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.
because he was shot down while trying to drop bombs on people who had never done anything to him.
Pete Seeger’s explanation of why he isn’t a pacifist fits here. Pete said that if someone was trying to drop napalm on his children, he’d try to shoot down the plane with anything he could get his hands on.
The guys who were drafted to go to Vietnam had no realistic alternative. They got screwed. This all-volunteer army of today is just that – all volunteer.
Not exactly. There is an economic draft. Besides, the ones who did volunteer, volunteered to protect our country, not destroy another one over a bunch of lies. Being in a war zone changes people, otherwise they couldn’t survive.
All the same, I don’t excuse any attrocities done. There’s survival, callousness, and then pure cruelty. I’d just like to see more blame put on the people who put them in that position.
People who sign up to kill and be killed for money are not patriots. They’re mercenaries.
…though there’s no shortage of folks who’re willing to simplify it to a very clear, binary choice.
I’ve been regularly posting diaries since December, 2004 that have included, in one form or another, the phrase “we support our troops.”
At some point during YKos in Vegas, this phrase became “we love and support our troops, just as we love and support the Iraqi people – without exception, or precondition, or judgment.” That’s the form that remains now.
When I cross-posted my diaries at EuroTrib, there was one commenter who, on a couple of occasions, wrote something to the effect of “Support soldiers? Now way! They’re criminals.”
More recently at MLW, there’s a commenter who’s gone on at greater length along a similar line.
My diaries were never intended to foster the kind of discussion or debate that seems to be the purpose here. I guess that’s because I never planned to take the matter beyond the initial witnessing, beyond simply saying “This is what happens, and it causes grief that we must acknowledge.”
It may seem like a moral cop-out, but I don’t know if I can take the matter further, because I’m not sure if I’d know when to stop, or where.
The simplest view is that of “good guys/bad guys,” where the good guys are the ones on our side, and the bad ones are on the other.
Another view could differentiate between the good/bad people on both sides; while yet another would essentially condemn them all.
Maybe I just find it easier to lean back on my own version of the old saying, “Kill ’em all, and let God sort them out,” which would be something like “Love them all, and let God figure out who’s wrong and who’s right.”
It’s not an easy question for anyone who thinks about it, in my view. Nor do I believe that culpability should be an either or proposition, and I certainly am of the opinion that it is our political and military leaders who should bear the principle responsibility for war crimes. Nonetheless, Abu Ghraib occurred not just because Bush and Rumsfeld ordered the gloves taken off, but because a whole series of folks at every level in the chain of command failed in their responsibility to prevent those abuses.
Most of the troops, most of the time are not committing actions which would normally be called war crimes. While I think it is a crime against both nations to plan and implement a war based on flimsy evidence using misdirection to wins needed support of the populace, it is not then a war crime to participate in that war on the most basic level.
It requires a strong sense of honor and moral courage to disobey an order or refuse deployment, and I have the utmost respect for those who do. I also have respect for those who honestly believe they are doing the right thing, or are fulfilling their duty to their country serving and fighting with honor.
The real problems is when orders put out troops in position to abuse prisoners, or cause needless civilian casualties. In theory it is the responsibility of our troops to know that a given order is illegal and their duty to report the illegal order to the chain of command, but in this case most of these illegal orders appear to go far up the chain of command. Thus it becomes their duty to report those illegal orders to the American people.
Those who do face being branded as traitors by the public rather than heroes, they face time in jail and dishonorable discharges. For many that is a strong disincentive that those who are not soldiers cannot truly understand.
Those troops who fight in our name with honor against armed opponents deserve our respect. Those who commit crimes against unarmed prisoners or civilians have dishonored themselves, our country and us. They should no longer be permitted to serve in our name, but remember they too are innocent until proven guilty.
The “support the troops” excuse making typically touches on these two areas:
Don’t forget:
3. They are systematically, even brutally brainwashed prior to deployment.
The reason this question doesn’t get hashed out more often is because there’s one ineluctable conclusion that it leads to: we’re all guilty. That means you, and you, and you, and me, too.
The actual acts may be committed by soldiers, but we bought the bullets and pay their salaries. Worse than perhaps is usually the case, this is an illegal war of aggression to begin with and we all know it.
So far as I know, no one here, myself included, has voluntarily gone to prison for refusing to pay taxes to fund this war. Neither were the prisons full of tax resisters during the cold war while our government was busy building enough nukes to exterminate the entire human race at half an hour’s notice.
The kind of moral courage that your question calls for is something that almost no one possesses. I certainly don’t have it, and because that is a very sad conclusion to reach — and one not very different from Dick Cheney’s “other priorities” — it is something I don’t like to think about. I assume that goes for others as well. So we either ignore it, or come up with some justification to the effect that we can work more effectively for change by playing along with the system and electing progressive leaders, even when that is plainly not working.
A lot of truth here. Though I think Bush and Iraq are the end result of 30 years of a right wing campaign to makeover this country into their version of Conservatopia. Our media is hopeless, talk radio and Fox News are unchallenged, the fairness doctrine dead, and true liberal and progressive voices have been muzzled. In fact, without the internet, and its ability to provide anyone and everyone with a platform to challenge the elite consensus shoved down our throats by the corporate media and present day stenographic journalists like Judy Miller, I seriously doubt we would have the opposition to Bush that we have now.
This is not to discount your point, for we as a country collectively allowed ourselves to be seduced by Reagan and the GOP and the conservative movement, and the Democratic Party had become complacent and passive in the face of that assault. We should bear much of the blame. And no doubt we will pay a steep price for that in the future. But the specific issues the diarist implicitly and explicitly raises are also important. At what point do we make individuals accountable, whether leaders or generals or “the troops” in the field? Saying we are all to blame in one sense allows those who are directly responsible to slough off their own responsibility for atrocities. If society is at fault than no one individual can be held fully accountable. Its like when Bush says he takes responsibility for what happened in Iraq, but assumes none of the blame, nor pays any cost for the “mistakes that were made.” It conveniently allows us to excuse wrongdoing on the part of individuals if everyone had a hand, no matter how small, in enabling the leaders who led us into this illegal war in which illegal and immoral conduct on the part of those individuals is countenanced, tolerated or covered up.
Part of our problem since WWII has been this tendency to simply and uncritically accept what our leaders tell us must be done in the name of national security, whether that was the exaggerated threat of the Soviet Union and international communism during the Cold War, or the even more exaggerated threat of Islamofascist terrorism today. We as a nation, and many of our fellow citizens have abandoned critical thinking and a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to what our government (under Democrats and Republicans alike) tells us must be done to safeguard our “freedoms.” Too many Americans have rejected their obligation as citizens and as moral actors, and delegated their resp0onsibility make their own decisions, and reach their own conclusions. Instead, they accept as their own the opinions, beliefs and policies of those who promise them safety in exchange for submission to authority.
We allow this cycle to continue to perpetuate itself when we refuse to examine the moral and legal obligations that we and our soldiers owe to others, and particularly to those who live in the places where our troops are deployed on our behalf. That is what led to My Lai and the other atrocities in Vietnam, and that is what is leading us astray again in Iraq. Excusing atrocities because we won’t blame the troops who commit them, and we won’t hold accountable the leaders who ordered them, is exactly the wrong thing to do at this time.
The reason should be obvious: if there are no real consequences for bad acts, than we open the door to the increased likelihood that more and greater crimes will be committed.
The little known massacre of German POWs by US troops at Chegnogne sets an interesting precedent a bit different from those at Nuremburg. The soldiers were deemed innocent because they were follwing a fragmentary order to not take German SS prisoners. This event and the legal issue surrounding it are little known and little talked about.