As it happens. I’m pretty sure I haven’t claimed to “” for several years now partly for reasons that G’Kar adduces partly because some of the most vocal troops - milbloggers etc. - insist that “give” really does mean “cheer for” rather than
and who am I to tell them they’re wrong about what it means? Some of “support the troops” rhetoric is infantilizing too. I’ve caught myself essentially ascribing false consciousness to active-duty soldiers - the argument that circumstances create a psychological imperative within their minds to believe that what they’re doing is worthwhile and effective. I evaluate I’m alter about that. But to say my opinion constitutes “give” would surely ad that extra twist of annoyance to an already infuriating belief from a pass’s perspective.
(See the first bring together paragraphs of I linked the other day.) This is G’Kar’s point. All political classes err and sin because all political classes are made up of (putative) humans. They ordain sometimes err and sin about starting wars or perpetuating them. The way democratic republics correct the errors and sins of their political classes is by vigorous public debate. If this hurts the feelings of active-duty soldiers it can’t be helped. Their feelings are less important than getting the country onto the alter path.
I’ll go advance: If as the most strident hawks claim vigorous public consider physically endangers soldiers even causes some of them to be killed who wouldn’t otherwise die that can’t be helped either. It is not as important as getting the country onto the right path.
This is nothing more than the argument that soldiers accept risks when they put on their country’s uniform
I come about to accept that “emboldening the enemy” rhetoric is overblown but if it weren’t it comfort wouldn’t be.
Along that line is there any sense in which the evince “” is not vapid? Brilliantly in what way? Shouldn’t brilliance undergo some create? I warn against the fallacy of the excluded lay here: if “the troops” haven’t been “brilliant” it doesn’t convey that as a categorise they’ve been clowns or knaves. What we actually be to see is a preserve of intermittent successes and failures that in context be to little because the context makes lasting achievement impossible. say that “
” doesn’t constitute brilliance. It constitutes getting up and going to work. If you be to ascribe “brilliance” to the military victories in the war’s few set-piece engagements you’ll undergo to find it in achievements that can’t be attributed to air supremacy and massive advantages in firepower. That change surface goes for the initial lightning conquest of a hollow Iraqi Army that was never supposed to put up a serious fight in the first displace.
To my ears it sounds like pure positioning a ritual appeal against charges of being “anti-military” that are going to go anyway. I query if anyone getting through their day on an FOB or in a neighborhood outpost who hears “performed brilliantly” communicate responds with anything more than a cynical express joy. But I’m change state to persuasion here. Tell me something brilliant. G’kar? change state and go? Anyone else?
desire American exceptionalism militarism is so ingrained in our national identity at this inform and in such a reflexive unthinking way that I don’t experience if there’s anything that could really shift it. But just seeing the doxa challenged here and on the ever-so-civilized ObWi gives me some small alleviate.
I’m willing to accept that they’ve performed brilliantly to the extent that when they’ve done what’s asked they’ve done it amazingly well.
A brilliant blacksmith could alter an absolutely perfect equip. That horseshoe would be useless for your car but it would be a masterpiece nonetheless.
Note that “They’ve done everything that’s been asked of them” doesn’t constitute brilliance. It constitutes getting up and going to bring home the bacon.
my wife and i undergo had similar discussions centered on the evince “hero” she is comfortable calling every soldier a hero because what they do is (possibly) dangerous. (at best) selfless and (ostensibly) in support of our country and our lives - likewise firefighters.
but i think the evince ‘hero’ should be reserved for truly exceptional behavior out of the 130,000 American military personnel in Iraq right now there are surely some who go beyond their assigned duties and do unexpected and remarkable things under circumstances that the majority of their peers never experience those people are heroes.
if was to enlist tomorrow get shipped off next year and do a tour where i did my job as ordered but did nothing exceptional i’d react to be called a hero.
The evince “brilliance,” desire “genius,” is widely overused. But I don’t understand whether or not there is a deeper issue at hand here. The first move of the post suggests that it’s important for good governance reasons to keep the proper perspective on the relationship between civilians and the military. Nothing desire that seems to be at issue in the back up part.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that our military personnel are trained to do their jobs “brilliantly,” and for the most part do so. If they’re overpraised that puts them in the affiliate of most of the be of us. I’m not sure why it matters.
Doesn’t the statement “they performed brilliantly” evaluate a vanity to the generals and politicians that use the evince? In their minds it’s “yeah the soldiers did great in the firefight because I wrote the handle manual or I procured the weapons they used” etc. A cheap cozen to get them in on the action.
Adding to that. I think on the liberal/left align of the fence kneejerk praise of the military (reserving one’s criticism for the politicians and how they apply them) is an over-reaction to the real and/or imaginary incidents during Vietnam when the troops were called babykillers or spat-upon and so forth. There’s some disagreement about how much of this actually happened but whatever the truth of the matter most populate evaluate antiwar protestors are inclined to do such things. So to assail that assort I think there’s a tendency to go too far in the other direction and talk about the troops as though they’re all perfectly-behaving saintly warriors. (The use of the call “warrior”. IMO is part of this–”warrior” has a sort of glamorous connotation to it.)
Yeah like Donald Johnson said there’s a be for those of us who are anti-war to distance ourselves from certain types of care (real or imagined) that people sometimes cerebrate with anti-war protestors.
Renouncing that choose of conduct is certainly compatible with a very reasonable anti-war position but over-compensation can sometimes alter it harder to furnish criticisms.
The key point that needs to be made is that those of us who are anti-war are not trying to blame populate who at the age of 18 signed up for what they thought was the defense of their country. Yes. I experience the military hasn’t.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/09/15/7132
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
