Rooting For The Soldiers In A Bad War
How many times have we heard the notion that being against the war is being against the troops. Failure to show solidarity to the war effort -- even an illigitimate one -- destroys troop morale and effectively hurts the very people we claim we are supporting.
Rubbish.
Time Magazine has an article on the politicizing of exactly this subject. Senators Lieberman and McCain are the antagonists in the article. Lieberman particularly comes out looking rotten. Any self-respecting Nutmegger could have told you that (most Nutmeggers are self-respecting -- he didn't win the majority, despite winning the election).
Politics aside, it is crucial that we as Americans show solidarity and support for the men and women of the armed forces. To me, any less is unjustified.
The veterans of Vietnam were treated awfully by their fellow citizens. What happened then was shameful. I hope that we as semi-intelligent human beings have learned a great lesson.
But that has nothing to do with seeking out alternative solutions to this crisis. Being against the notion that sending more and more troops will help doesn't hurt morale. True, I am not a veteran, but the fact is neither is Joe Lieberman.
Senator McCain is a veteran, yes. He also suffered greatly as a prisoner of war. Surely, his views would be at least partially guided by those awful experiences. Still, if the anti-war demonstrations at home were so demoralizing to the soldiers, why would there still be Medal of Honor recipients during that time?
I asked a veteran -- my father -- if it affected morale. He said that, while he fought in 1965 rather than 1968 when anti-war feelings were at its climax, it didn't affect him. "The truth is, you fight for each other."
Insinuating that vocalizing an opinion that differs from that of the Bush Administration (something that Lieberman and McCain appear unable to do) is somehow hurting American troops -- and therefore hurting America -- is in itself un-American. It goes against the very foundation of our great nation -- that we are entitled to (no, expected to) voice our opinions. The fact that some in positions of power cannot admit failure should not sway our resolve to try to do what is right -- for American and for our soldiers.
I leave you with this about morale. It comes from a very dear friend of mine about his wife's cousin:
"(He) was just awarded commendation with valor for his actions in Afghanistan. He was working the turret gun on top of a humvee in the midst of a battle with the Taliban. He had to reload 6 times over an hour while they awaited air support- all the time with bullets flying around him. After all was said and done, when they inspected the area there were bullet holes all around the area where he was positioned. He was fortunate. He took out several Taliban as well as one on the top 20 list."
What is demoralizing is that this hero was forced to pay $20 for the honor that he earned on the battlefield. That is how much the government charged him for his medal.
Rubbish.
Time Magazine has an article on the politicizing of exactly this subject. Senators Lieberman and McCain are the antagonists in the article. Lieberman particularly comes out looking rotten. Any self-respecting Nutmegger could have told you that (most Nutmeggers are self-respecting -- he didn't win the majority, despite winning the election).
Politics aside, it is crucial that we as Americans show solidarity and support for the men and women of the armed forces. To me, any less is unjustified.
The veterans of Vietnam were treated awfully by their fellow citizens. What happened then was shameful. I hope that we as semi-intelligent human beings have learned a great lesson.
But that has nothing to do with seeking out alternative solutions to this crisis. Being against the notion that sending more and more troops will help doesn't hurt morale. True, I am not a veteran, but the fact is neither is Joe Lieberman.
Senator McCain is a veteran, yes. He also suffered greatly as a prisoner of war. Surely, his views would be at least partially guided by those awful experiences. Still, if the anti-war demonstrations at home were so demoralizing to the soldiers, why would there still be Medal of Honor recipients during that time?
I asked a veteran -- my father -- if it affected morale. He said that, while he fought in 1965 rather than 1968 when anti-war feelings were at its climax, it didn't affect him. "The truth is, you fight for each other."
Insinuating that vocalizing an opinion that differs from that of the Bush Administration (something that Lieberman and McCain appear unable to do) is somehow hurting American troops -- and therefore hurting America -- is in itself un-American. It goes against the very foundation of our great nation -- that we are entitled to (no, expected to) voice our opinions. The fact that some in positions of power cannot admit failure should not sway our resolve to try to do what is right -- for American and for our soldiers.
I leave you with this about morale. It comes from a very dear friend of mine about his wife's cousin:
"(He) was just awarded commendation with valor for his actions in Afghanistan. He was working the turret gun on top of a humvee in the midst of a battle with the Taliban. He had to reload 6 times over an hour while they awaited air support- all the time with bullets flying around him. After all was said and done, when they inspected the area there were bullet holes all around the area where he was positioned. He was fortunate. He took out several Taliban as well as one on the top 20 list."
What is demoralizing is that this hero was forced to pay $20 for the honor that he earned on the battlefield. That is how much the government charged him for his medal.
posted by E-Luv at 9:00 AM
4 Comments:
Good column, Eric, but I do not understand the $20 reference.
Walter,
I apologize.
My friend's cousin had to pay $20 for his medal. I would think his actions would have been enough.
It doesn't make sense to me that someone who showed courage under fire would have to pay for the medal he already earned.
Here is an idea I have been thinking about regarding troop support and thought I would try it out here.
I hate the Dolan family, who own Cablevision, and have destroyed the Rangers and Knicks with there poorly management of those once proud franchises, I don't like how they use force and threaten their customers with no service as a negotiation tactic with channels (YES, SNY, etc) they don't own or view as competitors to their existing channels. I, as a consumer, dropped their service to sattelite, that is my right.
However, I was following a Cablevision service truck on Friday, and thought, although I don't appreciate or support his company, I have no ill will towards the guy driving this truck and doing his job.
I don't know if this is a good example, but it shows how a person can disagree with the policy or owner (President Bush, THe Dolans) but not disagree or have any effect on those taking orders or working for those supposed leaders.
Let me know what you think
Jeff,
Definitely, a good analogy. Obviously, when we are making a comparison, we need to simplify things. The Knicks and Rangers' situations are not the same as the tragedies in Iraq (although have have family members who would disagree regarding the Rangers). Still, your point that the man on the street (in the van) is not to blame is accurate.
Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home