A question about War by a long-standing member of the Pacifist, progressive left.

[Magoo48]

I'm 73 years old. There is not, or has not been, a war that I've supported since I've been alive. Here's my question: how can one support a war that one is not willing to fight in or play a supporting roll in. If you are a vet of foreign war then you've exhibited your support for this method of change, but I'm referring to people like myself, who have never participated, or intended to participate, in the military lifestyle. This seems a bit insincere to me. Killing is an extremely personal undertaking, not an act that should be considered because someone else thinks it's a good idea, or for any reason one does not fully understand. As we see in returning vets, taking life is a crushing weight for young healthy minds to bare. Every potential warrior should be educated about the ramifications of, and given time to consider, what he/she might be asked to do.

[Dial H For Hero]

1. Only 7% of the population has served in the military. Are you saying that no one in the remaining

93% can sincerely support a war?

[lagomorph777]

3. Or that all of those 7% approved of the wars they served in?

[Ghost Dog]

5. No one who doesn't intend to join in

can sincerely support a war, no.

[Dial H For Hero]

7. I would point out that the US military doesn't have the capability (or desire) to accept 15% of the

population, let alone 100%. Should the to make decision to go to war be restricted to those who have served, a la Starship Troopers?

[Magoo48]

12. Perhaps they can if they are free of pretense or deceit in their support.

[orwell]

2. I couldn't agree more...

As a wise man once said, "War is a racket!"

Some are so quick to send others into harm's way, likely to further the fortunes of elite interests.

I stopped eating meat because I couldn't come to grips with the fact that a sentient being had to give up it's life so that I could enjoy a texture or a taste. I could easily sustain myself without some animal dying so that is how I now choose to live. But I never faced this choice until I started engaging some local livestock when I moved to the country. It was hard to eat beef once I had made friends with a steer.

If you can't kill it, don't subcontract the job to someone else so you can remain blissfully unaware of the suffering you have caused.

This goes for capital punishment as well.

War is a failure of imagination...

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. People support things they're not willing to participate in all the time. Why should war be

different?

[Magoo48]

6. I don't know.

[kabelad]

8. Well

I think that’s a rather narrow view. War isn’t about killing people, it’s about protecting others that aren’t able to stand on their own. Not all aspects of war are violent. As a former 96f/37f there is a large portion of combat that is and should be bloodless. When we use our abilities to prevent death we are capable soldiers, and if we can use our training to win without bloodshed even better. Sure, there is profiteering by government and private sector industry around war, but no soldier (no good soldier) goes into combat wanting to kill. My whole military career was spent around using leaflets, loudspeakers, radio broadcasts and other means to win and subdue without firing bullets. There is no feeling as good to the human heart as that of liberating someone who is oppressed and has no way to stand on their own, or teaching people how to live free of fear of violence and oppression. It’s sad that we have to go to war, and most wars and police actions have no net gain for anyone involved but if people aren’t willing to make a stand for what is right as humans, innocent people will die and will continue living in fear and oppression. I served so others didn’t have to and because I believe all human life is worth protecting. There is not a day I don’t regret my service or my actions, and I remember every face, every voice of the people I stood up for, it’s not for everyone and it’s sad people have to result to conflict, but there will always be a need for people to stand up for those that can’t, at home and abroad. To your point, good soldiers don’t support war, good people don’t support war. Sometimes though it happens and we have to weigh the human aspect and the importance of some other persons life, be it a fellow soldier on either side, a civilian in harms way, or anyone with no recourse to protect themselves. The world takes all kinds and we gotta learn to love each other the best we can, and if we do have to fight, do it for the right reasons and in the least impactful way so as many people as possible can return home. Of course there are soldiers that aren’t right and serve for the wrong reasons and maybe there should be better psychological screening, and every good soldier understands the impact of their actions. And they live with it. When you make that deduction to be a soldier, you hopefully understand the gravity of your actions. It’s an all volunteer army, not like when they used to draft and conscript.

[Magoo48]

14. Sorry, you lost me at "not about killing people".

[kabelad]

16. That's too bad

My job in the army was to try to win without violence. we promote the idea of a bloodless battle. In most cases we are very successful in protecting and saving lives. It’s not about killing people. I guess real insight isn’t what you want.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

21. Clearly that is wrong, at least in the case of Vietnam,

it was all about body count, how many VC or NVA were killed or wounded.

[kabelad]

24. I cant

I can’t account for Vietnam. However, in modern warfare we’ve shown great success without killing people. During desert storm we got a lot of people that didn’t want to fight to surrender by printing leaflets that looked like money on one side, and instructions to surrender on the other, since we knew the command structure would most likely shoot any one carrying around obvious surrender papers. Friend of mine got a bronze star for directing a large group of prisoners out of mortar fire with his loudspeaker. We’ve broken morale and had a great impact on the battlefield, all without having to kill. I’m sure in ww2 the rally cry was how many nazis one could kill, but nowadays we do why we can to lessen that impact. No sane soldier, no sane commander wants to lose life and no sane soldier wants to kill. sure there will be the soldier/marine that joins for that purpose, but most modern soldiers aren’t looking to etch kills on their rifle.

[kabelad]

25. And I don't know anyone

I don’t know anyone who “supports war.” There are and have always been politicians that want to drag us into conflict, but anyone “supporting war”, no. The balance between self interest, self preservation are balanced by the selfless need to protect. That is reasonable, and a complete loop. I’m sure there are those that lack one or the other, but just because you get dragged into conflict doesn’t mean you support it. And being a part of the conflict doesn’t make you any less compassionate.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

26. +100. nt

[harumph]

23. A sane comment. There is a certain "inevitability" to armed conflict

at least sometimes. Knowing that, we should try to minimize collateral damage.
My feeling is the folks that serve (my daughter being one)
understand that their purpose is to do the best job they can and serve with the highest ethical principles.
My problem is that not enough congress people have served and have a fantasy idea about
what armed conflict is really about. No having served, they're apt to make poorly considered decisions.
It really is like a class disconnect.

[MineralMan]

9. Clearly, many have supported wars they never served in

nor intended to serve in. In fact, most supporters of war never go anywhere near the war zone.

On the other hand, many who do not support warfare have been pressured or even forced to serve in the military.

I'm three years older than you are. When I was 19, I got a draft notice. I was strongly opposed to that war. So what did I do? I enlisted in the USAF and went nowhere near Vietnam. I still did not support that war, nor did anything I did in the USAF have anything to do with that war. For me, the choice was to enlist, flee the country, or go to prison. Not a lot of good options there. So, I chose one.

If you did not have to make that choice, then it's pretty easy to be a war resister, I think. If you did, then it's a more complicated question, isn't it?

[Magoo48]

15. I did have to make that choice. I took a different but equally arduous path.

[albacore]

10. A lot of us vets know this....

[MarineCombatEngineer]

22. +100. nt

[iemanja]

11. I don't support war

which is why I oppose Russia invading the Ukraine. Pretending that is okay is not anti-war.

[Magoo48]

17. Who said anything about me supporting Russia invading anyone?

[iemanja]

19. You didn't

But I have commonly seen people claim they are anti-war by opposing only US interventions. We heard it during Crimea. Opposing the invasion was supposedly war mongering, but their anti-war stance didn't extend to Russia's killing of Ukrainians.

In fact, we had a post here just last week that complained about the US "beating war drums," despite the fact the US is highly unlikely to get involved militarily in the Ukraine and will far more likely demand further sanctions on Russia.

[haele]

13. The problem with War is that if someone wants to go to war...

There's not much you can do about it if you're on the receiving end.
Now, one can always choose to take a side if not directly involved, but still, War still relies on one party to decide to pull the trigger.
For whatever reason.
Yeah, the US does not have clean hands, but still, no matter how many countries or actors dance around playing proxy or pounding their chests like chimps trying to decide who's going to be the Alpha, ultimately, it's one "leader" or one organization who makes the calculation to actually send the troop to War, for profit, for policy, or for protection.

In the case of Ukraine, it's only Russia's decision to go to war, and Ukraine's decision whether or not to ask for aid fighting back.
Not ours. Not NATO's.

People are still going to die. People are still going to kill.
Only a sociopath or an adrenaline junkie wants War.

And if there isn't a draft, or if one isn't being forced into a defensive position, it's still pretty much up to an individual whether or not to take the psychological risk of killing another person by joining a military, for whatever reason.

I'm a Vet, retired Navy Chief. I've my own reasons for joining the military post-Vietnam, and I'm sure any other vet you ask had their reasons. And most probably have nothing to do with the prospect or a justification of killing other people. In my experience, most probably don't even think about War except in the abstract.

Is this somewhat of an answer for you?

Haele

[hunter]

18. My mom's family were pacifists, even in World War II.

That's probably how her family ended up in the American West. Nobody liked Pacifists in Europe, and nobody liked them in the U.S. Civil War. One of my ancestors who lived in the South saw the Civil War coming, aimed himself towards Oregon, and started walking. That's the only Civil War story I have even though all my ancestors were here in America by then.

My mom's parents were not neutral in World War II. They were against the Nazis and Japanese Empire like most everyone else. Their compromise was to work in the shipyards as welders, building and repairing the ships of the Merchant Marine.

When I was a kid my mom was a Jehovah's Witness. She couldn't stay out of politics, however, so they kicked her out. Then we were Quakers.

My dad and my father-in-law both served in the military, and were both at risk of being sent to fight in the Korean War. It's just the luck of the draw they didn't. I'd say that both of them are pacifists because they politely refused arms to whatever extent they could. My father-in-law was a Navy corpsman assigned to the Marines and my dad was a nearsighted Radar O'Reilly medical clerk.

[Magoo48]

20. Thanks for sharing some of your family history, hunter.