[lbo-talk] We can lose, or we can just lose later

[Louis Kontos]

I agree mostly with what you say. Many obvious things could be added about
what is wrong with an uncritical (or pseudo-critical) celebration of the
military, especially of the world's superpower. At the same time, since we
are all connected with this phenomenon -- the occupation of Iraq -- as well
as with military personnel (family members, people we know, students, etc.)
we need to address the claim that we (people who oppose the invasion and
occupation of Iraq) don't care about the 'troops'. The answer to that
accusation should be simple, since the people that are sending them to kill
and be killed can't provide any credible justification -- even stretching
the bounds of credulity, whatever benefit of doubt can be given. The current
adventure is based on transparent lies. So I see nothing wrong with calling
war-mangers and their apologists to task on the basis of claims about
necessity, morality, history etc. Why not call people to task, to account
for themselves, especially when they advocate or apologize for mass death
and destruction?  


> On 11/25/05, Louis Kontos <Louis.Kontos at liu.edu> wrote:
>> If you have genuine respect for military personnel, for whatever reason,
>> then it makes sense to speak honestly with and about them. Thanking them for
>> a military adventure that you yourself call unjust seems rather hypocritical
>> -- and condescending -- to me. I feel no need to thank anybody for doing
>> something I consider unjust, notwithstanding everything you said about the
>> military code. While you seem to appreciate the military code (at least
>> those parts of it that mandate obedience and sacrifice, not anything else),
>> you seem to lack an understanding of hypocrisy.
>> 
>> 
> 
> That is true as far as it goes.  But "gratitude" towards the military
> is not only  hypocritical; it is truly dangerous as well.   Zell
> Miller repeated a well worn right wing meme when  he  said at the last
> Republican Convention:
> 
>> It has been said truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter,
> who has given us the freedom of the press. [cheers] It is the soldier,
> not the poet who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the
> soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It
> is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose
> coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he
> abuses to burn that flag. [cheers] No one should dare to even think
> about being the commander in chief of this country if he doesn't
> believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and
> defenders of freedom at home
> 
> Do you see how dangerous this  will be if it succeeds? Establishing
> the military as some superior caste to which the rest of us owe
> gratitude for all the  freedoms and rights we possess?  Seeing the
> military in fact as the basis for those rights, and thus able to take
> them away on whim?  That is what  lies behind the whole "gratitude"
> line.
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk