[lit-ideas] Re: Pacifistic expeditions in the Garden
- From: John Wager <john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 21:50:27 -0500
Lawrence Helm wrote:
. . . . while I don't blame those who aren't equipped to be Marines I
notice that I am not granted the same consideration. The people I
debate, typically, don't want me to be a Marine. I haven't made a
principle out of this situation. I believe some people are equipped
to be soldiers and some are not, but my conversational opponents
insist that no one should be a soldier. They want to make a principle
which may at least in part be based upon their disinclination to fight
in a war. But even if their principle is entirely disinterested, it
is detrimental to the well-being of our country - to any country.
I usually react when a debate reaches that point, for I firmly believe
that when any nation produces an inadequate number of young people
willing to defend it, it will fall. At least that used to be the case
when every nation was on its own. It is part of the realpolitik
argument of Hans Morgenthau. Power is the irresistible element in
Foreign Affairs. Nations will exercise as much as they are able. I
don't utterly agree with Morgenthau, but the U.S. hasn't exercised as
much power as it is able to. I'm sure we would have no difficulty
conquering Canada, for example, if we had a mind to (apologies to Paul
Stone), but it is preposterous to think we would ever be of such a
mind. Our impetus is for nations to be free, to be Liberal
Democracies, as we are - not to conquer them in the old-fashioned
British Empire sort of way.
Soldiers fight (and kill, and die) as agents of citizens. If there is
something wrong with a soldier (or marine) fighting, there is something
wrong with a citizen asking a soldier (or marine) to fight for them. Of
course a citizen does not have to participate in the government of a
society, or benefit from that government, but then they're hardly
citizens.
It doesn't make much difference what war we're talking about, because no
government, no matter how honest and democratic and well-run and
informed, can avoid making some military mistakes. Innocent people will
die in war, because citizens ask soldiers to fight. I was completely
against the invasion of Iraq, and I still am, but I recognize that in a
democratic government I don't get to have the final say, no matter how
much I know I'm right; I have to live with the compromises of a
democracy. The price of this is the death of innocent civilians, and the
death of innocent soldiers. It's a high price, but I don't know any way
one can live in a democracy without paying that price.
--
-------------------------------------------------
"Never attribute to malice that which can be
explained by incompetence and ignorance."
-------------------------------------------------
John Wager john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Lisle, IL, USA
Other related posts:
