Remembering the Victims of Empire
I found a wonderful post on Libberants, entitled, "Remembering the Victims of Empire." It's really amazing. Here is a quote (but be sure to read the entire article!):
Yet once the platitudinous speech has ended, the trumpets blown in a pro forma rendition of “taps” and the black bunting and flags taken down, it’s back to business as usual. Politicians and generals plan the next big military campaign in an occupied portion of the globe against civilians wanting nothing more than to be free of the empire. Ordinary Amoricons, most of whom have no friends or relatives wearing the imperial uniform and deployed in harm’s way, get on with their barbecues, trips to the beach or the mall, and grumble at having only one day off with which to party. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines, some of whom relish the adventure of combat in service to the empire, many others of whom simply wish they were back home living their lives in peace, continue to stand watch in dangerous parts of the world, unappreciative of the fact that their service, and potential sacrifice of the ultimate, is to essential further enriching the establishment and spreading the boundaries of the empire. If they are wounded or killed in making this happen, so what? After all, the Wolfowitzes, Cheneys, Bushes, Feiths, Negropontes, Rices, and Boltons reason, they all volunteered. No one put a gun to their heads and forced them down to the recruiting office to sign on the dotted line. Taking a bullet comes with the territory. Besides, we don’t know any of them personally.
No one put a gun to their heads? I've heard that a million times from all the "Wolfowitzes, Cheneys, Bushes, Feiths, Negropontes, Rices, and Boltons" out there. It is the standard line. But anyone whose been a private in the Army knows the total absurdity of that statement. It is routine for judges to give a young man a choice: join the army or go to jail. I've never met a private who joined the Army because his life was going just so well. Officers? They're another breed. But the majority of men dying in Iraq didn't join the Army because they wanted to spread democracy around the world. They joined because they had no where else to go. They dropped out of college. They dropped out of high school. They couldn't handle the real world, for one reason or another. Their family had given up on them. Maybe they'd given up on themselves. And what could they do? Sign the dotted line, and tomorrow we'll take care of you. Three meals a day. A job that you can work and be proud of. More spending money than you've ever had. And guess what?
It's noble to be a warrior. It's a straight ticket to heaven.
God forgive us all.
6 Comments:
Let me assure you, as someone who got out of the Army in the last ten years, that the "Army or jail" thing doesn't happen anymore.
It's too bad that it doesn't, because the military used to be able to turn a lot of young men around. My own nephew would have benefitted from this policy.
I think you would be surprised to find out that we are not the "low-hanging fruit" that Bill Maher would have you think.
I have seen war and I can honestly tell you that war is hell on earth. However I honestly believe that it is sometimes neccesary to correct greater wrongs. Pacifism in the face of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Imperial Japan would have promulagated a far greater evil than World War 2 or the Cold War.
You seem to be a very sincere Christian, and I can respect you as a brother in Christ. Since you are Roman Catholic, can I ask you what has happened to the magesterium of the Church on war?
St. Augustine in "The City of God" laid out the doctrine of just war which served Christendom well enough for 1500 years.
God led his Chosen People into war against their enemies many times in the Old Testament.
What ever happened to "No greater love than laying one's life down for your neighbors"?
I have a lot of respect for certain individual popes. Karol Wojtyla was a great man of God, even in light of his excessive Marian devotion. John Paul II also did more to restore Christian unity than any other man in 500 years.
Joseph Ratzinger is another great man with whose works I have been familiar for more than a few years.
But, as an Evangelical, I only accept their authority as going no further than their individual walk with God. Great men to be sure, but falliable and subject to the prejudices and errors of the academy and their post-modern European heritage.
Mr. Fisher, let me assure you that the Catholic Church adheres to just war doctrine. You can find the modern exposition of it given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an online copy of which may be found at www.usccb.org. Refer to the section on the Fifth Commandment, paragraphs 2258 through 2330.
I believe Nathan is making valuable points on his website. Your questions and comments notwithstanding, I believe Nathan is asking:
* What ever happened to "Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you"?
* What ever happened to "Blessed are the peacemakers"?
* What ever happened to "Turn the other cheek"?
It doesn't appear Nathan is opposed to just war doctrine. It appears that he understands it well enough to know that time after time men fail to apply it.
Just war doctrine gives strict conditions under which war may be waged and restrictions to its conduct.
You talk about standing up to the evils of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Imperial Japan. We were at war with two of those. Thankfully we avoided war with the Soviet Union. In our war with Germany and Japan, a war that was just in its motives, we violated just war doctrine with the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and with the dropping of atomic devices on Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- these were no mere unintentional tragedies of war, but purposeful evil unleashed on innocent civilian populations.
Just war doctrine and appeals to WWII do nothing to legitimize the far-too-easy resort to war which marks US foreign policy since WWII. It certainly does nothing to justify the invasion of Iraq, as even the ostensible motives of WMD and a war on terrorism have been proven to be a sham.
It is exactly just war doctrine that has led both Pope John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict to question the legitimacy of war in the modern world.
peace
As far as WW2 goes, I can condemn the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo as gratutitous.
However, without the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagisaki, Allied forces are forced to invade the Japanese homelands to end the war. Hundreds of thousands of American and British troops die,as well as millions of Japanese. Soviet troops would have to be called in. We end up with a devastated Japan (largely lacking in natural resources) divided between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
You would not want to live in this world. This policy's effect on our future would be profound.
The modern Catholic teaching of just war would be completely incomprehensible to any Pope prior to Benedict XVI's futile and impotent predecessor, Benedict XV. It is a post-modern interpretation by a demoralized post-modern Euro academy too dissapated to defend Christendom physically or spiritually anymore.
Benedict XVI would better spend his time attempting revival in a post-Christian Europe or bringing attention to the horrific persecution of Christians in the Islamic World than making gestures to this same world that will be regarded as retreat and surrender. Embolden Islam by weakness at your peril.
President Eisenhower disagrees with you:
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- 'Ike
General MacArthur disagrees with you:
"My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."
- General Douglas MacArthur
Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, disagrees with you:
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946 disagrees with you:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date of the planned American invasion], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
More quotes .
God Bless,
Nathan
I think Nathan is channelling Thomas Merton from Purgatory. What would be worse, than having Merton channeled from Purgatory, would be forgetting him.
Enjoyed a lot! »
Post a Comment
<< Home