And I know what I did when I was in Iraq would not have made my family proud

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2326847420080506?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

A tale of two U.S. soldiers scarred by war

Tue May 6, 2008 8:27am EDT

<snip>"Sometimes I feel like I joined the army and I wanted to do what was right, I wanted to keep my family safe, I wanted to make my family proud, you know? And I know what I did when I was in Iraq would not have made my family proud.

"It was the little things that made the biggest difference.

"We did these operations, all the locals bring the livestock and their animals and we vaccinate them. My platoon, we passed out soccer balls to the kids. The kids are running around with soccer balls. And (the U.S. soldiers), they'd get the ball and either pop the ball with a knife or punt it into a river.

"We completely destroy what the little kid had.

"That may seem small to a lot of people, but that's really detrimental, that's what breeds the hate.

I cannot believe the amount of knee-jerk, automatic support they receive from people apparently willing to completely ignore what the military is doing. They are not defending America or performing any other honorable actions. They have become instruments of international thuggery. Whether they mean to or not, they presently serve corporate fascism and American imperialism. There is simply nothing to be proud of.

shit. The troops are not to blame for the political mess. Don't go there.

Whether they chose to do it is not really the point. They're doing it, whatever the reason. And their degree of personal responsibility is not nearly as clear cut as you seem to suggest. "Just following orders" is an utterly discredited defense.

Welcome to DU, BTW! :hi:

to resist orders that they deem to be illegal, unconstitutional or immoral. Failure to do that, and they are just another cog in the American war machine.

hard to do. Considering there is no way to consider an order to deploy to theater illegal. Legal under American Law and funded by congress. There is no way 99% of what you see could even be questioned. The 1 percent is another matter for another thread.

So "resisting" means discharge or flight. Enlisting and being assigned or choosing a combat mos is, at the end of the day, a choice.

Now navy or air force guys end up on the ground they should be really surprised. Driving a truck or carrying a rifle after that choice would be "unfair". However for an infantryman or a support unit to deploy to combat operations is normal.

Mandela went to jail for decades, and Ghandi went through a lot. "What's right is not always popular, and what's popular is not always right"

it is a crime, and testament to human stupidity. Now washing out of boot is one thing, but if you complete boot and then quit before a deployment you are not protesting. Short of family crisis or medical reasons there are few reasons to leave at that point.

I can tell you that the army makes it pretty clear what its role is. I did not go the traditional recruiter route but they made a point to outline the role of the NG and the possibility for a combat deployment, even with a support mos.

The army is not the real world, common things like your ability to manage time, are gone or controlled. Protesting on your time is fine, protesting on the army's time, unacceptable (to the army).

To the soldier and marine the war is legal, the order is legal, it is above his pay grade to stop the war. That is OUR job as voters and citizens.

That is done with elections, or at least that is how it should work.

I don't expect every soldier to recognize the criminality of this invasion and occupation, and at the lower levels the Nuremberg precedent was to not hold them liable. But your suggestion that if and when they do become aware that the whole operation is a war crime, that they then have a higher duty to continue participating in mass murder, the slaughter of innocents, simply because they finished going through boot camp, and that resisting or refusing would be the greater evil, well, that is the very definition of an authoritarian mentality.

(edit minor typo and replace one adjective)

...as long as a "moral choice" is available to them. The language is very specific-- it does not allow them a legal choice, or an easy choice, or a choice intended to avoid consequences, including criminal prosecution. They might go to prison for making the correct moral choice, but that is an accepted consequence when their government, which has power over them, is demanding an immoral action.

Wars of aggression are the supreme international crime. Anyone who makes the moral choice to participate in such crimes-- if a moral choice is possible for them-- is culpable. That's the principle the U.S. itself helped establish at Nuremberg and in the framing of the U.N. Charter.

on edit-- arguing about this is a bit of a red herring, though. As I said up thread, following orders is an utterly discredited defense when those orders result in wars of aggression, crimes against peace, etc.

It's time for men and women of good conscience to reject the notion that they're doing something honorable by joining the military. There is nothing life-affirming going on in Iraq or Afghanistan that can't be done better, cheaper, and quicker by people not carrying weapons. The High Church of Redemptive Violence needs to be separated from our government.

When you cast an entire people as "the enemy" or "the inferiors" or even "the others": the group with the power will dehumanise them and abuse them. Especially when under duress. They just shouldn't be there PERIOD.

...at least those responsible can be held accountable.

The mercenaries, on the other hand, are killing and maiming (and raping) with impunity.

I can fully expect the GOP to spin this to later say that government-run militaries cannot occupy sovereign nations, only private companies can.

This administration is creating a monster in the mercenary defense companies that privatize murder and mayhem. Some president in the near future is going to be in the position of having to say no, or even push criminal investigations, against the wishes of a CEO with a couple of thousand armed thugs at his disposal. That might not be pretty.

Neither of em should be there, especially the Mercs.

Not to mention the contractors we use, when that money should be used to hire IRAQIS!

Is it really rocket science that if we hired these people to put their own country back together, they would be less inclined to shoot us? It's all part of the rape and pillage strategery of the criminal in chief :(

idiot.

explanation?

one many thought they could get. The economy bears that out. And not every soldier has turned to the dark side. I can hate the illegal occupation without hating the honorable soldiers (and yes, that is not all of them). I will defend the soldiers who are being sold down the river by this admin that doesn't give a shit about them, as they've proved time and again.
That especially includes McCain, because he should have known better.

I've stated that there is nothing honorable about what U.S. troops are doing in Iraq. If you disagree, I can only surmise that you think there IS something honorable about their presence there. What is that? What do you think is honorable, or good, or admirable about what U.S. troops are doing in Iraq?

There isn't any dispute about the failure of the political leadership that sent them there-- or at least I presume we agree about that point. But I'll ask you to sincerely examine your response to my question. Do you really think they are doing ANYTHING good or honorable there, or are you simply uncomfortable criticizing U.S. military troops, even when they're serving an evil purpose? I think for many folks the real answer is the latter.

If the war against Iraq is a war of aggression, a crime against humanity, how can anyone who assists the commission of that crime be doing good?

happening and should never have happened.
I just can't easily dismiss everyone who has joined up, nevermind the brainwashing that went on and continues. So many things go into a decision to join, and sometimes not many. Economics is a biggie when there's nothing else to rely on.
My DH is a veteran but he was a navigator in the CG. He signed up at the age of 17. Had this war happened and he was called up, he would have gone. It's what he did. He's 55 now and it's not out of the realm of possibility he could be asked to do something, if it gets too bad. His exit papers say that.
No, I do not agree with this, but I will save my wrath for those that deserve it, not their pawns who made/make it happen.

I'm not generally pissed off at the troops in the military. I once joined the military too, for exactly the (mostly economic) reasons you noted.

But, and this is a biggie that's getting bigger-- at some point we have to stop being naive about this and take an honest look at the role our military serves at home and abroad. At home, it is the 600 pound gorilla in the MIC. I think that is mostly bad. Abroad it is almost completely an instrument of foreign policy and imperialist expansion-- a foreign policy that I believe is also mostly bad. In that context, why individuals join the military is not much more relevant than why they join the Hells Angels or the Russian Mafia, or any other organization that might have its charities but is fundamentally a criminal organization. Everyone has a reason for joining, and everyone is someone's son or daughter, husband, mother or neighbor, but they are still serving an evil purpose in the world. Exactly the same can be said of the enemies we've vilified for joining THEIR country's military, then following orders and committing brutal wars and occupations.

Our troops are doing precisely the same thing. As a nation, we have a real reluctance to own up to this. They're acting in our names, however, so if we remain silent we are tacitly approving of crimes they're using the authority of our names to commit.

but it will never happen. So, instead of making all these people who might join for economic reasons or whatever you attribute the reasons to be, maybe a different thinking is in order.
Like, maybe war just sucks and we need to acknowledge it, talk to our enemies, and consider the answers we hear instead of going off half-cocked to fight a 'war' that wasn't winnable to begin with?
And I think we need to consider our own turf also. For starters, it'd be nice to have 'the military' or the Nat'l Guard around for events like Katrina instead of Blackwater.

It bears repeating that people tend to behave like this in this sort of situation. It's a basic part of human nature. There have been literally hundreds of cross cultural studies, and then well you have the history books, and current affairs books.

This didn't happen in WWII France, but it happened in WWII Germany when we captured it.

Now different wars and all that, but I am certain that I don't have to waste digital ink on the difference.

no arab speakers, no post-invasion civil administration plan, no clue. i know, i know: "not their job". but it's become their job.

you didn't join to keep your family safe. that was an easily dismissed lie you chose to believe.

bastard.

Rumsfeld should be prosectued for War Crimes against the US, better yet Treason.

all those guys did more to fuck over the average military guy than they will ever admit.

They refused to see reality.

Depressing.

Deferments etc..