I believe that the Left does NOT support our troops. It pities them. The Left considers our soldiers to be the victims of the bourgeoisie (society's wealthy capitalists, i.e. Halliburton, Big Oil, the Military-Industrial Complex, etc.). The military, in their view, is a relic, a use-only-in-case-of-emergency federal police force, or a job program for civil servants. If a soldier is forced to actually wage war, then he is now a victim, a tool, of the powers-that-be.
Thus to pander to the proletariat, working-class, victims, the Left swoops in to rescue them from the evil ilk of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and our current military leaders. They grieve the "senseless" loss of our soldiers, not as fallen heroes but as the victims of a lost cause. Therefore, slamming the military and what it does makes sense… sort of.
[Thanks to Blackfive and MilitaryMotivator for the heads up.]
9 comments:
How much of the military is “left”? What do SOLDIERS think about the false information the Iraq war was based upon? Do soldiers feel there is careless endangerment of their lives? I think you would find the answers surprising. I definitely think you can love your country, love being in the military, be seen as a hero, support your troops and not support the cause.
Good questions. I've asked those questions of a lot of military people and received a variety of answers. But the vast majority seem to equate support for what they are doing with support for them. You generally can't root for them and also root for their failure.
If any military folks would like to chime in now…
Also please consider the gist of what I'm saying. The American Left uses a fundamentally socialist (Marxist?) class-envy model of how the world works. Many of their sentiments (toward the military for example) follow suit.
Awesome. I’m always amazed at what strawman arguments are propped up by Republicans in order to easily defeat “the Left.” I guess it’s easier to blame “the Left” for “pitying” soldiers than it is to be mad at W for putting them in harm’s way for absolutely no reason.
BTW, the military should be used only in case of emergency. However, it remains utmost important that we are honest about those emergencies. I’m sure W would agree.
I am pretty liberal and I think Marx is a kook. I can be a “victim” of my social class a lot more comfortably and with a lot more money in my own comfy bed with my husband in it with me rather than in the military.
Do soldiers have to support the war to be patriotic? Well actually the “right” is abandoning the president as well. Slowly, but surely they are coming around. There cannot be “a winner” in Afghanistan or Iraq. The wars are not a chess game. It’s not about winning or losing, every party involved has “lost” already. I personally root for a new president (01-20-09), not failure of our soldiers. Bush’s approval rating is down to 28 (Wall Street Journal, 04-26-07), how can that number be so low with the military is standing behind the president? He is the only one who has failed. He has failed our entire country and most of the world as well. I really don’t think the vast majority of the military is standing behind him. I certainly know one Army family who isn’t.
You think Marx is a kook? I don't think you know how much you actually agree with Engels and Marx.
And as for straw man arguments: the gist of the disdain for "W" is summed up by "Bush lied, people died." That's about as over-simplified as any argument out there. I know popular opinion is to throw the President under the bus but History may yet take another view. The current popular opinion is almost exactly where it was at the end of the Civil War: "that miserable country-bumpkin President's unnecessary war must be ended ASAP (before a conclusion is reached)."
And the isolationist, reluctant use of the military option would have sat out of the American Revolution, the abolishment of slavery, and the end to the Nazi holocaust. None of those wars "had" to be fought but we did anyway. We were compelled by principle not necessity.
What principles would you fight for if not freedom and security and democracy and liberation from tyranny? (or is Bush still trying to steal oil?)
The secular progressives in America, however, would pull the plug on Iraq and Afghanistan, dooming millions to a fate that we now nobly hold at bay. They would claim defeat amidst the long march to victory, go home, and wait for the Barbarians to arrive at the gate. What a foolish and naive view of the world.
And it's one that needlessly endangers the lives of all Americans.
Besides, of the Dems, only Richardson said he'd pull all of the troops out of Iraq. Hillary and Obama would leave some forces there–a smaller, weaker, more vulnerable force than what we have now.
None of them intend to leave Afghanistan.
I guess these are the final thoughts of this conversation:
-No, troops shouldn’t be pulled out of Iraq; they should remain until this horrific mess can be cleaned up. We (all troops and Iraqi forces) need to establish a sense of security and peaceful freedom, but I don’t see this happening any time soon. Even though we created a mess under false pretenses (so where are the WMD?) we certainly cannot run home with this country demolished. Everyone can agree that what we have going on now isn’t working; we need a new strategy other than more and more soldiers losing their lives.
-I really don’t think anyone is trying to steal oil. I don’t even think the president would kill lots of people over oil, but at least it is a reason instead of the one we have now.
-If we are going to go running all over this earth to establish democracy and fight tyranny, why aren’t we somewhere else? The region of Dufar is in much dire need of a strong military presence to stop the mass genocide. Then where from there? Mexico, China, Russia, Korea? When does it stop being America’s job to establish world democracy through violence? When do we stop being the world’s biggest bully?
-Everything in this world is not so black and white. There is a lot more gray than either of the other colors.
-Secular progressives…..humm, there is a funny word. It hurts my heart to know Bill O’Reilly has rotted another brain out with his extremist thoughts.
-We SHOULD be in Afghanistan, looking for Osama Bin Laden and bringing him to justice. He is the one who masterminded the 9/11 attacks and killed so many innocent American lives, not Saddam Hussein. I agree Saddam was awful and I am sure the world is grateful for the removal of power, which should have happened in Desert Storm, however; it was neither the time nor the place. With terror inducing panic, the leaders announced Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he ran a terrorist nation in a post 9/11 America.
-I felt like I had to stand up to YOU trashing our soldiers. Our soldiers don’t see themselves as victims. Jeez….
-All politicians are corrupted and have fading morals. I am neither democrat nor republican. I try and vote for the lesser of the evils. Although, I do have a feeling it will be a very long time before another Republican is voted into office. I think with a new administration and some new tactics, Iraq can become a better place than it is now…hopefully.
I'm glad to see you agree with me on some things, but again I think you might be confused – especially with the trashing our soldiers part. Please reread my original article.
Also…
•Cheer up, my brain is not rotted, and not by Bill O'Reilly. You should be more open-minded toward those who have different views than you. And "secular-progressive" is a fair and agreed-upon description of that world view (it's secular by nature and calls itself progressive).
•Darfur, Kososvo, Rwanda, etc. etc. But not Iraq? Why not make a noble effort for them?
•Once you get Bin Laden, then what? Go home and wait for the next Bin Laden? Hasn't liberal democracy proven to be a good preventative measure against institutional extremism?
•We've been applying new tactics since our President put Gen. Petraeus in charge. And the surge seems to be working. So why are the Dems so eager for us to lose in Iraq? Could they be making political hay?
•Not all politicians are corrupt. That's an awfully cynical view of the world. In fact, one of the least corrupt, if not the most effective, might be President Bush. It would be hard to prove he hasn't acted as he genuinely thought was best for the nation, even when he was wrong.
Thoughts?
We can have a difference of opinion and I was sure my last comment was going to be my final thought, but we do have a misunderstanding.
You claim if you don’t support the war, you don’t fully support our soldiers, seeing them as victims. My thought is; the overwhelming majority of this country does not support our president, nor the war (the war, of course referring to Iraq). Civilians who have loved ones in the military and soldiers themselves who are against the reasoning behind the war do NOT see themselves as victims. They are there to do a job and be loyal to their commander whom they may or may not agree with. So, if military personnel think the pres is a quack, they therefore, according to your statement, are trashing themselves or seeing themselves as victims.
We can't say we disagree when I don't think you understand what I'm saying in the first place.
There is a world view that sees everything in terms of class struggle – those with power vs. those without power. I do NOT see the world this way. And I am NOT trashing the military. But I DO know that many people think in these terms and it affects how they view a soldier or a politician or anyone successful.
As you become more familiar with military culture, have an open mind. The military will try to indoctrinate your husband with virtues like duty, honor, selflessness, respect for traditions, and the warrior ethos. It doesn't always take, but this is why such a large percentage of military folks are hard working, successful, pro-American, traditionalists. If you're not careful the military will change how you view the world and politics. I hope it does.
Post a Comment