Zanket said:
That's a separate argument, I think. I agree entirely.
But in the day, there was no guarantee that the soldier one was spitting on was directly guilty or knowledgeable of the specific results of any given support activity. One of the failings of the psychedelic left was its unrefined, disorganized anger. Mobilized and ideological, much as a religion can sink into fundamentalism without vocal and educated leadership, so too did the nearly-pentecostal fervor of the Flower Age tread at times into a self-betraying rejection of due process and human respect. What "enlightened" leadership there was suffered a classic flaw of the left: by conducting itself similarly to what it rejects, the angry left only undermines itself by miring its principles in unnatural selection.
Some in the conservative-exploitative agenda have cracked jokes about the shoe-waving and -pelting behavior in parts of the Muslim world, but the American leftist heritage with which I sympathize cannot duck that chapter of its own. It's well enough to say "it wasn't me," but in the history of ideas that come together as a major tributary to my own identity politics, much as I feel the Christian ought recall at times the atrocities of the past, so I ought not duck this of any of the dozens of ridiculous episodes of the history of the Left. I mean, hey ... did you catch that Communist Revolution in Russia? Good show, that one. (Purging the intellectuals is so unhealthy for the future of a society--but look at how it developed without them. Nearly-fundamentalist. It's a recurring theme.)
Emma Goldman, after whom I name my daughter, attempted assassination. Lord Acton wrote a compelling, dispassionate argument in favor of American slavery. One of my most apparent ideological identity politics is derived from an idea which must necessarily at some point be invoked as a cutoff-point for human sympathy: Sisyphus must be happy.
I'm aware of ... most (?!) ... okay, many .... I'm aware of many of the traps of my own ideological heritage, and amid the expectant optimism of the Flower Age, I must also acknowledge that the history, as I understand it, includes the potential of such raw communal energy leading to some ugly mob behavior. I mean, come on ... that was supposed to be the "enlightened" left during the Flower Age.
If the New American Century ruptures into a new Flower tantrum, I have considerably higher expectations of the Flower Children.
They went way over the line in their anger on many occasions.
That injustice is what I refer to.
The war may go horribly, but the Left in general has a hard time saving face whenever it goes vigilante. Due process, not personal satisfaction, is the proper demand of the Left in the face of a war it finds repugnant. Just as due process ought to be the minimum standard of any war the Left finds favorable.
Every soldier in Iraq signed on willingly. A deserter said he'd served his term, and claims it was the US who broke contract. I ... I don't necessarily agree, but I haven't read all the fine print. This war is an atrocity, and while we ought not go out of our way to harass soldiers returning from Iraq or whatever action one disapproves of, we need not defer automatically to the nobility and honor of the soldier, in this or any other country.
I mean, I have no ill words whatsoever for the soldiers in the Solomon Islands. As I understand it, they're doing exactly what soldiers are supposed to be doing, and quite well. Perhaps there's some press I'm missing somewhere, but that whole operation seems impressive.
The shock and awe shown by some of my American neighbors, the rumblings of a press corps seeking a headline and stirring up all sorts of crap in the water cooler, and the mantra of "God bless the USA," and the wrecking of the seventh-inning stretch, and the whole of the war culture seems bent on lending moral legitimacy to a bunch of volunteers who chose to follow their presidents come Hell or heavy sandstorm. If the duty undertaken by these volunteers includes the New American Century, then I think right there is a strike against the automatic deference of honor and respect to the modern (American) soldier.
But beyond the suspension of automatic moral elevation, these soldiers, too, are human. We owe them some compassion in the face of their sins when they sin. And yes, I have a little more compassion for the conscripts as well. Doesn't mean you don't hold them responsible. But apparently I'm the only one who sees the difference between a frightened teenage conscript failing to understand the problems of some of his orders and the idea of a volunteer who, in conscious choosing of the warring path, has less reason to have missed or to forget on occasion certain points of refinement.
You're right. All human beings are exactly alike. Circumstances have nothing to do with anything.
