Dissent in Time of War

[Leif]

I think that the title says it all: what is your opinion on and attitude toward dissent in time of war?

By dissent in time of war, I mean opposition to a course of military action undertaken by the government of the United States, be it formally declared war or other types of hostilities. This can be dissent in reference to the current conflict, or to any previous conflicts, foreign or domestic, in which the United States participated. Dissent can take the form of opposition to the action in its entirety, or to the manner in which that action is conducted; it may be ideological or more practical in orientation.

I'm no moderator and won't pretend to be one, but to prevent premature locking of this thread, let's follow some basic parameters for the debate (and I promise to follow them myself, Scouts' honor):

1) Let's try to stay away from blanket statements like "All dissidents are traitors and deserve to be shot" or "All people who support America's involvement in Conflict X are idiots and deserve to be shot." If you honestly believe one of those or something similar, well, OK, but please support your statement in detail rather than just throwing it out there as a rhetorical drive-by.

2) Let's avoid other - particularly domestic - political issues and keep it to the topic at hand. For example, if you don't like Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, communists, fascists, etc. because you feel that they are ruining the country with their hatred of Volvos or bacon or some other unrelated thing, this is not the thread for you.

So, I may regret this, but here goes: I believe that dissent during time of war is legitimate, and not simply because it usually takes the form of protected speech. I believe that dissent in time of war is in many, but not all, cases necessary. I do not believe that dissent in time of war necessarily translates into support for the enemy or a lack of support for the soldiers in the field. I do not believe that dissent should stop simply because hostilities have begun, but rather that one's opposition to a conflict, if it is such, may continue with legitimacy during the conduct of that conflict. I do not believe that all forms of dissent are equally legitimate or appropriate, but I also believe that the "squeaky wheel gets the grease," or at least sleeps better at night knowing that it is following its conscience and voicing its dissent for what it honestly believes is the greater good of the country and its people, not simply for its own self-serving gratification.

I also believe that people can change their minds ...

PS - In case anybody is curious, this thread grew out of an earlier thread; see http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188397.

PPS - In the interest of full disclosure, although I'm not sure it changes much, I am not in the military, although my younger brother is and served in Iraq. And no, we don't exactly see eye to eye on this one ...

PPPS - It's a holiday week, everybody, so if I don't respond as quickly as you might wish, it's because I am busy like everybody else is this week, not because I'm trying to dodge you. Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[Eghad]

Never confuse support of political administrations with support for the troops. The troops take thier orders from the elected politicians. Even all the troops dont agree about politics, but the vast majority of us do the jobs we volunteered to do and put politics aside. So if you dont like the war protest agains the politicians that sent em there.

Just because someone disagrees with President X doesnt make them a traitor or does not make them a traitor. Dissent is sometimes the highest form of patriotism. Remember the McCarthy hearings.... where most bent with the wind but a few spoke up. If there were no dissent then I would be worried.

 

[BIGJACK]

The troops deserve and for the most part have the respect and prayers of all americans. However that does not go for their leadership(or lack there of).
As the immortal Jessie Ventura says, we got a bunch of "chickenhawks" running the show. (chickenhawks are defined as those who were chicken when it was their time to serve and avoided their service by what ever means available to them but who now, when these same "chickens" can send some one else to do the job they become hawkish and want to be "war Leaders.")hince "CHICKENHAWKS"

Adlai E. Stevenson said,"Patriotism is not short frenzied outbust of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."

"That we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the american people." Theodore Roosevelt
IF TYRANNY AND OPPRESION COME TO THIS LAND IT WILL BE IN THE GUISE OF FIGHTING A FOREIGN ENEMY ---JAMES MADISON

 

[model 25]

The dictionary defines dissent; as someone who differs in opinion or dissagrees.

The problem I have with those who call themselves patriotic dissenters is how we came to this postion in the first place. Now short history shows that alot of our reps and alot of democrats stood behind this war at the onset then turned to dissent when it looked like a political advantage to do so.

To vote a man into war along with all the wars cost then to turn to dissent after so much sacrifice is not a politicion that cares about our troops but one who hopes America will fail and his party will then come to power. All of which isn't a different opinion but a calculated political manuver that damns the fighting man in Iraq.

If you have an opinion of dissent then what is your alternative in dealing with the terrorist?

Should an ex president go into the middle east and tell all the world America was mistaken?

When does your expressing dissent turn from just opinion to verbal support for the enemy?

25

 

[gdeal]

It's all about the Oil

Too bad Rawanda didn't have any oil underneath it back in 1994. A lot of lives would have been saved. My favorite line in my favorite movie was, "Hey no politics. We're here." Yes it is way too bad that 19 and 20 year old American soldiers and Marines are being killed at best and maimed and crippled for life at worse. There is nothing I can do about this. The only thing I can think of is that they all volunteered to get tuition assistance and see the world and get even more money for college when they get out. Yes it is sad. But it is sad when anyone dies. Heart disease kills more Americans that cancer. And cancer kills a lot. Where are our greasy food dissenters? I am just rambling now but I wish I did have an answer. I guess all we can do is pray. And keep going to the Shooting Range to practice.

 

[GoSlash27]

Dissent *is* the highest form of patriotism. Especially in wartime.
I may disagree with those who wish to disengage from Iraq, but I defend their right to voice their opinion. It's the dissent that leads to a better understanding of why and how we fight and ultimately leads to a greater unity of purpose.
There are places in this world where public dissent of the government is harshly stifled. I'm glad I don't live there.

 

[XavierBreath]

Dissent is a good thing, even if I disagree with your opinion, it forces me to examine my own position on the matter, thus refining it.

I think that there is a time and place for everything. Dissent in wartime has the potential to do great harm. It traumatizes soldiers who return home broken men, it traumatizes families who have buried their children and children who have buried their parents. Many dissenters fail to see the trauma they cause, and the harm they do. Their goal of ending a war is seen as absolute and above anyone else's needs. That is wrong. Anti-war rallys at the funerals of our soldiers are wrong. Anti-war rallys outside of Walter Reed are wrong. These activities do not advance the cause of the dissenter.

For the dissenter to prevail, they must convert the one who does not dissent. Thus, offensive and exploitive activities are bound to fail.

I remember how I felt when there were protests against us returning home (Yokosuka Japan) from our little war in 1991. Green Peace was blocking our entry into the harbor with a string of rubber boats. We were manning the rail. It's hard to stop an aircraft carrier steaming along at 20 knots............ It was sweet satisfaction.

When a man goes overseas to risk his life for a cause, whether he believes in it or not............when he comes home to find people protesting against that cause, it is difficult to feel as though the protestors are on his side. The consequences of this can alter a man's thoughts and perceptions forever.

Thus, in theory, I am for dissent, if it was done correctly. Public dissent has historically never been done correctly. It is a dirty, loud, ill-directed business, and it harms the very people it seeks to help. Thus, in the end, it is very difficult for me to support dissent. If it could be done without harming the soldier, I would, but not at the cost our young men returning home and their families are paying.

 

[model 25]

+1 --x

25

 

[croyance]

I think it is always healthy to question what is really going on and what our reasons for war are. If you cannot withstand scrutiny, something is more than fishy.

The stated purpose for removing Saddam Hussein has changed a couple of times. So were they wrong the first time, or did they not trust us with the real reason then? Naturally the third option is: are they all lies?

One of the statements is that Iraq will become a base for training terrorists if we leave. It looks like a real live Hogan's Alley for terrorists now. Learn how to build a shaped charge and put it to use now! Real live lab classes.

Have some politicians changed their minds? So what? New information has come to light. The president must have had better information than Congress - the CIA and NSA report to him.
Why are the Iraqi people more in need of saving than sub-Saharan Africa? Why not Sudan?

 

[Leif]

The problem I have with those who call themselves patriotic dissenters is how we came to this postion in the first place. Now short history shows that alot of our reps and alot of democrats stood behind this war at the onset then turned to dissent when it looked like a political advantage to do so.

To vote a man into war along with all the wars cost then to turn to dissent after so much sacrifice is not a politicion that cares about our troops but one who hopes America will fail and his party will then come to power. All of which isn't a different opinion but a calculated political manuver that damns the fighting man in Iraq.

model 25, I won't disagree with you that politicians on both sides of the aisle can be opportunistic (as can the rest of us). However, my opposition to the current conflict in Iraq is due in many ways to those types of opportunistic dealings. Those in Congress, Republican and Democrat alike, who jumped on the Iraq bandwagon at the outset were, in many cases, operating in an extremely opportunistic fashion, playing to the fears of the American people rather than responding to credible threats to their safety. I'd have been much happier seeing a greater outcry, maybe even some resignations in protest, by those politicians who truly didn't want the United States to invade Iraq. Unfortunately, that is not what happened.

My point is that I'd rather not see even more American soldiers sent into and die within a conflict that was begun for opportunistic reasons, hence my continued opposition even after the onset of the war. Now, if a politician reverses or changes his or her position on the war, as seems to be happening in many cases, then great, I hope that they exploit their new positions and bring these people home. I'm not happy about the reversal, I have no respect for that sort of politician, but I'll take what I can get. This is the realistic choice that faces many American voters today, and not just on the issue of the Iraq conflict.

I think, in some sense, that my position of dissent is even more supportive of the troops, than continuing to support the administration's desire to "stay the course" in Iraq, no matter the cost. I am more willing to admit that the conflict was wrong from its beginning and bring them home than to compel them to remain in place simply to save face and avoid an ostensible appearance of weakness.

However, it should be acknowledged that we are speaking in broad strokes of the brush here. The positions described above are simple pro vs. con arguments. A great deal of the 'dissenting' energy has been expended not strictly on this, but rather on the conduct of the conflict. Would you contend that disagreement over the specific conduct of a war aids the enemy?

When does your expressing dissent turn from just opinion to verbal support for the enemy?

I suppose it turns from one to the other when the speaker actually advocates the cause of the enemy. To a certain extent, the propaganda of the enemy, any enemy, will be what it will be, regardless of statements made for or against a particular conflict. Certainly, a few individuals who voice their opposition to a particular conflict are doing so to further the cause of an enemy to this country, but this is rare in any overt sense. I doubt you'd find too many antiwar protesters today, even the most vehement of them, who'd defend Saddam Hussein or al-Qaeda.

If you have an opinion of dissent then what is your alternative in dealing with the terrorist?

I think that this will have to wait for a different thread.

 

[Leif]

Thus, in theory, I am for dissent, if it was done correctly. Public dissent has historically never been done correctly. It is a dirty, loud, ill-directed business, and it harms the very people it seeks to help. Thus, in the end, it is very difficult for me to support dissent. If it could be done without harming the soldier, I would, but not at the cost our young men returning home and their families are paying.

XavierBreath, you raise an interesting and valid point. Naturally, there's dissent in good form, and there's dissent in bad form. Protesting at funerals, VA homes, etc. qualifies as the latter and should be condemned roundly (I would venture to guess that few people on either side of the debate would disagree with that - unfortunately, it's the protests in bad form that tend to show up in the headlines).

However, just because public dissent has been practiced poorly by some doesn't mean it shouldn't be practiced.

 

[Capt. Charlie]

This hits home. I'm a Viet Nam vet, and to this day, I clearly remember returning Stateside, only to be met by protesters flying Old Glory upside down and yelling "baby killer". That really, really, hurt, especially when I thought of friends that didn't return, and it still does.

As XB said, dissent can be a healthy thing, but there's a proper time, place, and way to do it.

 

[Leif]

The manner in which dissent was conducted by many during the Vietnam War has left a bad legacy with which those who exercise dissent now have to contend. It's sad and unfortunate. Even more unfortunate is the fact that some of those who exercise dissent now learned nothing from the experience of the Vietnam-era antiwar movement and continue to make the same tactical mistakes.

In speaking with a friend sometime ago, she revealed that she had been one of those who, in her misguided youth, yelled epithets at veterans returning from Vietnam. To this day, this is one of her greatest regrets. She has not necessarily changed her views on that conflict, but she definitely wishes she could change the manner in which she expressed them.

I believe that Eghad stated it quite succinctly in his post: support the troops, protest against the politicians.

 

[Eghad]

tell her to do something nice for some old veterans on veterans day....

 

[roy reali]

One Problem

I have no problem with anyone, including politicians changing their minds about any issue. I change my mind every once in awhile. I have a problem with officials that are changing their minds and calling the President a liar and that they had just made a mistake or been mislead. I could respect them if they admitted they were wrong the first time around and have changed their minds. But the way they are approaching it is way too political for me.

Post 9-11, they were all backing the commander-in-chief and willing to grant him power to pursue military actions because it would have been political suicide to do otherwise. Now that they see backing the President could hurt their careers they are attacking him.

 

[Scope]

Thus, in theory, I am for dissent, if it was done correctly. Public dissent has historically never been done correctly. It is a dirty, loud, ill-directed business, and it harms the very people it seeks to help.(XB)

Well put. Public dissent, even revolution, can be an overall constructive process that cleans up corruption, exposes what people believe and why, and empowers people with freedom. Unfortunately most of the time it degenerates into mean people bitching and whining and trying to tear down society for their own short term gain.

I have little respect for modern activists; most are crass, overwhelmingly arrogant and take pride in their lack of dignity. They are without kindness and enjoy disrupting other people's lives and destroying others property without provocation. On top of that, most I have talked to cannot even competently defend or articulate their positions. Instead they rely on vague feelings and loose definitions, and many have a bad habit of blabbering for minutes on end without saying anything of substance.

My point is that I'd rather not see even more American soldiers sent into and die within a conflict that was begun for opportunistic reasons, hence my continued opposition even after the onset of the war.(Leif)

While the reasons for invading might have been opportunistic, now that we are already there we have very good reasons to stay. For the sake of argument, assume that the powers that be knew there were no WMD's and got us into a war by flat out lying, and when it was shown that there were no WMDs they changed the reason to be freedom for the Iraqi persons. So the whole war was based on a lie. Now that we've toppled Saddam's regime, engaged terrorists on soil closer to their home, and have worked to install a functional democracy in Iraq, you would have us lie again by pulling our support before the Iraqis can stand on their own and leave them to the wolves. Following one lie with another is not good policy, and some things like dignity and honor are worth fighting, and dying, for. Even if our verbal contract with the Iraqis is founded on a lie, it is better to see this through and get it right instead of disgracing ourselves again.

 

[model 25]

I am more willing to admit that the conflict was wrong from its beginning and bring them home than to compel them to remain in place simply to save face and avoid an ostensible appearance of weakness.


And when did this conflict begin?

Would you contend that disagreement over the specific conduct of a war aids the enemy?


Of course conduct matters and not just for the military. In war we are all involved yet some act as though this war can be turned off like a water spicket , we have enemies and they wont stop till we or they are dead.

The media of course goes out of its way to form your opinion in a negative manner but who else do you look to for information on what is going on in IRAQ?

If you have an opinion of dissent then what is your alternative in dealing with the terrorist?


I think that this will have to wait for a different thread.

That isn't a fair comment because if you have dissent you should have a plan of action that is better than what is happening now. If not then you are just like a sidewalk superintendant who wants all to hear his opinion with no expertise behind it. Again how did you form your opinion and whos information did you use?

No I am not making this personal but trying to get you to reflect as to how your dissent came about.

25

 

[gc70]

"war is politics with bloodshed" Mao-Tse-Tung

Dissent is healthy. Dissent in time of war should be directed at the politicians who initiated the war. The politicians are the ones who start wars and are the only ones who can end them.

What disgusts me are the misguided dissenters who attack the members of the military during a time of war. The members of the military are nothing more than tools wielded by the politicians.

 

[Leif]

And when did this conflict begin?

IIRC, the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003.

The media of course goes out of its way to form your opinion in a negative manner but who else do you look to for information on what is going on in IRAQ?

Aside from various media/news outlets of varying persuasions and formats, people who have been there, governmental information, etc. I think that I'm pretty much in the same boat as most people on this one, including most people who visit this site. Short of an astoundingly high security clearance and the telepathic ability to read the minds of all the key players, this is the best I, or anybody else, can hope for.

That isn't a fair comment because if you have dissent you should have a plan of action that is better than what is happening now. If not then you are just like a sidewalk superintendant who wants all to hear his opinion with no expertise behind it. Again how did you form your opinion and whos information did you use?

For what it's worth, I'm not making any special claim to expertise in these fields; that would be fairly presumptuous on my part, wouldn't it? Nevertheless, I work with the information I have to come to a conclusion that I believe to be correct, just as most people do.

My hesitation to answer your question stems not from a lack of a plan, or a lack of expertise, but rather that answering legitimate criticism with "let's see you do a better job" isn't exactly a response to the criticism as originally stated.

But, ask and ye shall receive, especially since I just posted the answer in a different thread. In brief, we should look to get out of Iraq ASAP, which leads to my answers to the questions posed by Scope.

Now that we've toppled Saddam's regime, engaged terrorists on soil closer to their home, and have worked to install a functional democracy in Iraq, you would have us lie again by pulling our support before the Iraqis can stand on their own and leave them to the wolves. Following one lie with another is not good policy, and some things like dignity and honor are worth fighting, and dying, for. Even if our verbal contract with the Iraqis is founded on a lie, it is better to see this through and get it right instead of disgracing ourselves again.

I'll be honest and say up front that a withdrawal of American forces in the very near future causes me some anxiety. I'll say also that Hussein needed to go (a very long time ago, like in the 1980s), although I will counter by saying that the Iraqis should have done this themselves. Any hope for a stable, democratic government in that country lies not in the continued presence of American forces, but in the absence of those forces. A significant portion of the Iraqi citizenry will regard any government established under the aegis of American military protection as a puppet of the Americans, rightly or wrongly, and will in all likelihood overthrow it the minute we leave. At the very least, it will be a toothless monster, all authority on paper and no real power.

Now, if there was a reasonable hope of "seeing this through," of remaining in Iraq until a well-protected, Iraqi democracy could be established and accepted by the Iraqi people within an acceptable frame of time without having that same populace regard us as occupiers, then maybe we should stay. As I understand it, though, this is not a realistic goal. Therefore, my position, or 'plan', is that we get out in the very near future, because our presence there is not mitigating the problems, but exacerbating them. I'd rather not see more American soldiers die exacerbating a problem well beyond their control. The Iraqis are going to have to figure this one out for themselves, and if the population truly is interested in establishing a democratic government, then they'll need to find a way to make it work without the protection of American forces, because we can't stay there forever, nor should we.

 

[Gary H]

Dissent may be helpful, but we have seen much more than dissent. We have witnessed mass media reporting every death and painting a tragic picture. We haven't been witness to a balanced reportage. We have seen Democrats accuse Bush of not having a plan when he clearly has a plan. He has stated time and time again that elections will be held, Iraqi security forces trained and a phased U.S. withdrawl. Everyone agrees that he did not anticipate the type or scale of resistance. Democrats have painted Bush as a WMD liar, when it is clear that many intel groups and Iraqi generals thought WMDs to be in Iraq. Biased reporting and politically charged false statements have supported the terrorists and have resulted in more death and destruction. Democratic and mass media "dissent" (excuse me, they are one and the same) uses falsehood and misrepresentation, thus giving the "insurgency" new hope. There is nothing wrong with honest dissent. Much of what we see today is not that.