thedrifter
04-11-06, 12:32 PM
Troops deserve respect and praise
by Editor Red & Black
Published , April 11, 2006, 06:00:01 AM EDT
The ability to disagree with and even attack the policies of a president and administration during a time of war may be one of the most valuable rights any American possesses. However, it is dangerous, arrogant, irresponsible and ignorant to direct any of that disagreement on to the troops involved in that conflict.
But in this space April 4, senior philosophy major Chris Breault had the audacity to do just that in one of the most ill-conceived, indefensible arguments I have had the displeasure of reading in this newspaper. I feel compelled to correct the fallacies of his opinion.
First, Breault’s blindly selfish assessment that the U.S. military derives its value only when ensuring American security ignores the last 20 years of U.S. military history. In Panama in 1989, Somalia in 1993 and Haiti in 1994, American forces intervened in order to remove violent dictators with documented histories of murder, kidnapping, intimidation and torture — not to defend America.
Throughout the 1990s American and NATO troops intervened in Kosovo, bringing an end to the ethnic cleansing and civil strife that racked the former Yugoslavia. In all of these cases it was American troops that made humanitarian assistance and an end to the killing possible.
Breault also stated that Saddam Hussein was not an “imminent” threat when American forces invaded Iraq. However, the average college philosophy major is far from qualified to make that declaration. The invasion was consistent with recent past uses of the military. American troops overthrew a violent dictator with a documented history of torture, mass executions with chemical weapons, suppression of religious freedom and free speech, kidnapping, coercion and intimidation.
Additionally, Breault’s statement that American inability to bring security to Iraq “spells incompetence with a capital ‘I’ ” belies a complete disconnect with reality. Stating that the American military is incompetent is akin to stating Evander Holyfield can’t box. The last time I checked, the U.S. was reigning world champion.
As a veteran of combat in Afghanistan and as a scout platoon leader in the Georgia National Guard, I can assure you our military was never built to occupy another country, but rather to destroy another capable military force. The tactics employed in Iraq and Afghanistan are designed to limit loss of life.
Have no doubt that if we ceased to follow the principles and values that define us as Americans and used tactics more similar to those employed by Saddam himself, the security situation in Iraq could be well in hand.
There is a valid argument that the invasion and subsequent exit strategy were poorly planned. Many argue we needed more troops, money and support before entering Iraq. I am not qualified to pass judgment on those decisions, but if they were wrong the fault lies with the administration — not with the soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors putting their lives on the line right now.
It is easy to make broad generalizations about past conflicts, as Breault did, but it is impossible to predict the future ramifications of the present situation. There are some things, however, I am very certain of.
American troops have handed out food to millions of starving people in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have established fledgling democracies in two countries and have built countless schools. Our troops made it possible for free speech and equality for women to take hold in countries that never experienced these rights before, and military doctors have healed thousands, if not millions, of children in both countries.
If these accomplishments are not worthy of respect and praise, I am interested to know what is.
Our soldiers deserve our respect and appreciation not only for these actions, but because they volunteered to do things the majority of Americans will not do. They are underpaid, suffer long separations from families and friends and endure extreme hardships on a regular basis. And they do it because they believe in this country, in their cause and in the man or woman to their left or right.
Because these soldiers are involved in a conflict with which you personally disagree does not negate the good they have accomplished. Breault’s backdoor logic and vague attempt to connect the soldiers of Nazi Germany with American troops today should not only be offensive to every American who values his or her freedoms, but is a disgusting affront to the bloody sacrifices made everyday by American men and women around the world.
— Dave Marck is a University alumnus and an Athens resident.
Ellie
by Editor Red & Black
Published , April 11, 2006, 06:00:01 AM EDT
The ability to disagree with and even attack the policies of a president and administration during a time of war may be one of the most valuable rights any American possesses. However, it is dangerous, arrogant, irresponsible and ignorant to direct any of that disagreement on to the troops involved in that conflict.
But in this space April 4, senior philosophy major Chris Breault had the audacity to do just that in one of the most ill-conceived, indefensible arguments I have had the displeasure of reading in this newspaper. I feel compelled to correct the fallacies of his opinion.
First, Breault’s blindly selfish assessment that the U.S. military derives its value only when ensuring American security ignores the last 20 years of U.S. military history. In Panama in 1989, Somalia in 1993 and Haiti in 1994, American forces intervened in order to remove violent dictators with documented histories of murder, kidnapping, intimidation and torture — not to defend America.
Throughout the 1990s American and NATO troops intervened in Kosovo, bringing an end to the ethnic cleansing and civil strife that racked the former Yugoslavia. In all of these cases it was American troops that made humanitarian assistance and an end to the killing possible.
Breault also stated that Saddam Hussein was not an “imminent” threat when American forces invaded Iraq. However, the average college philosophy major is far from qualified to make that declaration. The invasion was consistent with recent past uses of the military. American troops overthrew a violent dictator with a documented history of torture, mass executions with chemical weapons, suppression of religious freedom and free speech, kidnapping, coercion and intimidation.
Additionally, Breault’s statement that American inability to bring security to Iraq “spells incompetence with a capital ‘I’ ” belies a complete disconnect with reality. Stating that the American military is incompetent is akin to stating Evander Holyfield can’t box. The last time I checked, the U.S. was reigning world champion.
As a veteran of combat in Afghanistan and as a scout platoon leader in the Georgia National Guard, I can assure you our military was never built to occupy another country, but rather to destroy another capable military force. The tactics employed in Iraq and Afghanistan are designed to limit loss of life.
Have no doubt that if we ceased to follow the principles and values that define us as Americans and used tactics more similar to those employed by Saddam himself, the security situation in Iraq could be well in hand.
There is a valid argument that the invasion and subsequent exit strategy were poorly planned. Many argue we needed more troops, money and support before entering Iraq. I am not qualified to pass judgment on those decisions, but if they were wrong the fault lies with the administration — not with the soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors putting their lives on the line right now.
It is easy to make broad generalizations about past conflicts, as Breault did, but it is impossible to predict the future ramifications of the present situation. There are some things, however, I am very certain of.
American troops have handed out food to millions of starving people in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have established fledgling democracies in two countries and have built countless schools. Our troops made it possible for free speech and equality for women to take hold in countries that never experienced these rights before, and military doctors have healed thousands, if not millions, of children in both countries.
If these accomplishments are not worthy of respect and praise, I am interested to know what is.
Our soldiers deserve our respect and appreciation not only for these actions, but because they volunteered to do things the majority of Americans will not do. They are underpaid, suffer long separations from families and friends and endure extreme hardships on a regular basis. And they do it because they believe in this country, in their cause and in the man or woman to their left or right.
Because these soldiers are involved in a conflict with which you personally disagree does not negate the good they have accomplished. Breault’s backdoor logic and vague attempt to connect the soldiers of Nazi Germany with American troops today should not only be offensive to every American who values his or her freedoms, but is a disgusting affront to the bloody sacrifices made everyday by American men and women around the world.
— Dave Marck is a University alumnus and an Athens resident.
Ellie