Wednesday, December 2, 2009

With "Support" like this, Who Needs an Enemy?

I read a recent column from a blogger that discussed how he "supports" the troops. I explained my reasoning in the comments section of that blog, but his support is hardly such. You can click the link for my full explanation and context, but as a veteran of 9 years who even participated in these wars I questioned his support. He wished for me to fail in the current unjust wars, but still claimed he cared about me. Other commenters suggested that I was a Nazi, war criminal, brainwashed, pathetic, anti Christ, and stupid. And there is the title of this post.

Thanks for the support, but no thank you. I would rather you wish me success in prosecuting the war, not simply give me a courtesy that everybody but the criminally insane gives by supporting my desire not to be killed. The position of supporting the troops while opposing the war is also logically untenable. I am a willing participant in executing the policy of this country (since we know from Clausewitz that war is a continuation of policy by other means). I explicitly endorsed these wars when I re enlisted (twice) during them. So its incongruent to say you support me but don't support the policy I endorse, and that you wish for me to fail in my efforts.

In future posts I will discuss some of the mistakes that current anti war advocates make in applying The Book of Mormon and other scripture to their position. This includes the difficulties of a purely defensive strategy brought upon by modern technology. I will also discuss some common historical and scriptural misconceptions that are apparent in the linked thread and others I've seen. These include the myth of Afghanistan being the "graveyard of Empires" and the superficial use in citing Christ as "The Prince of Peace".

11 comments:

David J. West said...

How about this one I found on twitter Morgan.


After being shot in the head by an AK-47 that exited through his eye, Sgt May wiped his face off & cont. to fight http://bit.ly/7U5lWL

Morgan Deane said...

That seems like it should be worth more than a tweet.

David J. West said...

I just thought the twitter link was awesome and that was the first I had heard of it.

I read the "Support" article did start to read the comments but there was just too much rhetoric.
There needs to be a balance in this life and some of those outrageous comments did not denote a balance to me at all-hyperbole and paranoia-and heck I like a good conspiracy theory but that stuff was whack!

I know my history and don't see the "Graveyard of Empires" even being a fair assessment. I glance over sites like the aforementioned but rarely leave comments because its pointless. I don't want to argue with some people-most of the time when I DO and bring up a strong counter-point they won't even comment back.

The questions I saw directed at you were ludicrous.
IF you were a redcoat would you have fought against the revolutionaries? DUH-if you didn't want to be court-martialed and shot you did. But so what, its not a fair comparison to what Doniphan did.

All the armchair generaling in the world won't change the reality of being the best person you can be in the here and now. You know I love historical-fiction but those comments (between saints no less) was rather unbecoming.

I imagine some people won't ever understand until they walk the fire with their brothers.

Morgan Deane said...

Thanks for your comments. I am trying to turn over a new leaf because commenting at many of these places is a total waste of time as you say. I only started because people said it was a good way to get traffic at for your blog. But it ends up being more trouble than its worth; people rarely comment here but then I end up going through the ringer there.

Just FYI, I actually posted this here before Connor posted his. I had a great laugh at my timing. If I can get the time I will post tomorrow about that historical myth.

thefirestillburning said...

Unfortunately, it takes something as large as 9/11 to disrupt fundamental political worldviews (and that holds for views of the left OR right, I'll acknowledge) -- and even then the effect only seems to last for 12-18 months before the earlier worldview reasserts itself.

Morgan Deane said...

Indeed. One has to wonder what kind of terrorist attack will make them believe that their freedom really is at stake in these "imperialist wars".

Doug said...

Morgan,

I certainly hope you don't decide it's a waste of time to post at sites like Connor's. There are always going to be annoying trolls at any site that gets decent traffic, but 'reasonable discussion' (and there was *some* of that) is priceless.

If people with differing viewpoints don't visit a site then it just becomes a bunch of people "preaching to the choir" . . . and that's much less useful, in my opinion.

I'm personally one that believes that -- whatever our MidEast missions started as -- that they have morphed into wars I would indeed call "imperialist". I'm not dissing what the average soldier does. I truly appreciate their bravery, selflessness, and honor in serving their nation overseas. But I do believe that we need to separate our respect for the common soldier from our duty as citizens to keep our political leaders in check.

I think it is important to question the overall gameplan. Do we intend to take over Pakistan, Somalia, Indonesia, etc.? What is the actual goal in even just Afghanistan now?

I would have liked to see Osama bin Laden tracked down and his organization brought to justice. What we're doing in Afghanistan now does not seem directly related to making the USA safer from Osama and those like him.

So I am one who says I support the troops (and I do -- with prayer, in word, in action when I can . . . I want them to have the best armor, equipment, intelligence, etc.) but that I do not support the overall gameplan. I lobby my political leaders to bring the troops home at the same time I fully appreciate any troops leaving.

Morgan Deane said...

Thanks Doug. I've come to realize that much of the debate lies in how you define "support".

I normally stay out of modern debates because of how bitter they can sometimes get. But I am trying to branch out a little bit, in fact I am even writing a post right now about the "grave yard of Empires". Thanks again for stopping by.

thefirestillburning said...

One of the things I note is that those of the Viet Nam generation, or taught by them in today's universities, tend to assume that we CAN still have Imperial wars of choice because WE are the deciders. Places like China, Iran, Russia, and Israel are deciders of world history now on a globasl scale -- with the alignment changing decade to decade.

Rome was on the defensive long before Rome realized it was in trouble. The fall of Rome a couple of centuries later was still inconceivable to many in the Empire. Nero wasn't the only one who "fiddled while Rome burned".

Or, as Spock once said to break up and argument between McCoy and Kirk, "Gentlemen, it no longer matters whether we should have gone hunting the creature. The creature is now hunting us."

FireTag

Brian Duffin said...

As someone who initially supported military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, I do support the troops in prosecuting their missions. However, I am hopeful that we can pull out of combat operations as quickly as possible.

thefirestillburning said...

I second that, Brian.