Koyaanisqatsi

Ok, before I post this, I'll pre-empt (hopefully) the most knee-jerk reactionists. Yes, this is nothing more than an observation based primarily on speculation and historical precedent and represents only my own non-professional opinion. It is arguably a dangerous topic of discussion on many levels and should not be entered into lightly.

Got that everyone? It is granted from the outset that what I will be engaging in is highly dangerous speculation, so kindly spare everyone from posting something assinine like, "This is very dangerous speculation and could get people killed," all right?

It is granted. But, at the same time, keep in mind that the fact people will get killed is not in question; that's what war is all about. The question is how many will get killed and how to stop it.

With, that out of the way, I just watched a very disturbing show called "Profiles," produced by none other than Jerry Bruckheimer (the producer who brought you such eye candy as "Armeggedon" and "Con Air" and a slew of other wagging the dog popcorn propaganda, as well some other decent, yet overtly violent films).

Anyone in the film industry can tell you that a Bruckheimer film is a macho, gung ho, America kicks ass, kind of film.

This, however ("Profiles"), is all about our service men and women over seas on their way to the "War On Iraq" (the very next slug you'll see nightly on national news chyrons). It is a "profile" of various soldiers, from Intel to navy grunts; the ultimate in "reality TV" programming, complete with MTV style editing and emotion packed music and images.

In a word, it makes war "cool."

Why? Well, beside the fact that it will garner huge ratings, I contend it will primarily serve the purpose of misdirection away from a critique of why we're going to war, to a focus on the who is in the war; the only lesson learned from the PR failure of the Vietnam war.

What happened in the Vietnam protests was not just about the illegality of the war itself, but also a lot of peer pressure put upon those who joined the fight or returned from the fight; i.e., the soldiers themselves. They were called "baby killers" and the like and their lives were largely ruined upon their return from combat. Anybody who remembers the Rambo mea culpa juggernaut that followed, knows what I'm talking about.

It has been historically argued that America started to "heal' the wounds of Vietnam through films that made the Vietnam war personal; i.e, the soldier's story and how horrible it was for them to come back from "just doing their jobs" to what they thought would be ticker-tape parades, and turned out instead to be long-haired hippie freaks spitting on them.

A "dialogue" (via the screen) was allegedly engaged in that allowed the protestors and the soldiers to hug and forgive and forget.

But, a very salient question (and one that prompts all this) is, did that peer pressure help in any way to stop the war?

The guilty collective who bought such (inadvertant?) propaganda as Rambo and Platoon over the years has sought to earnestly support the individual soldier as a human being in the field doing a horrible job that no one else will do, in order to protect all of us ungrateful cowards.

But that was never really the original protest against the war; it was just an unfortunate corrollary that came as a result of the fact that many men at that time actually did choose to get out of fighting the war in various ways (expatriating; claiming homosexuality; claiming "conscientious objecter," etc.), and would argue with those who either volunteered or did not seek to challenge their conscription.

How can you go to fight a war that isn't just and shouldn't be fought?

Subsequent films, however, did not focus on the true criminals of the war; they instead focused on the individual soldier and what a hell he found himself in.

Why? Well, I would argue it was in order to misdirect focus away from the actual "baby killers" of the war (i.e., Kissinger, Nixon and the exact same cronies that are still in power); the ones who orchestrated the war and ordered the troops into combat.

I think that the lesson has been learned and that this is at the heart of the original "reality TV" show, the Gulf War, and that, further, shows like "Profiles" are designed to pre-emptively do the exact same thing; garner sympathy for the individuals who are fighting (and dying and killing, though we won't see that, except in the most benign manner) the war so that our attention will be diverted from the creators of the war and the illegality of it.

Indeed, I've already heard political pundits say things like, "Look, you may not agree with the war, but you have to support the troops, right?" And the opponents saying, "Of course. I totally support the troops."

Yet, the enemy, oddly enough, always remains completely faceless, or, worse, their faces all bleed into each other so that no one back home can tell who the enemy is and who innocent civilians are; civilians just like you and me going to work every day to feed their families, who will be the victims of the war (probably in the hundreds of thousands, as was the case in the Gulf War).

You'll see the faces of our troops as individuals, but you'll see the faces of their troops as one brown-skinned man in a turban with a beard and a gun.

The effect of all of this is to completely dismiss any debate on the "why" of the war and instead focus all of the attention on the "who" of the war, so that no one will be able to effectively dissent to the war.

After all, as the propganda goes and will go, how can you say or do anything that will jeopardize your next door neighbor?

If it comes down to a "disagree with the administration, but support the troops" propaganda crusade, then, I argue, it will be the effective destruction of any serious debate against the war. The focus will be placed on your neighbors and not on the creators of the war.

You can't have an effective war without soldiers and in this instance, you have a completely voluntary army, which means everyone there wants to be there. Part of the reason the Vietnam war came to an end is arguably due to the fact that we had the draft, which meant that people who didn't necessarily want to be there, were forced to be there and these same people heard about the protests back home, allowing support for their already legitimate dissent in the ranks.

Now, I know the arguments against this already and I'll address them here. Yes, dissent in the ranks can be lethal to the whole unit, but if that dissent results in the cessation of an illegal, unjustifiable war, then, I argue, that is the most effective level of protest possible and the most patriotic act a soldier or civilian can foster.

There are only two ways to stop our military once engaged. Congressional mandate or dissension in the ranks. Congress is a Republican rubber stamp and will do anything this President wants, as has been demonstrated time and time again (from the destruction of our Social Security, to the passage of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, which largely destroys our civil liberties).

I contend that an all voluntary army is the most loyal army possible, which means that they will not question any orders given to them, and, worse, they will not have the mindset to question any orders given to them.

I want it on the record right now that I would never say any of these things if the war our troops were about to fight were in any way just or necessary and that the points I raise are out of a deep desire to save as many innocent people (on all sides) as possible, but if we (as protestors) don't seek to counter the military brainwashing that necessarily goes on, I contend we are doing nothing more than assenting to obfuscation of why this war is happening.

So, here's the topic of the discussion: Do we protest only the administration, or do we try anything possible to dissuage our brothers and sisters and cousins and friends who are over there in the armed forces from following unjust orders, even if so doing, it may result in their own deaths as opposed to the possible deaths of the innocent people they will most likely kill as a matter of course?

In other words, is a soldier's duty, ultimately, to their orders and not to innocent lives, and if so, is it then our duty (as civilians against the unjust war) to disrupt that duty?

Who fights for the innocent and how?

emphryio

When has dissension in the ranks stopped a war? (In recent history.)

I mainly feel sorry for the poor fools. (I used to be one.) What choice do they have? Can't they literally be killed, if not at least jailed, for dissension?

An article maybe giving some idea of how the media will cover this war.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...21&ItemID=3122

And an article describing why I'm not too sure whether or not actual war matters quite so much. (But maybe not what you, Koy, really want to discuss.)

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...40&ItemID=3106

slept2long

What's the law say about interfering with a soldiers ability to carry out his orders? Wouldn't a soldier be breaking some law if they disobeyed an order to shoot that big group of people whom as far as he knows are not a threat and are unarmed? I thought the military was void of democracy? CO says do it, you do it.

Claudia

I do not know in the US, but here soldiers have the duty to disobey to criminal orders. Of course, it is often difficult to decide when orders are criminal or when they are just harsh.

Speaking of Propaganda... did any of you heard about the "Fuck the Pool" journalists in previous Gulf war? Non US journalists which were not allowed to cover the war embedde in the army (because only US journalists were allowed), and organised by themselves ( often in diguise), hence were the first ones to enter Kuwait-city and have seen a lot of things US army would have prefer to see hidden?
I have read about them, but found almost nothing in English on the web. So was the propaganda heavy enough to hide their existence to US people?

Quetzal

I don't want to sidetrack Koy's thread here, so perhaps you could open a new one. Specifically, what could the US/Coalition possibly have wanted to hide from the media in Kuwait City that wouldn't simply have shown the Iraqis in an even worse light than they were? By the time the first Coalition troops entered Kuwait city (a staged entry by Kuwaiti and Arab contingent forces), the fighting was completely over. The first Coalition forces to enter Al Jahra (west side of Kuwait City) were - accidently - American Marines, who were cheered by the Kuwaiti resistance. What was there to hide?

Amen-Moses

I work daily with servicemen and am in fact ex-service myself, the prevailing view is that this war is coming, that it is not needed and that they will do their damnest to keep as far away from the US troops as possible (everyone remembers that ALL our ground casualties last time out were to "friendly" fire).

Last time out there was dissension from RAF pilots who were vectored into the killing grounds north of Kuwait City AFTER the Iraqi forces had been ordered out of Kuwait. Mainly they just returned to based fully armed and claimed that there were no hostile targets left. They got some flak for doing it but they are well withing there rights to do what they did in those circumstances, retreating troops (especially when accompanied by their families and other non-combatants) are not to be made targets according to international law and international law takes precedent over military law.

This time out I doubt whether UK forces will be very keen to get into action (well apart from the marines and paras of course but then they aren't quite what I would describe as humanists ) and nothing is worse than apathetic troops.

Also it is worth noting that this time out there won't be any Saudi troop involvement and last time out they were some of the keenest troops there.

Maybe the solution would be to send film crews into Iraq to make "reality TV" docu-soaps of the other side.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

Maybe this is a reference to the executions and beatings that the Kuwaiti's handed out to any non-kuwaitis left behind, those they deemed collaborators and such like. Even women who had been, let us say, physical with Iraqis or those deemed colaborators where physically abused even if they claimed they weren't willing participants in said physical activities, if you get my drift.

Amen-Moses

Quetzal

Now THAT I can buy - it was the reason that a decision was made to send a small group of Marines into Al Jahra ahead of the Arab League's "triumphal" entry. Mainly to "rescue" 30 or so Iraqi stragglers held by the Kuwaiti resistance in the soccer stadium and local jail. Of course, if that is the case, it sort of blows Claudia's "American coverup/propaganda" out the window - the unstated implication that the Americans had committed some kind of atrocity they were trying to hide by keeping journalists away. There's no question that the Kuwaitis took reprisals - all that came out in the international press after the withdrawl of Coalition ground forces.

hezekiah jones

Interesting stuff, Koy. Here are a couple of columns on the subject of press coverage by Milwaukee's own Dave Berkman:

Reporting the War - Part I: Journalism vs. Patriotism - A False Dichotomy

Reporting the War - Part II: Will Journalistic Responsibility Prevail?

Henry-Finland

slept2long wrote:

US has just warned the Iraq soldiers that: "I just followed orders" will take them to martial court.
It was about using gas, biological weapons. I am not sure about what else was meant.

Anyhow, I served in the Finnish army and if an officer would give an non-lawful order, something against civilians, or when defending our country, to cross the boarder => attack another country, he would be shot on the spot.
My generation would have reacted like that, anyhow.

In the last war against Stalin, the Finnish soldiers were very near mutiny, when the officers told the soldiers to cross the border, and attack.
Some soldiers were shot, and we attacked together with Adolf.

The rest is history. It is shown that the soldiers were right, the officers were wrong.
Nowadays officers knows better:
Defend Your country, but never attack on foreign soil.

Btw. Bush has never been in Finland.
Putin was many times, he was working in Finland as a spy, and I think most of the Finns were glad when he became elected.
He knows very well, what we stand for nowadays.
We do not attack anyone, we just shoot intruders, with arms.
It is a very simple rule.

When Soviet fell the Finnish authorities (and some citizens like I)was very worried about that the Russians will come in millions, through the border, carrying children in their arms.
____________________________________

Did You know that there was Russian soldiers that did disobey orders in Checkoslovakia 1968?
They got all shot.
The Russian TV tells nowadays amazing stories...

And You had some case in court (Calley?) about what happened in Vietnam.
What is Your opinion, if it is not hijacking this thread?
What if a soldier would have refused? Taken the officer as a prisoner back to the base? Or shot him?

So, Koyaanisqatsi is this question "side-stepping" or do I interfiere?