>On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 at 2:22pm Dennis Perrin wrote:
>>
>> It doesn't inhibit anyone from anything -- it certainly
>> hasn't hurt those it's been aimed at. And for a
>> supposedly "anti-war" critic to use it is really quite
>> baffling, as it suggests an affinity for and support of
>> military action in other situations. And if that's not
>> the case, then why use it?
>
>It's not supposed to valorize military service, it is
>supposed to make a case that the warmongers are hypocrites.
>Now if you don't find hypocrisy to be a problem (and folks
>on this list have argued that it is not a problem), then I
>suppose this tack won't appeal to you. Personally, I find
>hypocrisy repellent and a fundamental intellectual offense
>that there is no excuse for.
Maybe "hypocrisy" isn't exactly the right word here. Maybe it's that imperial war wouldn't be possible if leaders weren't able to send away other people to fight their wars - wars they wouldn't want to fight themselves. (No one would, but opting out is a luxury.) It's like Swaggart and all those "hypocrite" fundamentalists - fundamentalism of that sort depends on treating nonmarital sex as "filthy." But since sex generally will out, the fundamentalists have to take a tour of the forbidden territory. This is another way of saying that puritanism and prurience create each other, or are two sides of the same debased coin. Ditto imperial war, in which some people give orders and others take them.
Doug