Only the rarest politician is willing to criticize his or her nation’s soldiers. Even in the face of something as dreadful and inarguably indefensible as the photos from Abu Ghraib, a politician’s first instinct is to carve out a special category (rotten apples) that will enable them to continue praising the vast majority of the troops in the field. This is true in all countries, in all cultures that field militaries, and never more true than when a country is actually at war. It’s even true in nations that don’t have politicians (in the sense of standing for election), but only leaders. Saddam Hussein, for example, or any of his ministers or generals, would not have given a speech questioning the bravery, loyalty, or praiseworthiness of the Iraqi Army.
Under normal circumstances, this wouldn’t be a problem. A healthy country (or culture) doesn’t engage in wars that are not absolutely necessary. Provided that a defensive war is being waged for national survival against a hostile and aggressive adversary, the mission of the military is not open to debate. Sustaining morale for the war effort will be a vital and defensible consideration, and any moral shortcomings of the troops can and probably should be dealt with quietly. Even in a defensive war of this type, it is still necessary to observe the laws of war and the treaties concerning human rights. If you become worse than your enemy, you no longer have the right to prevail as a country (or a culture). But, provided that your leadership is willing to correct and punish violations, it is probably best not to harp on them when they occur. The mission is survival and victory.
The problem for the United States is that we have undertaken many wars of choice since our victory in World War Two. And when you wage a war of choice, you have to obey a different standard. Regardless of the necessity of the combat, the soldiers will behave with bravery, demonstrate tremendous sacrifice, and be worthy of some praise for their service to their country. But that doesn’t mean that what they are doing is justified. Soldiers that are waging a war of aggression may be brave and patriotic, but they don’t deserve praise for the mission they are carrying out. Not all wars of choice can be properly termed ‘wars of aggression.’ Our intervention in Kosovo is a good example of a war of choice that was not aggressive in intent. But, if you begin committing war crimes in a war of choice, you will quickly run the risk of transforming your action into a war of aggression.
In Vietnam and in Iraq, we had some noble goals, but those goals eventually became unrealistic in large part because we made a transition from a war of choice to a war of aggression through the use of war crimes (I admit that I am being generous here in regard to Iraq). In both cases, politicians heaping uncritical praise on the troops became a way to deflect debate about what those troops were being asked to do and how they were being asked to do it. At least since the time that the New Left turned against the Vietnam War, the Right in this country has been using uncritical praise of the troops as a kind of political litmus test and a bludgeon to curtail any debate about the wisdom of continuing whatever conflict we happen to be engaged in at the moment.
In that sense, the Right’s constant questioning of the Left’s support for the troops has been used as a political weapon and as a way to maintain domestic support for unpopular wars. Many Democrats have become defensive about this and will go to great lengths to insist that they are as (or more) supportive of the troops as any Republican. In doing so, they often participate in the practice of shutting down debate about the wisdom and morality of military conflicts (including, especially, the methods used in those conflicts).
This is what Paul Rosenberg is referring to when he criticizes Barack Obama for his response to this question during his 100 Days press conference:
During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?
Obama answered:
Enchanted? Enchanted. I will tell you that when I — when I meet our servicemen and -women, enchanted is probably not the word I would use. (LAUGHTER) But I am so profoundly impressed and grateful to them for what they do. They’re really good at their job. They are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf. They do so without complaint. They are fiercely loyal to this country.
Rosenberg heard fingernails across a chalkboard.
This sort of cringe-inducing pandering (see, we Democrats don’t hate the troops! Honest!) not only lets the Republicans off the hook for decades of slandering Democrats’ patriotism, and tacitly endorses the jingoistic hegemonic discourse they’ve employed to radically subvert the very essence of our national identity as a republic, it also actively participates in the brainwashing on which the exploitation of young recruits depends.
Now, I don’t want to unwrap all of that (especially the part about young recruits) but I want to refer you back up to the top of this article. Leaders and politicians always praise their soldiers. There isn’t anything specific to our current situation that led to Obama’s remarks. Even in the absence of decades of Republican attacks, a Democratic president would be unlikely to make critical remarks about (or fail to praise) our troops. The pandering is unremarkable. If it is cringe-worthy (and I admit that it is) it is only because our troops are bogged down in a war of aggression and have engaged in war crimes. Unsolicited and uncritical praise of our troops can seem to be a method for shutting down all debate about what they are being asked to do and how they are being asked to do it.
But!!
Is there really sufficient reason to believe that Obama’s response wasn’t sincere? As a new president he is suddenly surrounded by hard working soldiers. They fly his plane and his helicopter and defend Camp David and the White House. He meets them in the Situation Room. He visits with them at bases around the country and in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is it unfeasible that Obama has been impressed with these people and their dedication and patriotism? Could he not have found this interaction to be one of the most ‘enchanting’ or inspiring things he’s experienced since he became president?
I think it is entirely plausible. I see how his comment can be seen as naked pandering of an entirely defensive nature. I also see how it can be completely sincere. And, as in all truly gifted politicians, I can see how it can be a little of both. What I don’t see is how it can be confidently characterized as ‘tacitly endorsing a jingoistic hegemonic discourse’ and as ‘letting the Republicans off the hook for decades of slandering Democrats’ patriotism.’
The problem isn’t with Obama. The problem is the kinds of wars we’ve been fighting. The Republicans treat every war as entirely necessary and just. Because of this, they see all criticism (including, of the troops) as interfering with and undermining a war effort that is essential to our country and culture. But wars of choice are by definition not essential to our country and culture. And the rules for wars of necessity do not apply to wars of choice. The lesson is not to never express appreciation and respect for the people that wear our nation’s uniform. The lesson is to never fight wars of choice.
.
U.S. troops and mercenaries will be seen as one.
Abuses by mercenaries operating beyond the reach of criminal and military law have been an outgrowth of the administration’s failure to adequately staff its military invasion force. The most notorious of the favored war contractors has been Blackwater Worldwide. But numerous other bidders have been awarded plums to amass “private security” stealth forces estimated to total near 50,000 fighters.
The White House, of course, is threatening a veto, citing its all-purpose plaint that the interrogator ban would hobble the nation’s “ability to obtain intelligence needed to protect Americans from attack.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."This choice issue is indeed a very interesting one and deserves exploring. There is an elaborate PR canon of Western warfare that has “we had no choice” at its core.
How much of that is self-serving hypocrisy though? I remember that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq a PR group was getting in gear in DC that was beginning to argue that regime change in Iraq was necessary for humanitarian reasons, as the sanctions were causing too much hardship for the local population yet had failed to hurt the regime. As we all know, the Bushies preferred a different rationale for war, and the humanitarian argument was never used, even though unlike the imaginary WMD threat it had quite a bit of ghastly reality on its side. Personally I believe that under a Gore-Lieberman administration the US would have invaded Iraq under this humanitarian pretext.
What US war was not a war of choice? I can’t come up with one, and I don’t even mean that critically.
Real patritism is love for one’s country. Not the current tenant in office-
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” Theodore Roosevelt
Boy, I saw this and shook my head:
“In Vietnam and in Iraq, we had some noble goals…”
And those goals were? The Domino Theory? Stopping Communism? In Iraq it was seizing weapons of mass destruction? Fighting because a despot wouldn’t allow UN inspectors?
I am a vet. There were plenty of noble people who had to fight those wars, on both sides. But I don’t sniff anything noble about the goals of those wars.
Just as a side comment-Saddam actually agreed to allow the UN inspectors. Of course, we weren’t told that until later.
.
U.N. couldn’t find Saddam’s WMD’s. The Russians transported the goods to Syria, remember?
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I knew that sentence would he hard to swallow sitting alone. But in the case of Vietnam, at least, the goal of keeping people from falling under the rule of communists was not different from when it was applied to East Germany or Bulgaria. We erred in thinking that that was what the Vietnamese were primarily fighting about. We erred in thinking that we were fighting for liberation.
So, yeah, I don’t believe the policy makers were just trying to make war profits.
Iraq is a tougher case to defend because the policy makers had revenge and access to markets as huge parts of their goals. Even so, Iraq might have turned out better if our only goal was to remove Saddam from power and end the sanctions. When we stayed and became the people that were operating the torture chambers, we lost even that rationale.
When was it applied to East Germany and Bulgaria? I don’t recall any “wars of liberation” in either case. As history now shows, such activities would have been counterproductive. Vietnam, like Iraq, our interference in Central/South America, and most of our other confrontations since WW2 was started in the belief that we would easily stomp low-developed seemingly defenseless countries into submission — Grenada being the perfect template for the stupid bully ploy.
The wars of choice may not have been specifically designed to make war profits, but they were certainly part of a cultural tradition that includes propping up the war industry (“keeping America strong”) and allowing our rulers to be “great leaders” — an ambition rarely, if ever, achieved in this country (and maybe anywhere) without an exercise in mass slaughter.
We set up NATO with that goal in mind. It informed our entire Cold War strategy in Europe. From the moment North Korea invaded South Korea, the strategy was to deny an expansion of communist governance and roll it back where it already existed. It wasn’t about revenge. It was about learning the lessons of the period between the wars.
There was noble goals involved along with all the Red Scare hype and all the cover used to build up our M-I base.
excellent essay, booman.
Me either. Throwing healthy 18 yr. kids into a meat-grinder-continuously-in Southeast Asia ain’t noble.
Wars are staged by rich old white men and fought by poor young men of color. Nothing ever changes very much.
Viet Nam is still a major sore point for the US. Always will be. A lot of people marched on Washington to shut that war down and bring our kids home.
Every day the body count went higher. One flag draped coffin after another. Enough became enough-sadly-eventually.
.
On a personal note, I have dedicated much of my professional life to reconciling what I consider the twin goals of American foreign policy, and that is why President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war has troubled me deeply.
These twin goals of our foreign policy are, first, ensuring our security and, second, promoting democracy and human rights. An appropriate balance between the two must exist, and that balance must be determined within the unique circumstances of any situation.
Nevertheless …
… she was able to be a forceful advocate of Bush’s right to invade Iraq, “even though I did not agree with the president’s choices.” A week after the invasion, Kirkpatrick beat back a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission that challenged the legitimacy of the war.
In a speech at the American Enterprise Institute on June 13, 2003, Kirkpatrick derided critics of the war. She singled out an editorial that had appeared in the International Herald Tribune. The paper had argued, “we did not like [Bush’s] combative doctrine [of preemptive force] when it was formally unveiled … because it seemed to walk away from America’s historical inclination to work with other nations to preserve the peace and to rely on force only when its security was directly threatened.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Democracy cannot be instilled at the point of a gun-and there is nothing noble about a war that attempts to do that. All you’re doin’ is killin’ people. You’re using democracy as an excuse.
.
BAGHDAD (MSNBC) – Pentagon officials say five U.S. soldiers are dead after an American soldier opened fire at a U.S. base in Baghdad. The officials say the shootings happened Monday at Camp Liberty near Baghdad’s airport.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. “
Dwight D. Eisenhower 1961
“.. in Vietnam and Iraq, we had some noble goals..”
it’s not these “noble” goals turned out to be “unrealistic”.. again, this sounds like some sort of excuse– but that the goals given to the public were bogus/outright lies in the first place.. and were more or less propaganda used in the effort to justify the war.
in the case of Vietnam, we were told “communism” was a threat to the entire region and if Vietnam fell to communist control, the whole region would do so. i.e. “the domino effect”.
FALSE. of course the much larger threat to neighboring Cambodia was the “secret” carpet bombing of the country, ordered by Nixon.. this killed untold number of innocent people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu
The problem is that they believed in the domino theory. If they hadn’t, your point would be more salient.
I get it.. but I don’t buy it.
folks like Nixon and Cheney believe what they want to believe, they believe what fits their preconceived agenda. in the case of both Vietnam and Iraq, the agenda was economic. therefore I don’t buy into the notion they are “sincere” in their belief. face it, in both cases (Vietnam and Iraq) there are numerous people within and without the government that don’t buy into the propaganda.. because they know better.
the notion Nixon’s, etc., beliefs somehow trump those of others and leads to proof of sincerity is nonsense.
Read from pp. 178-181.
When I heard Obama’s statement I was impressed and relieved that he didn’t make the usual fantastic claims that they were fighting for freedom, democracy, and the American people. What he said was largely reasonable. Most soldiers (at least the real ones) are patriotic, good at their jobs, and they do make huge sacrifices in pursuing their duty as they see it.
It’s when pols and press blather on about how they are defending freedom and America’s security that the bullshit propaganda starts. I’m sure Obama has been guilty of this on many occasions, but it was gratifying to hear him restrain himself this time. There’s a growing list of inevitable disappointments (for me) in his administration, but it’s a huge stretch to single out his minimal mouthing of the politically necessary for outrage.
“…it also actively participates in the brainwashing on which the exploitation of young recruits depends.”
Um, how else are you supposed to have an army? I’m as a liberal as some and more liberal than most but an army cannot be a herd of cats or it becomes a dead herd of cats very quickly.