From a comment on The Daily Kos:
...But do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country?
No. I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded.
Friends, the most important moral decision a man makes in the course of a day is "Who am I going to kill today?"
That’s a decision you should agonize over, dream about, rehearse in your mind for hours, not just leave up to some hare-brained President you didn’t even vote for.
A man’s killing list is a very personal matter. It should be between him and those persistent voices in his head.
So to sum up, I don’t like our troops, I don’t like what they’re doing, I don’t like their fat, whining families, and yet, I support them. Thank God I live in a free country.
I'd actually argue that looking down the barrel of a firearm, of any caliber, and pulling the trigger because you are under orders to do so, requires a level of moral insight greater than most of us have. Morally retarded would seem to indicate someone who is slow, or backward in his/her moral development. I haven't met a combat soldier/sailor/airman yet who would say, honestly, that warfare didn't trouble him or her. Even those who shut away the pain and don't think about the carnage once they come home, aren't morally retarded. Those are just the folks fighting for a way to deal. No, the real morally retarded are the people who criticize other's moral choices without ever having faced such a choice themselves. They are morally shallow, lacking the depth to realize that the very right which they espouse by their dissent was paid for by those they so naively disparage.
Thank God for the men and women who, throughout history, have awakened in the night screaming at the remembered horrors of warfare, but risen the next morning to go out once more and face the demons again.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
The Price of History
In 1945 the NAZI government of Germany’s Third Reich surrendered, unconditionally, to the Allies. The war for Europe was over, and just beginning. Sixty-two years later we, the United States of America, still have troops stationed on German soil. We are there not as an occupying force, but as allies against a nebulous threat that may or may not arise.
In the summer of 2003 the coalition forces led by the United States overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein. His government was abolished. Hussein was later found, tried, and executed by a jury of his peers. The Iraqi people have a new, democratically - elected, government and a constitution. We still have troops on the ground, in the air, and off the coast, of Iraq. They are there not as an occupying army but as a bulwark against a threat that is clear, present, and deadly.
Would the Red Army have driven past the Rheine all the way to the French border if the Allies had not remained behind in West Germany? The answer is adamantly: yes. Would the world be a different place had that occurred? Most assuredly, yes. Today the Soviet Union is gone. The threat of insidiously spreading communism is a lesson for a history class, not a current concern of policy makers. Yet we still keep troops in allied European countries- for stability, for peace, for the hope that Europe never again descends into the nightmarish landscape of unlimited war.
So why are we, and our leaders whom we elect and who think they listen to us because they respond to polls, so insistent about leaving Iraq, now? The threat of Islamic extremism and the anti-western policies of Iran are just as clear and just as deadly as the threat that was communism in 1945. We can see the daily struggle that is waged for control of Iraq. If we leave now we abandon our allies to their fate and turn our back on history’s lessons.
Let that be said again: Iraq, the democratic government that represents the people of Iraq, is an ally. When has it ever been an American policy to abandon an ally? Do we, the descendents of those who have fought for freedom and prosperity for over 200 years, now give up on those ideals?
The easy answer is that we give up on our allies because the war is too costly. Economically that argument cannot be supported. The US economy, especially the market for private consumer goods, is still strong and flourishing. Citizens of 1944 would beg to have the economic conditions we currently enjoy. Economically the war has been a footnote, an asterisk to explain why the economy isn’t surging even more than it is now.
So, in the end, the price is too great because of the lives lost. Young men and young women die every single day in Iraq, too many of them innocents and too many of them never having a chance to confront their faceless, shirking, slinking, enemies. But in this age of instant news and sound-bite attention spans, it is not the individual loss that so horrifies and fuels the cries of “Get out now” and “No more blood for Bush”. No, it is the stark numerals of the increasing dead, the sheer weight of daily casualty counts that weigh us down with their repetitive nature and sap our resolve with the seeming futility of their incessant occurrence. We measure worth, now, not in the life of an individual but in the number of the dead.
How many is too many? At what point does the butcher’s bill become too steep and we withdraw to an ignoble, yet safe, distance? Do the 2,999 who have died before mean less than the soldier who brings the casualty count to 3,000? Or is each life a precious monument to a cause?
“Give me liberty or give me death”. Patrick Henry didn’t want the death of his fellow citizens for his liberty, but he stood up willing to sacrifice his own life for the sake of our freedom. If we withdraw now, we spit on the sacrifice of those who have already died in the hope of saving those who are fighting for the same ideals. We leave an ally to muddle through as best they can. We hope that we won’t have to return in 5, 10, or 15 years to watch more die, because of our lack of conviction now.
We fight for ourselves, for our friends, for the idea that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
If we leave now, we turn our backs on the idea that our friends are not as worthy of life and liberty as we. And that, friends, is not the attitude of a country I wish to be a part of.
In the summer of 2003 the coalition forces led by the United States overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein. His government was abolished. Hussein was later found, tried, and executed by a jury of his peers. The Iraqi people have a new, democratically - elected, government and a constitution. We still have troops on the ground, in the air, and off the coast, of Iraq. They are there not as an occupying army but as a bulwark against a threat that is clear, present, and deadly.
Would the Red Army have driven past the Rheine all the way to the French border if the Allies had not remained behind in West Germany? The answer is adamantly: yes. Would the world be a different place had that occurred? Most assuredly, yes. Today the Soviet Union is gone. The threat of insidiously spreading communism is a lesson for a history class, not a current concern of policy makers. Yet we still keep troops in allied European countries- for stability, for peace, for the hope that Europe never again descends into the nightmarish landscape of unlimited war.
So why are we, and our leaders whom we elect and who think they listen to us because they respond to polls, so insistent about leaving Iraq, now? The threat of Islamic extremism and the anti-western policies of Iran are just as clear and just as deadly as the threat that was communism in 1945. We can see the daily struggle that is waged for control of Iraq. If we leave now we abandon our allies to their fate and turn our back on history’s lessons.
Let that be said again: Iraq, the democratic government that represents the people of Iraq, is an ally. When has it ever been an American policy to abandon an ally? Do we, the descendents of those who have fought for freedom and prosperity for over 200 years, now give up on those ideals?
The easy answer is that we give up on our allies because the war is too costly. Economically that argument cannot be supported. The US economy, especially the market for private consumer goods, is still strong and flourishing. Citizens of 1944 would beg to have the economic conditions we currently enjoy. Economically the war has been a footnote, an asterisk to explain why the economy isn’t surging even more than it is now.
So, in the end, the price is too great because of the lives lost. Young men and young women die every single day in Iraq, too many of them innocents and too many of them never having a chance to confront their faceless, shirking, slinking, enemies. But in this age of instant news and sound-bite attention spans, it is not the individual loss that so horrifies and fuels the cries of “Get out now” and “No more blood for Bush”. No, it is the stark numerals of the increasing dead, the sheer weight of daily casualty counts that weigh us down with their repetitive nature and sap our resolve with the seeming futility of their incessant occurrence. We measure worth, now, not in the life of an individual but in the number of the dead.
How many is too many? At what point does the butcher’s bill become too steep and we withdraw to an ignoble, yet safe, distance? Do the 2,999 who have died before mean less than the soldier who brings the casualty count to 3,000? Or is each life a precious monument to a cause?
“Give me liberty or give me death”. Patrick Henry didn’t want the death of his fellow citizens for his liberty, but he stood up willing to sacrifice his own life for the sake of our freedom. If we withdraw now, we spit on the sacrifice of those who have already died in the hope of saving those who are fighting for the same ideals. We leave an ally to muddle through as best they can. We hope that we won’t have to return in 5, 10, or 15 years to watch more die, because of our lack of conviction now.
We fight for ourselves, for our friends, for the idea that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
If we leave now, we turn our backs on the idea that our friends are not as worthy of life and liberty as we. And that, friends, is not the attitude of a country I wish to be a part of.
Friday, April 20, 2007
He's no Ike
Let me start by saying that my first inclination was to call Sen. Reid a dumb son of a bitch. Having heard his comments from yesterday, specifically, "the war is lost", I sat dumbfounded and then cursed repeatedly.
But Sen. Reid is NOT a dumb man, whatever his pedigree. He's a very smart, very wily, very calculating, politician. His backroom deals and on-the floor parliamentary tricks have earned the respect of both sides of the aisle in the US Senate. Even in the minority, Reid often controlled floor agenda.
Reid knows he cannot get a bill past the President with a firm withdrawal date and that stalling troop funding is the current third rail of American politics. But he also knows the anti-war left, while not the majority of his party's members, control a large majority of its fundraising capabilities. So he has to look like he's doing something about the war.
As a consummate politician Reid has found a way to please the raving anti-war crowd and still maintain his political balance. He creates controversy and stirs national debate without any real action.
Unfortunately, his political maneuvering isn't executed in a vacuum. His comments have already resounded across the nation and the Middle East. He's emboldening not only domestic anti-war supporters but also terrorist insurgents and the anti-American forces in Iran, Syria, Somalia, and elsewhere.
Sen. Reid is a Senate floor mastermind and a skilled politician, but he is no general. He doesn't have the professional background, training or skills to give an accurate portrayal of US military capabilities. He needs to stick with what he does best, and leave the leadership of the most important forum for our nation at this time: the frontlines in Iraq, to the true experts.
But Sen. Reid is NOT a dumb man, whatever his pedigree. He's a very smart, very wily, very calculating, politician. His backroom deals and on-the floor parliamentary tricks have earned the respect of both sides of the aisle in the US Senate. Even in the minority, Reid often controlled floor agenda.
Reid knows he cannot get a bill past the President with a firm withdrawal date and that stalling troop funding is the current third rail of American politics. But he also knows the anti-war left, while not the majority of his party's members, control a large majority of its fundraising capabilities. So he has to look like he's doing something about the war.
As a consummate politician Reid has found a way to please the raving anti-war crowd and still maintain his political balance. He creates controversy and stirs national debate without any real action.
Unfortunately, his political maneuvering isn't executed in a vacuum. His comments have already resounded across the nation and the Middle East. He's emboldening not only domestic anti-war supporters but also terrorist insurgents and the anti-American forces in Iran, Syria, Somalia, and elsewhere.
Sen. Reid is a Senate floor mastermind and a skilled politician, but he is no general. He doesn't have the professional background, training or skills to give an accurate portrayal of US military capabilities. He needs to stick with what he does best, and leave the leadership of the most important forum for our nation at this time: the frontlines in Iraq, to the true experts.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Let It Be
On Monday night, and several times since, I sat down to write about the tragedy at Virginia Tech. I started writing about gun control laws, mental health services, political pandering, the role media plays in de-sensitizing society, and our insidious need to place blame as quickly as possible.
Every time I would lose my focus after the first few sentences. I would stare at the wordless screen and my heart would break all over again. As someone called to public service, as a writer, part-time social commentator, educated woman, mother, former RA, as a person, I should have a comment to make- right?
But the words wouldn’t come. Nothing was right. Then I heard a song playing in the background.
When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be. Let, for this once, “Let’s Roll” be simply “let it roll on”. Let action not be the answer, not today. Let the pain do its work: give hearts time to heal, souls time to find comfort.
And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree,
There will be an answer, let it be.
There will be time to make speeches. There will be a chance to engage in a societal debate about how to prevent a repetition of this horror.
But that time is not now.
And when the night is cloudy,
There is still a light that shines on me,
Shine on until tomorrow, let it be.
I wake up to the sound of music
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
There will be an answer, let it be.
** Lyrics courtesy of the Beatles and this site: http://www.mp3lyrics.org/b/beatles/let-it-be/
Every time I would lose my focus after the first few sentences. I would stare at the wordless screen and my heart would break all over again. As someone called to public service, as a writer, part-time social commentator, educated woman, mother, former RA, as a person, I should have a comment to make- right?
But the words wouldn’t come. Nothing was right. Then I heard a song playing in the background.
When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be. Let, for this once, “Let’s Roll” be simply “let it roll on”. Let action not be the answer, not today. Let the pain do its work: give hearts time to heal, souls time to find comfort.
And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree,
There will be an answer, let it be.
There will be time to make speeches. There will be a chance to engage in a societal debate about how to prevent a repetition of this horror.
But that time is not now.
And when the night is cloudy,
There is still a light that shines on me,
Shine on until tomorrow, let it be.
I wake up to the sound of music
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
There will be an answer, let it be.
** Lyrics courtesy of the Beatles and this site: http://www.mp3lyrics.org/b/beatles/let-it-be/
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung
“The lawyer and parents of John Walker Lindh, the American-born Taliban soldier serving 20 years in prison after his capture in Afghanistan, called on President Bush on Wednesday to commute his sentence and set him free.”
Dear Johnny:
As an American citizen you are entitled to all the rights, enumerated and otherwise, set forth by the US Constitution. The flip side of that coin is that you are bound by the edicts of the Constitution concerning that highest of crimes: treason.
Article III Section 3:
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
You DID get a lighter sentence, traitor. You should have been convicted of treason for making war with, aiding, and abetting, the Taliban. You are complicit in the murder of Mike Spann. Repent your sins and may God have mercy on your soul, for that’s the only pardon you deserve.
"Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
'This is my own, my native land!'
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burn'd
As home his footsteps he hath turn'd
From wandering on a foreign strand?
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung."
-Sir Walter Scott.
Dear Johnny:
As an American citizen you are entitled to all the rights, enumerated and otherwise, set forth by the US Constitution. The flip side of that coin is that you are bound by the edicts of the Constitution concerning that highest of crimes: treason.
Article III Section 3:
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
You DID get a lighter sentence, traitor. You should have been convicted of treason for making war with, aiding, and abetting, the Taliban. You are complicit in the murder of Mike Spann. Repent your sins and may God have mercy on your soul, for that’s the only pardon you deserve.
"Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
'This is my own, my native land!'
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burn'd
As home his footsteps he hath turn'd
From wandering on a foreign strand?
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung."
-Sir Walter Scott.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The Pleasure of the President
Yes, I'm back! Yes the idiocy out of DC has driven me back to posting. Mark Twain, long dead as he is, would not be able to ignore the opportunities for lambaste, bombast, and general satire presented by this Congress.
Now, let's everyone, especially you Congress-critters, repeat after me. "U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President."
For those woefully unfamiliar with that wording, it simply means "The President brung ya into this job and he can takes ya right back out- and nominate another jest like ya!"
Anyone answering Congress' questions about this matter should have replied with that simple phrase and let it go at that. But, alas, nothing is ever logical or simple on the Hill. Now a House subcommittee wants to subpoena Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify about their political influence in the firing of, *GASP*, political appointees.
Perish the thought. The President sought political advice from political and legal advisors about the status of political appointees who worked for the Justice Department. We should all really be glad he didn't just flip a coin or call up Rumsfeld and ask his opinion. (Going out on a limb here and assuming the Rummy's regard for lawyers is similar to his high regard for reporters.)
If they do finally appear before a committee hearing, Rove and Miers should respond with "U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. This committee has no jurisdiction over the matter."
And then, to keep with the atmosphere of schoolyard rivalries, stick out their tongues and flip the committee the bird.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)