible with beneficial outcomes could be useful (we must not have this war be a war that was fought in vain). But I don’t fancy myself any better trained at determining the right course of action than those people much older than I who are in office. Maybe all they intend to do is provoke Saddam into using chemical weapons and then withdraw and say “now will everyone else see that he’s clearly been lying about disarming?”. I don’t know. I find most of what’s going on in terms of discussion has been rampant speculation. There’s a very balanced summary available that I found reading to be quite noteworthy in that someone could write about the issue and realistically see that, in fact, no single course of action is clearly “right” or “wrong”. It also points out that there’s lots of essentially rampant speculation on both sides, which is something that is very easy for people to do (I couldn’t help but do so in this post myself).
I think that you have a point about the rampant speculation, Andrew. Its something I’ve discussed before in other contexts, but is appropriate here. The amount of media coverage of the war seems to have produced a sense of knowing much more than we actually know. No war, with the partial exception of Gulf War One, has had such extensive and realtime coverage. However, its not like any important strategic data can come back to us from Iraq, because then all Saddam would have to do is tune into CNN instead of relying on his intelligence department.
So we get tons of ‘information’ but that is either irrelevant, intentional disinformation, or at worst, outright lies. Our heads are all full, and we feel like we know what is going on, so much arguing insues. We can all regurgitate the most recent newscast, but in terms of using that data to generate functional solutions, we don’t have what we really need.
I’m afraid I don’t have the answers either, which is part of the reason I’ve remained mostly silent about Iraq since the war started, but I think those who may have answers should be encouraged to speak and discuss them. Protests help too, by reminding officials that people are unhappy, but protests themselves don’t cause change. Having answers causes change, protests are just a catalyst.
Clearly no side is fully right or wrong in this situation, but that is no reason for discussion not to continue. Fighting a war that has other potential endings besides continued conflict is not good for anyone, least of all the soldiers on the field, and the civilians in danger.
I agree with your comment sam.