Michelle Malkin tells the tale of an Army Second Lieutenant, Mark Daily, who posted to his blog explaining his decision to join the Army. It is a sober, intelligent precis written by a genuine American Hero, a thinking man's soldier.
Mark Daily was 23. He was killed by an IED in Iraq. R. I. P, Lieutenant. You have given more to this country than millions of naysaying chickenhawks and certainly me who may be a chickenhawk, but at least realizes it enough to praise those who aren't. Thank you.
"I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions."
No doubt, to the liberal assholes, this is another idiot who threw his life away in service of this shitty country of ours. < /sarcasm > < / bitterness >
7 comments:
No, he was a noble, idealistic young man, who was unfortunately used in a war that is not very noble. It is very sad, and makes me think of my 19 year old cousin who is leaving in a few days for Iraq. He went and joined the army on the spur of the moment one day after he went to work with his dad and didn't like it. He is so young and knows so little of the rest of the world. I pray that he survives to learn a bit more about it.
A "noble" war? There is no such thing. Ask anyone who's ever fought in one, they'll tell you. And the fact you think he was "used," like he was some kind of a puppet is precisely what pisses off the soldiers. I know it would piss me off something awful!
Our people fighting in Iraq, the ones who re-up, the ones who join the Army like your cousin, out of their own freewill, they're most CERTAINLY NOT brain-dead puppets to be used like so much Kleenex, they're thinking men and women, like it or not, whether their decisions makes sense to your academic brain or not.
Fred, you are right. There are no noble wars. I chose that way of saying it because I didn't want to disrespect the soldier who died, who I do respect.
Neither do I want to imply that the soldiers are stupid, don't know what they are doing, or are brain-dead puppets. There are plenty of narratives by soldiers both for and against the war who prove that to be false.
However, I don't know how you can argue that the soldiers are not "used." Isn't that what they sign up to do? To follow orders and carry out the mission they are given by their higher-ups? My little cousin in Louisiana signed up on the spur of the moment when he was angry with his father. There was no waiting period. But then, his mother who signed the paper-work for him because he was seventeen at the time, thought it was a good way for him to make something of himself--not expecting that he might go to college. After all, she didn't, her husband didn't. His father didn't.
And perhaps it is a way to make something of himself, if he survives it. It gives him the chance to travel, to see the world, and to become less self-centred--although when I said maybe he could learn Arabic, he said that the military had special forces to do that. That wasn't part of what he signed up to do.
The military also gave him a $1000 bonus when he convinced his older brother to sign up.
On the one hand, he did it; he's responsible for his own actions. On the other hand, in my mind, at least, the military does seem to prey on underprivileged small town country boys who don't think they have a lot of other opportunities. Get $1000 to get your friend or your brother to sign up and risk them getting killed too.... Is he being "used"? Certainly. He voluntarily signed up to go to Iraq sooner so he could get more pay and get out sooner. He chose to do it, but once you are in that system, you have a limited number of choices. You choose to go to Iraq immediately, risk death to get paid more, and hopefully get out sooner; or you drag it out until you are forced to go and risk the same things. At least volunteering to go earlier might get you out faster.
Neither does the army seem to foster an attitude of respect for the inhabitants of the country they invade. I kept silent about what I thought about Iraq, out of respect for him. But when he said "I think we should just nuke 'em," when my foster sister who is half Iraqi/half-Nigerian was sitting right there, I had to speak up. "You can't say things like that," I said. He looked shocked, as if he had never heard anyone challenge the "nuke-worthiness" of Iraq before. So, we got into a little argument. But I couldn't let my desire to not hurt his feelings let him say something that awful and ignorant, especially when my sister was sitting right there. And, if the U.S. is going to invade a country, then the least they can do is try to instill a sense of respect along with a sense of mission.
Don't get me wrong, I support him and I respect the other soldiers. But I am frustrated that he and so many young ignorant boys and girls like him (I'm not saying all of them are ignorant, but plenty of them are--ie. Abu Graib) have been sent into a war that was made so precipitously, against the advice of the UN, with little knowledge or understanding of what they were getting into, and which, as predicted by "snooty academics," has become a disaster for both American and Iraq.
I don't know the answers. But having lived under a military dictatorship as have you, I wonder: what would be better, to live under that dictatorship, as brutal and horrible as it was, or to live in a state of civil war under a foreign occupation, with absolutely no idea whether you might be blown up by a terrorist bomb when you step out of your door each morning? I honestly don't know.... but I suspect I'd go with the former.
No, I'm not saying that the U.S. is blowing up the majority of the innocent people getting blown up. The terrorists are doing that. However, the state that Iraq is currently in has much to do with the poor decision-making and planning of those who invaded Iraq.
So, are the soldiers being used? Yes, they are. That is what they signed up for. And it doesn't matter what they think once they sign up, because they either do it or they get court martialed. So, if you are going to be in the army, maybe it's best to think your purpose is noble. Probably so.
Well, C, if you want to debate semantics, sure, soldiers are "used", but in the common parlance of our times, I'm sure you can see how I take umbrage at the term. It's not particularly flattering that the first word to mind is "used" when referring to a soldier.
As for the United Nations ... don't get me started. I would do the exact opposite of everything those corrupt bastards advised! These are the people whose peacekeepers engage in widespread rape, corruption on a monumental scale, incompetence, oil-for-food scandal, Human Rights abusers with chairs on UN Human Rights councils, etc., etc. But, really, what can you expect from that Tower of Babel? They've fucked up everything they've ever touched. Take a close look at their history, they're toothless bulldogs staffed by pampered diplomats. They're useless WOMBATs (Waste of Money, Brains, and Time).
Why not nuke Iraq? We did it to Japan and now they're our allies! :-) Just kidding, but not by much.
American education, you and I know, is sorely lacking. By that age, there should have been enough years of a proper education that a 17-year-old would have the mental faculties to logically assess a situation and make the proper, reasoned decision. Remember, some of the people who flew bombers in WWII were 21-year-olds. Different time though.
I agree, I don't think 17-year-olds should be running off to join the Army. By 18 of course, they can do what they want, but there's a reason why a 17-year-old requires their parent's conscent.
But I take your point, in general. However, let's not make the mistake of thinking these soldiers are just mounds of so much cannon fodder. A lot of them made the decision to join the military after a lot of careful thought. My brother is one of those--Army Reserve.
By the way, when you say you don't think the Americans respect the country they've invaded, I don't think you realise that in the entire history of human warfare, there has never been a conflict as focused on preventing the loss of human life as the Americans have in this one.
Never. Period. Full stop. Chikena, as the Hausas say. The technology has made this all possible, of course, but think about it: WWI, millions of civilians died, WWI, Korea, Vietnam. Even worse when the countries involved aren't the US: look to any conflict in Africa in the last hundred years. In all these, the civilian population isn't even a blip on the radar!
In Iraq, there were orders not to enter Mosques, there were bomb detonations that brought down only ONE building instead of levelling city blocks like normal. Strict operational orders are in place to ensure only combatants get shot at, and then, only after positive identification. No other country has hitherto done this in a full-scale war, only the US. It's like fighting with two-hands tied.
I'd call that respect, wouldn't you?
Fred, I realize that not everyone enters the army as precipitously as many kids do. My sister, for example, has thought about joining the Airforce to pay for Medical School. I totally disagree with her and she knows as much, but I also understand her point that life under a huge amount of debt is a kind of slavery, just as being in the military is a kind of slavery. If she makes that decision I will try to be supportive. I hope she doesn't.
Other points also taken, although not necessarily agreed with. For example, I would not throw out the UN so quickly.Of course an organizational structure that big is going to have a lot of problems, and of course they have, and those need to be dealt with, but there needs to be some sort of forum for global diplomacy, and I haven't seen any better options. But I don't have time to keep arguing, since I need to get back to my thesis. Shi ke nan...
Have a nice evening.
I've got news for you, C: life is a kind of slavery! It's all about obligations, and weighing choices.
It used to be, in this country, that military service was viewed as public service. One was doing one's part. Now, for some reason, and mainly on the Left and amongst the so-called intelligentsia, it is now reviled. Why? Were it not for the military, the United States wouldn't even exist!
Amazing turn of events.
The UN is the ultimate example of Benjamin Franklin's (was it BF?) aphorism about gathering people also gathers their prejudices. Many of the member countries can hardly take care of their own internal problems, yet, there they are, in full pomp and pegeantry, members of the UN, telling the United States how it should act. Sure, pipsqueaks, look to the mote in thine own eyes.
It's amazing they can even choose what time to meet in the mornings! A right Tower of Babel. Hate, hate the UN.
Post a Comment