[internisus]

I would love to take an extreme stance against all military and all war as many in my generation do -- and as I have in the past. However, the fact is that war has been around forever simply because it exists as an option. Peoples, nations, ways of life, and their agendas have long, long histories of disagreement that can and do escalate to violence, and that's a fact. Corrupt and power-hungry people do terrible things and they and their governments need to be brought down through military might: World War II was such a righteous war. There is such a thing as military action for good. The UN uses it all the time. The military is an enterprise of honor, sacrifice, discipline, and purpose.

Although it is necessary to maintain military might in order to deter and protect oneself against the possibility of violence, as well as to take righteous action and threaten other nations into reform, there is a very thin line between such purposes and more selfish variations. Military is simply a tool and a weapon. Its goodness is determined by the character of its master. Right now, the United States is an extremely selfish, arrogant, and shortsighted country, and the actions of its military -- invading and occupying an unthreatening sovereign nation -- are certainly cause for derision. However, that indignation is better focused towards the government controlling such force.

That being said, it is a separate matter to criticise the practices of the military with regard to recruitment, policies towards homosexuality, etc. It's just important to focus. Turn your protest efforts towards specific issues rather than the general idea of military or war. Remember that the military can be a good thing and a good life and remain concentrated on the problems that are obstructing this possibility.

[internisus]

I did not say that the UN was stronger than the individual members on its security council or that it always does what is good and necessary for the world. I was just making an example of a body that uses military force for good purposes.

[internisus]

The military does not "cooperate willingly." It answers directly to the commander-in-chief. It is a tool without general free will.

However, its members can be held accountable for their conduct during operations -- for instance, war crimes like the rape of nan-king (sp?).

But you cannot argue that the military is responsible for evil actions like invading sovereign nations for no good reason. That responsibility falls to the commander-in-chief. The military obeys commands, and that's that. The screwdriver analogy is fine.

[internisus]

[internisus]

I don't answer to you.

Look, I get your point, but it's a dumb argument. First of all, I know that there could not be any good reason for me to rob a bank. You might equate that with killing people, but as we've covered sometimes fighting and killing is not only justified, but righteous.

Secondly, the actions of the military hinge upon far more complex moral and intelligent background than robbing a bank. These are almost always highly ambiguous matters debated all over the world, and it is the profession of those in the government and intelligence agencies to make these kinds of decisions and call for action as follows. The job of the soldier is to carry out those orders. He is not equipped to consider their moral and intelligent character.

Thirdly, because of this, the military is largely protected from moral reprehensibility. If the American people stand up all at once and declare that the invasion of Iraq was based upon a lie, that support for the war was due to media-fed misperceptions, that the action was undeniably criminal, then the Bush administration would be held responsible, not the soldiers who did the invading. Why? Because the military is just a tool.

[internisus]

I already addressed this, but the military is not equipped to make decisions for itself. It's the action part of the whole complex mechanism that runs a country. The brain part is the intelligence network, and the moral decision part is the government. Because the commander-in-chief is elected in a democracy, the military is in no way misguided in assuming that he has the country's best interests at heart and that their actions are in line with that. Decision-making is not the job of the military but the job of the government, and it is the government that we hold responsible for the military's actions.

I mean, honestly, what the fuck are we even talking about? The alternative that you seem to be arguing for is a military that thinks for itself, and that would never work unless you lived in a nation that was actually run by the military.

[internisus]

I actually agree with everything you said in that post. However, you're still not countering what I've stated regarding the role of the military in a larger process or mechanism or whatever that we call a nation.

[internisus]

[internisus]

The point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't have an arm that unquestioningly obeys its sentient master but also has the free will to disobey. Each option carries consequences. If the arm is itself sentient and free, it is not adequately dependant upon the physically weak powers that control it to ensure that it will not eventually take over. If the arm is stupid and obeys without question, then it cannot be held accountable for its actions.

The latter is the better option, and this is one of the primary strengths of democracy. We choose and elect a commander for that arm. It is up to us to determine the moral character and intelligence of its commander. Unfortunately, the process for doing so fucking sucks right now thanks to big money and big media. The principle is good, though, because the arm is necessary and the other option is very, very bad.



And yeah, the issue of leadership taking responsibility is so hopelessly tied up in the bullshit of political strength and public image that it never really happens. Have you ever heard any kind of politican apologize for his own actions? But that's also kind of a necessary development. How can you design a society precluding the development of politics, a corruption of weak character, when politics is such a natural human phenomenon?

[internisus]

I'll sleep on it and explain what's contradictory in the morning.

[internisus]

[internisus]

[internisus]