For the past 30 years Republicans have vilified the government at every opportunity. Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have even done a stupendous job of showing us why government should not be trusted (or at least Republican government); why we should believe that government is inefficient and how people who don't believe in the power of the people should never be given the opportunity to lead our country. Unfortunately, to a large extent these self-interested charlatans have been largely successful. It's even gotten so bad that people actually prefer corporations charging us more money and treating us far worse than any government agency could, just because many have bought into this garbage.

They're right about one thing; we should not trust our government. Especially when it's lead by a Republican and certainly when it fails to realize the will of the American people. President George W. Bush (and I use that term loosely) refuses to extract our forces from Iraq despite the fact that an overwhelming number of citizens (including the majority of active military) want us out as soon as possible. Which should lead us to the question, if you're in the military and your commander-in-chief isn't reflecting the will of the people, aren't you just serving your government and by frightening implication, not serving your country? It gives me uncomfortable goose bumps to think about it and yet I believe in the power of government to positively influence people's lives. I can't imagine all those Republican and right wing soldiers who have never been exposed to anything to the left of Rush Limbaugh, who have swallowed boat loads of right wing crap about privatization and always obeying the commander-in-chief, suddenly coming to the realization that by following the President they are supporting the government at the expense of and against the majority of their country.

Could it be true that by blindly following George W. Bush as opposed to following the will of the majority of people in our democracy the troops are actually working against the country they have vowed to protect? At what point should they disobey orders? Never? What if the commander-in-chief ordered an attack on a U.S. city? To that extreme the answer may seem clear but what if the troop's blind loyalty to the president caused the financial and moral bankrupting of our country? Or the destruction of the constitution? What if following orders meant not destroying the constitution but diluting or bending constitutional tenets? What if the effect of the president's orders meant that hundreds of thousands of innocent people would be killed and threats to our country exponentially increased?

We've already past that point.

We should all be able to see why it's important for our soldiers to follow orders but we must ask the question of when it's appropriate for our troops to disobey not just illegal orders but orders that are fundamentally detrimental to the health of our country. Do we really want a force of soldiers that obey any and all orders? Maybe it's time we created a citizen military that only forms when a legitimate need arises and in which all participate and sacrifice in whatever way they can? After all, doing so would truly be democratic and it's worked pretty damn well for the Iraqis, the Vietnamese, the Koreans and even us a very long time ago.

About the Author

www.TheIndyVoice.com has studied poli-sci at NCSU and is a developer of websites: www.We-Buy-And-Sell-Homes.com and www.NationwideHomeBuyer.com, and www.We-Buy-Houses-Nationwide.com