My last post linked to Michelle Malkin's story of Second Lieutenant Daily and his blog entry about deciding to join the Military. I called him a hero because he is, I prefer to reserve that appellation for those who are indeed heroes, not some guy who got out of bed and brushed his teeth, say.
In reply to a comment on that post, I said there was no such thing as a noble war and that got me thinking if I really believed that. I do. There is no such thing as a noble war. War is hell, period.
There is nothing noble about blowing people up, shooting at and killing another man, packing your entrails back into your body or helping your fellow soldier do the same or carrying around one's own blown-off arm. Even less noble is collateral damage to the civilians, those non-combatants caught in the cross-fire.
My father-in-law, one of the toughest men I know, fought in Vietnam as a sniper with the 4th Marines. He told me no man who has ever fought in war wants to repeat it. It's a dirty, grimy, sordid business and should be the last resort everytime and then, only for very, very good reasons.
And that's the key: reasons. There are no noble wars. There are wars fought for noble reasons by noble (and sometimes ignoble) people. There are too few of these, of course; humanity is not, by default, noble. We are barbaric savages, clean shaven, perfumed, dressed or not. All of us! War, in fact, is the default mode of life on earth.
The war in Iraq, whether one likes it or despises it, is being fought for stated reasons that are noble: getting rid of an animal like Saddam Hussein is, and always will be a good reason to fight. Always. Liberating people from the grip of tyranny is always a good reason to fight and yea, die.
The way the war has been fought leaves much to be desired, but that should not distract from the nobility of the reason for fighting it nor should it stop us from continuing and suitably ending it. Once you are committed to a line of action, complete that action with as much violence and force as possible. This will, paradoxically, save lives.
To reduce this to the microcosm of one man: if faced with a situation in which it becomes necessary to defend myself and my family with deadly force; if when it is necessary to take a person's life in order to save mine or my family's, I will not hesitate. I will use every resource available, every ounce of breath, of strength and with as much violence as possible to stop any further threat.
Then, I will make every effort to save the life of the person I just stopped.
2 comments:
I agree mostly with you here, except with the last little bit. 1) If someone states a reason to fight a war that is noble, but hops into the war without doing suitable research, this is foolhardy. 2)If the the war is hopped into without suitable research, and it turns out that the purported reason for going into the war is wrong, and when the original "noble" purpose of the war is then used to browbeat anyone who disagrees with the war as an ignoble and unpatriotic person, then there is a serious problem.
As for suitably ending the war. I don't pretend to know how that will be done, and I'm glad I'm not in the position to have to make that decision. I'm not one of those that says withdraw the troops, right now, without any further ado. I know it isn't that simple. But, I also wonder if it isn't a bit simple to say we'll stay until we finish. What if it doesn't ever finish? Look at what happened in Vietnam....
C, in many instances, it is not possible to perform "research" before starting a war. One does not, for example, conduct "research," perhaps by committee before starting to defend yourself against a knife attack. Many times, it's instinctual reaction, one is reacting to stop a threat.
Post a Comment