Let slip the blogs of war
Victor Lams, whom I like very much, has issued a challenge to those of us who favor war: Put up or shut up. Now, don't get hung up on the tone--Victor has said he's not feeling well, and the blog is somewhat less temperate on the subject than he actually feels. But I think he and all those who say this (generally about wars *they* don't believe in) are completely, utterly wrong. (See here for my reasoning on why the coming war is a just war. Come to think of it, scroll around some, too, as I have posted various bits and pieces on that. I will get off the war for a while very soon, and get back to topics on daily life, but this is important, and their are too many lukewarm pacifists dominating the blogwaves right now.)
First, my bonafides: I failed a DoD physical in 1992 for various (minor) reasons, but enough sadly to keep me from fighting drug smugglers in the Carib in the USCG. So, I tried to put up, and the armed forces told me to shut up. That's actually kind of embarassing, which is why I won't say anything more about it, but I just wanted you to know I at least tried, and stand to lose several good friends in any prolonged violent conflict.
But even though I'm sympathetic to the point (otherwise, I wouldn't have felt compelled to put that last paragraph in), I don't think it actually holds water. It would be one thing to support the war but Run Off To Canada (the *other* ROTC) when your draft number is called. But that is not the same thing as failing to volunteer for a task that you think needs doing. Acting as a deterrent to direct aggression, for instance, is probably a mission for the military Victor supports (judging solely from his blog) but he never volunteered to patrol the GIUK gap on a 688-class submarine. Carrying a rifle in the DMZ in Korea is challenging, risky service that most Americans think is moral and just, but so far, many people who support it haven't volunteered for that either.
Forget the military. I think it a good idea to arrest violent criminals and put out fires, but I have never seriously considered being either a cop or a policeman. If I suggest that what is needed is for cops to get more aggressive arresting criminals, will the "put up or shut up" folks tell me to become a cop or else just live with the crime? Hardly.
My point is, you need not volunteer to fight a particular conflict to think it just or worth doing. The conflict is objectively just, or it is not, and my willingness to participate has very little to do with it. It may have a lot to do with how loudly I will declare *political* support of it, but the alliance between morally correct and politically feasible is tenuous. The question is not, "would you volunteer?" but "would you run away?" And if you would run away from fighting in a particular conflict, then, I agree, you really should stuff your piehole and sit down about it. But not because that makes the conflict unjust, simply because cowardice is unseemly, and loud cowardice especially so.
Victor Lams, whom I like very much, has issued a challenge to those of us who favor war: Put up or shut up. Now, don't get hung up on the tone--Victor has said he's not feeling well, and the blog is somewhat less temperate on the subject than he actually feels. But I think he and all those who say this (generally about wars *they* don't believe in) are completely, utterly wrong. (See here for my reasoning on why the coming war is a just war. Come to think of it, scroll around some, too, as I have posted various bits and pieces on that. I will get off the war for a while very soon, and get back to topics on daily life, but this is important, and their are too many lukewarm pacifists dominating the blogwaves right now.)
First, my bonafides: I failed a DoD physical in 1992 for various (minor) reasons, but enough sadly to keep me from fighting drug smugglers in the Carib in the USCG. So, I tried to put up, and the armed forces told me to shut up. That's actually kind of embarassing, which is why I won't say anything more about it, but I just wanted you to know I at least tried, and stand to lose several good friends in any prolonged violent conflict.
But even though I'm sympathetic to the point (otherwise, I wouldn't have felt compelled to put that last paragraph in), I don't think it actually holds water. It would be one thing to support the war but Run Off To Canada (the *other* ROTC) when your draft number is called. But that is not the same thing as failing to volunteer for a task that you think needs doing. Acting as a deterrent to direct aggression, for instance, is probably a mission for the military Victor supports (judging solely from his blog) but he never volunteered to patrol the GIUK gap on a 688-class submarine. Carrying a rifle in the DMZ in Korea is challenging, risky service that most Americans think is moral and just, but so far, many people who support it haven't volunteered for that either.
Forget the military. I think it a good idea to arrest violent criminals and put out fires, but I have never seriously considered being either a cop or a policeman. If I suggest that what is needed is for cops to get more aggressive arresting criminals, will the "put up or shut up" folks tell me to become a cop or else just live with the crime? Hardly.
My point is, you need not volunteer to fight a particular conflict to think it just or worth doing. The conflict is objectively just, or it is not, and my willingness to participate has very little to do with it. It may have a lot to do with how loudly I will declare *political* support of it, but the alliance between morally correct and politically feasible is tenuous. The question is not, "would you volunteer?" but "would you run away?" And if you would run away from fighting in a particular conflict, then, I agree, you really should stuff your piehole and sit down about it. But not because that makes the conflict unjust, simply because cowardice is unseemly, and loud cowardice especially so.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home