Matt sent me a link via del.icio.us to our hometown paper on the recommendation of a mutual high school friend. There's an interesting article in there by one David Kerr in which he takes a pretty bland and weak stance on Iraq, I suppose just to stay relevant. One line strikes me as particularly cliche:
The one thing I will never do, certainly not in this circumstance, is criticize our Armed Forces. The press and the protestors recklessly did enough of that in Vietnam.
Contrary to his claims, I question the quality of personal reflection with which he affords this topic. Take as centrist and nuanced a position as you like, but one point cannot be brushed aside: if the Iraq war was so wrong, yet we still allowed a President to shove it down our throats (or at least wave his hands in a hypnotic fashion), then it's not enough to confine our criticism of power to the President or the hawks. We need to consider that in our society and in each of us we have something that demands examination and reflection.
If Kerr ignores the need for examination and reflection, he should not be singled out for blame. The mainstream media's absence from this discussion underscores its irrelevance as a institution of public welfare, of course. In this spirit Kerr's heartfelt sentiments serve as yet more of the same old yellow journalistic theater, where even the smallest and most transparent observations are accepted as "fresh" and "balanced". The question isn't whether we get the news media we deserve, but rather whether we even want to pay attention. Indulging in Kerr's op-ed with any credulity is no different, as I see it, than simply watching American Idol and zoning out to the suffering halfway around the world.
I typically have a lot of compassion for the average citizen's "apathy". In my opinion, such cynicism is a reasonable response (if not a vital defense mechanism) to the loss of self-determination we've experienced over the last sixty years - institutionalized learned helplessness, if you will. Between being stretched thin by a cartelized, planned economy which views people as mere resource units and depressingly futile attemps to cope with the endless social spasms stemming from the consolidation of culture and top-down regimentation, most people simply don't have the time or resources to take care of both their personal lives and their political interests. Vigilance against what is increasingly a monolithic and authoritarian power elite carries a high price tag, especially for families.
Of all people, anarchists should understand the primacy of the personal. This truth about human nature simultaneously empowers our position as it weakens solidarity against our rulers and exposes us to systemic exploitation. The fat cats are nothing if not clever: they understand human nature to the point that they feel comfortable committing the most brazen crimes in front of our faces. They're counting on apathy because they've cobbled together a system that engenders it (whether by design or accident, I cannot be certain) as the password for living a "normal" life with any hope of quiet or privacy.
In lieu of genuine citizen solidarity against emergent fascism, it seems reasonable, however, that certain positions in society have unique potentials for effecting change due to their influence over the mechanisms of policy and management. While occupants of these positions have no less moral responsibility than anybody else, their acquiescence or resistance has a practical impact on the effectiveness system of governance.
Among many other people I count soldiers in this group, not least because of the oath they take to defend our best institutional hope against tyranny: the Constitution. They are "on the ground" prosecuting this war, and with regard to the morality of the operation and mission they register their morals. If their actions speak louder than civilians' it is only because the stakes are so much higher in their day-to-day lives.
So if the war is wrong, those who serve in the armed forces are at least as culpable as us for not standing up to it - if for no other reason than because the evil of this war operates within their primal personal sphere in a way they can't simply disavow. It is possible that in the worst cases these soldiers are criminally negligent or complicit for not questioning certain orders, premises, and superiors. But it is not at all necessary for them to be evil to be in the wrong, anymore than it is necessary for civilians to outwardly support imperialism in order to empower it.
While in the final analysis soldiers are no more morally cuplable than us civilians at home, it is their persons who are executing order by disasterous order. They are undeniably imbued with a more immediate connection to the war machine. In other words, they are actually close enough to stop it. These personal weaknesses and frailties compound in society somehow till we are helpless, literally helpless, to speak and act upon plain truths, and only in that sense is any collective moral failing visible.
If my analysis of the moral situation is anywhere close to accurate, then let's make sure we don't arbitrarily exempt those who, in many cases, are most vital to its continuation - least of all out of some shallow and spineless political correctness. There's plenty of blame to go around between our leaders, our fellow citizens, and - yes - even soldiers.
Read this article
