How about we stop using soldiers’ lives as a thought experiment?

 

As the second Trump administration did the totally bloody thinkable and started a war with Iran, many are digging up old, and not so old comments from Trump and his cronies about how Obama and then Biden and then Harris were going to [checks notes] start a war with Iran.

The hypocrisy is a given and it will not hurt the administration one bit. They revel in it and their supporters love them for it. That’s not the point.

Ever since Vietnam, war has become an entirely abstract concept to the greater American populace, and to most of the westernised world for that matter. That was the last war where most people had a human connection. Since then, war is just something that happens to other people. Say “God bless our troops,” and you’ve done your bit. Paying taxes to make sure they’re properly equipped and supported if and when they return? That’s communism.

During the last Iraq war (and just think about that opening for a moment), when PBS Newshour showed the names and pictures of those killed in that war at the end of each bulletin, even that was labelled left wing bias. Apparently supporting the troops means keeping them nameless and faceless.

Even the president – any president, with or without appropriate headwear – having a photo-op with a coffin keeps the occupant anonymous. Do you know the name or face of the person in the box the president was saluting? Didn’t think so.

It’s said that the first rule of war is to dehumanise the enemy. It’s easier to kill someone if you don’t think they are a fellow human being who was thrown into this situation through no fault of their own just like you were.

If that’s true, then the second rule of modern war is to dehumanise your own side. It’s easier to get the people at home on board with “Send the Marines,” and “America, Fuck Yeah!” if you treat them as mere equipment, and not actual human beings. And it’s best to let the people think it’s a true volunteer army and not point out the fact that many of them have literally bet their life on a better future because they saw no other way. It’s not conscription if you do it by stealth.

And this is why PBS was accused of bias in honouring the dead. Giving a human face to the people whose lives are wasted in another international pissing contest isn’t good for the polls.

This is also why those who oppose a war with Iran – and up until a week ago, this included all of MAGAworld – invoke “your sons,” just as senior White House Ghoul Stephen Miller did in October 2024.

Predictably, and rightly, opponents of the administration clapped back:

But what do you notice about both sets of comments?

They’re still taking about other people. Whether it’s “your sons,” or “our kids,” they’re still talking about other people. The only difference is one of the appeals to empathy comes from people who are on record saying empathy is a weakness.

None of them have any real skin in the game. They know it won’t be their kids and they’re still using other people’s kids as a tactic, not as real people.

The most offensive aspect of this debate – and it’s a trap anti-war people fall into as well – is treating those who are sent to war as entirely hypothetical, without any agency of their own.

It’s true that soldiers have no agency in what they are sent to do. That’s how the military works. And as mentioned above, many had very little agency in volunteering to sacrifice that agency. But they are real people. They have hopes, and dreams, and they vote.

So if we really care about the lives of those who are sent to war, and those who may be, whether it’s because we want them to win or kept out of harm’s way in the first place, how about we start by not treating them as a mere thought experiment? How about we stop treating an entire generation as an emotional bargaining chip, whatever the objective may be?

On phobia vs scepticism

John Cleese has issued a few tweets over recent weeks suggesting that a better word for what is often called Islamophobia should be called Islamosceptic. 

Dr Cleese has had a few bad takes in his time but a look at his feed shows he’s mostly on the right side. I can respect anyone whose opinion on any given subject isn’t instantly predictable based on their other opinions, and I wish to take him up on his point in the intellectual spirit it was offered in. 

I accept Dr Cleese’s definition of a phobia as an “irrational over-reaction, as with spiders.”

Here’s the problem:

We are not always rational about what makes something rational or irrational.

I have two major phobias – heights, and large bodies of water.

I have argued (albeit facetiously) that being afraid of falling to my doom from a great height or drowning in the ocean are perfectly rational fears.

However, history has shown us that so long as the risks are respected and proper safety procedures followed, there is no rational reason to be afraid of either. That doesn’t stop my balls from shrinking up towards my intestines any time I’m in such a situation – or even when I see such a situation on television. In fact, media induced trauma has a lot to do with what we’re talking about and we’ll get to that a little later.

Perhaps I should call myself an acrosceptic.

I’m none too fond of spiders either, but where-ever possible I live and let live.

So while John’s points about ‘phobia’ being an emotive term which implies irrationality, and scepticism being a indispensable part of scientific method are well taken, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

For example: there are people who disagree with the interpretation of scientific data on human induced climate change which is accepted by 97% of climate scientists.

While I may butt up against the appeal to authority fallacy here, this is not a rational position for anyone who is not a climate scientist to take. Yet those who adopt it get to call themselves “climate sceptics.”

To be a climate ‘sceptic’ today is not to hold a rational doubt in pursuit of the truth. This is shown in the way most of their arguments are non-scientific, from conspiracy theories to “it was cold where I live last week.”

None of this fits a valid definition of ‘sceptic.’ But it would be wrong to call them sciencephobes. They are not scared of science per se. They happily accept air travel, pain killers, plastics, the internet. Some even accept vaccines.

No, they only fear science when the science is inconvenient to them. Or not even to them, but to those they have been listening to. For, what is there to fear from mitigating climate change? Renewable energy sources? Cleaner air and water? New industries and employment opportunities?

To find a rational fear of reducing climate change, we have to look to who has the most to lose from it. That is, of course, those who profit the most from the fossil fuel industry. And it turns out, a lot of them own media companies too. Those who don’t directly own media companies make large contributions to those who do.

I’m not saying it’s only the fat cats who benefit from the fossil fuels industry. There are thousands, if not millions of oil rig workers and miners who will have to retrain and find other jobs if we do this properly. Just as there were thousands of workers in the photographic film industry whose jobs evaporated in a space of about five years. Unless you thought for five seconds about their plight before ditching your instamatic for a digicam and then an iPhone, I respectfully ask that you pipe down about job losses.

Now that we have discussed phobia vs scepticism on a less emotive example than religion, let’s return to whether we should be saying Islamophobe or Islamosceptic.

The problem with both terms is they treat Islam as a monolith, which is it not, any more than Christianity, conservatism, or Collingwood supporters.

To question the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad, and the tenets of the Quran is to be sceptical. It is not just part of scientific thinking but also theological thinking.

To fear for your safety because you saw someone on public transport in religious garb is irrational and can correctly be described as a phobia. The same goes for assuming a mosque is a terrorist hub for no other reason than that it is a mosque.

We all know (well, most of us do) that the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church (Hey! They call it a church!) is not broadly representative of Christianity, despite the disproportionate amount of media coverage they receive. To assume it is would be phobic, not sceptic. 

Dr Cleese makes the very valid point that Life of Brian is in no way Christophobic. But based on his own explanation, he would be right to take umbrage at the film being called Christosceptic too. As he says, it is not sceptical of Christianity, just certain types of Christians. 

Valid criticism of Westboro has nothing to with criticising Christianity. This much is obvious. What apparently isn’t so obvious is that criticism Islam as a whole is a long way from criticising how certain adherents practice particular facets of their faith.

It’s a pity that no one seems to be able to tell the difference.

 

How to fix I.C.E.

There are millions of people who want ICE abolished. There are millions of people who want ICE strengthened. It’s a common debate about all kinds of services.

The solution is very simple, and it’s something I have learned from 25 years of reading and engaging with US conservatives. 

Two words: 

User pays!

That’s always been the guiding principle of conservatism. Taxpayers should not have to fund public schools if they want to send their kids to private schools or home school. There shouldn’t be publically funded libraries when there are people who don’t believe in reading. There should not be publically funded media when people don’t want to hear it. 

And I don’t even need to mention health care. America has the best health care in the world, doesn’t it? Doesn’t it?

This principle applies no matter how many Washington elites try to tell you it’s “necessary.”

Also, was it not Ronald Reagan who said the most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”?

Well, you’ve proved that. Government run Immigration and Customs Enforcement has resulted in people being hired who aren’t even physically or psychologically fit enough to be an overnight mall cop. 

What’s more, they’re being paid 5-figure bonuses before they’ve even done a day’s work! What kind of socialism is that? It’s Business 101, people! Where is the Department of Government Efficiency now?

The solution is simple, and it’s to follow the conservative solution for everything:
PRIVATISE I.C.E!

We all know that the private sector always gives a better service for a lower price, right? Right?

So, let them! Allow the free market to decide as it does best! Let the people choose their own ICE agents.

Now I’m not saying it will come cheap. A simple mid-morning raid on a restaurant could still run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not everyone who needs it can afford that. 

For those who can’t afford to pay out of pocket, they can take out Immigration Insurance. If they require a raid, they can claim it on their insurance plan. After that, a very smart and community spirited assessor will look at the daylight murder you requested and decide if 

a)    The procedure is covered under your policy
b)    The operation was warranted
c)    The company will pay for it

If the answer to all three questions is ‘yes’ then happy days!

If the answer to any of those questions is ‘no’ then you’ll have your life destroyed. But I’m sure we can all agree that this would only happen to people trying to game the system through over servicing, right? 

You know it makes sense. 

Or, as one of your fallen heroes liked to say, prove me wrong.