Manchild and the Major

"Facts? You can prove anything with facts!" - Homer Simpson

Last night I went drinking with some friends, and a friend of theirs whom I was meeting for the first time. He is a major in the US Air Force. Now the Major is a very nice guy, very friendly, very funny. But I had mixed emotions about the evening by the end of the night. We had discussed various topics but obviously politics and the war were among the more lengthy topics. On some things we agreed, and on some we disagreed. It was nice to see that there was some common ground between two people of such different political beliefs. (The Major is a rational, if extreme, conservative.) Topics we agreed upon included the luxury of pacifism, and defence of the family, the Soprano's, and armour piercing bullets for deer hunting, the M4 versus the M16, shooting armadillos with nightscopes.

But on the areas where we disagreed... oh boy.

I knew neither one of us was going to convince the other to change his mind over only a few hours, so rather than try to be persuasive in making any points, I was directing my questions more towards why he thinks the way he does. And trying to understand where he was coming from.I'm not sure I was entirely successful, but I think I had never before realised just how incomprehensibly vast the difference between our idealogies actually was.

We spoke, for example, about the recent shooting of a wounded Iraqi in a mosque. The Major told us that the comments going around the troops was that the only thing the soldier had done wrong, was not shooting the journalist when he realised he was on camera.

We spoke about the involuntary service extensions, and calling up troops who'd already served their required terms. He agreed that it sucked. But then, he is also in favour of a draft. (I had thought that the common military mindset said that a volunteer army was preferable.)

We spoke about the United Nations, and agreed that it was mostly toothless, but disagreed totally as to why.

That led us onto a discussion about the Veto, Foreign Aid, and eventually, to the US war on Nicaragua involving the Sandinista's.

On the Veto, I pointed out that the US used its veto more than any other country. And that countries like Iraq are only in violation of UN Resolutions because they don't have the power to veto things they don't want to do. If America didn't have the veto, it would be in violation of more resolutions than any other country.

The Major's argument was a variation on the "Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner". His attitude was that the US had to have the right to veto those resolutions which are harmful to America and/or it's interests.

We disagreed on where the line should be drawn, of course. Not every proposed resolution is along the lines of America's unilateral disarmament or some other nonsense. And historically, the US has not applied it's veto along those lines. (I'll get back to that point in a minute.)

On Foreign Aid, we had different views on what aid constituted. The Major saw nothing wrong with the idea of giving Aid in exchange for favours (contracts, tax exemptions, military bases, etc...). I had the curious notion that charity should be given freely, not charged for.

But we disagreed hugely on how much aid the US actually gives. The Major had a vastly over inflated idea of how much the US gives. And he wasn't going to take my word for just how wrong he was. (Relates to above point. Getting there slowly.)

Lastly, the Nicaraguan situation. Now, I'd had a bit to drink at this point, so I wasn't prepared to swear blindly that I had my facts right. (I could have been misremembering some names and dates.) But when the Major insisted there was never a campaign against Nicaragua, I was taken aback.

Now to put the three points together, I think the Major is a very intelligent guy, who has been taught a certain history about the US and it's politics and it's policies. And that picture is consistant, so he's comfortable with it. It makes sense.

But it is incomplete. And when you look at the missing parts, in detail, that consistancy breaks down. So the Major doesn't look.

For example, when we did the Veto conversation, I mentioned how the US veto'd a resolution which said that all countries should obey international law. He was unaware of it, and maintained that either I was wrong, or it was not as simple as I made it out.
Or (not a veto) recent events where the US was refusing to spend any money to safeguard Russia's nuclear arsenal (which many thought was a more likely source of rogue nukes than Iraq.) . Again, he refused to believe it.

The common thread was that the Major beliefs, and facts in the real world, did not co-incide in all areas. And where they were at variance, his beliefs about the world took precedence over facts.

How can you get a guy like this (who supports Bush, and thinks Bush supports the troops) to realise for example that the Bush Administration cut veteran funding and veteran benefits? How do you introduce a very well indoctrinated guy, to reality?
posted by Manchild at 10:00 AM