Bill Moyers Journal - Preview 'The Good Soldier'

[tomm2thumbs]

Run time: 11:47 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2WSY5uELPY   Posted on YouTube: November 05, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 07, 2009 By DU Member: tomm2thumbs Views on DU: 877

 

Excerpts from 'The Good Soldier' November 6, 2009, the JOURNAL broadcasts a film which follows four veterans — one from World War II, two from Vietnam, and the fourth from Iraq — as they reveal how the experiences of battle changed their lives.

* somewhat graphic but I believe falls within PBS standards so should be noted but wanted to let folks know *

[trungpa ricochet]

1. Most soldiers are basically decent, but US leadership has clearly failed.

WWII, called "The Good War" by Studs Terkel, was not morally ambiguous. The Allies knew they were the "good guys". They fought against other regular armies in uniform. Questions of national purpose, complicated by irregular guerilla fighting, clouded the Vietnam conflict. Civilians were often misidentified and killed. Wars since then have been even more confusing to soldiers. When the leaders in Washington are liars and scoundrels, the soldiers end up paying the price. How long must this go on?

[stlsaxman]

2. Thank you.

the whole of what i was feeling watching these clips changed when the WWII soldier came on. the guilt and shame for my country was lifted. you have clearly stated the differences in these wars.

[Braulio]

4. WW II wasn't so clean

This is from the following website:

http://www.learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog22/transcript/page04.html

"Dresden might have been hit in early 1945 because the Allies had simply run out of fresh targets to bomb. The British Royal Air Force did most of the damage, but the Americans participated in the destruction of over 30,000 people by fire and suffocation. The novelist Kurt Vonnegut was there and he said that the fire bombing of Dresden didn't shorten the war by one minute. Now that's true, but many of those who bombed it had no regret."

...Dresden was not unique. Berlin and Leipzig were hit ever harder by the Americans and the British...

The targets of Berlin and Leipzig were industrial, but since the weather was bad, it amounted to terror bombing. The Eighth Airforce had crossed a moral threshold. Both Eisenhower and Roosevelt went along with this. Ike preferred precision bombing but wanted to end the war as quickly as possible. And Roosevelt believed that the German people must be compelled, this time, as opposed to the last war, to recognize their defeat and accept responsibility for the horrors their country had inflicted on the world."

[trungpa ricochet]

6. Yes, I agree, but...

in the main, the attitude of soldiers and marines on the ground in WWII was one of unambiguous moral clarity. Aerial bombardment was a different kind of warfare by nature. Because of vast distances between the aircraft and the targets on the ground, the attitude of the airmen in some ways was anaesthetized and rendered impersonal. Every "improvement" made in the technology of warfare made fighting less personal and, arguably, required less valor and awareness. Think of what the machine gun did in WWI. Suddenly whole platoons were mowed down in seconds, often from some distance. Looking a man in the eye before you bayonet him requires a different attitude than one from dropping bombs from 15,000 feet. And of course, dropping nuclear devices on civilians in Japan was not exactly in the code of chivalry. Basically my point is "war sucks". It sucks even more when you become aware that you were tricked by your commanders into committing murder, like in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan, instead of defending democracy and civilization against true evil, such as Nazi Germany.

[ro1942]

3. Military leadership was promoting this,

such as giving 4 day passes for kills. These brave soldiers against the war have been totally ignored my congress and the American people.

[BootinUp]

5. I couldn't watch all of it.

Too damn depressing.

[ooglymoogly]

7. In most cases the exigencies of war make it near impossible for

soldiers, without the benefit of time for cognitive reasoning, to think rationally and will make mistakes in judgment an inevitability and even with the benefit of time, many do not possess such abilities, especially when they are just kids who have been brainwashed; Many not even graduating high school. These problems make this kind of horrendous temporary insanity a foregone conclusion; Much less often it is the criminally insane serial killer, as in Falujah and Blackwater.

In the case of Viet Nam or Iraq, the real criminality rests with those who bring us to war and whether that war is or was legitimate. Vietnam and Iraq was and is bogus and illegitimate, as neither of them posed a credible threat to us; Even more damning is for what purpose an illegitimate bogus war is being fought; In these two cases, making those crimes far worse; But alas, laws are meant for the proles and not for the corporate fascists who run this country and who have bribed their way to become overlords, usurping our country and our treasury and by fiat through corruption, are above the law.

[Braulio]

8. US involvement in war has been illegitimate for a long time

I can't think of a single instance in which the USA was truly using legitimate reasons to attack other nations. Viet Nam, Panama, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan, all seem illegitimate.

[ooglymoogly]

9. In the case of the second world war and the invasion of Germany,

There was more than a credible threat to this country and to the world. Except for Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan, the rest are comparatively insignificant in the overall picture and I do not mean to belittle the others as many died. If you subscribe to the mantra that Osama caused 9/11 as most are led to believe then Afghanistan was and is also, at least quasi legit.