OK, I am going to fracture this a bit, to get some things out of the way early.
And yes, I am in the military now. I am 48 years old, served in 2 branches for over 16 years now, and have served under every President since the first Reagan administration.
And while I am a "political individual", I am very careful to "keep it away from the flagpole". This is something most of us do, because not only does politics have no place in the military (no more then it does in your civilian employment), it can be detrimental (getting along with your Sergeant Major can be really bad if he finds out that the POLITICIAN that he adores you think is a horses-ass, or if he thinks one you rever is a horses-ass).
I don't know if you were referring to me as disrespectful in terms of name-calling, but I'm fairly certain I didn't call any presidents any names, nor anyone posting on this site.
No, that was not aimed at you at all, just an example of how I view such individuals. If somebody has to resort to such petty behavior, it is just rude. I try very hard to treat everybody respectfully, especially those I disagree with. I admit I may get a bit sarcastic at times, but it is intended as humor, not insult (80% of the time, I have no patience or kindness for bigots, racists, or idiots of that ilk).
In my statement about the soldiers "obeying orders", I was simply stating what has always been presented to me as fact, and perhaps it was a bit stereotypical, so I apologize. I'm no military expert, and don't necessarily plan on being one.
This is a common misconception. No, we are not mindless robots. We are not killing machines, even if we have been trained to kill (I spent 10 years in the Marine Corps, Infantry). Fighting is something we may have to do, but that is our job. We no more look forward to it then a cop in pulling out his gun and shooting somebody. It is part of our job, and if we are called upon to do it we want to do it right the first time, before we or our buddies gets hurt.
Actually, almost everybody in the military is no different then anybody else. Sure, we have our own "culture", like calling each other by their last names, saluting, and all the rest. But it really is not much different then any other organization when you see what is going on.
And as I said, you can't get in trouble for refusing an order. Many times during my career I have refused them, confident in knowing that the actual charge is "Disobedience to a
Lawful Order". And most of us actually question orders almost any day, it is actually encouraged (especially if you can think of a better way to do something). And if somebody gives an order that is not Lawful or bad, then they face possible Court Martial, dismissal from the military, and even death.
Actually, that is taught to us prior to deploying. And most of us get many awareness classes before, during, and even after deployment. I would say that most in the military are much more aware of such things then the majority of civilians.
Case in point, I have seen a great many civilians insist that Afghanistan is in the "Middle East", or that Iranians are "Arabs". Both are grossly incorrect, and I am very aware of the differences (and a great many others, you will never see me confuse al-Fatah with Hamas. I am well aware of the differences between the two organizations (which once again I doubt most civilians could say).
Most of us are very aware of such things, because it is not just some bit of information but because it could potentially impact us in a very real way.
Actually, they are really not all that different. Most of WWII was really attempting to liberate various areas that our enemies had conquered and occupied. And most of the wars since then have been the exact same thing.
And one of the lessons from World War I was that you can't just knock out a country, walk away, then expect things to be "Happily Ever After". You have to help them rebuild afterwards, or all you will do is guarantee that in another generation an even worse bastard may come along and restart it all over again as an act of vengeance.
My idea is that if you have to fight a war, make it as short, fast, and violent as possible. Knock them down to the ground and pound the dogsnot out of them, both as an object lesson to them, but to others that may have the same idea. Then once he is lying bleeding and unconscious, help somebody else rebuild things in a different way in the hopes it is never needed again.
To me, a short-fast-violent war is much less costly (in the terms of innocent civilians) then one of those low-boiling ones that festers for a decade or more.
And I am well aware of this. However, at the time our country was very isolationist, and refused to get involved in anything that did not directly start the US (Japan had even attacked us earlier, but it was largely ignored).
We probably would have stayed neutral even longer if they had only gone after the Dutch and UK territories, and left all US ones alone. Japanese attacks upon Indonesia, Hong Kong, and AUSNZ would probably have been largely ignored, if not for the fact that we were attacked at the same time.
But as far as direct US involvement, I see the Philippines as much more important then Pearl Harbor. If they had simply attacked our fleet and left without attacking and taking over the Philippines, we
might even have had a short war then both went our separate ways (not likely, but possible). But for some reason, most people when talking about December 1941 tend to forget that the people living in the Philippines were US citizens, as much as those living in California or Hawaii.
But about the Philippines, it was us who took that territory from the Spanish in the Spanish-American War in the first place at the end of the 19th century. Sure, we claimed we were liberating them from Spanish colonization, but we certainly weren't so nice to them either. Also, the Philippines were actually granted independence in 1934, in the Tydings-Mcduffie Act. It just wasn't made official until much later because the agreement stated it wouldn't go into effect for ten years. So, in principle at least, I'd say they were more-or-less an independent nation, at least so much in that Filipinos were from 1934 on not considered American nationals, and they had self government.
Yes, the same war we obtained Cuba in (which we also granted independence to).
As for their treatment, are you even aware who our major enemy was in the Philippine Wars?
Well, they were not the majority of Pilipino citizens. Most of the trouble came from religious extremist groups, like the Pulahan (blend f mythology and Catholicism), the Moros (fundamentalist Muslims), and the Sultanate of Sulu Dar al-Islam (yet another fundamentalist Islamic group).
The worst of them all was probably the Moros. They wanted nothing short of the expulsion, conversion, or death of all Catholics in the country, and the creation of an Islamic nation.
And no, the Tydings-Mcduffie Act was not independence. It created the framework for Philippine self-determination, nothing else. It gave benchmarks that they would need to fulfill if they chose independence, which are actually not to far off from the steps they would have needed if they wanted to become a state. The choice was entirely theirs, as it is now in Puerto Rico (which is increasingly trying to attain statehood).
And of major importance, the Tydings-Mcduffie Act when it comes to citizenship was declared Unconstitutional in 1940. Most of it was allowed to stand (such as allowing the Philippines to call a Constitutional Convention and determine their own future), but the citizenship issue was tossed out.
And to be technically correct, they were properly "US Nationals" or "residents", not "Citizens". But tens of thousands made the choice to become US citizens before, during and after independence.
In fact, to this day there is a program most are not aware of, and that is the recruiting of Philippine Citizens into the US military (predominantly the Navy). For over 100 years the Navy has traditionally allowed individuals from the Philippines to enlist (and later become US Citizens), and the competition for these positions are very competitive.
I promise you with all my heart, my opinion that we shouldn't get involved in other peoples' conflicts around the world has nothing to do with the fact they are not Americans. I struggle all the time when people ask me whether I support U.S. involvement in ending these conflicts around the world. In fact, I see no problem with involvement, to a degree, but I do not condone military action because I once again do not believe in killing as an effective cure for our world's problems. The conflicts you have listed are atrocities to be sure, but if we respond with violence then it will only lead to more violence down the line. War is a band-aid, not a vaccine.
I see, so instead we just sit back and watch the slaughter continue.
Trust me, Saddam would not have left Kuwait unless he was forced out. The Serbians would not have stopped slaughtering the Muslims unless they were forced to do so. Nobody seriously stopped the slaughter in Somalia and Darfur, and it still continues to this day, 20 years later.
And one thing for sure, when you put a bullet in the head of enough genocidal maniacs, either they learn to not behave that way, or you run out of genocidal maniacs. And unless somebody puts an end to the atrocities through force, they will never stop.
At least until the people being slaughtered are no longer. And to me that is most definitely not a solution.
