Promoted by Steven D.
This diary is about a controversial topic for many people, i.e., the question of how much responsibility lies with ordinary soldiers for actions taken during wartime. Americans have never been fond of those who criticize the troops, and that has been especially the case since 9/11 when “Support the Troops” has become a mantra that all sides of the political debate on the Iraq war have tried to make their own, whether to stifle debate over the legitimacy of the war, or to immunize war opponents from criticism that they “Hate the Military” or “Hate America.”
However, it is a serious topic, and it deserves a serious and civil discussion, one which I believe this community is more than capable of.
The diarist correctly references the principles established at the Nuremberg Trials, that the defense of “following orders” was considered insufficient to absolve someone of war crimes. There is no question that US troops have committed actions that violated international conventions and would be considered war crimes under the standards established by the Nuremberg Tribunal, and by the tribunals which prosecuted Japanese military officials and civilians for war crimes after the end of the War in the Pacific.
Examples include the use of napalm in the early stages of the war, the use of white phosphorus as a weapon, the murders and rapes of civilians at Haditha, Beiji and elsewhere, and the torture and abuse committed by Americans at Abu Ghraib, which all could be prosecuted as war crimes.
This is the same issue America faced in Vietnam. Indeed, had we not been the victors in World War II (and thus the nation that determined who should be charged with war crimes), it is highly likely that British and American officials would have been prosecuted for the fire bombing of civilian populations (Dresden, Tokyo) and for the use of the Atomic Bomb. The Nazis and Japanese committed many atrocities, but the bad acts of one’s enemies has never been considered a valid legal justification for one’s own. Luckily for “Bomber Harris” and “Curtis LeMay” no one was looking to prosecute American and British generals for their acts of barbarism in that most heinous of wars.
In my view, the worst criminals in the Iraq fiasco are those who led us into this illegal war, and authorized the use of torture, chemical and incendiary weapons, and aerial bombing of urban centers. Fallujah all by itself was a war crime of monumental proportions, one for which Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be brought before the bar of justice to answer. Nonetheless, the question of what responsibility should be borne by the troops who carried out those orders is a legitimate one to ask. How can we hold others responsible for their violations of international law if we cannot face up to those committed by our own leaders and soldiers?
Lt. Watada is facing jail time for his refusal to participate in what he and I believe is an immoral and illegal war in Iraq. We cannot say he is right to do so, while refusing to debate the culpability of all those who chose to carry out their orders. That is the least we can do, in my opinion.
Exactly how are the men and women fighting in Iraq immune from any and all blame?
I find it virtually impossible to avoid analysis of the omnipresent “support the troops” concept. The latest opportunity presented itself as I walked through a parking lot in suburban Texas. On the rear window of a pick up, I saw a decal that read: “Death from Above.” Translation: The truck owner (or someone the truck owner knows) is affiliated with some sort of airborne military unit. To them, “Death from Above” is a source of martial pride and patriotic passion.
In reality, “Death from Above” means nothing less than mass murder from 15,000 feet. It means daisy cutters, bunker busters, cruise missiles, napalm, and white phosphorous. It means depleted uranium and cluster bombs littering the landscape for decades. It means rubble, destruction, the ruination of lives by the hundreds, by the thousands and more. It means Dresden, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. It means “shock and awe.” It means 9/11. It means more than space allows me to explain, yet it’s perfectly normal for an American to slap a “Death by Above” decal on his/her vehicle…right next to “support the troops” sticker.
Many of us don’t like the idea of our tax dollars paying for the aerial bombing of civilians but who do you think does the actual bombing? Our (sic) troops. Yeah, the same volunteer soldiers given a free pass by folks across the political spectrum. I know I’ve made this point before but, since repetition seems to work well for Corporate America, here it is again:
The “support the troops” excuse making typically touches on these two areas:
- They were just following orders
- Those who enlist do so for economic reasons
The first line of defense flawed argument. Principle I of the Nuremberg Tribunal (1950) states: “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.” Principle IV adds: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.” And please don’t get me started on the Geneva Conventions.
As for excuse #2, a November 2006 New York Times editorial put that myth to rest. Authors Tim Kane and Mackenzie Eaglen “analyzed demographic data on every single enlistee, not just a sample, and found that in terms of education, last year’s recruits were just as qualified as those of any recent year, and maybe the best ever. Over all, wartime recruits since 1999 are in many respects comparable to the youth population on the whole, except that they are on average a bit wealthier, much more likely to have graduated from high school and more rural than their civilian peers.” They also found that youths “from wealthy American ZIP codes are volunteering in ever higher numbers” while “enlistees from the poorest fifth of American neighborhoods fell nearly a full percentage point over the last two years, to 13.7 percent. In 1999, that number was exactly 18 percent.”
Are some of the American soldiers in Iraq there primarily for economic reasons? Sure. Did others sign up for a chance to shoot some towel heads? Probably. So, after factoring out these two relatively small groups and rejecting the immoral “only following orders” defense, the questions remain: Exactly how are the men and women fighting in Iraq immune from any and all blame and what does it say about a culture when the concept of “death from above” is proudly displayed on t-shirts and bumper stickers?
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net.