War and those who wage it

I hate war. I loathe the people who support war as much as I do the people who participate. That’s a psychologically complex thing for me to say because I am a volunteer veteran of war myself. So by simple logic I should hate myself too. I put on a military uniform of another nation and went to battle in a country that had nothing to do with my own. Maybe I hate myself some, but I forgive myself in the same way that I forgive the dead and those veterans who speak out against war, protesting in favour of peace and non-aggression. Forgiveness and compassion are not the same thing, though.

COMPASSION and NATIONALISM.
Why should I feel compassion for American soldiers dying in Irak? On the same token why should I not? I could tell you that I feel no compassion for them because I’m not an American - and most all of you would accept that explanation. But that’s a huge load of the bull’s most foul excretion, and it goes both ways.

The national news will report about a plane or bus crash (or some other catastrophe) in some part of the world and then tell me whether or not any of my countrymen were involved and how many. Who is it that decides that I should care about the death of my countrymen more than the victims of any other nationality? Whoever is responsible for that immoral sentiment, let him be damned. None-the-less, I must be a grave minority on that score because I doubt that many will agree with me.

The thing is this: The people on this board, who have scolded me for being calloused about the death of Americans in Irak, are foolish from my point of view. Yes, they are, because none of them have said anything about all of those Iraki soldiers who died fighting the American invasion. For my fellow, American forum-members, those dead Irakis mean very little, while the death of a handful of Americans is “tragic”.

One often says that we should support “the good guys”, and indeed the whole idea with solving Irak’s problems was based upon that “good guy/bad guy” theory. So who were these Irakis who fought and died against the American invasion force? Did Irak actually have those dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction, making it “necessary” to brush aside all political discussion/negotiations and take to armed intervention? No, they didn’t. So all of those dead Irakis died at the hand of the American “bad guys”. The Iraki soldiers were the “good guys” (Lo! And behold!) and they all had families who mourn them, but some of my forum “colleagues” here aren’t concerned about them because they weren’t Americans.

FINAL ANALYSES
I see the situation from two separate perspectives. From a completely compassionate point of view I sympathize the death of the Americans in an equal measure with the death of the Irakis - but from a political “good guy/bad guy” point of view, I have much less sympathy for the Americans than I do for the Irakis and for that reason I feel that dying Americans is a necessity. Does that make me calloused? It shouldn’t, because I’m neither American nor Iraki and yet I feel compassion and sympathy for both sides. If you still think I’m a nasty guy though, well ….. then I’m sure that I don’t care.

I’ve come to see my own personal experience in the very same way. I have less political sympathy for my fellows-in-arms and myself because we also served with “the bad guys”. We took an enormously disproportionate amount of lives from those who only wanted freedom for their people.

Live and learn, it is said. But do we?

[regular.joe]

This isn't really a thread about war and those who wage war. It's about America, and Iraq...and your working our what ever you are working out. Unless you want to talk about Sudan, or perhaps the Philippines, or maybe Chechnya...there are lots of places where war, and those who wage war are. You chose to talk about America and Iraq. Then again, it does get more news play then the Chechn repels blowing up a truckload of Russian soldiers.

No, we should not feel any more or less compassion for the Iraqi soldier or the American soldier...or for the Iraqi insurgent, or the foreign national in Iraq working as a soldier for the insurgency. All are doing what they believe is right, today.

[DanaC]

Actually I thought that was a very interesting piece. It is about war, and it is about those who fight in wars. I found it thought provoking.

Then again, it does get more news play then the Chechn repels blowing up a truckload of Russian soldiers.

Or indeed the Russian army raising the Chechn capital city to the ground.

[xoxoxoBruce]

And what thoughts did it provoke, Dana?

[Undertoad]

Same debate for five fucking years, and nothing at all added by this half-assed construction of it.

[classicman]

I found it to be nothing more than an attempt at justifying the bullshit thats he has been posting over the last week. I wish i could have seen it in person. He was tripping all over himself trying to take back the "hope more yanks die" comment.

[Undertoad]

Well perhaps he could find a Shi'ite/AQI Iraki message board where he could share his grievances.

[DanaC]

And what thoughts did it provoke, Dana?

I recognised the tendency to report primarily on one's own countrymen, in news reports about accidents or military engagements. I also think the distinction between viewing those deaths at an emotional level (and therefore with great sympathy) and viewing them at a political level is an interesting one and fits my own dualist response to news about the war at times.

[DanaC]

He was tripping all over himself trying to take back the "hope more yanks die" comment.

It's easy enough in the heat of a board argument to say something you then regret/retract or soften with caveats, once you've had time to reflect. Better to make that clear and 'take back' the comment, than brazen it out and defend something you shouldn't have said, or which didn't accurately reflect what you meant.

yes, his post does go someway towards attempting to justify himself, but it also goes a good way towards explaining and clarifying a viewpoint that is (if I've read this piece correctly) a complex one.

I think you guys are reacting to the overall impact of AD on the board this week, rather than reacting to the post on its own merits. I think it has some interesting points to make and I think it clarifies AD's position well.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Or indeed the Russian army raising the Chechn capital city to the ground.

So, Grozny was originally built underground, then?

[Undertoad]

Dana PLEASE.

His argument is:

1) Americans are wrong to criticize me, because they have no compassion for the side they consider to be the "bad guys".

2) I have found America to be the "bad guys" and I have no compassion for their side.

If you don't get it yet, read those two points again until you do.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I recognized the tendency to report primarily on one's own countrymen, in news reports about accidents or military engagements. I also think the distinction between viewing those deaths at an emotional level (and therefore with great sympathy) and viewing them at a political level is an interesting one and fits my own dualist response to news about the war at times.

Who are you most concerned with? Your Mother, father, brother, sister, cousins nephews grandparents..... or some complete unknown from 1/2 way around the world?

If you knew of someone traveling in "country X" and then heard/saw a news report of an accident "country X", would your first instinct be concern for that individual? Of course! Thats why they report it the way they do. They are NOT implying that any one is more important than any other.

[classicman]

I'd also like to add that I hate war too and if we took a poll I think we would all agree that war is a nasty bad thing.
Point is there are necessary evils in the world and war is one of them. I am NOT speaking specifically about any particular war, nor do I "want" war. Idealistically there would be no war, but that is not realistic. Nor do I feel that war is a good way to solve some issues, but it may be the only response to some and one may also be at war through a defensive response. Should we work to prevent war at virtually all costs? Yes, but that is not an absolute.

[piercehawkeye45]

I agree Classicman, but how will we know when we are at our last option and how do we know that is the best in every scenario?

Some wars, such as WWI and WWII, are ones we were more or less forced into, but others, as Iraq, are ones that could easily be prevented. I wouldn't necessarily say we should strive to prevent war at virtually all costs no matter the situation, but avoid unjustifiable wars at all costs. In WWII, laying down every option to avoid war with Germany wouldn't have solved anything, but just upped the death toll of Poles, Jews, etc. We have to have a basic outline of what a justifiable war is and try to avoid the unjustifiable wars, while doing our best at preventing justifiable wars, but not hesitating if our involvement is inevitable.

[classicman]

Thats why its important we elect the right leaders, for those dcisions will be in their hands.