I too am proud of the US military, good post.

It is a shame that far too many people only know about the military from old Vietnam news footage and movies about drugged out vets on killing sprees. As fewer people volunteer to serve, that gap only grows.

I know a lot of military personnel, they aren't all saints or rocket scientists, but they area reflection of America.

I was about to get into a big long excursis on Victor Davis Hanson and his fabulous "The Western Way of War" and "Carnage and Culture," then I saw that Eric had already put in a link to C&C.

Anyone who really wants to take a look at the contrast between the mores, capabilities, goals and styles of Western Civilization and the eastern powers who have always tried to destroy it -- from the Persians of Herodotus' day to our current foes -- should take a long and careful look at either.

Just to test this "we are proud of our military power, therefore we must be right in this war" hypothesis, let's imagine Iraqis or Palestinians or any Muslims who consider themselves to be freedom fighters saying this:

"We will take months, years, even decades of slurs, random murdering of our own, terrorism, and general hostility before acting - and then in some primordial rage at last unleash firepower undreamed of to remove the odious regime."

Check. National Review, Muslim Review. It translates. In fact, if you imagine Muslims announcing an intention to "in some primordial rage at last unleash firepower undreamed of to remove the odious regime," it actually sounds a bit...oh, I don't know, hateful.

And this one, Eric. Do you really believe this...

"We have only to compare the comportment, values, discipline and priorities of the American military in the current conflict with those of the enemy to sharpen our appreciation."

I'm not defending Saddam's regime here (those who can only see in black and white, please don't bother reading further--you won't understand). But given our natural fondness for the American Revolution, how can you say this? Do you realize that you have just said the British in that conflict were morally superior to the American rebels?

It's the easiest thing in the world for a fighting force that is stronger by several orders of magnitude (about 400 to 1 in the case of U.S. vs. Iraq, going by military spending) to criticize a weaker force for using "immoral" tactics. No air force, hardly any tanks, no bunker busters, no Tomahawk missiles, crippled communications, no apparent weapons of mass destruction (oops!). Yeah, they're weaker. All those military options the U.S. forces have? Yeah, Iraqis have almost none of them. What have you proved?

Do you understand you are placing yourself in a morally superior position to the enemy because you are stronger? Of course we aren't using suicide attacks. We don't have to.

Imagine that the U.S. came under attack by a much stronger enemy. 400 times as strong. Would you give up? Or would you fight with any and every means available? I know what I'd do--I'd find the nearest gun nut and ask if I could borrow a gun. And if anyone told me to be sure to follow the "rules of engagement" that my 400-times-stronger enemy had laid out, I'd laugh at 'em. I'd play to win.

What would you do, Eric?

Well, Brian, I don't remember U.S. soldiers forcing people to run in front of them as human shield, so I'd still say we have the upper hand.
You seem to be saying that desparate supporters of the Iraqi regime are justified in using civilians in such a manner, because they are at a disadvantage in military might. Pretty sad.

Rob,

No, these actions are despicable. What I take issue with is Eric's celebration of the moral superiority of the United States because we have astronomically more military power.

One can be against the use of civilians as human shields (not to mention putting dissidents into meat grinders and all of the other horrors we know about, and the surely greater ones we will discover upon Saddam's downfall) and also be against praising ourselves for our supposed restraint.

We're not facing the choices the Iraqi people are facing. We can condemn the use of human shields without telling ourselves we're morally superior to Iraqis who are engaging in other kinds of guerilla warfare.

I stand by this statement:

"Imagine that the U.S. came under attack by a much stronger enemy. 400 times as strong. Would you give up? Or would you fight with any and every means available? I know what I'd do--I'd find the nearest gun nut and ask if I could borrow a gun. And if anyone told me to be sure to follow the "rules of engagement" that my 400-times-stronger enemy had laid out, I'd laugh at 'em. I'd play to win. "

Would you do this or not?

If so, know that the 400-times-stronger enemy would be denouncing your morality based on your tactics.

We bombed the shit out of entire cities of civilians in WWII. We slaughtered men, women and children in huge numbers in order to break the enemy's will. On purpose, not as collateral damage. We did what we had to do to win. It's not un-American to acknowledge this.

We're not using those techniques now because, thank God, we don't have to. But getting all puffed up over how our warfare is more moral than the weaker enemy's requires starting history at an arbitrary point in recent memory.

War is ugly, and it makes people do horrible things. We're not better because we're stronger.

Dresden.

We have the military capability to flatten Iraq, yet we refrain from doing so, we should not be proud of that?

Brian, here's the problem with open-ended relativism: there's ALWAYS another side to any opposed perspectives but ACTION requires making a decision and acting upon that decision. Relativism is never binary, human action is basically always binary.

What would I do if I was an Iraqi? I'd surrender and thank Allah for the chance - I wouldn't become a suicide bomber, I wouldn't use civilians as human shields, I wouldn't dress as a civilian and keep fighting, I wouldn't pretend to surrender and ambush the enemy - I would retain my self-respect, surrender and be damned happy about the whole thing.

And I wouldn't do any of those things if someone invaded the US, either. You're an American Brian, sometimes you'll just have to identify with such and NOT project yourself into the other side, or be regarded as morally bankrupt.

And PLEASE don't cite a long list of horrors committed by the US Chomsky-style - no one is perfect, but we are the least imperfect by far.

Eric,

Well, we have a clear disagreement, then. Or, rather, in the hypothetical scenario I outlined...

"Imagine that the U.S. came under attack by a much stronger enemy. 400 times as strong. Would you give up? Or would you fight with any and every means available? I know what I'd do--I'd find the nearest gun nut and ask if I could borrow a gun. And if anyone told me to be sure to follow the "rules of engagement" that my 400-times-stronger enemy had laid out, I'd laugh at 'em. I'd play to win. "


...we speculate that we would do different things.

If you found yourself n this scenario, you say...

I wouldn't become a suicide bomber


Against a military target? I would. Or, I'd like to think I would. And most Americans would call me a hero.

Again, we're talking about, say, an invasion of Los Angeles by a huge army. They're pummeling L.A. relentlessly by air, and we have no defense against that. Their forces are swarming the city, taking it over block by block.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in that situation in your city, your action would be...

I'd surrender and thank Allah [God] for the chance.


You also say,

I wouldn't use civilians as human shields,


I'm with you on that one.

I wouldn't dress as a civilian and keep fighting,


I would.

I wouldn't pretend to surrender and ambush the enemy


I would. Fuck 'em. They're invading L.A.


I'm not saying I would have the courage to do any of these things. One never knows. I'm also not criticizing you for drawing your own personal line in a different place. It's not an easy line to choose, I know. It's not even easy to imagine it.

I'm saying that when I imagine the invasion of Los Angeles by a 400-times-stronger force, and there's nothing left but guerilla tactics, there are some I would choose. Civilians as human shields? Absolutely not. The others? Yeah, maybe so. If it was to save L.A.

Imagine what the pro-war guys would say about, oh, a Frenchman (spit) who didn't make a suicide run at invading German forces. Oh, wait. We don't have to imagine it.

The joke getting passed around is this:

Q. How many French soldiers does it take to defend Paris?
A. Don't know, it's never been tried.

Pondering the definition of valor in a hypothetical scenario isn't moral bankruptcy. What' going to happen to us when we stop thinking because the country is at war? How much sense does that make?

The definition of morality is failure to think? I don't get that.

B, not failure to think, but to chip away at the corners of action until no action is left. If you demand perfection in your actions, you will never be able to act.

RE the hypo scenario: Iraq is real not hypo, they are overmatched by an enormous factor, they are defending an evil, totalitarian regime, they should just quit and make it easier on everyone.

Re a US invasion: It is pretty pointless to project because we won't be in a situation where we are overmatched in the foreseeable future. One of our strengths is that we have CHOSEN, as has Israel, to not allow ourselves to be overmatched. This is a DECISION, not a random turn of events. We have the will to be the dominant power on earth, and so we are.

And no, might does not make right, but might does not make wrong either, and fortunately for the world, we are right AND have the might.

Eric,

Suicide bombing of military targets indicates that the Iraqis are uniquely immoral by comparison with the U.S.


That's what I saw as a subtext of your original post.

I attempted to show via a hypothetical how moral soldiers could also use guerilla tactics, and therefore your argument was flawed.

It's not a trivial issue to ponder. I think the line of thinking you advocated leads to a very dangerous place--the belief that we are just plain better. This line of thinking feeds on irrational assertions like, You can tell we're better--look how they fight! We don't fight like that.


The use of civilians as human shields, however, does point up something--that democracy is more moral that totalitarianism. A democracy (not just a U.S. democracy) could more easily prevent its leaders from perpetrating that particular kind of brazen, public inhumanity. But there's nobody to stop Saddam.

I don't think that translates to "us" being better, though.

And it still stands that suicide attacks and other guerilla methods don't necessarily serve as a measure of valor or morality. We know exactly nothing about the valor or morality of the Iraqi people based on military suicide attacks. And the use of human shields only tells us about Iraq's leaders, who, literally, don't represent the people of the country.

"...not failure to think, but to chip away at the corners of action until no action is left. "

Um, who's doing that? Where did this come from?

In any case, I've always advocated for a clear, unambiguous action in the U.S. dispute with Iraq--inspections backed by force.

And that was a choice. President Bush pretended that it was inaction vs. war. It wasn't. That was a false binary framing of the issue.

And Bush's method and choice does illustrate that an open mind is an asset, not a liability. An open mind would have chosen a better solution--disarmament without war. That's not moral relativism. He closed his mind to any alternative but war because he wanted war, not because failure to choose war would have represented some kind of philosophical paralysis in which "no action is left."

Anyway,

Suicide bombing of military targets indicates that the Iraqis are uniquely immoral by comparison with the U.S.


Agree or disagree?

Suicide bombing is immoral period, it doesn't matter who does it, but the fact that it seems to be practiced primarily by Muslims in autocratic regimes (the Palestinians', not Israel) is telling. Yes, we are morally superior in that regard.

And you are right about democracy, which is not uniquely ours, certainly.

Eric,

"Suicide bombing is immoral period, it doesn't matter who does it, but the fact that it seems to be practiced primarily by Muslims in autocratic regimes (the Palestinians', not Israel) is telling. Yes, we are morally superior in that regard."

Who is "we"?

we who do not suicide bomb

So that wouldn't include this group, right?

I am a vietnam veteran. Being proud of killing is a sick way to live. Living by the sword only ends one way. How we ever got this screwed up again is a real lesson in life. I guess it's that each side gets its turn to lead. The side that is leading now needs to go extinct. Maybe this will do it.

Craig,

When you were fighting in Vietnam, did you and/or your fellow soldiers feel as if you were morally superior in your tactics?

If so (or not), did that feeling ever change through time?

Eric,

You said:

I wouldn't dress as a civilian and keep fighting...

Apparently your military would (Newsday):

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon on Friday defended the use of some civilian clothes by U.S. special operations forces, a tactic used to help them blend in with the local population.

Alleging war crimes, Bush administration officials complained bitterly last week that Iraqi paramilitary forces dressed as civilians, faked surrenders and used other battlefield ruses to kill American soldiers.

Asked at a Pentagon press conference why it is OK for American commando troops to take off their uniforms, but a crime when the Iraqis did it, Defense Department spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said she thought American forces wear something that distinguishes them from civilians, but deferred the question for a later answer.

It certainly sounds like a double standard.