Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The message from the right, as usual: never, every speak the truth about what your government is doing in the name of "the troops." And it's Palin shoveling out this crap:
"[Obama] said, too, that our troops in Afghanistan are 'air raiding villages and killing civilians,'" Palin said, mischaracterizing a 2007 remark by Obama. "I hope Americans know that is not what our brave men and women in uniform are doing in Afghanistan. The U.S. military is fighting terrorism and protecting us and protecting our freedom."
Never mind that both Hamid Karzai and President Bush agree that U.S. air strikes have, in fact, killed hundreds of civilians and that military analysts say this is largely because the lack of troops there relative to Iraq forces reliance upon air strikes that simply can't be targeted the way actions on the ground can. That's reality, but we must ignore reality under this twisted conception of patriotism.
It's the same criticism we heard of John Kerry for daring to speak out about the atrocities he witnessed in Vietnam. The right has used the fact that some soldiers were treated badly when they returned from that war as an excuse to argue that no soldier and no military policy should ever be criticized no matter how barbaric or unjust it might be. Because to do so would not "support the troops."
A sane person would, of course, recognize that war sometimes puts people in situations where they do absolutely horrible things - sometimes out of self-defense, sometimes because their minds have snapped from the brutality around them, and sometimes just because they can. And pretending otherwise does not "support the troops" it only supports irrationality and denial.
And by the way, this bullshit is coming from someone who claims to be "pro-life." But apparently if a fetus develops into a human being we deem worthless once war is declared, not only is it okay to kill them but it makes you a traitor to even acknowledge their death. This isn't patriotism, this is insanity.
Politics
Comments
[gross overgeneralization alert]One lesson the left has learned from Vietnam is that opposing a war doesn't justify attacking the troops fighting it. Unfortunately, the right has failed to learn the reverse: that attacking the war is not the same as attacking troops.
Posted by: WScott | October 8, 2008 10:08 AM
Makes me hope for an RNC loss on the scale seen after the FDR v. Hoover election. (Almost makes me hope for a schism in the RNC by the rational people.)
Posted by: mercurianferret | October 8, 2008 10:09 AM
I am amazed at the number of people who actually use critical thinking skills that have concluded that discussing Palin as VP requires the use of the word insanity in relation to some aspect of her candidacy. I've never experienced such a radical word that is used more often to describe an aspect of a candidate by the thinking class.
I jumped all over the announcement on the day it came out, did my best to vet her given what little information was out there that day and by the end of the evening, concluded the same. It was an insane pick. At that point, use of that word hadn't started yet; the fact that so many people independently derived at the same word is compelling.
As the evidence is aggregated, it increases the validation that she was and remains an insane pick assuming one's premise is to support the national interest.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 8, 2008 10:11 AM
Michael Heath,
It has been rather reassuring to me that there are so many people able to recognize the sham that Palin represents. I think it's quite clear that she isn't quite as stupid as she has even been made out to be. Even that is a bit of a facade, put on to make it look like she's a "regular person". From the moment of the announcement (or just before if you looked at Wikipedia), the McCain campaign decided to create a character out of mid-air and use Sarah Palin as the face of it. Virtually nothing about this image is true.
This is the equivalent of the Chinese girl singing at the Olympics, but it's being done on a much more meaningful stage. I'm disgusted how many people have been complicit in it for the sake of their party (although I suppose it should be expected), but I'm thankful how the overall public reaction has been to see through it.
Posted by: Odie | October 8, 2008 10:43 AM
An inquiry by the U.S. military has concluded that U.S. air strikes on an Afghan village in August killed more than 30 civilians, far more than U.S. commanders have acknowledged, The New York Times said on Tuesday.
Posted by: Tulse | October 8, 2008 11:27 AM
Some Christian, eh? She doesn't care one wit about the deaths of innocent civilians. Sarah Palin is nothing but a power-craving opportunist.
Posted by: Dr X | October 8, 2008 11:44 AM
Ed Brayton:
Well, you have to remember, for the right-wing "pro-life" moralists, life begins at conception, and ends at birth. They'll go to any extreme to protect a tiny clump of cells, even demanding the enslavement of women, but they'll never lift a finger to provide food or healthcare for those lives they claim are so precious. And they certainly won't allow countless innocent human beings to get in the way of their need to bomb random countries. Once the kid is born, they don't give a flying fuck anymore. In truth, they never gave a fuck to begin with. The whole "pro-life" schtick is just an excuse to control the lives of others.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 8, 2008 11:49 AM
The right's interest in a person ends at birth because their interest isn't really about life. It's about preserving some patriarchal Waltons fantasy of the perfect 50s family. It's about keeping reproductive control out of woman's hands.
And why can't someone on the left make the case that criticizing the civilian leadership of the military isn't the same as saying the military is doing wrong? The right has owned this issue long enough.
Posted by: Brian | October 8, 2008 12:28 PM
The right's interest in a person ends at birth because their interest isn't really about life. It's about preserving some patriarchal Waltons fantasy of the perfect 50s family. It's about keeping reproductive control out of woman's hands.
And why can't someone on the left make the case that criticizing the civilian leadership of the military isn't the same as saying the military is doing wrong? The right has owned this issue long enough.
Posted by: Brian | October 8, 2008 12:29 PM
The right's interest in a person ends at birth because their interest isn't really about life. It's about preserving some patriarchal Waltons fantasy of the perfect 50s family. It's about keeping reproductive control out of woman's hands.
And why can't someone on the left make the case that criticizing the civilian leadership of the military isn't the same as saying the military is doing wrong? The right has owned this issue long enough.
Posted by: Brian | October 8, 2008 12:31 PM
As tasteless as many americans may find it, I think Ian Murphy has it exactly right.
Posted by: mercator | October 8, 2008 1:00 PM
Posted by: WScott | October 8, 2008 3:32 PM
Brian asked, "And why can't someone on the left make the case that criticizing the civilian leadership of the military isn't the same as saying the military is doing wrong?"
It is surprising to me how many of my fellow soldiers - even the ones on the right - understand this difference. With the exception of some protest stunts at recruiting stations, most of the soldiers I have known both recognize and appreciate the support of our nation. It is possible that most of those complaining about this imagined lack of support have not talked to enough Vietnam vets to be familiar with the real thing.
Posted by: BobApril | October 8, 2008 3:37 PM
Brian said:
The right's interest in a person ends at birth because their interest isn't really about life. It's about preserving some patriarchal Waltons fantasy of the perfect 50s family. It's about keeping reproductive control out of woman's hands.
This is not quite it. Part of it, but not it. The core of the "pro-life" position is ensoulment. The "right" is only concerned that a "soul" has been "placed" in to the clump of cells. Once there is a soul, that soul must be protected and allowed to live so the "host" can die (naturally by-the-way, without ANY help) and the "soul" can then return to their most-special-invisible- best-friend-sky-faerie. The "pro-life" position has nothing to do with children or humans. It is about souls.
Posted by: WBPNYC | October 8, 2008 4:05 PM
Brian said:
The right's interest in a person ends at birth because their interest isn't really about life. It's about preserving some patriarchal Waltons fantasy of the perfect 50s family. It's about keeping reproductive control out of woman's hands.
This is not quite it. Part of it, but not it. The core of the "pro-life" position is ensoulment. The "right" is only concerned that a "soul" has been "placed" in to the clump of cells. Once there is a soul, that soul must be protected and allowed to live so the "host" can die (naturally by-the-way, without ANY help) and the "soul" can then return to their most-special-invisible- best-friend-sky-faerie. The "pro-life" position has nothing to do with children or humans. It is about souls.
Posted by: WBPNYC | October 8, 2008 4:10 PM
Brian said:
The right's interest in a person ends at birth because their interest isn't really about life. It's about preserving some patriarchal Waltons fantasy of the perfect 50s family. It's about keeping reproductive control out of woman's hands.
This is not quite it. Part of it, but not it. The core of the "pro-life" position is ensoulment. The "right" is only concerned that a "soul" has been "placed" in to the clump of cells. Once there is a soul, that soul must be protected and allowed to live so the "host" can die (naturally by-the-way, without ANY help) and the 'soul" can return to their most-special-invisible- best-friend-sky-faerie. The "pro-life" position has nothing to do with children or humans. It is about souls.
Posted by: WBPNYC | October 8, 2008 4:11 PM
what do you say about someone who takes money to kill people he never met and who have done him no harm. who kills women and children as a matter of policy?
What do you say when a man is sent to occupy another person's country and who blows up houses, kicks in doors, shoots dogs and bombs entire buildings full of non-soldiers to the ground?
Do you say he's a good man? a kind man? a patriotic man?
Do you say he's just following orders? That he has checked his morality at the door when he joined the military? when he clicks a button and drops 1,000 lbs of high explosives on a mud village of women and children? because someone told him to do it? It's ok cause it was orders?
I think that maybe some critism of soldiers is in order here. why don't they go awol to canda? cause they'll get went back and put in the brig? cause their friends will go and kill and get killed without them?
tough call.
Posted by: kevin | October 8, 2008 4:33 PM
Five words, kevin: "civilian control of the military." Do you really want soldiers taking it upon themselves to decide what wars we should/ahouldn't be fighting? That's a dangerous door to open.
Posted by: WScott | October 8, 2008 4:42 PM
I don't believe that, just like I don't believe it when people on the right claim that the left want to control every aspect of everyone's lives. I think that for most people who are "pro-life", the central issue is the destruction of an "ensouled" living thing, making whatever it is a human. They may not be correct; they may not have completely thought it through and as a result have an inconsistent position; but they certainly aren't consciously trying to control the lives of others any more than current anti-murder laws do.
I'm not pro-life. I don't believe in any kind of soul. I don't think that there is some magical, post-jizz moment at which a human boinks into being. I think that a human - like pretty much every other form of life - develops. I think that as a result, human/non-human status is tricky at best.
But I don't think it's correct to dismiss pro-lifers as people who just want to keep women down. I do think that one of the results of their stance is to reduce the rights of women, but it's hardly wise to accuse someone of a focus that they don't exactly have. Just because you think that their stated opinions are inconsistent doesn't mean you can tidy them up and then accuse them of having your tidied opinion. Accuse them of not making sense. Don't just accuse them of making sense in an evil way.
Posted by: pough | October 8, 2008 4:59 PM
pough:
If this is the case, then why do the same people support the death penalty and endless unnecessary wars? Are you claiming they are so totally brain-dead that they do not realize "ensouled living things" are dying in those situations? How could people with such a profound lack of brain function even manage to feed themselves?
I have met people who could actually be honestly described as "pro-life". Those people were not anti-abortion, anti-healthcare, anti-welfare, pro-war zealots. They were not mindless Republican drones. People who actually valued human life would not take up the right-wing banner so enthusiastically.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 8, 2008 5:33 PM
Amen.
I noticed some while ago that people from the older generation are really sensitive to Vietnam. As a person whose life was not directly affected by this war, it's always been pretty obvious that this blind desire to support the troops comes from exploitation of a collective guild after Vietnam.
The best patriots are the people who can look at our country and say "I like America enough to acknowledge that it has problems, and I want to work to address them"
Posted by: scrabcake | October 8, 2008 5:39 PM
Posted by: llewelly | October 8, 2008 5:46 PM
The death penalty is for life forms who have made the kind of decisions that lead to some of the rest of society considering them too dangerous to remain living. Know of any fetuses that have purposefully reached out of the womb to go all postal or rob the elderly? (I don't support the death penalty, BTW.)
War is, IMO, a very stupid extension of the same thing. All those evildoers on the other side of the planet have had their chance to not be all evil with their hatred towards America/Jesus (same thing, really) and killing them all is simply protecting the innocent.
I don't agree with it, and I think it's stupid, but the basics are pretty simple. Fetuses are human and in need of protection. Criminals had their chance and blew it. Killing the Other protects the Good (and they had their chance, too).
Posted by: pough | October 8, 2008 7:23 PM
That sounds about right to me. I grew up in that crowd. Sex is feared. Done right, it's a sacred act. Done wrong, it's evil. Most of the ways to do it are the evil ways, and most of the ways to do it are desireable. What else to do but assume that methods to avoid the consequences of sin are evil, themselves?
Posted by: pough | October 8, 2008 7:41 PM
"That's a dangerous door to open. "
as is the door that says soldiers should carry out any order, no matter how sick or depraved.
"On 21st June, a day before the beginning of the war against Russia, we received the following order from our officers: The Commissars of the Red Army are to be shot on the spot, since there is no need to stand upon any ceremony with them. Neither is there any necessity to bother ourselves unduly with the Russian wounded; they must be finished off immediately."
" was drafted in 1967 and I served in Vietnam for 1 year ... So this area was mostly all free-fire zones. So it was with this understanding that it was a free-fire zone that everything was fair game. If at any time you saw people in any way trying to avoid you or run away or make suspicious movements, that was free game. You could go ahead and shoot them and kill them. - Testimony of Guadalupe G. Villarreal, Dellums (House of Representatives) War Crimes Hearings, Apr. 28, 1971, Washington D.C."
Soldiers have a positive duty to refuse to carry out illegal orders from officers and civilian leaders.
as I said its a tough choice.
Posted by: Kevin | October 8, 2008 9:30 PM
As far as civilian control goes, I'd reather see quite a few atrocities than civilian control eroded. However, I do think that sometimes erosion of civilian control can be a good thing. It kept Turkey together a few years back.
Rumor was last summer that we'd bomb Iran before Bush left office if Obama gets elected. Most higher ups in the armed forces think this is a terrible idea. Some officers who have said this openly have been transfered out of their jobs. Would it really be so bad if the generals somehow "forgot" to get the necessary materials for the operation and delayed the attack until it had to be called off? Sure, we'd have to have trials and hearings. But in 10 years or so we could set them free.
BTW. Attacking Iran would be economic suicicide. Imagine $8/gal gas on top of the banking crisis.
Posted by: Bacopa | October 9, 2008 1:03 AM
Oh really?
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 9, 2008 1:20 AM
Australian soldiers are obliged to follow all LEGAL orders. It has been this way since 1917 or so. Much fewer massacres and civilians deaths, lots more "hearts & minds" won, a lot higher rate of genuine public support at home (despite criticism of the actions of some soldiers). Why hasn't the US military twigged to this? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 9, 2008 3:33 AM
"As far as civilian control goes, I'd reather see quite a few atrocities than civilian control eroded"
President: "General, I want you to hit North Korea with 3 nukes, right now."
General: "Ah, pres, we have no indications that NK is preparing any attack or anything..."
President: "General, are you questioning my orders?!"
General: "NO SIR!"
General: "Colonel, I want you to hit North Korea with 3 nukes, right now."
Colonel: ""Ah, General, we have no indications that NK is preparing any attack or anything..."
General: "Colonel, are you questioning my orders?!"
Colonel: "NO SIR!"
Colonel: "Lieutenant , I want you to hit North Korea with 3 nukes, right now."
Lieutenant : ""Ah, Colonel, we have no indications that NK is preparing any attack or anything..."
Colonel: "Lieutenant , are you questioning my orders?!"
Lieutenant : "NO SIR!"
Lieutenant: Private.. .... and so on....until millions are dead.
Posted by: Kevin | October 9, 2008 10:22 AM
Yes, the job of the military is to kill people and break things; there's no way to pretty that up. It's a dirty, but often necessary job. And yes, it often results in civilian casualties; that's been true in every war mankind has ever fought, and is even more the case in counterinsurgencies. Now it is the military's responsibility to take all reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties. But "reasonable" and "minimal" are subjective terms. Consider the possibility that what seems reasonable from your (or my) armchair may not always equal what seems reasonable to someone whose best friend's leg just got blown off by an IED. Sorry.
Yes, yes it would be so bad. Even if the immediate result (ie - no war with Iran) seems like a good thing, you would have established the precedent that the military can ignore or subvert orders they don't like. Next time they decide to do so, the result might well be one you don't agree with so much. Google "coup d'état" for a few examples. Attacking Iraq was IMO among the most foolish decisions this country has ever made. But I for one greatly prefer living in a country where the military follows orders, even those I disagree with.
The same is true for American troops, and those of every other "civilized" country, and has been for generations. (Irony quotes to acknowledge another highly subjective term.)
Posted by: WScott | October 9, 2008 10:32 AM
"and in many cases they already have been"
*cough* BS* Haditha *cough*
"But that's not the same as calling all soldiers immoral mercenary baby killers, like you did in your previous post. " I think you just called them that, not me.
"Consider the possibility that what seems reasonable from your (or my) armchair may not always equal what seems reasonable to someone whose best friend's leg just got blown off by an IED. Sorry. "
so you think that angry marines SHOULD kill random civillians if they think it seems reasonable for them to do so. oookey.
People put in impossible situations do horrible things. but why havn't MORE soldiers refused deployment to Iraq? Because they are indoctrinated into believing that its a just (and holy) war. They get to the point were killing women and children is"justified."
and they get paid and don't go to jail.
maybe its not a tough choice for them.
Posted by: Kevin | October 9, 2008 10:46 AM
And what about the soldiers who are raping American women (soldiers and civilians), eh, Palin?
Posted by: marilove | October 9, 2008 11:52 AM
The problem with the current 'support the troops' mentality for me is that, simply enough, it works for every country and war no matter what the circumstances.
For Germans in 1940, it worked for the heroic defense of the fatherland from the French, where the troops, under civilian control, changed the enemy regime to a friendly ally, despite the efforts of insurgents and dead-enders like the terrorist Degaulle.
For Germans in 1914, it worked for the troops instituting the civilian policy of terrorization of occupied populations in order to secure rear areas from insurgents.
In 1956, it worked for the Red Army in restoring the lawful government of Hungary. And so on before and after.
It separates the moral consequences of participation from the actions participated in.
And if those examples seem out of line, remember this: they are MORE justified than the current conflicts they mirror because the bulk of troops in those examples were conscripts who had no choice at all, rather than well-paid volunteers and professional mercenaries, who participate willingly. (Albeit some less than others.)
'Support the troops' as used today, is no more than "It's okay because it's us doing it."
So, no, sorry. I really cannot support the troops. I wish I could. But they aren't defending me over there. They're just the heel of an American boot on somebody else's face.
I don't blame the heel so much as the foot, but I don't think it deserves any parades, either.
Posted by: Longstreet63 | October 9, 2008 12:18 PM
My apologies if I put words in your mouth, but that's what you seemed to be saying by:
If you have another spin on what you meant, I'd love to hear it.
Now I can't tell if you're being obtuse or just deliberately insulting. Or both. OK: let's say you're on patrol in Baghdad. (Or wherever.) Your unit comes under fire from a building up ahead, and you take several casualties. You know the building probably has some civilians in addition to the enemy, and it's often impossible to tell the two apart (since this enemy doesn't wear uniforms). Do you assault the building, knowing you'll take additional friendly casualties, as well as some civilian casualties? Or do you back off and pound it with artillery/air/etc, which will certainly result in heavier civilian casualties, but you won't have to watch any more friends die today? Or do you just ignore it and leave them alone, knowing that tomorrow those same insurgents will shoot up a different patrol?
Yes, I realize that's an oversimplified false dichotomy. My point is that what might seem "reasonable" from here on the sidelines isn't always so cut & dried in the thick of things, when life-and-death decisions have to be made in a few seconds by people who, being human, are not dispassionate observers. And to reiterate my pervious post, in case you skipped that line: yes, those individuals who give or carry out illegal orders should absolutely be prosecuted.
Because, once a soldier enlists, he agrees to follow the (legal) orders of civilian authorities. Again you're confusing jus ad bellum, the right to go to war, with jus in bello, right conduct within war. In Western democracies, the former is almost solely the responsibilities of the public through their elected leaders. Countries where the military doesn't make that distinction are usually called military dictatorships, juntas, police states, and the like. They're generally not places you'd want to live, or even live next to.
Well, that's been true to some extent in every war since the dawn of time. WWI and WWII propaganda about the "Evil Huns" is an example of how easy it is to do, even with a just cause and an enemy we had close historical & cultural ties to. However, I do agree that the culture of hatred and xenophobia fanned in this country for the last seven years has probably contributed to many people not bothering to distinguish between "a bunch of towel heads." That's true of both soldiers and civilians. (How many people still choose to believe Iraq had something to do with 9-11?)
And to everyone: sorry for such a long reply!
Posted by: WScott | October 9, 2008 12:19 PM
WS, I appreciate your comments and they were not too long.
"Now I can't tell if you're being obtuse or just deliberately insulting. Or both."
I will try again.
"OK: let's say you're on patrol outside" Haditha and "Your unit takes several casualties." from an IED. You think it is reasonable to assume that people in Haditha planted the bomb and that they are going to attack you.
"do you just ignore it and leave them alone, knowing that tomorrow those same insurgents will" IED" a different patrol? "
No, it seems reasonable to me that we should go and level about half the village and kill anyone we see.
"Consider the possibility that what seems reasonable from your (or my) armchair may not always equal what seems reasonable to someone whose best friend's leg just got blown off by an IED. Sorry"
where does it stop? who is to blame?
Does it matter that our troops are occupation forces in a war of agression against the Iraqi people?
Posted by: Kevin | October 9, 2008 12:53 PM
Posted by: WScott | October 10, 2008 3:29 PM
"I would think that's a no-brainer: blame our political leaders "
and not the people who pull the triggers or hit the switches.
I have a problem with that. We hung Nazis and Japs for war crimes. Now we give our soldiers green lights to commit them.
"But you're still confusing "is the war justified" with "are the means used to fight the war justified"
I did not and am not confused about that. Both participation in a war of agression and certain acts within a defensive war, are subject to criminal penalties.
You started out with: "One lesson the left has learned from Vietnam is that opposing a war doesn't justify attacking the troops fighting it."
what does that mean? are you talking about a political lesson? are you saying that the troops should not be attacked (by which I assume you to mean anything from mild critism to death by firing squad) in any circumstances?
who is this "left" of which you speak? did these persons really learn this "lesson" or have all progressives become cowards and silent cooperators?
I support the troops right to refuse to carry out illegal and immoral orders. Such people should be praised and given sanctuary.
Posted by: Kevin | October 10, 2008 11:25 PM
Oh, and WS, since you did not address it:
"so you think that angry marines SHOULD kill random civillians if they think it seems reasonable for them to do so. oookey. "
per the above I can't tell if you agree or not. It seems that you think its ok.
Posted by: Kevin | October 10, 2008 11:29 PM