A little re-post to help Comrade Jimmy, the “Progressive” Professor, get over his selective memory syndrome.
From back in June…
Posted at James McPherson’s site in the comments as a response to his post here.
Mr. McPherson: You have every right to your opinion and believe it or not, I appreciate and understand your position: you hate war. I get it. However, your argument that a thing cannot be understood or executed by people who have not directly experienced it or that there are people who pushed for war for personal reasons or gains in Iraq and Afghanistan simply cannot be supported.
I would wager that your first proposition would eliminate you from speaking about, supporting or opposing any number of issues because you have not personally experienced them.
I think the better question is this: Is war necessary?
This is why, in spite of your doctorate, I find your line of thought childish and naive. One thing is necessary in a world governed by laws and that is the same degree of respect of the law from all parties involved in a conflict – when one does not, force becomes the method of correcting that situation. America goes to great lengths to assure that we have used every tool available before getting to that point and in the cases of Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan, we pursued every avenue for decades before resorting to defending our people and our interests.
This is in stark contrast to Obama’s unilateral “kinetic military action” in Libya.
America doesn’t seek war, it gets brought to us. We are not imperialists, we do not keep what we kill.
What I also find repugnant about your position is your easy and capricious indictment of Republicans and conservatives as the “chicken hawks”. The true chicken hawks are the weak willed and spineless civilian and elected leadership, most of who are Democrats, and who vote for actions in public and then proceed to 1) work against them behinds the scenes or 2) openly lose their nerve when things get difficult. These are your so called “chicken hawks”, the men and women who vote to do something and then say “well, I didn’t know you really meant it.” If you will look at the vote tallies for the three conflicts that I spoke of you will find that we actually did have votes and authorizations in Congress and then you can see that the true cowards are people like Reid, Pelosi, Dick Durban, Kerry, the late John Murtha, etc – Democrat liberals, all.
They supported actions that were clearly going to lead to armed conflict and then bailed on supporting aggressive prosecution of the mission when it was politically advantageous. Just like in Veitnam with the Tet Offensive, these political opportunists have turned victory into something else and thereby guaranteed that the conflicts will be far more prolonged and painful than necessary, to borrow your phrase, effectively “spitting on the military”.
Feel free to read about this in a post here, of which this is the denouement:
“I abhor the very savagery that I propose but we simply can’t be stuck in the middle here. War does not favor the moderate. I do not want another soldier to die when we have the power to prevent it so in the event we decide to go to war, we owe our troops the political will to commit enough destruction so that both our enemies and the societies that they live among know that they are defeated. They need to know exactly what price they will pay if they decide to continue. It is distasteful, it is harsh and it is inhuman but to do less creates a prolonged, protracted event that never will be resolved to an endpoint.
I’m sorry but I say piss on them…and those on our “side” who would condemn our Marines.
Semper Fi, Marines…”
As far as “unfortunately sometimes relies on Fox News-style sexism” to draw hits, out of 1641 posts to date, generating a little over 1.1 million hits, there are a total of 96 “Rule 5’s” – about 6% of the total posts. We’re hardly the porn site that you make us out to be.
As I stated, you have every right to your opinion and your work will be gladly posted at our site – but you also have the right to be wrong, which, in my opinion, you are on this subject.
One more little thing:
Just in case you are curious, the vote tallies for “Bush’s War” were as follows:
October 2002 – HJRes 114, the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 passed the House 296 to 133 and the Senate 77 to 23. Who voted and how is here.
The vote on the Authorization For Use Of Military Force in Afghanistan was 420 to 1 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate. Find that here.
All of this was after 9/11 and the Iraq vote was after 16 toothless UN resolutions over 22 years finally led to Resolution 1441(unanimously passed by the UN Security Council). 1441 was the international legal basis for the war…but the assumption with “progressives” was that nobody would ever actually enforce it – until President Bush led a coalition that actually did.
There was also a time when Democrats thought Afghanistan was a “good war”: here and here – at least until they saw it as a wedge against Bush and Republicans. It is hard to argue that they weren’t all in and then changed like the kid who killed his parents and then claimed leniency because he was an orphan.
Mr. McPherson, Ph.D., if you want to make a valid argument, you should focus on your own “progressive” thinkers, they are the ones that are getting our soldiers killed.
I would also like to note that at Mr. McPherson’s site, comments are held for approval, they are “awaiting moderation”. Comments at TRNL are open and not moderated. We specifically chose to go without moderation to avoid any restriction of speech. Perhaps that says something about a difference in approach between TRNL and Mr. McPherson, Ph.D., perhaps not – you be the judge.