Quote:
|
My question was rhetorical: People are either too far removed from the realities of war to comprehend some necessities, they're deluded into thinking that if wealthy nations which can afford non-combatants set the example then poor desperate movements will follow (apples and oranges); or, they consider soldiers to be a lower cast that's expendable just to ease their consciences.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthodoc
Very well said, guys. I agree, it's always happened. And sexobon summarized the issues perfectly.
|
Rhetorical or not, these two ideas are only balm to sooth a rationalization.
Our "wealthy nation" has declared a never-ending war,
using troops that have volunteered for that duty.
There was/is little or no delusion that Iraq or Afghanistan,
would use the same the same weapons or tactics.
We are no longer fighting the enemy that harmed us on 9/11/01.
We try to separate "taliban" from "Al quada" from "terrorist", but can't.
So now, we are continuing essentially a religious war or moral war,
but in the role of the aggressor.
Soldiers are the tools we use... not because they are lower cast or anything like that.
I, and our nation, say "Thank you for your service" to individuals
and groups in the military, in multitudes of ways, and with sincerity.
But such appreciation also must be earned, over and over again.
In so-called "normal" military actions, it iconically accepts the risk of being wounded or killed.
But it also amounts to refusing to obey an unlawful order.
Actual self-defense is an imminent threat.
Firing a drone's missile into an automobile from a seat
in front of a TV screen somewhere in Texas is killing by guess-work.
Think back to the Viet Nam era...
Returning soldiers were sometimes not given the heartfelt welcome home that previous soldiers had received.
This was due, in part, to our nation perceiving the burning of villages,
and killing of non-combatants as immoral, and as "illegal orders".
More and more our military actions in the middle East are nearing the same judgement.