…and it’s time for the “college fiction teacher explains why he’s sorry for the troops” oped. This one is in the Boston Globe.
My first impulse is to say, “I’m sorry to hear that.” Because I am. I’m sorry to know that the person I’m talking to might someday be maimed or killed on the job, or might someday kill someone else. Or refuel a plane that drops bombs on buildings.
I can’t see how anyone who calls himself or herself Christian – or human, for that matter – wouldn’t be sorry.
The fact that we have an army, that we need an army, is inherently tragic. It’s an admission that our species is still ruled by fear and aggression.
Gosh, that’s just too bad. But he’s just getting started. He’s obviously been reading the media about what depressed, enraged brutes our soldiers are.
It remains unthinkable for a politician (or public official of any sort) to say aloud that our troops sometimes commit atrocities, that they are not all worthy of support, that some of them – faced with a terrifying and ethically incoherent mission – are driven to savagery. This grim duty has been left to the soldiers themselves.
And he managed to blame them for war profiteering.
The problem with the knee-jerk militarism of the past several years is that it has led to an absence of financial and moral oversight that is fundamentally undemocratic. Our troops have become human shields for war criminals and profiteers.
Consider the $1.39 billion contract awarded in 2003 to a subsidiary of Halliburton. The reconstruction project was secretly bid – to one company. There was much tough talk in Congress about preventing such sweetheart deals. But five years later, the US government continues to pay vast sums of our money to firms with ties to the administration.
And he finishes up with a moral Klein bottle where he manages to invert the morality of his position without actually turning himself inside out…
Americans have often looked to heroic violence as a means of spiritual regeneration. Our most powerful national myth is the notion that anyone fighting on our behalf is a hero. I understand why friends and families of our soldiers feel this way. But for the rest of us, too often “supporting the troops” isn’t about the troops at all. It’s about the childish desire to feel morally exempt from the violence carried out in our names.
Let me retort.
By thanking the troops, the average citizen – like me – is actually reaching out and helping to carry the moral burden that soldiers must – of necessity – carry on our behalf. It is Mr. Almond whose position manages to position him neatly on the other side by throwing up his hands and claiming that his moral insight is obviously keen enough to ensure that he sees through the mythology.
Now I haven’t read Mr. Almond’s books, and I’m unlikely to. But I’ll bet that he’s no Jainist. He lives the luxury of a life in a society built on violence – violence that is a part of all of our histories. And he thinks he can scrub himself clean of that history with this kind of public declaration. I think it’ll take more than that.
Yes, that was a smarmy insipid piece by Almond. Oh well, anything to get published, I suppose.
Smarmy? Insipid? That does not even begin to cover it….
_Now I haven’t read Mr. Almond’s books, and I’m unlikely to. But I’ll bet that he’s no Jainst. He lives the luxury of a life in a society built on violence – violence that is a part of all of our histories. And he thinks he can scrub himself clean of that history with this kind of public declaration. I think it’ll take more than that_
-A.L
What a novel reading of Mr. Almond’s statements. I took him to mean that what our troops are doing in our names, i.e engaging in a mass-murderous war of imperial conquest, is not something to feel smug about and perhaps we should even endeavor to terminate said actions while offering substantial reparations to our victims. In short, what Mr. Almond offers is a fundamental moral objection to war crimes–in fact the the supreme war crime of aggression.
So while there can be no doubt that scores of people once lived “the luxury of a life in a society built on violence†in say, antebellum America, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan I can find no compelling reason to celebrate that fact. Since it is citizens not their nation-states that are moral agents, what is the appropriate task of the conscientious among the contented multitude when confronting obscenities such as slavery, fascism, and wars of aggression? As an American citizen what path should I take when this is laid before me by “those who can speak of the unspeakable in the first person?”:http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18859
It is not ‘Jainist’. It is simply ‘Jain’, as in “He is a Jain.”
Torrance, CA is actually the home of a few notable leaders of the US Jain community, BTW.
I am a Jain by heritage (but I don’t practice anything). It is the noblest philosophy in the world, but just about the most difficult and impractical to follow. 99% of Jains don’t do the hard things (live a life of minimal material possessions), and just do the easy things (vegetarianism).
He’s just admitting what most of us vets have known all along – a high percentage of the people from the Left who say they support the troops really don’t.
While I toatlly agree w. you in regards to history and how wrong this guy is I think there are other more pressing things to discuss. One I suggest for you is voter suppression so here are some links.
If this isn’t for you take this down.
“link 1”:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13516.html
“link 2-veterans”:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13516.html
“link 3-college students”:http://www.alternet.org/democracy/98166/student_voter_registration_faces_new_obstacles_in_virginia/
“link 4-absentee voters”:http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1221316209325160.xml&coll=2
“link 5-foreclosurer lists”:http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote
So here’s where I do disagree with you AL… what is the point of this post? Do you think you’re going to get this guy to change his mind? Are you trying to educate us about the state of liberal academia? Are you just shedding your annoyance?
I’ll agree with him on the first quote, “the fact that we need an army is tragic”, although I would say that it is not a necessarily a reflection on us, but a reflection of the state of humanity in general. It’s tragic that we need cops, and the FBI and government regulators to tell people things that they obviously should know already.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in Star Trek. Humanity is simultaneously good and cruel. Wishing won’t take that away. Preparing against cruelty often requires a certain cruelty of it’s own. Sometimes, guns can only be fought with more guns. Yet many people will not choose to see it this way, ever, and nothing else is new.
Just as nothing is new when yet another politician/pundit/televangelist refers to our time as a “Holy War” to show the mite of our god over the pagans.
So, what’s the point of talking about it; unless there’s more here than meets the eye, or this academic has better connections than I realize?
I an so sick of this “mass killing” “atrocity” BS I could barf. There has never been a conflict fought on this earth with more care to avoid civilian casualties.
If the idiot had to live one day under Saddams rule he would have been the first begging for the USA to free him. He simply has no idea of what “oppression” really is. It makes me sick the ideal of freedom has been so bastardized we would prefer “safety” even in slavery.
“Peace”, as the altruistic co -operation of individuals and nations is one of “The Great Lies”.
It is a condition obtained usually by either being strong enough (making it costly enough) to preclude attack by others, or being willing to be submissive. Slaves can know peace, as long as they do what they are told, when they are told , and as they are told.
Peace.
Unfortunately, instead of JFK’s “pay any price” for freedom, we have been the recipients of a constant drone from the left about “peace at any price”–including slavery, murder and torture.
It is the most bankrupt, immoral philosophy imaginable, all cloaked in a halo of sanctimonious righteousness.
AL,
Assuming for a moment that you are right about his unstated belief that he is somehow “scrubbing” the guilt by publicly taking the position he does, I would agree that it is pure bs. However, your claim that by supporting the troops you are somehow relieving them of–by sharing–their guilt is a bigger load. No offense. I am put off by the ridiculous sanctimony on both sides.
You & I carry the moral burden of the troops whether we thank them or not, whether we want to carry it or not, whether we support them or not.
We should take our positions according to their perceived merits, but for gd’s sake, can we stop congratulating ourselves for doing so. Sheesh!
He’s adopting the advanced pose: “My conscience will no longer allow me to pretend – as some on the left do – that I support the troops.”
But the really advanced opinion, which you see more and more frequently these days, is: “Okay, that stuff about conscience was bullshit. So was that stuff about being against violence. The truth is that I like to see American troops get killed, and I feel good about anybody who does it. In fact, I think anybody who doesn’t share my political views deserves to die.”
This morning I saw a bumper sticker “Free Tibet NOW!”, only I am not doing justice to the bold typography on “NOW.”
I am all in favor of a Free Tibet, but I am guessing that Free Tibet NOW! dude at one time or another had a “Stop this endless war”, “Support the troops, bring them home”, or “1-20-2009” sticker as well.
I don’t support going to war with China over Tibet mind you, but what is this NOW! business? That putting NOW! in bold letters with the right punctuation will “teach China a lesson”? That students from China in Madison, WI will see that sticker and be shamed about Tibet?
I could be wrong, maybe “Free Tibet NOW!” is driven by a student from Tibet and not one of the usual liberal suspects. But it has the feel of someone who gets marching orders from Noam Chomsky that East Timor, Tibet, and possiblity Darfur, Sudan are worth causes, and Iraq is not. I guess these are all worth causes — until a president you don’t like takes serious action to do something about it.
Glen Wishard
What does support the Troops mean to you?
_”My first impulse is to say, “I’m sorry to hear that.” Because I am. I’m sorry to know that the person I’m talking to might someday be maimed or killed on the job.”_
I thought he was talking about public school teachers at first.
I am so impressed with this man, knowing as he does that a letter to the NY Times would have stopped Hitler and his like. That the Bin Ladens of the world are merely misunderstood.
Its idiots like him that need “rough men to stand guard over them” while they utter their mendacious BS.
This man should be wished away to the cornfield.
You know, I think this was a case of the editors getting involved. I believe Almond’s initial effort read more like the following:
I am truly sorry that, in my being allowed to teach college students, I will be perpetuating future generations of arrogant assholes. Because of my work, countless mean spirited op-eds and blithering, irrational letter-to-the-editors will be foisted upon an innocent public. Countless numbers of coffeshops in well-heeled neighborhoods in Boston and Cambridge will continue to be populated by people who believe true service to their country is measured by paying taxes and listening to three hours of National Public Radio a day.
I am an example of what is wrong with America, and for that I apologize.
Damn those editors!
Makin’ mock o’ uniforms what guards you when you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, and they’re starvation cheap.
The Chinese read the bumper sticker wrong, they thought it said “Free Tid-bit” Sorry, could not resist.
Fiction is definitely this teacher’s strong subject, on so many levels…
With purchase of another Tibet of equal or greater value; offer good while supplies last.
Robert M. –
That depends on who says it. When some people say it, it sounds like the cliche they feel obligated to utter, in order to reassure the rest of us of a heart-felt intention that we would otherwise never guess from their actions.
No doubt that’s what it sounds like to Almond, too, which is why he finds it tiresome to keep up the pretense.
Some people don’t have to say it, just like they don’t have to go around protesting how much they love their country.
mark;
“However, your claim that by supporting the troops you are somehow relieving them of–by sharing–their guilt is a bigger load. No offense. I am put off by the ridiculous sanctimony on both sides.
You & I carry the moral burden of the troops whether we thank them or not, whether we want to carry it or not, whether we support them or not.”
The troops themselves vociferously disagree with you. They deeply resent the vacuous “troops not the mission” types. As for their guilt, where did the assumption enter that they are in need of relief from guilt by sharing? What they need more is acknowledgment of their efforts and dedication to suppress those who have orders of magnitude more guilt (you know, the rape, pillage, mutilation, murder, and child-baking kind of guilt?).
“He’s adopting the advanced pose: ‘My conscience will no longer allow me to pretend – as some on the left do – that I support the troops.'”
-Glen Wishard
By “left” do you refer to that peculiar specimen in the US? You mean like the one that rolled over like a two dollar crack whore as the labor movement was decimated here? The “left” that led the cheers over our “humanitarian intervention” in Yugoslavia but turned a blind eye to genocide in East Timor? Please. The left died in the US with Joe Hill.
The authentic Left supports our troops Glen, just not their use in wars of aggression and conquest. This isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
“”He’s adopting the advanced pose: ‘My conscience will no longer allow me to pretend – as some on the left do – that I support the troops.'”
Indeed. This has become the dominant ideology of the Democratic party, and has reached critical mass.
The dwindling wing of the Democratic party that still supports the troops is fighting a losing battle.
My first impulse is to say, “I’m sorry to hear that”. Because I am. I’m sorry to know that the person I’m talking to might someday be maimed or killed by a college fiction teacher.
I can’t see how anyone who calls himself or herself Christian – or human, for that matter – wouldn’t be sorry.
It remains unthinkable for a politician (or public official of any sort) to say aloud that our college fiction teachers sometimes commit atrocities, that they are not all worthy of support, that some of them – faced with a terrifying and ethically incoherent mission – are driven to savagery. This grim duty has been left to the college fiction teachers themselves.
The problem with the knee-jerk liberalism of the past several years is that it has led to an absence of financial and moral oversight that is fundamentally undemocratic. Our college fiction teachers have become human shields for criminals and profiteers.
Consider the $1.39 billion earmark awarded in 2003. The college fiction project was secretly bid – to one company. There was much tough talk in Congress about preventing such sweetheart deals. But five years later, the US government continues to pay vast sums of our money to firms with ties to the current Senator from Illinois.
Americans have often looked to heroic violence as a means of spiritual regeneration. Our most powerful national myth is the notion that anyone fighting on our behalf in the classroom to teach college fiction is a hero. I understand why friends and families of our college fiction teachers feel this way. But for the rest of us, too often “supporting the college fiction teachers” isn’t about the teachers at all. It’s about the childish desire to feel morally exempt from the violence carried out in our names.
sol vason,
That was brilliant.
Everyone,
Given the visibility that this post has brought to this nut, is there any chance that the Fiction Teacher has been reading these comments?
“But for the rest of us, too often “supporting the college fiction teachers” isn’t about the teachers at all. It’s about the childish desire to feel morally exempt from the violence carried out in our names”
-sol vason
Aptly put… but only in a world in which logic is turned completely on its head. For in the _real_ world I suspect it’s clear even to children that college fiction teachers aren’t the people carrying out violence in our names. Let’s see, George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Robert Gates, Gen. David Petraeus, Gen. Ray Odierno, Condi Rice, “Ambassadors†Zalmay Khalilzad & Ryan Crocker… nope, not a college fiction writer among them.
Glen Wishard
What does support the troops mean when YOU say it?
Coldtype,
So do you fully approve of all 4 of Clinton’s military actions?
a) US operations in Somalia to fight Islamic radicalism (Black Hawk Down).
b) Cruise missiles shot at Sudan and Afghanistan, again against Islamic radicalism.
c) Operation Desert Fox in 1998, Clinton’s bombing of Saddam on account of Saddam’s WMD programs.
d) US troops in Bosnia and Kosovo (some of which are still there).
So this “violence in your name” you fully approve of, I suppose.
It also appears that the ‘Bush Doctrine’ is merely a continuation of the Clinton Doctrine.
To hold the unintelligent views that Coldtype holds, one truly has to believe that world history began in March of 2003. Only if one believes that there was no world before March of 2003 can one hold these low-IQ anti-US leftist views.
Coldtype wrote :
“David Petraeus,”
How is David Petraues an evil man? Elaborate for us.
After that, please explain to us how Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are not evil men.
*crickets chirping in Coldtype’s ashamed silence…*
You invite me to quote myself, so:
GOD BLESS THE FORWARD AIR CONTROLLER
God bless the Forward Air Controller,
With his target marker and his extra set of balls.
(The sky pilot said it
And you’ve got to give him credit,
For a son-of-a-gun-of-a-gunner was he:
“Praise the Lord and laser-paint the target
And we’ll all stay free.â€)
God bless the riflemen and the field cooks,
The assistant gunners and loaders,
The quartermasters and the combat engineers.
(Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom.
Springing to the call
Of their brothers gone before,
Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom).
God bless the Drill Instructors and the Tops,
The Lances and the Specs,
The Pettys and the Command Master Chiefs.
(For the heathen in his blindness
Bows down to wood and stone,
But non-commissioned men
Will live and die among their own.)
God bless the screwballs, the misfits,
The shitbirds and the FNGs.
(Death where is thy sting-a-ling-a-ling,
Oh Grave, thy victory?
The bells of Hell go ding-a-ling-a-ling
For them and not for thee.)
God bless the Fire Control System Specialist.
(For in despair I bowed my head,
“There is no peace on earth,†I said.
Then I heard the Sig Op say,
“Rounds are out and on their way.â€)
God bless the dragoons, the powder monkeys
And the little drummer boys.
(May we fill their vacant ranks
With a thousand free men more,
Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom.)
God bless those who shoot, move, and communicate.
God bless those who triumphed,
God bless those who tried.
God bless the quick and the dead.
God bless those who pray,
God bless those who stand and wait.
(And though this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed
True hearts to stand before us.)
“So do you fully approve of all 4 of Clinton’s military actions?”
-GK
Forgive me GK for not properly introducing myself. I am a leftist and not a supporter of either “oppositional” party in the US. The regulars here will confirm this.
Now, on to William Jefferson Clinton. I do not in any way support the actions you’ve described and would add that the murderous sanctions enforced on Iraq under the Clinton administration which directly contributed to the death of one million Iraqis–half of them children–elevates Bill Clinton to the status of iconic war criminal. If you harbor doubts about this charge then I highly recommend “the report by Hans von Sponeck”:http://www.swans.com/library/art13/ga230.html, the second of two directors of the UN Oil for Food Program in Iraq (the other being Denis Halliday) to resign in protest over conditions both men described as “genocidalâ€. Jutta Burghardt, the director of the UN Food Program at the time, would immediately join von Sponeck and resign in protest.
I hope I’ve made it clear where I stand.
Ah, Coldtype, thanks. I remind people every so often who question the decision to invade Iraq that sanctions were deeply unpopular (even among the unbribed), and that they were eroding and on the way to collapsing.
Of course in your world, that would have been an OK thing, right?
Saddam, oil money, dead Kurds, and the AQ Khan ‘Nukes R Us’ store.
A.L.
AL: You left out the dead marsh Arabs, the folks with their arms cut off who were forbidden to acquire prostheses, the forehead brandings, the tongue removals, the rape rooms, the arm crushing apparatus, the feet-first chipper machine persuasion technique, the German, French and Russian games of big-dollar footsie… I realize you were only hitting some of the high spots but you really didn’t give Saddam his due.
I note that Coldtype uses the “one million” figure — from the Lancet article, am I right? — which IIRC had error bars large enough that an equally likely number could be 80,000. Not that that number is a good thing, but it’s illustrative of the quality of the data.
No NM, my reference was to the decade-long sanctions on Iraq maintained under Bush I, Clinton, and the first two years of Team Bush–essentially all of the 1990’s. As Hans von Sponeck (and others) detailed extensively, the sanctions killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did–even in his disastrous assault on Iran. You seem to forget the cynical rationale the first Bush administration utilized in betraying the Shia who rose to topple the tyrant following Desert Storm, namely that the US felt it could not adequately influence so independent a force. So, Saddam was allowed to crush the uprising (slaughtering some 200,000 Shia in the process) under the gaze of coalition forces.
An alternative strategy devised to avert the threat of genuine Iraqi independence was then agreed upon by general US/UK consensus albeit with a UN patina. The plan was to make the Iraqi population scream under sanctions thereby (hopefully) encouraging elements within Saddam’s army to depose him in a replay of Saddam’s own ascension (with generous US assistance and encouragement). It’s important to recall that the bulk of Saddam’s elite forces in and around Baghdad were spared destruction during Desert Storm as the capital was never taken. These forces played a critical role in the annihilation of the Shia.
As we all know of course no reliable satrap arose from within the ranks of the Iraqi army and the desperate population was forced the rely on Saddam as never before for their very survival. The war destroyed critical infrastructure such as water treatment facilities, pharmaceutical labs, and electrical grids; a catastrophe the sanctions then compounded since it banned the essential replacement parts and other materials, even medicine upon which a functioning society depends. Not surprisingly the most vulnerable among the Iraqi population (its children and elderly) would suffer the most given that the medical system was barely functioning under the sanctions. Hans von Sponeck, Denis Halliday, and Jutta Burghardt–the UN officials most knowledgeable about conditions in Iraq under sanctions as they were charged with its administration during critical periods–were so appalled that they resigned in protest and left devastating reports that completely indicts the Clinton administration.
_Ah, Coldtype, thanks. I remind people every so often who question the decision to invade Iraq that sanctions were deeply unpopular (even among the unbribed), and that they were eroding and on the way to collapsing_
-A.L
They were unpopular because they amounted to genocide. The flimsy Team Bush pretexts for assaulting this already decimated country have been so discredited for so long that I am amazed that you bring them up all. If the fictional pretexts had even been remotely true [recall: Iraq = existential threat to the region and US!] the previous victims of Saddam’s aggression such as Iran and Kuwait would have been beating down the door of the UN Security Council as simple logic would’ve dictated. Surely no one here needs to be reminded of the Team Bush performances in the UN during the run up to the assault on Iraq in the fall of 2002 through the spring of 2003, all in utter defiance of the UN Charter.
Everything America does is wrong. Everything America doesnt do is wrong. Thanks for reminding us.
The problem with leftists on Iraq is that their malevolent anti-Americanism is exposed.
First, the debate was whether Iraq was an imminent threat or not. Ok, that is a fair discussion.
Second, the debate was whether the cost in lives and money continues to be worthwhile or not. Also a fair discussion.
But now that things are going WELL in Iraq, leftists want to avoid discussion only any post-surge progress. They cannot admit things are going well, because leftists WANT things to go badly. They want US troops and pro-US Iraqis to die.
I have often said that the leftist dogma on Iraq requires them to believe that world history began in March 2003, because only then can they ignore the preceding facts that refute leftist lies. It is now appearing that they don’t want to acknowledge any events in Iraq after Sept 2007 either.
So the left-wing narrative of Iraq requires one to believe that the only time in which world history actually existed is in the 4.5 years between 3/03 and 9/07. No events outside of this period can be considered, as they weaken the leftist false narrative.
“Iraq under the Clinton administration which directly contributed to the death of one million Iraqis–half of them children–elevates Bill Clinton to the status of iconic war criminal.”
On this I agree with Coldtype. So I excuse him from the charge that applies to other leftists, of ignoring all pre-March’03 history on Iraq.
Coldtype : The next thing you have to do is offer a solution. Offer better ideas than what are currently being tried.
I think that to whatever extent the US during and after Bush I failed to follow through on the implicit or explicit commitments it made to the oppressed of Iraq while Saddam was being rolled back to the status quo ante border — to that extent, Bush Sr and all culpable others ought to be ashamed, and are guilty of setting credulous, oppressed people up to be beheaded, etc.; and I feel bad about that to this day. It’s a bit like a Bay of Pigs, only with less Mob involvement. (1/2 🙂 )
OT ruminations follow:
The matters of “collective punishment”, “making an inevitability of revolt by making things worse” [a la Trotsky!], and the framework of Westphaliania are all very strange-seeming to me when I try to look at them with fresh eyes. I don’t understand how to figure them out. One of the reasons I hang around here is to try to figure out what might be true (or at least, less wrong) by watching others “go at it.”
I like it best when people don’t go at each other in the process. Thanks to Coldtype and all other civil participants.
Even Chomsky has said at least one true thing in his political discourses, though he was quoting or paraphrasing Pynchon: “If they can get you asking the wrong questions they don’t have to worry about the answers.”
In my life, I seem to mostly have seen / heard people asking (the) wrong question(s).
These kids of debates make it less and less fun to come to WOC. Keep up the good work everyone!