All Enemies Foreign and Domestic
Wounded soldiers arriving at Walter Reed Hospital are met with anti-war protesters carrying signs that say things like "Maimed For Lies" and "Enlist Here and Die for Halliburton". At one point the protestors placed flag draped coffins along the sidewalk leading into the hospital.
I expect we will see more of this kind of thing. You cannot protest the war in Iraq without in some way targeting the soldiers. They are the ones fighting it. And perhaps the Walter Reed tactic is at least an honest one. It shows the anti-war protestors for who they really are.
It's pointless to maintain the pretense of support for the troops when you actively advocate their failure. So why not harass and pester wounded soldiers if you are an anti-war protestor?
posted by Presley Bennett @ 8/27/2005
9 comments
9 Comments:
Indeed. Difference of opinion is one thing, but the "anti" crowd is becoming increasingly strident in their rhetoric and methods. I remember what VietNam vets had to endure and I fear that history is repeating itself.
Can overt violence be far behind?
I hope so, Dale. I truly hope so.
But the media does love a good riot, so there's always the possibility they'll stir one up.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
was a liberal/Democrat who supported the war in Vietnam. Believe it or not there were such things back then. As a matter of fact, most of the people who are called neo-cons today started as Democrats. They left the party when it went soft on national security.
I guess it's more accurate to say that I support any war that involves American soldiers. I want them to win, win big and decisively. Win and come home. I don't care who they are fighting or why.
I just want them to win with as little loss of life to our side as possible. And it seems to me that the best way for that to happen is if everyone here at home supports them 100% in their mission
I find the argument that one can support the troops and not support the mission somewhat murky. As we saw in Vietnam, and are beginning to see in Iraq, constant carping about the overall mission tends to erode support at home thus politicizing the situation. In the VietNam era, the North Vietnamese clearly capitalized upon the politicization process, going so far as to coordinate with anti-war groups in the US specifically for the purpose of eroding public support. History showed that it worked.
The very same template is at work now during the Iraq war and it is very disturbing. The point is that those troops that are in harm's way MUST feel that what they are doing is worthwhile and they MUST feel that they have the support of the people back home. They aren't robots, "following orders", they are living, brathing people with emotions. The reason that we have done so well up to this point (and we have, despite the negative coverage) is because they BELIEVE in what they are doing. Support of their countrymen is the thing that keeps them going. Reenlistments among combat veterans are exceeding quotas, does this not speak volumes about their morale and their belief in the mission?
Also, the Iraqis that are assisting us and themselves MUST have faith that we are going to follow through. They read the news and they are following the mood in the US and, make no mistake, they know the history of VietNam as well, if not better than many Americans. They are staking their very lives on the fact that we will finish the job. When we left Southeast Asia, the resulting vacuum resulted in literally millions of deaths-2 million in Cambodia alone. If we "cut and run" in Iraq, those who have been working toward a democracy, with our help, will suffer a similar, if not worse, fate.
It really isn't more complex than winning. Bin Laden launched his attack BECAUSE he knew the history of VietNam, BECAUSE he saw us cut and run in Somalia. He determined that we did not have the stomach to start the job, much less finish it. For months now, the despots in the region have been watching the events in Iraq and have become very nervous indeed because a democracy in Iraq will set an example that will spread across the region. Make no mistake-this is the point of the exercise.
For us to willingly fail in this endeavor will expose us as the "paper tiger" that bin Laden said we were and he and his ilk will be emboldend beyond belief.
The time for philosophical wrangling abot our reasons for being there are over. All that matters now is that we win, for failure to do so will bring on a future more terrible that you can imagine.
Crys, please look closely at Mr. Wroblewski's words.
First, he said that he does not believe that Bush mislead Americans about the reasons for the war. He then says "We're not for war. I don't think anybody is ..."
I'm not "for war" either. Sometimes though, you simply have no choice and I believe that this is one of thse times. No one like war, lest of all professional soldiers. Profesional soldiers don't relish war any more than professional firefighters relish a 4 alarm blaze. They train for situations that they pray will never arise, but when it does they must be prepared to end it as quickly and withn the least amount of human loss possible.
Crys, we may disagree on whether we should even be in Iraq. The fact is that we are there and to walk away would be catastophic. I believe with every fiber of my being that we can win this thing and, in doing so, we have a chance to change the world for the better. I also believe that premature withdrawl of any kind would send a message to the monsters who bomb children and behead civilians that we simply do not have the will to defeat them. It would signal our surrender. That is what I mean when I say that support of the troops and support of their effort is indistinguishable. WE must win this thing, not just our troops, but WE as a nation.
Thanks
This thing is getting way more involved than I originally intended, but you wrote a vey thoughtful reply and I feel as though I owe you no less.
As to the analogy of firefighters and soldiers, I won't belabor this but I simply do not see the day when global peace will be achieved, there are simply too many people ou there who will not allow that to happen. I'm not a cynic, simply a realist. And yes, innocents are always killed in wars, far fewer than in wars past, but I'm afraid it is a grim inevitability. Understand, though, the enemy we currently face employs the killing of innocents as their primary strategy. More often than not, WE put our own troops at risk in a painstaking effort to avoid the killing of innocents. As long as there are militaries in the world, it is imperative that we remain at the top of the food chain and we have to be able, and willing to do whatever it takes to stay there. Yes, I know that sounds brutal, but it's a brutal world. Weakness invites attack and THAT'S what starts wars. Sure, we should strive for peace with everything we have, but peace should not be confused with not fighting - that's not peace, it's surrender.
You say that "there are other options, always". No, sometimes there are no other options, least of all in Iraq.
As for "starting" the Iraq war, Saddam was given every possible opprtunity, just as he was in '91, to avert it. He was given ultimatum after ultimatum, not by us, but by the UN. He chose to ignore all of them. He regularly violated the "no fly zone", he was warned time and time again. He bought off many of our "allies" in the Oil For Food scam, gambling that the US and Great Britain would not stand up to him alone. He lost the gamble.
As for the administration's "future plans for war." What happens when Iran has completed their contruction of nuclear weapons? A radical Islamic nuclear state is close to becoming a grim reality, a state openly hostle to the US, a state that would not, and does not hesitate in assisting al Qaeda or any number of other terrorist organizations. These people cheered in the street when the Trade Center came down, a mushroom cloud in a major American City would give them a collective orgasm. The stuff of fiction, you say? That's what most people thought of an attack such as 9/11 on 9/10. Am I advocating invasion of Iran next, or Syria? Well, not necessarily, but we should not dismiss it out of hand either. I do think that if we find that there are terrorist camps in Iran or Syria, we should not hesitate in eliminating them unilaterally, with or without permission of the host countries.
As for my VietNam analogy, the "template" of which I wrote was not referring to the war itself, but rather the anti-war movement's methods of opposing it. I stand by that. Same tactics, even the same cast of worn-out characters at times. Perhaps I did not make myself clear on that point.
As for bin Laden's reasons for 9/11, one of Bin Laden's main motivations for the attack on 9/11 was to draw us into a war in Afghanistan. He had, in fact, already clearly stated that al Qaeda has declaired war on the US. His gripe with us stems from the fact that there were US soldiers in Saudi Arabia, defending it from Iraq. He wanted his Mujahadeen army to do that job, but the Saudis chose the US. This is the reason al Qaeda is also attacking Saudi Arabia.
The Mujahadeen had already bloodied the nose of the Soviet Union there and he figured that he could do the same to the US. The lessons that he took from VietNam, but particularly Somalia was that the US could not stomach casualties. His plan was to draw the US into a war in Afghanistan and inflict enough casualtes that we would withdraw, thus proving us to be the "weak horse" that he purported us to be. The result would be to show himself to be the "strong horse" and the man who defeated not only the Soviet Union, but the United States as well.
In closing, when faced with those who are bent on your destruction, one simply has no other option other than war. The Islamists who attacked us on 9/11 and who are still fighting us in Iraq do not want peace, they want our destruction. There is no appeasement possible. The Arabs do not want peace with Israel, they want their destruction. There is no appeasement possible. Don't take my word for it, take theirs. They continually state this fact in very clear language. I'm glad you state that we should not withdrawl from Iraq until the job is complete and I agree. Where we differ, however, may be the extent of the problem we face. I do not beleve the price of peace should be fear of those who have vowed our destruction.
I want us to win because the men and women who fight are my brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, neighbors, friends, co-workers, classmates. They fight and die for me.
Saije,
Yeah, bottom line, that's it. I envy your economy of words. As Al Davis used to say "just win baby".
Post a Comment
<< Home