Away for a few days,

but I'm sure that war will continue in spite of my absence. Have a good Memorial Day, everyone!

How DO we support the troops?

Let's suppose that you "support the troops" whether you believe they should be in Iraq or not. This question has two parts: first, what, if anything, do you do to support them? Second, what do you think most Americans do, if anything, in the way of support?

Possible answers might include the following, although the list is far from exhaustive:

• donate to charitable organizations that send care packages overseas
• donate to Paralyzed Veterans of America or similar organizations
• write your elected representatives to press for better military pay, veterans health benefits, body armor, shorter deployments, etc.
• write your elected representatives to call for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq
• greet returning soldiers at the airport
• put a magnetic ribbon on your car
• visit patients at the local V.A. hospital
• vote Republican
• vote Democrat
• send your own care packages addressed to "Any Soldier, Iraq"
• fly your flag on Memorial and Veterans Day
• pray daily for their safety
• think general good thoughts about them and tell people that you support the troops
• enlist in the military to give them a helping hand
• encourage your relatives to enlist
• drive a fuel-efficient car

I could keep going, but that should be enough to jump-start your thinking. I look forward to reading your perceptions of how America is collectively supporting her troops.

Oopsy! Thieves Steal Personal Data of 26.5M Vets

"Thieves took sensitive personal information on 26.5 million U.S. veterans, including Social Security numbers and birth dates, after a Veterans Affairs employee improperly brought the material home, the government said Monday.

The information involved mainly those veterans who served and have been discharged since 1975, said VA Secretary Jim Nicholson. Data of veterans discharged before 1975 who submitted claims to the agency may have been included.

Nicholson said there was no evidence the thieves had used the data for identity theft, and an investigation was continuing."

Maybe the VA needs to rethink its policy on taking work home.

When good charities go bad

I have posted before about Soldiers Angels, a charity run by General Patton's daughter. I thought it was a great idea--they used donations to put together care packages for soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, and by virtue of their organization could do so much more efficiently than what individuals could. It seemed to me that contributing would have more of an impact on soldiers' lives than mailing a package of socks and playing cards to "Any Soldier."

Sadly, I have asked to be removed from their mailing list. I understood when I first contributed that I would receive more requests for donations--that's what charities do. But the request I received last week was the deal breaker: a cardboard mailing tube with an American flag and a small tag enclosed. I was asked to sign the little tag, enclose it with the flag and a donation, and return the whole thing in the mailing tube using their pre-paid address label. The flag (just slightly bigger than 4x6, on a wooden stick) was to be carried in a demonstration in Washington "showing all our troops how much we support them and their mission."* The flag was accompanied by a letter in which Ms. Patton-Bader railed against all those liberals who "rejoice . . . with every American death" and who desperately want America "to lose this war."

Those of you who read this blog regularly will anticipate my reaction: sending care packages to soldiers=good; mailing flags back and forth to each other and trash-talking liberals=bad. The march in Washington is debatable--showing support for soldiers is a good thing, but turning it into a conservative rally using charitable donations isn't acceptable to me. (I also have to wonder how many soldiers could have received care packages with the money it's costing to stage this march.) And of course anyone who asserts that liberals "rejoice" when American soldiers are killed has zero credibility with me.

Anyone know of a good charity out there who can send care packages to deployed soldiers without political rallies or strawmanning?

*This is a paraphrase--the other quotes in this post are exact.

Another one that you just can't make up . . .

Moussaoui Asks to Withdraw Guilty Plea
Convicted Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui says he lied on the witness stand about being involved in the plot and wants to withdraw his guilty plea because he now believes he can get a fair trial from an American jury.

I wonder if the expression "A day late and a dollar short" translates into Arabic.

What is Militarism?

Some Pacifists consider Militarism to be any military action, but war theorists instead consider it a “common propensity or cultural bias in favor of war, upon which the war-maker is continually able to draw and with which any peacemaker has to contend. It first precipitates war and then dictates its ruthless prosecution.” War is seen as a positive good, something of intrinsic and unique value.

Fascist militarism “ruthlessly subordinates the good of humanity to the good of a particular race, state or nation.” But while fascism parades its militarism, others hide their warlike nature behind a peaceful and humanitarian facade. “The readiness to equate the good of humanity with the triumph of a particular community or set of values and to advance that claim through war . . . is really a form of imperialism: that is, of moral particularism masquerading as moral universalism.”

Unlike the realist, who opts for war on pragmatic grounds, or the just war theorist, whose grudging acceptance of the moral permissibility of war stops well short of moral enthusiasm, the Militarist is an enthusiast for war, a "happy warrior" who shares none of the moral anxiety rightly associated with the just resource to war. (Think of General Patton.) And, A.J. Coates argues, not only the Right but the Left, as well, has its militarists, although the Left “effectively disguises [it] by its much-vaunted espousal of pacific and humanitarian goals.”

“The modern transformation of war fought to vindicate a world-view [rather than territorial claims] generates Militarism, quite irrespective of the specific ideological aims.” The cause of war is not the perpetration of any specific injury or the posting of any particular threat, but the general offence and the general threat posed by the existence of the other. (Think of the Ayotollah Khomeini, who stated that, "A religion without war is a crippled religion.")

Those who think that they have a historic destiny feel the need to rid the world of competing destinies, so "the use of force with a view to such grandiose ends tends to become an end in itself, and war becomes an intrinsic value in the way it is not for the Realist of Just War theorist." The real object of war [to the Militarist] is the transformation of man and of the human condition. And those convinced their cause is revolutionary or historically significant can be just like Khomeini’s followers, with a sense of participating in a grand design. “This understanding and experience of moral, psychological and emotional self-fulfillment enhances war and threatens its moral regulation. It transforms war from an instrumental into an expressive activity, and gives participants an incentive for engaging in it that is largely independent of specific cause."
And, unfortunately, conciliation is rejected because the conflict is absolute, and there can be no compromise with an absolute enemy.

Source is once again A. J. Coates' The Ethics of War, and all quotes come from his book.

This ends my posts on theories of war. (Yes, I hear the collective sighs of relief.) I'll return to discussing what is currently in the news, where, I assure you, you will not find any thoughtful treatment of competing theories of war.