Dean's World

August 19th, op-ed in the New York Times by seven soldiers of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne serving in Iraq:

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

September 12th: NYT reports that two of those soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice for their nation. September 26: from the broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even — if — the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull — what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't — I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --

LIMBAUGH: "Save the — keep the troops safe" or whatever. I — it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

audio of Limbaugh's comments here.

UPDATE: well, now.

good job, Rush! way to make the case on the merits! thoat there trend is shaping up nicely... oh, wait. Well, guess there are a lot, LOT less genuine Republicans than there used to be.

Is it offensive that someone's definition of soldier is one by which a true soldier is a tool of his commanding entity and thinks of nothing in times of war other than to fulfill his function, namely, Victory defined as the fulfillment of the duties handed to him through the chain of command?

What if someone held that a soldier, not in planning, who believes that his assessment of the war situation and his prescriptions for it's resolution are wiser and better than the assessments governing the character of the duties handed to him through the chain of command--is not a 'true' soldier in the conceptual sense?

What if someone thinks that the moment one is walking around believing he must retreat, even though his commanding entity still wars-he is less of a soldier than those who obey the dictates of the chain of command in heart as well as mind?

And what if this person had great respect for every fallen American in this war, but also had enough respect for himself to enforce the ideas of his military philosophy upon his world outlook, declaring things conceptually as he sees them?

Are these notions offensive? If so, why?

A person can cease being a soldier at will. Sometimes this is indicative of failure; sometimes, of moral stature. It depends on the context.

If one doesn't believe in the war he is fighting, how can he be soldier in the full sense of the word, which to me connotes a fighter in a war in soul as well as deed.

In the comment section to the post chained to this one, I stated that I am soldier in the army of G-d.

In response, Tim Kindred stated that, he "will never recognise anyone as a soldier who does not represent a recognised government, or political movement and wear upon their person a distinctive mark of that government so as to permit them to be recognised as such," and that "Religions are not recognised as lawful governments, therefor[e] they cannot have "soldiers"."

Answering, Daniel Harr, one of Dean's World's most erudite contributers, stated that one may draw an analogy between being a soldier in the US army and being a soldier for G-d without equating the two entities in a simplistic fashion. (See the attached post for more context.)

Indeed, I agree with Daniel that one may draw such analogies in the way he described, but at the same time I wish to offer a response going in the opposite direction.

Generally, when we observe and describe the world we tend to look deeply at entities, abstracting the concepts and dynamics from the material instance in which they are embodied. Once we have abstracted the concepts and dynamics from the instance that is their material shell, we then classify material entities, comparing and contrasting as we go along.

Accordingly, one can certainly abstract what he sees as the conceptual structure embodied within an entity like, say, an army or a soldier, and find its twin in, say, a religious group serving G-d or any group 'fighting' to further a certain goal. And, conversely, someone else is able to disagree with the identification, pointing out what he sees as critical differences between said entities.

The question I am posing, or trying to answer really, is what is the ontological status of those abstract concepts and dynamics; and, relatedly, what is the ontological status of the various entity classifications we base on them.

An ardent materialist would argue, I think, that since materialism is an approach that "regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies[,]" all conceptual underpinnings underlying material entities are no more than tools created by and in the minds of men to relate to their material surroundings, possessing no real existence outside of the mind.

The Torah, though, sees the world as a material manifestation of spiritual worlds, a low level of which being the conceptual structure underlying and embodied within it. Accordingly, not only do the conceptual underpinnings of the material exist outside of the mind, but also they are truly the main element of existence, the material being only their physical manifestation.

These spiritual underpinnings are the entities as they exist in the Torah. This idea is one of those that are encapsulated in the Talmudic phrases "The Torah precedes the world" and "the Holy One Blessed Be He looked in the Torah and created the world."

Indeed the Torah sees our duty as bringing the material world to fully and perfectly reflect its true character, namely , the way it exists in G-d's mind (so to speak) or , to say it differently, the Torah.

For example, Torah sees material kingship as the reflection of the kingship of G-d himself, with the awaited Davidic monarch its most perfect material manifestation. This is indeed why Jews are required, upon seeing any real king, even that of another nation , to make a declaration blessing G-d for bestowing his kingship upon humanity. Similarly, in the presence of a sage we bless G-d for placing his wisdom upon humanity, and so on and so forth.

Accordingly, and finally, when I stated that Jews are the army of Hashem and that I am a soldier in it, I meant it in the utmost.