In 1999, with war sweeping through the wreckage of what was once Yugoslavia, I bobbled my three-year old son Matthew on my knee as together we watched a television newscast that quite unexpectedly began broadcasting images of a burned-out civilian bus that had been accidentally targeted by a NATO missile. Matthew was too young to be upset by any of this, but I was upset in the way that a new parent is upset whenever certain, harsh realities intrude upon their children. I was still at that early phase of parenthood that had me marveling at the length of Matthew’s eye lashes, the crystal depth of his hazel-brown eyes, and the soft feel of his feet and hands. He was everything lovely and innocent in a child and I just couldn’t square that innocence with the horror unfolding in front of us on that TV screen. What I felt was shame and embarrassment, as if I or my adult world had been found out, and revealed in its immorality and imperfection. And looking at Matthew, I wondered how I could ever “explain” any of this to him.
A few short years later our country found itself involved, yet again, in another war: the conflict in Iraq. As was my habit at the time, I would go at dusk to sit in the wooden stands down in the Arroyo where a cool breeze seemed always to gather no matter how hot the day, and together with several other fathers, watch our sons play baseball. The smiles were always easy, the banter good-natured and generous, the kind of peaceful, small-town ritual that gives small towns and fathers a good name. I don’t think any of us sitting there in that golden light ever imagined that our young boys who were only 9 or 10 at the time could possibly be exposed to the fighting in Iraq, but five or six years later as the conflict dragged on, that notion was no longer an abstraction. I knew at least one, slightly older boy who had joined the National Guard seeking direction and benefits only to find himself facing live-fire in Iraq. And though I never asked, I often wondered, which of those fathers who had watched on countless nights their sons running, throwing and gliding across grassy fields would press for their sons to fight in Iraq? Who among those fathers would not literally move a mountain to keep their sons safe and away from the killing ground of that war?
As an American citizen, I am certainly aware of the point of view that represents war as a regrettable necessity in an imperfect world. I would not argue that the flawed and aggressive history of mankind has not been steeped in war, but I would never celebrate any of the so called virtues of war without first acknowledging that at its core, no matter what the cause or justification, war represents not the greatest test and virtue of mankind, but its greatest failure. That being said, I would also never advocate for the unilateral disarmament of our nation, which must, despite its best inclinations, exist in a world that largely rejects my premise, celebrates military prowess, and tends to war at will.
But there is, at least for me, a rub. If in a democratic society the people, who are not compelled to fight by a dictator or by laws not of their making, embrace war as an acceptable means for the settling of disputes among nations, then those same people cannot in good conscience hold that position without simultaneously and assertively making themselves and their children available to fight. In our democracy the current arrangement of an all-volunteer Army is not an appropriate instrument for fighting wars of our collective choosing. Rather, it is a convenient and immoral act of self-deceit, which enhances rather than deters the possibility of future wars. It does so by placing the vast majority of citizens at a comfortable distance from the bloody effects of the war policies they support. And it does so by undemocratically distributing the pain and suffering of war among a willing, yes, but unacceptably small segment of our society. In the roughly ten years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, fewer than 1% of the adult population of the United States has participated in the fighting... (to be continued in Part II on Monday.)
The gop is hilarious? Robert--please. Its well established that bush made mistakes. I get it. I agree. I cant speak for the entire republican party, but I think it would be foolish to say that mistakes were not made. Agree? But then why when obama makes mistakes; engages in divisive demogoguery , uses our military without congressional approval, kills an american citizen oveseas without a trial (and then classifys the rationale behind that move as top secret -and will not totally reveal the DOJ opinion on the killing) clouds the separation of powers by impugning the supreme court.... etc why do we need to consider these acts in the context of Bush? Are they right or wrong? According the left, obama's mistakes pale in comparison. Whatever--just say they are mistakes. have a principle. Let me ask you a very fair and pertinent question if Abu Ghraib was a blemish on Bush---should the burning of the Koran by military in Afghanistan be a blemish on Obama? How about urinating on the corpses? A blemish on Obama? Or are the acts of individual soldiers just that under B.O and that acts of individual soldiers the responsibility of the Bush administration? You want to appear to be smart---then employ your brain and have the decency to acknowledge that many of the outrages that inspired the wrath of the left, are occuring presently , just with less responsibilty being passed up . (unless its soldiers killing osama--for that we give credit up.) is that right?
I see the author is from California. This kind of whining may play well in California, sir, but to most of us in America, we don't cotton to folks challenging our military, in any fashion. Perhaps you should focus your energies on keeping California as a liberal and bankrupt utopia, and leave the task of defending your right to be a liberal to guys like those in our all-volunteer armed services. Donald just for the record CT is bankrupt and it votes and elected officials are QUITE LIBERAL. As for the volunteer service goes. I dont know i joined. But it would be something to see all these WISE GUY kids trying to DISS a Gunnery Sergeant. I can see it now HAY MAN DUDE i have to hang out with my DUDE FRIENDS GUNNEY. Well just a thought SEMPER FI
Two years in the military would have straightened you out in a way that nothing else could have.
"Donald just for the record CT is bankrupt and it votes and elected officials are QUITE LIBERAL." In no way was I defending CT. I was maligning CA's liberal elite. Their whining is commonplace in their own State, but to many of us in the really real world, it is nothing more than knee-jerk emotionalism and entitlement and victimization. I am quite aware of the leftist dominance in CT, sir. That is an issue for another day to address.
ARiana Huffi.gton recently described obamas ad which said romney wouldnt have the guts to have ordered bin laden killed, as dispicable. She correctly opined that that sort of challenging is what drives us into needless wars. Huffington follows principle. Robert here, follows party. Its a huge part of the problem. Encouraging, or excusing bad behavior when it is your party leader The
Here's my impression of people like you as election day draws near: "liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals" (LOSE AGAIN)
What an odd little man.
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/155592/why_i_stopped_being_a_right-winger_--_modern_conservatism_has_become_a_form_of_mass_hysteria/
What a joke of an article. Amongst other ridiculous 'points' that this guy makes is :Mitt Romney took a question at a town hall meeting this month from a woman who insisted President Obama be “tried for treason,” without challenging, demurring from or evencommenting on her assertion" Is he serious? How many times over the last 8 years have I heard that Bush should be tried for treason. Bush should be tried for war crimes. Etc." Its interesting that the "right" 'can see the ligh't when they agree with the left. The problem is--the left has a very amorphous set of principles. Tried for treason is 'reasonable' if yu are talking about a Republican President. Its 'extreme' when its about a Democrat. See how that works? gitmo was an OUTRAGE...an embarrassment. But ask a democrat today (after those people have been locked up for 3.5 more years) and they are disinterested in the spectre. Yeah--who knows what Dems can enlighten us with. Today its Gitmo -and tomorrow its?? the opposite of gitmo.
the "extreme right" for their "lack of civility" and "hysteria" ! Michael Fumento is an author of five books, analyst, attorney, investigative journalist, and popular speaker currently living in Colombia, South America. A graduate of the University of Illinois College of Law and member of the Pennsylvania bar, he also has a B.A. in political science from Fayetteville State University at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, which he earned while serving as a paratrooper. He embedded three times in Iraq and once in Afghanistan, and saw combat with the Navy SEALs and the 101st Airborne Division.[1] His work comprises over 70 subject areas viewable at his Web site [www.fumento.com], and Google Scholar has almost 1,200 citations of his work.[2] Publisher’s Weekly stated he has “knack for debunking popular beliefs and revealing the true state of things,” while The New York Times Book Review stated, “His arguments, statistics and perceptions appear almost as irrefutable as they In May 2012, he condemned the "extreme right" for their "lack of civility" and "hysteria" that would have been rejected by William Buckley and Ronald Reagan.
Posting my FB status for Memorial Day 2012 only serves to bring people to me. Thanks! :)
Recommending my Facebook page is wonderful! However, I must wonder aloud: Are you stalking me? I have a Facebook page and two blogs, as well. Can you find my two blogs? I could use the free advertising, so please go ahead and search and tell people about them! That would be great! :)
For good reason.
No where---zippo -can you actually support with concrete evidence that the left is morally superior. All you need to do , robert is look in the mirror. See? You know you are an imposter. That your agenda is impure. Check out stats, robert--who gives more to charity---Dems or republicans? While its not that easy to draw a firm conclusion ( which right away blows away the superiority card) the consensus research concludes that Republcans are more giving of time, and money to charitable causes. Democrats talk about being good people. I think a GREAT example of a true Democrat is John Edwards. He spoke so eloquently about so many virtuous topics. He wanted to change the world for the better...but ummmm... who was he really? Great example, right Robert? one of yours...a great guy!
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/newt-gingrich-i-cheated-on-my-wives-because-i-love-america-too-much/ and I guess that Luca's high school history class hasn't covered Watergate yet !
Arnold Schwarzenegger Former CA Governor 10, for carrying on affair with at least one woman and fathering a love child +4 for the possibility of a second love child Mark Sanford Former SC Governor 7, for carrying on affair with a woman in Buenos Aires -1 for complimenting mistress’ tan lines Christopher Lee Former NY Congressman 3, for courting a woman who wasn’t his wife on Craigslist -1 for having nice pecks and saying in email to said woman, “Hope I’m not a toad.” John Ensign Current NV Senator 7, for carrying on an affair with a married member of his staff +2 hypocrisy points for calling for Bill Clinton to resign
Fox News contributor and self-described sex addict Dick Morris says he’s looking forward to seeing a “spread in Playboy” featuring the fourth woman to accuse Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment. Morris told Fox News host Sean Hannity that Sharon Bialek was just looking to make money when she came forward on Monday to explain that Cain had “reached for my genitals” and “grabbed my head and brought it towards his crotch.” “Gloria Allred is in search of headlines and this woman is in search of money,” Morris opined. “This woman has been unemployed for 13 years and this is apparently pay day. She’s not accusing him of harassment, she accusing him of assault. He should go to jail if he did that.” “Certainly if it was true, it would be inappropriate,” Hannity admitted.
you have clinton lying under oath, anthony weiner charles rangel- Whats the point? The point is--when someone tries to estabish that there are bad repubicans Ill agree. Why is it so hard to admit that obama has made similar moves to bush, that you all formerly called outrageous? Is that such an issue? Apparently so, since it never occurs. And my take away is as usual--people are on their team. They are not about doing what's right anymore. They are about defending at all costs the actions of their 'guy'. Just to say--if people like you, spart, or Robert or the new Sebastian, (post b.s. veterans service) now posing at Patriot 2012, fee they are 'thinking " individuals--then think. Larry Craig is slime, Bush was not always honest , and neither is Obama. My brain doesnt stop working when Romney speaks about healthcare. I get that he is being duplicitous. But Robert and spartacus somehow feel an obligation to defend or ignore the transgressions that Obama has perpetrated. A dishonest military action in Libya, while watching people slaughtered in Syria, is difficult to defend. SO? Dont defend it. Use your brain. Defending Obama, Robert results in more bad decisions. Your lot refuses to hold him accountable. Not good, if its a better America you wish to see.