Groundbreak Much?
November 14, 2008 10:39 AM Subscribe
"I have never considered myself anything but a Soldier." The U.S. names its first female four-star general: Ann E. Dunwoody.
Choice quote: "There is no one more surprised than I — except, of course, my husband. You know what they say, `Behind every successful woman there is an astonished man.' "
Official Department of Defense press release.
Choice quote: "There is no one more surprised than I — except, of course, my husband. You know what they say, `Behind every successful woman there is an astonished man.' "
Official Department of Defense press release.
This is a few months old, no?
posted by allen.spaulding at 10:45 AM on November 14, 2008
posted by allen.spaulding at 10:45 AM on November 14, 2008
One more barrier down. It will be more meaningful when a woman can achieve high rank and have kids, too. (wikipedia doesn't list any).
posted by theora55 at 10:48 AM on November 14, 2008
posted by theora55 at 10:48 AM on November 14, 2008
Please, no one scorn her! You wouldn't like her when she's scorned.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:49 AM on November 14, 2008
posted by blue_beetle at 10:49 AM on November 14, 2008
and, yes, I understand that she may not have wanted children, etc. But many women who break barriers have to put in so much time, and have so much focus, that having kids derails them. This does not appear to be true for men.
posted by theora55 at 10:49 AM on November 14, 2008
posted by theora55 at 10:49 AM on November 14, 2008
As former member of the Quatermaster Corps I have to say this is a good thing. General Dunwoody is a class act.
posted by bjgeiger at 10:50 AM on November 14, 2008
posted by bjgeiger at 10:50 AM on November 14, 2008
Yeah, your links are from June, July, and August. I'm not quite clear on the point of posting it now.
posted by languagehat at 10:51 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by languagehat at 10:51 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
It will be more meaningful when a woman can achieve high rank and have kids, too.
You'll only have to wait 4 more years for an amazing and remarkable woman to accomplish this feat. Palin for commander-in-chief in 2012!
posted by gman at 10:52 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
You'll only have to wait 4 more years for an amazing and remarkable woman to accomplish this feat. Palin for commander-in-chief in 2012!
posted by gman at 10:52 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
Yes we can.
That's just going to be my default answer to everything now.
"I'm sorry sir you can't park there."
Yes we can.
"Hey, you are going to have to pay for that!"
Yes we can.
"Do you know how fast you were going?"
Yes we can.
"Get your hands off my ass you creep!"
Yes we can!
posted by Pollomacho at 10:59 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
That's just going to be my default answer to everything now.
"I'm sorry sir you can't park there."
Yes we can.
"Hey, you are going to have to pay for that!"
Yes we can.
"Do you know how fast you were going?"
Yes we can.
"Get your hands off my ass you creep!"
Yes we can!
posted by Pollomacho at 10:59 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
This is pretty awesome. I was just reading the family info on the Wikipedia page.
Her father is a retired Brigadier General Harold H. Dunwoody, 89, of Englewood, Florida. He retired in 1973, and is a highly decorated veteran of World War II, the Korean and the Vietnam War. He was badly wounded in France during WWII and earned the Distinguished Service Cross for bravery while serving as a battalion commander in the Korean War. As a Brigadier General, he commanded the 1st Brigade, 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized) during the Vietnam War.
Her great-grandfather, Henry Harrison Chase Dunwoody, served as a one star general.
Her mother Elizabeth died in 2006 at age of 81.
Harold H. Dunwoody, Jr., nicknamed “Buck,” is her older brother. A 1970 West Point graduate, he achieved the rank of First Lieutenant.
Susan Schoeck, is her older sister, who became the third woman in the Army to become a helicopter pilot.
Jennifer Schoeck, her niece, is an Air Force fighter pilot.
She has been married to Colonel Craig Brotchie, USAF (Retired) for 18 years.
When I was growing up, my family could barely stage an organized mission to Costco without waving the white flag of surrender and defeat by 2pm. This family could execute an armed takeover of Canada as a fun Saturday outing. I want to have thanksgiving diner with these folks.
posted by billyfleetwood at 10:59 AM on November 14, 2008 [12 favorites]
Her father is a retired Brigadier General Harold H. Dunwoody, 89, of Englewood, Florida. He retired in 1973, and is a highly decorated veteran of World War II, the Korean and the Vietnam War. He was badly wounded in France during WWII and earned the Distinguished Service Cross for bravery while serving as a battalion commander in the Korean War. As a Brigadier General, he commanded the 1st Brigade, 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized) during the Vietnam War.
Her great-grandfather, Henry Harrison Chase Dunwoody, served as a one star general.
Her mother Elizabeth died in 2006 at age of 81.
Harold H. Dunwoody, Jr., nicknamed “Buck,” is her older brother. A 1970 West Point graduate, he achieved the rank of First Lieutenant.
Susan Schoeck, is her older sister, who became the third woman in the Army to become a helicopter pilot.
Jennifer Schoeck, her niece, is an Air Force fighter pilot.
She has been married to Colonel Craig Brotchie, USAF (Retired) for 18 years.
When I was growing up, my family could barely stage an organized mission to Costco without waving the white flag of surrender and defeat by 2pm. This family could execute an armed takeover of Canada as a fun Saturday outing. I want to have thanksgiving diner with these folks.
posted by billyfleetwood at 10:59 AM on November 14, 2008 [12 favorites]
It will be more meaningful when a woman can achieve high rank and have kids, too.
(I think) I know what you mean, but you might want think again about how to say this. It almost sounds like you are saying that a woman's accomplishments are more meaningful when she has kids.
posted by DU at 11:01 AM on November 14, 2008
(I think) I know what you mean, but you might want think again about how to say this. It almost sounds like you are saying that a woman's accomplishments are more meaningful when she has kids.
posted by DU at 11:01 AM on November 14, 2008
@ allen.spaulding, languagehat: Posted now because I just found out today. Anybody else?
Also, her promotion ceremony was today.
Funny how these kinds of things fly under the radar sometimes.
posted by jabberjaw at 11:11 AM on November 14, 2008
Also, her promotion ceremony was today.
Funny how these kinds of things fly under the radar sometimes.
posted by jabberjaw at 11:11 AM on November 14, 2008
To defend the timing of the post, today is the day she is officially promoted.
Too bad she can't lead the charge in any campaign, what with the U.S. Army's stance against women in combat.
Me thinks the camo glass ceiling is still quite intact.
posted by Muddler at 11:11 AM on November 14, 2008
Too bad she can't lead the charge in any campaign, what with the U.S. Army's stance against women in combat.
Me thinks the camo glass ceiling is still quite intact.
posted by Muddler at 11:11 AM on November 14, 2008
theora55 writes "It will be more meaningful when a woman can achieve high rank and have kids, too."
Why would it be more meaningful if she had children? It would just mean that she was able to afford a nanny, she put off the bulk of the childrearing work on her husband (or wife!), or she neglected her kids in pursuit of her career. It isn't any more meaningful than it would be if a man accomplished this with children.
posted by mullingitover at 11:13 AM on November 14, 2008 [6 favorites]
Why would it be more meaningful if she had children? It would just mean that she was able to afford a nanny, she put off the bulk of the childrearing work on her husband (or wife!), or she neglected her kids in pursuit of her career. It isn't any more meaningful than it would be if a man accomplished this with children.
posted by mullingitover at 11:13 AM on November 14, 2008 [6 favorites]
It will be more meaningful when a woman can achieve high rank and have kids, too.
Someday soon, in the not too distant future - maybe in our daughters' time, or maybe in our granddaughters' time, at least - we will finally achieve the dream: an equal number of shitty absentee workaholic mothers as shitty absentee workaholic fathers. Because we can have it all and sacrifice nothing. Yes we can!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:23 AM on November 14, 2008 [10 favorites]
Someday soon, in the not too distant future - maybe in our daughters' time, or maybe in our granddaughters' time, at least - we will finally achieve the dream: an equal number of shitty absentee workaholic mothers as shitty absentee workaholic fathers. Because we can have it all and sacrifice nothing. Yes we can!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:23 AM on November 14, 2008 [10 favorites]
Brandon Blatcher writes "Yes we can."
Or as the Hillary camp used to reanalyze it, "Yes SHE can", emphasizing not Obama's call for shared struggle reminiscent of the Civil Rights and before that, Worker's Movements, but the celebrity politician, and closest Friend of Bill her husband, the man not "of Hope", but "from Hope".
Although Dunwody's statement, pointing to the shared exertions of the women who came before her, seems to be more in the "we" camp.
posted by orthogonality at 11:24 AM on November 14, 2008
Or as the Hillary camp used to reanalyze it, "Yes SHE can", emphasizing not Obama's call for shared struggle reminiscent of the Civil Rights and before that, Worker's Movements, but the celebrity politician, and closest Friend of Bill her husband, the man not "of Hope", but "from Hope".
Although Dunwody's statement, pointing to the shared exertions of the women who came before her, seems to be more in the "we" camp.
posted by orthogonality at 11:24 AM on November 14, 2008
Wait. Isn't this the same military responsible for millions of innocent civilian deaths from countries that never offered the US any harm, countries like Vietnam and Iraq?
Why is this article a good thing at all?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:28 AM on November 14, 2008
Why is this article a good thing at all?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:28 AM on November 14, 2008
...what with the U.S. Army's stance against women in combat...
It's not the US Army. It's Congress. They're the ones who passed that law.
posted by Class Goat at 11:30 AM on November 14, 2008
It's not the US Army. It's Congress. They're the ones who passed that law.
posted by Class Goat at 11:30 AM on November 14, 2008
Based on her family history I call shenanigans or at least nepotism. Just because you're a legacy shouldn't mean you automatically get into the fraternity. But hell yeah that would be some awesome Thanksgiving table talk.
posted by Gungho at 11:31 AM on November 14, 2008
posted by Gungho at 11:31 AM on November 14, 2008
Just because you're a legacy shouldn't mean you automatically get into the fraternity.
If that were the case there'd be a hell of a lot more four star generals walking around (or being driven around in Hummers or whatever).
posted by ODiV at 11:41 AM on November 14, 2008
If that were the case there'd be a hell of a lot more four star generals walking around (or being driven around in Hummers or whatever).
posted by ODiV at 11:41 AM on November 14, 2008
Wait. Isn't this the same military responsible for millions of innocent civilian deaths from countries that never offered the US any harm, countries like Vietnam and Iraq?
Yep. The same one. Funny how that works.
posted by jabberjaw at 11:44 AM on November 14, 2008
Yep. The same one. Funny how that works.
posted by jabberjaw at 11:44 AM on November 14, 2008
Wait. Isn't this the same military responsible for millions of innocent civilian deaths from countries that never offered the US any harm, countries like Vietnam and Iraq?
Yes, because as we all know, every single member of the military is responsible for every action of every other member, plus the politicians who send them to war! Keep grinding that ax, grindyboy.
posted by TungstenChef at 11:49 AM on November 14, 2008
Yes, because as we all know, every single member of the military is responsible for every action of every other member, plus the politicians who send them to war! Keep grinding that ax, grindyboy.
posted by TungstenChef at 11:49 AM on November 14, 2008
Women have seen combat in the Iraq war. It's just officially they are not supposed to be sent into direct combat operations. But there are no combat lines in Iraq. So you can be a medic or a liaison or technician one minute and be running for your life in 80lbs of battle rattle with 7.62 rounds kicking sand up your ass the next.
Wait. Isn't this the same military responsible for millions of innocent civilian deaths from countries that never offered the US any harm, countries like Vietnam and Iraq?
I see this comment was kill-filed by the mods. Good. Because must we do this every time the military is mentioned? YEs I too am outraged by the senseless deaths of innocents. So fucking what.
Yes. The military kills people. It's what they do. Nobody understands this stark reality better than the men and women who serve. It is an awful thing. War is an awful business. I hope we can be rid of it soon. Be we are not rid of it yet.
I suppose this anti-military reaction is based in this tired canard that "If only people wouldn't join the army then there would be no war". It's as simplistic and meaningless as "if only people wouldn't kill each other there would be no murder." Or golly, I wish people wouldn't lie. There should only be truth.
Human beings are awfully flawed things. And there are lots of people in this world. And all of them, to one degree or another, have conflicting interests. All of them. As much as we have in common we also have in competition. And when big bunches of them get together and form political communities all competing for a finite amount of resources there is gonna be a fight. And so we have the dogs of war as a profession.
I understand some people embrace non-violence or are pacifists as a matter of principle. I respect that. But pacifism, while a laudable goal for individuals, is a suicidal principle for political communities in the world we currently live. And frankly hating on people who really believe in making the world safe for you, if you agree or not, is counter productive and ignorant as hell. You want those people on your side.
posted by tkchrist at 12:07 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
Wait. Isn't this the same military responsible for millions of innocent civilian deaths from countries that never offered the US any harm, countries like Vietnam and Iraq?
I see this comment was kill-filed by the mods. Good. Because must we do this every time the military is mentioned? YEs I too am outraged by the senseless deaths of innocents. So fucking what.
Yes. The military kills people. It's what they do. Nobody understands this stark reality better than the men and women who serve. It is an awful thing. War is an awful business. I hope we can be rid of it soon. Be we are not rid of it yet.
I suppose this anti-military reaction is based in this tired canard that "If only people wouldn't join the army then there would be no war". It's as simplistic and meaningless as "if only people wouldn't kill each other there would be no murder." Or golly, I wish people wouldn't lie. There should only be truth.
Human beings are awfully flawed things. And there are lots of people in this world. And all of them, to one degree or another, have conflicting interests. All of them. As much as we have in common we also have in competition. And when big bunches of them get together and form political communities all competing for a finite amount of resources there is gonna be a fight. And so we have the dogs of war as a profession.
I understand some people embrace non-violence or are pacifists as a matter of principle. I respect that. But pacifism, while a laudable goal for individuals, is a suicidal principle for political communities in the world we currently live. And frankly hating on people who really believe in making the world safe for you, if you agree or not, is counter productive and ignorant as hell. You want those people on your side.
posted by tkchrist at 12:07 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
Someday soon, in the not too distant future - maybe in our daughters' time, or maybe in our granddaughters' time, at least - we will finally achieve the dream: an equal number of shitty absentee workaholic mothers as shitty absentee workaholic fathers. Because we can have it all and sacrifice nothing. Yes we can!
YES.
I wholeheartedly applaud women who do have careers AND children, especially high power careers. However, the norm in our society is still that men work full-time. Stay at home dads are becoming more and more common, but they're still certainly the exception. If both parents are working 40+ hours per week, the reality is that someone outside the immediate family is going to be doing the bulk of childcare. Perhaps that will be a grandparent, or a nanny, or an aunt, or a daycare provider, but the fact is still that the children will grow up with their primary adult influence being someone OTHER than their parents.
If that's what you want for your own family, then so be it. Certainly keeps me employed. And in my line of work, I've seen plenty of it. The family I work for in addition to having me as a nanny 30hrs/wk. also has two babysitters who each work at least one evening a week. Having two serious career parents means also investing in those of us who have made our careers in childcare.
There's nothing wrong with this, but it isn't something to be celebrated. "Yay, I worked my ass off to break the glass ceiling and in the meantime, I had children I hardly saw for years just because I COULD."
If she had had children, as mentioned, it would be no more laudatory than if a man had done the same thing. Being a parent doesn't give you a badge of honor, it just means you have an added responsibility to your children in addition to whatever responsibility you have to yourself and your career.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 12:12 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
YES.
I wholeheartedly applaud women who do have careers AND children, especially high power careers. However, the norm in our society is still that men work full-time. Stay at home dads are becoming more and more common, but they're still certainly the exception. If both parents are working 40+ hours per week, the reality is that someone outside the immediate family is going to be doing the bulk of childcare. Perhaps that will be a grandparent, or a nanny, or an aunt, or a daycare provider, but the fact is still that the children will grow up with their primary adult influence being someone OTHER than their parents.
If that's what you want for your own family, then so be it. Certainly keeps me employed. And in my line of work, I've seen plenty of it. The family I work for in addition to having me as a nanny 30hrs/wk. also has two babysitters who each work at least one evening a week. Having two serious career parents means also investing in those of us who have made our careers in childcare.
There's nothing wrong with this, but it isn't something to be celebrated. "Yay, I worked my ass off to break the glass ceiling and in the meantime, I had children I hardly saw for years just because I COULD."
If she had had children, as mentioned, it would be no more laudatory than if a man had done the same thing. Being a parent doesn't give you a badge of honor, it just means you have an added responsibility to your children in addition to whatever responsibility you have to yourself and your career.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 12:12 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
lupus, the many reasons why this sort of article is a good thing have been explained to you, in detail, over something like ten different military threads. If you still don't get it, that's nobody's fault but your own, so maybe you should stop asking these repetitive "rhetorical" questions, seeing as how you are not interested in any possible answers.
Next time, why don't you come up with a comment based on reading the article itself, rather than cut-n-pasting your usual attention-seeking bullshit?
Based on her family history I call shenanigans or at least nepotism.
Even without this promotion, she's the highest-ranked member of her family tree, by two entire ranks. How is that nepotism? What, did she arrange favors for herself? I don't buy it. Her family history is remarkable, but far from unique -- there are plenty of Armed Forces families whose histories are similar, but whose members don't make four-star general.
I don't doubt that you can make Brigadier General on the basis of nepotism, but there's no way they give four stars and the US Army Materiel Command to somebody based on how much they liked her daddy. Gen. Dunwoody's service record (1st COSCOM, SDDC, and CASCOM commands, plus Deputy Chief of Staff G-4 and Deputy Commanding General of Materiel Command) is more than enough to earn this promotion.
posted by vorfeed at 12:29 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
Next time, why don't you come up with a comment based on reading the article itself, rather than cut-n-pasting your usual attention-seeking bullshit?
Based on her family history I call shenanigans or at least nepotism.
Even without this promotion, she's the highest-ranked member of her family tree, by two entire ranks. How is that nepotism? What, did she arrange favors for herself? I don't buy it. Her family history is remarkable, but far from unique -- there are plenty of Armed Forces families whose histories are similar, but whose members don't make four-star general.
I don't doubt that you can make Brigadier General on the basis of nepotism, but there's no way they give four stars and the US Army Materiel Command to somebody based on how much they liked her daddy. Gen. Dunwoody's service record (1st COSCOM, SDDC, and CASCOM commands, plus Deputy Chief of Staff G-4 and Deputy Commanding General of Materiel Command) is more than enough to earn this promotion.
posted by vorfeed at 12:29 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
No, nothing has been "explained" to me.
As I've made clear before, my objection isn't to "the military" in general; I'm not a blanket pacifist; my objection is to the US military in particular.
More money has been spent on the US military than any project in human history. The record is dismal; millions of deaths of people who never offered the US any harm; continuous warfare for over 60 years; and now concentration camps.
Yet when the US was attacked, not only did the huge military establishment fail to protect the US (even though a system was in place, NORAD, that was supposed to handle exactly this sort of thing), but no one was disciplined for the failure, nothing changed in the system, and the culprit was never caught.
Now, I have no problems whatsoever with a "Defense Department" - this is not what we're getting - we're getting the biggest(*) offensive army ever created, costing more money than any project ever created.
So please explain it to me. Why should I support the activities of the US military and its endless foreign wars? Don't tell me you've already explained it to me, because you haven't.
(Oh, and to think that a high-ranking general bears no moral responsibility for the actions of the US military is outrageous. As I've pointed out before, one of the astonishing things about the way America thinks of the military is that literally millions of innocents can be killed for no good reason whatsoever and yet no moral blame in the slightest adheres to any member of the military, from the lowest grunt to the highest general.)
And let me add - I don't cut and paste. I don't care for your attention. I do note however that whenever I mention that the US military is overall a force for tremendous evil in the world today, I get a lot of personal abuse from people here, a lot of profanity, and little or nothing in the way of rational argument.
(* - biggest in terms of destructive power, rather than in terms of raw headcount, of course.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:45 PM on November 14, 2008
As I've made clear before, my objection isn't to "the military" in general; I'm not a blanket pacifist; my objection is to the US military in particular.
More money has been spent on the US military than any project in human history. The record is dismal; millions of deaths of people who never offered the US any harm; continuous warfare for over 60 years; and now concentration camps.
Yet when the US was attacked, not only did the huge military establishment fail to protect the US (even though a system was in place, NORAD, that was supposed to handle exactly this sort of thing), but no one was disciplined for the failure, nothing changed in the system, and the culprit was never caught.
Now, I have no problems whatsoever with a "Defense Department" - this is not what we're getting - we're getting the biggest(*) offensive army ever created, costing more money than any project ever created.
So please explain it to me. Why should I support the activities of the US military and its endless foreign wars? Don't tell me you've already explained it to me, because you haven't.
(Oh, and to think that a high-ranking general bears no moral responsibility for the actions of the US military is outrageous. As I've pointed out before, one of the astonishing things about the way America thinks of the military is that literally millions of innocents can be killed for no good reason whatsoever and yet no moral blame in the slightest adheres to any member of the military, from the lowest grunt to the highest general.)
And let me add - I don't cut and paste. I don't care for your attention. I do note however that whenever I mention that the US military is overall a force for tremendous evil in the world today, I get a lot of personal abuse from people here, a lot of profanity, and little or nothing in the way of rational argument.
(* - biggest in terms of destructive power, rather than in terms of raw headcount, of course.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:45 PM on November 14, 2008
dunwoody, hehehe.
posted by kitchenrat at 1:45 PM on November 14, 2008
posted by kitchenrat at 1:45 PM on November 14, 2008
This is fantastic news for women in the military. It's really hard for a woman to get 4 star rank because of the combat restrictions. Good for her.
posted by dejah420 at 2:51 PM on November 14, 2008
posted by dejah420 at 2:51 PM on November 14, 2008
As I've made clear before, my objection isn't to "the military" in general; I'm not a blanket pacifist; my objection is to the US military in particular.
You've told me before, and I quote, "We're talking about one country invading another country. ¿Claro? And this is just wrong all the time. [...] Never allow any individual country to wage war against another ever again. This is a crime against humanity. If you glorify the warrior, you glorify the war. Wage peace. Mourn your fallen, don't glorify the manner of their deaths, or your children will become murderers too. We must stop this disease or inevitably it will kill all of us. Articles like this are a vector that spreads the "glory of war" sickness."
Sorry, but that's pretty clearly blanket pacifism, and an objection to the military in general.
So please explain it to me. Why should I support the activities of the US military and its endless foreign wars? Don't tell me you've already explained it to me, because you haven't.
Actually, I have. Repeatedly. Several times. And others have done so over and over again. Mostly because you post the same sort of thing in every thread which is even slightly related to the American armed forces.
But since you asked, here it is again: you should support the activities of the US military partly because they're not just about "endless foreign wars" and "tremendous evil", but mostly because you've a much better chance of changing our current policy of endless foreign wars if your method of engagement with soldiers and those who support them isn't simplistic and antagonistic "killers of innocents!!1!" crap. I don't really care if you're anti-war or not -- plenty of my friends are, and my SO is a staunch pacifist -- but your off-topic anti-soldier posts are actually harming your cause, and that alone is a great reason why you should knock it off.
I actually agree with you about many of the issues you brought up, including the return-on-investment we're getting from the military and the problems we've had with foolish wars and criminal actions, but it makes no sense to blame the military itself for this, rather than our national policy vis-a-vis the military. Last I checked, there has been no coup, nor has the military suddenly gone rogue, nor do they get the money for planes and tanks and bullets from anywhere else but Congress. They do precisely what we tell them to do; no more and no less, just as their charter demands. If you're upset about Iraq and Vietnam, look to the politicians, not the Army, because it's not like they went over there on their own. And if you'd like the Army to change, then it's the politicians who'll do that, too -- many of the most radical changes in the history of the Armed Forces came from the Executive and Legislative branches, not from Generals or Admirals.
I do note however that whenever I mention that the US military is overall a force for tremendous evil in the world today, I get a lot of personal abuse from people here, a lot of profanity, and little or nothing in the way of rational argument.
I've seen lots and lots of rational argument sent your way, lupus. tkchrist's comment in this very thread is an excellent example. And as for personal abuse, don't even start -- you've used nastier personal insults against me than just about anyone else on this site. And someone who routinely describes many mefi posters as "murderers", "criminals", "the simple-minded", "suckers", and the like shouldn't be surprised when others respond in kind.
Oh, and to think that a high-ranking general bears no moral responsibility for the actions of the US military is outrageous.
Gen. Dunwoody is a logistics officer. The only "moral responsibility for the actions of the US military" she bears has to do with materiel, and while I'm sure plenty of E-3s would love to prosecute her on the basis of MREs alone, I'm afraid that's not going to convince a court martial. If you'd care to point out an illegal order she has given, or a violation of the UCMJ she has committed, go right ahead -- I'm sure the JAG would be most interested -- but otherwise you're talking nonsense.
posted by vorfeed at 3:50 PM on November 14, 2008 [3 favorites]
You've told me before, and I quote, "We're talking about one country invading another country. ¿Claro? And this is just wrong all the time. [...] Never allow any individual country to wage war against another ever again. This is a crime against humanity. If you glorify the warrior, you glorify the war. Wage peace. Mourn your fallen, don't glorify the manner of their deaths, or your children will become murderers too. We must stop this disease or inevitably it will kill all of us. Articles like this are a vector that spreads the "glory of war" sickness."
Sorry, but that's pretty clearly blanket pacifism, and an objection to the military in general.
So please explain it to me. Why should I support the activities of the US military and its endless foreign wars? Don't tell me you've already explained it to me, because you haven't.
Actually, I have. Repeatedly. Several times. And others have done so over and over again. Mostly because you post the same sort of thing in every thread which is even slightly related to the American armed forces.
But since you asked, here it is again: you should support the activities of the US military partly because they're not just about "endless foreign wars" and "tremendous evil", but mostly because you've a much better chance of changing our current policy of endless foreign wars if your method of engagement with soldiers and those who support them isn't simplistic and antagonistic "killers of innocents!!1!" crap. I don't really care if you're anti-war or not -- plenty of my friends are, and my SO is a staunch pacifist -- but your off-topic anti-soldier posts are actually harming your cause, and that alone is a great reason why you should knock it off.
I actually agree with you about many of the issues you brought up, including the return-on-investment we're getting from the military and the problems we've had with foolish wars and criminal actions, but it makes no sense to blame the military itself for this, rather than our national policy vis-a-vis the military. Last I checked, there has been no coup, nor has the military suddenly gone rogue, nor do they get the money for planes and tanks and bullets from anywhere else but Congress. They do precisely what we tell them to do; no more and no less, just as their charter demands. If you're upset about Iraq and Vietnam, look to the politicians, not the Army, because it's not like they went over there on their own. And if you'd like the Army to change, then it's the politicians who'll do that, too -- many of the most radical changes in the history of the Armed Forces came from the Executive and Legislative branches, not from Generals or Admirals.
I do note however that whenever I mention that the US military is overall a force for tremendous evil in the world today, I get a lot of personal abuse from people here, a lot of profanity, and little or nothing in the way of rational argument.
I've seen lots and lots of rational argument sent your way, lupus. tkchrist's comment in this very thread is an excellent example. And as for personal abuse, don't even start -- you've used nastier personal insults against me than just about anyone else on this site. And someone who routinely describes many mefi posters as "murderers", "criminals", "the simple-minded", "suckers", and the like shouldn't be surprised when others respond in kind.
Oh, and to think that a high-ranking general bears no moral responsibility for the actions of the US military is outrageous.
Gen. Dunwoody is a logistics officer. The only "moral responsibility for the actions of the US military" she bears has to do with materiel, and while I'm sure plenty of E-3s would love to prosecute her on the basis of MREs alone, I'm afraid that's not going to convince a court martial. If you'd care to point out an illegal order she has given, or a violation of the UCMJ she has committed, go right ahead -- I'm sure the JAG would be most interested -- but otherwise you're talking nonsense.
posted by vorfeed at 3:50 PM on November 14, 2008 [3 favorites]
"Never allow any individual country to wage war against another ever again."
Right, I stand by that completely.
"Sorry, but that's pretty clearly blanket pacifism, and an objection to the military in general."
Your logic does not hold. I'm completely against countries waging war against each other. How, exactly, can I prevent some other country from waging war against mine if there's no military in my country?
I have nothing against a Defense Department. I have everything against foreign wars.
tkchrist's comment is also not relevant. Again, as I've said, I'm not against a military in general. What I am against is countries invading other countries. The US has been invading other countries for three generations, millions are dead, and yet the consensus is still that the US can invade wherever it likes, whenever it likes, for whatever reason it pleases; more, that the US has the right to use its thermonuclear weapons against other countries such as Iran as a first strike.
Me, I consider these crimes against humanity.
You still haven't answered my question: why should I be proud of the US military? Exactly what have they done that should make me proud of them? What have they possibly done that's positive to offset the four or five millions deaths they've caused in my lifetime?
And one more: how, exactly, do you justify sixty years of foreign wars?
The main difference between you and I is that you believe that the US gets to invade foreign countries overseas and I do not. But that difference involves millions of deaths and many dozens of countries trashed.
This woman has spent her whole life putting guns into people's hands so they could kill. Everyone's lionizing her; to me, she's participated in a series of great crimes.
I strongly stand by my underlying statement; the US has spent 60 years invading any country it felt like; millions of innocents are are dead; there's no evidence the US has any interest in stopping or moderating its actions; this has been true for two generations; anyone who enlists has a moral duty to find out about this before they do so and start to share the responsibility for these deaths.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 4:30 PM on November 14, 2008
Right, I stand by that completely.
"Sorry, but that's pretty clearly blanket pacifism, and an objection to the military in general."
Your logic does not hold. I'm completely against countries waging war against each other. How, exactly, can I prevent some other country from waging war against mine if there's no military in my country?
I have nothing against a Defense Department. I have everything against foreign wars.
tkchrist's comment is also not relevant. Again, as I've said, I'm not against a military in general. What I am against is countries invading other countries. The US has been invading other countries for three generations, millions are dead, and yet the consensus is still that the US can invade wherever it likes, whenever it likes, for whatever reason it pleases; more, that the US has the right to use its thermonuclear weapons against other countries such as Iran as a first strike.
Me, I consider these crimes against humanity.
You still haven't answered my question: why should I be proud of the US military? Exactly what have they done that should make me proud of them? What have they possibly done that's positive to offset the four or five millions deaths they've caused in my lifetime?
And one more: how, exactly, do you justify sixty years of foreign wars?
The main difference between you and I is that you believe that the US gets to invade foreign countries overseas and I do not. But that difference involves millions of deaths and many dozens of countries trashed.
This woman has spent her whole life putting guns into people's hands so they could kill. Everyone's lionizing her; to me, she's participated in a series of great crimes.
I strongly stand by my underlying statement; the US has spent 60 years invading any country it felt like; millions of innocents are are dead; there's no evidence the US has any interest in stopping or moderating its actions; this has been true for two generations; anyone who enlists has a moral duty to find out about this before they do so and start to share the responsibility for these deaths.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 4:30 PM on November 14, 2008
there's no evidence the US has any interest in stopping or moderating its actions
Huh.
posted by jabberjaw at 5:22 PM on November 14, 2008
Huh.
posted by jabberjaw at 5:22 PM on November 14, 2008
tkchrist's comment is also not relevant.
If only I had a dime for every time I've heard that.
Again, as I've said, I'm not against a military in general.
Too bad. At least them you'd be morally consistent.
What I am against is countries invading other countries.
Wow. I'm against that, too. So is my father. A three tour 'Nam vet.
The US has been invading other countries for three generations, millions are dead, and yet the consensus is still that the US can invade wherever it likes, whenever it likes, for whatever reason it pleases;
Is it three generations, or sixty years?
Eh. And once again it's the political establishment that sets the policy. Not the military. Though it would be disingenuous to absolve the Pentagon completely since they certainly are all about getting budgets for toys. And wars do need marvelous toys.
Your critiques certainly seem to be very one sided. The former Soviet Union has invaded and occupied several countries. China is currently occupying Tibet. There are hosts of African countries currently invading and occupying each other. In fact several European states, France among them, until very recently maintained overseas forces in their former colonies - and some still do. It would behoove you to be more consistent in your argument.
But this is neither here nor there. The US is not unique in history in this regard. You know this. The British military in it's fine history also murdered millions of people. The French, Japanese, and Germans could give a run for our money.
Nor is our attrocity particularly egregious in terms of naked aggression. Though I would make no excuses for what we have done. And I wish war crimes COULD be pursued against our current administration. But I don't see anything makes the US military itself particularly guilty above the policy makers. The context of all this aggression, and the US in particular, has occurred during the peak of war making technology and ability. Where it became much easier to kill thousands in seconds. And the US, being the wealthiest nation on earth, has become very good at this. Our ideal have not caught up with our ability unfortunately.
If you can prove the assertion that the US military drove our current policy in Iraq, I'd love to see it.
Where as I can provide ample evidence to the contrary. The Army War College was decidedly against this war and predicted just about every problem we have had. They were fairly consistent in their disapproval on MORAL ground as well.
I will say this once and once only:
Our military is governed by civilian authority. Our CONGRESS gave them the power to invade Iraq and every other country they have invaded. YOU CANNOT HAVE, AND WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE, A MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT THAT GOVERNS IT'S OWN USE.
You want the military to do what it is told. You don't wan them guiding policy. You wan them to kill who you want to kill when you wan them killed. The trick is getting a civilian authority that is both moral and accountable. THIS is where you need to focus your outrage. If you have nothing against a military -per se - then it's obvious your problem is with US foreign policy. US elected officials. I suggest you start your accountability campaign there. And I support your effort.
The issue is the degree of out right hate you consistently exhibit on individual members of the Armed Forces which do not bear any more responsibility for their nations foreign policy, outside of individual atrocity, than the average citizen. A US citizen that feels as strongly as you certainly then should not be paying federal taxes. There is blood on that too. I guarantee you no war can be fought with out commitment of the nations larder. If you hate the US military you must then also hate the US taxpayer.
Anyway. Your hate is woefully misplaced and counter productive. Also. Intellectually lazy and throwaway.
more, that the US has the right to use its thermonuclear weapons against other countries such as Iran as a first strike.
Have we nuked Iran? I was not aware.
The issue of which you speak was simply more Bush bravado. And a terrible strategy to boot. However there is nothing to prevent any nation with these weapons from using them in a first strike capacity. That Bush brag on it is again further proof of the capricious nature and culpability of the US political establishment not the glaring indictment of the US military as an institution.
posted by tkchrist at 5:56 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
If only I had a dime for every time I've heard that.
Again, as I've said, I'm not against a military in general.
Too bad. At least them you'd be morally consistent.
What I am against is countries invading other countries.
Wow. I'm against that, too. So is my father. A three tour 'Nam vet.
The US has been invading other countries for three generations, millions are dead, and yet the consensus is still that the US can invade wherever it likes, whenever it likes, for whatever reason it pleases;
Is it three generations, or sixty years?
Eh. And once again it's the political establishment that sets the policy. Not the military. Though it would be disingenuous to absolve the Pentagon completely since they certainly are all about getting budgets for toys. And wars do need marvelous toys.
Your critiques certainly seem to be very one sided. The former Soviet Union has invaded and occupied several countries. China is currently occupying Tibet. There are hosts of African countries currently invading and occupying each other. In fact several European states, France among them, until very recently maintained overseas forces in their former colonies - and some still do. It would behoove you to be more consistent in your argument.
But this is neither here nor there. The US is not unique in history in this regard. You know this. The British military in it's fine history also murdered millions of people. The French, Japanese, and Germans could give a run for our money.
Nor is our attrocity particularly egregious in terms of naked aggression. Though I would make no excuses for what we have done. And I wish war crimes COULD be pursued against our current administration. But I don't see anything makes the US military itself particularly guilty above the policy makers. The context of all this aggression, and the US in particular, has occurred during the peak of war making technology and ability. Where it became much easier to kill thousands in seconds. And the US, being the wealthiest nation on earth, has become very good at this. Our ideal have not caught up with our ability unfortunately.
If you can prove the assertion that the US military drove our current policy in Iraq, I'd love to see it.
Where as I can provide ample evidence to the contrary. The Army War College was decidedly against this war and predicted just about every problem we have had. They were fairly consistent in their disapproval on MORAL ground as well.
I will say this once and once only:
Our military is governed by civilian authority. Our CONGRESS gave them the power to invade Iraq and every other country they have invaded. YOU CANNOT HAVE, AND WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE, A MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT THAT GOVERNS IT'S OWN USE.
You want the military to do what it is told. You don't wan them guiding policy. You wan them to kill who you want to kill when you wan them killed. The trick is getting a civilian authority that is both moral and accountable. THIS is where you need to focus your outrage. If you have nothing against a military -per se - then it's obvious your problem is with US foreign policy. US elected officials. I suggest you start your accountability campaign there. And I support your effort.
The issue is the degree of out right hate you consistently exhibit on individual members of the Armed Forces which do not bear any more responsibility for their nations foreign policy, outside of individual atrocity, than the average citizen. A US citizen that feels as strongly as you certainly then should not be paying federal taxes. There is blood on that too. I guarantee you no war can be fought with out commitment of the nations larder. If you hate the US military you must then also hate the US taxpayer.
Anyway. Your hate is woefully misplaced and counter productive. Also. Intellectually lazy and throwaway.
more, that the US has the right to use its thermonuclear weapons against other countries such as Iran as a first strike.
Have we nuked Iran? I was not aware.
The issue of which you speak was simply more Bush bravado. And a terrible strategy to boot. However there is nothing to prevent any nation with these weapons from using them in a first strike capacity. That Bush brag on it is again further proof of the capricious nature and culpability of the US political establishment not the glaring indictment of the US military as an institution.
posted by tkchrist at 5:56 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
In the age of nuclear weapons, I find the existence of troops to be laughably worthless as a defensive tool. Troops are only useful if your plan is to occupy other countries. If the US dismantled its military and sent its troops home, keeping our nuclear weapons, who would have the lack of mental faculties to invade us? No country would be foolish/suicidal enough to attempt to invade a nuclear power. It would assure its own destruction. Meanwhile, the US would be able to use the freed-up money to erase poverty, wipe out preventable disease, and explore space.
I'm actually in favor of all countries possessing nuclear weapons. I look forward to Iran obtaining them. If all states were nuclear powers it would mean that the human species would either end warfare permanently, or we'd hit the planet's reset button and let another species take a turn.
posted by mullingitover at 5:59 PM on November 14, 2008
I'm actually in favor of all countries possessing nuclear weapons. I look forward to Iran obtaining them. If all states were nuclear powers it would mean that the human species would either end warfare permanently, or we'd hit the planet's reset button and let another species take a turn.
posted by mullingitover at 5:59 PM on November 14, 2008
You still haven't answered my question: why should I be proud of the US military? Exactly what have they done that should make me proud of them? What have they possibly done that's positive to offset the four or five millions deaths they've caused in my lifetime?
Well, for one thing, they just made Ann E. Dunwoody a four-star general. Her family's story, multiplied by the more than thirty million American servicemen/women and veterans, seems to me to be rather positive, despite your shrill assertions to the contrary.
And one more: how, exactly, do you justify sixty years of foreign wars?
Again: I do not care if you are proud of the military or not. I'm not asking you to be proud, simply to be minimally reasonable and on-topic in your comments. This article has very little to do with the baggage you've dragged into it, and in doing so, you refuse to acknowledge the validity of any viewpoint other than your own. It's possible for others not to have the same perspective on military issues that you do, and it would be nice if they could discuss them without you jumping up and down while grinding your ax. You'll notice that nobody else has made a comment anywhere close to yours -- that's because it has nothing to do with the article, nor with any comment made since the article was posted.
Again, I think that you're hurting your own argument, and that you ought to consider staying out of military threads unless you can come up with something which is actually on-topic, rather than the same old thread-derailing crap. If your aim is to convince anyone, you're going about it the wrong way, and you know it, because you've been told so over and over (oh, but that's always "not relevant", right?) Thus, I find your continual and disingenuous "I don't get it, why are you mad guys, why is this article a good thing, why should I be proud of the military, why why why?" act extremely tiring. The people you're arguing with have already answered these questions countless times, as has society at large; if you can't accept that other people have answers to these questions which don't match your own, then further engagement with you isn't going to help. And that's the reason why I'm not going to repeat myself for the tenth time by replying to yet more of your myopic questions.
You know why. Act like it.
I strongly stand by my underlying statement; the US has spent 60 years invading any country it felt like; millions of innocents are are dead; there's no evidence the US has any interest in stopping or moderating its actions; this has been true for two generations; anyone who enlists has a moral duty to find out about this before they do so and start to share the responsibility for these deaths.
And I strongly stand by my underlying statement: if you don't like all of those things, you're not going to change them by loudly and obnoxiously slagging soldiers and their supporters at every opportunity, especially since these are the very people who are most likely to be able to bring about political change.
posted by vorfeed at 6:19 PM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]
Well, for one thing, they just made Ann E. Dunwoody a four-star general. Her family's story, multiplied by the more than thirty million American servicemen/women and veterans, seems to me to be rather positive, despite your shrill assertions to the contrary.
And one more: how, exactly, do you justify sixty years of foreign wars?
Again: I do not care if you are proud of the military or not. I'm not asking you to be proud, simply to be minimally reasonable and on-topic in your comments. This article has very little to do with the baggage you've dragged into it, and in doing so, you refuse to acknowledge the validity of any viewpoint other than your own. It's possible for others not to have the same perspective on military issues that you do, and it would be nice if they could discuss them without you jumping up and down while grinding your ax. You'll notice that nobody else has made a comment anywhere close to yours -- that's because it has nothing to do with the article, nor with any comment made since the article was posted.
Again, I think that you're hurting your own argument, and that you ought to consider staying out of military threads unless you can come up with something which is actually on-topic, rather than the same old thread-derailing crap. If your aim is to convince anyone, you're going about it the wrong way, and you know it, because you've been told so over and over (oh, but that's always "not relevant", right?) Thus, I find your continual and disingenuous "I don't get it, why are you mad guys, why is this article a good thing, why should I be proud of the military, why why why?" act extremely tiring. The people you're arguing with have already answered these questions countless times, as has society at large; if you can't accept that other people have answers to these questions which don't match your own, then further engagement with you isn't going to help. And that's the reason why I'm not going to repeat myself for the tenth time by replying to yet more of your myopic questions.
You know why. Act like it.
I strongly stand by my underlying statement; the US has spent 60 years invading any country it felt like; millions of innocents are are dead; there's no evidence the US has any interest in stopping or moderating its actions; this has been true for two generations; anyone who enlists has a moral duty to find out about this before they do so and start to share the responsibility for these deaths.
And I strongly stand by my underlying statement: if you don't like all of those things, you're not going to change them by loudly and obnoxiously slagging soldiers and their supporters at every opportunity, especially since these are the very people who are most likely to be able to bring about political change.
posted by vorfeed at 6:19 PM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]
The record is dismal; millions of deaths of people who never offered the US any harm; continuous warfare for over 60 years; and now concentration camps.
Concentration camps? I want links. From real sources. Articles, reports, etc. Documentation, plz. And one of this "detainment camp" nonsense. Yes, that's despicable. Yes, internment camps (ie, what we did to Japanese-Americans) are inhumanly awful. But if you're going to bring out the big Double C, you'd best be having some concrete proof to back that up.
Our record is dismal, however, no matter what we've done in the past sixty years... well, Treblinka it ain't. Don't even try to tell me that the American military is committing war crimes that can even compare to the destruction done in an actual concentration camp.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:20 PM on November 14, 2008
Concentration camps? I want links. From real sources. Articles, reports, etc. Documentation, plz. And one of this "detainment camp" nonsense. Yes, that's despicable. Yes, internment camps (ie, what we did to Japanese-Americans) are inhumanly awful. But if you're going to bring out the big Double C, you'd best be having some concrete proof to back that up.
Our record is dismal, however, no matter what we've done in the past sixty years... well, Treblinka it ain't. Don't even try to tell me that the American military is committing war crimes that can even compare to the destruction done in an actual concentration camp.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:20 PM on November 14, 2008
In the age of nuclear weapons, I find the existence of troops to be laughably worthless as a defensive tool.
You know the saying about when all you have is a hammer everything starting resemble nails?
Nukes are a stand-off weapon. And one ideally of last resort. Regardless of your moral outlook on the use of force outside of your borders one does not have to think all that hard to consider a real-world scenario where the need to project some sort of forcible action becomes necessary. A hostage crisis. Or a crisis like Darfur or Rwanda.
While I think our large standing infantry is rather obsolete in many ways, it exists becuase paradoxically other standing armies exist and, rather cynically, becuase we need something to do with our poor uneducated people. Personally I'd rather educate them. But there you go.
The idea after the cold war was to scale back our military drastically. To have a nimble quick task or special operations infantry. But we had already had this immense build up under Reagan (the 600 surface ship navy and all that nonsense) and generals and admirals, like every executive in the world, cannot abide to have budgets cut. It's like getting a cock reduction operation to them.
But these older big infantry big navy guys are fading. And the ones left can see the folly of asymmetrical warfare kicking their ass in embarrassing ways and the toys don't mean shit.
The propbelm in an all volunteer military is a smaller force leaves you with what you can get. And it's not always the best. Rumsfeld had the bright idea that we could get 140,000 Chuck Norris's into Iraq. And then he found out he had 62,000 bubbahs still being trained the way we ALWAY have. High diddle diddle straight up the middle. Boo Rah. Well Green Beret that aint.
Special Forces guys do not grow on trees. But somehow the neocons thought we could have an entire army of elites. But they take a bunch of time to train and they also notive that Blackwater pays six figures for thier skills with 1/10th the exposure. And for every fighting man you got three to five logistics dudes you need. Whooops. So much for war on the cheap.
The fact is you still have throw bodies at an enemy and reserve your best for the right operations. The fact is we will need infantry whether we want to invade or occupy a country or not. There will still be a need for boots on the ground.
posted by tkchrist at 7:58 PM on November 14, 2008
You know the saying about when all you have is a hammer everything starting resemble nails?
Nukes are a stand-off weapon. And one ideally of last resort. Regardless of your moral outlook on the use of force outside of your borders one does not have to think all that hard to consider a real-world scenario where the need to project some sort of forcible action becomes necessary. A hostage crisis. Or a crisis like Darfur or Rwanda.
While I think our large standing infantry is rather obsolete in many ways, it exists becuase paradoxically other standing armies exist and, rather cynically, becuase we need something to do with our poor uneducated people. Personally I'd rather educate them. But there you go.
The idea after the cold war was to scale back our military drastically. To have a nimble quick task or special operations infantry. But we had already had this immense build up under Reagan (the 600 surface ship navy and all that nonsense) and generals and admirals, like every executive in the world, cannot abide to have budgets cut. It's like getting a cock reduction operation to them.
But these older big infantry big navy guys are fading. And the ones left can see the folly of asymmetrical warfare kicking their ass in embarrassing ways and the toys don't mean shit.
The propbelm in an all volunteer military is a smaller force leaves you with what you can get. And it's not always the best. Rumsfeld had the bright idea that we could get 140,000 Chuck Norris's into Iraq. And then he found out he had 62,000 bubbahs still being trained the way we ALWAY have. High diddle diddle straight up the middle. Boo Rah. Well Green Beret that aint.
Special Forces guys do not grow on trees. But somehow the neocons thought we could have an entire army of elites. But they take a bunch of time to train and they also notive that Blackwater pays six figures for thier skills with 1/10th the exposure. And for every fighting man you got three to five logistics dudes you need. Whooops. So much for war on the cheap.
The fact is you still have throw bodies at an enemy and reserve your best for the right operations. The fact is we will need infantry whether we want to invade or occupy a country or not. There will still be a need for boots on the ground.
posted by tkchrist at 7:58 PM on November 14, 2008
From the OED:
...one for the internment of of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc.
That is Gitmo. Right after this part of the definition there's this:
exp. as orgranized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45
so there's been drift in the meaning of concentration camp but the Japanese internment camps were definitely concentration camps and Gitmo is one.
I don't know how to find an accurate number for the number of civilians killed in Iraq but it is at least 100,000. I know that a nation requires an army and that in a democracy an army should be subject to civilian control but I don't see why we should celebrate people who voluntarily give others the power to direct them to kill other people.
posted by rdr at 11:51 PM on November 14, 2008
...one for the internment of of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc.
That is Gitmo. Right after this part of the definition there's this:
exp. as orgranized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45
so there's been drift in the meaning of concentration camp but the Japanese internment camps were definitely concentration camps and Gitmo is one.
I don't know how to find an accurate number for the number of civilians killed in Iraq but it is at least 100,000. I know that a nation requires an army and that in a democracy an army should be subject to civilian control but I don't see why we should celebrate people who voluntarily give others the power to direct them to kill other people.
posted by rdr at 11:51 PM on November 14, 2008
If we're going to nit-pick from the OED, sure, you can call Gitmo a "concentration camp."
However, doing so is extremely misleading. It's a loaded term which calls to mind the death camps of Nazi Germany. Using that term when you *could* have said "detention center" or "internment camp" or even just "GITMO" is being sensationalist.
Like I said before, yes, the US is guilty of human rights violations and has done things that are absolutely beyond the pale - BUT - concentration camps (and if you can hear those words together and not think of Auschwitz, well, you live in a very different reality from my own) aren't among our offenses... yet. And I pray that remains true.
My objection here isn't to saying that Gitmo is a crime against humanity, because I agree totally, it's with disingenuously using language specifically to evoke a greater horror.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:27 AM on November 15, 2008
However, doing so is extremely misleading. It's a loaded term which calls to mind the death camps of Nazi Germany. Using that term when you *could* have said "detention center" or "internment camp" or even just "GITMO" is being sensationalist.
Like I said before, yes, the US is guilty of human rights violations and has done things that are absolutely beyond the pale - BUT - concentration camps (and if you can hear those words together and not think of Auschwitz, well, you live in a very different reality from my own) aren't among our offenses... yet. And I pray that remains true.
My objection here isn't to saying that Gitmo is a crime against humanity, because I agree totally, it's with disingenuously using language specifically to evoke a greater horror.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:27 AM on November 15, 2008
Okay, I'll take a crack at a certain aspect of this.
A commanding officer has certain moral and ethical responsibilities towards those placed under their charge and these responsibilites are observed regardless of whether the CO was against them or not. A young ensign (maybe even me) runs a ship aground? Abuse goes on without your knowledge in your unit? The CO is legally at fault and will be held accountable much quicker than the person commiting the offense. Whether the CO agreed with what was being done in their name is meaningless. This is the only type of responsibility to the death of innocence that our General has.
Now the military is a tool of the state and in a system such as ours is acountable and directed by the civilian government. This civilian government, due to our republican nature, is selected by American citizens and paid for by the taxpayer. That makes us ultimately responsible anything done by our military and in the name of the United States. You can say that you didn't vote for the last guy or didn't agree with our current foriegn policy, but you are still morally responsible. In fact, our General is discharging a duty of her office, while the American citizen has no such binding to commit their military in one way or another, so I would say that the American citizen is more responsible than the average, well-behaved logistics general.
I have two aspects: one of the American citizen and another as a United States Sailor. While I have authority and power entrusted to me by my Sailor nature, the Citizen aspect is where it ultimately comes from. Thus, Citizen Lord Chancellor is generally responsible for the War, while Sailor Lord Chancellor is only responsible for the prosecution of his part of the War.
(I should note here that as an officer of the United States military, I do have general responsibility for assets and personnel under my command.)
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:22 AM on November 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
A commanding officer has certain moral and ethical responsibilities towards those placed under their charge and these responsibilites are observed regardless of whether the CO was against them or not. A young ensign (maybe even me) runs a ship aground? Abuse goes on without your knowledge in your unit? The CO is legally at fault and will be held accountable much quicker than the person commiting the offense. Whether the CO agreed with what was being done in their name is meaningless. This is the only type of responsibility to the death of innocence that our General has.
Now the military is a tool of the state and in a system such as ours is acountable and directed by the civilian government. This civilian government, due to our republican nature, is selected by American citizens and paid for by the taxpayer. That makes us ultimately responsible anything done by our military and in the name of the United States. You can say that you didn't vote for the last guy or didn't agree with our current foriegn policy, but you are still morally responsible. In fact, our General is discharging a duty of her office, while the American citizen has no such binding to commit their military in one way or another, so I would say that the American citizen is more responsible than the average, well-behaved logistics general.
I have two aspects: one of the American citizen and another as a United States Sailor. While I have authority and power entrusted to me by my Sailor nature, the Citizen aspect is where it ultimately comes from. Thus, Citizen Lord Chancellor is generally responsible for the War, while Sailor Lord Chancellor is only responsible for the prosecution of his part of the War.
(I should note here that as an officer of the United States military, I do have general responsibility for assets and personnel under my command.)
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:22 AM on November 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
« Older Scientists Determine the Fishiest Election Ever... | Don't You Wish You Could Draw Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:42 AM on November 14, 2008