"The highest award for valor in action"
March 31, 2008 8:26 PM Subscribe
The Congressional Medal of Honor Society offers a wealth of information on recipients of the United States' highest military honor. To read some amazing tales, check out this full list, or maybe just this list of recently deceased recipients.
A recently deceased recipient:
McCOOL, RICHARD MILES,
Mr. McCool passed away on March 5th, 2008.
Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as commanding officer of the U.S.S. LSC(L)(3) 122 during operations against enemy Japanese forces in the Ryukyu chain, 10 and 11 June 1945. Sharply vigilant during hostile air raids against Allied ships on radar picket duty off Okinawa on 10 June, Lt. McCool aided materially in evacuating all survivors from a sinking destroyer which had sustained mortal damage under the devastating attacks. When his own craft was attacked simultaneously by 2 of the enemy's suicide squadron early in the evening of 11 June, he instantly hurled the full power of his gun batteries against the plunging aircraft, shooting down the first and damaging the second before it crashed his station in the conning tower and engulfed the immediate area in a mass of flames. Although suffering from shrapnel wounds and painful burns, he rallied his concussion-shocked crew and initiated vigorous firefighting measures and then proceeded to the rescue of several trapped in a blazing compartment, subsequently carrying 1 man to safety despite the excruciating pain of additional severe burns. Unmindful of all personal danger, he continued his efforts without respite until aid arrived from other ships and he was evacuated. By his staunch leadership, capable direction, and indomitable determination throughout the crisis, Lt. McCool saved the lives of many who otherwise might have perished and contributed materially to the saving of his ship for further combat service. His valiant spirit of self-sacrifice in the face of extreme peril sustains and enhances the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.
A recently deceased recipient:
McCOOL, RICHARD MILES,
Mr. McCool passed away on March 5th, 2008.
Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as commanding officer of the U.S.S. LSC(L)(3) 122 during operations against enemy Japanese forces in the Ryukyu chain, 10 and 11 June 1945. Sharply vigilant during hostile air raids against Allied ships on radar picket duty off Okinawa on 10 June, Lt. McCool aided materially in evacuating all survivors from a sinking destroyer which had sustained mortal damage under the devastating attacks. When his own craft was attacked simultaneously by 2 of the enemy's suicide squadron early in the evening of 11 June, he instantly hurled the full power of his gun batteries against the plunging aircraft, shooting down the first and damaging the second before it crashed his station in the conning tower and engulfed the immediate area in a mass of flames. Although suffering from shrapnel wounds and painful burns, he rallied his concussion-shocked crew and initiated vigorous firefighting measures and then proceeded to the rescue of several trapped in a blazing compartment, subsequently carrying 1 man to safety despite the excruciating pain of additional severe burns. Unmindful of all personal danger, he continued his efforts without respite until aid arrived from other ships and he was evacuated. By his staunch leadership, capable direction, and indomitable determination throughout the crisis, Lt. McCool saved the lives of many who otherwise might have perished and contributed materially to the saving of his ship for further combat service. His valiant spirit of self-sacrifice in the face of extreme peril sustains and enhances the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.
Who knew that there were enough congressmen playing Medal of Honor to form their own society?
posted by mullingitover at 9:30 PM on March 31, 2008
posted by mullingitover at 9:30 PM on March 31, 2008
U.S.M.C. Major General Smedley Darlington Butler The Third twice
posted by hortense at 9:46 PM on March 31, 2008
posted by hortense at 9:46 PM on March 31, 2008
Names with asterisks received medals posthumously. From World War II:
*THORNE, HORACE M.
He was the leader of a combat patrol on 21 December 1944 near Grufflingen, Belgium, with the mission of driving German forces from dug-in positions in a heavily wooded area. As he advanced his light machinegun, a German Mark Ill tank emerged from the enemy position and was quickly immobilized by fire from American light tanks supporting the patrol. Two of the enemy tankmen attempted to abandon their vehicle but were killed by Cpl. Thorne's shots before they could jump to the ground. To complete the destruction of the tank and its crew, Cpl. Thorne left his covered position and crept forward alone through intense machinegun fire until close enough to toss 2 grenades into the tank's open turret, killing 2 more Germans. He returned across the same fire-beaten zone as heavy mortar fire began falling in the area, seized his machinegun and, without help, dragged it to the knocked-out tank and set it up on the vehicle's rear deck. He fired short rapid bursts into the enemy positions from his advantageous but exposed location, killing or wounding 8. Two enemy machinegun crews abandoned their positions and retreated in confusion. His gun Jammed; but rather than leave his self-chosen post he attempted to clear the stoppage; enemy small-arms fire, concentrated on the tank, killed him instantly. Cpl. Thorne, displaying heroic initiative and intrepid fighting qualities, inflicted costly casualties on the enemy and insured the success of his patrol's mission by the sacrifice of his life.
posted by Bookhouse at 10:09 PM on March 31, 2008
*THORNE, HORACE M.
He was the leader of a combat patrol on 21 December 1944 near Grufflingen, Belgium, with the mission of driving German forces from dug-in positions in a heavily wooded area. As he advanced his light machinegun, a German Mark Ill tank emerged from the enemy position and was quickly immobilized by fire from American light tanks supporting the patrol. Two of the enemy tankmen attempted to abandon their vehicle but were killed by Cpl. Thorne's shots before they could jump to the ground. To complete the destruction of the tank and its crew, Cpl. Thorne left his covered position and crept forward alone through intense machinegun fire until close enough to toss 2 grenades into the tank's open turret, killing 2 more Germans. He returned across the same fire-beaten zone as heavy mortar fire began falling in the area, seized his machinegun and, without help, dragged it to the knocked-out tank and set it up on the vehicle's rear deck. He fired short rapid bursts into the enemy positions from his advantageous but exposed location, killing or wounding 8. Two enemy machinegun crews abandoned their positions and retreated in confusion. His gun Jammed; but rather than leave his self-chosen post he attempted to clear the stoppage; enemy small-arms fire, concentrated on the tank, killed him instantly. Cpl. Thorne, displaying heroic initiative and intrepid fighting qualities, inflicted costly casualties on the enemy and insured the success of his patrol's mission by the sacrifice of his life.
posted by Bookhouse at 10:09 PM on March 31, 2008
Looking at the Vietnam links, you see pages of Americans decorated for killing scores of people in their own country, people who would never have offered the slightest threat to America or Americans if they hadn't invaded their country.
So far there are only two entries for Iraq.
I was realizing the other day that the US post-WWII government murder toll is starting to approach such great mass murderers as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and have already passed such amateurs as Pol Pot; we have at least 1.5 million people murdered in Vietnam, some 750,000 people in Iraq and at least another half million randoms killed. 3 million people murdered is a pretty impressive toll
Generally, the list of engagements is pretty sickening -- there are some particularly bad ones:
* Indian War Campaigns
what civilized people call genocide.
* Philippine Insurrection
crushing people who were already defeated.
* China Relief Expedition (Boxer Rebellion)
200,000 Chinese casualties vs. 3000 European ones.
* Action Against Outlaws--Philippines 1911
I can't go on....
* Mexican Campaign (Vera Cruz)
* Haiti 1915
* Dominican Campaign
* Haiti Campaign 1919-1920
* Second Nicaraguan Campaign
* Vietnam (A-L)
* Vietnam (M-Z)
* Afghanistan
* Iraq
Quite the rogue's gallery. America should be deeply ashamed. Of course, America is proud of its great record of murdering people, particularly poor, badly-armed people with different skin colour (as in the list above.)
(please note that I didn't include e.g. WWII in the list of crimes...)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:13 PM on March 31, 2008
So far there are only two entries for Iraq.
I was realizing the other day that the US post-WWII government murder toll is starting to approach such great mass murderers as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and have already passed such amateurs as Pol Pot; we have at least 1.5 million people murdered in Vietnam, some 750,000 people in Iraq and at least another half million randoms killed. 3 million people murdered is a pretty impressive toll
Generally, the list of engagements is pretty sickening -- there are some particularly bad ones:
* Indian War Campaigns
what civilized people call genocide.
* Philippine Insurrection
crushing people who were already defeated.
* China Relief Expedition (Boxer Rebellion)
200,000 Chinese casualties vs. 3000 European ones.
* Action Against Outlaws--Philippines 1911
I can't go on....
* Mexican Campaign (Vera Cruz)
* Haiti 1915
* Dominican Campaign
* Haiti Campaign 1919-1920
* Second Nicaraguan Campaign
* Vietnam (A-L)
* Vietnam (M-Z)
* Afghanistan
* Iraq
Quite the rogue's gallery. America should be deeply ashamed. Of course, America is proud of its great record of murdering people, particularly poor, badly-armed people with different skin colour (as in the list above.)
(please note that I didn't include e.g. WWII in the list of crimes...)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:13 PM on March 31, 2008
lupus_yonderboy, your righteous indignation is misplaced.
Has the U.S. engaged in a number of dubious military campaigns? Absolutely. However, you seem to miss the point that it is possible for individuals to act in a courageous manner even in the service of a campaign that is, in hindsight, morally questionable. (It is also possible for an individual to act in a reprehensible and dishonorable manner in the service of a campaign that is, in hindsight, morally defensible). The CMoH exists to recognize individual bravery, not place a stamp of approval on military campaigns as a whole.
posted by googly at 4:12 AM on April 1, 2008
Has the U.S. engaged in a number of dubious military campaigns? Absolutely. However, you seem to miss the point that it is possible for individuals to act in a courageous manner even in the service of a campaign that is, in hindsight, morally questionable. (It is also possible for an individual to act in a reprehensible and dishonorable manner in the service of a campaign that is, in hindsight, morally defensible). The CMoH exists to recognize individual bravery, not place a stamp of approval on military campaigns as a whole.
posted by googly at 4:12 AM on April 1, 2008
However, you seem to miss the point that it is possible for individuals to act in a courageous manner even in the service of a campaign that is, in hindsight, morally questionable.
I do recognize it; and I have several friends who are ex-military.
But I don't think they should be lionized for aiding and abetting in what are essentially great crimes against humanity.
It's also the timing that is sickening. I live in a much more militarized society than I did 10 years ago; there are men with automatic weapons in the subway and at the bus terminal; waiting in line at the Delta counter to get on a plane (don't take Delta from New York, there's over an hour delay just to get from the front door to the ticket counter alone!), we were told that servicemen and veterans got to go to the front of the line (but the pregnant woman standing behind me did not); and of course there are now the series of American military concentration camps all over the worlds where men and even children die of torture, disease and despair.
I really don't want to read these accounts of more killing, particularly when (as I noted above) the most common story reads like, "X killed two dozen poorly armed and provisioned (Mexicans/Phillipinos/Haitians/Vietnamese) who were defending their home country against invaders."
As for 'love the sinner, hate the sin' - these stories glorify the sins as well as the sinners. There's no hint of apology there for the terrible things that America did to the Vietnamese, South Americans and pretty well everywhere else they landed.
As a comedian said, "Being against the war and supporting the troops is like being against vehicular homicide but supporting drunk drivers." If you prefer a more hopeful quote, "What if they gave a war and nobody came?"
These young men chose to go out and commit war crimes; they didn't feel it was necessary to investigate whether they were killing innocent people or not; to rob them of their partial responsibility for the crimes they committed treats them as pawns with no ability whatsoever to make decisions. Many other kids of similar educational status and socio-economic backgrounds did choose not participate in the war. Some of them died rather than kill others.
Remember also that these stories are used to recruit young men in order to commit similar crimes in the future. By repeating them in the hero-worshipping way you are, you're encouraging further murder to come.
I myself would rather see our Anti-War Medal of Honour list. "George grew up in a ghetto and saw his friend shot in front of him when he was 13. He was determined never to kill anyone. When he was drafted in the Vietnam was, he refused to fight and was sent to a military prison. He was found hanging in his cell with his hands tied behind his back; the official verdict was suicide."
Frankly, I'd simply rather read about Hugh Thompson, Jr. over and over again than these ignorant, brave, cheerful, mostly doomed murderers, killing and dying for reasons they never even understood.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:44 AM on April 1, 2008
I do recognize it; and I have several friends who are ex-military.
But I don't think they should be lionized for aiding and abetting in what are essentially great crimes against humanity.
It's also the timing that is sickening. I live in a much more militarized society than I did 10 years ago; there are men with automatic weapons in the subway and at the bus terminal; waiting in line at the Delta counter to get on a plane (don't take Delta from New York, there's over an hour delay just to get from the front door to the ticket counter alone!), we were told that servicemen and veterans got to go to the front of the line (but the pregnant woman standing behind me did not); and of course there are now the series of American military concentration camps all over the worlds where men and even children die of torture, disease and despair.
I really don't want to read these accounts of more killing, particularly when (as I noted above) the most common story reads like, "X killed two dozen poorly armed and provisioned (Mexicans/Phillipinos/Haitians/Vietnamese) who were defending their home country against invaders."
As for 'love the sinner, hate the sin' - these stories glorify the sins as well as the sinners. There's no hint of apology there for the terrible things that America did to the Vietnamese, South Americans and pretty well everywhere else they landed.
As a comedian said, "Being against the war and supporting the troops is like being against vehicular homicide but supporting drunk drivers." If you prefer a more hopeful quote, "What if they gave a war and nobody came?"
These young men chose to go out and commit war crimes; they didn't feel it was necessary to investigate whether they were killing innocent people or not; to rob them of their partial responsibility for the crimes they committed treats them as pawns with no ability whatsoever to make decisions. Many other kids of similar educational status and socio-economic backgrounds did choose not participate in the war. Some of them died rather than kill others.
Remember also that these stories are used to recruit young men in order to commit similar crimes in the future. By repeating them in the hero-worshipping way you are, you're encouraging further murder to come.
I myself would rather see our Anti-War Medal of Honour list. "George grew up in a ghetto and saw his friend shot in front of him when he was 13. He was determined never to kill anyone. When he was drafted in the Vietnam was, he refused to fight and was sent to a military prison. He was found hanging in his cell with his hands tied behind his back; the official verdict was suicide."
Frankly, I'd simply rather read about Hugh Thompson, Jr. over and over again than these ignorant, brave, cheerful, mostly doomed murderers, killing and dying for reasons they never even understood.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:44 AM on April 1, 2008
Ugh. . . if you commit suicide instead of enduring military prison, I wouldn't lionize you either.
If you want to create an anti-Medal of Honor site (or I would instead call it like a Medal of Peace), you're welcome to it, though I don't think that simply refusing to kill is enough to make you worthy of adulation; plenty of people never kill anyone, and that action alone isn't extraordinary. However, those who promote peace and justice at great risk to themselves, above and beyond the call of duty, those too are incredible stories. Those who risk everything to save lives via non-violence should be held up just as high (if not higher) than those that risk everything to accomplish things via violence.
Okay, now that that is taken care of. . . I am a military person, so I suppose your comment is directed somewhat at people like me and my ilk. I'll try not to make this personal, as that would be unfair. However, lionization of valor is perfectly acceptable. Valor is a virtue. Some of these people accomplished amazing things. And yes, many times through destruction of life. But it doesn't have to be personal. I'm reminded of the Iwo Jima ceremonies they have some times when former Japanese soldiers and former U.S. Marines come and meet and honor the dead, with little malice in their heart for those across the divide. I can't remember the exact situation, but Mexico has a monument that honors soldiers that died fighting in the US/Mexican War. And the US honors this monument too, we've even had a President speak at it, if I recall. Of course, the memorial can be just as insidious symbol for a call to arms. . . but that's for another day.
And we're hardly the first to do this, nor the last. I think most people can read about Achilles's and Henry V's bravery but not think of them as utterly depraved because they fought enemies that, in many ways, weren't the bad guys.
Ah, well, I suppose I'm in the end a murderer, and therefor my opinion should be tainted by the blood I will spill. Because, sometime in my career, I will spill blood, either by firing a missile, ordering a strike, shooting at someone, or even when I'm old, just by paying taxes. I have to accept this fact. I understand if you're not okay with it, but at some level (because no thinking man can be totally), I am.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:09 AM on April 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
If you want to create an anti-Medal of Honor site (or I would instead call it like a Medal of Peace), you're welcome to it, though I don't think that simply refusing to kill is enough to make you worthy of adulation; plenty of people never kill anyone, and that action alone isn't extraordinary. However, those who promote peace and justice at great risk to themselves, above and beyond the call of duty, those too are incredible stories. Those who risk everything to save lives via non-violence should be held up just as high (if not higher) than those that risk everything to accomplish things via violence.
Okay, now that that is taken care of. . . I am a military person, so I suppose your comment is directed somewhat at people like me and my ilk. I'll try not to make this personal, as that would be unfair. However, lionization of valor is perfectly acceptable. Valor is a virtue. Some of these people accomplished amazing things. And yes, many times through destruction of life. But it doesn't have to be personal. I'm reminded of the Iwo Jima ceremonies they have some times when former Japanese soldiers and former U.S. Marines come and meet and honor the dead, with little malice in their heart for those across the divide. I can't remember the exact situation, but Mexico has a monument that honors soldiers that died fighting in the US/Mexican War. And the US honors this monument too, we've even had a President speak at it, if I recall. Of course, the memorial can be just as insidious symbol for a call to arms. . . but that's for another day.
And we're hardly the first to do this, nor the last. I think most people can read about Achilles's and Henry V's bravery but not think of them as utterly depraved because they fought enemies that, in many ways, weren't the bad guys.
Ah, well, I suppose I'm in the end a murderer, and therefor my opinion should be tainted by the blood I will spill. Because, sometime in my career, I will spill blood, either by firing a missile, ordering a strike, shooting at someone, or even when I'm old, just by paying taxes. I have to accept this fact. I understand if you're not okay with it, but at some level (because no thinking man can be totally), I am.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:09 AM on April 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
“But I don't think they should be lionized for aiding and abetting in what are essentially great crimes against humanity.”
Totally. Still paying taxes are ya?
These men gave their lives for their fellows. They didn’t “choose to commit war crimes” any more than you choose to support the criminal actions of the civilian government. Their actions are constrained by the law just as much as yours are (in fact more) and if they’re complicit - you’re complicit.
Actual war crimes - whole other story.
“Frankly, I'd simply rather read about Hugh Thompson, Jr.”
Thompson took a stand against wanton killing which is laudable and downright heroic. But he killed people as well. He aided and abetted the war effort - by your own criteria he committed crimes against humanity. Have some consistency in your own argument maybe.
“I live in a much more militarized society than I did 10 years ago”
Don’t blame the fetishization of the troops on the troops. They don’t vote to go to war. They go in front of the line at airports because if they don’t show up on time where they are ordered to be they can be punished. They’re not traveling for vacation.
“I really don't want to read these accounts of more killing,”
Really? And that vindicates your commenting when you could have simply, y’know, not read it? ‘Cause I really don’t want to read you blather on about far broader topics than the post is about. Yet here we are.
“Remember also that these stories are used to recruit young men in order to commit similar crimes in the future.”
So fetishization of the troops and using these stories to recruit people - bad. Fetishization of the troops and using these stories to castigate the troops as criminals - good.
Y’know, I’ve got no damn use for my medals. I really couldn’t care less for such things. And I do think as Napoleon said such things are handed out as empty trinkets to spur some men on.
And had your comments been localized to such criticisms, I would have considered them valid. Instead you paint with broad strokes (conveniently excluding yourself) everyone remotely connected with “war” and the U.S. as a criminal and anyone on the other side as innocent victims who harmed no one.
When indeed the North Vietnamese tortured people (at the Hanoi Hilton), murdered innocents, slaughtered villages (city of Hue massacre 1968), placed thousands of South Vietnamese into concentration camps, etc. etc. etc.
And it wasn’t only the U.S. there - it was also the governments of Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, et.al.
This is not to argue the point of whether the invasion of Vietnam by the U.S. was justified (I think it was not) but rather that there is not a cut and dried metric to assign blame.
At the Bac’in massacre the Serbs killed hundreds. The guys running the air campaign on the carriers (the Roosevelt and the America) to stop all that and what happened at Srebrenica, etc. etc. - they’re all war criminals?
The issues are far more complex than some comedian’s musings.
There have always been struggles over military service - from the plebes to today. What is required - what has always been required for any success and what has been proven successful in the past is civilian demand for accountability for wars from their leaders.
(The plebicites for example struck to gain that much more freedom from conscription and control over their own property and movement.)
This “what if they gave a war and nobody came” schtick is bullshit. What if *they* couldn’t give a war without civilian consent? That’d pretty well f’up military mobilization - and in a good way - and it doesn’t place all the burden on young men of service age to commit suicide instead of serving but requires everyone to y’know, maybe get up off their ass.
But as it is, they don’t feel the pain, so fuck ‘em. You and others have the luxury to ignore war or denounce it or whatever you will without feeling any responsibility for it because you’re not invested in it at all. Whether ex-servicemen are your friends or not - you and manifestly others feel only distantly connected to the realities of war and the people fighting. There’s no actual real risk so people
can cheer, condemn or ignore whatever foreign policy choices the U.S. makes from the psychological distance of their choosing.
Even in protest there is the political acquiescence of broad sections of the middle and upper middle classes.
Indeed, the only thing that can shut down a war in the U.S. is the American people. And yet it’s “this” war or “that” war - but no address of the apparatus to make war or acceptance of the responsibility of mobilization (it’s “the troops” fault, or the leaders fault or whomever’s - not “mine” for accepting civic responsibility for foreign policy).
And people forget that it wasn’t just college kids and hippy radicals opposing the draft it was long standing effort by returning veterans and people who lost friends and relatives.
And as Hayden said then, I say now - there is a a sense of apathy in the country, perhaps by design, but in any case in no way has protest reached the level of investment it once had.
People busted into draft boards and shredded files, hell, Dow Chemical was sabotaged.
Anti-war appeal based on morality has little impact on people who are only marginally invested or affected by war.
And to place focus on “the troops” removes focus from where it should rightfully be - on the American domestic arrangements that enable the government to prosecute and profit by war.
And it’s certainly not the troops who come home with their minds broken and their bodies maimed that profit from the war.
It’s the leaders - and of course civilians reaping the trickle down benefits of foreign policies that were cast long before anyone was told to pick up a weapon.
But changing those policies isn’t *their* job, oh, no. It’s the young men of service age who should do the job of resisting - and long after the die is cast, right?
Horse manure.
The bravery and valor shown here should never have been made necessary and would never have come to pass if people had kept an eye on the policies passed by the leaders.
But of course, that’s why we love them as “heroes” - because when it comes time to collect for the decisions made, they’re the only ones who pay. In blood.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:36 PM on April 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Totally. Still paying taxes are ya?
These men gave their lives for their fellows. They didn’t “choose to commit war crimes” any more than you choose to support the criminal actions of the civilian government. Their actions are constrained by the law just as much as yours are (in fact more) and if they’re complicit - you’re complicit.
Actual war crimes - whole other story.
“Frankly, I'd simply rather read about Hugh Thompson, Jr.”
Thompson took a stand against wanton killing which is laudable and downright heroic. But he killed people as well. He aided and abetted the war effort - by your own criteria he committed crimes against humanity. Have some consistency in your own argument maybe.
“I live in a much more militarized society than I did 10 years ago”
Don’t blame the fetishization of the troops on the troops. They don’t vote to go to war. They go in front of the line at airports because if they don’t show up on time where they are ordered to be they can be punished. They’re not traveling for vacation.
“I really don't want to read these accounts of more killing,”
Really? And that vindicates your commenting when you could have simply, y’know, not read it? ‘Cause I really don’t want to read you blather on about far broader topics than the post is about. Yet here we are.
“Remember also that these stories are used to recruit young men in order to commit similar crimes in the future.”
So fetishization of the troops and using these stories to recruit people - bad. Fetishization of the troops and using these stories to castigate the troops as criminals - good.
Y’know, I’ve got no damn use for my medals. I really couldn’t care less for such things. And I do think as Napoleon said such things are handed out as empty trinkets to spur some men on.
And had your comments been localized to such criticisms, I would have considered them valid. Instead you paint with broad strokes (conveniently excluding yourself) everyone remotely connected with “war” and the U.S. as a criminal and anyone on the other side as innocent victims who harmed no one.
When indeed the North Vietnamese tortured people (at the Hanoi Hilton), murdered innocents, slaughtered villages (city of Hue massacre 1968), placed thousands of South Vietnamese into concentration camps, etc. etc. etc.
And it wasn’t only the U.S. there - it was also the governments of Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, et.al.
This is not to argue the point of whether the invasion of Vietnam by the U.S. was justified (I think it was not) but rather that there is not a cut and dried metric to assign blame.
At the Bac’in massacre the Serbs killed hundreds. The guys running the air campaign on the carriers (the Roosevelt and the America) to stop all that and what happened at Srebrenica, etc. etc. - they’re all war criminals?
The issues are far more complex than some comedian’s musings.
There have always been struggles over military service - from the plebes to today. What is required - what has always been required for any success and what has been proven successful in the past is civilian demand for accountability for wars from their leaders.
(The plebicites for example struck to gain that much more freedom from conscription and control over their own property and movement.)
This “what if they gave a war and nobody came” schtick is bullshit. What if *they* couldn’t give a war without civilian consent? That’d pretty well f’up military mobilization - and in a good way - and it doesn’t place all the burden on young men of service age to commit suicide instead of serving but requires everyone to y’know, maybe get up off their ass.
But as it is, they don’t feel the pain, so fuck ‘em. You and others have the luxury to ignore war or denounce it or whatever you will without feeling any responsibility for it because you’re not invested in it at all. Whether ex-servicemen are your friends or not - you and manifestly others feel only distantly connected to the realities of war and the people fighting. There’s no actual real risk so people
can cheer, condemn or ignore whatever foreign policy choices the U.S. makes from the psychological distance of their choosing.
Even in protest there is the political acquiescence of broad sections of the middle and upper middle classes.
Indeed, the only thing that can shut down a war in the U.S. is the American people. And yet it’s “this” war or “that” war - but no address of the apparatus to make war or acceptance of the responsibility of mobilization (it’s “the troops” fault, or the leaders fault or whomever’s - not “mine” for accepting civic responsibility for foreign policy).
And people forget that it wasn’t just college kids and hippy radicals opposing the draft it was long standing effort by returning veterans and people who lost friends and relatives.
And as Hayden said then, I say now - there is a a sense of apathy in the country, perhaps by design, but in any case in no way has protest reached the level of investment it once had.
People busted into draft boards and shredded files, hell, Dow Chemical was sabotaged.
Anti-war appeal based on morality has little impact on people who are only marginally invested or affected by war.
And to place focus on “the troops” removes focus from where it should rightfully be - on the American domestic arrangements that enable the government to prosecute and profit by war.
And it’s certainly not the troops who come home with their minds broken and their bodies maimed that profit from the war.
It’s the leaders - and of course civilians reaping the trickle down benefits of foreign policies that were cast long before anyone was told to pick up a weapon.
But changing those policies isn’t *their* job, oh, no. It’s the young men of service age who should do the job of resisting - and long after the die is cast, right?
Horse manure.
The bravery and valor shown here should never have been made necessary and would never have come to pass if people had kept an eye on the policies passed by the leaders.
But of course, that’s why we love them as “heroes” - because when it comes time to collect for the decisions made, they’re the only ones who pay. In blood.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:36 PM on April 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Lupus: Looking at the Vietnam link, you could also find the name of my cousin Thomas Noonan, who won the medal because of his valor in giving up his own life to save wounded men in his unit. I'm sorry you didn't agree with his being there in the first place, but calling him and others like him "war criminals" offends me more than anything I've seen here. Ever.
posted by OolooKitty at 12:43 PM on April 1, 2008
posted by OolooKitty at 12:43 PM on April 1, 2008
Looking at the Vietnam links, you see pages of Americans decorated for killing scores of people in their own country, people who would never have offered the slightest threat to America or Americans if they hadn't invaded their country.
Actually, looking at the Vietnam links, I see mostly men who were decorated for being wounded and/or killed trying to protect their squad or pull someone else out of danger. For example, "falling on a grenade" seems to be a dominant theme. For someone with such a strong opinion on these matters, you don't seem to understand what "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity" means (hint: it doesn't have much to do with killing per se -- soldiers are expected to do that, and while there are some medals they can get for being particularly good at it, the Medal of Honor is not among them. The MoH is for exceptional bravery).
posted by vorfeed at 1:37 PM on April 1, 2008
Actually, looking at the Vietnam links, I see mostly men who were decorated for being wounded and/or killed trying to protect their squad or pull someone else out of danger. For example, "falling on a grenade" seems to be a dominant theme. For someone with such a strong opinion on these matters, you don't seem to understand what "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity" means (hint: it doesn't have much to do with killing per se -- soldiers are expected to do that, and while there are some medals they can get for being particularly good at it, the Medal of Honor is not among them. The MoH is for exceptional bravery).
posted by vorfeed at 1:37 PM on April 1, 2008
vorfeed beat me to it, and good on him.
Here, for the record, are the requirements for getting the MoH.
posted by IndigoJones at 3:38 PM on April 1, 2008
Here, for the record, are the requirements for getting the MoH.
posted by IndigoJones at 3:38 PM on April 1, 2008
"but calling him and others like him "war criminals" offends me more than anything I've seen here. Ever."
OolooKitty: There were about 1.5 million Vietnamese killed by Americans. Can you give me a reason for this? Can you name something that was accomplished by this?
Did these people offer harm to the United States? Would they have ever have offered harm to your cousin had he stayed in the United States?
In the Vietnam war, there were somewhere between 25 and 50 dead Vietnamese for each dead American. Each dead American is roughly one Virginia Tech shooter, except the victims are Asian and the shooter is Caucasian.
Now, don't think I don't feel bad for these American soldiers in Vietnam - they were deluded dupes who were fooled into committing mass murder by the psychopaths in power. (This argument is much stronger for Vietnam vets than Iraq veterans who should have learned something from the Vietnam war.)
I understand that these people felt that they were doing right. But they were not. They were embarked on a mission of mass murder. Millions were killed for nothing at all. Honouring the murderers, even though in many cases they might not have been fully informed (but isn't it your responsibility to become fully informed before go to a foreign land to kill strangers?) makes a travesty of ethics and justice.
I think I've mentioned that I know quite a few Nam vets. I think they'd all agree with me that a terrible crime was committed in Vietnam. I think they'd accurately say, "I was young, I was stupid, I did terrible things, I have sought forgiveness for my sins." I think we'd all agree that an awful lot of the blame resides with the criminals in command.
But honouring these murders is wrong. If these medals of honour were presented as, "We did these terrible things, but the sacrifices of these individuals for the group show great selflessness," that would be one thing.
But I see no apology there. I see only, "We killed millions of people, and these people helped us do it."
I'm sorry about your cousin but he participated in a mass murder, eventually becoming a victim in his turn. We should learn from him. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. People need to be absolutely god-damn motherfucking sure before they kill strangers who've never offered them the slightest harm that this is absolutely and 100% the right thing to do.
I really am sorry about your cousin. I really like humans. I wish things worked out better for him. But he died during the commission of a great crime - and the fact that Americans are willing to completely deny that any crime was committed is exactly why Americans were capable of committing more or less the same crime again in Iraq.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:20 PM on April 1, 2008
OolooKitty: There were about 1.5 million Vietnamese killed by Americans. Can you give me a reason for this? Can you name something that was accomplished by this?
Did these people offer harm to the United States? Would they have ever have offered harm to your cousin had he stayed in the United States?
In the Vietnam war, there were somewhere between 25 and 50 dead Vietnamese for each dead American. Each dead American is roughly one Virginia Tech shooter, except the victims are Asian and the shooter is Caucasian.
Now, don't think I don't feel bad for these American soldiers in Vietnam - they were deluded dupes who were fooled into committing mass murder by the psychopaths in power. (This argument is much stronger for Vietnam vets than Iraq veterans who should have learned something from the Vietnam war.)
I understand that these people felt that they were doing right. But they were not. They were embarked on a mission of mass murder. Millions were killed for nothing at all. Honouring the murderers, even though in many cases they might not have been fully informed (but isn't it your responsibility to become fully informed before go to a foreign land to kill strangers?) makes a travesty of ethics and justice.
I think I've mentioned that I know quite a few Nam vets. I think they'd all agree with me that a terrible crime was committed in Vietnam. I think they'd accurately say, "I was young, I was stupid, I did terrible things, I have sought forgiveness for my sins." I think we'd all agree that an awful lot of the blame resides with the criminals in command.
But honouring these murders is wrong. If these medals of honour were presented as, "We did these terrible things, but the sacrifices of these individuals for the group show great selflessness," that would be one thing.
But I see no apology there. I see only, "We killed millions of people, and these people helped us do it."
I'm sorry about your cousin but he participated in a mass murder, eventually becoming a victim in his turn. We should learn from him. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. People need to be absolutely god-damn motherfucking sure before they kill strangers who've never offered them the slightest harm that this is absolutely and 100% the right thing to do.
I really am sorry about your cousin. I really like humans. I wish things worked out better for him. But he died during the commission of a great crime - and the fact that Americans are willing to completely deny that any crime was committed is exactly why Americans were capable of committing more or less the same crime again in Iraq.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:20 PM on April 1, 2008
There were about 1.5 million Vietnamese killed by Americans. Can you give me a reason for this? Can you name something that was accomplished by this?
The reason would be "because we wished to Americanize Vietnam". The accomplishment would be "there were about 1.5 million Vietnamese killed by Americans". It's rather a shame that we didn't have either a "better" political goal or more success in realizing said goal, but if it were possible to see the results from the outset, no one would ever fight a foolish war, right? It's easy to forget that there was plenty of public support for war in Vietnam in 1965, on both sides, and that it takes two to tango. Many of those "victims" you cry for were actually soldiers who fought gallantly and fiercely to re-unite and defend their homeland against tremendous odds, and your hyperbolic crap about "murder" insults them even more than it does the American soldiers.
If Vietnam had been the "murder" you seem to wish it were, there would be no independent Vietnam today. Instead, Vietnam survives as a sovereign nation... the difference being that in war the other guy can and does shoot back.
(This argument is much stronger for Vietnam vets than Iraq veterans who should have learned something from the Vietnam war.)
You're telling me that Americans between the age of 16 and 30 -- that is to say, Americans who were born at least 10 years after the end of the Vietnam conflict, if not 20 -- are supposed to have "learned" from a war they and their peers never saw, a war that America pretty much stopped discussing honestly shortly after it was over? A war that gets maybe 10 pages in our shitty, designed-by-committee "history" books? All this, despite the fact that the only war most of our current grunts could remember during their lifetimes was a shockingly successful war against the same country? Come on. It's funny how you can so easily put yourself in the shoes of somebody from Haiphong in 1963, but not from Austin in 2003.
Also, if Iraq vets "should have learned" from Vietnam, why shouldn't Vietnam vets "have learned" from Korea, a painfully unsuccessful war that was much closer in terms of time and memory? Sorry, but it seems to me that you're simply attacking the easy target, here.
Your posts show a whole lot of sympathy for "humans", all except Americans, and I'm not sure why. Even the slightest glance at history suggests that many nations & cultures have engaged in the exact same kinds of "murder" that America has, and all the other nations & cultures likewise engaged in the same kind of "victimhood" that the Vietnamese did. War is human, on the aggressive side as well as on the defensive side, so if you really want to like humans, you could start with a more nuanced view of both sides of war.
Or, alternately, you could continue with your simplistic and purposely insulting line of argument, and those who are the most insulted by it -- and also happen to be the very people who are most likely to be able to change things -- could continue ignoring you.
posted by vorfeed at 10:14 AM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
The reason would be "because we wished to Americanize Vietnam". The accomplishment would be "there were about 1.5 million Vietnamese killed by Americans". It's rather a shame that we didn't have either a "better" political goal or more success in realizing said goal, but if it were possible to see the results from the outset, no one would ever fight a foolish war, right? It's easy to forget that there was plenty of public support for war in Vietnam in 1965, on both sides, and that it takes two to tango. Many of those "victims" you cry for were actually soldiers who fought gallantly and fiercely to re-unite and defend their homeland against tremendous odds, and your hyperbolic crap about "murder" insults them even more than it does the American soldiers.
If Vietnam had been the "murder" you seem to wish it were, there would be no independent Vietnam today. Instead, Vietnam survives as a sovereign nation... the difference being that in war the other guy can and does shoot back.
(This argument is much stronger for Vietnam vets than Iraq veterans who should have learned something from the Vietnam war.)
You're telling me that Americans between the age of 16 and 30 -- that is to say, Americans who were born at least 10 years after the end of the Vietnam conflict, if not 20 -- are supposed to have "learned" from a war they and their peers never saw, a war that America pretty much stopped discussing honestly shortly after it was over? A war that gets maybe 10 pages in our shitty, designed-by-committee "history" books? All this, despite the fact that the only war most of our current grunts could remember during their lifetimes was a shockingly successful war against the same country? Come on. It's funny how you can so easily put yourself in the shoes of somebody from Haiphong in 1963, but not from Austin in 2003.
Also, if Iraq vets "should have learned" from Vietnam, why shouldn't Vietnam vets "have learned" from Korea, a painfully unsuccessful war that was much closer in terms of time and memory? Sorry, but it seems to me that you're simply attacking the easy target, here.
Your posts show a whole lot of sympathy for "humans", all except Americans, and I'm not sure why. Even the slightest glance at history suggests that many nations & cultures have engaged in the exact same kinds of "murder" that America has, and all the other nations & cultures likewise engaged in the same kind of "victimhood" that the Vietnamese did. War is human, on the aggressive side as well as on the defensive side, so if you really want to like humans, you could start with a more nuanced view of both sides of war.
Or, alternately, you could continue with your simplistic and purposely insulting line of argument, and those who are the most insulted by it -- and also happen to be the very people who are most likely to be able to change things -- could continue ignoring you.
posted by vorfeed at 10:14 AM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
I think you're all missing the point here: "McCOOL, RICHARD MILES"
... the guy's name was Dick McCool.
No, but seriously, the simple fact that we HAVE a military which goes out and kills people by mandate of our representative government means that they are a part of this society, like it or not. If you want to change that fact, I suggest either running for office or doing some sort of meaningful protest. Attacking the military culture from the outside is bound to fail and, more interesting, bound to make one look like an ignorant twit. Honor and Valor are real concepts for those in the military, and these same ideals that ennoble brutality also hold the military in check against their own population. So I say more medals, please!
posted by eparchos at 3:06 PM on April 2, 2008
... the guy's name was Dick McCool.
No, but seriously, the simple fact that we HAVE a military which goes out and kills people by mandate of our representative government means that they are a part of this society, like it or not. If you want to change that fact, I suggest either running for office or doing some sort of meaningful protest. Attacking the military culture from the outside is bound to fail and, more interesting, bound to make one look like an ignorant twit. Honor and Valor are real concepts for those in the military, and these same ideals that ennoble brutality also hold the military in check against their own population. So I say more medals, please!
posted by eparchos at 3:06 PM on April 2, 2008
« Older gethuman on steroids | Go south, young polar bear Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by gwint at 9:29 PM on March 31, 2008