I appreciate your thoughtful response.
As for valid conflicts, I read an interview Rothbard gave one time about war and proportional response.. wish I had the link offhand. But to me, as you hedged, I am also skeptical if there can be a valid one. I'm much less generous, however, with regard to the (in)validity of those in which the state has entangled over the course of the last century.
In any case, more difficult, in my view, is overcoming the totality of system which ensnares youth in the war machine, and so I'm very sensitive to the gray area involved in what I am suggesting as it pertains to the critical nature of language and especially "murderer" with respect to troops. Young folk who are ensconced in state propaganda and indoctrinated from the womb until they are military-eligible... What real chance do they have to resist when all roads draw them in? And yet, at some point, everyone has to be accountable for the moral decisions they make.
Very very difficult.
But here is where language, to me, transforms from the weakness on this issue to the strength. If, in broad and nonspecific terms, people begin to find subtle- but accurate- ways to describe roles, etc, it can begin to stigmatize the act of murder again, even murder in uniform.
For example... No more drone pilot. It's "joystick murderer."
Ok, ok... That's not very subtle. In any case, I just mean to highlight that calling Obama a murderer will only continue to insulate an act which he does not commit, in the literal sense. In this way, murder is in effect subsidized by an unwillingness on the part of people to put the label in its rightful place.
Even if it's uncomfortable.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: