> > > I'm thanking them for doing what the civilian government of the US
> > > asks them to do at a time when that is a shitty, disheartening,
> > > dangerous job.
> >
> > The US doesn't ask them to do the "shitty, disheartening, dangerous
> > job" -- it's the White House and Congress that do.
>
> Except that I wrote "the civilian government of the US". How,
> exactly is that different from "the White House and Congress"?
We shouldn't equate the US, a majority of whose population is now against the war, with the White House and Congress or the "civilian government of the US." The US government's claim to being a "civilian" government is weak, too. The executive branch has monopolized war-making powers, based upon a volunteer military, and makes wars pretty much as it pleases, with much of its war and other national security expenditures kept secret from the populace.
> >If soldiers
> > stopped doing the job that the White House and Congress order
> them to
> > do, a majority of the American people, as well as the rest of the
> > world, would have a great deal to thank them for. That would be a
> > deed to be remembered in history, as a favor to humanity (and to
> > themselves).
>
> No, it wouldn't. Do you really want soldiers making their own law?
> Or, do you want them to follow the law?
That all depends on what laws we are talking about -- Bush's orders, the US Constitution, or international law? The Iraq War is against international law, and it is arguably against the US Constitution, too. When orders given by superiors contradict the US Constitution and/or international law such as the Geneva Conventions, soldiers ought to uphold the latter by disobeying the former.
> Think about it. When soldiers don't follow the law, it hasn't
> generally worked out well for left-wingers, women, and minorities,
> has it?
That all depends on which laws soldiers disobey and which laws they uphold.
> > If the United States were a democracy, soldiers would be all back
> > home from Iraq by now.
>
> That's just a stupid thing to say. Decisions are made by elections,
> not polls.
>
Elections, in which money determines just about everything, is not a good measure of democracy. People change minds between elections, too. That's perfectly legitimate in any country. Even in the US, there are such procedures as impeachment.
> > Our responsibility to them is to make sure that their veterans'
> > benefits, health care benefits, etc. won't be cut by the Right.
>
> Right and we should give them monetary benefits but not thanks.
> That makes sense because.....???
>
I'm in favor of the government making sure that everyone, including veterans who fought in wars that aren't worth fighting, has what she needs. The Right, who would probably say "thank you" to obedient soldiers (talk is cheap), in contrast, are always itching to cut benefits of everyone, including soldiers', when they can get away with it.
> > > If I disagree with the Bush administration, I can do all manner of
> > > things to protest. Soldiers can't.
> >
> > Soldiers should protest. Their protest will be more powerful than
> > civilians'.
>
> Yeah, protesting soldiers have proved very powerful in history.
> Well-armed people tend to get themselves listened to. That
> particular form of protest is generally known as a "coup d'etat" or
> "armed sedition" but it is quite powerful, no question.
When soldiers put down their weapons or refuse to fight, that's a powerful form of protest. Even protests falling far short of that would be very welcome. Imagine all soldiers writing letters, emailing, and phoning the White House, Congress, and the media, saying that they don't want to fight the Iraq War any more, because it's not worth their lives, because the Iraqi people don't want the war, because the war has been illegal and immoral anyway.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>