On this Memorial Day, I just wanted to say one thing: I am a chickenhawk.
That’s right–I wanted America to go to war, and then I, a man of military age, did NOT serve–and my decision allowed thousands of brave young men and women to die fighting in my place.
I still have a certain sense of profound guilt about that–a sense of guilt that I am certain Republican chickenhawks do not share–especially on Memorial Day, when we commemorate those who died fighting for America (or at least what the American Government told them was for America) in wars just and unjust alike.
I do take some consolation–and some alleviation of my guilt–from this one fact, however: My reason for not signing up has been proven absolutely, 100% percent justified.
I didn’t enlist because George W. Bush was my Commander-in-Chief. I didn’t trust the man any farther than I could throw him. And I wasn’t wrong.
You see, I was ALL for the invasion of Afghanistan. Even before 9/11. And I still am–in spite of the terrible, ugly mess that Bush has made of it.
I couldn’t not be. Just as I advocate U.N. intervention in Darfur today, I advocated for U.N. intervention in Afghanistan in late 2000 and early 2001–and I knew that U.N. intervention would only come at the tip of an American spear.
There were so many reasons to intervene: misogynist and other horrific atrocities were being perpetrated at an increasingly alarming rate (to see links with pictures of what I was talking about, just visit this page from the website of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, with whose site I was obsessed well before 9/11); cultural artifacts like the Bamayan Buddhas were being destroyed despite worldwide protest; Osama Bin Laden was there we knew he was training terrorists; and there was much more. I remember several long nights of me perusing the RAWA site on the family computer, and my father asking me just why I cared so much. I told him that not only was it a question of human dignity, but our very security was at risk as well. And I was right.
—————————–
And then came 9/11. Though I didn’t personally know any of the victims, the evil tragedy affected me very deeply in other ways. A friend of mine was touristing the tops of the towers on September 10th; I worked at the time in a Los Angeles high-rise which had to be evacuated.
I was fairly certain who was responsible for the crimes of 9/11–and when my suspicions were confirmed, all of the seething rage that I had been carrying against the Taliban crystalized into a single focus point: I wanted to exact my revenge on the Taliban–not just for this, but for this and this. [WARNING: The last link contains graphic photos of Taliban brutality.]
———————————————————
So I wanted to enlist. But I didn’t.
You see, when most of the country saw Bush pick up that bullhorn, they were filled with confidence. His approval shot up to the 80s, the 90s, whatever it was.
I was filled with the dread of certain doom.
You see, during the 2000 election I had learned everything there was to know about Bush (in spite of the media’s refusal to report much evil about the man).
I learned that his campaigns (guided by Rove) were brutal, deceitful and underhanded.
I learned that his IQ wasn’t exactly up to par.
I learned that he was a bumbling incompetent, whose modus operandi ever since “Arbusto” was to run an operation into the ground, get bored, get bailed out, and then run the nextoperation into the ground.
I learned that he was obsessed with getting rid of Saddam Hussein, at whatever the cost.
I learned that he was a Christian evangelist dry-drunk.
And I learned that he was all of the oil, by the oil, and for the oil.
And I knew that he would be my boss if I enlisted. The very worst boss type in the world: the incompetent egomaniac with a mean streak.
I knew that he would probably botch the action in Afghanistan–though I had no idea that he would actually let the man who perpetrated the attacks slip through our fingers. And I knew that war with Iraq would probably follow on its heels–though I had no idea just how bad it would get.
So I stepped back from the brink in those heady days after 9/11.
I said NO to America’s call to service–because I knew that my life’s blood would not be dedicated to serving America (or Afghanistan), but rather wasted as this cipher of a man played his little game of Risk on the world stage for politically calculated ends.
—————————————————–
And now other Americans have died in my place: 2464 of them, to be exact. (And I do not ignore here the 40,000 or so Iraqi deaths, but on this Memorial Day I want to concentrate on American casualties–if only for just this one day.)
Because I am a chickenhawk. Because I wanted to invade Afghanistan, but I wouldn’t do it serving under these criminals. Because I knew better than to believe in this Administration’s goodwill or competence.
And so, I want to close with a giant THANK YOU to the men and women who have served in my place.
And a giant FUCK YOU to George Bush: the asshole who sent them to die in vain in a hurricane of incompetence and misguided greed.
The man who made me the chickenhawk I am today.
available in orange.
AND GWB was president?????????? If your number was called, what would you have done?
Do you think our plans and policies would have been better paid attention to by the voting public and therefore likely better thought out if there was a fair draft?? If so, isn’t this a giant plus for reinstituting a fair draft?
agreed. There should have been a fair draft.
So then, following your logic, we shouldn’t have commited troops to that war based on George Bush’s incompetance, deceitfulness, brutality, and underhandedness at all? Or only that it wasn’t worth your life’s blood?
You anger towards me is justified. I agree–it’s hypocritical. Thus my guilt, and my attempted expiation of that guilt through this Memorial Day diary.
I’m not angry at you. Just trying to clarify.
Our collective guilt will be decades in it’s expiation.
my clarification, I suppose, is that I think invading Afghanistan was a good idea, and the right thing to do. I think that by getting a U.N. force together BEFORE 9/11, we could have prevented all these needless tragedies, both in NYC and in the Middle East.
But I think that no good could possibly come of any action with George Bush at the helm.
So I wanted to go to Afghanistan. We needed to go. But more than anything, we needed Bush not to be in charge. Of anything.
What happened in New York was a needless tragedy. Though, there’s a part of me that say’s we shouldn’t be surprised. Not in a tactical sense. Because we weren’t surprised in a tactical sense. LIHOP. But that’s a different topic of discussion. Judgeing by what little we’ve accomplished in Afghanistan, I doubt the UN could have been very effective in bringing the Taliban under control. As if Clinton was really interested to begin with. His occasional missile strike at Bin Laden was a pathetic way of handling the deeper problem.
no argument with any of that.
These are incredibly complicated problems that the soft touch of diplomacy and the brute stroke of war are each incapable of solving singly.
This is not meant to be offensive, but if you feel that guilty and conflicted about things, you may need a therapist.
I don’t feel guilty.
I do.
Therapy won’t change that.
I have my own opinion of who should feel guitly for what, but, I am not writing it today.
For the same reason that the lame “Do you have to be a fireman if you think fires should be put out?” comeback by the chickenhawks is wrong. To wit:
It’s all right to urge a course of action that is well within the competence of the professionals. It’s all right to call the firemen to a fire you want put out. But when you call them for every imaginary fire in your paranoid fantasies, until they can’t do their real job anymore for the strain you’re putting them under; if you vote to cut their wages and sell their trucks; if you actually start fires for them to put out; then you damn well owe it to them to take up some of the strain.
It was okay to be in favour of the US military acting in Kosovo, because they could and did handle it with ease and zero casualties (it was also okay to be against it, for all sorts of reasons, but you’d have looked silly being against it because it would wreck the military)
It was okay to be in favour of invading Iraq: it’s called being dumb, and you were in lots of company there. You didn’t become a chickenhawk because when the military started buckling under the strain you said “Okay, I was wrong, get the guys out.”
You didn’t say “Stay the course! By which I mean you stay the course while I stay here.” And that means you aren’t a chickenhawk.
thank you for this…I’m sure I entire agree, but thank you all the same.
I find it difficult to express my disgust at what you have written here. I read this a couple of hours ago; declined to comment and came back…the anger remains.
Sorry man…this doesn’t cut it. Nowhere here do I see any reference to what sacrifices you have made to end this nightmare…nowhere do I see a desire to put your life, livelihood, and future on the line in opposition to war…nothing here but a shallow, narcissistic attempt to prove that you made the right decision…it doesn’t take a weatherman to see which way the wind blows…eh?
Mea culpa this is not. Another rationalization, this one from the left, no better than the protestations from the right that we all find so offensive.
The instant you condoned war:
you owned it.
To say that:
and then attempt to justify it by stating that Bush is:
is manifestly dishonest. The “man” who made you a ‘chickenhawk’ stares back at you from the mirror. Your “THANK YOU” falls on deaf ears.
If you are seeking absolution, I have none to offer. Go see a priest.
Peace
I dunno. I think a case can be made that one could advocate the use of our military forces to intervene in Afghanistan, or the Sudan, or Kosovo in theory, but not under the current leadership because they are incompetent and cannot be trusted. And the same could be said for actually enlisting for the duty.
I don’t see spoon as being dishonest. It seems to me to be an attempt to explain how one can embrace some interventions, even ones that have a partially preemptive purpose as well as a humanitarian one, but not embrace them if carried out under this leadership. Doesn’t that make sense, even if you diagree with it?
once one supports the concept of war, preemptive or otherwise, for whatever pretext, arguing that that personal advocacy and involvement does not include their participation, is the height of hypocrisy, regardless of the rationale.
Peace
Hmmm. That’s problematic.
If I carry that to its logical conclusion, it would mean that no American could support the use of the military for any purpose unless they immediately went and enlisted for the duty?
At least, you seem to be saying that. That can’t be the case. This seems especially difficult to support when we have an all volunteer army.
If you care to defend that position, or show me how I am missing something, please go ahead.
It appears I have not made myself clear. My objection is based on the representation that the author made stating that he aggressively supported the war but chose not to become personally involved. That he now chooses to rationalize his decision, in hindsight perhaps, to the nebulous proposition that “the devil made me do it” is not valid, and is IMO, indefensible in the context presented.
The acknowledgment of personal responsibility for ones’ decisions, and the acceptance of the consequences of same, are what I find lacking here. Nothing in this essay suggests that the reasons for the decision were anything other than self serving. That is my point.
Perhaps it’s best said in response that, to paraphrase the SecDef.: you go to war with the leadership you have, not the leadership you might wish for…
Additionally, I fail to see the point of bringing the all volunteer army into the discussion. That is a sophistic argument, at best, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Peace
perhaps you are not buying the sincerity of his mea culpa?
I think he is not attempting to deny a sense of guilt. He is saying that he supported a war even though he knew Bush would likely fuck it up. His fear was enough to keep him from enlisting but not enough for him to draw the same conclusions about the other soldiers that would serve in his place.
I guess I can relate to that. I thought of enlisting for Afghanistan and didn’t because of my lack of faith in this administration. However, I wasn’t as sure as spoon was that they would fuck it up. At that time, my thinking was that I wanted to do something for the country and I wanted to be told what was expected of me. And they said go shopping and be afraid.
So, I wasn’t too encouraged by that advice to join up. They didn’t seem to need me, or want me. So, that was a the biggest part of my lack of faith. I figured we were in Afghanistan for the long haul and if they needed me later, I’d go do my duty then. Then came the axis-of-evil speech and the scales dropped from my eyes about any sense of national unanimity or shared purpose or putting partisanship aside. Then it became a matter of figuring out how we could avoid a catastrophe in Iraq, either by stopping the war or by building a coalition like his father did. I could see right then that we were at risk of going in unilaterally, without UN support, and without any legal underpinnings, and without a plan for the aftermath. 2002 was probably the unhappiest year of my life as I watched that disaster unfold.
I was quiet out of respect for others and the importance of Memorial Day holds for many, but it is over now and I can be myself.
And, I will say that this comment is, without a doubt, the stupidest one that you have ever written.
You do not take into account the others that went, some of whom didn’t come back, like the son of a friend. Or the guy I saw at the auto parts store awhile back who only had one leg. Think they weren’t afraid? Probably scared as hell, but they did it. And any idea of those who do come back seriously injured/disabled due to a traumatic brain injury–which is one of the most common, if not the most common.
Any idea what tbi survivors live with now? Do you think it is easy? (And, I can say, from firsthand experience that living with a traumatic brain injury is NOT.)
And if someone says that they are afraid to go, but support war, they get no sympathy from me and have a hell of a lot of nerve expecting some. What the hell gives them the right to feel that their lives are more important than others?
Hell, I put my ass on the line more than once in my life. And, I am doing it again NOW, with all that I am doing re: Part D. Sure would be a simple matter for a sleazebag wingnut congresscritter like the one in my district to call one of his cronies and make sure that my info re: Part D was lost and then I wouldn’t be able to get my pills. (Gave up anonimity awhile back.) If that happens, I go into status eppileptcus which is often FATAL. Also, I may hit the donut hole myself and be unable to afford my prescriptions. I can just hear it how–she was a good writer. If only…
And no, I am NOT bullshitting. Eddie Rosa was one death that has been REPORTED due to part D.
So, why all the sympathy for someone who doesn’t even stand up for what they believe in? IMO, dada nailed it on the first try.
So, why waste someone’s time with bullshit? I don’t want to read that, I want to read what is really going on in the world as opposed to all of the crap that the pr machine puts out daily.
As I have said before/upthread, if he is that torn up about it, a therapist may be a good idea.
thanks for the rant.
I don’t know if you have noticed, but the government has not imposed a draft, they insist they do not have a recruitment problem, and the most pressing thing they have asked me to do for my country is go shopping.
There are a lot of people that signed up for the armed forces to go deal with the people that attacked us on 9/11, and they wound up Iraq, some of them with brain injuries. I feel terrible about that. I don’t understand why you would even suggest otherwise. It’s insulting, frankly.
You are making it sound like you have absolutely no reason to do anything other than shop because that is all the government told you to do.
And, as dada stated, your argument re: a volunteer army doesn’t fly either.
I still stand by this:
And if someone says that they are afraid to go, but support war, they get no sympathy from me and have a hell of a lot of nerve expecting some.
And I also noticed that you did not mention a damn thing about Part D or Eddie Rosa.
Am I to assume that you don’t feel terrible about that?
For your reading pleasure.
A volunteer army changes everything.
When my father was a young man, he was drafted into the army, as most men were. They got him as soon as he graduated from college. He served his country in Germany, helping reconstruction efforts. He didn’t have a choice about whether or not to join the military, unless he wanted to go to jail. Fortunately for him, he never saw combat as he served bewteen Korea and Vietnam. But had he been called to go to Vietnam, his choice would not have been to go because he supported it, his only choice would have been not to go because he didn’t support it.
In today’s world, we are not in the military by default. We join up in peacetime with the understanding and trust that we will only be called into combat if it is vital to our national security. And if the Army doesn’t get enough volunteers, they will ask people to join. I’m not talking about routine recruitment, I’m talking about the President of the United States going on television and asking able bodied men and women to join the armed services. Bush hasn’t done that.
So, for all the men and women out here in civilian life, we have the option of supporting what our forces are doing or not supporting what our forces are doing. If we truly believe that the fight in Afghanistan is vital to our national security, we still have to worry that we will be deployed to Iraq or somewhere else that we do not feel is, or was, vital our national security. In other words, we can support the effort in Afghanistan but not support the war in Iraq, and therefore refuse to serve.
If you want to say that it cowardly, so be it. I think it reflects the terrible leadership that we have. People want to be supportive in certain areas, but do not trust that their help won’t be subverted to some other purpose.
Oversimplifying it by saying that our absence is being filled by someone else, ignores that unlike in Vietnam, our spot in not being filled by a draftee but a volunteer. So the volunteer army completely changes the moral calculus.
My late father was unable to serve during WWII, due to a lifelong heart condition. (Both of my parents were in their early forties when I was born in 1960.) But, he was a civilian, working for army ordinance during that time, so, he more than stood up for what he thought was right.
Again, I am with dada on this, your argument doesn’t make sense. And you won’t change my mind on that.
Oh my goddess…this was way too harsh.
There are some real evil things happening in the world and Spoon wants to fix them. He knows that this military will not fix them because the Chimpinator doesn’t have a moral bone in his body. He was right to not enlist. But that he feels bad that he can’t fix the horrors of the 21st century is no reason to call him dishonest.
I bet Cindy Sheehan wouldn’t say “You’re welcome.”
thank you for this.
maybe, maybe not.
Would you have said the same to FDR? To Winston Churchill?
Please stop grasping at straws. FDR was ineligible for military service.
in the Winter of 2002 but decided not to, because of that very same reason. GWB as commander in chief.
I knew there would be orders (Iraq for one) that I would be unable to fufill or would end up executing knowing that they were wrong and flew in the face of reality.
good to know there are others in the same boat with me.
This seems like a really niggling point to go after, considering that it’s incidental to the rest of your thoughtful post, but it bugs me hearing it all the time.
George W. Bush is not our commander-in-chief. He is the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. Unless you are an enlisted man, he is not your commander-in-chief.
I feel obliged to point this out not just because the vast wingnut masses don’t seem to grasp it, but also because George W. Bush doesn’t seem to grasp it. Civilians do not have commanders. We have elected representatives who serve at our pleasure and discretion. The distinction is a fine one, but it is what separates a president from a king.
Thanks for saying that, Eodell. It’s important to change the prevailing perceptions, and not just let them slide. This one drives me nuts, and I’m glad to see you point it out. Hope people will remember it.
That is a very important point.