Look Away
I have a brother in the Army who has been to Afghanistan and Iraq three times now. In so many ways he is a deeply good man, but I get uncomfortable when he starts talking about the Iraqi/Afghan people. I’m sure he tones down what he says a great deal in my presence, and yet it is still so harsh, so dehumanizing, so bigoted. Nuke’em all! He says and laughs, but only half joking, or maybe he’s dead serious, it’s hard to tell. This part of my brother I just don’t, maybe can’t, understand.
My bleeding heart liberal self cringes, these are God’s precious children, just like us. I find no humor or solace, only horror in the idea of killing them all with a big easy boom. And I want my brother to feel the same way, to see their humanity and the individual and collective tragedy of their pain.
But putting aside the politics of this particular war (please) How can I ask my brother to go out day after day and examine bits of twisted metal and blown up bodies, bodies of people he knew and worked with and loved, how can I ask him to kill people to keep me safe, and at the same time demand that he look on those people without bias? To see them as fully human, every bit as human, as divine in their natures, as the friends he’s lost, or himself, or me?
When I try to wrap my mind about doing it my own self, I don’t think I could, I don’t think I’m that strong or whatever it is one must be to do such a thing. So do I really have any right to be disappointed that my brother can not?
i think you’re right to see his bigotry as a possible method of self-defense. when you’re required to treat people as if they weren’t people (ie, shoot and kill them), sometimes the only thing you can do to not go insane is make them inhuman in your mind.
this is one of the biggest problems with the military, in my opinion. the very nature of a soldier’s experience requires an us vs them attitude which is almost always destructive and never adequate to any real, complicated problem solving. the problem feeds itself.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — March 4, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
I agree that he’s probably protecting himself - and I’m not totally sure that he necessarily needs to see things in a different way. Remember as a soldier in (or near) combat it’s not his job to treat the other side with compassion; it’s his job to kill people (or help kill people, as the case may be). The only thing that separates him from a mass murderer is that those people aren’t just people - they’re enemies. It could be that they can only be enemies for him and nothing more, or how could he do what those soldiers are asked to do?
You are removed from that situation, and therefore you can be compassionate and view “the other side” as the children of God that they are, as you should. You can have a vested interest in making sure that things work out for the enemy as well as they do for you, which is what all of us lucky enough to be outside of actual combat should be working towards. Soldiers in combat often develop a kind of “battle myopia” - they can only have the narrow view of us and them because they’re locked in such a limited existence for so long. Those of us who are left outside of conflict have the responsibility to keep the larger view.
Comment by OhMissJulie — March 4, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
You just nailed the worst part of war - even defensive, “righteous” war. In order to avoid insanity, it hardens hearts and marginalizes others. I am not a hardcore pacifist, but I hate war.
I also think this concept has an appropriate application to any kind of harsh contention - not just warfare. That’s worth considering, imo, especially before we judge others for how they act and what attitudes they assimilate in their own “battles”.
The Danger of Safe Contention
Comment by Ray — March 4, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
I know I have recommended this movie previously, but “Saints and Soldiers” is incredible - truly astounding in its simplicity and profound messages.
Comment by Ray — March 4, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
As a military wife myself, I can tell you how much I hate this mentality, but at the same time, it’s part of their survival. It’s how they survive their job everyday, and how they get up every morning and move on. While I don’t “like” it, I know my husband is not a mass murderer, and I know he would never intentionally hurt someone that was innocent. He does what he has to do to protect his family, and our freedoms. While I know it isn’t “fun” to hear it, it’s how they make it through each day. My husband would not be able to do his job (just because of the morbidity of it), if he couldn’t joke about it and make it just a little less “personal”. Unfortunately, it comes with the territory and the nature of the job. However sad that may be. So in all honesty, I would say don’t judge until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes. I hate when my husband comes home and talks/jokes in that manner, but it’s honestly the only way he knows how to live through it and be okay. So I just step back and be understanding that I will never know/understand everything that he has gone through/goes through and love him and support him the best I can.
Comment by Dani — March 4, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
My grandfather fought in the Pacific Theater in WWII. He never knowingly purchased a Japanese made item for the rest of his life. Although he never talked openly about his experiences around children, and then rarely around adults, the family was able to piece together some of his experiences. He was involved in forced marches as the Japanese soldiers decimated villages and their occupants. At times he subsisted on raw birds caught by hand.
War is hell. The experiences your brother has had are fresh and raw. He is most likely suffering some form of post traumatic stress disorder as the majority of soldiers do after returning from a war zone, and he’s been three times. There is no set process of decompression in returning to the civilian world, and expecting that he make the transition at all quickly is a disservice. You cannot truly expect him to see the man (an all those he represents) shooting at him as having the same relationship level as he sees his family members.
My brother served twice in Iraq. Without him saying in so many words and also knowing his job description, I know that he has killed people, and has also seen many he was close to killed. As opposed to your brother, mine has taken my Grandfather’s closed mouth approach to dealing with his thoughts.
As a word of hope, by the time I was old enough to be aware of war (granted, this is decades after the war ended), although my dear Grandfather never purchased anything Japanese made, he never spoke ill of the Japanese people (soldiers were another story). He was not rude or unkind and was well acquainted with several people of Japanese descent in his later life.
I have no other advice except patience. This is something that your brother will have to work through and cannot be forced upon him. Depending on his experiences, it may take years or decades. I recently read the book “The Shack”. The author’s characterization of the Godhead, his view of organized religion, and the purpose of the commandments aside, it was a beautiful saga of getting to know God personally and recognizing His love for His children, regardless of who they are or what they have done. It also dealt with mans’ propensity to take God’s role as judge to be their own right and duty. You need to be careful to not judge your brother harshly for his perceptions gained from experiences you have not shared.
Comment by JJ — March 4, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
My foster son did three tours over there as well. He was not as hardened. However, you must understand that they are in a much different situation there than we enjoy in our ignorant little lives. When you are over there and a child walks up to you, you have no way of knowing if that child is carrying a bomb. In addition, they were essentially attacked by the locals who were looking for food. It is a hard situation over there that we can’t really comprehend. My son is in his early twenties and has lost all of his hair and has shrapnel scars. What he did was an amazing sacrifice not just for me but for those of you whom he does not even know. I think that the important thing for you is to understand that your brother is doing an amazing thing for you and his fellow countrymen. We need to praise him rather than criticise him. Until we have walked a mile in his shoes, it is really not our place to complain.
Comment by StillConfused — March 4, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
My father is retired military, served in five wars and is currently abroad helping with some of the conflict. He’s been emailing my children and explaining to them what his role is and why he’s volunteered now twice to go back and help. (My children want to know why Grandpa keeps vanishing for so long.) His letters are enlightening for ME to read - he describes to my children that there was a group of people trying to hurt others and the American AND Iraqi soldiers and police officers are doing all they can to help protect the innocent people being hurt, to repair the damage, to find the people that are hurting others and stop them. For a large part of his career he’s worked with an international group of soldiers and I’m sure that’s influenced his view - he never speaks of us vs. them in relation to nationality. It’s about the good guys (from ALL countries) trying to stop the bad guys and within these countries there so many good people suffering because of the choices of a few. He’s been up close to a lot of ugliness over the years but I appreciate that through it all, he’s always made the distinction that there are righteous and selfless and heroic people in these countries and we need to help them.
So I’ve not served in the military, but I’m grateful as a military brat to be taught that there are good people everywhere and we need to be careful to not treat an entire country as the enemy.
Comment by Heidi — March 4, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
I have a brother who was in Iraq as well. We simply cannot talk anymore about this. Nobody killing people who are defending their countries from illegal foreign invaders is doing wrong. People invading are doing wrong. Yet we don’t see our loved ones as criminals even though they are committing a crime. In Nuremberg we were told ‘I was just following orders’ was no excuse. Yet here we either accept it as an excuse, or else villify Iraqis and call them ingrates to try and pretend that what our relatives did is defending us when it is nothing of the sort. I look at my brother. I look at my friends who have been in Iraq. I love them. But I can’t defend what they did. Millions of Iraqis are suffering because of what they did and are doing, and my brother wants to be called a liberator. And other friends want to lecture me about how evil Iraqis are or say things like nuke ‘em all. And I’m like Lisa, I can’t throw it back in their face. I also know many of these kids we send to kill and occupy, have no idea. They believe they’re defending us. While the big mass murder politicians get away with it all. Because they’re Ameican and not Serbian or Arab or Iranian or whoever the bad guy inferior race of the month is. It’s frustrating. I love my brother. I love my friends. Yet they’ve committed a crime. Without even knowing it most of the time. A crime without a criminal. And the big criminals go free because they’re powerful. And no one is ever held accountable. And millions in Iraq suffer for nothing. I have no answers, only frustration and anger. Anger I suppose I just have to give to God and let him sort out. And let us go on living, even if in Iraq they aren’t given that right. Letting go. Guess it’s the only way to keep going. The world is too messy, but it’s the only one we’ve got I guess.
Comment by anon for this one — March 4, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
The military actively teaches the soldiers to think that way. Other wise, when they have a split second to shoot or be shot, they see the person as a person and they hesitate to pull the trigger. Then they die. So, it is more than just to keep their sanity in the situation, it is to stay alive. You cannot consider someone a human being with feelings and family and then shoot them. My father was a WWII vet and he said that those with any compassion for the “enemy” were the first fatalities because they hesitated. He talked about propaganda films that showed the Germans as less than human. He also said when it came to ocupation, and suddenly the enemy is not the enemy, that some of the men couldn’t do it. He fell in love with a German girl during the occupation, but he would never have married her because she was German and beneath him.
Comment by alas — March 4, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
To paraphrase Patton: Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other guy die for his country.
And anon–there is a difference between what soldiers are doing now in Iraq and Afghanistan than what the Nazis were doing in Germany. I am sorry for you if you can’t tell the difference.
Comment by CS Eric — March 4, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
CS Eric - I guarantee you I know the difference in far far far more intimate detail than you think.
Comment by anon for this one — March 4, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
I think #9 kind of hit on what is confusing to me as a civilian- the way we have labeled the Iraqis as insurgents, or evil, for essentially defending themselves and their country the only way they know how.
If another country invaded us, wouldn’t we fight against them and try and keep them from getting control?
It seems like it is definitely a coping mechanism to say things like “nuke ‘em all” or use racial epithets. But to me (I mean no offense) it can also seem like a bit of denial of the real problem- these people are reacting to the situation that we forced upon them by invading. And it seems it’s gotten twisted into “what a bunch of ungrateful Iraqis, I liberated them, and they’re trying to kill me!”. I don’t think it’s the military service men and women’s fault, I think it’s the fault of the terms in which this war was couched, if that makes sense- Operation Iraqi Freedom, for example. So then you have all of these brave people, risking their lives, being told it’s for Iraqi Freedom, and then when the people they’re “freeing” attack them, I can’t even imagine how that must feel.
Comment by sophia*rising — March 4, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
#9 - Just in case, I hope you didn’t read my comment and think I was describing the war in Iraq as “defensive” and “righteous”. I didn’t mean that - not at all.
Comment by Ray — March 4, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
yep, total defense mechanism. my husband is former military, but wasn’t a ground troop, so he didn’t see stuff like that. he’s now a cop and he sees all sorts of awful things (though obviously not as awful as what happens in war). they laugh and joke about car accidents and how stupid the guy whose brains are lying on the freeway must have been. it was jarring at first. the first accident where a kid was involved, he came home and just cried. i realized that my husband wasn’t being cold-hearted, it’s just how they cope. give your brother a hug and try to put it out of your mind. he’s seen awful things.
Comment by makakona — March 4, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
If another country invaded us, wouldn’t we fight against them and try and keep them from getting control?
ya incidentally the minutemen of the american revolution would have been called “terrorists” today, yet we marvel at their ingenuity.
interesting about acknowledgement of the humanity of the enemy actually being dangerous. i recently heard a story about an ambush in WWII where the allies snuck up on some Germans and shot them all except one, who was going to the bathroom. he panicked and was trying to pull his pants up and hopping around naked, and no one had the heart to shoot him like that.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — March 4, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
My dh-to-be is a recent LDS convert and recently retired Ranger. As a therapist who treats veterans, I’m extremely curious about his experience and pester him with questions, but he remains mum on the subject. All he will admit is that he felt the Lord’s presence on many occasion protecting him out in the field, but that after many years in service he had to retire as he felt like he was becoming “a monster” [his words]. He freely admits that while his job required him to be skilled/talented at killing, it began to affect him negatively physically, spiritually, emotionally, etc., regardless of the reasons he was performing these acts. His experience is unique because he recognized how his “job/career” was affecting him AND he could retire and chose to leave. Many others cannot or could not.
As for how to respond to your brother, Lisa, I think you are right to be concerned - you are asking very important questions especially when considering how to respond. Those serving do struggle (as everyone has mentioned above), even if they make dehumanizing comments. How do we support them, while being compassionate towards all God’s children? IMhumbleO there are a number of ways you could respond. You could ask your brother to talk about what he does to help you understand his perspective, but he might choose not to out of self-preservation. Most likely on some level he has the same concerns as you do, but many military feel that if they open that emotional door (anger, fear, shame, guilt, etc) they might not be able to shut it back again when they need to do their job and stay alive. And, unfortunately if your job involves killing others, you might have to cling to that emotional shut-down in order to cope/survive the task at hand. I might even guess that he makes comments (half jokingly) to cope with the futility of it all or to see how others will respond to him. He might be gauging your response in his attempt to make sense of it himself.
We also know from PTSD literature that for some, upon their return from service, they will struggle mightily with all these questions of “right or wrong,” shame and guilt, justification, anger of injustice, etc. regardless if we are the “winners” or the “losers” of the battle. It appears that the final outcome of the war doesn’t change those emotional responses that are normal affects of killing and seeing others be killed. My humble suggestion would be to continue to offer compassion for your brother as he will most likely turn to those that have provided support in the past if he struggles with negative emotions in the future.
Comment by AuntieJo — March 4, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
has anyone here seen Munich? i just watched that last night, it would seem to have some bearing on this topic. its a difficult movie, but very good.
and not to make light of these issues, but dam eric bana makes the 80’s look good.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — March 4, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
Why doesn’t prayer stop war?
Comment by Ruby — March 4, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Lisa,
This is a failure of the leadership of the military. General Petraeus wrote the latest version of counterintelligence manual, and in it he clearly writes that a successful counterinsurgency must do all in its power to protect ‘civilians.’ In a place like Afghanistan, it is extremely hard to differentiate between a civilian and an insurgent. The current American policy is to err on the side of protecting the American soldier, but this means that there are numerous instances where civilians die in Afghanistan. This makes our mission there much harder. What our generals should be training their soldiers to do is to realize that they must actually risk their lives to ensure that the civilian of Afghanistan is protected more than the American soldier is protected. The American soldier must be trained, upon going to Afghanistan or Iraq, that the people there are never going to be like Americans. They need to be trained that Afghans and Iraqis are just as valuable human beings as Americans, but they are different culturally. We’re not there to install American values, and attempts to do so will be met with failure. When our soldiers can realize this as they go over there, they might have a better chance of treating them better, and of not having as many civilians die needlessly.
Comment by Dan — March 4, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
Ruby,
Because prayer does not have the capability of removing the ability from others the opportunity to choose for themselves what they do with their lives. Prayer may soften other people’s hearts, but prayer cannot force others to do acts against their own will and desires.
Comment by Dan — March 4, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
As a former member of the military, I ask you to please suspend judgement on soldiers in Iraq. These are men and women living on the knife edge of life or death every minute of every day. If you have never lived under those conditions, you have no idea of how it effects you.
It is easy to sit back and say “Well, they should just see that what they’re doing is wrong, and refuse to fight this unjust war.” But you have no idea about the ramifications of such an act. The time for making a stand of that nature comes before they sign enlistment papers. Once those papers are signed, any refusal to follow orders results in court-martial and usually, dishonorable discharge. And while some people might think that is more honorable than waging war on “innocent civilians” (more on that in a sec), they don’t have to live with the life consequences of a dishonorable discharge that will effect them the rest of their lives and effect any future job they apply for; effect them in ways most people will never understand unless they have been in the miltary.
Sophia*rising, the military is not waging war against civilians. The average joe Iraqi civilians are very appreciative of what the US military is doing. It is the fanatical groups -insurgents( i.e. a person who revolts against civil authority or established government)- and considered fanatical to their own countrymen - that are fighting against the US military.
fMhLisa, when your brother says “Nuke ‘em all”, he is probably speaking in anger against the helplessness that the military feels in combating these “insurgents”. The Iraqis feel an equal helplessness, because they know they have no way of dealing with the insurgents once the US pulls out.
And it is hard for military personnel to speak to their families and others about their experiences, because unless you’ve lived it, there is no way you can understand.
Comment by Megan — March 4, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
Ruby, maybe it’s because too many people are praying that their side will win - not that the war actually will stop regardless of the outcome.
I didn’t think I’d ever say this to you, but you might be interested in a post from my personal blog:
Love Thine Enemies
Comment by Ray — March 4, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
I also hav
Comment by Naismith — March 4, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
I would give him the book “Three Cups of Tea” for Christmas
Comment by granolagirl — March 4, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
#22 Megan-
I don’t think I ever said in my comment that the soldiers are waging war against civilians. I remember carefully choosing my words so as not to come off as painting the soldiers as horrible people attacking civilians- I don’t feel that way at all, and that wasn’t the point of my comment. I was referring to the terms we use, and how those terms may exacerbate the need to react in the ways that the original post was referring to.
Comment by sophia*rising — March 4, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
that’s something most Americans will never have to wrap their minds around… yet… Dan, I would never err in favor of a questionable civilian/insurgent rather than one of my comrades… Pontificate on it all you want on it with Petraeus but he never got shot at and it sounds like you never have either… Counter-insurgency is like curing AIDs… As for most soldiers and some officers that have been we’ve earned the right to have our **** it all attitude towards that part of the world… that’s untouchable… Anon, I never had illusions about protecting ignorant Americans like yourself, never wanted to be called a liberator I’ve been for my brothers in arms… You have no right to throw anything in anyones face unless you’ve been. So basically the gist of what i’m saying is unless you’ve been you don’t have the RIGHT to pass judgment. It’s pretty simple, people… if our military disappeared tomorrow we’d be be up the proverbial fecal matter creek sans paddle… I joined when Clinton was Pres. Americans should have learned the “don’t blame the troops” lesson after Vietnam… and by the way for a state whose majority is LDS your religion was not even close to being represented in a like percentage in my unit..
Sgt. Russell Jackson
Comment by theorangeghost1964 — March 4, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
You have no right to throw anything in anyones face unless you’ve been. So basically the gist of what i’m saying is unless you’ve been you don’t have the RIGHT to pass judgment.
Sgt -
I’m a big supporter of the military, but that line is just pure garbage. It’s akin to that odious line about “if you don’t like it here, you can leave.” Your service, as honorable as it may be, doesn’t give you right to tell the people whose interests you’re defending what to think. Adopting that attitude doesn’t win you any support, either at home or in the halls of Congress. So stuff it already.
Comment by queuno — March 4, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
fMhLisa - I want to thank you for offering this discussion. Certainly gives us a lot to ponder and digest concerning our own behaviors. I want to add that I realize that I blabbed on (an on) about compassion, when in reality I have yet to find that “easy on/off” switch for compassion within myself. Perhaps compassion for those we love and even those we don’t even know is harder than it we wish it would be.
Comment by AuntieJo — March 4, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Lisa–
This is, I believe, the greatest sadness in war: that we actually break the people who volunteer to do our part. We dehumanize the people in the military. If they were not dehumanized, they couldn’t do the horrific things we say are their job description. I both pity and fear soldiers–I find them entirely unpredictable because we literally broke them.
It makes me very sad.
Comment by esodhiambo/ESO — March 4, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
queneno… I stand behind my statement 100 percent for the people mentioned… As for defending “your interests” that never really was much of a factor for me.. so don’t flatter yourself.. I never tell people what to think about Iraq but if you want to talk about it, don’t wring your wrists about some strong opinions from people that were there… Yeah my service whatever you think of it does give me the right to say “DON’T PASS JUDGEMENT UNLESS YOU’VE BEEN THERE” pretty simple concept… people used to get it…
mmmhmmm
Comment by theorangeghost1964 — March 4, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
Sgt - You have every freedom to think that way of people who don’t agree with you. That’s what you’re fighting for, the ability of people to think whatever they want. Even if you don’t like it.
(But people pass judgment all the time. And you’d better get used to it.)
Comment by queuno — March 4, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
I don’t think youre in any position to tell ME what I was fighting for… I never said what I thought of people that disagree with me, I just mentioned the fact that if you haven’t been you’re in no position to pass judgment on those who have, sorry if that’s a little harsher than your reality TV shows… sure people can pass judgment all they want, the last person that did (in Park City, surprise, surprise) got a cigarette butt flicked in their face by one of my friends after calling me a baby killer… There are common sense lines you don’t cross… If you want to argue with me point for point what’s so out of line with what I said have at it…
mmhmm
Comment by theorangeghost1964 — March 5, 2009 @ 12:17 am
I love the men and women in the armed forces and the sacrifices that they make for me and others on a daily basis. They have my true and undying admiration and respect. I am honored that I am able to share this planet with them at this time.
Comment by StillConfused — March 5, 2009 @ 1:06 am
I feel the same as #34.
Comment by AuntieJo — March 5, 2009 @ 1:14 am
All you have to do to support our national wars of aggression and revenge in Iraq and Afghanistan is to ignore Section 98, reject the pure doctrines and teachings of Christ, and pledge allegiance to the false gods of nationalism (See Pres. Kimball’s “The False Gods we Worship circa 1976)— And yes engage in individual and collective cognitive spiritual dissonance.
Comment by Ron Madson — March 5, 2009 @ 2:11 am
It is very frustrating to me that speaking out against any acts or attitudes of the members of the military is met with such defense and/or condemnation.
Being against what the military does doesn’t mean that you are against the soldiers themselves. I honor the women and men who serve our country. Are they perfect, however? no.
The only way to do such dehumanizing acts as murdering other human beings is to see them as ‘less than human.’ That was exactly the technique of many attempts at genocide in the history of our world’s civilizations. i.e. Hitler’s Nazis during WWII.
I’m not saying that we are committing genocide, but in order for us to somehow rationalize the irrational, we bend our ways of thinking, or in this case, seeing other people. In my opinion, war in general is constructed to the people on both sides as not only the ONLY means of survival, but the necessary step for the other party as well.
This goes for the other side as well, because they wouldn’t be murdering and/or attempting to murder the American soldiers if they saw them as equal to themselves. No one would, in good conscience, kill her/his brothers and sisters.
My heart is saddened for your brother, for there may be one day when he wakes up and realizes that perhaps he was blinded by the ideology as a means of survival at the time.
Comment by Brianna W — March 5, 2009 @ 2:47 am
Brianna:
Serving in the military is a tragedy and not to be honored in my opinion. Yes, honorable and christlike people have served and do serve but such service is based on a a gross misunderstanding of the gospel of Christ. We owe it to them and future conscripts or volunteers to not seek to “honor their sacrifice” by placing additional victims on the altar of these false gods—the very line Bush and others have used when they say we must engage in MORE murder to honor the killing of those i the past. The First Presidency understood this tragedy when it issued it’s statement in 1945 denouncing the creation of the draft http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/churchs-opposition-to-draft-in-1945 Like the early christians we have over time and generations sold out to the false worship of nationalism.
Comment by Ron Madson — March 5, 2009 @ 3:25 am
Every morning I sit through a brief of all those injured or killed in Iraq. I don’t like the details. I see footage of bombs being dropped on the enemy. I know that some of these enemy have shot at me. They want to kill me. I don’t understand why. They think they are right. They probably feel more right than I do. What a horrible mess we are in.
Please let each who is forced to experience the worst of life deal with it the best they can. Some have experienced that which cannot be endured by themselves. They need help.
In the end, God, who understands, will judge us fairly and with the mercy that Christ provides. This is what the atonement is all about. For the soldiers, for the enemy, for us all.
Comment by Man in Iraq — March 5, 2009 @ 4:15 am
Ron:
Be careful putting words into the mouth of the First Presidency. Just because they opposed the draft in 1945 doesn’t mean that they and every First Presidency after them are against war in every circumstance. More likely, the act of taking any and every young man regardless of temperament, that blatant disregard for agency, was coming under condemnation more than war itself. Otherwise, the First Presidency would have banned the act of going to war for Latter-day Saints altogether.
Keep in mind also that the letter you cite was addressed to senators whose obligation it was to vote the minds of their constituents–not the members of the Church. As such, I hesitate to view such a letter for doctrinal statements. If it was supposed to be doctrinal, and not a plea of pathos to those of civil authority, it would have been written much differently, and read over the pulpit in a general conference.
More than anything else, it’s essential to remember that the First Presidency supports the agenda of Heavenly Father, who has been known to remove His children from this earth through war and the shedding of blood. Even a cursory reading of the Book of Mormon proves that to be true over and over again.
Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t the most ideal of settings where we can see our mission as one of “Me Nephite, you Lamanite.” But you’ll never convince me that we should have blamed ourselves for 9/11 and taken no action, or ignored the clear and present threat that Saddam Hussein posed to his people and to others. To ignore such heinous acts and presence in the world, in my mind, is a greater sin than going to war. I’ve talked to too many men who served in both places that have told me that what we did was necessary, that good is coming of it for both present and future generations, that the story we hear on the news of a failed cause isn’t real. I’ll take their perspective over CNN any day because it’s easy to point fingers when we’re half a world away. These soldiers were there, and have no reason to lie about things I can’t disprove anyway.
If you want to reject our soldiers on the grounds of rejecting war and violence, fine. Realize that you condemn Moroni, Ammon, Teancum, Nephi, the Stripling Warriors, the mothers who taught them, and all the other courageous men in women who were doing as God commanded so we could have the scriptures we treasure so much. Because I don’t want to do that, I look at war as something that has proven to be a necessary tool in the hands of Heavenly Father, something He could ask us to engage in at ANY time.
If we are smart, we will realize that we are in the last days–that these days will involve war, and we will keep our hearts willing and our mouths shut on the subject. When Christ came the first time, He said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword,” and I can’t imagine that the next time He comes will be all hugs and daisies either.
Comment by Paradox — March 5, 2009 @ 4:23 am
In Alma it states:
” But behold, because of the exceedingly great length of the war between the Nephites and the Lamanites many had become hardened, because of the exceedingly great length of the war; and many were softened because of their afflictions, insomuch that they did humble themselves before God, even in the depth of humility. ”
I think too often we don’t think about the impact that war will have on the survivors. Living in the D.C. area there are many members of the military and other related occupations, such as intelligence, that I associate with. I have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult to be involved in these occupations and not become twisted.
I have two examples that come to mind. There was a marine in my ward who worked in intelligence and had been to the Middle East more than once. He is getting close to being able to retire. I commented once to him that he should easily be able to get a job with a contractor once he is out. He stated what I was thinking. It’s a dirty job, even if necessary, and he wants to get out of it and completely away from it.
The second is a book I read a few years ago. Love My Rifle More Than You. It was written by a young woman who worked as a translater in the military in Iraq. Her work involved translating but not interrogating. She writes about an incident where she was once called to assist in an interrogation. She talked about even though she didn’t believe in the abuse how good if felt to take some out on the person she was interrogating. It was her chance to take some revenge for living in the dirt, the bad food, the heat, the verbal abuse etc.
She also stated that it was her opinion that the young man who they were interrogating was not a terrorist. But by the time they were done with him he was a terrorist.
It’s a messy business and many of us are too eager for it.
The Army has a need for people. I suggest the Ms Paradox give it a try if she believes the U.S. is currently engaged in a “righteous” war.
Comment by Cyclingred — March 5, 2009 @ 7:01 am
27:
31:
I see you are distinguishing between rights earned and rights given–could you explain the distinction? And how does volunteering for the life of an enlisted serviceman in the US armed forces give you special claim to these moral entitlements?
33:
Also, how exactly does flicking cigarette butts in the faces of name callers square with your duty to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
Comment by Peter LLC — March 5, 2009 @ 7:26 am
34:
Do you mean all of God’s children serving in the armed forces, wherever they may be in the service of whatever country, or just the American ones?
Personally, I really respect the sacrifice of the men of the ROKA who guard the thin line between peace and prosperity and utter annhilation for the two years of their mandatory conscription without even a housing allowance or tuition assistance program to sweeten the pot.
Comment by Peter LLC — March 5, 2009 @ 7:37 am
The only obstacle to you respecting the service of American servicemen/women is the fact that some receive tuition assistance and/or a housing allowance?
Comment by MAC — March 5, 2009 @ 8:54 am
#40 Paradox
I think this is part of the problem in general. You say ————
“More than anything else, it’s essential to remember that the First Presidency supports the agenda of Heavenly Father, who has been known to remove His children from this earth through war and the shedding of blood. Even a cursory reading of the Book of Mormon proves that to be true over and over again.”
and this—————–
“If we are smart, we will realize that we are in the last days–that these days will involve war, and we will keep our hearts willing and our mouths shut on the subject. When Christ came the first time, He said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword,” and I can’t imagine that the next time He comes will be all hugs and daisies either.”
I really can’t stand the use of some of the most violent parts of scriptures to be twisted into an admonishment to not oppose war. Or this idea that “well, it’s the end of days, eff this place anyway, it means Jesus is coming back, yay!”.
Comment by sophia*rising — March 5, 2009 @ 9:00 am
I don’t understand your question–do you mean to say that respect of servicemen/women a zero sum game? That respect for one group rules out respect for another?
If your answer is “yes,” then I can see how you would mistakenly think that my respect for brave Koreans rules out respect for Americans.
Comment by Peter LLC — March 5, 2009 @ 9:47 am
that is the best answer yet.
and
what the hell is this:
do you think we shouldn’t be paying for a soldier’s education? housing?
Comment by mfranti — March 5, 2009 @ 10:08 am
I used to have a very naieve attitude about the middle east. I would read discussions in my Forbes magazine about the problems over there but turned a blind eye because i didn’t feel that it affected me. Then 911 happened. For me, that was an eye opener. We can’t just turn a blind eye. We are a target.
I wish there was a way that the military could only protect those who support the military.
Comment by StillConfused — March 5, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Only if “TLDR” is your motto…
Comment by Peter LLC — March 5, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Paradox,
I am confident that I do not read the BOM the same as most—a book and pattern to be learned from and not mimicked. It was founded in murder by Nephi (in a Girardian sense) and ended like the Jaredites in extinction. The choice was always the same—the sword or the cross. Icons like Captain Moroni are to be pitied and not mimicked. The Nephites employ arguably the strongest and most virtuous among them for fourteen years and chapter by chapter we see Capt. Moroni grow in “exceeding anger” to the point that he finally mimics that which he deplores when he murders those that would not take an “oath” to fight on his side. The Stripling Warriors? They all suffered grievous wounds an PTSD…having abandoned understandably the highest celestial law and engaged in the lesser law of self defense…and then in a generation were assimilated into the Nephite culture and/or fled north never to be heard of again. Mormon gets it and sees the lunacy of it all.
As for today, it would be a vast improvement if we made even a feeble attempt to apply the self defense principles in our present empire instead of the Cheney “one percent doctrine” http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/in-defense-of-blackwater-gangs-neocons/#more-75 And it would be far too optimistic that we would actually READ and APPLY the “immutable covenant” found in DC 98….No, we would rather proof text some isolated passages and icons from the BOM to justify why we suffer from a collective mormon dyslexia where we think the “tenets” of section 89 are so precious while the test/immutable covenant of DC 98 is ignored from top to bottom…..we be the Nephites and Pres. Benson got it right—we are under condemnation unless we learn from BOM rather then replicate the pattern.
Comment by Ron Madson — March 5, 2009 @ 10:36 am
You know what they say about rain and sun–it falls/shines on the just and unjust alike. I dunno about you, but I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Comment by Peter LLC — March 5, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Why don’t we seem to consider it possible to kill with compassion? Native Americans used to perform rituals to give thanks/appease the spirits of the animals they killed. They were respectful and grateful.
I guess a lot of the difficulty comes from being a simple cog in the machinations of others. The choice to kill doesn’t belong to you, and so its hard to be sure it was necessary. There’s so much uncertainty you can’t be sure that the sacrifice of the person’s life won’t go to waste. And I imagine things are so regimented and there’s so much macho peer pressure around, when would a person find time to take some down time to mourn for what was lost and reflect on what that sacrifice means. Death is a very spiritual thing, but war is like factory farming it.
I don’t know where I’m going with this. It isn’t obvious to me that the ability to kill must be coupled with the dehumanization of the enemy, but it does seem clear to me that our current system encourages this mental view of the enemy, either that or they’re providing no mental preparation and soldiers are just having to deal with it on their own. I’m shocked every time I read about the tortures done at Bagram, was shocked by Abu Ghraib, and am continuing to be shocked as even more stories of abuse and their cover up continue to leak out.
Comment by barnetto — March 5, 2009 @ 11:00 am
barnetto:
“Factory farming it” is well said! Tolstoy understood that we do collectively what we would never do individually. As to torture, we have crossed so many tripwires of decency that we are mimicking as a people what the Nephites and Lamanites did at then end of the BOM when they began the process of torturing each other while citing the evils of the “others.” I would refer you to this account to begin to get a handle on the unfortunate Mormon connection to our torture program http://www.themormonworker.org/articles/issue3/dont_torture_in_my_name.php
Comment by Ron Madson — March 5, 2009 @ 11:08 am
I’m former Army. Currently a nurse. I’ve spent over 20 years volunteering various services through the VA and community outreach, with the majority of these donated services going directly to veterans suffering from PTSD and other forms of chronic stress syndromes. Succinctly, the veterans and their support network is my primary concern in this capacity.
No matter how informed you may be on the war or whatever your political/religious affiliation, the Sgt above spoke correctly on the subject of personal experience. On a lesser level, think of the male obstetrician who thinks he knows a lot about having babies- when the truth is, all the information in the world will not instruct him on what it really is to carry and push a child out. His will always be an opinion, albeit an informed one, but never completely so. There is no comprehension, without the direct experience, of the emergence of the survival instinct- and the protracted need for living and maintaining optimal performance 24/7 within a survival mentality and then, trying to turn off that switch at the stateside airport. This is simply beyond the scope of the average individual. Sure, we all have the right to judge, but in the interest of compassion and lack of direct experience, should we do so? Certainly the group stoning the adulteress thought they had that right…
Soldiers returning from any conflict are utilizing all their compensatory mechanisms and how these manifest can vary with the individual concerned- it also depends upon the veteran’s MOS (job), degree of conflict engagement, unit cohesion, unit morale, support from family, combat related losses (friends/allies), personal convictions related to situational killing (yes, soldiers do have them) and if they have returned wounded (and I tell you, even the physically intact soldiers are wounded). Criticism from the civilian sector is a particular source of pain (as demonstrated in Sgt’s cigarette flicking episode- I think the person calling him a baby killer was lucky these soldiers had enough of a handle on themselves to limit themselves to a somewhat innocuous gesture to such a grievous and probably unjustified accusation). It’s not wise to poke a tiger. Besides, how did he know he wasn’t talking to a person who had saved an entire village, and returned wounded as a result. Some veteran’s have the problem of resolving both the hero and villain within- save one person one day, kill someone the next…all in a day’s work. The worst judgments and criticism they level upon themselves.
Think you feel bad because you didn’t read your scriptures or do your visiting teaching? How about wondering if something you did or didn’t do got your buddy killed?
They are grieving. Each in his/her own way. Innocence is lost, in more ways than one. Personal peace is gone. Sleep is no longer a respite and even can become a source of torment. Dignity is compromised and damaged. Some learned that compassion is a luxury that they could ill afford…perhaps an act of compassion compromised unit safety at some point- or caused an entire village to be decimated by the enemy. Survival guilt kicks in. Split-second survival decisions are weighed and second-guessed once the heat of battle is past. Legitimate mistakes are agonized over.
For any of you concerned about the well-being of a combat active soldier- returned or actively engaged on a mission, please get your hands on materials relating to re-acclimation, PTSD and VA services available to both veterans and family.
Lisa, your questions and worry over your brother are legitimate. Families of veterans are often taken aback by the changes they see in their loved one. There are materials available from the VA- and online, concerning the adjustments pertaining to both vets and their families. It’s easy to judge and a lot harder to understand, especially if you’ve had the luxury of forming opinions in the safety of your living room. Just love him and appreciate the complexity in the nature of his work. You don’t have to agree with his point of view, that is very seldom required by soldiers- they understand that they have crucial information and experiences that are not reported here. They also cannot talk about many things they know.
In the interest of compassion, by all means, maintain your personal compassion for all of God’s children and celebrate the fact that it still comes naturally for you- but extend it also to the soldier who may have either temporarily or permanantly lost that ability due to severe trauma and experience of the cruelty and the nature of war.
Comment by Kimberly — March 5, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Kimberly,
I appreciate your insights and sincerity and knowledge. GIven the reality of what you have expressed above, isn’t it about time we took seriously the our doctrines and cut this madness off at the root? What I mean is that we have the option as a faith to apply our core doctrine and take a stand against our present wars of aggression and as an entire faith teach, promote and encourage wholesale conscientious objection for all members of our faith as the Seventh Day Adventist, the Amish, and the JWs have embraced. How long will we take the zealot approach? How long will we do it our way? How long will we confabulate history and say “God told us to do it” when the reality is that when God finally did come among us He said just the opposite by prefacing his comments with: “it has been said of old” or “it is written” BUT I am here to tell you that you got it all wrong. And yet now two thousand years later we are still taking the zealot option and wondering why the temple keeps crashing down around us.
Yes, the soldiers are victims and we and I do have compassion, but when will we cut this off at it’s root? When will we recognize that 9/11 is not the beginning but the obvious blowback for years of our intervention and aggression and killings innocent people in foreign lands. Our suffering is real and great but only a fraction of what we have inflicted on other nations over the decades..
Comment by Ron Madson — March 5, 2009 @ 11:40 am
One important fact that I think we tend to forget in these discussions is that not only are the members of the military willing to kill for the rest of us, they are willing to die for the rest of us.
In that sense, there is little difference between a soldier in the desert and a cop patrolling on the bad part of town or a firefighter going in to a building that most people are doing their best to get out of.
One of the tests at a police academy isn’t just whether the candidate is willing and able to shoot someone when they need to, it is whether they recognize whether the situation is one that requires them to do so, and whether they can tell who is the perp and who is the victim.
I frankly don’t know which is the bigger sacrifice that we ask of these people–their willingness to die for us, or their willingness to kill for us. Whether it’s in Iraq, Afghanistan, or in a crime-riddled neighborhood, there just aren’t that many people who are willing to stand on the line between civilization and chaos. Some times life is really brutal and ugly, and I am grateful there are people who are willing to deal with that brutality and ugliness so I don’t have to do it myself.
Comment by CS Eric — March 5, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Well said, Kimberly! (54)
41 — I thought about the military for a long time, all through high school. I took the ASVAB and could have had any vocation I wanted. But when it came down to making the final decision, it wasn’t my fight. Because of personal revelation, I can not only know that, but I’m not obligated to explain that to you. I would advise you not to make assumptions about things you know nothing about. (I’ve read the book you mentioned, by the way. I liked it. She did a good job of keeping her humanity.)
When something is not your fight, there are two things you really shouldn’t do–jump in and start throwing punches, and adding useless commentary from the sidelines. Both of those are really distracting to those whose place it is to be in the brawl.
45 — If you’re thinking that I’m saying, “Let this place fry,” then you don’t know how to read. What I’m saying is that this place WILL fry, regardless of how idealistic we want to be. Read Revelation. Read the Book of Mormon. Read the prophecies we’ve been given! THAT’S WHAT THEY SAY! And if you want to oppose war, fine. Do it. But do not mock those who are trying to support the men and women who have to fight.
Ron:
You fail to address that Moroni and the Stripling Warriors were blessed by the Lord in their military interests–with Moroni, on more than one occasion. The scriptures say that if more men were like Moroni, Hell would be shaken forever. Doesn’t sound like someone who needs any pity from me–my respect and gratitude, surely! But pity has always been the most inactive kind of compassion, and perhaps we should find better uses for our energy.
Sure, sometimes the choice is between the cross and the sword. What I’m saying is that we need to be prepared for the harsh reality that sometimes the cross IS the sword. When that is the case, we had better be willing to but down our books and do as we’re told, or we will be held accountable for what we refuse to do.
Oh, and your friend Girard would reduce Moroni and any act of martial service to one of mimicry, as opposed to the act of faithful obedience that is the standard interpretation taught by the Church because it’s the truth. But until Girard is an apostle or a prophet, his opinion is just that.
Comment by Paradox — March 5, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
Peter,
See below …
do you think we shouldn’t be paying for a soldier’s education? housing?
Way to fly off the handle Mfranti.
I was referring back to Peter LLC’s comment (#43) which suggested to me that accepting those forms of compensation lessened to some degree the service of those who didn’t receive it.
Comment by MAC — March 5, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
“TLDR”
what is that?
____
mac, cut it out. i wasn’t flying off the handle.
Comment by mfranti — March 5, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Actually, I was pointing out that honorable men and women around the globe serve their countries in the military without compensation of any kind, really, because it is their duty. In the US, we tend to conflate a voluntary profession with duty and service, but so be it.
Comment by Peter LLC — March 5, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
Paradox:
You are right— Girard would see the entire BOM as one of mimicry. His model makes perfect sense. As to an appeal to authority and “standard teaching” of the church. I would ask: What is the standard teaching of the church at any given time and is that standard the truth or simply an organizational accomodation? For example is DC 98 the “standard of the teachings of the church?” Or is it the latest “personal opinion” of someone speaking at conference whether it be Brigham Young’s wholesale denying the blacks the priesthood for generations or Adam God Doctrine? Is it a five hundred oral tradition reduced to writing where Joshua and the children of Israel were commanded by God to kills all the adults and scurrying children in Jericho and other villages—except the whores—which made up war narrative we still parrot as “standard teaching” of the church institution? Or could it be the words of Christ when he finally felt a need to come among the children of men and repeatedly say “it has been said of old” or “it has been written” such and such but I am here to tell you the real standard?
I would ask simply “what is the standard” war doctrine that we are obligated to abide by now? Is it an ancient take by a fallen Nephite civilization? Is it DC 98? Is it latest personal opinion of a church leader—at least until he dies? Or is it the words of Christ? The sermon on the mount? Or is it really a de facto policy of whatever your host nation tells you to do we simply take the default position and accept and rationalize that position?
Comment by Ron Madson — March 5, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
“
TLDR = too long; didn’t read.
Comment by Peter LLC — March 5, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
#57
Paradox, in reference to my taking issue with your perspective you said
“If you’re thinking that I’m saying, “Let this place fry,” then you don’t know how to read. What I’m saying is that this place WILL fry, regardless of how idealistic we want to be. Read Revelation. Read the Book of Mormon. Read the prophecies we’ve been given! THAT’S WHAT THEY SAY! And if you want to oppose war, fine. Do it. But do not mock those who are trying to support the men and women who have to fight.”
I frankly don’t care if you think “Let this place fry” or “this place WILL fry”. I fail to see how your distinction, in either of the ways you differentiated it, in any way, refutes my concern, as stated in my first comment, that this kind of philosophy contributes to people saying things like you just did-
“this place WILL fry, regardless of how idealistic we want to be”
It’s that kind of thinking that scares me. You just proved my point.
And please, don’t try the old trick of casting someone disagreeing with you on this subject as someone mocking “those who are trying to support the men and women who have to fight”. It’s old, it’s tired, and it’s just not true. You have painted yourself as somehow untouchable for scrutiny because you support men and women who have to fight, which is insulting to me, because it implies I don’t support them.
Comment by sophia*rising — March 5, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
#57 Paradox-
One last thing. It would behoove you to keep in mind that citing Revelation and the Book of Mormon as proof for why things are the way they are only works in circles that believe in those scriptures, and it doesn’t always work even in those circles (as is evidenced on this board and the variety of interpretations and opinions).
I can respect that your belief is that the end of times has been foretold, and these are the signs, but please keep in mind that a lot of people don’t believe in those books, and therefore don’t believe in the prophesies therein, and therefore think that being idealistic and turning it around are possible and should be tried.
Comment by sophia*rising — March 5, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
So yes, I did understand you to mean that the service of American servicemen/women is somehow cheapened by their compensation as opposed to say a Korean, who is there under legal compulsion.
As some one who has served in a mixed Korean-American unit on the DMZ, I say your comments are a load of malarkey.
mfranti
cough … mmmkay, if you say so
Comment by MAC — March 5, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
#55 Ron. I’m not unsympathetic to your view. I’m looking forward to that respite in the Millenium. War is our reality right now and I expect it will be at any given time in the future, given the propensity of our governments to wage it. I see it as part and parcel of this temporal existence. We can do our best by weighing in at the polls, but we will be left with the question of what to do about the issues we face related to the residual damage of war that has already happened regardless of the ensuing debate on the righteousness of it all.
I think it’s important to note that zealotry is not limited to the determined warmonger. We may also find it alive and well in the obdurate pacifist. I prefer a judicious balance. Even so, it has nothing to do with dealing compassionately with soldiers and their families- and having gratitude for their sacrifice and service- irrespective of political or religious belief.
Comment by Kimberly — March 5, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
#66-
Well said Kimberly.
Comment by sophia*rising — March 5, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Thank you Kimberly (#54) for responding in a way that directly addressed Lisa’s concerns and provided more information as to where to go to learn more about what we don’t understand. I will admit to going to bed nauseated due to last night’s negative trend toward unsupportiveness for our brothers and sisters in the armed forces while ignoring Lisa’s request to help understand her brother.
The National Center for PTSD has many associated links and resources (http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/veterans/)
which provides information that may be helpful.
Comment by AuntieJo — March 5, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Kimberly,
I agree that pacifism can take on its own form of zealotry—they used to call it radical christianity in the first two centuries AD. It is not a rhetorical question for me when I ask “What exactly is our present LDS war doctrine??? What is our model? Is it DC 98? Is it a default position? Is it simply adaptable to whatever our host nation tells us is acceptable. I would welcome even a “balanced” or moderate “self defense” model—although believe it or not every nation believes it is acting out of self-defense–even the aggressors. For example, I have written a very lengthy essay on DC 98 (pared down from 50 pages to 30 now), researched the heck out of it (read all 300 plus references in conference to it –mostly in first 100 years cited–we really are not into it that much now); and have concluded that if we had simply applied the “rules of civil procedure” in that section we would have taken a pass on Viet Nam and Iraq. That to me would have been a reasonable, common sense thing to do. However, rather then rely on pattern/model of DC 98 we chose to ignore it and use the old default position which is: I pledge allegiance to anything my govt. tells me is right whether goose-stepping to Hitler or the neo-con Bush/Cheney “one percent” doctrine. I am not arguing for radical pacifism–yet. I am only suggesting we actually apply DC 98 for starters–
Comment by Ron Madson — March 5, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
Wow, Ron, why don’t you reference D&C 98 again? I don’t think I know the only part of the scriptures you read.
In the aforesaid section, it says in verse 5: “And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.” I would argue that serving in the military helps maintain the “rights and privileges” of the law. Yes, we should not be the aggressor, and yes, we should forgive. But the section also says, ” 34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;
35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;
36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.”
In other words, we CAN go to war. Now, you may want to argue about whether or not we were justified in Viet Nam or Iraq, how we should have lifted more of a standard of peace, blah blah blah. But the fact remains that a whole group of people are dedicated to the destruction of “the great Satan” (that’s us), and we ARE justified in defending ourselves. And if defending ourselves means going to war in Afghanistan, I say so be it.
Now, if you want to be a conscientious objector, fine. I believe in your right to be excused from military service. And I thank the service people who protect your right to be a conscientious objector, since you would not have that right in Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, or any other dictatorial government.
Comment by Molly — March 5, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
I’m reminded of something J. Golden Kimball said about the South, “Burn it! Do baptisms for the dead.”
You or I may not like what your brother said, but he’s come to those feelings through experiences and that validates it in my opinion. I may not like it, but that’s America and this life. Maybe just simply state that you don’t agree with him and could we please change the subject. If he loves you he’ll respect you.
Comment by Heavenly Mother's girl — March 5, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Molly,
Maybe you can help me out and tell me exactly what “inalienable rights” were protected and how by our invasion and revenge murders of a minimum of 97,000 Iraqis. And while at it how did our invasion and occupation of Viet Nam and incinerating 3- 5 million North Vietnamese protect our inalienable rights or freedoms? I cite section 98 because as LDS we like statutory, legalistic formulas far more than the Mormon 7:4 formula of direct revelation. As to verse 5 of Section 98 it directly links to DC 134: 2,5 where the Lord qualifies that it is “natural law” and not “postive law” that is controlling. See little post on this issue delineating the diference…. http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/the-12th-article-of-faith-not-to-be-used-as-an-excuse-for-murder/ As to the verses you cited. Thank you. So let’s apply it to Viet Nam. We are told that North Vietam attacked our naval ship at the Gulf of Tonkin (now we have a “remember the Maine” or the “alamo” incidence to “justify” aggression). So using the formula we ask Ho Chi Minh if he did it? And we ask if he intends to declare war. He says no on both accounts. No war. Why, because our own damn government was playing us with false intelligence (like that was a new story). DC verses you cited are designed to protect us more from “designing and evil men” (the real gadiantons) that are within our own ranks. THe formula works. Just ask Robert McNamara who after decades finally woke up and realized the whole idiotic adventure in Viet Nam was not necessary. If only we had some sort of revelation of doctrine to have reached that conclusion before doing it our way and relying on our govt. to tell us the truth. I couldn’t believe when the Iraq false intelligence was being fed to us after having lived through Viet Nam that we would do it again. Well proof text some passages, ignore the evidence and drop the bombs…all in the name of freedom—right. Same bullshit, new generation. BUt thanks for the exchange. it is instructive….
Comment by Ron Madson — March 5, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
As I said before, Ron, you can argue all you want about Iraq and Viet Nam. In fact, I agree that the Iraq War was completely unjustified. The Viet Nam war I understand better from a whole Cold War point of view, even if I know Gulf of Tonkin was crap and the war was stupid, but I wasn’t even alive for most of it, so whatever.
The point I wanted to make was that, as Mormons, we are told (in section 98) that we are allowed and even justified going to war. Sometimes. Now, we can argue about when (recently) we have been justified, but your blanket condemnation of war and of soldiers who you claim don’t understand Christ is poorly done.
Comment by Molly — March 5, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Lisa
Seems to me all you can do is love your brother and honor his service.
Time heals some wounds. I hope that will be true for his.
Comment by Betty Jo — March 5, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
How many dictatorships can you list that do not rely on at least the tacit approval of if not outright control over the military?
I guess the point I’m getting at is that there is nothing inherently virtuous about the military.
Comment by Peter LLC — March 5, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Of course there is nothing inherently virtuous (or, for that matter, bad) about the military. Freedom, however, IS inherently virtuous, and I believe OUR military protects our freedom. Including our freedom to not be in the military (okay, I’ll stop beating that dead horse. As long as everyone gets it
).
On NPR’s “This I believe” series, a Korean-American’s Korean-born father said, “In a dictatorship, if the army does what you say you are president. In a democracy, if you are president the army does what you say.” I really like this comparison. Of course, that means that our soldiers and officers are subject to perhaps wrong foreign policy. That doesn’t mean the soldiers are bad people or don’t understand the gospel of Christ.
Comment by Molly — March 5, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
has anyone here mentioned the anti-nephi-lehis, as long as we’re citing BOM examples? pretty sure that option was the best, even though it may not look like it. i dont think christ said “if someone smacks you on the cheek, fire bomb their village.”
also the whole “we can’t ignore 911″ argument only works if Iraqis had anything to do with 911, which they didn’t. afghanistan may be a different matter, but its such a mish mash and the Taliban are so woven into civil life that its not a matter of revenge or even of diffusion. thats the big problem.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — March 5, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
ps i do think the problem of conflation of the military and the soldiers is occurring here too. i detest the military. i find soldiers heroic, if occasionally naive, and appreciate all they do.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — March 5, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
To: Molly & “nobodyputsbabyinacorner” and Peter and anyone else following this thread:
I appreciate the mention of the anti-nephi lehites in that they illustrate part of the spectrum that I believe the BOM is trying to depict, and that is, that there are telestial, terrestrial, celestial and even an exalted response to violence and conflict. For example, I am not arguing that self defense is not “justified” nor that it is not honorable but rather it does not require the highest degree of faith and sacrifice. However, I have through time, experience and honest introspection come to the conclusion that the way of “self defense” and/or preemptive wars or revenge is not even practical but rather that while the acts of the anti-nephi lehites appears foolish it is really the most practical and common sense way to destroy one’s enemies. Check out my post with Mormonworker.org entitled “What would you do if you were the Israeli Prime Minister” If you have the patience to read it, then tell me if the proposal is foolish and if so what methods have been used in the past few decades that have made sense?
Comment by Ron Madson — March 5, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
“Love Thine Enemies” Comment by Ray
How does that jive with your ‘brothers’ killing them instead in Iraq and Afghanastan?
Winning would stop the killing. If both sides are praying to win ie stop the killing why doesn’t it work? So much for the power of prayer.
Comment by Ruby — March 5, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Here is the post I was referring to. Tell me why this proposal would fail?
http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/what-would-you-do-if-you-were-the-israeli-pm/
Comment by Ron Madson — March 5, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
That would depend entirely upon motive and context and if the decision is made upon an individual basis or imposed upon others.
Comment by Kimberly — March 5, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
Molly,
I agree with the statement you made which was:
“Of course, that means that our soldiers and officers are subject to perhaps wrong foreign policy. That doesn’t mean the soldiers are bad people or don’t understand the gospel of Christ.”
My problem has never really been the soldiers. My issue has always been with us who sit in the chief seat in the synagogues and/or thrones and send essentially children like Allyssa Peterson to their death based on such faulty theology and misinformation….we should know better—but our allegiance to the state has proven more enduring than to the kingdom in some respects….We all agree that we were flat wrong in invading Iraq but we go on pontificating while hundreds of thousands suffer. Where was our model/doctrine and principles when we needed it? And where were the “watchmen” that Isaiah speaks of when we needed someone? I don’t know. Maybe it is time we learn to rely on personal revelation rather then corporate think…
Comment by Ron Madson — March 5, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
kimberly,
True. I see your point and agree..
Comment by Ron Madson — March 5, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
I didnt have the time to read any replies, all I can say is pick up a copy of Lt. Col. Grossmans book entitled “On Killing”. Its about the psychological costs of killing in war and society, and how they are taught to do so and overcome the “stops” in place. Maybe it will help you understand where he is coming from, which is the only way you will understand.
Comment by spencer — March 5, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
#80 - Ruby, again, never mind.
Comment by Ray — March 5, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
I don’t want to be the Thread Police or anything, but I thought I’d reiterate this from the OP (emphasis mine, with a section cut out just for length):
This war is something we all feel pretty passionately about, which is a good thing. However, that passion can lead to some pretty massive thread derails if we’re not careful, and that would be a shame, since the topic at hand makes for interesting discussion on its own. Following every tangent that might come up, no matter what an important topic it might be, will only harm this conversation. This thread, if I’m not summarizing incorrectly, is about how Lisa should deal with her brother. It fits into a broader topic about how combat service changes people and what, if anything, those people’s loved ones can do about it. Arguing about whether this particular war is justified or even if war is ever justified is a bit of a threadjack, IMO. If that’s what you want to talk about, then personally I’d prefer if you just started a separate conversation elsewhere (on your own blog or by sending in a guest post here). I’m not saying it’s not an interesting conversation (it is!), I just don’t really think it belongs here.
Comment by OhMissJulie — March 5, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
# 54 good post Kimberly, thanks…
Russ
Comment by theorangeghost1964 — March 6, 2009 @ 12:16 am
And now for something completely different.
Not so. I am an operational law judge advocate. My job when I deploy is to clear targets under applicable rules of engagement. In other words, I tell the commander it is OK to blow up that Afghan or Iraqi dwelling, based on the intel and the rules of engagement (ROE).
The thing that is drilled into Soldier’s heads these days is that we are in a counterinsurgency (COIN), not a high intensity conflict (HIC) environment. Combat drills routinely focus on “no-fire” situations, simulations where to shoot is to be wrong. This takes far more discipline than shoot first, ask questions later. But it is the only way to win the war. For every innocent Iraqi or Afghan killed, ten more will rush in to avenge him/her.
ROE in COIN are strict and detailed. Only the most professional of armies could abide by them, and mistakes do happen. But for the most part, they are followed. Your brother has probably chafed under them, because COIN is actually far more stressful than HIC, so he is venting his frustration in the way he refers to natives. When he was in the sandbox he knew that most of the time, killing them would land him in jail, or worse. And I would venture that he did a damned fine job of following orders.
I don’t know if your brother is enlisted or an officer. Enlisted personnel have a hard time appreciating the subtleties of COIN v. HIC, not because they’re dumb (they’re not), but because they are the ones who have to make the hard choices in the field, and subtlety gets lost in the spray of a severed artery.
Officers have a much harder time with actually dealing with COIN decisions, since their control leverages vast amounts of power. COL Hardcharger who fries a village is far more culpable than a sergeant who bursts his M-4 in anger after an IED kills one of his men. It is hard to get the battle instinct out of hardened officers (try being a major telling a colonel, “No sir, you can’t do that, and if you do, you will end your career and likely go to jail.”). But it is happening.
For what it’s worth, one of my best friends is a sergeant in a civil affairs battalion. He is looking forward to returning to Afghanistan to see his friends–natives in the Panshir Valley. Completely different outlook than your brother, and not unusual.
A final thought. Your brother mistakes by calling names. This is a pecadillo–I doubt he ever did anything illegal. If I err in a targeting decision, I will be a party to innocents dying. I would never do that intentionally, but mistakes happen. May I hurl a thousand racial epithets before being cursed with such an abominable error.
Comment by Apogee — March 6, 2009 @ 12:46 am
Thank you, Apogee, for making such an important point. On this end, I’m dealing with a number of returnees, who felt severely chafed under the COIN model. Namely, that tactics are being used on them, causing them to sustain casualties, and under COIN, they may not respond in kind. You are right to point out the increased stress in that situation. It takes an amazing amount of control to think that lucidly under fire. And, just as you said, officers are having a lot of difficulty countering a guerrilla tactic war with responses commensurate with ROE (rules that the enemy ignore on their part).
Lisa, another important point Apogee makes is that there have been friends made in the sandbox. I cannot tell you how many times I’m hearing about the friendships struck up between the troops and Iraqi/Afghani people. Part of the PTSD picture includes the grieving the soldiers are doing over the losses of foreign friends they are trying to liberate or protect after a successful liberation op. I have a whole selection of photos sent to me by one of our boys, who has virtually adopted an entire family. He checks on them any time he is able to. The village had been cut off for a while and he gave the father of this family all the MREs in his pack because he couldn’t bear the thought of the children being hungry. This happens a lot. I bet your brother had done something similar more than once on his tours. His outburst of “nuke ‘em all”, could just be a way of saying, “I wish this conflict was over”. This tough guy image is only part of the picture. Some of the most tender people I have ever met in my life are soldiers…I bet you know that side of your brother.
Comment by Kimberly — March 6, 2009 @ 7:07 am
DId anyone see the news reports yesterday about military suicides being at an all-time high?
So sad. But not the least big surprising.
There is no way to win this war. It is lost, and we broke some of our best and brightest along the way. I’m an Army veteran, not a pacifist per se.
Comment by Naismith — March 6, 2009 @ 7:17 am
Before leaving this topic I probably need to apologize for hijacking this topic to a small degree started by Lisa. And my passionate anti-war intensity is somewhat overbearing.
I suspect I am older than most –if not all in this forum. I will share at least some personal experiences. I used to have a church calling where I interviewed individuals that had taken life (sometimes in war settings) who were seeking First Presidency approval for baptism (if you had taken someone’s life you can not be baptized without that approval and I would write up summaries requesting approval or not). Two individuals have remained etched in my mind. One had shot an enemy in the face and watched them die during viet nam war. thirty years later he said he lived everyday with that thought in his mind and was still suffering from it. Another told me that when in Viet nam he had his first kill and threw up. Then the second kill was easier. by the end of his tour he craved the sensation and couldn’t wait for the next kill. I am not a professional in this area. I only know that in some cases that turning our whole soul and agony over to christ (as the sons of mosiah lamanite convert did) can and does heal all anguish. It requires total honesty and total submission. Short of that the pain continues. And for sure, in my opinion, not being honest and humble and not facing the reality of the evil it is does not allow real healing–just covering up. Maybe some in this forum have far more counseling insight. But we all have been shaped by our personal experiences and thoughts and I must confess that I actually began even angry (evil I know) when I heard the same drumbeats for our recent wars and even angrier as I have heard the same doctrinal contortions, dissonance, and twisting to justify more and more evil and inhumanity. I have spent the last four years reading, writing and studying this war issue in preparing a comprehensive doctrinal position that I am convinced leads me inexorably to attempt to deconstruct all the war myths I am convinced we as LDS have fabricated over the years. Anyway, it is not an easy task as Pres. Kimball stated in 1976 for we are in all honesty a “war like people” and very prone to us against them and having a sense of being very “chosen” does not help…
Comment by Ron Madson — March 6, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
Ron–
You will find that a good Soldier loves peace at heart. Especially those that lead.
Comment by Apogee — March 6, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Maybe instead of judging him, you need to start showing some compassion. Have you ever thanked your brother for fighting for your freedom, or have you just constantly judged him? I think you need to read the church’s position on war, and set aside your political attitude toward it. I know that it’s important to you to stay true to your political views, but don’t you think that your brother is even more important? What he’s doing isn’t wrong, and I think you might be the one that is perhaps wrong. The church leaders have thankfully said a lot about war in the past few years, and I think that members of this church need to start listening to what they say. I think it’s disgusting when people go against their teachings. Sad to say, I think that a lot of people on this website are not interested in what the church has to say on a lot of important issues, and they are more interested in trying to show and prove to the world that they are a die hard liberal person.
Comment by trish — March 11, 2009 @ 3:37 pm