|Knapp, post 92:|
I don't regard what the American military is doing as "worse" than what al Qaeda is doing. As a matter of fact, for the most part I consider it not only better, but on an entirely different plane of morality.Here Knapp wants to pretend that his attacks are only against President Bush and the U. S. leadership, and not against the military.
That is pure sophistry.
1. Here, for example, Knapp compares our soldiers' actions to clean out that former viper nest of terrorist beheaders, Fallujah, to the genocidal actions of Nazi war criminals who said they were "just following orders" (note especially the sarcastic quotation marks he places around the word "our" in reference to American troops):
Yes, I know that some of the people in Fallujah are "bad guys." I consider it unfortunate that "our" troops have been put in the position of being "bad guys" too -- but "vee ver justtt followink orderrrz" hasn't cut any mustard since 1945. Fallujah goes into the books with Guernica and Grozny. You don't have to like it -- but it will remain a fact whether you like it or not.
2. Now here is how Knapp characterizes overall U. S. military policy in the Middle East:
The freedom the administration wants to offer the Middle East is the freedom to be shot at, bombed, kidnapped and murdered by Americans instead of Arabs.
And here, you recall, is how he characterizes the U. S. military's Commander in Chief, President Bush:
As a matter of fact, I consider Bush the moral inferior of bin Laden. At least bin Laden is up-front about his desire to enslave or kill me. Bush wants to blow smoke up my ass and pretend he's trying to protect me, while in actuality he and his organization do the former and threaten to do the latter should I resist.... Some people who go to church -- bin Laden, for example -- are car-bombers. Other people who go to church -- Bush, for example -- have larger machinery at their disposal to do the same dirty work.
Okay, let's plod through this:
The Bush administration wants to shoot, bomb and "murder" people in the Middle East. President Bush, the military's Commander in Chief, is "the moral inferior of bin Laden"; "he and his organization" want to enslave Americans, and threaten to kill us should we resist. In fact, Bush is no better than a car-bomber like bin Laden, but has "larger machinery at [his] disposal to do the same dirty work."
Now what is that "larger machinery" if not the U. S. armed forces? Moreover, according to Knapp, "our" soldiers can't be morally excused from all this "murder" and "enslaving" and "dirty work": after all, they are in a volunteer military, and "'vee ver justtt followink orderrrz' hasn't cut any mustard since 1945."
The meaning and logic of Knapp's statements are abundantly clear, try as he might to muddle the implications. To him, U. S. soldiers, operating in a volunteer military, are willing accomplices and instruments of Bush's policies of "murder" and "foreign occupation" and enslavement; they can't deny personal moral responsibility for their actions, because they have all voluntarily put themselves at the "beck and call" of a lunatic.
In emphasizing his hatred of Bush, Knapp is simply trying to disguise the fact that he is also hostile to the American military, regarding it as an army of "occupation" and "murder." Being anti-military, you see, is a far less publicly palatable position.
But of course, how could an anarchist be otherwise?
I can, and do, honor Thomas Knapp for his service in the military during the first Gulf War. But I wonder what soldiers serving over there today would think of his efforts to besmirch them as hired murderers, following the orders of a lunatic?