Letters to the Editor
cincinnatus
Published Letters: 49 Editor's Choice: 5
-
@Anonymous re: Question
[Read the article: The expression "stuck pig" comes to mind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're right, I didn't expect an answer. I was in rant mode. I re-read it and the whole thing seems only connected to the topic at hand in my head. However, I appreciate your considered response.
I get your point about not wanting to be criticized and run down by the person who sent you into combat, but your analogy with the boss at work isn't appropriate. If my boss told me to do something, I would expect his or her support, but not necessarily the support of the rest of the office. It is Congress's job to provide a balance to the President and to represent the will of the people. When they abdicate that responsibility as they have, it is the people's place to call them on it.
The military has had Bush's vocal support, but others in the country question, not the military itself, but the actions it was asked to take. This is akin to the boss supporting me, but receiving criticism of the project from my collegues. I might even agree with that criticism, but feel compelled to complete the project anyway. Certainly for military personel, this compulsion is far stronger than it might be in the office, where I might rightly question the project itself with little at risk but my own job.
You wrote, "Oh BTW, we also don't say much when someone says something about the military in general...but when a soldier is attacked individually, well, don't expect him to go quietly out without some kind of retort...just as any other citizen of the US would."
True, I expect anyone to defend their character or actions when they are defensible. However, when the facts belie the defense or when the defense is hysterical in nature and full of laughable hyperbole, then soldier or talk show host, that person is due further criticism and may be characterized as being whiny or worse.
You wrote: "during WWII, many of the freedoms we enjoyed prior to it were curtailed to enhance the mission and eventually to help provide an end to the war. I personally see this as no different with the exception that more people are angrier at it than they were during WWII. Seems to me we have lost that nationalist pride we had in those days."
I'm so glad you brought this up. We have done that in the past. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. But even if you debate that point (and I think there are potentially compelling arguments you might make), our entrance into that war was not preemptive. It is true that we were attacked by Al-Qaida on 9/11. America and the world were basically united, as the Allies were in WWII, when we went into Afghanistan and retaliated. Whatever you think about WMD in Iraq or how much Saddam was evil, our entrance into Iraq was preemptive -- a VASTLY different doctrine with far less moral authority than our defensive entrance into WWII. We may have lost nationalist pride, but if so, the evidence is in how we have let this administration (and previous ones) erode the principle foundation of our country, not in criticism of the war in Iraq. If anything, that criticism is evidence of some small vestige of our national pride struggling for its life.
Finally, you wrote: "I personally still believe in the American spirit and that we can overcome and prevail against anything which might destroy this country. We ARE a great nation and with God's help, we'll continue to be one long after I have left this life."
Yes. God will help us when we begin to help ourselves. It might also help if those people who so fervently believe in God wake up and realize that despite his claims to the contrary, Bush and his administration are not acting on God's instructions.
-
Be Careful with the Standards You Set
[Read the article: The expression "stuck pig" comes to mind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anonymous wrote: "How original...a poll...and just how accurate is the poll...is it 100% accurate? Can you guarantee that?
You really don't want to go there if you support the war. It continues to be sold to us on dubious grounds such as it making us safer from terrorist attacks. Or really? Is that 100% accurate? Can you guarantee that?
Much of the fear mongering that is used to compel us to support our aggression is based on possible scenarios (anyone recall the "mushroom cloud"?) -- not probable, not likely, not even just more likely than not -- possible. And those possibilities are very assiduously never defined.
Now it is true that in any threat assessment, the greater the resulting harm, the less liklihood there needs to be in order to take action. The insurance industry has made gazillions on this principle. Still, it is a valid question for us to ask whether or not the threat to our civilization is greater from within or without right now.
And let's also remember that we're consistently being fed a false choice by our government. They tell us we either fight until "victory" or leave in "defeat." Has no one ever heard of a tactical retreat? That's not the only problem with the false choice nor the only false choice we are given.
I for one think that when it comes to spending the lives of American soldiers, we should be less cavalier about when and how we do it. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney can talk about their love of the military all they want, but they aren't treating it or the lives of our service men and women with much respect in my opinion.