![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
This is the sort of opinionating that gives decent liberals a bad name. People who say things like this are part of why I stopped considering myself a liberal.
My father and Uncle Anthony were in the army reserves. My Uncle John was an officer in the army reserves--He made colonel before he died.
I am furious that someone would seriously suggest murdering competent officers for the sole purpose of demoralizing the troops in hopes of ending a war. That's a great way to get many of those troops killed.
For a person who considers himself a conscientious objector to murder his superior officers is committing an oxymoron. That's the kindest thing I can say about this. The blunt conclusion to draw from his words is that Ward Churchill advocates our own people becoming terrorists against their countrymen--to do what? Save lives?
Since when did inciting violence ever save anyone's life? I therefore conclude that saving lives isn't the purpose behind these statements. What I believe Churchill advocates here is getting rid of the government by first unraveling the military.
Why don't I believe he is only trying to stop the war in Iraq? Because the almost certain result that you get from this sort of breakdown in military discipline is the creation of paranoia among the troops. That would lead to a general growth of a police mentality in the military that could overtake it, given a prolonged enough spate of having its officers murdered. A police mentality in the military that is focused against its own troops could lead to unfounded suspicion and abuses, which could lead to distrust in the government.
Nice little chess game, isn't it?
Previously, I've just rolled my eyes at Professor Churchill's nonsense. But he's gone beyond stupidity and bad taste into sheer criminality now.
angry