by publius
Politically speaking, I understand why Obama and McCain had to apologize for saying that soldiers’ lives were “wasted” in Iraq. I wish, though, that they had refused to do so. Refusing to say “wasted” is actually more disrespectful to our troops than saying it. A far better tribute would be to call a spade a spade, and to stop whitewashing unnecessary death.
I understand, of course, where people are coming from. It’s basic human nature to dress up pain and tragedy in ways that make it tolerable. No one wants to believe that their loved ones died for no good reason. No one wants to believe that people die in vain.
At first glance, these all-too-human tendencies are both deeply touching and reaffirming. Our desire to protect the soldiers from these discomforting words appears, at first, to be motivated by empathy. But when you dig a little deeper, you’ll see it’s not really empathy at all. It’s narcissism. Deep down, we’re objecting to “wasted” not because we’re protecting the soldiers. We’re doing it to protect ourselves.
As long as everyone dies with a purpose, we don’t have to look at ourselves in the mirror. By dressing up these deaths with comforting words, we can continue pretending that reality is different than what it is. And that’s where the criticisms of Obama and McCain come in. In the guise of honoring our troops, the criticisms transform our soldiers into idealized characters in a fairy-tale morality play. But Iraq isn’t a fairy tale. The people in Iraq are real-life men and women — men and women with children, moms and dads, friends, and even youth. And when they die, they leave all that behind.
If our soldiers’ lives have been wasted, we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. Yes, the realization that our courageous soldiers have been wasted by foolish and incompetent leaders is a tough pill to swallow. In fact, it’s almost unbearable. But sometimes making progress requires people to come to terms with unbearable thoughts.
The truth is that if Americans understood deep down in their bones the depths of these daily tragedies, then the soldiers’ sacrifices would — finally — hit home. People might also start thinking twice before blindly supporting sending people off to war, particularly to spite the opposing political party.
People say using “wasted” demeans the soldiers’ sacrifice. In fact, just the opposite is true. The only way to understand the depths of a soldier’s sacrifice is by first recognizing how horrible — how deeply and inexplicably tragic — unnecessary death is. Indeed, recognizing — and grieving for — wasted life involves a far deeper recognition of the soldier’s humanity than dressing up death in platitudes and fairy tale garments does. We should stop pretending otherwise. And by “we,” I include Karen Finney of the DNC.
You’re absolutely right, and I too wish that Obama had stuck by his guns. We’re in an unnecessary war, and the soldiers who have sacrificed their lives have done so in a futile attempt to make Bush’s pipe dreams into reality. Their lives have been wasted in that attempt, in large part due to this administration’s incompetence. Acknowledging that fact doesn’t lessen the quality of the sacrifice those individual soldiers made.
Thank you very much for this post, publius.
Good post. It’s scary that language has become corrupted to the point where simple statements of fact are twisted into offensive claims, like when Bill Maher said the 911 terrorists had courage. Our society needs a Karl Kraus.
“Wasted” is absolutely the right word. Look in any military history describing soldiers who die without generating some benefit for their country – e.g. most WW1 battles, frontal assaults in the Civil War, German troops at Stalingrad, etc. They use “wasted”. Why? Because that’s *exactly* what the word means – to give up something valuable for nothing.
Nice post, Publius.
It’s touching how delicately and politically correct some have become about the gruesome truth.
There’s a level at which ‘wasted’ isn’t the right word. In 2004, Cpl Jason Dunham, USMC, died of injuries suffered when covering a grenade with his helmet and body, saving his comrades. The President’s placement of Cpl. Dunham in this spot, at this moment, with this danger, may well have been ‘in vain’ or a waste. Cpl. Dunham’s deliberate actions, though, in their exact context, were neither ‘in vain’ nor a waste. He may have hoped to survive, but he also hoped to save others. This latter goal was acheived.
When we talk about the war, and the warriors, we have to keep this kind of thing in mind.
OT, but isn’t there someone who’s in charge of trying to help the Iraqi government look less like an afterthought?
I agree with both publius and CharleyCarp. Here’s why:
I think that the statement that soldiers’ lives were wasted is ambiguous about who, exactly, did the wasting. If I say: we wasted these soldiers’ lives, or: George W. Bush wasted their lives, then if means what I assume McCain and Obama meant: that by placing these soldiers at risk for insufficient reason, we wasted the lives of those who died.
But if we say: this soldier wasted his or her life, it means something entirely different. It means: by going off to fight, this soldier squandered his or her life. And that doesn’t follow at all from the first.
If a soldier went off to war because — well, it’s going to be a female soldier from now on, to save on pronouns — because it was her duty, and she dies in battle, then she has given her life for a noble ideal. (Preemptive note: this is so even if you think this is the wrong tome to act on that ideal.) She has done something good, and has died doing it. This is not a waste. Maybe some soldier would have wasted her life if she joined the army only because she said she would on a dare and was then too cowardly to back down. Or maybe she would have wasted her life if she decided to do some stupid, reckless, pointlessly dangerous thing in battle. But going off to war when you are asked to do so is a good thing for soldiers to do, at least for those of us who believe in civilian control of the military; and someone who dies as a result of that has not wasted her life.
Which means, I think, that GWBush can waste someone’s life, even though she has not wasted it.
Relatedly, if GWBush wastes someone’s life, it does not follow that that person’s life was a waste.
Possibly people also object to it because they think it impugns the preciousness of people’s lives. I think this is wrong: you can’t waste what has no value. You can’t, for instance, waste dryer lint, unless you are in some very peculiar situation in which dryer lint has value.
(Preemptive note: this is so even if you think this is the wrong tome to act on that ideal.)
Did you have any books in mind on which to act?
I guess the abhorrence about the word “waste” in these circumstances is partially* due to its now standard use as a noun with the meaning of garbage with the original use as a verb (like in ‘wasting disease’) becoming secondary. [without checking the books I’d say it is derived from Latin vastus (big and empty) or vastare (orig:turn to nothing, usually:lay waste to, devastate) resp.]
*apart from the political inconvenience to admit that “mission (is) not accomplished”
I Found Free PlayBoy Girls, you need view this.
Absolutely FREE PlayBoy & Penthouse:
http://www.girlsupdates.com/gateway.php
I Found Free PlayBoy Girls, you need view this.
Absolutely FREE PlayBoy & Penthouse:
http://www.girlsupdates.com/gateway.php
You can’t, for instance, waste dryer lint, unless you are in some very peculiar situation in which dryer lint has value.
this just in, popular liberal blogger say our troops are just “dryer lint”. how low can these AINOs go?
I see your point completely, publius – but I am not sure I entirely agree. Actually, on a deeper level it seems perhaps you’re hinting at the same thing I’m thinking, but I would like to point out how this idea might be better put:
As CharleyCarp pointed out, the term “waste” requires a larger context to make any sense at all. In the context of a single battle, perhaps one soldier’s death helped save the entire unit. In the context of “spreading democracy,” however, one might say that his life was “wasted.”
I think it is important that we come to appreciate and learn the lessons derived from such horrendous misadventures as this disasterous excursion into a nation which was not a national security threat to us. If we learn how senseless and stupid it is to go to war on a knee-jerk reaction such as what occured after 9/11, and acknowledge that these soldiers’ lives were “wasted,” then in a broader context we might be able to come to say sometime in the future that, in fact, these lives, ironically, were NOT wasted – they were sacrificed for the greater good.
It’s up to us to learn this lesson and apply it if we wish to truly honor these soldiers and not have their lives “wasted.” As long as we stick to our guns and refuse to learn this lesson, these soldiers’ lives indeed have been wasted.
As odd as it may seem, it is the future which will determine the past.
I’m going to make a grammatical argument for “were wasted” as being more accurate. The construction is passive, which means the question which follows is “wasted by whom?” In Obama’s context, the answer is clear–the Bush administration did the wasting. The individual actions of the soldiers aren’t even part of the equation. His quote was “we have seen over three thousand lives… wasted.”
McCain’s formulation is different. He said “We’ve wasted” when talking about the soldiers, thus linking himself rhetorically with the Bush administration.
But in neither case are the individual sacrifices of individual soldiers ever mentioned, much less denigrated.
As hilzoy said, the literal words spoken by Obama and McCain have an ambiguity since they use the passive voice — their lives were wasted. Us politico types know that they are saying Bush has wasted their lives with his feckless war, but it needs to be stated clearly that way to avoid possible offense arising from other connotations.
dmbeaster, only Obama used the passive construction. McCain said “We’ve wasted.” I looked it up before I made my post just to be certain.
I strongly disagree. These brave men and women died in the service of their country. Period. You and I can argue about whether it was right to put them in that situation, but to say their lives were wasted is an insult. They may or may not have believed in their mission – but when asked they did it. I have read many accounts indicating that many of them did strongly believe in their mission.
Soldiers don’t get to decide what mission they will be tasked with. They carry it out regardless. The sacrifice of the soldier killed by an IED in Iraq is no less noble than that of the soldier killed taking Iwo Jima. Their country asked them to perform a mission and they died doing it. Most of them volunteered knowing full well they would likely end up in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Patrolling neighborhoods, catching bad guys or finding weapons caches before another bunch of Iraqis get killed is a very worthwhile mission. Training the Iraqi army and police is a very worthwhile mission. Taking out the Taliban is a very worthwhile mission.
They died in the service of their country. Please don’t belittle their sacrifice.
Both publius and CharleuCarp are correct. And I think the best way to expalin it is what I heard a few members of the military who have served in Iraq saying at a memorial service.
On the one side were those that were saying that their comrades died in vain. Although the words are slighty different, to me this means their lives were wasted.
On the other side were those who said they didn’t die in vain, they died while trying to protect each other.
However, one leads to the other. Put in a situation by Bush, their lives were wasted, but being in that situation they died for a purpose.
What was interesting is that none of them said the lives were lost for a cause beyond that, for some higher purpose.
I know there are soldiers who believe in what they are doing over there in terms of defending this country or doing something positive for the Iraqi people.
However, I think this is dwindling. And I think the anger and resentment of this administration is increasing.
So, might it be better to say that we’ve wasted the sacrifices of our soldiers? “Over 3000 soldiers have sacrificied their lives, and we’ve (or they’ve) wasted their sacrifices.” Or does that make it sound as though the wasting was done after the fact, and that one couldn’t have seen that these sacrifices would come to be wasted ahead of time?
OCSteve, I don’t think that there is any belittling of their sacrifice by saying that their lives were wasted. If we said they wasted their own lives, that would be belittling.
If my son had died while he was there, I would have felt that his life was wasted by this administration. However, I would have felt total pride in him for doing his duty. I feel that pride anyway.
Minus the following 3 sentences, most people who think “wasted” is a word that can be used in the context under discussion would likely agree with OCSteve’s post.
“I strongly disagree.”
“You and I can argue about whether it was right to put them in that situation, but to say their lives were wasted is an insult.”
“Please don’t belittle their sacrifice.”
To me, this illustrates more a limitation of conveying concepts through language than true disagreement.
I should add that true disagreement is certainly possible on this issue if the person objecting to “wasted” is doing so on the basis that this war was a good idea, rather than that the soldiers deserve respect regardless of the wisdom of the mission.
Is it safe to say goblin is wasting bandwidth?
Model 62, I strongly disagree. This brave poster provided a link in service of those seeking pornography. Looking at pictures of naked ladies is a worthwhile mission.
My question is, is it possible to be opposed to militarism without thinking that people who choose to join the military are making a poor choice?
To put it another way: the Founders of the US were opposed to having a standing army. The US currently has an extremely large standing army. Does that mean that people who choose to join a standing army are aiding & abetting something the country’s founders were opposed to?
To me, this illustrates more a limitation of conveying concepts through language than true disagreement.
I think you are correct. This is one of my hot-buttons and I have some difficulty writing a coherent response.
OCSteve, I wasn’t referring to the coherence of your response so much as the way “wasted” is on one hand intended by the user and on the other interpreted by the audience. What I mean is that two people can be in utter agreement about the circumstances under discussion, yet argue in the belief that they are not or over divergent interpretations of the implications of certain words. If mind melding were possible, this could be avoided. But we’re limited to tranference of thoughts through words (and a few other things, but mostly words).
OCSteve – i think my post makes clear that i’m not belittling anything. you have to distinguish b/w the micro and the macro. on the micro, they are brave, courageous people and their virtues should be celebrated. on the macro, the president has wasted their lives for a foolish war that never should have happened and that has made the world worse. the latter has nothing to do analytically with the former.
I would disagree with calling the US standing army extremly large, at least in comparision to the US population. You have to go to late antiquity to find a lower percentage (at least for any power of significance).
just as a thought experiment OCSteve, i’d be curious to hear your thoughts on this — are there any circumstances in which an American soldier who dies in action should be considered a death in vain (or a life “wasted”). Or are all action deaths (regardless of the wisdom of the war) necessarily NOT in vain.
Hartmut:
Cite? How does it compare over the course of US history? Most of those “powers of significance”, of course, were monarchial, which is one reason the Founders were suspicious of standing armies.
More important at present is the matter of money. US military spending is enormous, far out of proportion to our population (randomly googled cite), and by its very size makes militarism almost inevitable. We’ve got the biggest hammer the world has ever seen; how can every problem not look like a nail?
People might also start thinking twice before blindly supporting sending people off to war, particularly to spite the opposing political party.
For some reason, out of an emotional and spot-on post, that sentence represented the emotional climax.
I’m in a weird position as a former war supporter. I don’t think my position was based on a desire to show that we’re not a bunch of peacenik hippies, although I did (and still do) accuse broad chunks of the anti-war movement of not taking Saddam’s brutality seriously. I really got hoodwinked, and at the time thought the Administration must surely have better intel than the rest of us, and therefore could be trusted to make decisions without explaining them to the public. Fool me once.
But where this sentence hits home is, once it became obvious to me that the GWB Admin. had no clue, it somehow still wasn’t obvious to everyone else. And I think that’s because of the polarization of public opinion nowadays. If we don’t keep fighting a particularly self-destructive war, then we’re validating those who say war is wrong, and that’s too high a price to pay for ending the self-destruction. It’s more important to torture to teach those bleeding-heart terrorist-sympathizers a lesson than it is to weigh the effects of torture, or indeed to weigh the guilt of its victim! On and on it goes, you could pick any issue really.
That’s not a good basis for setting policy, but it’s been a pretty good basis for winning elections. 2006 gave me hope that people are smartening up. We’ll see. If they do, maybe my pipe dreams aren’t so wacko about Libertarians replacing Republicans after the elephant dies and the one-party “Anything but GOP” consensus breaks down.
Doctor, no disagreement about the budget, I was just talking numbers of soldiers. I don’t have a link ready but what I remember from printed books is that late antiquity was the last time that there were less than 0.5 percent of the population under arms, the average (in times of peace) being 1-5% (regular troops, not part-time militias). Exceptions were usually island or otherwise isolated nations/states.
It seems to me that countries with a universal draft keep on average smaller standing armies in peace and larger ones in war than countries with “specialist” armies (due to easier mobilisation) but that is more an impression, I can’t give numbers on the spot.
Have to leave now. I hope I can provide links/numbers to-morrow.
Because being part of the military involves many kinds of sacrifice aside from the obvious death or injury, for the servicemember’s family and community as well as for him or her, the best formulation is the one posed by hairshirthedonist above:
The Bush-Cheney administration has wasted the sacrifices of the troops.
Suppose a future President/emperor ordered a regiment of soldiers to jump into the mouth of a volcano to appease pagan gods. Wouldn’t we say (the non-pagan among us at least) that those lives were thrown away, regardless of how large the majority was that elected that emperor?
If so, then questions of the worth of a soldier’s sacrifice are inextricably bound up with questions of the legitimacy and worth of the war he/she is fighting.
I understand and respect OCSteve’s umbrage at the word “waste”. Our soldiers’ nobility is not in question.
However, when I hear the following people, Michelle Malkin, Dick Cheney, and Glenn Reynolds criticize others’ use of the word “waste” in this context, I think of the waste of my time, our bandwidth, and simple, good oxygen when those three, among many others, speak and write.
I especially think of the waste and emptiness of the word “nobility” when it escapes from between their poisoned lips.
I think that was Publius’ point.
“Suppose a future President/Emperor ordered a regiment of soldiers to jump into the mouth of a volcano to appease pagan gods.”
That’s a good point. First, we haven’t had a volcanic eruption in this country since 9/11, so the sacrifices must be effective.
Secondly, there is dissension in the ranks of our military, so the current President/Emperor is thinking of offering defenseless virgins to the gods.
This is why the religious right is so up in arms about sex outside of marriage. It’s caused a shortage of virgins.
are there any circumstances in which an American soldier who dies in action should be considered a death in vain (or a life “wasted”). Or are all action deaths (regardless of the wisdom of the war) necessarily NOT in vain.
I do get your point, and I apologize for the “belittling” remark.
But why in action? This marine was killed in a training accident in CA.
Was his life wasted?
Soldiers die in peacetime all the time. Are their lives wasted?
Many people believe that Vietnam was a war we should not have fought. Does that represent 50,000 wasted lives?
Their lives were not wasted because someone doen’t believe in the “rightness” of the war. I’m coming to that viewpoint myself, but I’ll never believe that their lives were wasted. I can’t get to that level of macro. How can a soldiers death be a waste or not a waste depending on your viewpoint of the war?
The distinction is valid:
The soldiers *sacrificed* their lives -for their word, their honor, or their comrades.
Bush *wasted* their lives – to destroy a country, a half million innocents, our budget, and our country’s honor and reputation.
The distinction is valid:
The soldiers *sacrificed* their lives -for their word, their honor, or their comrades.
Bush *wasted* their lives – to destroy a country, a half million innocents, our budget, and our country’s honor and reputation.
OCSteve. I actually see where you are coming from, and tend to agree. Maybe wasted is the wrong word. Perhaps it would be better to say their lives were thrown away by those who started and ran this fiasco.
Since I don’t think anyone’s life is a total waste, that somehow, someway each person makes a mark in this world and that is left behind, I see where that mat be the wrong phrase.
The case of the marine is a case of this. Was his life wasted? I don’t think so. Nor was it even through away. Accidents happen, events go awry. People die.
People make choices that put themselves into situations where they can die. And in that sense, each member of the military has made sacrifices.
However, even if you supported the initial invasion (which I did not), you can justifiably say that their lives were thrown away by how this was managed. That I think is what McCain was saying.
And as Nell pointed out above, it is not just the dead who have paid major prices for this lunacy.
I completely agree.
I have the utmost respect for those who have served in the military. But I abhor the incessant use of our soldiers as a political bat to hit people over the head with when it suits someone’s purposes.
I think Mr. Obama should have stuck to his guns. But I also understand the politics involved. John Kerry is a case study of what happens when people are too honest when talking about our military.
Invidual acts of heroism have no bearing on this point. A person sacrificing their life in order to save others is never a wasted life. However sending people to war in order to achieve a dubious political objective is indeed wasting their lives.
Maybe wasted is the wrong word. Perhaps it would be better to say their lives were thrown away by those who started and ran this fiasco.
For whatever reason, “thrown away” seems to provoke less of a reaction for me.
I think some families of the deceased might find it highly offensive to suggest that their loved one’s life was wasted.
I think some families might find it highly offensive to suggest anything BUT that their life was wasted. Maybe there’s no way to avoid offending someone.
What I find most offensive, though, is people claiming to speak as mouthpieces for these families in order to score partisan points. Michelle Malkin wouldn’t even respect Cindy Sheehan’s right to speak for the families of the deceased, and while she obviously can’t speak for all of them, at least she’s a member of the group. But Malkin herself has no reservations when it comes to speaking for the dead and their families. It’s disgusting.
I’ll agree with ‘thrown away’ and I’ll agree with the idea that Bush ‘wasted’ lives in the military by not taking the war seriously.
Equal Opportunity Cynic:
Ha! You just *think* you’re cynical. For me, I think the only way to break the habit of militarism may be to get to where the armed forces are more than 1/3 female, because the status of a job falls when enough women do it.
If we don’t keep fighting a particularly self-destructive war, then we’re validating those who say war is wrong, and that’s too high a price to pay for ending the self-destruction.
You realize this is a false dichotomy, right? Public opinion was (and is) *not* polarized between “all war is wrong” and “invading Iraq & torturing prisoners is right”. This comes from the rhetoric of war supporters, not from a polarity in public opnion.
You can say wasted because that’s exactly what you believe and aren’t concerned who knows it. If any politician believes as you do and is strong enough in character to share with all exactly what they believe, then they should also say it regardless. Obama is obviously unsure yet of what it is he’s suppose to believe in to snatch the gold ring. McCain has to believe in his heart that his time spent surviving as a POW was a waste. And one could surmise that as he sees the media and the socialist left pulling this battle over the minds and souls of America’s proletariat down the same path, the word ‘waste’ lurks near the tip of his tongue constantly. Yes, American lives could yet be wasted, again. We should stop pretending otherwise.
IMO, “thrown away” is *much* better than “wasted”, whether in active or passive voice. One wastes resources, not lives. To say either that these soldiers’ lives were wasted or that Bush wasted their lives is to imply that their lives had no other purpose or meaning apart from their role as soldiers. I’m sure that’s not what Obama or McCain or anyone here means to suggest.
It’s hard for me to say that the word “wasted” is always wrong. Would you object to the use of that word, for example, to describe what the British soldiers were ordered to do in the Battle of the Somme? (Let’s say the second one, since arguably the generals couldn’t have known what would happen before they tried it once.) Or would you say that the soldiers who were ordered to walk into barbed wire and machine gun fire for no good reason died serving their country, and that the idiocy of their orders and the futility of what they did was irrelevant?
I think that at some point you have to use a word like “waste”, at least if you can’t think of a stronger to express your disgust at the behavior of the top leadership.
If you spend money intending to buy something, but then do not receive what you thought you were paying for, the money is wasted. This says nothing about the merit of the purchase decision, and certainly nothing about the quality of the money expended.
The goal of the war, as updated from time to time, was converting Iraq into a reasonable democratic country. We have certainly failed to acquire the desired result. In that sense, the resources, including lives, we have expended have been wasted. Perhaps decision was terrible to begin with; perhaps it was the gross negligence in the planning and execution. But, no question, we have not “gotten what we paid for.” Much has been wasted.
As usual, a political gaffe is where a politician screws up and speaks the truth.
Our soldiers’ nobility is not in question.
Why not? This is what I mean by “militarism”: when soldiers are assumed to be better than other people, when the martial virtues (courage, obedience, loyalty, conformity) are assumed to be higher and more trustworthy than other virtues.
And there’s also the assumption of American exceptionalism: other nations’ soldiers may not be “noble” (interesting turn of phrase for a democracy, don’t you think?), but *our* soldiers are special.
At best, you may mean: “it’s not a question of whether any soldiers are especially moral or not” — but that’s not the tone of the whole discussion, which still adheres to the premises of militarism.
Pretty simple to me… If you agree that a military is necessary at all then I would hope that you would agree that those who volunteer for that duty knowing full well that they may give their life should be called ‘noble’.
Possibly no more noble than a fireman or policeman – but noble nonetheless.
“Noble” relates to aristocratic virtue:
1. Possessing hereditary rank in a political system or social class derived from a feudalistic stage of a country’s development.
2.
1. Having or showing qualities of high moral character, such as courage, generosity, or honor: a noble spirit.
2. Proceeding from or indicative of such a character; showing magnanimity: “What poor an instrument/May do a noble deed!” (Shakespeare).
3. Grand and stately in appearance; majestic: “a mighty Spanish chestnut, bare now of leaves, but in summer a noble tree” (Richard Jeffries).
4. Chemistry. Inactive or inert.
I seem to recall that being a fisherman is more dangerous than being a soldier – it takes more courage in some sense – but “noble” isn’t a word that leaps to mind in the context via “courageous”.
OTOH. [Warning, extremely sad]
I, personally , think that lives have been wasted in Iraq, but I don’t think a politician should make that judgement. I think it is up to the soldier himself or herself to decide if his/her death will be a waste. It’s a personal evaluation to be made by the person who owns the life in question.
those who volunteer for that duty knowing full well that they may give their life should be called ‘noble’.
But the very point and essence of military success is to make the other guy give *his* life, and the American military is very good at it. Killing is more central to the military enterprise than is self-sacrifice.
As Rilkefan points out, that is indeed the traditional definition of “noble”: a military aristocrat.
But the very point and essence of military success is to make the other guy give *his* life, and the American military is very good at it. Killing is more central to the military enterprise than is self-sacrifice.
I love Patton myself. If you sign on to that then we are in agreement.
Do you think they sign up for self-sacrifice?
Is it only when Americans who volunteer for military duty die for their country that their deaths must be called noble? Did the men who died after volunteering for Slobodan Milosevic’s army so they could go kill and rape Muslims die nobly? It seems to me that we have to allow that at some point the value of the mission has to be taken into consideration: can one die nobly for an ignoble cause? Can one win honor fighting for something shameful?
Ted: yes, at some point I think the mission does — well, not exactly make it impossible for someone to die nobly while fighting for it, but call that into question.
I think that the nobility is in being willing to sacrifice your life for your country, and that part of being in the army is that you give up, to a large but not complete extent, your right to pass judgment on the mission, the tactics, etc. “Large but not complete extent” is supposed to mean: the army won’t work if everyone is always second-guessing everything, so in general people in the army sign on to do their job as ordered; but there are some orders that are so beyond the pale as to be both illegal and immoral.
Besides that, when I make moral judgments, I normally allow some room for what you might call honest error. Morality does not require getting every single moral question right; it just involves doing your best. In the present context this means: I assume that I might be wrong about where the line between orders you follow and orders you don’t lies, and likewise that some soldier might be honestly mistaken about it as well.
That said, there are some orders that it’s hard to see anyone carrying out without knowing that they were wrong — the order to rape a child, for instance. And there are some causes — e.g., the Hutu genocide — that it’s hard to imagine someone thinking were truly just. If someone did not, but followed orders anyways, then that person did wrong.
Re Rilkefan’s link to the news of a soldier being killed in Iraq the same day his wife was released from the hospital after surgery:
He re-enlisted to continue the health insurance. Words fail.
The word “waste” is off the table. “Noble” has a different primary meaning than I thought, and now liberals are more potty-mouthed than conservatives, so I guess a vow of silence is all that’s left in the face of this sad news.
Yet, Ann Coulter receives applause from a roomful of leading Republicans, including presidential candidates, for calling John Edwards a “faggot”.
I’m beginning to understand why people in some parts of the world stop using words to communicate and begin using whatever violent methods might be at hand.
“I guess a vow of silence is all that’s left in the face of this sad news”
“begin using whatever violent methods might be at hand”
That was the option that crossed my mind.
Doctor, here are the numbers/sources I promised:
late antiquity:
After Augustus took over he reduced the armed forces to 300.000 men (professional army), i.e 0.5% of the population (60 million). From then up to the 6th century (fall of the western empire) the armed forces grew to 645.000, i.e. roughly 1%.
Source: A.Demandt, Geschichte der Spätantike
Comaparision: in the 2nd Punic War Rome deployed 750.000 from Italian population alone (militia army)
In 1940 the US army had 20.000 officers (a shortage) and grew 30fold until 1943 (an excess). In WW2 the US had 91 divisions (89 active) (that would put the total numbers to about 9-11 million men, if my estimate is correct). The 3rd Reich mobilized in total 17 million men (about 20% of population).
Source: M.v.Crefeld, Fighting Power (a study for the Pentagon btw)
Today (OK, numbers for 1997)
Germany: 338.000 standing military for 82 million citizens (before 1989: 370.000 for 66 million)
US: 1.44 million in 280-300 million
That would mean in theory that Western Germany had (in relative terms) a slightly larger army than the US before the reunion.
In both cases the armed forces in peace equal(ed) roughly 0.5% of population.
Source: Brockhaus encyclopedia.
Have still to look up numbers for post-Middle Ages pre-French Revolution times but would still estimate 1-5% in peace and 2-3 times that in war.
In the narrow context, soldiers fight for their fellow soldiers. In this context there is no waste, just a willingness to die for your brothers in arms which is a virtue.
In the wider context, soldiers are fighting because of the orders given by their civilian leaders. In this context sending people out under-equipped, under-trained, with no backup plan is wasting the valor of those who choose to serve.
Just think of Pat “this war is so fucking illegal” Tillman.
OCSteve —
I’m more an Eisenhower fan myself, if we’re talking WWII US Generals. I hadn’t even realized that I might be echoing Patton.
Dr. Science: I hadn’t even realized that I might be echoing Patton.
Pretty close. You said:
“But the very point and essence of military success is to make the other guy give *his* life, and the American military is very good at it.”
The famous Patton quote is:
“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
Do you think they sign up for self-sacrifice?
No, but everyone who signs up knows that he/she may well be called upon to save a comrade. And that a comrade may be called upon to save him/her. The German soldier who threw himself on a grenade at Stalingrad to save his comrades didn’t waste his life. His C-in-C did. Along with tens of millions of others. Because he though will and resolve, and racial superiority, would win against the odds.
The first thing I want to say here is that noone is really able to say whether another person’s life has been wasted, or not. The value of every person’s life is measured, if it can be measured at all, by far more than the circumstances under which they die.
So, maybe “wasted” is not the best word. GWBush has the power and apparently the inclination to do incredibly stupid things, things of truly great and calamitous consequence, but he does not have the power to “waste” any human life other than his own.
Some folks join the military for reasons that are acutely idealistic. Some join for reasons that are more purely pragmatic. In all cases, joining the military means giving up control over your own life, and often means subjecting yourself to great hardship and the very real risk of death. Whatever the reason for joining, these things represent a real sacrifice, and deserve respect.
When folks say that the lives of American troops are being “wasted”, I think what they are trying to say is that that sacrifice is not being accorded the respect that it is due. It is taken for granted, treated thoughtlessly, spent on foolish adventures, or perhaps not recognized at all.
In other words, Nell had it right on 3/2 at 11:22.
It’s something worth being angry about.
Thank you –
OCSteve:
Do you think they sign up for self-sacrifice?
I think the point Patton was making is, “No.” Self-sacrifice for soldiers, just as for e.g. firefighters, is a sign that someone has blundered.
Self-sacrifice for soldiers, just as for e.g. firefighters, is a sign that someone has blundered.
With respect, I think this is wrong.
Stuff catches fire. To put the fire out, sometimes somebody has to put their own life in danger. That’s not because someone blundered, it’s just a fact. Firemen sign up to be the folks who will do that.
Similarly, during wars, sometimes necessary goals cannot be achieved without risk of harm or death. Sometimes that’s because someone blundered, but a lot of times is it’s just because that’s the way the facts on the ground are. Folks in the armed forces sign up to be the folks who take that risk.
Sometimes it’s necessary for somebody to put their butt on the line. Not because someone else blundered, but just because that’s the reality of the situation. There is, for lack of a better word, a certain nobility in being the one who will step up and do that. It does deserve a certain respect.
Thanks –
“Stuff catches fire. To put the fire out, sometimes somebody has to put their own life in danger.”
Too many firemen die protecting expensive homes built in hazardous places.
Also: fish sell for money. To feed their families and pay for medicine and …, people put their lives in danger.
SufferingOthers
VERYTIME I see that kind of construction (as in the title above), it makes me think about people suffering other people – in fact, for some reason the horribly arrogant (well, it always seemed so to me, but tis probably just old translation) suf…