Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 05-18-2007, 02:40 PM

NOTE: it appears that pigglet and i were posting almost the same thing at the same time....

==========

it seems to me that there are two issues at least being collapsed into each other so far.

one: the deplorable state of health care afforded to military personnel across the board, and particularly those with mental health issues as a result of their military tenures. that this is a problem--and a particular problem for the flag-waving conservative set whose nationalist politics incline administrations like this one to go to war--in this case without justification--but which at the same time cut back on va hospital facilities and staff in order as a function of other aspects of their socio-economic ideology.
this is a real problem. in the series of problems raised in this context, however, it is the easiest of them.

WITHIN THIS LARGEST SET (of all those who pass through a period in the military), there is a subset of people who have been involved in the actual day-to-day grind of combat, which is the material consequence of a fundamentally--uh--problematic administration's absurd policy choices.

WITHIN THIS, there is a subset of people who react to the brutality of the situation they confront by themselves becoming brutal. there is no argument about this: it is self-evidently part of the beast that is a war. it turns out that because the war in iraq is so particularly problematic, the status of this aspect of that war is also particularly problematic---but here i would say--->

there are undoubtedly going to be significant psychological consequences for this phase of their lives for a lot of these people, and i would expect in particular for folk who find themselves/put themselves (i cant judge this--i really cant) in both sets. the state should--to my mind must--provide adequate care for them. if the state is going to put people in the position where they discover that they are capable of things they would not have imagined possible in normal life, then that state is responsible for dealing with the consequences after the fact. that the bush administration, source of a myriad doses of the crassest flagwaving, would also have cut support for the physical and psychological care of military personnel is deplorable. it is beyond deplorable.

but already, things are getting more difficult, and this is not the worst of the problems:

WITHIN THESE TWO SETS, there is another subset: additional mental health problems that are typically associated with people who engage in acts of torture. which the american military (and private contractors/mercenaries) have WITHOUT QUESTION been involved in in the context of the iraq debacle. at one level, the logic behind adequately funding the care of these folk after the fact would follow in a straight line from the above.

ON ANOTHER LEVEL, that same care amounts to a banalization and assimilation of torture as a practice.

this is another problem.
and it is a very difficult problem....and it is not going to go away.
and this is what i took host to be raising above.
for the life of me i cannot see how raising it--even in an inflammatory manner--constitutes a threadjack.
it seems to be one of the central questions the thread is directed at, if you read the whole of the op.

and responding to it is not easy--if you argue that these people were "just following orders" you find yourself in a very shitty logical, political and ethical position--with REALLY problematic historical precedents.

if you take the contrary position, you argue for selective psychological care based on ex-post-facto judgments of particular actions in particular situations which were at the time sanctioned by the military hierarchy--regardless of their legality, regardless of their status as a war crime.

i do not know how this is resolvable, but it sure as hell is germaine.
i understand that folk might not like the question at all, but at least say as much and argue your position rather than try simply to swat the issue away.

aside: when i read host's post (no.2) and before i scrolled past it to read anything else, the only aspect of it that baffled me was the fact of quoting peter cetera. but that always baffles me, quoting peter cetera.

05-18-2007, 02:40 PM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	NOTE: it appears that pigglet and i were posting almost the same thing at the same time.... ========== it seems to me that there are two issues at least being collapsed into each other so far. one: the deplorable state of health care afforded to military personnel across the board, and particularly those with mental health issues as a result of their military tenures. that this is a problem--and a particular problem for the flag-waving conservative set whose nationalist politics incline administrations like this one to go to war--in this case without justification--but which at the same time cut back on va hospital facilities and staff in order as a function of other aspects of their socio-economic ideology. this is a real problem. in the series of problems raised in this context, however, it is the easiest of them. WITHIN THIS LARGEST SET (of all those who pass through a period in the military), there is a subset of people who have been involved in the actual day-to-day grind of combat, which is the material consequence of a fundamentally--uh--problematic administration's absurd policy choices. WITHIN THIS, there is a subset of people who react to the brutality of the situation they confront by themselves becoming brutal. there is no argument about this: it is self-evidently part of the beast that is a war. it turns out that because the war in iraq is so particularly problematic, the status of this aspect of that war is also particularly problematic---but here i would say---> there are undoubtedly going to be significant psychological consequences for this phase of their lives for a lot of these people, and i would expect in particular for folk who find themselves/put themselves (i cant judge this--i really cant) in both sets. the state should--to my mind must--provide adequate care for them. if the state is going to put people in the position where they discover that they are capable of things they would not have imagined possible in normal life, then that state is responsible for dealing with the consequences after the fact. that the bush administration, source of a myriad doses of the crassest flagwaving, would also have cut support for the physical and psychological care of military personnel is deplorable. it is beyond deplorable. but already, things are getting more difficult, and this is not the worst of the problems: WITHIN THESE TWO SETS, there is another subset: additional mental health problems that are typically associated with people who engage in acts of torture. which the american military (and private contractors/mercenaries) have WITHOUT QUESTION been involved in in the context of the iraq debacle. at one level, the logic behind adequately funding the care of these folk after the fact would follow in a straight line from the above. ON ANOTHER LEVEL, that same care amounts to a banalization and assimilation of torture as a practice. this is another problem. and it is a very difficult problem....and it is not going to go away. and this is what i took host to be raising above. for the life of me i cannot see how raising it--even in an inflammatory manner--constitutes a threadjack. it seems to be one of the central questions the thread is directed at, if you read the whole of the op. and responding to it is not easy--if you argue that these people were "just following orders" you find yourself in a very shitty logical, political and ethical position--with REALLY problematic historical precedents. if you take the contrary position, you argue for selective psychological care based on ex-post-facto judgments of particular actions in particular situations which were at the time sanctioned by the military hierarchy--regardless of their legality, regardless of their status as a war crime. i do not know how this is resolvable, but it sure as hell is germaine. i understand that folk might not like the question at all, but at least say as much and argue your position rather than try simply to swat the issue away. aside: when i read host's post (no.2) and before i scrolled past it to read anything else, the only aspect of it that baffled me was the fact of quoting peter cetera. but that always baffles me, quoting peter cetera. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-18-2007 at 02:48 PM..