More on Moore

I confess I would find this argument a lot more compelling if the U.S. Army weren’t, you know, volunteer only.

There’s a flip side to this, though, and it comes out for me in the closing portion of the film. Moore says (I’m paraphrasing from memory) that he’s amazed that those who are somewhat poorer give their lives so readily for their country, and then professes a certain kind of admiration for that gift. I buy that he’s amazed; I don’t especially believe that he admires it. I’d have to do mighty exegetical labors to provision support for that cynical reading–let’s just say my spidey-sense tingles at that point, partly because it’s the classic moment on the left, the “manufacturing consent” moment where folks try to figure out how false consciousness exists while they try mightily not to condescend to those who have it.

Were Moore a more interesting person with a more interesting intellect, he might stop at that moment and really wonder at what that means, that some of the poor not only see the military as an instrumental strategy for relieving their poverty, but also as an idealistic commitment to values they wholeheartedly endorse. He might also begin to note that the military, of all institutions, is one of the few relatively class-blind and color-blind social institutions in America *once people enter it*. And that too might seem interesting and not easily or facilely explained. Instead I think he sticks to the easy route, which is to portray the US military as simple ruling class predation on vulnerable people.

The military gives you a way of getting to go through college and get out debt-free. Oh, or apprenticeship training, and access to a huge social network which helps for future employment prospects. It is, indeed, volunteer-only. But most of the enticements to volunteer are things that many of Moore’s non-volunteering critics got free, from their family background.

I haven’s seen 9/11. But I have seen other Moore movies. He is a bit mushy; a true American sentimentalist; he doesn’t make the kinds of nice, clean arguments that academics like; he’s not a proper down-the-line class-compromise social democrat like me. But he’s on the side of the angels and makes entertaining movies, and, rather better, genuinely good TV. Why are people who see themselves on the left so keen to piss on him? I don’t get it.

Thanks, Chris, for not succumbing to the temptation.

I have heard and seen this argument numerous times recently–that the fact that most of the army comes from the working class may distort decision-making. Here’s the part that doesn’t get covered: the communities from which soldiers come are overwhelmingly supportive of the War in Iraq (although often critical of the execution). I know a fair number of people with family members in Iraq and Afghanistan; they are strongly in favor of both wars. Go to the rural communities from which soldiers come and you see some amazing shrines to the troops–one of my favorites has two eagles, 3 flags, a wreath, and lots of plastic flowers with 4′ by 8′ sign “God Bless the USA.”

By any non-subjective definition of “interesting,” I think we have to agree that Michael Moore is far, far more so than Professor Burke. More intelligent? No. More knowledgable? Certainly not. But he’s unarguably more interesting to the population as a whole.

Leaving that elementary point behind, the military exists through obvious economic conscription alone. The values mentioned by Burke are simple propaganda. People don’t enlist to defend their country, much less to defend the country’s moneyed interests; they enlist for a paycheck, college money, and job training. There are exceptions: these are either those ensorcelled by texas-crude propaganda or noise.

“the country would not have voted overwhelmingly for war”

If the polls at the time were any indication, no, though a clear majority approved of the Iraq war. I happen to believe that 60/40 or even 70/30 is not quite good enough for a war. Would agree completely that there would be no class correlation.

“George W. isn’t going to get a wide majority of military votes this fall”

My understanding is that officers and non-coms are strongly Republican, but that enlisted men and reservists are very close to the general population in political affiliation.

Can someone who actually talks to people who join the military contribute to this? I’ve discussed with numerous of my students reasons why they joined up, and have several (in-law) family members who enlisted on purpose. Frankly, the (non-conscripted) family members are thrill seekers, whose patriotism is not in question but is not what moved them. The students are a pretty good mix of the reasons given on both sides of this. Very few pacifists, ultra-lefties, etc join the military (though I’ve known a number who did, and they did it purely for the financial/job opportunity benefits, being from working class families).

bq. Thanks for clearing that up. And thanks for being so much smarter than all those stupid working-class soldiers who thought they actually liked the military.

No one’s saying they don’t like it. But there are lots of other motivational assists to their patriotism than there are to that of middle/upper class kids who also might like it. It’s just not that they would like it more than more privileged people do other-things-being-equal.

There are exceptions: these are either those ensorcelled by texas-crude propaganda or noise.

And verily this is good, for these lesser classes need, more than others, values to cling to.

And blessed be their robust innocence : what would happen if they ever discovered that you can worship all things military and, yet, after all, all things considered, not enlist? Let’s call that the “warblogger hypothesis”.

Well we wouldn’t have any more military to worship, that’s what. And that would be bad.

How would we then send the message to the world that, no, we are not ones to be cowered by the death of others? Mmmhm?

… But wait! Poorness would still churn out enough ones out of economical reasons! Phew.

Life is so much better with the prospect of being able to comfortably invade something, and worship the military. Let’s call that the “wagner hypothesis“.

Many of the objections above — while making interesting and cogent points — seem to miss one of the key issues here.

It may be the case that the predominately working class professional soldiers do support the war and it may also be the case that there are clear benefits that acrue to those individuals through military service and thus extremely good reasons — given their situation — why they would sign up for military service. No-one is saying they shouldn’t sign up or shouldn’t fight.

Rather, the key question raised seems to be this:

“Is it right that politicians make decisions that put others in harms way when it is clear that they, and their immediate family, and indeed, the bulk of their class, are not likely to be in danger?”

It’s this argument – the Chickenhawk or Chickenhawk-by-Proxy – argument that seems key.

The point isn’t that they shouldn’t send the working classes off to fight in wars simpliciter — the question is, given that fighting will take place (fighting for which there may, indeed, be pressing moral reasons in favour), why do they and their families not similarly go off to fight?

Pointing to the fact that many past wars have also been this way doesn’t answer the point — it may be factually true but it’s irrelevant. If it’s wrong in this case — for independent reasons — then it was also wrong in the past.

I’d also dispute whether it’s even factually true of many of the past wars that have been fought. My college in Oxford — a bastion of wealth and privilege if ever there was one — has a memorial to the dead in various 20th century wars and the numbers are striking — in both WW1 and WW2 the college population was annihilated. Not just a few casualties but virtually the majority of men eligible to fight wiped out.

There seems a striking absence of noblesse oblige in present day Western culture. Increasingly and to a greater degree than ever before the powerful are isolated from certain consequences of their decisions.

To re-iterate: this is not to say that the decisions themselves may not be morally right, rather that, given they are morally right — why don’t they make the sacrifices they expect of the working classes?

“Again, there is no link between the justice or injustice of the war and the composition of the military.”

The “justice of the war” is determined not simply and completely by the rightness of the goals but by the morality of the means. If Saddam could have been removed by sacrificing 3000 children in a bonfire in Times Square, the end probably doesn’t justify those means. Even though the children might be singing as they lept in.

I grew up in a time and place, among people who might have rather died than accept that a President would go to war for ego, money, and midterms.

Bob, if the “morality of the means” determines the justice of the war, does that mean the Civil War was unjust? More important, does it mean the Civil War should not have been fought?

And it’s no response to say that the stakes of the Civil War were higher than those in removing Saddam, because then you’re making a judgment about the justice of the war independent of how it’s fought. That’s what I think you should do, of course, but it doesn’t follow from your argument. In fact, if you really think having a working-class army of adults who have volunteered to go to war is the same as sacrificing 3000 children in a bonfire in Times Square, then I can’t see what war you’d be in favor of.

Look, it’s not so simple either as I made out, e.g., honest workin’ folks that are all patriotic and shit. But neither does it fit the homely verities that Chun and others are dishing here–poor victims gulled by simple propaganda. And I’m sorry, but Moore is on the second side of the simplicity curve, not the first, and Chun’s proposition that most of America is with him entirely in that respect is just…plain…wrong. It might be that they *ought* to be (I don’t think they should, any more than they should be believing in the wholesome purity of our fighting men and women) but they aren’t.

Whether my desire for something more subtle than Michael Moore’s typical frying-pan-to-the-head puts me at odds aesthetically with the general population, who knows. I don’t especially care. I haven’t heard Chun be especially admiring of popular taste in the past, so this is a bit of a break from the norm as far as that goes.

“because then you’re making a judgment about the justice of the war independent of how it’s fought.”

Well, I would the “justice of a war” was based on both means and ends, and neither outweigh the other. A cost/benefit calculation is done (nobody says war is nice or pretty), and yes, given the choice of 3000 children or 1 million men, knowing the choice had to be made…well, the English and French may have calculated badly in 1914. I think Lincoln chose well in 1861.

“Saddam’s removal was worth the lives of 1000 Americans.” is the way it needs be phrased. Not “It was a just war.”

Let us imagine, for a moment, that some well-meaning American politicians were to propose a large, expensive, federally-funded humanitarian aid project in a third-world country. The program would predominantly employ poor and working-class young people (“recruits”), giving them low-but-tolerable pay, job training and work experience. Its goal would be to improve the quality of life of the unfortunate citizens of the targeted third-world country. Of course, the project’s recruits would live in somewhat spartan conditions compared to most Americans, and perhaps face risks more common in the chaotic underdeveloped world than in America.

1) Which socioeconomic classes would likely consider this project to be worth the cost?

2) Which socioeconomic groups could be expected to clamor for its benefits to be more directed towards middle- and upper-middle-class youth–perhaps by vastly reducing the risks and discomforts endured by recruits, making it more attractive to the children of the affluent–or else to argue that the program is wasteful or even harmful, and should be eliminated altogether?

3) Who still believes that Michael Moore’s argument against using an army of mostly working-class volunteers to depose Saddam Hussein holds even a thimbleful of water?

Dan:

Here’s a serious question and I’m not making it snarkily…

Is there a genuine moral equivalence between war, on the one hand, which both requires the participants to face the risk of death and also requires them to accept the possibility they may have to kill others and some sort of humanitarian invtervention, on the other?

Even accepting the humanitarian interventions aren’t without risk – of infection, hunger, or whatever.

Part of the point, surely, is that war is special … it’s not like other things we might do as societies and as nations.

I don’t know how often this has to be repeated…

The problem isn’t that the working classes choose to join the army. Everyone accepts that there are perfectly rational reasons for doing so.

The problem is that the powerful do not and there seems something morally dubious about asking others to take risks that one is not prepared to bear oneself.

Indeed many of the current US administration have extremely suspect histories of actively avoiding any possibility of facing actual combat.

This ‘Chickenhawk’ position isn’t incompatible either with the view that the conflict in question is morally justified or with the position that there are perfectly rational reasons for those who do in fact join the army to do so.

Chris, how exactly am I misstating your argument? You make this suggestion:

There is a moral link between being willing to wage wars for democracy and human rights and being willing to introduce conscription.

If there is a moral link between these two things, it must follow that it is immoral (or at least amoral) to wage wars for democracy and human rights if you’re not willing to introduce conscription. (That’s why you call on the left-liberal hawks to call for a citizen army, isn’t it?) And that, then, means that if you have a purely working-class army, you cannot wage a humanitarian war justly, which I would say fairly demolishes the case for humanitarian wars.

So what here is misrepresenting your position?

If anyone wants to help turn “Fahrenheit 7/17” into a movie, let me know.

i’m with Matt..

“However, the point being ignored is that, given all this, why don’t the powerful also fight in such wars?”

if so, the dodgy intelligence would have been plucked and picked from all reports, pronto!

my question is.. how do all of the ultra-patriots out there (somewhere) stop themsleves from hurling their bodies at the ‘enemy’?

Is there a genuine moral equivalence between war, on the one hand, which both requires the participants to face the risk of death and also requires them to accept the possibility they may have to kill others and some sort of humanitarian invtervention, on the other?

For me personally, it would depend on the war, the risk and the enemy. The US military operations in Iraq don’t seem to me to be qualitatively different in their physical and moral risks from the humanitarian intervention scenario I described.

But then, why on earth does my opinion on these points matter? I’m not fighting in Iraq. If the soldiers deployed there consider themselves morally and physically exploited cannon fodder, in a way that, say, deep-sea fishermen or policemen do not, then the armed forces–and the country–have a big problem. If, on the other hand–as I’m given to understand–most of the troops consider their mission and its risks both honorable and worth accepting, then all the condescending tut-tutting among Crooked Timberites about the ruling class’ ruthless exploitation of the ignorant, false consciousness-plagued peasants is more than a little nauseating.

Moore is clumsy and heavy handed- on only has to compare F911 to Z. The most important part of the movie, IMHO, is when Rep Conyers tells him to sit down, that nobody in Congress reads the 10,000 bills that they vote on each year. It seems to be true- Bush’s August 2001 intelligence briefing was boiled own (by whom?) to 1 page, Kerry didn’t even read the misleading government Iraq memo before voting on the Iraq war. Maybe the first step toward democracy is to limit the number of bills that Congress can vote on. Maybe both Democrats and Republicans have failed the test of serving the people.

Steve Carr: if you are going to get a bunch of already disadvantaged people to do a dangerous job (A: prosecuting a humanitiarian war) significantly different from the one they were led to believe they’d signed up for (B: defending their country) then you face an important justificatory burden. I’m not saying it can’t necessarily be met, but to meet it you’d have to

(1) Actually put to those people the correct reasons (i.e not sell them A under the guise of B).

(2) Do a bit better than explain why, on balance, the people of Iraq will be better off. That is, you ought to explain to them not only why this projects is justified in the abstract, but why they, as opposed to others, should be the ones bearing the costs and risks.

Since the left/liberal supporters of the war aren’t actually commanding any troops (surprise, surprise), the reasons that they think pertinent weren’t actually the ones being put to those fighting and dying. (Or to the extent that they were, they were adulterated with other, irrelevant, bullshit like WMD and AQ links.).

Now on to the citizen army bit …

Under the existing division of labour, one part of society is getting another part of society to do something it isn’t willing to do itself. To the extent that that thing ought to be done anyway (and I’m agreeing with you here), that ought to be doneness is independent of who actually gets to do the doing. But if everyone bears the costs and the risks equally the arguments about what “we” ought to do have a somewhat different dynamic. Explaining that “we” ought to fight a war because the universal felicific calculus comes out that way is a lot more acceptable if the person advancing the argument actually risks dying or losing a loved one than if they don’t. (And Christ! The people putting the arguments this time didn’t extend their willingness to sacrifice as far as a hike in their marginal tax rates).

The point isn’t one about just war, as we ordinarily think of that concept, but about distributive justice, legitimacy and consent within the society waging the just war. As it happens, I also think that a draft is _only one_ of the ways that this issue could be addressed, there’s another obvious solution. If people enlisted voluntarily in the light of full information against a background of fair equality of resources, then that would be fine too. So if the Bush adminstration only pursues a policy of substantial wealth redistribution towards the communites from which enlisters typically come, by taxing the rich and increasing welfare programmes ….

Dan wrote:

“If, on the other hand—as I’m given to understand—most of the troops consider their mission and its risks both honorable and worth accepting, then all the condescending tut-tutting among Crooked Timberites about the ruling class’ ruthless exploitation of the ignorant, false consciousness-plagued peasants is more than a little nauseating.”

Dan, the point I was trying to make above is that these considerations are not the real issue. As I’ve said the members of the army can be willing and eager to fight and the war can be a morally justifiable one, and yet, one can still ask why our leaders don’t place themselves and their loved ones in harm’s way.

One needn’t think that the working classes are being ruthlessly exploited or are ‘false-consciousness’ plagued to still feel there’s an ethical problem here.

Chris Bertram makes the precisely the same kind of point when he says the issue is, partly, one of distributive justice.

It’s somehow unfair that soldiers should be asked to do (willingly) what the people making the decisions are not. Indeed, as Chris points out, these people are overwhelmingly unwilling to even make a financial sacrifice never mind anything else….

“The poor in the United States have many options other than the military.”

Indeed they do: drug-dealing, prostitution, shite-shovelling and many, many more. What student of economics has failed to grasp that the really striking characteristic of poverty is the great range of opportunities it opens up?

Why do African Americans have higher mortality rates than the people of the dirt-poor state of Kerala, India? Because of their life-style choices, of course.

“And when you start with such a silly premise, it is no wonder you get to such silly conclusions.”

Indeed

I haven’s seen 9/11. But I have seen other Moore movies. He is a bit mushy; a true American sentimentalist; he doesn’t make the kinds of nice, clean arguments that academics like; he’s not a proper down-the-line class-compromise social democrat like me. But he’s on the side of the angels and makes entertaining movies, and, rather better, genuinely good TV. Why are people who see themselves on the left so keen to piss on him? I don’t get it.

harry, I feel the same there about that reaction. I think it boils down to snobbishness. Or as the Guardian review puts it:

… there has been a strand of liberal opinion which holds that liking Michael Moore is uncool and infra dig, like squawking about the perfidy of Starbucks.
…. However, it is incendiary, excitable, often mawkishly emotional but simply gripping: a cheerfully partisan assault on the Bush administration.
…. It is an exhilarating and even refreshing spectacle at a time when our pro-war liberals are evidently too worldly or sophisticated or amnesiac to be angry about the grotesque falsehood of WMD.

Datum: in my right-wing county in southern California, Fahrenheit 9/11 is being held over for another week in my neighborhood theater, four screenings a night, compared to three for Spiderman 2.

One presumes that the people running the place are trying to make money. Maybe they know something.

And what on earth do serving in the army and sorting mail have in common?

Chris, it seems to me that between your initial post and your last response to me, you shifted your target of attack. In your initial post, you’re attacking leftist/liberal hawks, for whom the overriding reasons to invade Iraq were humanitarian (remove Saddam’s tyranny) and democratic (move the Middle East toward democracy). But in your most recent response, you seem to be attacking the Bush administration and the neocons, who stressed the WMD rationale, etc. I wasn’t defending them and am not interested in defending them, because I don’t think they really were ever committed to the humanitarian/democratic rationale (Wolfowitz may be an exception, but frankly it doesn’t make a difference).

In any case, your new justifications for why fighting this war with a working-class army are bad simply don’t apply to the leftist and liberal hawks. These people –I’m thinking of Paul Berman, Ignatieff, arguably even Tom Friedman (a liberal if not a leftist) were explicit about their reasons for supporting the war. They did not try to sell A under the guise of B. They did explain why this was a good war, and how the people of Iraq would be better off. They were more than willing to have their marginal tax rates hiked (here again, you slide between the leftists/liberals and the Bush administration). And all of them would be in favor of increasing distributive justice. So I fail to see how anything remains of your original critique of the leftist/liberal hawks.

Now, you could say that until we have a genuinely classless society, any humanitarian war — no matter how honestly argued for, and no matter how widely supported by the military and the American people — is immoral. If you want to lose yourself in such a utopian (and, on the flipside, nihilistic) fantasy, be my guest. But considering we will never get there, it makes more sense to consider whether, in this society, a humanitarian war that is honestly argued for and widely supported by those fighting the war can be just. (And this is the question you started with, because this is the war the leftist/liberal hawks were pushing for.) Michael Moore would undoubtedly say no, and so would you. I’d say yes.

Dirty little secret?

Oh, give us a break!

Now it’s “show me the articles”. Next it’ll be “well I don’t see the words risks of war“. When do you run out of qualifiers, Chris?

Tom: no one has really addressed that issue. Really. Not “risks of war” in general but the point Chris is making. Steve has done a masterful misreading of it, but it’s still pretty clear if you read Chris’s own words.

Chris, at this point I have no idea what you’re talking about. Are you saying that left/liberal advocates of humanitarian interventions need to call for a draft before advocating humanitarian intervention? If so, we’re back where I started, when I said that you were arguing that, in the absence of a draft, humanitarian wars are immoral (or that the existence of a purely working-class army demolishes the case for humanitarian intervention). You protested that interpretation of your argument, but now you seem to be making it again.

Or are you saying simply that Berman, et.al., needed to acknowledge that working-class people would be fighting this war? I’m sure if I spent a little time, I could track down left/liberal hawks who spoke to this point, but I’m not sure how good a use of time it would be. Regardless, this returns us to my original point, which is that if it was just to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he was a tyrant, it was just to remove him regardless of who was doing the fighting, as long as those doing the fighting were doing so of their own free will.

Finally, if you’re saying that left-liberal hawks should also be working for distributive justice, well, Paul Berman has been as firm an advocate for that as anyone in America for decades, and even now I suspect Hitchens is a leftie in terms of domestic policy. And even Friedman has consistently lambasted Bush for not rescinding the tax cuts and not asking more Americans to make sacrifices.

Really, unless you want to adopt a wholesale vulgar Marxist position and argue that the existence of class divisions means that working-class people can’t be held responsible for their own choices, you have no argument here. I’ll agree that it would be better if the military were a better reflection of society as a whole. This is a matter of some importance. But there is simply no way that it follows logically that until the military is a better reflection, we cannot go to war for humanitarian causes. For now, this is the army we have. The question is, how do we use it? Moore’s answer, judging from his insane opposition to the war in Afghanistan, is roughly that we should never use it. (Maybe he would have supported WWII, but I’m not even sure about that.)Your answer is that we can’t use it except in self-defense, until our army is more just. I don’t see it.

What it boils down to is this —

Stage 1: Chris thinks Bush couldn’t care less about the poor slobs who were going to risk their lives implementing his deceptive, election-driven Iraq policies. Some (many?) of us agree. Stage 2: Chris also thinks that left/liberal war hawks ignored this “dirty little issue” in their rush to Baghdad (but leaves open a less charitable reading of our position). Some of us strenuously object. On the grounds that it’s hardly a “dirty little issue”, that we never swept it under the carpet, and that short of re-imposing conscription — or publishing full transcripts of cabinet meetings on the subject — governments will never be able to wage “justified” war again. So to speak. Step 3: Chris accuses us of misreading his original comments, then his clarification of those comments, then his re-clarification. Step 4: Short of reading an un-redacted transcript of the thought processes involved in composing his comments, we aren’t going to be able to judge his motives, but the (carpet-sweeping) insinuation still rankles.

“Yes of course the poor “have many options other than the military” but it is quite reasonable to conclude that they don’t have many better options, since the military is what so many choose.”

Emphasis mine.

Do you see anything wrong with that logic? Begging the question perhaps?

You are presupposing that the military is a horrible option and the main reason that people choose it is because there are no better options. But if the military is not such a horrible option your ‘argument’ falls apart. The fact that two of the other major options are ‘going to college with school loans’ or ‘going to community college for practically no money and then going to university with loans’ suggests that you are wrong about why people choose the military.

“Never before [gross generalisation, but it basically holds true] has the gap between the decision makers on the one hand — the politicians and pundits — and the people at the sharp end of that decision making process on the other i.e. the troops, been quite so vast.”

A big part of that is because never before has a nation been so technologically ahead of other nations as to require so few troops to defeat another nation.

Do you think the UK would have fought with fewer men in WWII if they could have defeated Hitler with 1/10th the men they actually used? If they could have defeated Hitler with 1/20th the material they actually used?

“Do you see anything wrong with that logic? Begging the question perhaps?”

No, I see the consequences of assuming that the recruit’s decision is rational and risk-averse. I don’t claim that the military is the only option – hence my reference to a set of available choices. Nor does it have to be a “horrible option” at the time the choice is made. The choice, typically, is between a job with poor prospects and little risk to life and limb, and a military job with better prospects but with that risk. You can chuck in all the alternatives you want in the way of night classes, student loans etc. My “argument” (with or without your inverted commas) does not fall apart when you do that. A free agent makes a binding decision on the basis of some assumptions about the probabilities of getting killed, wounded and lesser misfortunes.

Now, if past policy has been to go to war only when required by the national interest, as Realists typically use that term, then the risk is very low. Even if there is a war it is likely to be a quick knock-out of whichever state has been foolish enough to step on Uncle Sam’s toes. Along come a bunch of guys with a more trigger-happy policy. Call them liberal hawks, neocons or Machiavellian imperialists; the effect is the same. They sit in Washington and drastically change the trade-off facing the recruit. But it’s too late, he has already signed up.

If I am begging a question, what question would that be?

Apropos of nothing, I just wanted to note that, while I have commented on this blog from time to time, I am not the same Tom T. who appears above in this thread. Tsk; I suppose I need a more unique identifier.

Ok, Tom, you can have the “T” tout court.

And what on earth do serving in the army and sorting mail have in common?

Both are unpleasant tasks that the ruling class pays the working class to do for them, and probably would not have anybody do if instead their only option were to forcibly conscript everyone (including themselves) to do it.

“You miss the point”, I hear you say. “The point is that serving in the military is much more onerous than sorting mail.”

And when I point out, as I already have, that many–probably most–soldiers consider their vocation a noble calling rather than onerous drudgework, I’m told that no, the point is not how bad military service is, but rather that ruling class pays the working class to do it for them, and probably would not have anybody do it if instead their only option were to forcibly conscript everyone (including themselves) to do it. And round and round it goes.

In other words, military service is a horrible, soul-destroying job because Chris Bertram and his friends think so, and society should treat it that way because Chris Bertram and his friends think so. And if large segments of the population disagree with Chris and his friends, they’ll cover their ears and sing loudly, so that they can’t hear anyone call them on their question-begging.

Just to clarify — when I referenced the 19th century above it was in the context of Sebastian’s claim that the current US military is more powerful than it’s opponents to an uprecedented degree. At no point did I claim that the 19th century (or earlier) military was immune from the kind of gap between decision making and consequences that is at issue.

Interesting discussion.

One of the reasons why Scots have historically been over-represented in the UK military is not just on account of their fighting qualities but because the army offered prospects of economic and social advancement less readily available in other fields (ditto Empire-building). So, it’s scarcely surprising that volunteer armies draw most of their recruits from poorer parts of the country.

As for whether it is OK for a “ruling class” to send the “working class” off to war when their own sons and daughters are less likely to be risking their lives, well, again, this is not entirely a new phenomenon.

But, while interesting on a philosophical basis, it also misses the point of the army, navy etc. The armed services are an instrument of the state whose purpose is to defend and advance state interests, regardless of the make-up of said forces.

One may think it morally diagreeable that the “elites” have less personal or familial investment in the casualties of war but that is not an argument against sending troops into conflict.

In any case, at least in the UK, it’s not the case that the middle classes don’t have an investment in the army etc. I think around 10% of the fellows in my year at my small independent boarding school in Scotland went into the military.

Now, sure, they were enlisting as officers rather than privates but the idea that the middle classes are completely divorced form the armed services isn’t true now and never has been as a cursory look at British military history – or the war memorials in every public school in the land – from the Napoleonic wars on demonstrates.

Have things changed now? Well, yes to some degree they have. There may have been a decline in noblesse oblige – although the attraction of NGOs, charities, Amnesty etc to well-off, idealistic middle-class kids ought not to be ignored. But, at least as far as Britain is concerned, a war of national survival, were we to fight one again, would inevitably require soldiers from all classes and parts of the country.

In any case, in this more socially mobile age, does it really make much sense to talk about “working” and “ruling” classes when most people would consider themselves middle-class?

I’m sure that the children of the poor join the military in greater numbers than the children of the rich, for the simple reason that its a relatively low paid job, which represents a step up for the very poor and a step down for the very rich.

That said, many people do join the US military for other reasons: because they believe in “serving their country”, or because they think a few years in the military will help their political careers.

Accordingly – contrary to the impression Moore gives – there are in fact a number of US politicos with children serving in the military. Kopel (http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm) sets out the following information:

Moore’s statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to “sacrifice” his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore’s opening (“only one”) and his conclusion (“not a single member”) are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden’s son Beau is on active duty; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not “count” for Moore’s purposes.

How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf.

Kopel also applies (admittedly very basic) statistical techniques to show that “a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.”:

Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere expect Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.

We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1

You should also be aware of the selective editing of the various interviews with Congressmen, who – for example – tell Moore that they have family members serving in other areas of operation of the military, or who say that they children are considering enlisting, or what have you. Of course – Moore being Moore – these responses are cut from the film, and instead we’re show footage of the Congressmen blinking and looking stunned by Moore’s brilliant and incisive point.

But now we have the answer to Moore’s – and your – question, don’t we? The people who call on others to do the dying do, in fact slightly more likely to have children who are at the sharp ends of their decisions to use military power.

Will you edit your original post to acknowledge this?

David T. Yes, those statistical methods are pretty basic, aren’t they?

But no, I won’t be editing my post. First, because there have been 80-odd comments on it in its original form. Second, because, looking at the post and your comment on it, I see that I nowhere assert what you suggest I do assert.

I may, though, write a more extended piece next week on what I think is the real issue here. That isn’t Michael Moore, or the charges of Chickenhawkery, but rather the duty of care that any government has towards its soldiers and the intersection between that issue and the realities of inequality and social division. Note that — contra assertions by some on this thread — I don’t think that the issues I raise here constitute some knock-down anti-war argument. I do, though, think that everyone (pro or anti this war ought to think about them). If I do write some more on this, I also want to take up the challenging points made by Eve Garrard over at Normblog.

David t: I used my super-editing powers to add the final para of my last comment after you had responded to it but before I read your response.

Again, I nowhere assert what you say I assert. If you are correct about Moore (and you may be) then I wrongly attribute to Moore a statement which nevertheless remains true, namely that

that those who suffer and die come overwhelmingly from families and communities that are, shall we say, somewhat poorer than the politicians who chose to go to war, or the executives of the corporations who hope (hoped?) to profit from Iraqi reconstruction.

Moreover, david, it is a point which you acknowledge to be true when you write in the opening para of your initial comment that:

I’m sure that the children of the poor join the military in greater numbers than the children of the rich, for the simple reason that its a relatively low paid job, which represents a step up for the very poor and a step down for the very rich.

Or at least, you agree with me if you grant me the “overwhelmingly”. But, as I say, I’ll probably post again on this next week.

David T —

According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1

As a Brit, I’m largely ignorant of the composition of the US senate, but I assume that, like British MPs, US politicians maintain two households: one in the capital and one in their contituencies. If this applies in the States, wouldn’t this raise the ratio to 535:1? And it seems to me that Senators are more likely to be married with adult children that the average householder. A fair comparison would be between the ratio of Senators with children who could serve and those who actually do so and those ratios in the rest of the population.

Here endeth how to lie with basic statistics, pt 1.

Backword Dave:

Yup. Possibly. I’m not sure how congressmen/senators’ households are counted for the purpose of statistics, though.

The basic worry I have is this. When Moore’s thesis is challenged on the basis that he has chosen only the evidence which supports his claim while ignoring the counter-evidence – sometimes even by editing the evidence to make his case seem more watertight – he responds by pointing the questioner to the exact wording of his claim. In effect, he responds by stating that he is making a less universal claim than the one which he gives the impression that he is making.

This is why it is so dangerous to use Moore as an authority. His proof can not always be relied upon.

This is one of the things that so infuriates his critics: its like arguing with jelly. But the anti-war left should be wary of Moore as well, because he is a false friend. Interesting arguments – such as his “climate of fear” thesis which runs through “Columbine” – turn into (necessary) critiques of Moore’s methodology.

More to the point, Moore knows that his methology is sloppy. He’s been taken to task for it before. And this time round, he promised that his film would be factually unimpeachable. It simply isn’t.

That doesn’t mean that the more general argument isn’t worth having. Its just that its better had without reference to Moore.

Matt:

I doubt that public schoolboys’ experiences necessarily mirror those of the middle-class population as a whole (after all only about 10% of the population is educated privately and more than 50% of folk are middle-class). But, given that public schoolboys are routinely depicted as effete, chinless sons of privilege, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to point out that a decent proportion of them volunteer to serve in HMQ’s armed forces.

Some of Arnold’s ethos of “muscular christianity” still remains in place at these schools. For one thing, “service” in the Combined Cadet Force – or the pipe band – was all but mandatory at my school (one afternoon a week, with the possibility of weekend training for those especially keen, plus compulsory attendance at a one week-long camp on an army or air force base. Conscientious objectors could opt for “community service” – generally helping the elderly and the infirm).

I suppose this meant we had a greater exposure to military life than most teenagers and that must have played a part in persuading people to opt for a career in the Army, Navy, Marines etc.

I started out interested, tried to write a comment and found it didn’t meet the high standard set by others here so started again.

I will just say that the cartoon-character views of ‘the other’ being trotted out in this Moore thing are a blight on critical thinking. Why can’t someone do a documentary that RAISES the standard instead of dragging it to von Daniken levels of implication and distraction?