A recent diary proposed a Catch-22 for our soldiers in Iraq. While I found the diary interesting I'm writing this diary to put forward my objections to the current fawning over military service that is happening here and in our society in general. Now, please realize I'm not saying military service is bad; I'm more concerned with those who say they've sacraficed so people like me can be free. My answer to those folks is below the fold...
I'm not one to confuse national sovereignty with freedom. Our military was formed to defend our country from attacks and has performed this duty in the past. It is this defense from outside threats that keeps us sovereign as a nation. Our freedom comes from adhering to our Constitution. Those who have confused the two are oblivious to one salient fact: we are not being invaded by a hostile army. Given a choice between Clinton's and Bush's methods of attacking bin Laden I will go with Clinton's every time; there is far less colateral damage and it is far more cost effective.
Having missed Vietnam by a few years I've been fortunate not to have to serve in our country's armed forces. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't have joined if we were ever attacked; I, and just about everyone I know, most certainly would have done so under those circumstances (as all our ancestors have done). However, this doesn't mean I think those who fought in Vietnam fought for our freedom. We've been free for over 200 years regardless of who ruled Vietnam. The same can be said for Iraq.
I protested Vietnam, without spitting, because I found it to be immoral. Just as there were those who spit on returning veterans so were there veterans who rejoiced in killing "gooks" - just take a look at the swiftboat crowd.
Kerry asked Congress "How can you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" Well, they didn't die for a mistake, they died because of lies and lies aren't mistakes. They killed millions because of lies. They killed millions because they thought they could judge the value of the enemy's life and proclaim "better dead than red".
Those who have chosen to join the military and fight in Iraq have, in my opinion, made a poor choice. I don't call this a poor choice because they have a desire to defend our country, I call it a poor choice because the vast majority of them believe Saddam was operationally involved with Al Qaida. I call it a poor choice because of all the death and destruction we have wrought in Iraq is based on lies. It's like me putting sugar in your gas tank to help your car run better. You can't fault the motive but you sure can fault the act.
Jefferson said the price of freedom is eternal vigilence. Eisenhour warned of the military industrial complex. In view of the Vietnam debacle (when did the military tell the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin?) I think it is incumbant upon our citizens to verify what our warmongering leaders are telling us prior to joining up and marching off to war. If you put sugar in my gas tank because the President told you it would help my car run better I'd hold you and the President responsible.
I have seen the critical responses, in other threads, to similar sentiments. To say, because I haven't been in the armed forces, I'm ungrateful or not qualified to comment on the "largesse" of soldiers throughout history boils down to the ad hominem rhetoric of a losing argument. I'm not demeaning the service of those who fight (given the right circumstance I'd be one of them) - our government is. Indeed, my heart goes out to those who signed up to fight al Qaida and are stuck in Iraq. Perhaps this is why Plato said rationality should rule over passion and appetite...