I am tempted to quibble with your description of the article, but on your fundamental point, you are right, having a war means that soldiers (or marines, in this case) will cross the line and do terrible terrible things. But see, I always have known this, and I find it astonishing that anyone would say that they did not. You knew this from the beginning. Who did not know that this was part of war?
Probably most of America too young to remember Vietnam?
I take that as "Didn't everyone who decided they were in favor of this war at the time of its inception believe that an incident somewhere around this bad would happen?"
In which case: no. At the very least anyone who believed the talk about how short the war would be probably didn't think so.
People who frolic lightheartedly off to war because the Middle East needs to be shaken up a little?
Look, I know this is going to start a fight. I just look at the benefits reasonably hoped for from attacking Iraq, and the costs, like this, and I am unable to believe that those people who brought us to war actually considered those costs. I don't know why they didn't -- you're right, it can't have been simple ignorance -- I just can't make the math work out in a way that makes the 'benefits' justify the costs.
I don't know why they didn't -- you're right, it can't have been simple ignorance -- I just can't make the math work out in a way that makes the 'benefits' justify the costs.
I think you're misunderstanding what counts as "costs." You might know this would happen, but think success would be either so swift or so fantastic that no one would care. And it's the opinion of the living (and particularly of the voters) that is the cost.
Here's another point to consider: some of the same guys who have been turned monstrous by this war will eventually be coming home to live here, likely without sufficient mental healthcare.
The second part of 5 isn't going to start a fight with me. This is a hard question at any time, and--assuming Rep. Murtha's spin on what happened is true--when things like this happen, how could you not question whether it is all worth it or whether people really thought about it.
I think my comment got eaten; what I wanted to say was that even though the war-mongers might have known that war makes monsters, they did not anticipate the war would last long enough to complete the monster-making process and result in something of this magnitude.
The costs were not expected to be this high, and despite that our leaders still can't seem to realize that they are now way too beyond too high, and have been for some time now.
Hey, apo, I'm going to edit in a credit to your post. I didn't link anyone particular because so many people have covered this story and it seemed silly to list twenty posts, but I just looked back over at your post and I've really said pretty much exactly the same thing you did -- I think your post stuck with me more thoroughly than I'd realized.
Is there anything to the story that Tim McVeigh's experiences on the Highway of Death were the turning point in his life? I read that somewhere, that he argued with his officer about whether to keep firing.
This would be a more difficult question if any actual benefits had been derived from the war in Iraq aside from an ineffectual and fractious democratic government that can't actually govern the country.
12: Or if Iraq had ever represented, or could reasonably have been understood to represent, any sort of threat to us at all.
13 reminds me of something that annoyed me on the radio this morning. NPR was reporting on the confirmation hearings of Gen. Hayden, and of course the reporter said something about "all of the threats facing America." Then they went back to the studio, and the anchor says, "Turning now to one of those threats [the reporter mentioned, we go to Tehran." Which seems to concede the point that Iran is a threat to us this time around.
"But see, I always have known this, and I find it astonishing that anyone would say that they did not. You knew this from the beginning. Who did not know that this was part of war?"
No. This is an unavoidable part of a specific kind of war: the kind in which you conquer and occupy another country for a long period of time. It is an unavoidable part of wars of aggression. It is an unavoidable part of this war, a part which was swept under the rug by those who termed it not a war of choice, by those who were and still are proponents of the war.
You find it astonishing that those who bought into this war did not expect to be facilitating new mai lai massacres? I expect you to be continually astonished by life.
Bear in mind, too, that these soldiers are being sent to the front lines with Prozac prescriptions instead of the counseling they need.
They aren't the monsters - the government that puts them on the front lines without mental (or physical) armor is.
I remember being mocked--when not more viciously calumned--for fearing that US troops might commit an atrocity or two.
I've heard it called "National Pentagon Radio" before.
Of course, both parties fully agree about the warfare state. It's just that the Democrats are more open to the idea of maybe having some elements of a welfare state to supplement it, as long as business interests are given a "fair shake."
17: Me too.
16: I agree. It's not the individuals who are "monsters"--I think we all know that under the right circumstances, pretty much everyone would do that sort of thing. But I don't think it's even a mental health thing, either: I don't think one has to be crazy to do something monstrous, one just has to be surrounded by the "right" conditions.
That said, it's just criminal that we're underfunding VA benefits, and that we're so naive about the psychological effects of war.
under the right circumstances, pretty much everyone would do that sort of thing
I disagree. If it were so we'd have heard new versions of this story every day for the past three years.
I was musing along these same lines, and also wondering when's the last time (if ever) that an American soldier was executed for killing civilian citizens of an occupied country during wartime.
Anyone got a clue?
It would be really, really bad if (1) these reports panned out and (2) nobody was executed over this. I mean, okay, if you're against the death penalty that's fine, but since we have it, if we're not going to use it in a case like this, then when?
I don't think one has to be crazy to do something monstrous, one just has to be surrounded by the "right" conditions.
20: Not necessarily. "The right conditions" might mean a sense of frustration or duration (or whatever) that tends to come along with long-term pointless wars. And anyway, haven't we heard stories like this for the last three years? Isn't Abu Ghraib a version of this sort of thing?
sorry, this is what I meant to post in 22
I don't think one has to be crazy to do something monstrous, one just has to be surrounded by the "right" conditions.
I think this is basically right (although I suspect that, as we seem to disagree on almost everything, B.Ph.D. and I likely disagree on what those conditions are).
I think focusing on atrocities like this, while understandable, is a mistake. It gives apologists an opportunity to raise the "bad apple" claim, make emotional appeals about supporting the troops and distract from the underyling issues.
Civilians are being killed every day because of criminally negligent policy at every level, from basic procedure to broad strategy.
I agree LB, that the psychological costs of the war are often unappreciated. But I'm less sure that the "corruption" of war is really one of those costs. PTSD is a consequence of war. I'm not sure psychopathy is.
Also, how can we be sure that war made these men into monsters? It seems equally likely that the military will attract certain types of personalities in disproportionate numbers, and that such personalities gained undue influence over whatever unit or group of men committed the crimes.
As far as desensitizing soldiers to killing... that's what basic training is for, especially since the military discovered in earlier wars that many soldiers were overly reluctant to pull the trigger.
how can we be sure that war made these men into monsters? It seems equally likely that the military will attract certain types of personalities in disproportionate numbers, and that such personalities gained undue influence over whatever unit or group of men committed the crimes.
Please. What was it that made the unit into the "kind" of people over whom monsters gain undue influence, then? It would be comforting to think that there's some significant difference between most people and those who do heinous things. But everything from the Stanford prison experiment to, shit, I can't remember what they're called, but studies that show that people take their cues from those around them, so that, say someone is lying on the ground in pain in the middle of a crowd. People will stand around and watch, or walk by, waiting to see if someone else is going to do something (or assuming someone else will, or has)--which creates a norm and an expectation that most people will adhere too. OTOH, people who have been trained and learned about this effect, are more likelly to break through the social awkwardness of being the first person to make a move and actually help. Anyway, my point is that studies have shown that it is resisting bad group behavior and holding to one's sense of moral behavior that is the rare exception, not the other way around.
re: 27
I would be interested in knowing what facts support your claims. Like the claim that gang rape is a military tradition, many claims one reads are based on certain misconceptions about the military and military service.
I do think that there are usually significant differences between people who do heinous things (multiple murderers, serial rapists, etc) and people who don't. Roughly 80% of those convicted of felonies and incarcerated likely have anti-social personality disorder, for instance, according to one oft-cited study. An even higher percentage of cop-killers are diagnosed psychopaths.
But with respect to this What was it that made the unit into the "kind" of people over whom monsters gain undue influence, then? I think you answered your own question: my point is that studies have shown that it is resisting bad group behavior and holding to one's sense of moral behavior that is the rare exception, not the other way around.
I'd also say that the article doesn't assert that the civilian deaths occurred in the course of a cold-blooded massacre. Recklessness could be the culprit here.
29: I've never heard of a war of any length where rape didn't occur. Plus, US soldiers rape native women all the time in places where we have military bases. I don't think that we should be surprised when members of an organization that was founded in order to use lethal force end up engaging in violent behaviors. It's kind of the same as how we shouldn't really be surprised when the police abuse people, or abuse their power generally.
But just as with the military, we don't hold them accountable because of this mythology that it's this hugely noble enterprise.
Of course, maybe I'm just a sociopath.
re 29: I really don't know whether combat experience produces psychopathy, though I'd tend to doubt it. I'm not questioning that it can cause severe psychological distress and damage.
So far as basic training as a device to psychologically train soldiers to kill, I'll look for the exact name of the Army study. But the facts as I know them are these: Essentially the Army found that in World War 2 a relatively small percentage of soldiers actually fired upon the enemy when given the opportunity. To correct this, basic training was altered to render killing in combat more instinctual and automatic, e.g. replacing bulls-eye range targets with human-shaped targets, or human dummies on some ranges. In Vietnam, after basic training was so altered, the percentage of soldiers willing to fire upon the enemy was far higher.
When I say that basic training desensitizes a soldier to killing, I mean that it enables him to kill with less hesitation in combat; I don't mean that it enables him not to care afterwards.
Anyway, combine that type of training with a doctrine that emphasizes the use of suppressive fire, and you've got a recipe for a large number of civilian casualties when those units engage in an urban environment.
Gang rape as a military tradition??? Maybe for Khan's hordes...
US soldiers rape native women all the time in places where we have military bases.
Really, and your evidence that this occurs at rates far exceeding that found in similar civilian settings (colleges campuses, for example) is?
native women? In grass skirts?
mythology that it's this hugely noble enterprise.
Of course, maybe I'm just a sociopath.
Probably not. Likely just espousing the accepted views in your class/set that it is OK to hold in contempt the people who since this nation's founding have risked--and often given--their lives in order to protect your right to hold them in contempt.
Yeah, Vietnam and Iraq (both versions) were real fucking vital to my freedom. And let's not forget Guam.
It'd be different if the US were this plucky, beleaguered little nation, but it's not -- it's by far the world's dominant imperial power. We face no significant threat whatsoever in terms of an attack on American soil -- and certainly no threat of a takeover by a foreign power -- and the biggest danger to my civil liberties right at this moment is the government itself, in case you haven't been paying attention.
So let's stop playing these games of how I'm an out of touch liberal elitist and I should be really glad that "our boys" are out there bombing other countries into the stone age.
25 and 26 are both right -- from the point of view of the people who get killed, they don't care whether they're murdered or killed as a result of irresponsible policies. From an Iraqi point of view, this is just a dozen or two more casualties -- nothing in the context of the war as a whole.
This is a self-centered sad American post; that one of the costs this stupid, stupid war has imposed on us is making some of our soldiers into monsters.
Before Cala comments, let me just say that I don't believe it's productive to be nice to militarists.
Probably not. Likely just espousing the accepted views in your class/set that it is OK to hold in contempt the people who since this nation's founding have risked--and often given--their lives in order to protect your right to hold them in contempt.
Yeah, Vietnam and Iraq (both versions) were real fucking vital to my freedom. And let's not forget Guam.
I've seen this movie! I've seen this movie! It did really well at the box office, too.
Look, disagree with US foreign policy. But let's not pretend that soldiers don't have a job, or that we don't want them to be in the habit of doing it. I've really never understood the animosity towards the military (with the exception of the Air Force, obvs.)
with the exception of the Air Force, obvs
Obviously and understandably.
Aw, Jesus Christ, Adam. You're painting with a mighty wide brush. Idealist has shown himself time and again to be reasonable and willing to explain his point of view (even if it is so often very, very wrong).
Idealist (just so I can be a remonstrating jerk to everyone), do you perhaps see that phrases like
Likely just espousing the accepted views in your class/set that it is OK to hold in contempt the people who since this nation's founding have risked--and often given--their lives in order to protect your right to hold them in contempt.
is self-martyring conservative-as-victim bullshit?
let me correct myself--edit "is" to "might easily be seen as irritating" in the last line.
Rape IS a military tradition. Let's not be naive. Tailhook? The Air Force Academy? The Citadel? Yeah, that kind of thing happens in civilian settings too, but it's magnified in masculinized settings where men are taken out of situations that contain normal social inhibitors. You and I both know what Jody calls are like. We both know the saying "what goes TDY stays TDY." Don't sit there and pretend like macho sex behavior isn't part of military culture just because every military guy doesn't engage in it or it isn't officially written down on paper as some kind of rule of behavior.
is self-martyring conservative-as-victim bullshit
No, it's self-martyring military-as-victim bullshit. Fair enough. But it also is very real (to me), although I would readily concede that for reasons I do not fully understand the level of contempt for the military shown by the chattering classes has reduced significantly over the past ten or fifteen years. Perhaps my reaction is a sign of my age as much as my military experience.
I don't think it's reasonable to pretend that the soldiers in Iraq are fighting and dying for anything like "my freedom," nor that any US troops have done that since WWII. It's just the same old bullshit emotional blackmail.
From an Iraqi point of view, this is just a dozen or two more casualties
I'm not sure about that. Unless it's understood as a dozen or two more unjustified civilian casualties in a long series of us murdering civilians. I'm not saying one way or the other if this is the correct way to see the war (not b/c I don't have an opinion, but b/c I don't want to get into it). I'm saying that the cold-blooded massacre of civilians--especially women and kids--*does* register differently to people than other kinds of killing during war.
41: I think Mr. B. is downstairs fixing dinner or getting PK a snack or something. You know. Because Air Force guys are all pussies.
Not that military culture is, you know, sexist.
Sure, but I'd suggest that your anger might be more properly directed at the people who decided the war was a good idea, rather than at the poor fuckers whose job it is to carry it out.
47: Yeah, but too be fair, you'd also expect that Idealist's anger (and the anger of other defend the troops types) might be better directed at the people who decided to put soldiers in shitty situations and issue orders that violate military and international law, rather than at those of us who are incensed about these things.
I don't think it's very contemptuous of soldiers to wish that they weren't needlessly put in harm's way or put in a position to commit terrible atrocities.
I do think it's an open question whether we really need such a large standing army. Although in our political context, it's taken as self-evident that we must never, ever cut military spending, since we're in an eternal war with people equipped with flying lessons and box cutters.
47--you bet. That was my next point, but Idealist was too gentlemanly to set me up for it.
Don't sit there and pretend like macho sex behavior isn't part of military culture just because every military guy doesn't engage in it or it isn't officially written down on paper as some kind of rule of behavior.
Thank you for the instructions on where to sit, Professor.
For sure, there is an extent to which macho sex behavior is[] part of military culture. Probably less so now that when I joined and the military was even more overwhelmingly male, but I am sure even now. Absolutely. And I understand why some elements of that culture are offensive and bad for people who particpate in it (and, ultimately, for people with whom they intereact). All true.
However, you display either great prejudice or great ignorance of that culture when you argue that gang rape is a part of that culture, that it is an essential military tradition, carried on and encouraged by the macho sex culture you cite.
Do soldiers commit rape? Of course. Gang rape--I am sure it happens. Is it more prevalent in combat, when other strong societal norms--like killing--are weakened? Probably, although is suspect much more in the past than now, because I suspect that the opportunities to mix with civilian women are much more limited than they were in Vietnam and earlier wars.
But none of this says anything about your claim that raping women is approved of (encouraged, perhaps) in military culture as part of this macho attitude which you condem.
I do think it's an open question whether we really need such a large standing army.
Again, this seems like a policy question. I'm not sure how it engages the issue of the military as actors.
50--yeah, but can you see how your first coupla comments in this thread could be seen as conflating the two ("military-industrial complex and supporting political apparati" and "troops")?
although I would readily concede that for reasons I do not fully understand the level of contempt for the military shown by the chattering classes has reduced significantly over the past ten or fifteen years.
Coming of age of my generation. If you grew up during the Reagan years, you probably grew up loving John Rambo and hating Jane Fonda. Also, we've generally been, as a country, pretty happy with our military. The 60s/70s were an anomoly.
Unless it's understood as a dozen or two more unjustified civilian casualties in a long series of us murdering civilians.
I haven't been following all the rumors--I mean, I'm sure that there have been plenty of false reports of massacres too--but the fact that this one is being investigated and taken seriously is unusual.
As I figure it, the way this story went from rumor to known fact went like this: The Marines went back to their base and reported initially that an IED killed 15 and a subsequent firefight killed 8. That becomes the official story. Some Iraqi civilian went through the scene of the massacre with a video recorder soon afterwards. And then because someone had contacts with an American journalist, the video got to Time, who then sent a reporter out to Haditha to do interviews, etc.. Time felt confident enough that it published the article, for which they of course took lots of flack even though the truth coming out now is worse than what they reported. And only then the military launched its investigation.
That's not to say that there've been tons of massacres that got covered up because I don't think that. But I do believe there have probably been all kinds of smaller-scale uglinesses that Iraqis haven't been able to report to anyone.
It's a qualitative question as well as a quantitative. It changes the character of what the military is and what the executive can do with it -- if it were a modest defensive force and a major overseas war would always require a draft, things would obviously be very, very different. It's not "just" a policy question, but a question of what kind of nation we want to be -- a large, basically mercenary army is the kind of thing a major imperial power has, rather than a plucky little nation fiercely proud of its freedoms.
Kotsko,
A soldier doesn't decide which wars to fight and which wars to sit out. He volunteers knowing full well that the decisions of the civilian government will determine whether he is well or ill used in defense of this country. It is necessary to have such a professional military who cede ultimate policy decisions to the civilian government. What you fail to understand is that even though Iraq may be a mistake from the perspective of policy, those soldiers have nonetheless offered up their lives in service of this country----no less than a soldier who dies of a heatstroke in basic training, or by parachute failure in airborne training, or by the innumerable other ways in which training can prove fatal.
And guys, take it easy on the Air Force. They don't have it as easy as you think. Last year they cut back to 500 thread count sheets and severely rationed the use of the espresso machines.
52: If what you mean is that COs don't officially say "go out there and rape some women today!" well, no kidding.
But there is in fact a great deal of work on the ways in which rape culture is intrinsic to the military. See the work of Cynthia Enloe, for example, or Susan Brownmiller, or Terri Spahr Nelson.
They don't have it as easy as you think. Last year they cut back to 500 thread count sheets and severely rationed the use of the espresso machines.
Oh, the Humanity!
You know, all the lecturing is very well, but I haven't seen Adam or anyone else say anything bad about servicemembers generally. He said there was a tendency not to hold them accountable for the crimes some inevitably will commit (and historically have committed) because of "this mythology that it's this hugely noble enterprise."
All of this lecturing is exactly what he's complaining about, if I understand him correctly. Yes, we need an army for defense. No, we haven't fought a war since WW II that had a thing to do with 'protecting our freedoms'. I can feel sorrow for American soldiers who died in Iraq, or in Vietnam -- asking me to feel gratitude because they died protecting me seems to me to be begging the question.
Do soldiers commit rape? Of course.
Just a stupid rhetorical point here, but this kind of fauxlksy Rumsfeldian to-be-sure-ism drives me up the wall.
No, not "of course". Neither "sure they do", nor "you betcha".
58: Not entirely true. Some people do decide which wars to fight and which ones to sit out. That's one reason why things like stop losses and recruitment goals happen.
I saw a psychologist gove a talk at West Point about the psychological effects of combat or high-stress environments. Deep studies were done after the double-dip of Korea, and then Vietnam. The psychologists conclusion was something along the lines that a soldier could only stay effective for three weeks continuous, and three months lifetime.
And as a matter of fact, during WWII, most soldiers saw less fire-time than that. Very very few participated in more than two major battles. So rule one: in you want a fighting army, you need lots of soldiers. At least 10x what we are using for Iraq.
Some smart jerks thought to get around the abov by professionalizing the military, training them to be focused and callous. Well, battle fatigue can show up in many ways, and brutishness is one. A professional army also builds "unit cohesion" which means you get really pissed when your friend of ten years gets killed.
Now the favored solution on the right is to create Sardaukars and Praetorians and Stormtroopers. Hey they can be useful at home, ya know. The favored solution on the left is simply not to fight wars and get rid of most of the military. I am of the left, and I favor that, as soon as the left completely eliminates the right. But we are unlikely to become Sweden anytime soon, and I in sixty years have seen constant war. Go play Quaker somewhere else, that will only get us the Sardaukars.
So for everybody's sake, for God's sake, can we please have a draft?
although I would readily concede that for reasons I do not fully understand the level of contempt for the military shown by the chattering classes has reduced significantly over the past ten or fifteen years.
I have an alternative explanation. When I was growing up and was of military age, thirty-five and more years ago, a much larger proportion of liberal men in their thirties, forties and fifties had served and seen action in WWII and Korea. And their opinion of the military, and it's leaders, could be scathing. Even men like my father, who taught me to respect the nobility and tragedy of Le Condition Militaire, and blessed my enlistment, had a million stories of waste, bigotry and stupidity.
Today, men my age and younger with any military experience at all are very rare among liberals. I and a couple of my friends are all I know, and I know hundreds well enough to know this about them. The upshot is a generation abashed, unsure of themselves and sentimental about military service.
Any online links to those authorities bitchphd? I don't deny that there's a fair amount of sexism in the military, but calling it a "rape culture" strikes me as overblown.
Also, since my earlier post looks a little unclear to me:
A soldier is not defending your freedom from imminent destruction when he trains, but his training is a necessary component of a professional and strong military, which is certainly necessary for the preservation of your freedom. Ditto for a military willing to follow the directives of the civilian government, even when the civilian government may be committing a mistake.
Also... I obviously think we should be very careful before entering a war, and that once entered we should allocate overwhelming and redundant resources to the effort, but "necessity" seems to be an empty criterion. I also don't think that we should wait until a dangerous enemy is at our door before electing to fight. Small wars overseas are preferable to desperate wars to save humanity.
When I was growing up and was of military age, thirty-five and more years ago, a much larger proportion of liberal men in their thirties, forties and fifties had served and seen action in WWII and Korea.
See Tom Lehrer:
It Makes A Fellow Proud To Be A Soldier.
And not incidentally Cheney is a student of the Classics and understands Thucydides and Caesar well. I honestly think a major purpose of the Iraq war was to send an insufficient number of men overseas to be pruned and winnowed and battle-hardened to become the few, the proud, and the unconscionable. Monsters. Atrocities not a bug for Republicans, but a feature. The new new National Guard will react differently in Kent State scenarios, having actually been trained in Ramadi and Fallujah and Abu Ghraib.
Ya know the wild card of Iraq has always been Sistani, who can bring a million civilians to the gates of the Green Zone. He made Bush kiss his butt early and often, because he knew Bush did not have the soldiers who would mow down a crowd of women and children. Bush told Rummy:"Fix that."
Small wars overseas are preferable to desperate wars to save humanity.
!?
To steal a line from AWB's recent maxims post:
True, but not useful.
I wonder, LB, why you think that it makes no difference from the Iraqi point of view if this family was killed in an accidental bomb or massacred point blank? It's true that to immediate relatives it might not make a difference, their grief and sense of outrage being so overwhelming as to sort of break the scale, but I would imagine that as you go out from there it would be either more or less reassuring. . . ."if I am sitting at home praying and they break down the doors and walk in and I cooperate, well, there's no reason to think they'll shoot my little girl" vs. . .well, all bets being off. Besides which a surviving little girl is quoted as seeing the execution of her father, while praying, and (assuming things are as they seem) to me it seems unlikely that in the long run it will not make some small difference to her that someone walked up to him and willfully shot her father in the head versus a bomb suddenly and accidentally falling on the wrong house. The object of her emotions has a shape and form.
Idealist: I find your grass skirt comment utterly baffling. Please explain?
a professional and strong military, which is certainly necessary for the preservation of your freedom.
I doubt that; I certainly think "certainly" is wrong. If we cut the military to 10% of its time, do you really think that we would soon stop being free? How? Do we get conquered by the Underpants Gnomes?
I mean, the only country that even seems like it might be on the board as far as conquest goes is China, and they'd probably rather hold our debt than invade us at the moment. This isn't to say that we should get rid of the military, that's a policy question (and I tend to favor genuine humanitarian interventions like Kosovo, so I don't think that I'd favor it), but the reason to keep the military around is not "If we lose the military we lose our Freedom!"
I agree about the military's willingness to follow the civilian government; in part the U.S. soldiers killed in our current stupid pointless war gave their lives for the principle that the military obeys the civilians, even when the civilians are morons. But that doesn't get us to "No military, no freedom" either.
Second point -- Ideal was sniping at Kotsko for having said 'native women' to mean, um, what's a better way of putting it, 'women native to the country where the US soldiers were stationed.' It was a little PC switcheroo maneuver -- look, conservatives can be offended by innocuous turns of phrase as well! (This is contentious, of course, but that was pretty much what you were doing, Ideal, right?)
On your first point: I guess a better way to put it isn't that murder is no worse than death as 'collateral damage' from the Iraqi point of view, but the reverse: that death as 'collateral damage' is no better than murder. I wouldn't expect a survivor of someone shot accidentally at a checkpoint to be consoled by someone saying "At least he wasn't murdered." I don't know that what I'm saying makes sense, though.
71: He apparently thought that my use of the term "native women" was somehow racist or uncouth.
I'm getting my info on the US Army's rape proclivities primarily from Chalmers Johnson's Blowback, by the way.
67: As I keep saying, we Americans don't live in a normal country where that kind of ethic applies. We live in an imperial power that is fighting wars of aggression all the time and has army bases all around the globe. To pretend that we're somehow an exemplary democratic polity and that we should be happy to have a professional military that obeys the civilian leaders seems to me to be a clear case of ignoring context -- especially if, like me, you don't regard Bush as a legitimately elected president according to the laws of the United States!
67: Sure. Cynthia Enlowe's university site; this, I think, was her big book but Maneuvers sounds interesrting, too. Terri Spahr Nelson's book is here; she's a psychotherapist and a military veteran. Here's Brownmiller's site; the book I had in mind was Against Our Will, which came out thirty years ago and did a lot of work establishing what we mean by "rape culture."
The upshot is a generation abashed, unsure of themselves and sentimental about military service.
This sounds right (I guess I can safely agree since you said it first). But the way you describe your father highlights an important thing. Like him, I and most veterans (you, too, I assume), can tell a million stories of waste, bigotry and stupidity. Indeed, I wonder if you agree with me that those are among the favorite stories when veterans talk. No one talks about their gallant sacrifice, they talk about the funny/stupid things that happened.
The difference is that from what you say, your father, like me, respected the military and the sacrifices of service, because the anecdotes of stupidity (or worse) were not the whole story, and they knew from experience the good and the noble as well as the bad.
Now, because people have no first-hand knowledge (and, I would say, little appetite for finding out the facts), the military is a symbol, not a real thing. And their image of what it is and what is does is more about them and their politics, guilt, uncertainty, whatever, rather than anything having to do with what it really is.
Maybe this is inevitable.
One solution to the problem in 67 might have been to copy and paste the names into Google, rather than implicitly questioning the existence of the figures Bitch mentions.
If you grew up during the Reagan years, you probably grew up loving John Rambo and hating Jane Fonda.
Unless you were me. I hated Reagan with a purple passion and thought we would never again have a president that dangerously stupid and amoral. Oh, how my imagination failed me.
Or me.
And isn't it interesting, in light of the question about whether military culture is a rape culture, that Jane Fonda is the symbol for offensive know-nothing anti-militarism?
Spell that out? Just that she's a woman, or something particular about Fonda?
This is contentious, of course, but that was pretty much what you were doing, Ideal, right?
Of course you're right. All conservatives are racists who could never genuinely object to describing local nationals as the natives. Everyone knows that.
79-81: Communists.
77: Part of it might also be a different understanding of motivations, generally. I would almost never use the word "noble" except ironically. I don't find it laughable when military personel use, but my suspicion of it's use grows with the power of the speaker.
But, yeah, a lot of it might be a lack of familiarity. When I was younger, I was quite willing to idealize the military; this was probably easier for me because I didn't have any connection to it.
83: Come on, Ideal, I didn't call you a racist. I called you disingenuous for implicitly calling Adam's usage racist. If you deny being disingenuous, I could call you oversensitively PC -- would you prefer that?
Oh, I think that the vitriol against Fonda, as opposed to any other anti-war figure, is just really extreme. Apparently there were urinal stickers that circulated with her picture on them at one time, which I find pretty symbolic. I don't think that it's a coincidence that she was known as both an opponent of the war *and* a feminist at the time. She definitely said some shitty things about the POWs, but she's apologized for it. She certainly didn't commit treason. But to this day her name gets brought up a lot if one tries to discuss feminist analysis of military action, or military culture, or whatever.
If you deny being disingenuous, I could call you oversensitively PC -- would you prefer that?
One of my favorite sleazy plainitffs' lawyers tricks is to pose a question in the form: "Do you deny that . . . "
So yes, counselor, I do deny being disingenuous, I found referring to local nationals as the natives rather startling (although I have no reason to think that it was a thoughtless turn of phrase rather than something more offensive), for whatever weight that denial carries around here.
Oh, here we go. I'd call this collection pretty clear evidence that the anti-Fonda folks think rape is funny.
You and I both know what Jody calls are like. We both know the saying "what goes TDY stays TDY."
What's a Jody call? What's TDY?
Jody calls. TDY, usually (but not always) meaning a relatively short assignment overseas or away from one's home base. Anything from a couple weeks to six months, really.
Fine. No one's called you a racist; on the assumption that you've left a 'not' out of this sentence:
although I have no reason to think that it was [not] a thoughtless turn of phrase rather than something more offensive
you haven't called Adam racist. You just meant to call attention to a turn of phrase which struck you as unintentionally capable of a racist interpretation.
I thought your manner of doing so was a little over-the-top for an accidental offense, but I'm not the tone police -- I wouldn't have commented on it without Saheli's request for information.
86: Also, she's famous. Maybe there were famous actors who did the same thing (inc. the pictures, the radio shows, calling the POW claims about torture lies, etc.), but I didn't grow up hearing about them, and don't know of them to this day.
And I didn't see any references to rape on that page.
You don't think that pissing on a picture of a woman with opened legs is evocative of rape? Really?
87 might be one of the clearest examples of a Freudian slip I've ever seen.
If you believe in that kind of thing, of course.
Or, you know, just poor typing skills. Which I certainly have. (One of the guilty pleasures of having the keys to the blog is editing typos out of my comments. I only do it when I think I've caught them before anyone is likely to have read them, but I do it a lot.)
She definitely said some shitty things about the POWs, but she's apologized for it. She certainly didn't commit treason.
She apologized what, twenty or thirty years later. Sort of. Treason? I do not know, but posing with a big smile, during wartime, on an antiaircraft gun used to kill American flyers is close enough to giving aid and comfort to the enemy that some unenlightend souls might take offense.
Now me, I find it hard to get very excited by the hating on Hanoi Jane thing--she was young and stupid and arrogant. No shortage of that. But it is a bit much to think that anger toward Jane Fonda is all part of the great military rape fetish.
94: Are you talking about the pictures of her sitting on the gun? I think those are just the most famous, offensive pictures of the time.
Scroll down, Tim. To the picture that says "Hanoi Jane Urinal Sticker" and has a picture of her with spread legs on it.
97: Sounds a lot like hating on the Hanoi Jane thing to me. Tom Hayden went to Vietnam, too, but he doesn't have nearly the symbolic capital than Fonda does.
Tom Hayden went to Vietnam, too, but he doesn't have nearly the symbolic capital than Fonda does.
Is Hayden still alive?
If truly, your sense of grievance against Jane Fonda is so great that you'd buy a picture of her to paste in a urinal so you could micturate upon it while watching her spread her legs, that goes beyond "evocative of rape" into mental illness.
Seriously, truly, your sense of what matters is massively out of whack, to some kind of medical extent.
Ok, the aerobics one is pretty creepy. I give people whom I think have suffered a great loss a bit of a creepy pass (e.g., McCain and "gook," anyone who lost someone on 9/11 or in Iraq and whatever crazy thing they might say), but I can see why others wouldn't, particularly here. It should be noted that they have a tasteful one with her face on it, too. It should also be noted that someone (I think) made a face one for Bush, and the idea made me happy. So I might be overly comfortable with expressions of contempt.
I hated Reagan with a purple passion and thought we would never again have a president that dangerously stupid and amoral. Oh, how my imagination failed me.
Me too. I even formed a club in highschool, R.A.D.S. (Reagan's a Dick Society). We had little membership cards and everything.
The club was actually just a joke, but our family had just gotten a Mac and I was playing around with MacPaint and made the card and printed it out and then lots of friends wanted one.
The card didn't say what the acronym stood for, so one could plausibly tell one's parents that the "D" stood for "Dork", or just keep it all mysterious, a la W.A.S.T.E. in The Crying of Lot 49.
He said "micturate." Heh. Hehe.
Um, yes, Tom Hayden is still alive. See my point? That's kind of the answer to your 93.
Is Hayden still alive?
I think so; he was a California State Senator at one point.
You know, it now occurs to me that I could make a bitchen W.A.D.S. membership card to pass out at my upcoming 20th highschool reunion this summer . . .
We had little membership cards and everything.
Just like the commies.
102: Okay. But do you still think that in 40 years people will be selling Bush urinal stickers? I kinda think not.
Now apparently he's doing anti-sweatshop stuff.
105: I think my question (and Weiner's lack of assurance in his assertion) prove my point -- he's not famous. That's why he's not had the same focus.
This war's hated man is Michael Moore. I bet some people will hate him in twenty years. And hate him more than Sarandon.
Tom Hayden isn't famous???
Fame means that you are talked about. If you get talked about, you are famous. Fonda gets talked about as Hanoi Jane; therefore she is famous. It's not like she's done tons of memorable acting in the last 20 years. Hayden, on the other hand, has been in the California State Government and has been prominent in the national Democratic party. But he isn't talked about, even though he went to Vietnam with Fonda, and therefore he isn't famous. I submit that it's not just coincidence that the person who has actually done more public things (but happens to be a man) is less famous (but more respected) than the person who is, at this point, *primarily* famous as 1) a feminist; 2) a traitor for something the two of them did together. Famous to the point that people still buy stickers to piss on her 30-odd years later.
Yeah, that was partly my point about mentioning the California State Senate. On the other hand, I suspect that Fonda was by any measure a lot more famous when they did go to Hanoi.
I might offer you even money on Cindy Sheehan rather than Michael Moore as the hated symbol of the Iraq war 20 years later, if I could figure out how to collect. Though Moore is much more likely to continue to have a public presence in the intervening time.
This war's hated man is Michael Moore.
I think this underestimates the issue with Jane Fonda. For many people, it wasn't just that she opposed the war--lots of people did. And it wasn't even the trip to North Vietnam (by itself). But it's the pitcure on the antiaircraft gun, with a big smile. Imagine that Michael Moore went to Iraq and found some insurgents who took him to a house where they made IED's. And he had his picture taken standing next to one with a big smile and a thumbs-up. And then--for decades--was proud of it. A celebration of the insurgents' killing of US soldiers.
Seriously, despite B.Ph.D's effort to psychoanalyze me, I've never been a true Jane Fonda hater because really, she was mostly a misguided fool. But the feelings that some people of my generation have about Fonda go well past the fact that she protested the war. And what she did is nothing like Michael Moore's criticisms--indeed, I would guess that Moore would be as appalled at the notion of taking a picture like I described as I am.
We had urinal mats with Sue Myrick's (a right-wing NC Congresswoman) picture in my co-ed fraternity. But those had to do with her many proposals for randomly piss-testing high school students. Supposedly, her picture would go from frowning to smiling if you had THC in your urine. However, given the guys who were using it, she would never have stopped grinning, so that was apparently false advertising.
What Jane Fonda did was loathesome.
I'll even go all extra compassionate and say I can understand making a urinal sticker of her—if you did it in, oh, 1973.
But to find a later portrait of her—a ten years' later portrait of her—with her legs spread, to make a urinal sticker, and then be selling it thirty years later—I stand by mentally ill on that one.
116: I didn't say you were a true Jane Fonda hater. Nor did I try to psychoanalyze you. I merely pointed out that the language in the first paragraph of 97 isn't exactly dispassionate.
Anyway. I'm tired of the subject. You can read the books I mentioned, or not. It seems that disagreements with you often lead to accusations that the other person isn't actually arguing, but is instead criticizing (or psychoanalyzing) your character, and I'm not interested in engaging when things always seem to get taken personally.
Could someone please put up a fun post? I'm tired of all the arguing.
I'm the only one who psychoanalyzed him, actually, and called him a "militarist" and claimed that one shouldn't be nice to him... yet Bitch is the one who's caught in the crossfire here!
Note: I'm joking. Kind of.
How did we get from Iraq atrocities to Jane Fonda?
Idealist is directing and controlling and distracting; such is the technique of the right; and apparently the immutable nature of the reasonable left.
Stuck playing catch-up again...
re 73: I agree about the military's willingness to follow the civilian government; in part the U.S. soldiers killed in our current stupid pointless war gave their lives for the principle that the military obeys the civilians, even when the civilians are morons. But that doesn't get us to "No military, no freedom" either.
I think that's shortsighted Matt. It wasn't very long ago that there was an extremely strong military rival to the United States. If the US were to disband its military---leaving aside the catastrophic consequences across the globe---how long do you think it would take China to build to a power sufficient to dictate terms to us? Or Russia?
Much of the structure of int'l relations that has developed since WW2 has been built around US power, especially after 1991. It may be difficult for us, given our long historical insulation from foreign threats with the exception of the Cold War, and living at a time when the greatest "national security" threats derive from the possibility of a few disaffected morons exploding themselves in subway stations, to imagine our government, laws, or ability to dictate our own way of life to be threatened by external forces abroad. But such threats are historically common, and I see no reason to believe that we have entered a historically unique period in which the US need not have a military for protection.
Also, threats to US freedom aren't limited to the conquest variety. Some of the very first military actions this nation fought qua nation weren't to stave off potential invaders, but to achieve freedom for American shipping overseas, vital to the national economy and the prosperity of the American people.
I'm arriving at this thread a day late and a dollar short, but here goes.
In 21 Anderson wrote: It would be really, really bad if (1) these reports panned out and (2) nobody was executed over this. I mean, okay, if you're against the death penalty that's fine, but since we have it, if we're not going to use it in a case like this, then when?.
I am against the death penalty, and LB's post about the way that war turns people into monsters is one of the reasons that I'm against it. What do you think it does to the person whose job it is to turn on the electric chair or inject the lethal dose? And,while I don't want to get too abstract (this post describes a state of being which is really visceral and unintellectualized), what does allowing the death penalty to persist do to us as a society? Don't we become worse monsters when we decide to kill the awful killers? Aren't wejust stooping below their level?
I'm a Brat, not a Vet, so maybe my perspective is a little warped... but I tend to lecture soldier-bashers not because of a "mythology that it's this hugely noble enterprise" but because all of the servicewomen and men I've known didn't sign up to "serve their country" or "defend our freedom" or any of that business. They signed up because they were dirt poor, knew that life wasn't going to treat them well with only a high school education, and joined the military because it is one of the most egalitarian and effective stepping stones out of Appalachia/the farm/Pittsburgh coal mining. It's a helluva lot more effective than public education.
The noble enterprise is not defending the homeland, but that most American of endeavors, pursuing the dream of a comfortable life.
You know, just to throw a little class guilt into the mix. :)
Some of the very first military actions this nation fought qua nation weren't to stave off potential invaders, but to achieve freedom for American shipping overseas, vital to the national economy and the prosperity of the American people.
Oh sweet jeebus. You're not actually claiming that the Banana Wars were just wars or necessary wars, are you? I'm not necessarily against wars for economic interest, but then we ought to admit that claims that Iraq War is a war for oil ought not be given with such short shrift. And we ought to stop pretending there's a "right" side to these things, and just admit that we're advancing our own interests, as all nations do.
all of the servicewomen and men I've known didn't sign up to "serve their country" or "defend our freedom" or any of that business.
The noble enterprise is not defending the homeland, but that most American of endeavors, pursuing the dream of a comfortable life.
I half agree. I think most people (or at least most enlisted persons and many officers) join the military for reasons much like you state (although I think you overstate the extent to which enlistees are dirt poor.) I know that's why I enlisted. I wanted the GI Bill and it was hard to find work. And of course, in Vietnam and earlier wars, lots of people did not join voluntarily, they were drafted.
So you are absolutely right that most people do not join the military principally because they want to protect and defend the Constitution.
But that does not mean that what they do--defending the country--is not an important and honorable thing. For example, whether someone joined the Peace Corps to save the world or to kill a few years before grad school and pump up their resume is irrelevant to the results of their good works. They are doing a good and important thing, regardless of why they are doing it.
I think it's important to note how much the NBA rules these days. RULES! And that David Stern is a massive Democrat, which is proof that milk and honey flow when there's a Democratic Administration.
I grew up in L.A., so I miss the old Lakers/Celtics matchups. Those were good times, when the Lakers still had their shit together.
You're not actually claiming that the Banana Wars were just wars or necessary wars, are you? I'm not necessarily against wars for economic interest, but then we ought to admit that claims that Iraq War is a war for oil ought not be given with such short shrift. And we ought to stop pretending there's a "right" side to these things, and just admit that we're advancing our own interests, as all nations do.
I was talking about the early engagements with the Barbary pirates actually, but you're taking my post out of context. I was responding to Matt who questioned whether we really need a military to protect ourselves, not offering a defense of any particular war.
By the way, imho Jane Fonda was an idiot with good intentions, but I think her actions---deliberately lending herself to enemy propaganda efforts---qualifies as treason. I don't think it's worth prosecuting her though.
I liked Barbarella. And when she survived Simon Le Bon's organ thingy, well, that was just magical.
Wait: did you guys know that Teddy Kennedy drove a girl off a bridge and killed her? Holy smokes, I must support the President!
What's worse, I've heard the guy's real first name is "Edward" -- so this "Ted" thing doesn't even make sense!
Before Cala comments, let me just say that I don't believe it's productive to be nice to militarists.
Oh, bite me, I'm on vacation. I expect you to discipline yourselves. I think we're on a quarterly-hour self-flagellation program?
What strikes me in the news reports is the youth of many of the soldiers. 19, 20 year-old kids. How many nineteen-year-olds would you trust to make the correct decision when a) trained to fight b) being fired upon and c) scared?
And what's also striking me is how high in pie-in-the-sky land this administration must have been. It's like they went and planned the war and assumed that everything that could go wrong wouldn't.
what's also striking me is how high in pie-in-the-sky land this administration must have been
[edited for clarity]
What strikes me in the news reports is the youth of many of the soldiers. 19, 20 year-old kids.
I'm not crazy about this argument. I'm not sure how many forty year-olds are going to respond correctly when in fear for their lives. Maybe youth makes you impulsive and stupid, but (as the last five years have borne out) so does fear, even in forty year-olds.
I'm not necessarily against wars for economic interest.
Could you elaborate?
Jane Fonda was a hero.
The US was doing evil. We were bombing and killing women, children, houses and villages to prop up a corrupt colonial puppet regime. Our propaganda machine was lying about our opponents, was demonizing and dehumanizing them.
Jane Fonda opposed our evil. She went to North Vietnam to bring back the truth, to tell us that our opponents were people, too. That they, too, had families and children and lives and hopes.
Maybe that gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Maybe that was treason.
But maybe sometimes treason is the only moral choice.
There are a lot of truly contemptible people in our armed services. From My Lai to Tailhook to Abu Ghraib, we've seen what they've done. Lynndie England was merely pitiable, but her sergeant was beyond contemptible. Whoever was in charge of the convoy in which Jessica Lynch was injured deserves contempt. Our Secretary of Defense is contemptible. Saying 'support our troops' is no answer for those individuals among our troops who are contemptible and deserve no support. Nor shoud we support our troops when they're doing evil.
It's inutterably depressing that we're still disputing these things forty years later. It's inutterably depressing that we're in another dirty little war to prop up someone's political delusions. Another war born in lies, bred in deception, and alive with monstrosity and tragedy. Democracy and capitalism are lovely theories, but they sure don't work very well.
Democracy and capitalism are lovely theories, but they sure don't work very well.
Better than all the others, though.
What strikes me in the news reports is the youth of many of the soldiers. 19, 20 year-old kids. How many nineteen-year-olds would you trust to make the correct decision when a) trained to fight b) being fired upon and c) scared?
I'm hoping the story isn't as bad as it looks. But the way it looks is that a bunch of soldiers had one of their number killed by a bomb; were subsequently fired on; and then ended up inside a different house, killing, at last report, twenty four people, including small children, who were unarmed and not attacking them. While that is, in one sense, not unexpected -- things that awful seem to happen a great deal in wars -- it is literally 'babykilling'. And it's monstrous and criminal, not an incorrect decision.
So in answer to your question: trust to? I don't know. Expect to? All of them.
I'm hoping the story isn't as bad as it looks.
I'm not getting my hopes up. Murtha is an ex D.I., retired colonel, etc. No one loves the Marines more than a guy like that. So if Murtha says it's bad, something truly ugly must have went down.
ended up inside a different house, killing, at last report, twenty four people, including small children, who were unarmed and not attacking them
If these are the facts, it does not matter whether it was a different house or the house from which they were fired upon.
Murtha is an ex D.I., retired colonel, etc.
I have a quibble, but with a small point. Murtha is a retired Marine Corps Reserve Colonel. He did not serve much of his career on active duty. To be sure--and to his vast credit--he enlisted during the Korean War (although he did not see combat, as I understand it) and volunteered to go on active duty for a tour in Vietnam, where he apparently served honorably. Still, he has spent most of his adult life as a politician, not a Marine.
Now, that does not make what he has said any more or less true. If it's true, it's true--whether he says it or Michael Moore says it. But it's possible to put a bit too much weight on this "retired Colonel" thing.
143: It goes to the possibility of reckless mistake -- difficult to imagine under any any circumstances when you're talking about shooting a three-year old in the chest, of course.
144: And the 'retired Marine' thing goes to the possibility of reflexive and ignorant anti-military feeling, and willingness to attribute crimes to the military without good evidence. On that issue, I think Murtha is enough of a veteran not to be suspected of such an attitude -- I can't see how a longer active-duty career would make a difference.
of reckless mistake -- difficult to imagine under any any circumstances when you're talking about shooting a three-year old in the chest, of course
That's my point--if the facts are as you suggest--whether the shots came from the house or not, it still is no excuse cold-bloodedly to kill obvious noncombatants. There are all sorts of ways noncombatants get killed that are excused in war, or that at least get partially excused as reckless but in the heat of battle, but intentionally and not incidentally killing children (or anyone else for that matter) knowing that they are noncombatants is generally not one of those things.
the 'retired Marine' thing goes to the possibility of reflexive and ignorant anti-military feeling, and willingness to attribute crimes to the military without good evidence. On that issue, I think Murtha is enough of a veteran not to be suspected of such an attitude
On that issue, you have, I think, a fair point.
I don't think it's been established one way or the other whether the Marines were actually fired upon.
But maybe sometimes treason is the only moral choice.
I'm not sure this is right: The strongest example for the above point is probably something like: "A German in Nazi Germany should have committed treason against the the Nazi government." This sounds right, but why wouldn't it have been morally as good or better if they have instead fled the country to join one of the invading armies. That is, if it appears that the only moral choice consistent with you continuing to be a member of your nation is treason, stop being a member of your nation.
I think fleeing the country and taking up arms against it still counts as treason.
Fleeing and renouncing your citizenship? I was thinking about the quoted post, and it started to seem to me that treason committed because one thinks it morally obligatory is trying to have it both ways. You think your country to be bad enough that you have no choice but to help its enemies, but you don't want to stop being a member of the country. There are some complications to this involving democratic regime change being the reason one doesn't want to stop being, but I don't think that's decisive.
I don't buy it. If your government is betraying the nation, then "treason" could well be patriotic in the long run. Think of the "would you have collaborated with the Nazis?" thread. Those who stayed and defied the government saved lives. Those who left saved their own.
I agree that Nazi Germany is the right example to look at, and I agree that there is a case that staying in Nazi Germany and aiding the enemies of Nazi Germany from withing might be better than leaving and joining one of their armies in a utilitarian calculus.
I dont think that decides the question of which is better morally, nor that patriotism is the relevant concern. Let's say that in some horrible world, Nazi Germany had lasted 100 years and there were still Germans inside who were still trying to aid Nazi Germany's enemies. Are we really going to say that they're being patriotic with their loyalty non-Nazi Germany? They're certainly doing a good thing, but I don't see them being patriots.
I remember talking about this very issue with Kotsko & Smasher, et al at the meetup. There was a spy ring of mid-level German Officers who became convinced that Germany needed to lose the war for moral reasons. These are Army officers, Colonels and Generals. Their lead was a former officer whose business took him to Switzerland, where he was debriefed. Rudolf Rossler, codename Lucy, told in the famous book The Man Who Was Lucy The intelligence the Lucy ring provided allowed the Russians to be sure the Kursk Offensive was real, and not a diversion, and when it would start. Vital intelligence that altered the course of the war.
My point was that similarly situated and opinioned officers today, who dispaired for the honor of their country, have no Soviet Union to tell the secrets to; a difficult moral call in any situation. All they can do is talk to the likes of Seymour Hersh, which is a highly superior thing to do, but also of course involves violating your oath and doing it to serve a higher good.
152: Yes, I'd say that if a shitty government became established as the Nation in the sense you're saying, that being treasonous to it wouldn't be patriotic.
Andrew, at 130, defined treason thus: By the way, imho Jane Fonda was an idiot with good intentions, but I think her actions --- deliberately lending herself to enemy propaganda efforts --- qualifies as treason.
Back then the catch phrase was "my country, right or wrong." Now it seems to be "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."
Both express the same idea: that any criticism of the government's policies is treason (by Andrew and Ann Coulter's definition); any criticism is going to sap our national will, drain our precious bodily fluids, and weaken us. Any criticism gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That strikes me as bullshit, and terribly terribly wrong.
Idealist says in 98 "Treason? I do not know, but posing with a big smile, during wartime, on an antiaircraft gun used to kill American flyers is close enough to giving aid and comfort to the enemy that some unenlightend souls might take offense. That too strikes me as very, very wrong.
Fonda was engaging in symbolic speech, sitting on that AA gun. She was saying "our bombing of women, children, houses and villages is wrong. It's so wrong that those whose women, children, etc. we are bombing have a privilege of self defense, and may justly resist us with lethal force."
I think there's a lot of truth in that position. To some extent I think we're in a similar position in Iraq today. I don't want anyone killed, but if a bunch of marines came into my house and shot my wife and kids I'd sure feel justified in shooting back.
What Fonda did was a type of speech act, of course. And it's difficult for a speech act to be treason, especially when it's not informing an enemy of the sort of thing they'd use spies to find out (informative speech isn't very easy to conceptualize as treason either, but certainly easier than this kind). But, I think it has to be about, like many other things, knowledge and intention.
For instance, if she did the same thing, not because she thought the American side was wrong but for some other reason...well what do think Axis Sally's motivation was?
I'm not saying that the two are comparable, but rather that they might be if Fonda's motivations were other than they in fact were.
Knowledge and intention have very little to do with it any more. We've reached a point where it's not about facts, it's not about what did (or did not) actually happen. It's about symbols and meanings and constructions of reality.
For some, Fonda is the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the 60s. The rebellion, disrespect, sexual license, disloyalty, etc. For me, having seen Barbarella at an impressionable age, she's the model of 'nicely bouncy.' Nicer than Janet Jackson at the Superbowl, although drawing much the same reaction.
One of the cultural chasms then, and again now, is about dissent and liberty and authority. Some people value authority above most all else. Personally, having lived through the abuse of authority of Cointelpro, Viet-Nam (and My Lai), Hoover's FBI, Iran-Contra, fundamentalist Christianity, and a host of others, I remain firmly on the liberty side of that chasm. For me, valuing liberty, Fonda is my flag and I don't like seeing her desecrated. For others, of course, she's the very devil.
When you talk in terms such as 'treason' and 'patriotism' you are *inside* the reality that values authority. Those terms assume that obedience and respect towards authority are specially important. I reject that reality.
That chasm will never be bridged by facts. For its continued existence after so many decades I blame the epistemologists and the philosophers. The epistemologists, for failing to teach how to evaluate what they know. Philosophers, for failing to teach everyone how to figure out the meaning of what they know.
And, of course, I blame the lawyers. And middle aged women. And secretaries. And old hippies. And most of all, feminists and lit-crit types. My apologies to anyone I've inadvertently omitted.
Perceptions do not limit reality.
-- preteen models biz -- http://preteen-models.biz --