Murdering Rapist Imperialists (a.k.a. Soldiers)
Those who argue that the anti-war movement is not infected with a substantial and highly influential group of activists who outright hate military members as individuals have another tough spin job today, as Kenneth Thiesen publishes a piece in the Berkeley Daily Planet that is remarkably forthright about admitting to and even promoting the most vicious kinds of accusations against military members. As Thiesen puts it,
Let me say it straight out—I do not support the troops and neither should you. It is objectively impossible to support the troops of the imperialist military forces of the U.S. and at the same time oppose the wars in which they fight.
We need to expose that those in the U.S. military are trained to be part of a “killing machine.” While not every member of the military is an individual murderer, they are all part of a system that commits war crimes, including aggressive wars, massacres, rape, and other crimes against humanity, all in the service of U.S. imperialism. The bottom line is that even if these people are relatives or friends, you can not support the troops without also supporting the objective role that these troops play in the imperialist system.
United States troops are acting as destructive and murderous forces of invasion and occupation.
Summary version: Not every soldier murders and rapes people, but Thiesen says they are all individually responsible for those crimes anyway because they are soldiers. Apparently, once you become a soldier, you are responsible for crimes other people commit.
Thiesen’s piece not only highlights the blatant anti-Americanism and bizarre moral logic used by military-haters that too often dominate the leading cadres of the anti-war movement, but it also highlights their loose relationship with the truth. To hear it from Thiesen and his comrades, rape and murder are actually parts of U.S. military policy, not aberations that are punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And his hanging of the massacre at Hadithah around the neck of every individual soldier ignores the fact that U.S. military compliance with the moral rules of non-combatant immunity in Iraq is actually very high by historical standards and has been increasing over time. Also, in his zeal to focus only on American “imperialism”, Thiesen finds nothing at all negative to say about the militants who intentionally torture and murder civilians in their continuing efforts to impose their vision of transnational religious fundamentalism. No, the only devils in Thiesen’s simplistic and ignorant morality play are Americans — a theme that has been consistent ever since the far left embraced open anti-Americanism during Vietnam.
Of course, facts are just a distraction when what is really in play is bigotry. Actually, the willful ignoring of facts is the “red flag” of bigotry. And Thiesen and his ilk are bigots. They hate the United States and they hate military members. This bigotry is exposed by their pervasive use of double standards, selective use of evidence, and dishonest reporting. Yet they nonetheless occupy influential and leading positions in the anti-war movement without protest or confrontation from others within the movements that they lead. Other anti-war protesters who claim to not share the anti-military bigotry of the leadership nonetheless continue to support that leadership in every substantive way, including attendance at their events, contributions to their fund-raising efforts, and use of their talking points.
And sure, that might be good political tactics. If the real enemy is the dreaded “neocons” and “warmongers”, it might be seen as strategically necessary to tolerate anti-military bigotry from the anointed anti-war leadership. And it is true that individuals who might share anti-war views but dissent from bigotry are not under an obligation to search out and disavow every individual statement of anti-military or anti-American sentiments, but it is reasonable to wonder why they continue to accept such people in leadership positions of the groups they ally themselves with. As they demand accountability from the Bush administration, from military leaders, from “neocon” intellectuals, perhaps anti-war advocates should demand a little bit of accountability from their own allies. Or are morally consistent standards too much to ask when the “world can’t wait”?
Anyway, it should be no surprise then when military members and veterans refuse to link arms with such people. Even those military members and veterans who opposed the war are unlikely to embrace an anti-war movement that characterizes them and all their comrades as murders, rapists, and imperialists or with a straight face compares them to the Nazis.
P.S. Note the complete lack of lefties wiling to criticize their own side’s excesses. Where is Greenwald decrying the gross bigotry and dishonesty in Theisen’s piece? Where is Yglesias pointing out its many factual errors? Where is Cernig decrying the injustice of holding individuals morally responsible for crimes committed by others? Dead silence from the prominent outlets of the leftist blogosphere.
Why should we grant any credibility to those who go completely silent whenever their own side does something so worthy of criticism as Thiesen’s polemic?
UPDATE: Cernig at Newshoggers steps up with a clear condemnation. Will Greenwald, Yglesias, and others who freely bash the excesses of the far right similarly show a willingness to condemn the excesses of the far left? Don’t hold your breath.
I wholeheartedly agree, I renounce Thiesen’s individual opinions and ideas regarding the. That being said, in my opinion, this just goes to show that (even here) we give "media coverage to the minority of kooks" not the majority of anti-war supporters that support the troops. perhaps when I contact an anti- war leader in the near future, I will put this guy in as a reference of who they should be renouncing as well..
Sorry my posting didn’t exactly cut and paste correctly… I meant ”opinions and ideas regarding the troops"
Jon Stewart had a piece on the Berkeley Recruiting Station interviewing Code Pink and Sansura Taylor among other extraterrestrials. It’s clear that some bad acid has burnt out a lot of brains in Berkeley—including Kenneth Thiesen’s. Not that there was ever much raw material for the acid to curdle!
Thanks daveinboca, If that’s true, that make’s my point even more clear. He’s a extreme example, that is to be renounced.
Jay, I spent some time in Berkeley around the time Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the SLA or whomever. She was living a block away from the house I was crashing in! "People’s Park" was a block in the other direction. At that time drugs had already turned utopia into dystopia and the hangers-on simply live off the jobs that a huge University like Cal provides, and ample welfare benefits besides.
Also, you have a huge support community among the "social science" faculties who spread their largesse among the lumpenproles like Sansura Taylor and the "New Age" mindless who surround the oriental types. I even was at Esalen before that institution was hijacked by loons and pinheads.
I was invited to stay in Cal but escaped to a Foreign Service career in the State Dept. My sister-in-law in Wellesley is a captive of the East Coast loon platoon network which operates nearly everywhere under the radar—only in Berkeley does it reach critical mess, er "mass."
There are people about which "America: love it or leave it" definitely apply. He’s one of them.
How much shame must he be carrying in order to live in a country he loathes? How much revulsion must he swallow every morning when he wakes up and sees people enjoying their freedoms and being responsible for them at the same time? I couldn’t imagine living life with that much boiling hate in my heart.
Oops, by "oriental types" I mean the weird adaptations that long noses have put oriental philosophies like Yoga, Tao, and martial arts to in the service of organized lunacy.
Jimmie, I just saw your post. Many of these "new age" types are completely awash in self-centered narcissism to the extent that they suppress any feelings of hatred until they boil over like compressed sulfuric acid and splatter everyone around them. I have extended family members who profess some sort of inner bliss, but lash out angrily at those who don’t follow their path. You don’t have to criticize them to earn their hatred. They hate anyone who lives a gainful fruitful life outside their bizarre interpretations of mystical philosophies.
Read Liberal Fascism and you can begin to understand how angry philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche laid the mental groundwork for these cultural Marxists. A friend of mine in Palma Mallorca delivers unsolicited lectures on my existence in a capitalist economy, all while she caters to Europe’s most corrupt plutocrats!!!
They have no sense of shame nor irony.
Ahem.
The post has been updated to acknowledge Cernig’s willingness to break ranks and condemn far-left excess.
I eagerly await ANY sign that there is a broader backlash among the
anti-war movement to this kind of material. I still doubt it will exceed a very few individual cases and I doubt that the leadership that disproportionately reflects the recycled anti-military radicalism of the early 1970s will find itself seriously challenged for its rhetorical hegemony.
It boils down to the indoctrination of Amerkas children since they were able to walk. The mothers and country bleed and push the war doctrine in the children in elementary schools to and by the time they are 18 they will be good soldiers and race towards enemy fire screaming glorius chants and waving the flags. Our system is designed to make our children the new blood/ the new soldiers of the next generation to fight for the imperialism that this country is about. Secure the roots and the doctrine of past wars. Previous warlords in past wars are still awaiting war crimes trials if we were ever to loose or get taken over by other countries. Japan was seriously firebombed that millions of innocent civilians and children were murdered from dropping firebombs on all the cities completely destroying all of germany and japan. THis county has no remorse for war only to win win win, finght fight fight (sounds like a football sound huh) Our country along with sports is designed so that we the romans can conquer all those who stand in our way Pleas join the fight against imperialism as the WORLD AGAINST WAR unites http://www.worldagainstwar.org
…and Exhibit B of anti-Americanism by wild assertion alone shows up on this very thread.
Apparently it is not ONLY just a few outliers that the media dredges up after all.
(P.S. The above comment so blatantly cribs off of radical Chalmers Johnson that I’m not sure if I should be ranting about plagiarism or just fonding remembering the egghead poseur smackdown in Good Will Hunting. Tell us “World Against War” with the hidden anonymous email address, “do you have any thoughts of your OWN on the subject”? Or were you “just planning on ripping off the whole thing”?)
Jason, thanks for the update. I never was IN ranks though. I see nothing un-Left about supporting the mostly working and lower-middle class mooks who do the fighting and dying while still being against the invasion/occupation itself. I don’t need latte-sippers from Left or Right telling me differently.
Solidarnosc!
Regards, C
I don’t see how class is relevant either, Cernig. Individuals seem to me to be worthy of respect or disdain because of their individual actions, not because of how much money their parents have.
The constant normatively loaded references about class that I keep hearing from Marxists whenever they talk about individuals seems to me not only pathologically obsessed, but also dehumanizing insofar as it reduces persons to nothing more than signifiers of their (externally assigned) class identity. Can’t some rich people be good people? Can’t some poor people be bastards? And what is the intrinsic moral identity of the children of shopkeepers anyway?
Enron happened and ALL accountants are to blame!
Babe Ruth and Cal Ripken Jr. are personally responsible for the Steroids scandal!
George W. Bush supports the use of prostitutes on elected officials!
Jason, since you are using this and other blogs / websites as examples that you "doubt it will exceed a very few individual cases", from our collective experince here on this blog thread. I think it would be safe to say that the majority of posters here are not anti-military, right? and of these we know there are a number that are anti-war, that have rejected the radical ideas of Thiesen ilk, right?
I agree with Jason, class has nothing to do with this.
Can You Support the Troops but Not the War? Troops RespondFour years into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thirty-some years after Vietnam, this country is still wrestling with a relatively straightforward question: "Can you support the troops, but not the war?"I’ve made my stance on the issue pretty clear. I think you can do both. I write about this topic (and others having to do with the politics of the Iraq war) extensively in my new book, Chasing Ghosts. Regardless of what you think of this war - right, wrong or indifferent - we all have a moral obligation to take care of the men and women who serve. When it comes to issues such as VA funding or adequate body armor, it’s time to put ideological differences and partisan bickering aside and just get the job done. "Support the Troops" is not some jingoistic rallying cry, but rather a clear imperative that should be separate from your feelings for or against the war. As an Iraq Vet, I have always been treated well by all Americans–whether they are for this war or not. And that is tremendous progress from where this country was during Vietnam. My generation of veterans have the Vietnam vets to thank for the warm welcomes we receive today. When Vietnam vets came home in the 60’s and 70’s, they faced second battle. They returned home to face a nation filled with frustration and anger about a war, that was directed at them personally. And that was wrong. Vietnam was not their fault. But over time, they worked hard and taught this country to separate the war from the warriors. It is one of the most important lessons America learned from Vietnam. So what do some other veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan think about the same question? We put the question out to our member veterans. Here’s a sampling of their responses from the IAVA blog: Perry Jefferies served as a First Sergeant in Iraq:
"I think so, but this question has become a minefield set for political purposes and tends to engender more acrimony than support for anything…I think that often neither side has really thought through what they are saying."Marissa Sousa spent a year in Iraq as a Staff Sergeant in a tank unit:
"Supporting the troops is as American as apple pie, or as baseball. I think the best supporter is the one that questions why the troops are sacrificing their lives, their buddies, and their families, to fight. The best supporter is the one that understands the troops, and fights for their rights both on the ground and on their return."Monroe Mann is an actor and National Guard Soldier who returned last year after a year in Iraq:
"I think it is completely possible to be against the war, but support the troops…None of the troops decided of their own volition to start the war. They were simply doing a job. I think most Americans realize this."Ray Kimball served as an Army Captain in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and mentions Cher, Henry Rollins and others who break the stereotype: "It seems contradictory, but I say yes - you can be against the war, and still support the troops. ‘Support’ doesn’t mean a bumper sticker, and it doesn’t mean an endless litany of praises and recitation of the virtues of those in uniform. It means real, concrete actions to support those tasked with carrying out a dirty and difficult task."Keith Klewe served in Afghanistan, and had this to say: "I’m 100% for the troops, whether they are U.S. troops, Coalition troops or Iraqi and Afghan troops. I’m all for fighting for something you believe in. I believe in the individual motivation of all soldiers to do the right thing, support their country, make things better. At the same time, I’m 100% against war with no objective."You can learn more about Keith and all the other IAVA bloggers here. For another perspective on the question, check out this interview on "American Microphone" with Major Owen West.What do you think? Can you support the troops without supporting the war? Or do you think that by supporting the troops you are supporting the Bush doctrine and prolonging the war in Iraq? Sound off here on the discussion board. I’ll be checking in from time to time to and adding comments where I can.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/can-you-support-the-troop_b_26192.html
Sorry, more pasted into the post here than I wanted, but my point was that even among the troops there are examples of people that say they are for agains the war, but for the troops. (I am not using this as foder to say that it is possible to do both,but to show examples of those who do) More "individuals" I guess, but being military themselves, I think gives the movement a little more clout than I do.