|
making aspersions on his manhood--because there is such truth in it.
But there is also something wrong with it, that I haven't been able to quite put my finger on.
And I think it is this: I consider men who reject war and who reject the brutal "Clint Eastwood" model of manhood to be admirable, and in many cases very courageous. There can be--and often is--tremendous moral courage in pacifism. For instance, consider Martin Luther King or Gandhi--and their followers--permitting themselves to be beaten without fighting back. Both men--and many who followed them--believed that they were saving their persecutors by not striking back with violence. They were giving those who beat them up a chance to see themselves and reflect on their behavior. If they fought back, then the violent ones--the ones who were enforcing society's oppression--would feel justified in their behavior.
Similarly, many of the "draft-dodgers" of the 1960s were very courageous people. They refused to serve in an unjust war. And most suffered consequences--exile, jail, ridicule. What I am saying is that moral courage is the equal of physical courage. And moral courage is sometimes even harder than physical courage. Now, it doesn't appear to me that Bush or Chaney were making a moral choice, in evading military service during Vietnam. But calling them "draft dodgers" makes it sound like "draft dodging" is inherently cowardly, when it is far from that, in my experience.
So, all other things aside, I don't begrudge Bush or Cheney their draft-dodging in the context of the Vietnam War.* What is objectionable in Bush and Cheney is their HYPOCRISY, and what appears to be a complete and total lack of moral courage, or any ethical sense at all.
They lie. They cheat. They steal. They hide behind their wealth and power. They send others to their deaths, and inflict monstrous harm on the innocent, for no good reason--to steal other peoples' oil. They torture. They oppress. They strut. They bluster. They are empty sacks. Not because they didn't serve in that other horrendously unjust war--but because they are disreputable people. Bullies. Thugs.
In sum, I don't consider refusal of military service--or refusal to kill others, or refusal to fight--to be inherently cowardly. It might be much more courageous to flee to Canada and raise a family, and be a good Dad to your kids--and contribute some thought and energy to world peace. The courage of LIFE. The courage to refuse to be bullied into killing, or to becoming a cog in a great killing machine--especially in a cause that makes no sense whatever.
This kind of courage--moral courage--can be exhibited (and has been exhibited)--by soldiers as well. Soldiers who refuse to commit atrocities, who refuse to obey wrongful orders, and persons who are part of the war machine establishment who draw ethical lines, at peril of their careers, or even at peril of their freedom or their lives. Also, whistleblowers. Those who exposed the Abu Ghraib torture. Those insiders who exposed the lies Bush/Cheney were telling to justify a completely unjustifiable war. The military jag lawyers who fought an inside battle against torturing prisoners.
There are all kinds of courage. The problem is that Bush and Cheney have exhibited NONE of them. They stole two elections to gain and keep power, and they use that power without any legitimacy, or moral authority. They use their power like cowards. They hide behind it. They parade it before them. And they surround themselves with sycophants and yes-men, and don't even have the courage of ordinary politicians, to engage in debate, or defend their actions. Typical of them was their refusal to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission. They insisted that it be behind closed doors, with no recording or note-taking, and the two of them together, no doubt to cover each other's lies. They cannot face other people--Congress, the voters--without layers of protection. They are not forthcoming. They are sneaky and evasive. And it is this--their lack of moral courage--that is much more objectionable than their evasion of military service--although I can understand how some folks feel about their sending OTHERS to their deaths, on the basis of lies and greed, while they themselves used draft exemptions (Cheney) or "champagne" service (Bush--who couldn't even do that--he went AWOL) to avoid fighting in Vietnam.
-----------------
*(And I wouldn't disparage pacifism or a refusal to kill in ANY war situation. Also, I don't consider the natural reaction to war, that you don't want to be in it--you don't want to kill, you don't want to be killed--to be cowardice. A person may be courageous in many ways, but break under the stress of modern warfare. And that breakdown may be their moral courage arising--their deepest beliefs against, and revulsion at, mechanized killing, arising from the depths of their being, and depriving them of the ability of participate. The inability to kill is not necessarily cowardice; and the willingness to kill is not necessarily courage. Modern warfare is a horrible thing. It should be eliminated from the face of the earth. The generals and those who need cannon fodder for their power games try to perpetrate the myth that killing = manhood, and that those who "are not up to it" are cowards. But look what this myth has brought us! Two million slaughtered in Vietnam. A half a million dead in Iraq. Are these examples of "manhood" or are they examples of brainwashing?)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
