Our Troops: When Does Support Become Blind Allegiance?

[stopbush]

I know this is a sensitive issue, but how long do we continue to support our troops *in general* when they're engaged in an illegal war, killing more civilians than enemies and ignoring the basic tenets of humanity?

I know that this fish rots from the head down. Certainly with Rummy ordering torture and bush approving the same, our troops are in a quandary. To their credit, the government has prosecuted (scapegoated?) a few troops who have engaged in abhorrent behavior. To their credit, some troops are refusing suicide assignments and thousands are deserting and refusing to answer their orders to report to duty. But these things are common in every war.

Can we really be repulsed by the actions ordered by bushco and by bushco itself while giving a pass to the poor grunts who carry out these ghoulish orders? I lived through the Vietnam era, and there was a point where the public turned on the troops, and that was without the widely reported torture and civilian massacres of the Iraq debacle. It was also at a time when *weekly* body counts of slain Americans numbered in the 200-300 range. It was also a time when news traveled slowly and most of the American populace believed the MSM and their government's propaganda. That's not true today.

There comes a time in any conflict when blind faith, blood lust and survival instincts give way to the higher moral aspirations of the human condition. When do we reach that point in this debacle?

I have no answers, only observations. I'm only sorry that our once-great country finds itself in such a morally indefensible position at this time in our history.

Flame away.

[Deja Q]

1. When there's a legal war? See,

the freepers and * supporters blindly thought * was being truthful so that's why we're all hated.

But with the truth now out, they won't have the chutzpah to say they were wrong. But when legit wars come about because of the Iraq domino, they'll do it agian.

[vpigrad]

2. You're forgetting...

that those "poor grunts" volunteered to serve Bushie. Not a single one was forced to take the oath.

[stopbush]

3. They volunteered to serve the USA, not bush.

Hitler's troops swore a loyalty oath to Hitler. We're not at that point...yet.

[vpigrad]

5. Why do you keep posting that lie?

I've heard the oath hundreds of times from poor, misguided kids. Maybe you should actually read what it states:

"that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States...So help me God."

And, the president now is Bush.

[Sir Craig]

6. Lie?

Funny, when I re-enlisted, Clinton was president. Are you thinking that perhaps I was just hoping some shmuck like * would show up and order me into hell-holes like Iraq? To paraphrase Rumsfeld: "We serve under the administration we have, not under the administration we want or wish we had."

So please, feel free to continue to condemn servicemembers -- we continue to believe that the rights you exercise when you do so are worth dying for.

(And no, I don't for one second believe we are protecting the US in any way by dying in Iraq.)

[mike_c]

4. it was blind allegience from the day they crossed the border...

...into Iraq. The very act of doing so was an unprovoked war of aggression and a war crime by the U.S.'s own standards, let alone international law. Every U.S. military person in Iraq is a war criminal by definition. Some have committed worse crimes than others, but each one is participating in a crime nonetheless.

I support their right to refuse illegal orders. I support their right to desert their units and seek political asylum in a neutral country. Beyond that, I support the Iraqi resistance that is trying to repel them. I say bring the troops home, but I won't turn a blind eye to the crimes they've committed. There is no peace without justice. Everyone who "served" in Iraq should stand before a war crimes tribunal, even if only figuratively to receive amnesty for lower ranking criminals. We cannot heal-- either at home or in the world community-- until we face our own crimes and acknowledge them.

I know this view is not entirely popular on DU and is widely disapproved of throughout Jesusland. I became an adult during the Vietnam war and that influenced my perception of the military as occupying more or less the same social statum as police-- necessary perhaps, but I don't like to spend time with them, and I fear their capacity-- and pronounced tendency-- for abusing power. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has thoroughly solidified my dislike for the military as an institution because I believe that institution has now abandoned any pretense of honor or allegience to the principles that it was created to defend. Instead, it has all too often become a mere killing machine used at the whim of despots to further their greedy and power hungry agendas, either directly by combat or indirectly through the threat of force.

I do not "support" the U.S. military when it serves evil purposes. I condemn it, and also the individuals who make up the institution, because no evil is committed except by someone's individual hand.

[Sir Craig]

7. Bullshit

It was blind allegiance when the Nazis invaded the Sudetenland. It was a bunch of nervous servicemembers who were ordered into Iraq, servicemembers who were more concerned about prison (if they refused to obey orders) than in trying to please pacifists who would condemn them no matter what.

Yes, there have been bad apples over there -- that is a fact of life, no matter what your situation. Will they all be caught and held accountable? Probably not, but do NOT condemn the servicemembers as a whole based on this observation.

Continue to condemn the institution -- hell, I do and I am a member of it -- but do not condemn the individuals who honestly believe they are trying to improve lives, not just of the Iraqis but of Americans as well when we volunteered to protect this country against all enemies foreign and domestic (and before you leap to some inane conclusion, no, invading Iraq did not in any way, shape, or form constitute protecting this country). Condemn the bastards that have used the military as a means to enforce illegal foreign policies -- they certainly deserve it after they have tainted the good name, not only of the military, but of the US as a whole in the eyes of the world. But your call to place all servicemembers who served in Iraq before a war crimes tribunal is so far out of line that I am surprised the moderators didn't delete this.

Christ, with views like this being used as fodder for the RW bandwagon it's no wonder we lost the election...

[mike_c]

8. the problem with war crimes apologists is that they generally...

...claim that individual soldiers are not responsible for the crimes they participate in while under oath. Personally, I suspect that the majority of those Nazis you cited for invading the Sudentenland were little different from the U.S. marines who stormed Iraq. Some might have been psychopaths, but most weren't and they were all someone's kids, husbands, fathers, and neighbors. Nonetheless they all participated in a criminal act. I say the same is true for the invaders and occupiers of Iraq.

Where do you draw the line between guilt and innocence when someone participates in a crime? Is the fact that they are following orders enough to exonerate them? Is it enough that they swore to defend the Constitution, even if that's not what they're doing (and you yourself admit that)? What size of military unit is sufficient to protect individual soldiers, marines, etc. from responsibility for crimes committed collectively? If two marines torture and kill civilians in a back alley are they not individually responsible? How about if a patrol squad shoots up a civilian home and kills innocent people? If a battalion wipes out the civilian population of a city are individuals not responsible for the blood on their own hands? If whole divisions invade a nation illegally, are the invaders protected from their personal responsibilities? Where is the line that protects individuals from responsibility when they take part in a crime?

Institutions are made up of individuals, and institutional actions are carried out by individuals. I say that those people are responsible for their actions, even when conducted in the name of the institution.

I am not a pacifist. I do oppose unnecessary war, as I suspect you do too. But more to the point, I oppose dishonoring the oath you took-- I took it once too, a long time ago-- by sending service men and women to commit crimes in the name of defending the Constitution. I don't agree that their motives or their place in American society are in any way protection from criminal responsibility. Every criminal was someone's fresh faced kid sometime. We still make them face the music because that's the only way we stay civilized.

I hope you won't think that I'm ducking further conversation, but if you like I must give you the last word-- my home cable access is down and I'm leaving the office now, so I'm off DU for the evening.

[Sir Craig]

9. I differentiate between actual crimes and simple whole cloth condemnation

You continue to use only the most obvious examples of horrid behavior involved in this conflict, and I will make no apologies for them: the individuals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent, along with anyone else on up the chain of command that allowed or facilitated such behavior (and that includes Rummy and Shrub).

However, you seek to condemn all servicemembers serving there, not drawing any kind of distinction between those who committed the acts you trumpet and those that are actually trying their best to repair the damage done. You would choose to burn the saints along with the sinners, simply because you refuse to acknowledge that there may actually be some saints in your most hated organization.

Yes, I hate this war, more than you can imagine because I have been sent to the Middle East 11 times, earning three Valor devices along the way. Each time I went, I realized that this was an exercise in duplicity. I knew that the WMDs would not be there, as did most of the people I serve with, and believe me it made me sick to my stomach when BushCo trumped up the case, and parasites like Faux News took up the call to further push the BS. But I knew that, whatever else might happen in this most egregious example of a BS cause, I needed to at least somehow minimize the damage in any way I could, and if that meant helping to educate my fellow servicemen on the BS reasons we were there, or treat wounded humans (no matter what side they were on), then so be it.

But to equate my actions as criminal simply because I was there is more offensive than anything Faux News could have ever said.

[Dangerman]

10. That's the true reason I do not support the troops.

I don't support the troops or going these war crimes in Iraq. I do not salute the military for committed these crimes. And I sure as hell do not support our "president" for sending them there in the first place.

The Abu Ghraib scandal, the Fallujah assault, and shooting civilians in checkpoints were the nails in the coffin as far as I am concerned.

I do not support the invasion and occupation of Iraq since day one. In my eyes, and in the eyes of the rest of the world, Bush, his administration, and the US military are no better than Saddam and his regime.

Flame me if you wish.