Having just watched a documentary on Iraq Veterans Against the War, (http://thisiswherewetakeourstand.com/) I’m concerned that an opportunity to examine the operation of the military in action has been missed and the wrong message promulgated, by people who, at first glance seem to be motivated by very good intentions.
The veterans who testified at the Winter Soldier event and those who appeared in the video present some very compelling evidence of war crimes. They freely admit to taking part in it. On this basis, they ask for help in political action to stop the wars.
Certainly, every war creates this opportunity and, up to now, the people of the united states have been unmoved by it. Perhaps the abusive nature of the war machine has acceded to an extreme point where, even the tv-dominated mind can be penetrated and understand the wrongness of killing innocents.
My most vivid memories of Viet Nam are of victims. Most, by far, were civilians, innocent people who threatened nobody.
The soldiers (veterans) in the documentary describe killing, mutilating, and terrorizing civilians as well as combatants, under orders and under the eyes of commanding officers and NCOs.
So, the puzzling part is this. If these veterans are serious about change, why do they overlook the most obvious and potentially effective means of instigating it?
They are not talking about honor, but they say that the truth must be told, in order to prevent the same crimes from being repeated.
To be blunt, public demonstrations and even highly sophisticated television documentaries may ‘tug at the heartstrings’ of viewers and sympathizers, but objectively speaking, these are not as effective as they are reputed to be.
Is the reason for this type of response the fact that appealing to emotion has become the facile substitute for taking or demanding accountability for breeches of law and morality? I think so. This is very much like the first lesson a child gets in ‘owning up’. This is progress from the stage of life where a child ignores or is unaware of consequences to the realization that society (civilization, family etc.) require balancing aggression with an apology and an offer of compensation. It does not reach the stage of effectively remedying the wrong. So, in my own way, I am describing these acts of contrition as childish and insufficient. But we’re supposed to be grownups here, aren’t we?
It is that step which leads to understanding and implementing the concept – honor. Once honor has been achieved, it is axiomatic that the type of killing and brutality that these soldiers describe, is wrong and not to be done.
So, we need to address the grievances realistically. Not ignoring that the veterans may have been duped into service or defrauded (constructive fraud – look it up: here), justice requires it. The well-being of the veterans also requires that they do this as well.
After all, where did the idea come from that, after committing a serous crime, the only act necessary to make it right is to talk about it and explain what you did? It doesn’t work that way. Try that as a means of clearing your responsibility for the murder of an American in the states if you need a concrete example. It doesn’t wash.
This undermines the basis of morality (no matter what superstitious or real reason you believe that it exists or is required – it is required for a civilization to achieve a state wherein people thrive in pursuit of knowledge and science and industry.
Not that any of these things are necessary for a person to be happy, but all are necessary to building better, more stable and nurturing environments. Do you really want to bring children into a backward, fearful, ignorant society? Do you want to live in one?
Immoral men destroy, kill and brutalize each other. War is the most natural state of existence for the worst of them.
So, if the crime goes unpunished, what is the point of talking about it at all?
Even in its current state of disrepute (deservedly maybe), the court system is the best place to resolve disputes over the commission of crimes. In fact, once resolved by the courts, no executive or congressional act can undo the findings or the orders so decided.
Without a finding of guilt for crimes, nobody is going to be held responsible. No one seriously believes that the executive branch of government gives a rat’s ass about the law anymore (they seem to be extremely immoral) – unless he is taking too many pharmaceuticals to rub two sticks together. So, are the veterans insane enough to believe that this will change by evoking the empathy and sympathy of the people? Or, are they (justifiably) feeling terribly guilty and in need of pardon or forgiveness? Both possibilities are understandable, if not sufficient.
Here is a thought: If you have committed crimes, conspired with others to commit crimes and observed management engaging in conspiracies to commit murder, assault, theft, vandalism (whatever the extreme definition for destroying units of civilization is), and you want to do something about it, file a criminal complaint and name everybody, including yourself.
If you are willing to do that, as willing as you were to kill people who were no threat to yourself, your friends and associates, and you understand that what you did in no way furthered the safety and security of people back home, then you should be willing to step up to the bar, hat in hand.
If you are, and it is certain that most of the naive young soldiers were or are victims of the conspiracy who were coerced into it, you can use that in your defense. The thing that you cannot do is to be absolved of it by your own will or lack of it. Apologizing doesn’t get it done. Neither does suicide or self abuse.
Associating together to address the problems of living with guilt in no way dilutes the guilt. In fact, that delusion can prevent you from taking steps that could be productive and useful, by providing cover and anonymity, in a perverse and public self-manipulative way – if you get my drift. The group could be useful, but so far, they seem intent on avoiding the reckoning with the responsibility that is uniquely theirs.
It is fashionable to speak of ‘closure’. But that is pious bullshit. There is one way to settle it and the only way to put things as right as they can be is to punish those who willfully and knowingly caused and acted to accomplish the crime, and compensate the victims. Nothing less is good enough.
Now, this is not a popular way to address the military person, because, in this culture, worship of soldiers is more common than canned soup, but it is inappropriate as to the war crimes of which the veterans speak. How dare we elevate the appreciation of modern soldiers, invading countries having no credible means to threaten us, to the status of men and women who died defending themselves from such invasions?
Well, you can fool yourself into believing that myth if you lack the ability to deal with facts, but if you do have enough brains to rub two sticks together – and you are willing to take an honest look at the facts, you must understand the moral issue.
I guess that the anti-concept of the ‘warrior’ – meant to invoke images of American Indians defending themselves and their families against the savagery of Custer et al – is still very powerful in the American mob psyche, and that this is heresy. If so, I am in good company.
For an explanation of anti-concepts see this.
So, is it time to ‘man up’? Or do we want to cultivate the jock-sniffing stupidity of Fox News, MSNBC etc. as a permanent feature of life here at home?
Now for the contrary example (very quickly): When Ron Paul expressed the idea, in a presidential candidates ‘debate’ a couple of weeks ago (it seems), in South Carolina, that we should apply the ‘golden rule’ to Iran and any other country, he was roundly booed by the crowd.
Things are so upside down that identifying a basic rule of moral conduct is enough to make people hate you?
Then it follows that the heros, who admittedly committed murder, torture, mutilation and intentional desecration of the innocent dead, are more honorable that a peaceful country doctor with whom you have a political disagreement?
What in hell do you suppose this can bring to effect? More war? Deprivation? Economic collapse? Mass stupidity, gang warfare, dissolution and tribalism… to what end?
I couldn’t have created this in a dream if I had not seen it myself.
