Very interesting panel discussions with some great military and ethical folk. They deal with some of the issues discussed in posts above.
It is part of the old PBS Ethics in America show and you can watch them here:
http://www.learner.org/resources/series ... scriptions
Chose
6. Under Orders, Under Fire (Part I)
How do we wage war when the enemy dresses as civilians and children throw bombs? Generals William Westmoreland, David Jones, and Brent Scowcroft, correspondents Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace, and others question the duty to follow orders and a commander's obligation to protect soldiers.
and
7. Under Orders, Under Fire (Part II)
The carnage of My Lai raises the issue of confidentiality between the soldier, his religious confessor, and military justice. Generals debate the clash between military tribunals and the right of confidentiality with Chaplain Timothy Tatum of the U.S. Army War College, the Reverend J. Bryan Hehir of the U.S. Catholic Conference, and others.
Prelude: Face full of bullets
Moderator: Super Moderators
Hmm...
See link for video
http://www.mediaite.com/online/colbert- ... he-public/Stephen Colbert Accuses Wikileaks Founder Of ‘Manipulating’ The Public
by Glynnis MacNicol | 8:45 am, April 13th, 2010
Last night Stephen Colbert interviewed Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, which the other week published video of US Military killing 12 individuals in Iraq, two of whom were later revealed to be staff members of the Reuters. It was exactly the sort of interview which demonstrates why Press Sec. Robert Gibbs would be happy to have President Obama appear on The Daily Show but not on Colbert: unlike Jon Stewart, tough interviews tend to bring out the underlying sharpness and seriousness in Colbert. Last night was no exception.
After a sort of jokey opening in which he had his face pixelated and voice altered Colbert got down to business.
"Let’s talk about this footage that has gotten you so much attention recently. This is footage of an Apache helicopter attack in 2007. The army described this as a group that gave resistance at the time, that doesn’t seem to be happening. But there are armed men in the group, they did find a rocket propelled grenade among the group, the Reuters photographers who were regrettably killed, were not identified…You have edited this tape, and you have given it a title called ‘collateral murder.’ That’s not leaking, that’s a pure editorial."
And that’s not satire, that’s hardcore journalism. Assange, meanwhile, did not appear to be at all put off by the tone of the questions, admitting that the point of the video — including the editing and the title — was to gain as much political impact as possible. In fact, he goes on to point out that the full unedited material is available to the public in order that they may draw their own conclusions. “I admire that,” says Colbert, noting that by putting ‘Collateral Damage’ on the first thing the public see “you have properly manipulated the audience into an emotional state you want before something goes on the air.” Snap. Again Assange is unfazed; this is a man who clearly believes in his mission. Video below.
See link for video
Interesting, HB3.
I was also dismayed when Wikileaks decided to title the incident "Collateral Murder". I don't think it was necessary to taint the viewers' reaction. The footage speaks for itself.
As I said, this happened years ago. All of the surrounding details have been sifted and well filtered before being displayed in public, so this particular view of the incident may or may not be properly annotated today.
However, certain things are incontestable. A couple of examples:
* The rules of engagement were not disobeyed (including the annihilation of the rescue vehicle), so this activity is sactioned in "war", or warlike activities such as the US is engaged in in Iraq.
* The banter among the soldiers was obviously the nearly sociopathic banter of individuals who are 100% disconnected from the "targets" on the screen.
I'm absolutely aware that "a battlefield is no place for emotion". I am also aware that "soldiers have a job to do", I know "war is hell" - and I guess we can extend that to warlike activities in this case. Most importantly, I know that if I "ride alone, then I'm riding with Hitler".
What I can't figure out is why we keep voting for war - day after day, year after year. Why do we still spray bullets through the streets of Iraq - a country which was arguably never a threat to anybody but the Bush family - seven years later? War is heinous, and absolutely unacceptable, unless defensive in nature. The conservative/Bush/Obama notion that we can "take it to them", & simply isolate the suffering geographically is ridiculous at best. In reality it is an incredibly asinine, & arrogant military strategy. In fact it seems like the result of significantly impaired cognitive functioning - at the highest levels of the establishment. But it's a brilliant economic strategy, a true windfall for the 1%, globally - the "power elite". Our "leaders" are either incompetent buffoons militarily, or psychotic geniuses economically.
However, all "wars", noble or otherwise, end up at home in one way or another. When we see the Apache, and we hear the attitude of the airmen, and we watch the "terrorists" die like filthy dogs, and we see their corpses mistreated, and we observe the shameless destruction of the rescue vehicle, we can sit back in our comfy chairs and wonder how all of this death and destruction "over there" will manifest itself across the "homeland" in the decades to come. We (the 99%) can wonder how every aspect of our lives will be altered for the worse, while the 1% continue to frog-march us in endless circles, all the while helping themselves to enormous swaths of the wealth we've built up family by family over the generations & simultaneously making an economic killing by ensuring permanent bedlam abroad.
That's all (imho).
I was also dismayed when Wikileaks decided to title the incident "Collateral Murder". I don't think it was necessary to taint the viewers' reaction. The footage speaks for itself.
As I said, this happened years ago. All of the surrounding details have been sifted and well filtered before being displayed in public, so this particular view of the incident may or may not be properly annotated today.
However, certain things are incontestable. A couple of examples:
* The rules of engagement were not disobeyed (including the annihilation of the rescue vehicle), so this activity is sactioned in "war", or warlike activities such as the US is engaged in in Iraq.
* The banter among the soldiers was obviously the nearly sociopathic banter of individuals who are 100% disconnected from the "targets" on the screen.
I'm absolutely aware that "a battlefield is no place for emotion". I am also aware that "soldiers have a job to do", I know "war is hell" - and I guess we can extend that to warlike activities in this case. Most importantly, I know that if I "ride alone, then I'm riding with Hitler".
What I can't figure out is why we keep voting for war - day after day, year after year. Why do we still spray bullets through the streets of Iraq - a country which was arguably never a threat to anybody but the Bush family - seven years later? War is heinous, and absolutely unacceptable, unless defensive in nature. The conservative/Bush/Obama notion that we can "take it to them", & simply isolate the suffering geographically is ridiculous at best. In reality it is an incredibly asinine, & arrogant military strategy. In fact it seems like the result of significantly impaired cognitive functioning - at the highest levels of the establishment. But it's a brilliant economic strategy, a true windfall for the 1%, globally - the "power elite". Our "leaders" are either incompetent buffoons militarily, or psychotic geniuses economically.
However, all "wars", noble or otherwise, end up at home in one way or another. When we see the Apache, and we hear the attitude of the airmen, and we watch the "terrorists" die like filthy dogs, and we see their corpses mistreated, and we observe the shameless destruction of the rescue vehicle, we can sit back in our comfy chairs and wonder how all of this death and destruction "over there" will manifest itself across the "homeland" in the decades to come. We (the 99%) can wonder how every aspect of our lives will be altered for the worse, while the 1% continue to frog-march us in endless circles, all the while helping themselves to enormous swaths of the wealth we've built up family by family over the generations & simultaneously making an economic killing by ensuring permanent bedlam abroad.
That's all (imho).
Last edited by SquidInk on 04-13-2010 05:53 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
I haven't watched the video. While I definitely trust you, I'm sad to say I just don't trust anything coming out of the left (sorry, I don't know what to call it -- "extreme," "radical," "progressive," whatever) these days that seeks to "prove" what it already "knows" about the fundamental nature of America. They've shown themselves to be utterly disreputable.
I pretty much agree totally with your last two paragraphs.
I pretty much agree totally with your last two paragraphs.
Last edited by HB3 on 04-13-2010 07:44 PM, edited 1 time in total.
HB3 wrote: We're living in a world where "heroism" and "anti-heroism" are infinitely conflated. The heroes are mad and the cowards are brave.
Yeah, I agree.
I think the video is more of a reflection on militaristic method & mindset, generally, than an attempt to throw a light on the "real America". The military, or the military method, is a tiny sub-set of "America", ideologically. But then, it's not that simple...
In the video we do see typical universal military methods in progress. It happens to be the American military, but it's safe to say all modern military forces conduct themselves according to similar "rules" of combat. Knowing the incredibly tragic outcome of military activity & war, and being Americans, I would think that at this late date we might be able to muster up some of that legendary exceptionalism, and find a better way.
The fact is that we do not seek a better way. The American people continue to use the military as an arm to cast the stones of judgment (and to back the dollar). That might say something about the the fundamental nature of America - or, at least it's modern nature.
Last edited by SquidInk on 04-13-2010 10:30 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
You're opening up a big can of worms here. One question is whether standard definitions of military bravery are an intrinsic part of even the most civilized nation. Homer's Greece was not just a warrior culture, you know? Personally, I'm coming at this from the anti-heroic perspective -- but...how can you deny the insight of Patton's poem? Yes, that Patton, the general:
http://www.generalpatton.com/poem.html
Is this just bull****? It is bull**** now, not necessary always, or is it just bull**** forever? This is a key question, and there are important differences in the way you answer it.
http://www.generalpatton.com/poem.html
Is this just bull****? It is bull**** now, not necessary always, or is it just bull**** forever? This is a key question, and there are important differences in the way you answer it.
I have battled for fresh mammoth,
Really? That was difficult to read - awkward meter.
I don't know if it's mammoth**** or not. It seems like it's written from the supposedly ageless perspective of the soldier. So, in that sense it could be legit. Even so, I think of all soldiers, only a small percentage of them have this kind of mentality. A far greater number wish to be done with the soldier's life after a short time.
In any case, I understand that Patton sees a kind of glory in it, but I think very few people will see any glory in the wikileaks video - duty maybe, but not glory.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
Here's what I take from your line: "The war comes home." That even if the theory of terrorist "blowback" is incorrect, the war comes home in the sense that the men who fought it come home. And if we're going to do that to our men -- which includes releasing possible latent sociopathic tendencies, etc -- we better be damn sure of what we're doing.
HB3 wrote: Here's what I take from your line: "The war comes home." That even if the theory of terrorist "blowback" is incorrect, the war comes home in the sense that the men who fought it come home. And if we're going to do that to our men -- which includes releasing possible latent sociopathic tendencies, etc -- we better be damn sure of what we're doing.
Yes HB3! That is exactly my point! It is some kind of insanity to keep throwing one generation after the next into war after war, only to have them return home with deep psychological damage. And let's not forget the wounded. This is what struck immediately when I saw the video.
And debt. When we borrow or print a trillion dollars for war, then no matter who wins the battles, the people in the debtor nation lose. Not those orchestrating the affair mind you, they win economically.
Think of all the other ways a trillion dollars (coupled with a workforce that is not checkered with PTSD) could change this nation for the better.
That's probably a Mars Base.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
Also in this case, I think "blowback" is a strong possibility. So in that respect the war could literally end up at home. Even if we avoid future 9/11 scenarios, I think the war could come home in the form a radicalized Homeland Security Force.
This organization has the potential to become, essentially, an occupying force at home.
This organization has the potential to become, essentially, an occupying force at home.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
I lean towards the notion that the killing lust of battle is surely an expression of at least temporary psychosis, except, you know, back in the day they didn't use psychoanalytic terminology -- and why is that psychoanalytic terminology more "true" or "better"? The difference is that we don't have a stable society to return to that can successfully re-integrate or stabilize people who go through such experiences.
And I totally agree -- what the hell are we doing getting involved in this tribal warfare halfway across the globe? Totally insane.
And I totally agree -- what the hell are we doing getting involved in this tribal warfare halfway across the globe? Totally insane.
