Digg

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Thoreau: Routine War Degenerates the Army

writeidea.org — "But when war too, like commerce and husbandry, gets to be a routine, and men go about it as indented apprentices, the hero degenerates into a marine, and the standing army into a standing jest." No political statement intended, simply something to ponder.

Bury

mejaredme 97 days ago, made popular 95 days ago

785 diggs
digg it

Masternajee, on 07/01/2008, -3/+20Certainly something to consider. With so much war, we seem to be immune to it. The hero reverts to being a marine.
- davidamerland, on 07/01/2008, -9/+8Who hates puppies!
xfactor72315, on 07/01/2008, -3/+22I love Thoreau!
- insanebrain, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4I love tourette .. . ***** .. . . DAMN . . .
- moxx, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8Yeah, my personal favorite quote comes from Thoreau actually...
  
  "Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves."
  -Henry David Thoreau
Conspiracy20, on 07/02/2008, -4/+18That is what we've become though isn't it? A big dying joke.
- stonebear, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3"Hey! I resemble that remark." ~ Norm Crosby
- Badandy127, on 07/03/2008, -3/+5A big dying joke? We have the most powerful military the world has ever seen, and we are militarily invincible. And like every other powerful military, we are succeptable to attacks by insurgents using guerilla tactics.
  - iticu, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4Owned by debt, and thusly owned by China.
    
    Your military means squat unless you intend to use it against Americas civilians when the recession comes.
  - Badandy127, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Our GDP is quadruple China's. If we stopped importing China's cheap goods, they'd be as destroyed as we would be if they stopped buying our debt. Thus, neither will happen for fear of reprisal.
    
    My point still stands.
    
    (And don't take this to mean that I like us being in debt, it sucks.)
ChAnG3tH3wOrLd, on 07/02/2008, -2/+8Eh...seems to me the word would be complacent?
tvanwyk, on 07/02/2008, -5/+33If you want to hear Thoreau's real opinion on military men, read THE Thoreau essay, "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience."

"A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences... Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?...The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience
- WHauser, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3This excerpt is found in the article. You would do well to read it before making comments.
  - tvanwyk, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2I did read it. I've also read the stuff this guy copied verbatim to his "article."
    
    I was pointing out that one should skip this two-bit blog and go straight to THE Thoreau essay.
emecks, on 07/02/2008, -2/+15Is it not also so, that casualties on "our" side are remarkably low in current wars, so "we" are less moved by the reality of it than "we" were in say WWI or WWII??
- FredFredrickson, on 07/03/2008, -0/+9That, and the fact that the media is banned from reporting the reality, ie - showing the caskets returning to the states, etc.
  
  When you keep the war out of people's faces, they don't have time to think about how outrageous it is.
infinitydl, on 07/02/2008, -17/+22Thoreau has his moments, but he, like all of us, could not escape the intellectual confines of his own biases. He had little respect for the martial values of patriot soldier. His pacifism was such that he left no room for just war. If you really believe that then you must believe that there is nothing worth fighting for, any form of government or type of society is just as good, or at least, not worth fighting with arms to change. He would deny this, but it is the end result of his beliefs. This means that when a totalitarian dictator attacks his neighbors, the neighbors should simply acquiesce, let him conquer them since it is not moral to fight to retain your own system. However, the US constitution is based on the sovereign individual, giving a small amount of rights up to the state for mutual defense and prevention of crime other forms of government are not so constituted, they begin with the premise that the state is sovereign and grants rights to the people. IF the state grants you rights, it can take them away. THIS TO ME IS SOMETHING WORTH FIGHTING TO RETAIN. Especially in the case of a determined aggressor. This is just an example, the current war is based on the premise that rather then wait for future attacks, we are going to act proactively. One could argue with this premise, and reasonable people have, but you cannot honestly argue that the modern world, write large (US, UK, Australia, India, Singapore, Canada...etc) face an existential threat from a determined adversary which has claimed multiple times its intention to destroy our existence and way of life. (islamist fascists, Wahhabi and salafi extremists, combined with old school Marxists "revolutionary" thugs and anarchists have found common cause with run of the mill dictators and kleptocrats in opposing the advance of liberty and republican principles.
- tvanwyk, on 07/02/2008, -2/+11"Thoreau has his moments, but he, like all of us, could not escape the intellectual confines of his own biases. He had little respect for the martial values of patriot soldier. His pacifism was such that he left no room for just war."
  It was his ethics that left no room for just war. (On the other hand, pacifism IS an ethical position, and a repudiation of just war is implied by the embracing of true pacifism.)
  
  "However, the US constitution is based on the sovereign individual, giving a small amount of rights up to the state for mutual defense and prevention of crime other forms of government are not so constituted, they begin with the premise that the state is sovereign and grants rights to the people."
  Gag. You need to read a bit more Thoreau. While you're at it, throw in a bit of Spooner, too.
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5Thoreau wasn't against war. He just hated servants.
  
  "I am too high-born to be propertied,
  To be a secondary at control,
  Or useful serving-man and instrument
  To any sovereign state throughout the world."
  
  -Thoreau.
  
  That's why he had no respect for soldiers. Because they are non-persons.
  
  "I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization (the US government) as my government which is the slave's government also."
  - Badandy127, on 07/03/2008, -3/+3And the reason he could write in relative safety is because of those non-persons. Again, his pacifism is blinding logic. Would he have thought WWII not worth fighting?
  - AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -1/+0What pacifism?
    
    He wasn't a pacifist. He was an anarchist.
  - dinostabOMG, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6I'm not sure I agree with your reading of Thoreau. I believe he supported John Brown's attempt at armed overthrow of the government of Virginia with the intent of abolishing slavery:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28aboliti ...
    which leads me to believe that he thought personal sovereignty was the ultimate "thing worth fighting for." He is on the record showing, for such a serene personality, an extreme and vigorous distaste for slavery.
- noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -4/+2Damn... you ought to be published. I mean it is common sense but well written. I think Thoreau would have known your name well had you been in the same era.
- WHauser, on 07/03/2008, -0/+9Infinitydl: You, sir, are an idiot.
  
  First of all, the State doesn't "grant rights to the people." If you'd ever actually read the Constitution you'd see that it begins with the phrase "We the people." You see, we are born with inalienable rights and *we* establish the government to protect these rights; the government doesn't just give them to us and cannot just take them away.
  
  Second of all, Thoreau wants soldiers and men alike to be led by their conscience and not by a feeling of obedience to the law or to their leaders. It is possible to fight wars of conscience and for generals and soldiers alike to always follow first their conscience.
  
  Additionally, you imply that proactive wars or preemptive strikes are wise and justifiable. Would you agree that because Iran feels threatened by the US they would be justified in preemptively attacking us before we attack them? Or are preemptive attacks only 'ok' when our interests are being served/protected?
- johntoast, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Thoreau wasn't against fighting, in the essay titled " a plea for John Brown" Thoreau made the point that if the "seed is good it will bare good fruit." John Brown tried to take out a fort in the name of abolition. This is the main point of Thoreau, Do whatever you can to be a just man, be it peaceful resistance or more violent means as long as it is for justice, in the end your plight will not be in vain.
- Blg7, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Do you even know who the Wahhabi and Salafi are? The most accurate english translation of Salafi is "predecessors" or "early generations". In other words, they are Islam's Conservative Movement.
  
  Your post mentions 'Islamist fascists'. I can only guess that is your uneducated way of saying 'Islamic fascists'. Surely you at least know the difference between fascism and theocracy?
  
  The Wahhabi call themselves Unitarians. You might know them as Saudis. They were originally opposed to any of the schools of jurisprudence being taken as an absolute and unquestioned authority. They also attempted to reform Islam by condemning the practice of accepting a religious ruling in matters of worship and personal affairs from someone regarded as a higher religious authority without asking for any proof.
  
  The world isn't as black and white as you would make it out to be.
- thescimitar, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2The state is not sovereign nor does it grant rights to the people. Any constitutionalist or conservative should know this. Your statement smacks of neo-liberalism, though it gives the impression of conservativism.
  
  Read the Constitution.
P8triot1, on 07/02/2008, -6/+21" He would deny this, but it is the end result of his beliefs. "

Of course he would deny it. You said it; not him.
This is YOUR belief, that we must have wars. Not all of us believe that. There are other ways to deal with problems, not just go straight away to war. Thoreau and all of us are still saying: why not try peaceful means? Why always try war? And truthfully, the money in warfare for the the wealthy who own the corporations outspeaks and outcontrols all of our desires for peace. War makes them money. That's all that matters, and they use their ill gotten gains to buy government in every way.
- Badandy127, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2Would you have supported the United States' decision to funnel money to the Allies in WWII, and to later enter the war to defeat the Axis?
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -2/+5Iraq isn't a war.
  
  This doesn't even apply to it. America just plain invaded a country, for no valid reason.
  
  Asking whether war itself is justified when talking about Iraq is completely nonsensical.
  
  Iraq did absolutely nothing that warranted the US attacking it and even did everything to avoid going to war, including the surrender of Saddam.
  
  War is an armed conflict between two entities. Iraq's army gave up 3 months in. You've been fighting civilians ever since. That's not a war.
  
  It's like how you say there are other ways to deal with problems, Iraq didn't pose a problem to the US. It posed a problem to oil companies.
- noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3"This is YOUR belief, that we must have wars. Not all of us believe that." Absolutely wrong. It is not a belief it is an inescapable fact. You MUST either a). Accept that just wars are necessary at time or b). nothing is worth fighting for.
  
  You MUST a). agree that the Revolutionary war became necessary when a nation declaring its independence from an oppressive government defended itself against its opressor OR b). that slavery to corruption and opression is acceptable
  
  You MUST a). agree that halting the spread of genocide and opressiong that spread through europe was necessary OR b). that the extermination of millions and opression of sovereign nations was acceptable to avoid war.
  
  There is no grey area in between. Not every conflict can be solved with diplomacy. When a man says his goal is the 'purification' of the human race and the rise of the 'master race' you cannot sit down and say well how about you just settle for 50% pure and half the world.
  
  MOST conflicts can be solved by diplomatic means but Throeaus priciples ignore the difference.
  - Badandy127, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Thank you, that was the point I was trying to make.
  - noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1You're welcome, doesn't seem like it will help much with this lot though, thick as they are.
  - OldJesser, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Funny you mention how thick this lot is, yet you yourself are resorting to a false dilemma to get your ill-conceived point across. Not to mention that you say "MOST conflicts can be solved by diplomatic means", yet you suggest earlier that there is no grey area and only the two options you proposed are the valid ones. MLK didn't go to violent war with America to free the African American from oppression. Ghandi didn't wage violent war on England to free India.
    
    Oh, and you don't understand Thoreau, so stop pretending that you do.
tvanwyk, on 07/02/2008, -9/+7I do find this kind of silly:
"No political statement intended, simply something to ponder."

Pah!
- FredFredrickson, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4Why, because your simple mind cannot comprehend a discussion about war and its effects on people without throwing stupid Republican / Democrat ***** into the mix?
  - tvanwyk, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1Huh? That's a big ***** LMFAO. I detest Republicans, Democrats, Libertarian Party folk, Greens, and any other ***** party you want to list (and the sick government they attempt to control). But apparently you're too busy filling in blanks to consider that maybe I don't fit into that ***** (which I don't). Need I remind you that YOU were the one who brought up the parties? I just made a comment that it's silly to consider that statement non-political, and YOU came back saying, "OOOH! Republicrats" when I had said nothing of the sort.
    
    But, that's okay. Just come back with another personal smear. Simple minds speak for themselves.
  - FredFredrickson, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Er... what? I still don't understand what you were getting at.
    
    You obviously were trying to say that it is indeed a political statement... which is simple minded. We can have a discussion about the effects of war on regular people without mentioning politics, right?
  - tvanwyk, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1"We can have a discussion about the effects of war on regular poeple without mentioning politics, right?"
    Frankly, no, not really. I'll agree: saying that statement was political WAS simple-minded on my part - but only insofar as it's quite OBVIOUS that Thoreau's statement carries political meaning.
    
    War is a creature of the state. The state is politics. War, and all its deleterious and dehumanizing effects, is specifically the product of politics. The "effects of war on regular people" are all political in nature, because war IS politics. (Yes, I believe Thoreau more or less would agree with that analysis.) It's very difficult to make a statement about war without being political, excepting factual statements like "A lot of people died in that war."
    
    Or, "War is the health of the state." It really has nothing to do with democrats or republicans. What we think of as Reps and Dems in these days has little bearing on what Thoreau himself thought of those terms. Yet, most of what Thoreau wrote (excepting large parts of Walden) was thoroughly political (and even Walden was implicitly and explicitly political during certain parts).
    
    Unless you're thinking of the term "political" in a narrow sense of "Democrats and Republicans."
    
    If you "don't understand what you were getting at," maybe in the future ask for a clarification rather than coming out with smear guns blazing.
mrcoderga, on 07/02/2008, -2/+23A great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges.

Benjamin Franklin
- stonebear, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6The great empire is a lie!
angusm, on 07/02/2008, -16/+9Thoreau ... hmm ... advocated civil disobedience, gave up everything to live in the woods and grow his own food ... sounds like a goddamn hippie, if you ask me. What would a man like that know about the military?

Still, at least they're not teaching his lefty nonsense in American schools ... wait, they are? Well _that's_ why this country's going to hell in a handbasket!
- kemp34, on 07/02/2008, -0/+15So for you, anyone not wanting war is a "lefty"? If anything, Thoreau was a libertarian, he favored minimal government. Hardly leftist.
  - 19592, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6I wouldn't call Ron Paul a "lefty" and certainly not a hippie.
- farmerjohn48pan, on 07/02/2008, -5/+2I feel obligated to bust the myth that he lived in the woods and grew his own food. Thoreau was an elite liberal that lived in his family's cabin and had food delivered to him while he wrote about things with which he had no personal experience. Those soft lily white hands never saw an honest days work since he looked down his nose at the working class BECAUSE they had to work. "Gentlemen" not engage in those toils. In other words, he was a rich stuck up jerk who produced nothing of value.
  - eryximachus, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2This is indeed true. Thoreau was little more than indolent fop. I've never really met anyone who was enthralled with him who didn't attend Harvard or at least some elite boarding school.
P8triot1, on 07/02/2008, -1/+17In case it's any news, the whole American Revolution was seen by the British Crown as civil disobedience.
- roystgnr, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5No, it was seen as uncivil disobedience. In Thoreau's civil disobedience, "Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." For everyone since, civil disobedience has still been seen as one method of nonviolent resistance.
  
  Under the Revolutionaries' disobedience, on the other hand, the answer to an unjust government was in a ballot box if possible but behind a gun if necessary. They didn't need (or want) a standing army for such a purpose, but they were willing to fight.
- arjie, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Ridiculous. It was armed revolt, and they saw it as rebellion. What happened in India was civil disobedience. Not saying it was anything less because it was armed, at the time it was the best way to go about getting independence, but it certainly wasn't civil disobedience.
- pintomp3, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8the founding fathers would be considered terrorists now.
JimmySpaza, on 07/02/2008, -18/+6Thoreau should have stuck to living in the woods, talking to himself. Weirdos like that do good for society when they leave and become hermits.

Writer = Ability to discuss military policy? Please. Almost everyone I know thought that Thoreau, and most writers, were idiots who made up crap as they went along and are considered legitimate by only a few. This was true back in high school when I read his crap...and it's even more true today.
- kemp34, on 07/02/2008, -3/+17You have proven yourself to be a warmongering clown. Of course you have no sense of Thoreau.
  - JimmySpaza, on 07/03/2008, -7/+3I have a good sense of Thoreau. I just don't agree with him. It is that simple.
    
    You and I not agreeing with President Bush on everything does not mean that we don't have a sense of his policies and positions.
  - yodaj007, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1You're sense of Thoreau hardly seems Thorough. Perhaps you should study up more.
- kitsua, on 07/02/2008, -3/+16Direct influences; Mahatma Gandhi, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr, Leo Tolstoy, Marcel Proust, William Yeats, Ernest Hemingway and many, many more.
  
  Thoreau's place in the canon of Great American thinkers is long confirmed and legitimately established, his ideas having massive, real scope and influence across all political and national boundaries. This is incontravertible.
  
  Much like your own standing as an habitually contradictory ***** of self-imposed ignorance.
  
  Seriously Jimmy, do you just make this stuff up or what?
  - farmerjohn48pan, on 07/02/2008, -13/+3You have no clue what you are talking about and need to do some serious research.
  - farmerjohn48pan, on 07/02/2008, -12/+4You don't know what you are talking about. Obviously you attended a liberal school where facts are glossed over and the supposed liberal geniuses real actions and non accomplishments are glossed over or swept under the rug. I challenge you to do some basic research on Thoreau and you will find out the same things about him that I did.
  - JimmySpaza, on 07/03/2008, -8/+3It's all subject, Kitsua. I am not saying that Thoreau didn't influence people. That is a confirmed fact. That he influenced people is not subject to bias or condition.
    
    I am saying that I don't agree with him and his beliefs...and thus don't like the man for his writings.
    
    I am saying that his beliefs were bad...perhaps just like you might say that his beliefs were good. It's all subjective.
- dinostabOMG, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2You're really going to generalize "writers" as "idiots who made up crap?" Really? Are you that insistent on being a troglodyte?
- NotOptium, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4While I totally respect your highschool football team, I have to disagree with them on their firm stance that "most writers were idiots who made up crap as they went along."
farmerjohn48pan, on 07/02/2008, -12/+2You don't know what you are talking about. Obviously you attended a liberal school where facts are glossed over and the supposed liberal geniuses real actions and non accomplishments are glossed over or swept under the rug. I challenge you to do some basic research on Thoreau and you will find out the same things about him that I did.
eryximachus, on 07/03/2008, -5/+7Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson judged Thoreau’s endorsement of living alone in natural simplicity, apart from modern society, to be a mark of effeminacy:

…Thoreau’s content and ecstasy in living was, we may say, like a plant that he had watered and tended with womanish solicitude; for there is apt to be something unmanly, something almost dastardly, in a life that does not move with dash and freedom, and that fears the bracing contact of the world. In one word, Thoreau was a skulker. He did not wish virtue to go out of him among his fellow-men, but slunk into a corner to hoard it for himself. He left all for the sake of certain virtuous self-indulgences.[39]

Richard Zacks pokes fun at Thoreau in An Underground Education : The Unauthorized and Outrageous Supplement to Everything You Thought You Knew About Art, Sex, Business, Crime, Science, Medicine, and Other Fields of Human Knowledge saying:

Thoreau's 'Walden, or Life in the Woods' deserves its status as a great American book but let it be known that Nature Boy went home on weekends to raid the family cookie jar. While living the simple life in the woods, Thoreau walked into nearby Concord, Mass., almost every day. And his mom, who lived less than two miles away, delivered goodie baskets filled with meals, pies and doughnuts every Saturday. The more one reads in Thoreau's unpolished journal of his stay in the woods, the more his sojourn resembles suburban boys going to their tree-house in the backyard and pretending they're camping in the heart of the jungle.{[40]}
AsylumAleikum, on 07/03/2008, -8/+5The Iraqi situation continues to improve forcing moonbats to dig even deeper:).
- FredFredrickson, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2Until it gets better than it was before we invaded, it's not an improvement, you ***** retard.
beerock, on 07/03/2008, -2/+5and since the current war is based on 'fighting' a technique, and no discernible enemy, it will never end.
Thoreau never imagined that they would give soldiers iPods and good-time pills, that'll keep the army motivated, for sure.
- noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2How do you figure? Japans strategy of conquering every nation in the Pacific via naval power to gains supremacy and security was a technique and the US showed Japan and the world that there is a steep price to pay. When terrorism is met with a financial crippling and an international man-hunt people begin to see that they will no longer be able to strike and hide, nations take it upon themselves to irradicate these elements for fear of consequences.
  
  It s not an easy thing to fight and not a pretty fight but to say there is no way to defeat terrorism is moronic at best. Terrorism is a tactic and all tactics can be countered to a point where they are no longer practical.
  - OldJesser, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1The terrorists have one thing that our military doesn't, and it's exactly what Thoreau is explaining. They are fighting for what their conscience is telling them is just (removal of us from their region).
tyshro, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1I agree that most wars are foolish. But sometimes there are evil people who try to do evil things - like say genocide in Rwanda - and it takes an army to stop the evil people from doing evil things. It is hard to know where the line should be drawn between tolerable evil - say how Tito held together Yugoslavia - and intolerable evil - like genocide in Rwanda or during World War II.
- nj74, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2When have we ever gone to war to stop genocide?
growler1, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5Thoreau would hate the Iraq War about as much as he hated the Mexican-American War. His essay "Resistance to Civil Government" is particularly instructive in how the lone citizen can protest a government's immoral actions--refuse to pay taxes to support them.

Of course, that got him thrown in jail for a night until somebody bailed him out, anonymously, the next day.
ericjohnson0, on 07/03/2008, -3/+3War is always an ugly mess, but I deeply appreciate the people who serve and protect our country, unlike some folks.

http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/7/2/37731 ...
BECoole, on 07/03/2008, -6/+4Thoreau was wrong.

Routine war creates an army that is experienced and well-trained. I'd rather put up battle-hardened troops against a foe than a bunch of soldiers who know only life polishing boots on a base.
- insanebrain, on 07/03/2008, -4/+2. .and that is a good thing ?
  - lazyfisherman, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2It is. If you're getting ready FOR MORE WARS!
- FredFredrickson, on 07/03/2008, -3/+4People don't like war - whether they are fighting it or not. It slogs down the morale of everyone, and the longer it goes, the worse it gets.
  
  You don't want soldiers who are tired of fighting.
  You don't want to send people on tours that can take up decades of their lives.
  You don't want your army spread so thin that you have to start a draft.
  
  Routine war is what makes these things happen. Unlike all the video games you probably based this idiotic opinion off of, sending a nation repeatedly to war doesn't make them better at fighting. It makes their people tired and unwilling to continue.
  - eryximachus, on 07/03/2008, -3/+4Our soldiers don't like to fight because every aspect of our society indoctrinates the people to believe that violence is inherently evil. The self loathing alone must be torture for these people.
    
    You cannot have a civilized society that subscribes to a slave morality such as this.
    
    Until our soldiers take pride in their duty, relish their kills as much every teen FPS player, and are praised by the population at large for their bravery, skill and combat, and self sacrifice - what you say will be true.
    
    Men like to fight, and blood lust is just as natural as carnal lust. There is nothing more exciting than the battlefield, and nothing that builds self esteem like the thrill of victory and the accolades of triumph.
    
    Your understanding of "people" is likely solipsistic and distorted by media propaganda.
  - Herbigradus, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2eryximachus:
    
    Your understanding of society is likely heavily influenced by a predisposition to paranoia and delusions of grandeur coupled with an upbringing with regular or sporadic episodes of violence most likely verbal abuse from peers. I would suggest you refrain from reading any more existentialist authors and that you should seek immediate counseling from a qualified professional.
  - FredFredrickson, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2eryximachus - Are you really trying to say that war will be better if we glorify the slaughter of others? How should a modern soldier take pride in what they are being tasked to do?
    
    Blood lust is not as natural as carnal lust. When I walk down the street and see other men, I don't have strong desire to murder them. This is not normal. Are you writing from a prison cell or what?
    
    Real heroes are people who defend their land when there is no other choice. I'm not belittling those who are on duty right now - I'm just saying that war has its effects on people abroad and at home, and being in a state of perpetual war is not good for anyone.
    
    You should put down your video games and go outside and meet some people. You're a complete sociopath, and you obviously have very little understanding or appreciation of humanity.
- ordig, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1that worked out well for Hitler didn't it.
insanebrain, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1War is routine for the AS of U. It has to be because the biggest part of the economy is build on it.
Duositex, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Woah woah woah... A philosophical and literary, bordering on INTELLECTUAL, conversation about Thoreau??

That recommendation engine has turned diggers into aristocrats!
- FredFredrickson, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Why do you credit the recommendation engine?
jehan60188, on 07/03/2008, -1/+9Thoreau was a writer, not a warrior.
That being said, routine war can indeed cause much fatigue. war should be fast, and victory swift.
Occupation is the problem. Occupying a country that doesn't want you around is expensive, and deadly...
beerock, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1Fair enough.
So Japan was nuked into submission.

Terrorism has no 'sponsor-nation', and since this is the information ago, not the atomic age, we're facing something much worse than nuclear weaponry.

'New' Laws, Gitmo (no habeas corpus), zero privacy, no-fly lists, 24 hour 'news', etc.
We're being fear-bombed into sumbission, or at least until America removes her head from her divine and elegant ass and kicks into a full-blown civil war.
kemp34, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2War should be fought STRICTLY for clear self defense only. Willy nilly wars for resources (gold, oil), corporatist profit, and the ridiculous ideas that it is good for the economy and will help the president achieve power, clearly, will debase a society. War, at rare occasions, may be needed. But war for convenience and profit should be roundly criticized, avoided and recognized as a ruiner of nations.
mike17032, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2*****.

Battle hardened troops do nothing but make an Army stronger. Considering that this has been a "light" conflict (not that any war is easy) only adds to that fact.

I do agree with the poster a few above me that prolonged occupation can wear on troops though.
- writer512, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1It hasn't been "light" on my pocket book. How bout yours?
CoreyHalliwell, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1If we get into the habit of solving things with war. It's the only way we'll be able to deal with each other...
Mykol225, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1We couldn't afford many of our luxuries without the cheap good coming from China. That's why nothing will happen.
poleychares, on 07/03/2008, -1/+0This may be what our country becomes if we treat the war as casually as we do.
ciphex, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1I must say that I am incredibly pleased to see some intelligent debate in digg comments on such a notable topic and surrounding such a profound work. I was very surprised to see Civil Disobedience on the front page.

Thoreau was warning long ago of the dangers that a society faces when war (or force) becomes their industry and entertainment.
He certainly did not believe, as some have suggested, that nothing is worth fighting for. And his passively natured civil disobedience approach is much more targeted towards individuals who come into conflict with their own government than it is to governments in international conflicts.

The issue of the soldiers merit was not the primary intent of Civil Disobedience. If any care to get a clear picture of Thoreau's reasoning behind his harsh judgment of the soldier you would find it quite apparent from the entire text:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/71/71-h/71-h.htm

There is one bottom line though, individual, absolute morality, not blind patriotism, is the measure of a man. If we disagree with the course our nation is taking is it enough to cast our vote towards "the best option" and say we did what we could?

Are we rather obligated, as sovereign souls, to choose to either enter headfirst into the conflict driven by our conscience alone, or else excommunicate ourselves from the offending state altogether?

Where is the principled man?
- choppa1890, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1The principled man died long ago from old age or a disease that nowadays is easily curable.
choppa1890, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3Have you all not read 1984? War is the practice of blocking resources and income from reaching the lower and middle class. The construction and destruction of war machines serve the purpose of enriching the rich, and stopping a part of a country's resources from getting to the benefit of its countrymen. Think of the metals, plastic, electronics, fuel, and currency, etc; That is used for building bombers, warships and bullets. Just so they can be spent on an unjustified war. Even Call of Duty 4 presents the gritty realism of it all. During death scenes they sometimes quote the cost of just one B-22 bomber, or a "smart missile", etc. There are times where fighting is justified but the irresponsible destruction enacted in the name of "homeland security" by this current administration is disgusting.
Lamadave222, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1I would rather read Patton's poetry. Its is more visceral and real than Thoreau's woodland fantasy.
mnchrist, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Whatever you think about the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan or the military in general you (the writer) needs to enroll in a basic Grammar and composition class. Marine is capitalized! Get a ***** clue next time you make an ass out of yourself. If a hero degenerates into a Marine then what does that make you? A self-righteous ignorant leftist? I think so.
LeeSoong, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3Thoreau - you, commie pacifist turn-coat anti-American liberal! Ill informed.

Green troops need experience,
seasoned troops perform better in the field.

Seasoned troops have higher suvival rates.
flipdoubt, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2"There's an old saying about those who forget history. I don't remember it, but it's good."

-Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report, March 10, 2008
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Thoreau: Routine War Degenerates the Army

Login or register to add a comment