Friday, February 18, 2005

American Conscientious Objector needs your support

Posted by Mickey Z on 02/18 at 07:12 AM
blog comments powered by Disqus

  1. No support for U.S. troops!

    We are here to attempt to combat the steady stream of military brainwashing our young people are subjected to, not jump on the bandwagon to heap praise on sociopaths and cold-blooded murderers.

    Why does someone who comes to their senses after comitting horrific crimes on behalf of a demented Nazi from Texas, deserve our admiration, as opposed to the many decent young people who would never CONSIDER serving for the blood-soaked filth who have laid waste to country after country and spread utter misery wherever they have gone?

    To hell with them!

    Posted by marburg from   on  02/18  at  11:13 AM

  2. Why not support those who were enlightened enough not to enlist AND those who woke up once they were in the military?

    Posted by Mickey Z. from   on  02/18  at  11:37 AM

  3. To begin with, I don’t really understand what “support the troops” means. It strikes me as an empty slogan of the sort this septic tank disguised as a country is famous for generating.

    Whatever “support” may mean, it’s hard for me to fathom why the youthful gang member who sees the error of his ways (after committing crimes which pale in severity and gruesomness before those comitted by our GIs) deserves less of it. Let them all out of prison, along with the manson family members, who were (like our troops) similarly brainwashed by a charismatic psychotic. Why are the troops given special dispensation in a country which blathers through the night about “personal responsibility?”

    The best thing the left can do is demonize the troops. Hell--why are hard-working city sanitation workers singled out? “If you don’t study--you’ll wind up a garbage man!” No--we should say “if you don’t apply yourself, you could wind up as a murdering slimeball for the U.S. military!” Let us establish U.S. military service as the lowest common denominator of human behavior. That would be a great service to young people...it will save lives.

    We desperately need to strip the patina of glory and honor and dignity adhering to this disgusting profession.

    Posted by marburg from   on  02/18  at  12:20 PM

  4. Marburg, I would say that the “brainwashed” troops need our support more than ever-- some of the brightest young minds who are trained to kill without compassion, who are told that they are heroes when they master the “art” of killing.  They need our help to recognise what US hegemony and war really means. Drawing moral equivalence between crimes that society rejects and crimes that society glorifies doesn’t change that.  The “personal responsibility” argument is as hollow as when the corporate smoking and fast-food giants try to justify their deceptive advertising in the same way.

    If anyone-- soldier or civilian-- speaks out against a criminal war and is threatened with 7 years in prison because of it, shouldn’t we defend them, regardless of their background?

    Posted by teddy from Canberra  on  02/18  at  06:09 PM

  5. This is a difficult issue, no doubt. “Support the troops” has such a negative sound because it’s often used by those in mindless support of the policies. But if you have any human contact with the actual people we’re talking about when we say “the troops” you realize “they” are us. It is self-defeating and mindless to suggest we demonize these people. There is much to say on this, too much for a comment, but I would suggest those who don’t understand do some reading about the real people who have changed their minds and what they have gone thru before condemning them. There is a really great thread on this subject that’s been running for some time on Alternet Forum: http://forums.alternet.org/bin/motet?topic+-ujOkUj+-cThe_War+-t8+-pshow
    You have to register to comment, but you can just read as a visitor. They’ve explored the issue pretty thoroughly - interesting perspectives.
    Thanks for posting this Mickey!

    Posted by John Eden from Georgia  on  02/18  at  06:28 PM

  6. I think the left has more pressing issues to concern itself with. Anti-war troops strike me as oxymoronic. Similarly, I have limited sympathy for gays who whine about discrimination in the priesthood. Why would any self-respecting homosexual join an outfit devoted from time immemorial to persecuting gays and identifying their lifestyle as “an abomination?” Gays should recognize Christianity as their sworn enemy and denounce its abysmal cosmology wherever possible. By the same token, I don’t see how one can sign on to a murderous organ of state terror like the U.S. military and later feign ignorance as to its predictably vile activities.

    Posted by marburg from   on  02/18  at  07:43 PM

  7. marburg - you just have a very limited perspective on this issue. You apparently, as I suggested earlier, don’t know much about these people. To most people, especially those who sign up for the military, your statement about the military being a “murderous organ of state terror” would be not just “un-patriotic” etc. but quite literally incomprehensible. They would have no idea what you’re talking about or what kind of person would think such a thing, and would probably think you’re just crazy. They just don’t know. I teach high school. These kids have no freaking idea what’s really going on, and when I try to talk to them, they just think I’m a freak. This is the good, intellingent, well-educated ones - the stupid rednecks don’t even understand. I mean, I agree with you as to the nature of the situation, but what you don’t see is that these people really, actually and truly believe all the propaganda. They believe with all their hearts that they are going off to protect freedom, democracy and the American way of life, and everything in the culture tells them they are right. We who see thru this are a tiny minority. When one of those people actually gets a glimmer and says hey, fuck this, we need to be right there with an arm around the shoulder and say, congratulations, you’ve seen the truth. Shake their hand, give them all the support to persevere thru and get the hell out! They other point is, these guys are our best approach to the general populace - best chance to get people to think about the war is to show them these guys who’ve been there, seen it, and know it’s wrong.

    Posted by John Eden from Georgia  on  02/18  at  08:57 PM

  8. Marburg,
    I think our sympathy and understanding towards the “little Eichmanns” in the military or elsewhere is crucial to a leftwing perspective, since we have to realise what is wrong with our hierarchical system and what it does to people before we can push for alternatives-- like anarchy or democratic socialism.  In other words, understanding how individual soldiers are not perpetrators but victims is a necessary stepping stone to a leftwing ideology.  I suggest you take a look at Chomsky’s Manufacturing Dissent on this one.

    Posted by teddy from Canberra  on  02/18  at  09:25 PM

  9. Good point, Teddy! This is another example of blaming the victim. Of course, I would offer the caveat that some of them are in fact perpetrators, the “old blood and guts” guys - there are certainly plenty of them. But it’s these mostly young recruits that I mean. they are so victimized. Even to the point that people are proud to have someone die - makes them feel all patriotic. These kids are really just “human sacrifices” as Kevin Benderman suggested.

    Posted by John Eden from Georgia  on  02/18  at  09:30 PM

  10. the yale templar nazi society of skull and bones has fielded the last three presidential candidates (clinton was mentored by bonesman bush, and was said to be a made bonesman during his yale law school years)

    if it is true that bush senior held absolute power during the reagan and clinton terms, that makes seven american administrations that have been under skull and bones’ aegis for over a quarter of a century

    skull and bones is a warmongering cult in the extreme...a prime example would be the manhattan project was their baby (the shoulder patch of the 501st nuclear bomber group, the first one in the country, incorporated a faux skull and crossed bones in the form of a nuclear blast fallout cloud and crossed runways)

    the cia, which was founded using operation paperclip nazi talent such as gehlen and skorzeny, recruits heavily from the ranks of the bonesmen for its top people

    time and newsweek were founded by bonesmen, and both are used as cia house organs

    maybe when the kiddies are made to understand how deeply creepy most of the bones-influenced american institutions are--and, especially, the military--they will have an easier time making a choice to starve rather than sign up for battle duty, even though many will probably be facing just that hard choice in the near future

    Posted by necramericanomicon from   on  02/18  at  09:52 PM

  11. US Troops can escape to Ireland.

    more than 158,000 US Troops flew through Ireland on the way to Iraq last year.

    They drop off at Shannon Airport to refuel and there are many activists here that can offer assistance in applying for asylum and hospitality

    Read:

    A Different Kind Of ‘Route Irish’
    Can Shannon Airport be Transformed into a Sanctuary for War Resisters?
    http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68544

    Posted by Route Irish from   on  02/19  at  06:44 AM

  12. To me, the best way to ensure that yet another generation of American youth will gleefully march of somewhere to torture and murder other human beings is for those on the right to assure them they are heroes and those on the left to absolve them of wrongdoing in advance and declare them unwitting victims. They are neither victims nor heroes. They are criminals. They belong in prison. Instead, we daily read about filth like Charles Garner and Lyndie England and encourge their grotesque excuses. That doesn’t seem productive to me.

    Posted by marburg from   on  02/19  at  08:37 AM

  13. Marburg, I respectfully disagree.  Nobody is “absolving the soldiers of wrongdoing” here, nor is anyone “encourgaging the grotesque excuses” of Garner or England.  Soldiers have committed atrocious acts and many should be punished for it.  Agreed.  I think, however, that the vast majority of the responsibility lies with the war machine and its propaganda system-- and that indeed individual soldiers are victims of the system.  Surely to effect social change, the left should target the oppressive social structure first and foremost?  Why do you think blaming the war machine will “ensure that the next generation of American youth will gleefully” make the same mistakes as the previous generation?

    To take your “soldiers are criminals” argument to its absurd extreme, I could say that since basically all Americans indirectly use sweatshop labour, buy oil from companies that exploit and pollute third world nations, and generally support a war economy, Americans should be regarded as criminals and put in prison.  Do you agree with that conclusion?

    Posted by teddy from Canberra  on  02/19  at  06:05 PM

  14. marburg isn’t listening....! just throwing out “radicalisms” and not getting the message here. That’s not discussion, just venting. You keep missing the main point, marburg. No one here is advocating support for the gung ho killer types or any of what you suggest. What we’re saying is, when they decide to stop doing it, help them get out. That hurts the military, and is great PR against the war and the military. You need a strong dose of reality! You’re just spouting absurdities about “absolving them” etc. So we declare them all criminals - who’s to put them in jail? This is America, and they are treated like heroes, so what the opposition must do is make the one who opt out heroes. If you can’t see the logic of that, I suggest you sit down and think about this before you respond further. And if you can’t see that those who sign up are victims of the system, then you don’t understand the system.
    Last you’ll hear from me on this! I want productive effort, not vain argumentation over who’s the most radical. Stupid waste of time.

    Posted by John Eden from Georgia  on  02/20  at  06:14 PM

  15. The topic of course is related to the broader (and deeply disturbing) trend among many declared leftists of establishing their credibility as red blooded patriotic lovers of America. It is related to the phenomenon of Dukakis campaigning from the turret of a tank and Kerry boasting of his tenure as a gook killer in Indochina. This is our militarized society---one of the most pathological in world history.

    The “Abu Ghraib scandal”..we hear the phrase regularly. But what was that? The scandal was that there was no scandal! The torture jamboree carried out by our Nazi GIs, (a grim recapitulation of the same tactics of torture and dehumanization practiced by their American predecessors in Indochina), mattered not one whit to the American people, who voted in droves to reelect Bush. Hardly surprising, with the left helping to disseminate the preposterous “few bad apples” line of argument, (despite the Red Cross’ insistence this was business as usual from one end of Iraq to the other!

    Let us at least admit the truth: it is the conscientious objectors who are the rare abberation among American GIs---certainly not the sadists and ghouls.

    I support with every fiber anyone who refused service in Iraq. Those however who participated in this crime against humanity, who so much as placed one boot on soil where they had absolutely no business being, I have zero sympathy for.

    Posted by marburg from   on  02/20  at  06:37 PM

  16. teddy

    no doubt we are talking about degrees of culpability. As an American taxpayer, I’m an indespensable cog in this evil business. I don’t think however, that this makes me AS guilty as someone who---of their own free will--goes to Iraq to flatten Fallujah with bombs and shoot children point blank (as widely reported).

    Posted by marburg from   on  02/20  at  06:44 PM

  17. I’m not convinced that soldiers belong in prison, Marburg; one of the effects of the U.S. military encroachments is the proliferation of our prison culture. The U.S. comprises about 4% of the global human population yet controls 25% of the global prison population. 

    Now I think all would agree that it would be better to influence people when they are young and prevent them from going. That involves staring patriarchal authority in the face every day. That means interrogating CEOs about the children’s toys aisles, and it means refusing to put up with the violence and sexism on television that glorifies male violence, making it seem something that all could gain from taking part in. It means not voting for candidates who pose in military jumpsuits or with rifles and bleeding geese in their fists. It means a great deal of hard work and perhaps this objector will lend a hand to it. Let’s welcome this colleague--not for the purpose of dwelling on past violence or making that experience the point of credibility, but for the purpose of helping a waking soul regain humanity.

    Posted by Lee Hall from   on  02/20  at  11:02 PM

  18. Very persuasively argued, Lee..and I agree with most of what you say. All of the work you mention is critically important. Nevertheless, I think we should keep the focus as much as possible on the victims of U.S. aggression. What our troops have suffered in the midst of their murderous escapades in foreign lands can not compare to the obliterated lives and the destroyed lands they have left in their wake. We must further bear in mind that all of this is occuring 30 years after America’s blood-soaked abominations in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam---some of the most unconscionable horror and sadism in all of history. That makes it very very hard for someone to simply plead ignorance after joining our armed forces. Some accounting for one’s actions, (as opposed to conveniently passing the buck), seems in order.

    Posted by marburg from   on  02/20  at  11:31 PM

  19. Nothing will stop the military-industrial complex more effectively than the proliferation of refuseniks within the military ranks.

    http://www.couragetorefuse.org/English/default.asp

    A tank can’t roll without a tank driver.

    They should be universally applauded, supported, and
    joined in solidarity.  Not imprisoned.

    Posted by Nader Rider from   on  02/21  at  10:46 PM

  20. We have a right to know how many lives these animals destroyed before they acquired a conscience.

    When push comes to shove, these militarists almost invariably revert to type, as we saw with the grotesque re-affirmation of America’s viscious crimes in Indochina by the last Democratic presidential contender.

    To join the U.S. military is to implicitly state that at least in principle, our armed forces could do something other than butcher innocent people for the benefit of the powerful. There is not one scrap of evidence for such a view. Our entire history argues against it.

    The crime is not My Lai or torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib or levelling Fallujah with bombs. The crime is declaring one’s willingness to do these things on behalf of the United States. The crime is signing up. All that follows is a predictable epiphenomenon of this primary act of barbarity.

    Posted by marburg from   on  02/22  at  02:20 PM

  21. Marburg, I’m with you on the idea that “to join the U.S. military is to implicitly state that at least in principle, our armed forces could do something other than butcher innocent people for the benefit of the powerful” and that this is a grotesque mythology. 

    Additionally, I think your point is well taken that the atrocity lies in the everyday incidents of imperialism, and that pointing out Abu Ghraib as though it’s an aberration is, on some level, arguing that it’s the worst abuses that sully the military—the implication being that the military isn’t abuse per se.

    Indeed, the worst abuses are the predictable result of the acceptance of the military endeavour itself.

    The problem that remains for me is this:  If we say no one who has been bamboozled can transcend that state, then we might be forced to resign ourselves to thinking that war will always be the norm, because at the moment a lot of people believe it to be normal and inevitable.

    Kerry’s recent pro-military attitudes and comments have been, in my view, reprehensible. What a terrible awakening on the day after the election to find that 99% of the populace was prepared to accept continued hegemonic rule as an everyday way of life. Frankly I think Kerry is a weakling for swimming with the popular tide (only more slowly).

    So, Marburg, I think your viewpoint is not without merit; and yet I think somehow we have to be willing to imagine that people can wake up. That doesn’t mean I think a soldier was not responsible. As Mickey has said elsewhere on this site, by the very position of being a jobholder in this society, we share responsibility in some way. It seems better to say responsible than guilty. Guilt seems to demand punishment (which is some form of violence). Responsibility, on the other hand, demands growth, which overcomes violence, and takes much more strength.

    Posted by Lee Hall from   on  02/22  at  02:47 PM

  22. I said I was out of this, but I must reiterate, if any of you think these 18-yr-olds sign up based on “evidence” you need to catch up with reality. They are true believers. They know nothing of the history, and would not believe it if you tattooed it on their chest.

    Posted by John Eden from Georgia  on  02/22  at  07:11 PM

  23. John..i don’t find anything noteworthy in your observation. People do all sorts of horrible things, believing they are justified. Do we sanction these acts, do we excuse these acts, or do we hold those responsible who commit crimes which utterly dwarf anything people are routinely put away for life for committing here in the States?

    I think a failure to deal with the troops as criminals, reduces the human value of their victims to nonentities. (We see this routinely, even where crimes ARE acknowledged, as when someone is convicted of brutalizing Iraqis and receives a temporary demotion in pay, or loses his priveledges at the GI internet cafe, as recently reported.)

    The immunity of our troops to accountability, judgement and punishment encourages the sort of sadism we have come to expect from them. I think we need a thorough reevaluation. What is really lurking behind inoccuous phrases such as “served with distinction”, (applied with gusto by liberals defending John Kerry’s tenure in Indochina)? One can no more “serve with distinction” in America’s bloodbath in SE Asia than one could “serve with distinction” at Auschwitz.

    Lee..The other question is how much effect the refusnik has on the whole murderous system. The military is an uncommonly clanish and insular cult. Like religion, it can’t deal with criticism at all. Witness the virulent attacks on Kerrty 30 years after the fact, for daring to speak out against Vietnam? In a desperate attempt to undo the damage caused by his earlier attack of conscience, he had to spend the rest of the campaign attempting to reassure the American public that he’d happily shoot anything that moved---a gook in the Mekong Delta or a hapless snow goose, if only given the chance. I don’t blame Kerry for this appaling about-face---the fault lies with the bloodthirsty and utterly reprehensible citizenry he was obliged to pander to.

    Recently, 60 minutes wanted to do a piece on the lack of proper equipment in Iraq for our military. The military families went into high gear, ruthlessly castigating journalists actually trying to help them! How dare they insinuate our fearless leader is not conducting his righteous war in the proper manner? How dare they “undermine our resolve” with their “liberal negativity?” I have to say I view these creeps as the enemy.

    great comments and interesting discussion…

    Posted by marburg from   on  02/22  at  07:50 PM

  24. Yeah, if you think you can uphold some kind of absolute standard of moral culpability, just try. It won’t hold water. Sounds good, but as I keep saying, you’re not living in the real world. And again, you apparently have no contact either with the people who are signing up or the people who are opting out. I would dare you to say face to face to someonewho is going thru hell over deciding to say publicly that he thinks war is wrong and he’s not by god gonna do it anymore, that he/she should be punished and to hell with him. In some kind of radical purist fantasy what you’re saying makes sense, and I certainly see all that, but that’s pointless. It doesn’t help. It will make the situation worse. So you go and be happy with yourself for being such a radical guy and such a purist, but I have no use for your crap. Go talk to some real people.

    Posted by John Eden from Georgia  on  02/22  at  08:18 PM

  25. Each to his own sense of morality, John.

    Your sympathies are with the GI killer, mine, with the victims he’s left murdered or permanently crippled in his wake.

    Sorry that’s too “purist” a concept for you.

    Posted by marburg from   on  02/22  at  09:10 PM

  26. Missed the point, M. It’s not a matter of sympathies. It’s a matter of realities. I’ve as much sympathy for the victims as you, I dare say, it’s just that I see that blaming these GIs for their past mistakes is not helpful. Those who are still out there doing, I blame them full on. Condemn them all you like. But when someone comes to his senses and sees thru the conditioning that has led him to follow a wrong path, we who already see that need to welcome that person and help them come over. They will suffer for what they have done, I can assure you of that from personal experience. But you and I have no status from which to condemn or judge them. No one does. You just need to be thankful it wasn’t you. Thankful for whatever causes and conditions in your life allowed you to see that before you got sucked into it. Besides, as has been pointed out and you ignored, we are all culpable, we have all benefited and participated in this society and owe our luxurious standard of living, lazy lifestyle, all to the murderous policies of this Western juggurnaut that has gone ‘round the world taking from everyone else ever since the three C’s reared their ugly heads on the historical scene. So none of us, as Ward Churchill so meticulously points out, is blameless. We’re all “little Eichmans” to one degree or another. So you start drawing these lines and it get very complicated. Oh well, guess I’m wasting my breath. Why don’t you just find one of these people and talk to them? Maybe then you’d see this reality I keep talking about. I’m tired of this argument. It’s pointless.

    Posted by John Eden from Georgia  on  02/22  at  09:39 PM

  27. ok fine. A guy is misled because of his surroundings and the milieu he grows up in. He hates blacks and joins the Klan. Later, he comes to think differently, recognizing people of all races as equal and entitled to life and dignity. Should we therefore drop all investigations into a number of lynchings we believe he was responsible for? His past disappears? Now he’s a saint?

    These men and women in our armed forces made a choice. They said “I’m going to train to kill other people. I’m going to learn how to kill so that I can murder people on the say-so of the United States government.” You can’t spin that reality into something which is ok or excusable no matter how hard you try, yet you insist no one has the right to judge them. Well that’s preposterous---we have every right to judge them.

    You’d have a far easier time exonerating Charles Manson, who has a much better excuse for his behavior. He’s deranged.

    Posted by marburg from   on  02/22  at  09:53 PM

  28. As to talking with “real people”, I suggest you consult with someone whose entire family was destroyed by one of our GIs. You’ll find no shortage of suitable candidates in Iraq and Afghanistan; people whose lives are demolished beyond hope of repair. Just explain to them that the killers of their families shouldn’t be held to account because they believed they were doing something righteous and noble.

    That ought to go far in terms of alleviating their agony and helping them forget the cluster bombs and machine gun fire which ripped their children in half.

    No and a thousand times no--I will never forgive these American vermin.

    They are the lowest filth on earth.

    Posted by marburg from   on  02/22  at  10:13 PM

  29. More on Kevin Benderman and further dissent in the ranks in Al-Ahram Weekly: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/print/2005/730/in4.htm

    Excerpt from Sharif Abdel-Kouddous’s article:

    Army Reserve Specialist Aidan Delgado applied for conscientious objector status soon after his deployment to Nasiriya in April 2003. After Delgado, 23, informed his superiors of his decision and handed in his weapon, the military confiscated part of his protective body armour.

    “It was a punitive measure, at least a repressive measure, against me for coming out with my beliefs,” said Delgado. “They knew I was very sympathetic to the Arabs and very critical of the occupation. So, by and large, people called me a traitor.” Delgado was finally granted conscientious objector status in April 2004 and was honourably discharged.

    But hundreds of other US soldiers are facing criminal prosecution for refusing to serve in Iraq and some have been jailed for desertion. In May 2004, Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, 29, was sentenced to one year in prison after a military jury convicted him of desertion.

    Mejia spent six months in combat in Iraq where he witnessed the atrocities of the US-led war, including the abuse of prisoners and the killing of civilians. After returning to the US for a two-week leave in October 2003, Mejia decided he never wanted to fight again in Iraq and went AWOL (Absent Without Leave) to avoid re-deployment. He finally surrendered to the military after five months in hiding and filed for conscientious objector status.

    “We are doing this for the soldiers and their families who are victims of this war,” Mejia wrote from Fort Stewart in a letter to his aunt, Norma Castillo, shortly after turning himself in. “We are doing this for the people of Iraq, who are being oppressed for the oil. We are doing this for humanity, which has already paid a high price.” Mejia’s application for conscientious objector status was ultimately denied and he is currently in jail…

    Posted by Lee Hall from   on  02/23  at  11:16 PM

  30. Benderman, Delgado, Mejia, et al, are the new generation of refuseniks who deserve our support and solidarity.  We won’t succeed in decriminalizing some missions of the military, by criminalizing those who listen to and follow their consciences.  To the contrary, it is the conscience that must be given the kind of attention that it hasn’t been given yet, if we are to see any hope of decriminalizing future missions of the military.  And all our actions must be centered around giving our consciences the attention that they deserve.

    Posted by Nader Rider from   on  02/24  at  11:13 PM

  31. Good point Nader!
    Yeah, I can’t stay away from this discussion!
    Came across this from David McReynolds of WRL:
    “One of the issues that keeps surfacing is how to deal with the issue of police brutality. We can make the same mistake here that a handful of middle class “leftists” made at the start of the Vietnam War when they targeted our own troops as the enemy, or we can learn from history.

    If you want to change, you have to cope with things as they are. Lenin, the Bolshevik leader of the Russian Revolution, and no pacifist, didn’t encourage his people to call the Czarist troops names - no, he encouraged a political dialogue with them, knowing that the armed forces of the old Russian regime were only “agents” employed by the ruling class. If you wanted to make sure the Czar could hold power, then you threw rocks at the troops, which made them hate you. If you wanted to overthrow the Czar, then you did what Lenin’s people did - you took every chance to have political dialogue with the police and troops so that, finally, at a moment of crisis the police refused to obey the orders of the Czar.”

    Posted by John Eden from Georgia  on  02/25  at  10:07 PM

  32. An insightful essay by a fellow blogger on “soft bigotry of low expectations”:

    http://www.underthesamesun.org/content/2004/05/index.html#000016

    Posted by sk from   on  02/26  at  10:16 AM

  33. I particularly liked this part of the blogger’s comments, sk:

    “If we start talking about individual responsibility when it comes to soldiers, how long is it before we discover our own individual responsibility when it comes to war, colonialism, disproportionate consumption, racism, ecological damage, global poverty and hunger, millions of dead children who lacked simple drugs.…”

    Posted by Nader Rider from   on  02/26  at  10:36 AM

  34. Great contribution to this dialogue, sk! Thanks for the link - looks like a good site all ‘round, with more insightful comment on a number of issues. I think reading this one helped clarify for me what is being misunderstood by some here: no one is saying that soldiers should not be held accountable for their actions. I think the progressive left must be clear that we are doing that, and that even these soldiers who are opting out should be held accountable - indeed, I would expect, from my own experience, that they hold themselves accountable to a greater degree than most of us do! What Mickey and I and others here are suggesting is “support.” That support does not mean exoneration. They are not asking for exoneration, nor giving excuses. They are saying clearly, “what I was doing was wrong and I am stopping.” That statement is what we support. That statement and recognition and the guts to act in accordance with it, regardless of the consequences it brings to them, which in Kevin’s case looks like seven years at Leavenworth or wherever. What we are saying is, they should not be punished for saying they don’t want to kill anymore, which is what the Army wants to do.

    Saying we support their action, and at the same time hold them accountable like all other soldiers and citizens alike for contributing to this war, is not the same as saying “to hell with them.”

    As Rider points out, we are all culpable, so if it’s “to hell with them” it’s got to be “to hell with us” too. A middle approach to this is compassion for the mistakes and inevitible compromises we all have to make, while acknowledging our guilt, facing it, and changing our ways as radically as these soldiers have changed theirs.

    Posted by John Eden from Georgia  on  02/26  at  10:43 AM

Next entry: My last post until Feb. 25

Previous entry: Lessons learned from those 102 minutes...