|
Following OrdersIn the pantheon of civil religious nonsense phrases, "Support Our Troops" must be the key that opens the front door. It's a wonderful logic disconnect – a way to move a subject from that which is arguable to that which is holy, and therefore inarguable. When a fan of killing anonymous Iraqis states that we should support our troops, he is merely making a runabout to the end zone of nationalistic fervor. I can almost see the goal posts as the spittle flies through the air. But why should we "Support Our Troops"? What does it mean? What it means is that the decision has been made. And that's the point. In truth, however, there is no time at which popular support for troops is required or beneficial. The real fear of the SupportOurTroopers is that spineless politicians will try to have the cake of war and also eat peace pie, to appease both halves of the populace at once. In other words, Vietnam. Fundamentally, it is rules the SupportOurTroopers are worried about, and rightly so. Since childhood, I have found the notion of rules of war entirely laughable. Since learning to use guns, training for self-defense, and acquiring a small arsenal ("weapons stockpile" or "cache" in the leftist parlance), I have found the notion disgusting to its core. At the heart of the concept, "rules of war" suggests agreement. Cooperation. A game. War is not a game. Self-defense is not a game. War should not be engaged except for self-defense. And by the way, another party gearing up to defend itself does not constitute the trip wire for one to launch Blitzkrieg. When war is justifiably engaged, it should be as brutal and heartless as technically feasible. It should be the opposite of Vietnam. Vietnam was a political trough into which the bodies of stout, classic American men were fed to the teeth of death like meat into a grinder. However, the real and horribly unsettling problem of the Vietnam war was that those it devoured were not stout enough to have refused to go to Vietnam. That is the unholy truth which "true Americans" may not utter. It is the Unforgivable Sin. Yet there can be no other conclusion. The crime of unjust war lies at the feet of the participants, not the button pushers. I see the CNN video of young men, geared for battle and toting automatic rifles across the desert. The look on some of their faces is scary; they do not have a clue! In truth, many of them are there because they had no idea what to do with themselves after high school, so they signed up with the employer of last resort, the federal government. In their minds, what happens during their hitch is not up to them. They signed a contract. They are perpetually absolved. It is the actor who executes war. Presidents and generals merely instigate. Their orders could, and in some cases should, be disregarded. They are, when it's removed from the sanctity of government worship, just yappin'. There is no dishonor in making moral decisions yourself. None. You certainly have a much better chance of reaching the correct conclusions than does the president, a man whom, before he was imbued through the clumsiness of democracy with the holiness of his title, you wouldn't have trusted to change the oil on your '79 Pinto. Democracy! The thing the founders tried their utmost to prevent is now that which must be inflicted upon other countries. The depths to which we have sunk. The first assault of US citizens at Waco, the tenth anniversary of which flew by almost without mention last month, is on my mind as US soldiers prepare to slaughter masses of Iraqi people (mass destruction). On the stand at the trial of, funnily enough, the victims of the Waco attack, defense counsel elicited from one BATF agent after another that each knew nothing of what was in the warrants being "served". Most did not know or care even what the overall plan was. Should we reply, "Support Our Troops," to those outraged by the ignorance and behavior of BATF that day? As Herbert Spencer would have said: “When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves.” If you do not feel it is right to pull the trigger on an Iraqi man, then do not. And don't fool yourself into believing that it is self-defense to march into another man's country without just cause, put him in your sights, and then get on your high horse when he shoots at you. You should not have been there, and you should leave as soon and as quickly as you can. At no point in that transaction does it become right to kill him or any other inhabitant of his country. Honor demands taking your lumps if you were so foolish as to listen to Dubya and the Frankster. Can it ever be righteous self-defense for me to attempt to kill a man whose home I broke into, merely because he is trying to kill me? It cannot. My only moral self-defense, should I suddenly realize the moral error of my actions, would be to ward off his attack by hiding behind something, running away, or the like. I may not rightfully defend myself from the effects of my aggression by furthering that aggression. I must leave, cry for mercy, or otherwise attempt to protect myself through means which do not place the homeowner, guns ablazin', in further jeopardy. If I am killed in halting my attack, I die with honor. Were I to persevere to the point where the homeowner is killed, I live in shame. Yet the "honorable" branches of the United States military do not follow that code. They follow orders. They follow orders and people die. There is no reason, no right, and no honorable outcome in attacking Iraq. The President of the United States saying that it's right does not make it so. Were we to hold true to the testimony of the founders of this republic, we would apply great and profound skepticism to any such claims by the executive branch. Were congress not overly populated with spineless opinion counters, the proposed war in Iraq would have been kicked resolutely back to the executive, with the admonition that he do a much better (i.e., long term) job of defending this country. Actions have consequences, sometimes many years later. Therein lies the confounded stupidity in the continued war whoops of so many in this country. Do they enjoy the ridiculous inspections at the airport? Do they enjoy gasoline prices approaching $3 per gallon? Do they enjoy shopping for gas masks and radiation pills? How did we get here? Those sorry diversions and resource wastes are the direct result of previous offenses toward other nations. Gulf War I was supposedly in reaction to an attack launched by Hussein against Kuwait, the reasons for which should have been roundly applauded by the neocons of this country. Why were they not? Because the shoe was not on the other foot. That is the only reason, and it's an abomination. The continued arrogance and lack of objectivity this government exhibits around the globe can only result in further resentment and hostility toward us. What magic ingredient do we Americans supposedly possess which makes us immune from the time proven laws of human nature? If you attack your neighbor, expect the worst. The people of the United States, individually, must recognize this basic truth apart from politicians and generals. We must fight for ourselves to protect this great country. There is no honor nor ultimate profit in aggression. "Support Our Troops," I am told, also means that we should treat them well upon their return from the land of the "infidels," no matter what they did. We should not. We should not have respect for a man who could not think for himself, who did not try to understand his actions, and who pulled triggers on men in whose country he should never have been. Any lesser code is merely the claptrap of the unthinking and the brutal. To hell with your federal benefits, your career path, your "fighting for us," and your order following. All you did was kill men you should not have killed, and instigate more hatred and violence against the people of this country. March 22, 2003 Copyright © 2003 by LewRockwell.com
|
