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

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

> Gar Lipow wrote
> >But Boddi is  the one insisting on  "thanking" them and "gratitude"
> >(as is umm Leah I think).  Almost nobody on this list is  talking
> >about demonizing returning soldiers. I twice gave a Vietnam era
> >example that specifically rebuts the idea that I'm for "demonizing"
> >returning troops. And  Carrol has mentioned on occasion that he was
> >involved in  the part of the movement that provided coffee houses for
> >returnees during the Vietnam war, so I bet he could tell similar
> >stories if he wanted to bother.  (Mind you I don't want to take this
> >too far. Not holding returnees a little bit responsible for their own
> >actions is to deny them agency - which is also a form of disrespect.)
> >But gratitude and thankfulness for their actions is IMO way over the
> >line. When you go that far, you have just conceded most of the
> >premises of a particular form of military-worshipping right wing
> >extremism.
>
> Yah I agree I just think the point needs to be made that there is
> nothing that separates soldiers culpability for the war from Americans
> who approved and then later confirmed that approval in a national
> electoral vote.  So singling out soldiers for special treatment  
> here is
> rather odd.  And I might say that the degree of Agency a senator,
> congessperson or civilian has is greater than that of a soldier.
> Notions that they have a choice because they could revolt or refuse to
> serve is equivalent to holding that the US population is guilty  
> because
> they did not revolt or refuse to pay their taxes which are ultimately
> what is funding this rampage in the garden.  So yes all Ameicans  
> need to
> take responsibility for their agency.  And if they did then they might
> find it easier to convince soldiers to deal with their cognitive
> dissonance in a more healthy and progressive way.
>
> Travis

It's a fact of life that some have more agency than others regarding  
the Iraq War, being more directly involved in war-making than  
others.  Let's say that 4,000 civilian Americans refuse to pay taxes,  
following the advice of the War Registers' League (cf. <http:// 
www.warresisters.org/how_to_resist.htm>).  That will have little  
tangible material impact on the war-making capacity of the US  
government (if the tax resisters in question are poor, they may not  
be paying much tax even without tax disobedience).  If 4,000 Army  
soldiers refuse to reenlist, however, that will have far more impact  
than 4,000 (or even 40,000 or 400,000) civilian tax resisters.

<blockquote>The Army announced in October that, for fiscal year 2005,  
the active-duty Army recruited 73,373 new soldiers, 6,627 short of  
the goal of 80,000 (i.e., 92% of the goal); the Army Reserve accessed  
23,859 soldiers, 4,626 short of the goal of 28,485 (i.e., 84%); and  
the Army National Guard gained 50,219 soldiers, 12,783 short of the  
goal of 63,002 (i.e., 80%).

<http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/ayers011105.html></blockquote>

That's very good.

Reenlistment has not gone down as much as fresh recruitment.

<blockquote>Soldiers are re-enlisting at rates ahead of the Army's  
targets, even as overall recruiting is suffering after two years of  
the Iraq war.
The high re-enlistment rates would make up about one-third of the  
Army's projected 12,000-troop shortfall in recruiting, although the  
re-enlistments won't address some key personnel vacancies, such as  
military police and bomb-disposal experts.

(Dave Moniz, "Soldiers Re-enlist beyond U.S. Goal," USA Today, 17  
July 2005, <http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-17-soldiers- 
re-enlist_x.htm>)</blockquote>

Soldiers ought to be encouraged not to reenlist.  Soldiers who refuse  
can make a bigger difference than civilians.

Yoshie Furuhashi
<http://montages.blogspot.com>
<http://monthlyreview.org>
<http://mrzine.org>