Yesterday, the L.A. Times published a column by Joel Stein called Warriors and Wusses. The resulting outrage has hit Stein and the Times like a wildfire.
There are several key passages in the piece:
"I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on."
He is honest, doesn't support the troops. But why, or why not? He is against the war on Iraq, and does not support the troops.
and
"But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken - and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward."
I agree with part of what he writes, about the liberal-left mantra of "I oppose the war but support the troops" as being a hypocritical and dishonest position to take. To support the troops is to support their mission. Plain and simple.
He continues with:
Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach."
Yes, the troops need body armor, something that Senator Kerry and many left wing-nuts now serving in Congress fail to recognize, by voting against funding these special military appropriations. Remember Kerry during the campaigning in 2004? "I voted for the $89 Billion before I voted against it!" Part of that particular appropriations bill was to supply troops on the ground with the body armor that Stein acknowledges that they need.
Shorter stays? Prior to Vietnam, the duration was until the end of hostile activities. Spending one year in Iraq or Afghanistan is a typical tour of duty in hostile environs, which includes South Korea.
As for USO shows. To the best of my knowledge, there have been a number of USO tours in the area. Last year, Herb Jefferson, Jr., (Boomer of the original Battlestar Galactica) had mentioned plans to go to Iraq to visit the troops. I hope Boomer made it over there. I don't know anything about the cast of "Laguna Beach."
Stein's diatribe continues:
"After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood."
Here he is setting the stage for claiming the American people and our representatives were deceived, lied to. And to say that Americans barely understand this war is flat out wrong. Most Americans DO understand it: Hussein and his regime murdered nearly a half a million Iraqis over some two decades; used chemical agents on Iraqi population centers and on Iranian troops; was found in possession (after the invasion) of numerous banned weapons systems, weapons developed in the first part of the 21st century by France, and sold to Hussein, weapons capable of delivering chemical and biological agents or nuclear warheads.
This is all well documented in the news.
And then there is this:
"But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."
Yes, our service men are ultimately accountable for their actions any and every time they "pull triggers," however, they are required to obey the lawfully given orders of their superiors. As the liberation of Iraq became U.S. policy under the Clinton Administration, and carried out under the Bush Administration, the liberation of Iraq and the military action that has continued since are lawful actions. The U.S. Military is founded on being an army of people who RELY on their moral choices. The very few soldiers who have ignored their morality are now in Leavenworth awaiting dishonorable discharges. I am referring here to those involved in the Abu Graihb (which I have probably misspelled) prisoner abuse scandal.
When the column appeared, Hugh Hewitt stated he received many emails asking for him to comment on the piece. He invited Stein on for an interview. The transcript is posted on Radio Blogger.
I caught about half of the interview, and found it interesting. I also give some credit to Stein for his willingness to do the interview, which akin to his showing up to a gun fight with a pocket knife.
In the interview, it is quite clear that Stein believes the only appropriate use of the military is to provide for international relief efforts, like when the tsunami hit in the Indian Ocean area, or the Pakistani earthquake.
He also indicated it is okay to deploy them where they are invited, like South Korea and Japan. Originally, our troops were deployed to Japan as an army of post war occupation. Same with post WW2 Germany. And we're in South Korea to prevent North Korea from coming back over the border.
One could go on and on in commenting on Stein's column, however, I want to just hit on more point. Stein wrote:
"But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.
And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany."
I served in the Air Force in the mid-80s. Referring to the service of our Armed Forces by calling it the "fighting tool of American imperialism" is insulting, to the say the least.
As for the comment about hanging out in Germany, remember the '86 disco bombing?
Or, how about the bombing of the Rib House, a popular restaurant outside of Madrid, frequented by local Air Force personnel. That attack I know well. April 12, 1985, Libyan terrorists bombed that restaurant, killing 18 Spaniards (one was a friend's cousin) and injuring some 80 others (many USAF personnel and their families, some of whom I knew).
Being stationed any where in the world is not a matter of being able to "just hang out." It's a dangerous job, regardless of the duty assignment, and a soldier is expected to lay his life on the line to protect those of us at home. We all know this when we sign on the dotted line and are sworn in.
Perhaps Mr. Stein will remember this in the future, or maybe do something creative, like spend a few weeks in Iraq writing about the troops there. One could hope.
For all our service men and women, wherever you are serving, I thank you for your continued service to our country.
Feedburner
