The American Religion: Army Gang Bangers

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Jim Frederick recently published an excellent account of an American atrocity in Iraq that has come to be called the Mahmudiyah Massacre. The incident was not as bloody as the Haditha Massacre, but it was more vicious in that it was pre-meditated. Frederick's account of the rogue operation to rape a teen girl and murder her entire family (to eliminate witnesses), reveals the gang banger mindset that plagues the American military rank and file.

An aspect of the investigation that struck me as typical of the disease was the violent opposition to bringing the perpetrator to justice. The whistle blowers who had "snitched" on the operation were under threat of violence from peers of the perpetrators who had no involvement in the action or its planning. They closed ranks like members of a criminal syndicate.

One of the more vocal of these attempted obstructers of judgment claimed that he felt the perpetrators should walk free because their judgment would come after death at the hands of the material Creator of the flat and immobile earth. This soldier failed to see the damage that a lack of prosecution would cause to the reputation of the Army.

For those who believe that religion has a wholesome effect on the military mind, this case of after-death rationalization shines as an excellent counter example. The gang bangers of the Beltway should be free to commit acts of theft, murder, and destruction because their vicious Maker would meet them on the other side. The parallels to the Kali cult of Thuggee are unmistakable.

The rational mind cannot accept as genuine claims of post-mortem punishment or reward. After all, we experience suffering and joy within a physical framework. Once that framework has been dismantled, we must assume its capability for experience is commensurately obliterated.

Do you fear punishment in the after-death? If so, are you willing to use that fear to justify martial brutality?

(For those interested in reading about the book, Here is a review of it.)

Comments

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I resent the association you're attempting to make there. I am merely a simple jewel carrier...

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

[rogerdr.livejournal.com]

Your idea of Karma, perpetuated in the link, misses the point that the "return" involved occurs after death, specifically, as influencing what station you're reborn to. It has nothing to do with a kind of magical "do wrong and you'll have wrongs done to you" formula like the Law of Return. There is no "instant karma" meaning that you curse yourself by doing something bad. It's more like a tab where all your actions are counted and added up when you die. Also, there is no "good karma". All acts that bring karma are those that go against the natural way. In other words, all Karma is bad Karma.

Some snapped...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... before they even left for Iraq. That was why they volunteered to travel thousands of miles to a scorching desert to face IEDs and other scorpions.

Hippies snapped a long time ago.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

some just wanted to serve the country they love. OMG, CRAZIES!!

Re: Hippies snapped a long time ago.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Executing the will of Dick Cheney does not count as service to society. I forgive them, for they had no idea of what they were doing.

I think you snapped

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

I never once saw a paycheck from Dick Cheney.

Re: I think you snapped

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It's amazing how adept he is at taking advantage of other people's money.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ah, the whole "religion is to civilize the army" mentality. Anyone who believes this needs a good dosing of what happened *before* Christianity and Islam and then what happened *after* them. Armies fighting for Ares and Athena were no more civilized than Legions of the Archangel Michael or Fountainhead gangstas.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

"Fountainhead gangstas" cracks me up. A+

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Still laughing insanely over that as well.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ah aim to please. :-).

[rogerdr.livejournal.com]

Don't forget armies fighting for JHVH in Canaan.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Damn those rascally Midianites and their cultural imperialism on those poor Israelites. :-).

And that sun guy...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... pulling down the house of the Philistines.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Frederick's account of the rogue operation to rape a teen girl and murder her entire family (to eliminate witnesses), reveals the gang banger mindset that plagues the American military rank and file.

What drugs are you smoking? It reveals no such thing. It shows one instance of a criminal action, which happens because people anywhere can be evil. It doesn't show any mindset or anything plaguing anything.

those who believe that religion has a wholesome effect on the military mind

Citation needed.

we experience suffering and joy within a physical framework. Once that framework has been dismantled, we must assume its capability for experience is commensurately obliterated.

You can assume that, but I see no reason why we "must" assume that, as there are other parameters in operation.

Plague?...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... I see no plague. If there's a plague I wish people would point it out to us.

Why do you need a citation on the belief in religion having a wholesome effect? Is such a belief outside of the pale of the possible?

The reason for the "must" is that it logically follows. Anything else would be to avoid reason and think emotionally.

Re: Plague?...

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I see no plague. If there's a plague I wish people would point it out to us.

Your OP says there's a plague, so you would need to point it out.

Why do you need a citation on the belief in religion having a wholesome effect? Is such a belief outside of the pale of the possible?

I need a citation for your claim that there are people who believe that about the military mind. I'm sure it's possible, but I've never heard of anyone actually having such a belief.

The reason for the "must" is that it logically follows. Anything else would be to avoid reason and think emotionally.

It is one possible logical option, but not the only one, therefore, not "must".

Re: Plague?...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It is easier to demonstrate the existence of another logical conclusion by counter example than it is by assertion. The assertion is only accepted by those who accept the authority of the one making the assertion.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

You mean that there was a failure of violence to correct the problem, in that violence was not used to correct the problem.

It's not what I mean...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... that seems to be at issue here, but what you don't mean.

Re: It's not what I mean...

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Oh. What don't I mean?

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Its far more disturbing to me when they rape and murder the soldiers on their own side, intentionally.

Huh?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

So, that would be the US Army guys your talking about.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

Whether or not this sort of behavior is more common in the military than among young males in civilian settings is hard to quantify. What makes these incidents particularly troubling is the urge on the part of the public to affirm that "it's just some bad apples" so that they can continue the public hero worship that we've become accustomed to. While I don't necessarily think that military training makes you into a worse person, I don't see any evidence that it turns you into a better one. But that's not always an acceptable thing to say, since it interferes with the American obsession with honoring soldiers.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

What makes these incidents particularly troubling is the urge on the part of the public to affirm that "it's just some bad apples"

are we supposed to assume this behavior is common in the military, based upon the behavior of a few bad people? that wouldn't really make sense now would it?

since it interferes with the American obsession with honoring soldiers

honoring the military, what a ghastly obsession!

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

People very much want it to be the case that these are tragic incidents that can't be predicted or controlled. To some extent that is obviously true, but often there isn't enough investigation as to whether there are any structural or cultural issues within the military itself that need to be changed. I am not saying that there are or aren't because I honestly don't know, but people rarely ask these questions in public forums, which is what my post was about. Imagine if people argued against tort reform by saying it just a few bad apple lawyers that pursue frivolous lawsuits; no one accepts this as an answer. Obviously those lawyers that do this are bad apples, in the same way that soldiers that commit crimes are bad apples, but the larger question is how to prevent these behaviors from happening in the future, on a structural level. As in, how can we prevent bad apples from ever getting in a position to act out these behaviors in the first place?

I am sure these sorts of discussions go on in the military to some extent, but there should be public oversight. There isn't much public debate about this because in the United States soldiers are relatively off-limits as objects of criticism, due to the high level of respect they receive.

Re honoring soldiers: There is nothing in and of itself wrong with honoring soldiers, but people should remember that an individual's actions should be the ultimate metric of their respect. In some circles, you are the recipient of a large amount of respect simply by virtue of having been in the armed services, regardless of what you did specifically. Again, I don't want to make it seem like these people deserve disrespect, but most people in the military don't go near danger and are relatively well-compensated for their efforts. What I object to is the glorification of serving in the military for its own sake.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

As in, how can we prevent bad apples from ever getting in a position to act out these behaviors in the first place

raising recruiting standards. but sometimes those standards prevent honest people from having the chance to atone for their mistakes. its a double edged sword. and even then, you'll never be able to weed out all the bad apples in any organization.

but often there isn't enough investigation as to whether there are any structural or cultural issues within the military itself that need to be changed.

Sais who? you? Based upon what?

but there should be public oversight

yeah, thats what Congress does.

in the United States soldiers are relatively off-limits as objects of criticism

if they do something wrong, they will be criticized. but unless they do something wrong, they're not going to be criticized because of the actions of other people.

What I object to is the glorification of serving in the military for its own sake

I don't see anything wrong with honoring individuals who choose to serve their country, when its so easy not to.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

When I say there isn't enough investigation, I mean on the part of the media and in public discourse in general. When it is investigated, it is not treated as a systemic problem, and only looked at in a very shallow way. I don't have any proof of this -- it's purely a personal observation based on my own experiences reading and watching the news. Yours may be different.

The Fort Hood shooting is a good example of this. The main blame in some circles was placed on Muslim fanaticism. This is obviously part of the problem, but a deeper question is how did a Muslim fanatic stay in the military for so long? Even when this question is addressed, some people want to blame it on political correctness run amok. That might very well be the reason, but what people are unwilling to do is to publicly discuss structural or cultural problems in the military itself.

I don't see anything wrong with honoring individuals who choose to serve their country, when its so easy not to.

That's an example of the language that gets used when treating members of the military as a group rather than individuals. Mail carriers also "serve their country," but they don't receive near the respect and honor that a member of the military receives, despite the fact that some military personnel are in as much danger and hardship as mail carriers. Again, I am not criticizing those members of the military that weren't or are not in danger, either by their own choices or by chance -- obviously no one wants to get hurt. I am just saying that people are afforded respect because of the actions of others.

To be clear, I think everyone that works hard and does their best to be a good person should be respected, including members of the military. What I disagree with is giving members of the military extra respect at those times when it is inappropriate.

yeah, thats what Congress does.

It's unusual to find someone so willing to trust Congress to do a good job these days!

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

it is not treated as a systemic problem

but why treat something as a systemic problem if there is no evidence that it is?

but what people are unwilling to do is to publicly discuss structural or cultural problems in the military itself.

i disagree. i think if these problems existed to a significant extent, they would be discussed at length. the reality is, the military suffers from the same structural and cultural problems as any large bureaucracy.

Mail carriers also "serve their country,"

do mail carriers go to mail carrier bootcamp? do they get deployed to war zones? do they have to abide by the UCMJ? there isn't any sacfrice involved with carrying mail. but serving in the military, even for those not put in direct danger, involves giving up some of your freedoms. So yes, there is a difference.

so willing to trust Congress to do a good job these days

oh i don't trust them to do a good job. but the military is run by civilians.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

i disagree. i think if these problems existed to a significant extent, they would be discussed at length. the reality is, the military suffers from the same structural and cultural problems as any large bureaucracy.

But why do we discuss the problems inherent in, say, social security or welfare programs ad infinitum, but not so much those in the military?

do mail carriers go to mail carrier bootcamp? do they get deployed to war zones? do they have to abide by the UCMJ? there isn't any sacfrice involved with carrying mail. but serving in the military, even for those not put in direct danger, involves giving up some of your freedoms. So yes, there is a difference.

I do agree that sacrifice should be taken into consideration, so perhaps the mail carrier analogy is wrong. But at best this only puts soldiers on an even field with other professions. Many professions need to abide by specific professional ethical codes (doctors, nurses, lawyers, etc.) These professions also all require significant sacrifice (both time and money). Doctors, nurses and lawyers don't go to war-zones, but my point is that this is also true of many members of the armed services.

Good point.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It seems that there are two extremes when it comes to treating soldiers. One is to applaud them regardless of their conduct overseas and the other is to call them "baby killers." I suppose most of us find a middle path that is closer to giving them their individual due.

I don't know whether the behavior to which you refer is the behavior of the original crime or the behavior of covering it up. The former may be less severe in civilian society, but the latter is just as prevalent. It is a common practice in police forces to close ranks to protect a fellow officer.