Letters to the Editor
-
@Lil Scooter's question
Our backward student has raised a point that could probably use some illumination, if purely for the sake of instruction:
What is the difference between supporting the WoT Part 1: Afghanistan (the part that enjoyed broader support, for very good reasons), and not volunteering, and supporting Vietnam and not volunteering? I think this is worth taking a shot at, because I can't say it's instantly clear to me.
I don't hang around military-aged people much, but then I didn't know any military-aged people during Vietnam, either. So I can only speculate:
(1) Vietnam ran for nearly a decade and turned into a minor meat-grinder. Troop levels peaked at 537,377, vs the Iraq peak of 159,000. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/bg1954.cfm) Afghanistan had 10,000 soldiers in 2003. (http://usmilitary.about.com/b/2003/11/09/dod-announces-iraqafghanistan-deployment-schedule.htm)
(2) Vietnam involved conscription. Afghanistan does not; even Iraq does not. Tens of thousands of friends and neighbors are not dying.
(3) The war in Afghanistan came suddenly and was won very quickly. Like Iraq, it has 2 phases, invasion and occupation. For the sake of argument, let's say "all liberals supported going after Osama." That's the invasion part. It's debatable whether that phase continues.
(4) Vietnam was Vietnam. Other occupations were (and are) ongoing, but if you wanted to go you could go, because it was the main thing. Of course, you could support our "effort" there by going elsewhere and the same could hold now. But if you volunteered now or at any time since 2002, where would you go: to Afghanistan, perhaps to chase Osama, or to Iraq? Not a tough question. (If you support one, you'd still have to be stone blind, or not a liberal, to support the other.)
(5) Say what you want about lazy and coddled Americans, but those criticisms cut across party lines. The modern US army is a professional and high-tech one, vs one dependent on conscription and thousands of men armed with rifles. Searching for Osama requires counterinsurgency tactics, some of them, as practiced by our armed forces, distinctly unpleasant to liberals. Put simply, it's a Special Forces/10th Mtn war. Anyone can be a grunt (an Army regular infantryman). I doubt many liberals could reconcile Ranger work with their values, or would be gung ho enough even under the circumstances of 2002 to enlist to become a Ranger.
(6) Liberals don't tend to go for purely military solutions unless pressed, and they support other options to follow up or to work in tandem. A similarity: In the 60s, you could join---and were encouraged to join---the Peace Corps. Now, you could conceivably join some nonmilitary rebuilding effort in Afghanistan. I wonder what that would be called ....
http://www.us-arc.org/about.asp
http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/
http://www.usaid.gov/stories/afghanistan/fp_afghan_roadkid.html
Ah, right, the US Government: USAID, the US Dept of Commerce, and whatever nongov orgs that may remain there.
Finally, I'd have to ask scooter for the slightest evidence that liberals didn't sign up to go to Afghanistan in the narrow window between 9/11 and the abandonment of Afghanistan in late 2002.
Comments welcome.
-
scooter for the slightest evidence
Don't worry. Shooter would NEVER allow reality or truth to interfere with a "gotchya" talking point.
-
DustyWusky
And it all adds up to RWAs needing to be forced or ordered into the military by some other authority, because, as in so many other areas, thinking for yourself is so dangerous.
It's known as Miracle, Mystery, & Authority.
Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor pretty much hit the nail on the head.
BTW, Fyodor Dostoevsky was this Russian dude who wrote some novels back in the 19th century, one of which was The Brothers Karamazov which has this real neat chapter about a Grand Inquisitor guy who believes that people can't govern themselves and need strong stern leadership that only Inquisitors can provide.
It's the sort of good meaty writing that the Inner Circle of Platonic Guardians can really sink its teeth into.
Because, after all...
You folks might want to consider, that unless you offer something better, authoritarianism is the only game in town.--Shooter 242, Saturday, April 7, 2007.
-
Response to Bebop
who asked (me, I'm assuming) 'Did you get a edunation at Berea College?'
No sir, I went to the University of Kentucky. I was poor enough also to attend, but I wanted to go to law school at the time & Berea did not have an undergraduate major that I thought would prepare me for law school (ended up not going to law school, though).
Haven't said so before, but I sure honor your service in Vietnam. Served with many people who were in it, none of them had a good time.
-
@Baldie McEagle
Finally, I'd have to ask scooter for the slightest evidence that liberals didn't sign up to go to Afghanistan in the narrow window between 9/11 and the abandonment of Afghanistan in late 2002.
What, that fact isn't truthy enough for you? The important thing is, it SOUNDS right. Instead of thinking with your head, you should be thinking with your gut!
For practice, first confuse Saudi Arabians and Iraqis, secondly confuse hippies (of which there are no more of) and all anti-war citizens, and finally, confuse terrorists with gays with Mexicans with libruls with non-neocon conservatives with drugs with Nazis with Massachusetts with everyone except you.
Damn libruls are objectively in league with islamofascists!
-
Pat Tillman
Just ask Scooter or Ann Coulter or George Bush or Rush Limbaugh what they think of Pat Tillman now, and you’ll realize how little these people actually care about soldiers or the realities of war.
Right after his death, Tillman was the poster boy of the War on Terror: a wealthy pro athlete who’d volunteered to go smoke Osama out of his hole in Afghanistan. Oh, and he’d died heroically in a firefight with the Taliban, or something. Coulter ranted on TV “Why aren’t we talking about Pat Tillman?” and Bush staged a funeral for his fallen hero while the Pentagon covered up the truth about his death. Bottom line: He was good PR at the time, truth be damned.
Fast forward a few years, after Tillman’s atheism and suspicion about the Iraq invasion’s legality surfaced, and his brother testified before Congress, and you scarcely hear anymore about Tillman. Bottom line: He was no longer good PR for the WoT, so he’s not a talking point anymore.