![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
averygoodun42Former Senator Ron Paul isn't the most politic guy in the world, but he has a point.
Now, I know a lot of you, if not all of the American portion of my flist, know or love someone who is either in the military now or is a veteran. Hell, my brother and FIL are veterans (though my brother didn't serve in wartime). The following comments are not aimed at the current or former members of the military, as I do think they deserve a HELL of a lot more real respect (and rights) than we as a society afford them. This is aimed at our society. Our gun-obsessed, violent, destructive, shell-shocked culture that doesn't know respect from idolatry.
I respect those who have chosen to serve, or those who served against their will when the draft was still active.
However, I do not venerate them.
I do not see what is so noble and brave about having killed 157 people, even in war. I don't care if every single one of those people killed was a baby-killing, US-hating, bomb-toting terrorist who would have eagerly chosen to re-enact 9/11 a thousand times over. They were people. Osama bin Laden was a person. Killing him without a trial, while probably the most practical course, was also the most terrible course of action we as a nation could have chosen.
I did not celebrate. I mourned. I mourned that our country has turned so far from its ideals that it not only rationalizes killing, but it celebrates it. This country thinks that being a soldier at war is the absolute pinnacle expression of nobility and bravery.
I disagree.
Don't get me wrong. It is noble. It is brave. But it is not the pinnacle of either virtue.
On MLK Jr. Day, Geoff, Page and I were discussing something, probably MLK's legacy, and at some point, it came out that Page thought that the bravest people in the world were uniformed soldiers who actively fought. And why wouldn't he? Everywhere you go in this country, you are bombarded with images and messages more or less idolizing soldiers and fighting. Support the troops, the bumper stickers say, but what do those stickers mean? Does it mean pray for the troops? Does it mean send letters? Care packages? Body armor?
Supporting the troops, in my mind, is giving them living wages and better than average benefits. Making sure that when they sign up, they aren't giving up their constitutional rights (or, if they choose to, they get paid compensation). Making sure that they are treated for the mental and physical illnesses they WILL incur through their service. And also making sure they have support after they leave the service. Supporting the troops in my mind is trying our utmost to AVOID SENDING THEM TO WAR, not concocting half-assed reasons to go invade other countries.
Really, truly supporting the troops would involve scrapping the subsidization of weapons creation. If weapons companies want to be funded by the government, they should be barred from being able to sell their taxpayer-dollar-funded products internationally.
Supporting the troops would mean getting news from the front EVERY SINGLE NEWS CYCLE, not just letting the fact that the soldiers are in the war zone disappear from the mass consciousness until there's a death. That's the single best argument for having a draft (of both sexes), in my opinion; it wouldn't allow for the mass media's dismissal of war. Every able-bodied person, in a fair draft, would be at risk of getting sent out to replace those who already served their term.
And that's the final bit: If we really supported our troops, we would make sure they can leave the service honorably when their term is finished, if they so desire. It would mean upholding promises, not perverting them.
So, do I think Ron Paul's comments are impolitic? Yeah. But I also think he's got a better handle on the truth of the situation than most. We have become a nation who lives by the sword. And we will die by it if we can't lay it aside. And soon.
Now, I know a lot of you, if not all of the American portion of my flist, know or love someone who is either in the military now or is a veteran. Hell, my brother and FIL are veterans (though my brother didn't serve in wartime). The following comments are not aimed at the current or former members of the military, as I do think they deserve a HELL of a lot more real respect (and rights) than we as a society afford them. This is aimed at our society. Our gun-obsessed, violent, destructive, shell-shocked culture that doesn't know respect from idolatry.
I respect those who have chosen to serve, or those who served against their will when the draft was still active.
However, I do not venerate them.
I do not see what is so noble and brave about having killed 157 people, even in war. I don't care if every single one of those people killed was a baby-killing, US-hating, bomb-toting terrorist who would have eagerly chosen to re-enact 9/11 a thousand times over. They were people. Osama bin Laden was a person. Killing him without a trial, while probably the most practical course, was also the most terrible course of action we as a nation could have chosen.
I did not celebrate. I mourned. I mourned that our country has turned so far from its ideals that it not only rationalizes killing, but it celebrates it. This country thinks that being a soldier at war is the absolute pinnacle expression of nobility and bravery.
I disagree.
Don't get me wrong. It is noble. It is brave. But it is not the pinnacle of either virtue.
On MLK Jr. Day, Geoff, Page and I were discussing something, probably MLK's legacy, and at some point, it came out that Page thought that the bravest people in the world were uniformed soldiers who actively fought. And why wouldn't he? Everywhere you go in this country, you are bombarded with images and messages more or less idolizing soldiers and fighting. Support the troops, the bumper stickers say, but what do those stickers mean? Does it mean pray for the troops? Does it mean send letters? Care packages? Body armor?
Supporting the troops, in my mind, is giving them living wages and better than average benefits. Making sure that when they sign up, they aren't giving up their constitutional rights (or, if they choose to, they get paid compensation). Making sure that they are treated for the mental and physical illnesses they WILL incur through their service. And also making sure they have support after they leave the service. Supporting the troops in my mind is trying our utmost to AVOID SENDING THEM TO WAR, not concocting half-assed reasons to go invade other countries.
Really, truly supporting the troops would involve scrapping the subsidization of weapons creation. If weapons companies want to be funded by the government, they should be barred from being able to sell their taxpayer-dollar-funded products internationally.
Supporting the troops would mean getting news from the front EVERY SINGLE NEWS CYCLE, not just letting the fact that the soldiers are in the war zone disappear from the mass consciousness until there's a death. That's the single best argument for having a draft (of both sexes), in my opinion; it wouldn't allow for the mass media's dismissal of war. Every able-bodied person, in a fair draft, would be at risk of getting sent out to replace those who already served their term.
And that's the final bit: If we really supported our troops, we would make sure they can leave the service honorably when their term is finished, if they so desire. It would mean upholding promises, not perverting them.
So, do I think Ron Paul's comments are impolitic? Yeah. But I also think he's got a better handle on the truth of the situation than most. We have become a nation who lives by the sword. And we will die by it if we can't lay it aside. And soon.
