Sam, Put Down Your Sword! – Remarks on my Note Concerning War and Facebook
I know that there was a firestorm of attention paid to my most recent note where I expressed my moral outrage for the connotation of a recent Facebook status posted on Thursday by an Iraqi soldier.
Many have taken this in comments out of the actual context from which I wrote. Let me be clear and straightforward in three separate points:
1. The soldier in question has expressed remorse and regret to me and to others personally which gives me (personally) moral reason to put down my sword.
I do think, however, that there may be other effects (or not) and those effects, insofar as they are just and fair, will not haunt me as unjust. My good friend who is in active combat was busted down a rank for drinking at a base where alcohol is prohibited and if that constitutes an offense, then, this might qualify too.
As for me, I have no reason to pursue this any further. I have given him my word that I take his word to be true and will offer no more personal rebukes towards him in anyway. I have also deleted my the post and will do the same at Vox Nova.
Let me very explicit about what I mean here (using all caps for emphasis): This PARTICULAR case is forgiven in my own heart and mind, although the GENERAL case of war (even this particular war) and military violence in general remains a violation of my own principles of conscience.
2. Many seem to think that I went about this belligerently and with no regard for reason or prudence. I would beg to differ. Here is why:
A: I was the very first reply to this status–over 24 hours before I wrote the note–giving a basic, “WTF?!?!?!” to see if this was some sick joke or it would prompt him to change his tune. Only after a day passed and all the other comments indicated that this was being taken literally (including one person who recommended that this be done to adult, not children) did I act with prose.
B: In my reply I decried this immoral regardless of if it happened or not. Advertising a racist war crime as a joke when one is an active duty soldier is tantamount to advertising racist pedophilia when one is an active kindergarten teacher. Even the mere thought of such an action seems highly problematic especially from a person that is presumed to offer some kind of moral standard. If we grant the heroism of soldiery, then, we must also hold them to a heroic standard of behavior, I think.
So, even if I were certain that this were silly little “joke,” I would have acted the same way until the soldier in question had the goodwill to reply with his own regret, which I accept in full.
C: My note was a memoir, not a rant, and was intended not only to declare this as wrong and intolerable, but also to express my own insufficient and broken disposition to it. I was not trying (as some of the commenters on both sides have been doing) to assert my own moral superiority–this is a very tragic situation for many reasons.
None more tragic than the fact that this soldier could very well lose his life in combat and to many of you his memory will only be in this fallen moment. At the same time, the idea of children–of any race–being exploited in war, or peace, puts those persons–even if only potentially–in conflict with this soldier. I have pitted a soldier’s life against children. Morally speaking, who wins?
Many of your intuitions will vary, but in the imagery of my own boys, the children won, and would win again. But that does not trivialize or dehumanize the fact that there is another life and family at stake.
Those stakes should humble, not inflate, our moral intuitions, I think.
3. Let me end with this. To everyone outraged at: me; this situation; the war in general; those who oppose the war in general; conservatives; liberals; and more–so much more–hear this: Here we find ourselves at a crossroads I was just presented with today. How, then, will we reply to the other we have so disfugured in our mind with anger and rage when they reveal themselves to us as human, as a person–as a friend?
For me, as righteous as my anger was and may still be in some unknown recess of my heart, I must forgive and love. Otherwise, I have only taken something truly wrong and made it worse.
To all involved, especially to this soldier in question and his family, know that for me and myself (even as that “self” changes and grows) I have spent this exercise of writing to begin beat my sword into a plow and have yet to finish. I hope you will join me and exceed my poorly attempt thus far.
Peace and Good.
Sam Rocha
Comments are closed.
You know something, Sam, you and I are in a privileged position so as to be able to “forgive,” and so it would be oafish for me not to accede to your sentiment.
However, gratuitous “forgiveness” offered on the behalf of a person or of persons who are, as yet, unable themselves to “forgive,” because they are still being demeaned and brutalized by an “occupying power” is not true “forgiveness,” because it is unjust.
It is not our place to “forgive” some of this behaviour; nobody has offered us a stone, in the place of bread: it is these Iraqis’ RIGHT to be asked forgivness–by the American people and by the sometimes callous occupiers who are their representatives. That’s the only “forgiveness” that will heal the injustices of the past few years.
I take the soldier at his word. He knows now how stupid and racist the comment was. I hope that he apologizes on his Facebook so that his friends (both military and non-military) can see it. I also hope he leaves the military and its racist, life-denying culture behind.
so … is anyone going to ask the soldier’s pardon for rashly judging him? Hmmmmm?
“so … is anyone going to ask the soldier’s pardon for rashly judging him? Hmmmmm?”
Absolutely not.
As i said, I don’t begrudge soldiers their gallows humor. And I’m very glad that this was a joke, and the he is sincerely remorseful.
But the simple fact of the matter is that US soldiers no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt in such cases. And this is due to the deliberate actions of a president that enjoyed strong catholic support.
Wow. An entire class of people don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. Because of the actions of somebody else.
I’m sure the Samaritans/tax collectors/ prostitutes in Palestine were glad Jesus didn’t think that way.
“Wow. An entire class of people don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. Because of the actions of somebody else.
I’m sure the Samaritans/tax collectors/ prostitutes in Palestine were glad Jesus didn’t think that way.”
You speak as if I don’t trust the military because of malicious stubborness on my part.
You speak as if OF COURSE no US soldier would EVER do such a thing, when recent history, I would have thought, has taught us better.
I am really very genuinely happy that this soldiers statements seem to have been a gest.
But are you really claiming that the initial doubts were somehow unwarranted?
Really?
My point is that God doesn’t traffic in generalities and neither should we. If you go by the idea that certain classes of people have a bad reputation, and because of that you refuse to extend the benefit of the doubt to particular memebers of that class of people … well, that ain’t such a hot idea.
Because that will lead to a lot of rash judgments about the poor, the homeless, teenagers, soldiers, police, strippers, the mentally ill, irs agents, etc.
“If you go by the idea that certain classes of people have a bad reputation, ”
The soldier has expressed remorse over what turned out to be a joke. I breathe a sigh of relief, remind myself that soldiers have a dark sense of humor, and move on.
But as for the question of where the presumption of innocence lies. . . I do not apologize for siding with a child against a soldier.
Because that will lead to a lot of rash judgments about the poor, the homeless, teenagers, soldiers, police, strippers, the mentally ill, irs agents, etc.
Actually, God does traffic in generalities and the difference between u.s. soldiers and the people you list above is that God consistently takes the side of the latter all throughout scripture and takes their side AGAINST those in power. God’s prophets proclaimed a word against militarism constantly in the Bible. Learn to make distinctions.
I do not apologize for siding with a child against a soldier.
EXACTLY.
Soldiers do not deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to accusations of misconduct. A preferentuial option for the powerless is demanding.
You know, Vietnam was fought by a bunch of “baby killers.” Nobody in this country gave them the benefit of the doubt. Some of them were 18 year olds … marching in the jungle all day, tired, thirsty, undersupplied. The local kids are friendly. Smiling, they offer one of these teenagers a Coke. This hot, homesick, bewildered teenager is naive. He doesn’t think, he’s just grateful that he can finally quench his thirst. Too bad. The Coke he drank was laced with glass.
In that particular circumstance, involving that individual soldier: Who had the power? Who was in control? Who was at the mercy of whom?
Power is not as black and white as you think.
Why should we be willing to presume someone guilty until proven innocent, just because of their job or social position? God consistantly takes the side of the falsely accused, by the way.
There are two points here that are being conflated. First the general point:
Yes, war is hard, and soldiers are men, and hard circumstances test the character of the best of us. But still, war crimes are war crimes. Does a coke laced with broken glass justify MY Lai? I have sympathy for soldiers, but it doesn’t override my sympathy for everybody else.
Then the specific point:
George W. Bush ordered American soldiers to torture prisoners of war, and they did. The response of the conservative (and catholic!) right was 1) Torture never happened. 2) It happened, but is was just a few soldiers “blowing off some steam” 3) It wasn’t really torture anyway, just “sprinkling some water on the a terrorists face” 4) if the US decided that such treatment was necessary then it becomes okay; we are such a virtuous nation, that we would only rsort to such measures if they were justified.
You complain because I was willing to believe the worst of a US soldier. You seem perfectly willing to overlook recent events that suggest the US military does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I wish this weren’t true, but when a US soldier claims to have poisoned a child, i take him at his word.
I get what you’re saying. But saying “I won’t give the US military the benefit of the doubt” is different from “I won’t give this individual person, who happens to be a soldier, the benefit of the doubt.”
The Vietnam War is notorious for war crimes. You could say the US military was an engine of brutality there, But when you get down to the individual soldier, it isn’t so easy to say who is weak, who is powerful, who has the right motives/intentions.
A coke full of glass does not justify My Lai. But that’s not really the point. The point is, when reports about My Lai came to the surface, it would have been wrong to assume that the people involved were guilty, just because they had the misfortune to be fighting in Vietnam, and we all know Vietnam veterans are blood thirsty killers.
It’s not a matter of being willing to believe the worst of a US soldier. It’s a matter of assuming the worst about him.
Look, Lizzy, to put it in simple lawyerly terms, it amounts to this: “Was there a reasonable presumption of guilt”?–one worth making the story worth highlighting, in terms as dramatic as one could possibly make them, to ensure that it not be swept under the rug–as almost all the incidences of TORTURE by CIA agents, et. al. ARE being “swept under the rug,” even as we speak.
I contend that there WAS, and you, apparently, contend that there was not. You wouldn’t have proceeded to an investigation, and I and a lot of others here would.
And you know what? I STILL believe that this story was very likely true. I have HUGE doubts that this soldier’s contrition is genuine: he knows very well that that was a public forum he was interacting on, and he knows that the military right now feel compelled to investigate EVERY SINGLE ALLEGATION similar to this one. He knew there was a very great likelihood he might have been investigated and charged, based on what was being written about him at Vox Nova, which provides links to many other websites.
After Abu Graibh and the stories of teenagers and youthful British citizens being tortured, I’m sorry, but I DO NOT trust the American military–not so much because the American post-adolescent is any more bestial than any other testosterone-crazed youth, but because in Iraq CAUSE IS UNJUST, and when humans become involved in an unjust system that their own consciences repudiate, they behave barbarically.
I’ll continue with your law metaphor. The handing down of a grand jury indictment, meaning sufficient evidence has been found to warrant a trial (i.e., a presentation and testing of evidence) does not mean there is a “presumption of guilt.” The only people I know of who presume guilt a priori are the French. And apparently, some people here.
The INVESTIGATORS are not permitted to “presume innocence.” Only the jury is.
And I’ll be honest with you: I was hoping there’d be enough of a brouhaha on the net caused by that entry that was deleted that there WOULD be an “investigation.”
And I’m more French in my attitude toward criminal investigations than American.
I do think it’s a shame the post was removed.
Lizzy, your question was “is anyone going to ask the soldier’s pardon for rashly judging him?”
My answer is no.
That seems to bother you. Well you can take comfort in the fact that even if this soldier had fed laxatives to an unknowing child, there would be plenty of voices on the right. . . including a number of catholics. . . who would have risen up to his defense, saying that what he did wasn’t so bad, or was justified, or whatever.
The lesson of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo is NOT that our troops are held to an unreasonable standard of conduct. Exactly the opposite: we will often let them get away, quite literally, with murder.