60 Years of Evolution
This past Monday marked the 5th anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Center and associated events--something that, at the time of its happening, was offen compared to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. While the two events--and their subsequent reactions and repercussions--are quite different on many levels, they are also quite the same on many others.
A lot of people in the "right wing" of the political spectrum are saying that the "left wing" is being impatient, that solutions take time, that wars aren't won overnight, and that anyone suggesting differently is "soft" or even "on the side of the enemy".
5 years... that would be December 7th, 1946.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about 1946.
You'll note that the war is over. Against an opposing force in the millions; against an opposing force that was well-organized, firmly entrenched, and expertly-equipped, America was out of the war in less than 4 years. [1]
After 60 years of advances in technology, intelligence, tactics, deployment, and communication, the US can't hold it's own against a bunch of farmers and shop-owners who are still operating as if it were 1941. I know it isn't because the soldiers are weak or stupid or unskilled. They aren't. They're some of the best in the world. So what's the problem? If it's not the fault of the grunts, then where do we point the blame?
Maybe a little farther up the chain?
In war things get muddy. Morals get skewed. "Black and White" becomes "many shades of grey". People today are saying that they feel no remorse about (or even actively encourage) the use of torture on the enemy.
In WWII we sunk so low as to establish internment camps. This is something that we, as a nation, shall ever carry as our shame. Using the standard of those mentioned above, however, we supposedly should have felt justified in sending German Americans into gas chambers, and torturing Japanese soldiers to the point of death.
I know that times are different. I know that this is a completely different kind of war [2]. But that doesn't change the fact that the United States of America--from 1941 to 2001--never promoted nor supported the use of torture as a valid tool of military engagement. Did it happen? Of course it did. But our nation knew it was wrong, our government hid it in shame, and those who were found out were rightfully punished. Never has a President come forth and said "We will stoop to the level of our enemies. We will willfully and deliberately engage in evil acts. We will proclaim it to be a policy supported and enforced by the Office of the President. And we will define it as an act of patriotism."
At no time did we say "We will take the evil and abhorent acts of our enemies and willfully make them our own."
To those who say that a President of the Democratic Party would "soft" and "incapable of leading this nation in a time of war": I would like to remind you of Lyndon B Johnson, Harry S Truman, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
To those who say only a President of the Republican Party can lead us to victory: I would like to remind you of Dwight D Eisenhower and Richard M Nixon.
If you want to debate policy, intent, effect, and repurcussion, I'm ready to step into the ring.
If you want to blindly spout party rhetoric... the proletariat are meeting three doors down on the left.
[1]Yes, I know that Europe had been in the war for several more years, but to be quite frank, Europe was, at the time of US entry into the war, almost completely conquered by the Axis forces.
[2] By "war", I mean the military engagement with and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, not the nebulous "War on Terror", which is little more than an excuse for power-mongering and totalitarianism within our own country.
Imported from the Buzz
A lot of people in the "right wing" of the political spectrum are saying that the "left wing" is being impatient, that solutions take time, that wars aren't won overnight, and that anyone suggesting differently is "soft" or even "on the side of the enemy".
5 years... that would be December 7th, 1946.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about 1946.
You'll note that the war is over. Against an opposing force in the millions; against an opposing force that was well-organized, firmly entrenched, and expertly-equipped, America was out of the war in less than 4 years. [1]
After 60 years of advances in technology, intelligence, tactics, deployment, and communication, the US can't hold it's own against a bunch of farmers and shop-owners who are still operating as if it were 1941. I know it isn't because the soldiers are weak or stupid or unskilled. They aren't. They're some of the best in the world. So what's the problem? If it's not the fault of the grunts, then where do we point the blame?
Maybe a little farther up the chain?
In war things get muddy. Morals get skewed. "Black and White" becomes "many shades of grey". People today are saying that they feel no remorse about (or even actively encourage) the use of torture on the enemy.
In WWII we sunk so low as to establish internment camps. This is something that we, as a nation, shall ever carry as our shame. Using the standard of those mentioned above, however, we supposedly should have felt justified in sending German Americans into gas chambers, and torturing Japanese soldiers to the point of death.
I know that times are different. I know that this is a completely different kind of war [2]. But that doesn't change the fact that the United States of America--from 1941 to 2001--never promoted nor supported the use of torture as a valid tool of military engagement. Did it happen? Of course it did. But our nation knew it was wrong, our government hid it in shame, and those who were found out were rightfully punished. Never has a President come forth and said "We will stoop to the level of our enemies. We will willfully and deliberately engage in evil acts. We will proclaim it to be a policy supported and enforced by the Office of the President. And we will define it as an act of patriotism."
At no time did we say "We will take the evil and abhorent acts of our enemies and willfully make them our own."
To those who say that a President of the Democratic Party would "soft" and "incapable of leading this nation in a time of war": I would like to remind you of Lyndon B Johnson, Harry S Truman, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
To those who say only a President of the Republican Party can lead us to victory: I would like to remind you of Dwight D Eisenhower and Richard M Nixon.
If you want to debate policy, intent, effect, and repurcussion, I'm ready to step into the ring.
If you want to blindly spout party rhetoric... the proletariat are meeting three doors down on the left.
[1]Yes, I know that Europe had been in the war for several more years, but to be quite frank, Europe was, at the time of US entry into the war, almost completely conquered by the Axis forces.
[2] By "war", I mean the military engagement with and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, not the nebulous "War on Terror", which is little more than an excuse for power-mongering and totalitarianism within our own country.
Imported from the Buzz