Martial Stupidity
Create Post
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    Cool Martial Stupidity

    Martial Stupidity
    By Christopher Orlet
    Published 10/20/2005 12:05:50 AM

    By far the most common and silliest debate about the war in Iraq is the old send-your-child-to-Iraq-or-shut-up sophism. This so-called line of reasoning maintains that a government only has the moral authority to commit troops to an armed conflict if its leaders first pack their own kids off to the front. No amount of common sense or intelligent rebuttal has silenced it.

    The obvious response is that an 18-year-old man or woman is an adult and can do whatever he or she damn well pleases. A parent -- even a pro-Bush, red-state congresswoman -- may encourage her daughters to join the Marines, but she may not drag Courtney and Morgan by the ponytail to the recruitment station without violating a long list of their civil rights. Equally a parent cannot prevent a son or daughter from enlisting, though he or she is as anti-war as a CCR record. These simple facts never seemed to occur to Michael Moore while making his Academy Award-winning documentary.

    That should end the discussion. But it hasn't. Not only must the offspring of administration hawks enlist -- as the left's argument goes -- but the commander-in-chief and his advisers must also be battle-tested.

    If progressives had their way the only persons with the moral authority (never mind the skill or expertise) to lead the Iraq conflict are those who have fought in the trenches of Babylon, Afghanistan, or Kuwait. And service in the Texas Air National Guard, or surviving the attacks on the Pentagon or Twin Towers on 9-11, doesn't count. Such a policy would likely exclude most of the current federal government. (Wouldn't Abu and Osama love that?) Imagine for a moment if, in December 1941, similar rules applied and only U.S. congressmen that had children in the military were allowed to vote on a declaration of war against the Empire of Japan. Liberals would probably have approved of this. After all, had such a policy been in place then Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been spared the A-bomb. And considering what purists liberals are about multiculturalism, they would probably relish the fact that the U.S. would now be steeped in Japanese imperial culture.


    FORTUNATELY, AMERICA'S FOUNDERS were not of the low-grade stuff of anti-war spokespersons Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, and Howard Dean. Military service was not only not considered a prerequisite, but the victory of backwoods Tennessee soldier Andrew Jackson over Harvard Law School graduate and diplomat John Quincy Adams is now seen as the beginning of anti-intellectualism in America, says historian Richard Hofstadter. Had there been some kind of asinine military service litmus test in place at the nation's founding, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Jay, George "Father of the Bill of Rights" Mason, and Thomas Paine would have been ineligible for government service (or in Paine's case his views ignored) since not one of them wore the uniform of the continental army, and not one of them had a child serve. (George Mason's son John, a bank president and foundry owner, was appointed brigadier general of the District of Columbia militia, a unit much like the contemporary National Guard, which as we know from George W. Bush's service in that branch, doesn't count.) Only Washington, Monroe, and Hamilton would have been eligible for office.

    Apparently, what liberals want is a military junta running the government. An executive and legislative branch made up of Pattons and McArthurs. Talk about living in "interesting times."

    But the left's idiotic ideas would go beyond mere policymakers. Not only must government officials and their offspring enlist, but civilians who support the war either have to sign up or shut up. Such bilge is not only uttered by useful idiots like Michael Moore. Recently the Washington Post's magazine browser Peter Carlson launched a similar attack against Weekly Standard editor William Kristol:

    Kristol's zeal for battle is truly inspiring. In fact, it inspired me to think: Maybe he should join the fight. He could emulate Theodore Roosevelt, who proved his zeal for the Spanish-American War by quitting his cushy desk job and organizing his own regiment to fight in Cuba. It was called the Rough Riders. Kristol's regiment could include other war-hawk opinion slingers in the Murdoch empire, guys like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. He could call it the Tough Talkers.



    And British MP George Galloway in a recent debate similarly attacked Christopher Hitchens. People like Hitchens, said Galloway, are content to fight to the last drop of other people's blood. Oh how he wished Hitch would put on a tin hat and go and fight. Then he wouldn't have to debate him. Hitchens, Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons put lots of young men in wheelchairs and morgues, said Galloway.

    That's the best the left can do. Suggesting that Bill Kristol form a tank brigade and fight insurgents on the streets of Baghdad. The left really is in danger of becoming a gross parody of its old self.

    When history's great military thinkers -- the Sun Tzus, the Clauswitzes, the Jominis and Napoleons -- created military strategy, they did not deem it necessary to waste time on whether the adult children of government leaders joined the armed forces. They knew that such distractions divide the country and take our eye off the real target. It simply is not an issue when battling Taliban forces or Saddam's Republican Guard. It is a shallow partisan political ploy and thus has no bearing on military strategy.

    It didn't take a president who could fight like William Henry Harrison or Ulysses S. Grant to defeat the USSR and win the Cold War. Civilians like Lech Walesa, Karol Wojtyla, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan did rather nicely. Perhaps that is the left's real grudge.

    Here's a basic civics lesson for the Left: when the U.S. Congress votes to commit troops, it is speaking for the nation as a whole, malcontents too, and not just those that happen to agree with the outcome. The American people voted through their representatives to take out Saddam Hussein. It is not the pro-war Americans that are being hypocritical. That description goes -- in George Will's words -- to the Americans who think "the world is too good for America."

    Christopher Orlet is a frequent contributor and runs the Existential Journalist website.

    Ellie


  2. #2
    This may sound indifferent. I will welcome any and all other opinions as well. But in all seriousness doesn't it seem funny that Civilians that never served and has had no-one in thier family, that is close to them, serve mostly run the military? I Feel that if these "War Gurus" had some-one's life over there in the trenches that they knew and loved that they would rethink alot of these bogus ideas that they have. If they had the life of thier son or daughter on the line, and every decision they make would either put them in the face of danger or keep them at a safe distance, that more than half of thier "Brain Schemes" or "Paper Ideas" would be better looked at and better thought about than just to rush it to the front and send thousands of Americans to face unknown odds.

    I will also look at the age group...18...well from I know they are allowed to die for thier conutry but not allowed to go to a bar and order a beer. They are allowed to enlist...but not allowed to live as they choose by direction of the LAWS, since most 18 year olds have partying on thier minds.

    SO the question may have to be changed to " Who do you really want to run the Governement? A group that has no idea what it is like to fight in a War or one that has and and will make the USA into a Military run super power with every-one eligible forced to enlist "? Except maybe thier own because they can afford to pay the Money to keep them from the front lines.


  3. #3
    I still think, and always will, that if someone does not serve, they should have to do 2 years in some type of a "America Service", to do nothing to make their country better, and just sit on their arse and scream and protest how everything we do as a nation is wrong I am sick of hearing it. These people have no concept that freedom demands a price, and its been paid for by Americans who understand this responsibility, as I see it, all these protesting "Americans" do is tell us how wrong we are, its about time they show us HOW, we have been listening to why for over 40 years now, you would think they would have done something better than make a few signs, smoke some dope, and stand in front of a mic and tell us how bad America is.

    The best or worst part is none of these we love America more protesters move to a "Better Country", I guess there is NO better country or they would be there showing us how its done.


  4. #4
    I will also look at the age group...18...well from I know they are allowed to die for thier conutry but not allowed to go to a bar and order a beer. They are allowed to enlist...but not allowed to live as they choose by direction of the LAWS, since most 18 year olds have partying on thier minds
    Here's a counter to that argument; you can't even begin to compare the number of "18 year olds" who have died in this war with the number killed drinking and driving! And yes, they might die in a war, but at least they were given training to avoid that. Who trains them to avoid drinking and driving? Their buddies? Yeah, we see daily how stupid they are, simply look at some of the stuff they do on CollegeHumor.com and other websites like that.
    No, I can't buy that argument. At least they have the right to vote and can exercise that right to ensure that the right candidate who won't take them to war is elected. But don't compare being able to drink at 18 with dying for your country. You can die at any age!


  5. #5
    Nagalfor. This is one time that I agree with you. Having served in the Marines with two tours in Vietnam and two sons that are serving at this time. One in the Navy and one in The Marines.


  6. #6
    Sparta! The Greek City State of Sparta was the most military minded of all the Greek City States. Their young men were placed into companies of Spartan Soldiers at a very early age, and they were trained as military all of their lives.

    It was the Story of the Three Hundred Spartans that spurred the thought of great heroics in battle to many of us. When I was a boy, I read the chronicles of the Battle against the Persians, whereby the 300 Spartan Warriors and a contingent of Thebans Soldiers and other Greeks held the line in that tiny pass against the Million Man Army of Persia, and they defeated the most powerful unit of the Persian Army, the Invisibles, in hand to hand combat. They used every trick in their bag of tricks to hold the line, and in the end treachery killed them all, but it gave the Greek City States time to prepare for the on-coming Army, which was eventually defeated by the Alliance of the City States and the use of a Naval Force.

    The Spartans thought later about Empire, and were eventually, in and around the year 300 BC, defeated by the alliance of Greek City States, Athens chief among them, a center of Democracy and culture.

    As boring an introduction as this may have been, History gives us many reasons why just military power is not enough to win battles and wars. Truthfully, I think we are lucky in the United States of America. We have conditioned our Armed Forces to obey the orders of the Civilian Representatives of our government, sometimes to our detriment, but often, even in spite of them, to our good well being.

    Let us look at some of our leaders from our History.

    President Lincoln was a Company Commander of Militia in the war with the Blackhawk Indians, and in truth, lost his only battle with the Indians he ever fought, yet he lead us through the most deadly war in American History. More Americans were lost in the Civil War than was lost in all of WWII.

    President Woodrow Wilson was a College Professor that tried to keep us out of War, yet he was President during the battles of WWI without ever serving a day in the military. Might I add that Wilson was also the President while the Marines were in Central American, Haiti, the Philippines, and the Dominican Republic?

    President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was never a soldier, and he led us through WWII.

    Now, let us consider some of the later Presidents that were in war or had military experience. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Truman, Eisenhower, and Bush (41 & 43), what can be said about their presidencies when it came to war? Did they rule any better, because of their military experience?

    The military's close ranks way of thinking has not done well over the years. The Billy Mitchell Court Marshall, The USS Iowa incident, the Smedley Butler incident, The USS Indianapolis incident, the attack on Peal Harbor, the Defense of Korea when the Chinese Army Attacked, the first days of the Battle of the Bulge, the inept leadership of the Vietnam War by Westmoreland and other Army Officers, the barracks in Lebanon, the Iran Hostage Mission, Lt Calley, and others to make my point. The military tried to bury certain incidents, but to paraphrase another line made famous by General George Patten when speaking of the taking of man made defenses, when we talk of the military trying to bury things, it would have to be, "What one man can bury, another man may dig up!"

    I have no problem with the Civilian Leadership of our Military only with some of the leaders we have had in the past. We have always been lead by civilians without military experience! I would have it no other way! That is the Constitution!

    If you ever get a chance, read the story of Colin Campbell Clyde, Baron (1792-1863), an emplyee clerk of the British East India Company, who eventually became known as 'Clyde of India'. He conquered all of India with a force of 5,000 men, and his military training was next to nothing.


  7. #7
    I have to agree with Nagalfar about the 2 year service. But Carey has also been doing his research. My hats off to Carey for his History info. If Mastergunz's only complaint is using the drinking age and comparing it to being able to die for the country then fine. But I feel, unless you forget at one time the drinking was 18 mainly because it was nationally felt that, if you can serve your country then you should be able to drink alcohol. Voting is fine as long as it doesn't go as this last election of whom did what and when.


  8. #8
    Don't get me wrong, I agree with Nagalfar about the service to country, but as I have said before on these very threads, it does not necessarily have to be military service, but rather para-military in nature, meaning some form of military structure and discipline, something like the CCCs of the Depression Days.

    There should still be a choice as to whether or not the youths would be sent into a bigger military, but not necessarily for a two year hitch, more of two year hitch with a Two Year Active Reserve commitment, followed by a Two year Inactive Reserve, and unless voluntary, or a National Emergency, these should be kept as a Professional Home Guard, subject to Military Laws.

    As for the CCC type of outfit, three years sounds about right, with a subject to call by the Military in National Emergency, and an Active Reserve Conservation Corps for Three Years (Raod Building, cataclysmic catastrophe, Forest Fires, Repair of Dams and National Infrastructure, etc) These people should work in conjunction with the US Department of Health, US Department of Interior, The Interstate Commerce Commission, and other such agencies.

    As far as 18 year olds drinking, that should be a state issue, and it was until the Congress flexed its muscle and threatened to remove funds from the state allocation of highway funds if the individual states that saw fit to allow 18 year olds the privilege did not raise their age limits. The states complied with the directive!


  9. #9

    Thumbs up

    Dear JosephPCarey. I agree with most of what you are saying. The CCCs are a very good idea. I know what they did here in Utah. I do not agree with the Forest Fires. I have been on more than my share of them here in Utah.It's dangerus as hell at times. SF


  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ggyoung
    Dear JosephPCarey. I agree with most of what you are saying. The CCCs are a very good idea. I know what they did here in Utah. I do not agree with the Forest Fires. I have been on more than my share of them here in Utah.It's dangerus as hell at times. SF
    As it is well kinown, we are no strangers to Forest Fires in Arizona as well, but with training, a selected group of these youths could be trained for such activities. Right now we have part times for the most part as smoke eaters. The Smoke Eaters are great people and fearless beyond words, but there just are not that many of them because of the part-time nature of the job. A group like this may very well supplement their ranks, and give added protection for the country. If the kids do not want to fight the enemies to the country, maybe they can fight enemies of our forests.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not Create Posts
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts