Soldiers are neither heroes nor are they 'defending' anyone's freedom.
|
|
As one who spent a year in Iraq, I think I can safely make the statement without too much backlash.
Here at ODU, where the population is generally ultra conservative, there seems to be a lot of talk about about how American service members are heroes and are defending America's Constitution.
They are neither -- and people are afraid to say it.
They're not really defending anything. Our freedom is here to stay and America is here to stay.
Post-modernism and the death of Westphalia, along with globalization and IGOs like the UN dictate that America is here to stay. We're not being invaded, we're not being taken over and we're certainly not going to lose our country or freedom.
Now and then, we do get attacked, but it's a clash of civilization and has nothing to do with colonialism or another country wanting to take away our rights …
The "defending America's freedom" mantra is an emotional one that is easy to buy, but a little education and research will prove otherwise.
This is not to say, of course, that a military isn't important. But its purpose has changed. No longer is it used to defend a nation, but rather, for peace-keeping missions, which aims at defending humanity from oppression, rather than a country from being invaded.
Thoughts?
Here at ODU, where the population is generally ultra conservative, there seems to be a lot of talk about about how American service members are heroes and are defending America's Constitution.
They are neither -- and people are afraid to say it.
They're not really defending anything. Our freedom is here to stay and America is here to stay.
Post-modernism and the death of Westphalia, along with globalization and IGOs like the UN dictate that America is here to stay. We're not being invaded, we're not being taken over and we're certainly not going to lose our country or freedom.
Now and then, we do get attacked, but it's a clash of civilization and has nothing to do with colonialism or another country wanting to take away our rights …
The "defending America's freedom" mantra is an emotional one that is easy to buy, but a little education and research will prove otherwise.
This is not to say, of course, that a military isn't important. But its purpose has changed. No longer is it used to defend a nation, but rather, for peace-keeping missions, which aims at defending humanity from oppression, rather than a country from being invaded.
Thoughts?
!
No, actually, you can't. I don't subscribe to the "Leftist Infallibility Doctrine", whereby people do and don't get to be challenged on what they say based on their status. (i.e. Cindy Sheehan)
For a nation to remain free, it requires soldiers who are willing to fight both its popular and unpopular wars - the ones that look good in hindsight and the ones that don't. Soldiers who fight in a war that some view as unjust aren't somehow worse soldiers - the nondiscriminating nature of military service, going where one is sent regardless of their personal feelings on the matter, is what makes our military so valuable and so revered. It's not a job most would want.
Hypothetically, were we to be attacked by some form of WMD that wiped out an American city, we would likely lose a lot of freedom very quickly. While the debate is over whether wars such as Iraq (or Bush Administration policies) make that more or less likely, that's irrelevant at the ground troops level - they go where they're sent, they're doing their part to prevent that un-free future from occurring. If we do end up in a future without freedom, it will be from the failings of the civilian leadership, and our military will have performed admirably.
The flaw in your logic is that you assume every single action of a soldier has to directly contribute to the defense of freedom in order for them to then be 'defending freedom'. In reality, the persistent presence of a well-trained armed forces is a defense of freedom, whether any given use of them is directly for that purpose or not.
...Oh, and you've provided absolutely no evidence that the soldiers aren't heroes.
The word “hero,” as defined by acts of courage or a cause that is noble …
There is absolutely nothing noble about pointing a weapon at someone with the intent of killing that person.
While in the days in which countries would conquer one another for resources, the people who stood up to defend their turf and to preserve their countries were, indeed, heroes.
Such things don’t happen anymore. Armed conflicts nowadays are not about defending one’s nation or country, but simply a matter of political preservation. It isn’t the same as what the “warriors” and “heroes” of yesterdays used to be.
The last generation of American heroes was from World War II when the world truly depended upon their acts of courage. Now, the true heroes are the people who are dedicating their lives to public service, to aim at bettering the lives of ordinary Americans. Like it or not, all the so-called “heroes” who died in Iraq died for absolutely nothing. The world is not better because of their deaths. In dying, they saved no one.
While their deaths are most certainly a tragic thing – they are not heroes. They are merely people who died from having the jobs they chose. People die on the job every day. Are they all heroes?
Causes are almost never entirely noble or ignoble; the world is not painted in the blackest blacks and whitest whites. One's cause need not be pure on every level in order to be a hero. Indeed, such a standard would preclude pretty much anyone from being considered a hero.
There is if the world would be better off with that person dead.
Also, the US Military does a hell of a lot besides killing people - tsunami relief and community outreach in Iraq, for instance.
The outcome of Iraq has nothing to do with whether or not their actions were heroic - and there is still plenty of room yet for a positive outcome.
By your standard, the WW2 heroes would not be counted as such if we had lost. You are, in essence, saying that a man who has been defeated cannot have been a hero. That's silly.
It was perhaps the one non-crazy nugget of a point Coulter made! And yet, she even managed to fuck that up by saying really vile shit about the 9/11 widows.
1. This post. "I've been to Iraq, so I have more right to criticize the soldiers than anyone else."
2. The 9/11 Widows. "Our husbands died on 9/11, therefore our criticisms of the Iraq war should be taken more seriously than everyone else."
3. Cindy Sheehan. "My son died in Iraq, therefore I have more right to criticize Bush on Iraq than others."
4. Affirmative action / hate crimes laws / reparation - "If you're not a member of a minority, your opinion doesn't count" is often heard.
The basic philosophy behind all these positions is "unless you've been there, you can't judge". I simply disagree with that. It's a decent rule of thumb for everyday life, but it's a terrible way to conduct politics.
I greet your statements with respect, and agree that you have earned the right to make such a statement.
Thank you, for your service to "our" country. I also serviced in Operation Iraqi Freedom. One thing that must always be remembered is, that U.S. Armed Forces are the strength that backs up our Constitution. Without the military, our U.S. policy is worthless, as well as the voices of the people that seek protect under the Constitution. Those that wear the uniform of the U.S. military may not be heroes, but they are people who have made a committment to defend the Constitution and follow all orders of those appointed over them. This in it's self, is a selfless undertaking in a "democracy", which is eager to take but not return.
True, America isn't at war with a country but an ideal. We must find the balance which is acceptable to the American people and purse it. This ideological imbalance will not disappear over night, nor will it be defended by military might. I believe, the conventional wisdom of spreading democracy as a defend of U.S. policy is "dated", and needs to be modernized to fill the times. However, the injection of understanding that comes from spreading democracy can aid in defueling the fierce passions of clashing ideologies.
So, in comment to your post. Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines aren't heroes, just simple people who have made a committment to support our ideal, not matter the cost.
And no, I didn't decide to jump back into uniform and join the Guard. They make you swear that oath to get a Florida driver's license. And I was just getting the address on mine changed!