Third Party & Independents: Archives

Good post, Beau, but I disagree on one small point: the same elements calling this war unjust WERE indeed calling that war unjust—they just hadn’t moved into the mainstream of the left yet. John Kerry voted againt that war, remember. And that’s before he voted for the current war before voting against it.

Yes, you are right Martin, the same points apply for both then and now, but from my memory during the 1991 war, a majority of people were for the war effort then, much more so than today. I think more people were simply apathetic about the war then and the differences between the two could make a good argument for Why do people Protest? Are a large number of protestors’ bandwagoners? Just a curious thought really.

The death penalty for desertion during wartime hasn’t been used since WWII because, in a legal sense, WE HAVEN’T BEEN AT WAR since WWII. Only Congress has the power to declare war, and they haven’t done it in over 50 years. Everything else has been a “conflict” or a “police action”.

As for the difference between the first Gulf “conflict” and the second, there is a BIG difference. The first was an attack against an aggressor who made the first move, and had the full backing and support of the UN. The second was a preemptive attack (the first we have ever made), without the support of our allies in the UN.

I think most of us would agree that Americans deserters in WWII (for example) were disgraceful. At the same time, we’d consider Nazi deserters in the same war to be heroes for refusing to follow their oppressive overlords. So, there are times, when your government has gone beyond the boundaries of what is “right”, that deserting your post is the “right” thing to do.

The question is, where is that line drawn, and have we crossed it yet? There are an increasing number of people in this country who think we have.

I always found Cassius Clay’s stance on the Viet Nam war the proper way to address such issues. He spoke out about his beliefs that war is wrong, and he willingly accepted the consequences to his actions. In short, he was a man about it, and recognizes that actions have consequences.

Those who accept the benefits of the military (decent pay, training, etc) during times of peace, only to feign surprise that they would be (gasp) asked to engage in combat should be subjected to the harshest penalties.

When one joins the military, as these two did willingly, one also accepts the chain of command. It is not acceptable to allow each soldier to decide whether or not to follow orders. You go into the military knowing that decisions are made high up in the chain of command, and that your role is to follow those orders.

Only in a situation of undeniable wrong is a soldier allowed to make his/her own decisions. While many agree with this war and many dont, it is certainly not an unquestionably wrong war.
Were we to allow soldiers to make such decisions, with no retribution, the military would cease to function.

Imagine D-day for a moment, where planners and soldiers knew….they KNEW…the horrendous casualties that would be inflicted. Suppose a soldier decided he didnt like the odds, and “opted” out of the battle on the basis of it being “wrong” or “foolhardy”. Anarchy…

The irony is left on the fact that George H Bush ended the Gulf war prematurely back in 1991 because he wanted to avoid another Vietnam scenario where America was divided in a long painful war.

That irony is lost on liberals when they forget the long years they spent sniping at Bush Senior for NOT doing what they’re sniping at Bush Junior for doing. I’m convinced that a lot of the administration’s political calculus on the war had to do with that liberal complaint about leaving Saddam’s regime intact. Bush is always at his worst when trying to pander to liberals.

If nothing else, Bush Senior has been vindicated (along with such conservatives as Pat Buchanan).

Iraq has been a major mistake. Only 90 of the thousands of detainees within Iraq are foreign fighters, so even the argument of “fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here” loses considerable weight—and suggestive that we have to fight them there simply because we ARE there. That situation could easily change if we cease to BE there.

I’d be all in favor of continuing clandestine operations (CIA and Special Ops) to seek out and eliminate terrorist cells within Iraq after an official pull-out, but that pull-out should come sooner rather than later. I don’t doubt the “puppet” regime and “Iraqization” will go the same way as the “Vietnamization” of the Vietnam war, but so be it. Allow a bit of wounded pride to prevent thousands of wounded bodies, I say.

Dramatically reduce conventional standing forces (while maintaining or increasing Guard and Reserve forces), and increase CIA and Special Ops funding. To fight a clandestine enemy requires clandestine action. Officially and to the world, we should appear “peace-loving”.

To quote Sun Tzu:

A speedy victory is the main object in war. If this is long in coming, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. If troops are attacking cities, their strength will be exhausted. When the army engages in protracted campaigns, the resources of the state will fall short. When your weapons are dulled and ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and treasure spent, the chieftains of the neighboring states will take advantage of your crisis to act. In that case, no man, however wise, will be able to avert the disastrous consequences that ensue. Thus, while we have heard of stupid haste in war, we have not yet seen a clever operation that was prolonged. for there has never been a protracted war which benefited a country. Therefore, those unable to understand the evils inherent in employing troops are equally unable to understand the advantageous ways of doing so.

Now, as to “deserters”, if we have a volunteer army, I say let them un-volunteer. And the community can treat them according to the community’s own political leanings.

Diggy:

If you allow volunteers to “un” volunteer, would you also expect them to “un” pay themselves? Would you expect them to pay back an amount equal to the salary, training, and benefits they received, since now that money has no payback to the military?

I’d hope your answer would be yes; otherwise, what a great deal for the youth of our country. I can see the slogans now:

Be an army of one. Be all you can be. Join the military, see the world, get paid, get trained, and if we ever need you to fight, you can just quit right then and there….no questions asked.

I imagine the military would be chock full of volunteers, at least until the time we most need them.

Ciggy, you are little off base on the liberals and Bush I. The liberals then were “sniping” at Bush I precisely because at that time we had an international force and the U.N. was already in position to be forced to go on with the unseating of Hussein.

None of that was the case this time around. So, the liberal position on Bush I and Bush II are not inconsistent at all if you listen and look at their arguments which are based on international cooperation and shared cost.

Joebagodonuts, as long as foolish young men will join the military for ego without first considering the political climate and leadership they will have to serve under, they have no gripe as far as I am concerned. If they are old enough to enlist, they are old enough to vote.

And if they are old enough to vote, they are old enough to assess the political leadership they are likely to serve under. That means they have no defense when it comes time apply their enlistment to any legal engagements the U.S. orders them into.

That said, I believe the death penalty is reserved for war, and should not be applicable where Congress has not declared war. 20 years in Ft. Leavenworth is as strong a deterrent to a young man as the death penalty would be anyway.

Whoa! Did I just read a libertarian bent on responsibility come out of my keyboard in that last reply? WatchBlog is getting to me.

Perhaps the distinction between 1991 and now is the fact that in 1991, Saddam clearly threatened our way of life with his invasion of Kuwait and his further stated desire to enter Saudi Arabia. Our Allies were with us then, and largely against us now. This time WE invaded a sovereign nation with little justification, and threw that nation into chaos, and to what end? To kill undetermined numbers of Iraqi civilians and over 650 U.S. servicemen? To wound and or maim thousands more on both sides? To alienate the world? To enrich all of the private contractors currently on the ground in Iraq? To make Iraq a haven for terrorist? To bring democracy to the region? What, what was the reason?

Is there any wonder that this war, the War on Iraq, not the War against Terror is call unjust, and why some might not want to risk their lives for, well, nothing?

David- I am so proud :)

Joe,

If you allow volunteers to “un” volunteer, would you also expect them to “un” pay themselves?

Of course.

In fighting the Redcoats, Continental Army officers had their hands completely full with trying to prevent desertions. It put the onus on them to not waste the troops’ lives.

In the modern context, it’s perfectly appropriate for a deserter to be compelled to compensate the taxpayers for all they’d invested in him or her, as a penalty for breach of contract. But only if that’s IN the contract, and if those terms are explained to recruits at the time of recruitment.

David,

The liberals then were “sniping” at Bush I precisely because at that time we had an international force and the U.N. was already in position to be forced to go on with the unseating of Hussein.

OH, the U.N. I forgot that magical ingredient. The godlike institution that worked so well in protecting Rwanda and is currently protecting people in the Sudan, that is obviously the only barrier that should stand between our enemies and our children, at all times. I see.

And:

Whoa! Did I just read a libertarian bent on responsibility come out of my keyboard in that last reply? WatchBlog is getting to me.

Hehehehehe. I think I blame my three spoonfuls of Socialism in my Libertarian Stew, on Watchblog, too. Five years ago I would have gagged at the idea of national health care.

V. Edward:

in 1991, Saddam clearly threatened our way of life with his invasion of Kuwait

No, he threatened Kuwait’s way of life. The “no blood for oil” chants from the left originate from that time. There’s no revising that history. In 1991 Saddam had not invaded America, nor had he declared war on us, nor were there ephemeral links forged between him and terrorist organizations. Gee, where have we heard those objections lately?

Our Allies were with us then, and largely against us now.

Let me ask you something: prior to France and Von Steuben joining our cause, was our rebellion against the English Crown an unjust cause? Is the justice of a war always predicated on how many allies you can gather up?

Mind you, I’m not saying this war IS politically astute or even “just”, but I’m prone to taking particular arguments and try them in the refiner’s fire of logic and consistency. I prefer not to look like M. Moore with unsupportable blather.

Ciggy, there is nothing godlike nor magical about the U.N. The simple fact is we could have had the U.N. committed to sharing the costs with some diplomatic wrangling in 1991. That was never an option in 2003.

Ciggy, We had the ‘coalition of the real’ back in 1991 picking up over half of the cost of the war unlike today, we are picking up the whole check ourselves. To me, that makes the UN worth something.

If you allow the military to “un-volunteer” at anytime with no repercussions, we will have a very weak and unstable national defense. Very bad idea.

Edward. By Iraq invading Kuwait in 1991, our way of life and well being was never under threat. We were going there to liberate Kuwait back from its aggressor. Even if Saddam would have been unchallenged, he would not have invaded Saudi Arabia, with a military force and political stronghold far overshadowing his own. And for the record, America gets most of its energy resource from Canada, after that, Mexico, after that, several South American countries. For various other reasons, when Saudi Arabia is under threat (or is having a bad day), it affects the price of gas and oil worldwide. When you say the 1991 war threatened our way of life, you really mean to say we would have to pay more and wait in lines for gasoline; yea, your right.

Ciggy, thanks for siding me with the liberals but really, I just play one on TV. Bush was hardly vindicated, how do you recon? If he had not pulled out prematurely in 1991 we would not have had to go back in recently. Schwarzkopf was pissed off beyond words when he was given the order to stop movement into Baghdad. Because of Bush’s fear of unpopular opinion against him (something Republican’s like to insist President Bush W has had the courage to resist becasue of good leadership) , we allowed Saddam to remain in power for another decade.

Rob, you’re right, we should have declared war. If we step foot in another country and take out the government by force, what else would you call it? Still, it was a combat campaign that two men walked away from their obligations, a few years in Leavenworth is warranted in my opinon.

Misha, I had a feeling that would not escape your attention. : )

David,

The simple fact is we could have had the U.N. committed to sharing the costs with some diplomatic wrangling in 1991. That was never an option in 2003.

The U.S. is the primary funding source for the U.N., so it’s really a round-trip of money when you talk about “the U.N. sharing the cost”. Ditto the commitment of troops. A U.N. imprimatur of “legitimacy” can be argued from one angle, and yet refuted (e.g., the Rwanda fiasco and their current inaction on the Sudan) from another.

It makes diplomatic sense to get a U.N. stamp of approval when possible. But if national security is truly at risk (not like the Mess O’Potamia, but in other scenarios), then if that stamp of approval isn’t possible for whatever reason, that should still not be an excuse to leave ourselves wide open to attack, or American hostages un-rescued, or whatever the situation demands.

Beau, yes, the liberation of Kuwait was a cause that got significant voluntary contributions from many corners of the world. However, not all of our national security actions (e.g., rescuing American hostages in an hypothetical scenario where an administration give’s a shyte enough to even try it) should be predicated upon such contributions. it’s unwise. The Iraq war is a good example of a blunder that never should have happened, but I still don’t see it as a case in point that anything the U.N. doesn’t approve, should never be done at all.

If you allow the military to “un-volunteer” at anytime with no repercussions, we will have a very weak and unstable national defense. Very bad idea.

Leaders making bad decisions are the primary source of weakness and instability. If there is a massive flux of desertions, rather than spend enormous law enforcement resources chasing them down and penal system resources incarcerating them, we could simply invest some court time in garnishing their wages or sentencing to community service for compensation once they get back “on the block”.

Bush was hardly vindicated, how do you recon?

He considered it unwise to wage a full war of total counter-conquest on Iraq. He apparently foresaw the troubles we are having today, as what the result would have been if he had tried it. That’s vindication.

we allowed Saddam to remain in power for another decade.

A typical liberal gripe which W very unwisely thought he could address through this war. He over-pandered (just as he did with Medicare).