Huh?
I'm having real trouble getting into this guy's mindset. This person, along with apparently many other military families (check out the reader responses if you subscribe), apparently believe that if you are against US policy you are dishonoring individual soldiers. It's tantamount to saying once we go to war, everyone must support the war, else they are dishonoring the soldiers. How un-American is that?
The idea that "we as a country made a collective decision" is so ridiculous I don't even know where to begin. But even so, the rigidity of the "sticking to the mission" is unbelieveable. So it doesn't matter what we find out about the reasons we went to war in the first place we have to stick with the first decision no matter how many people die so as to not dishonor the people who have died already? Huh?
I believe people volunteer for the military for many different reasons. I'm sure one of them is duty and love of country, but for how many of them is it blind and unthinking duty and love of country? Don't citizens, including military mothers and fathers, have a duty to at least make sure the country doesn't go to war for a bunch of lies?
OpinionJournal - Featured Article: (sub req'd)
She Does Not Speak for Me
My son died in Iraq--and it was not in vain.
BY RONALD R. GRIFFIN
Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.
We as a country made a collective decision. We must now live up to our decision and not deviate until the mission is complete.Those who lost their lives believed in the mission. To honor their memory, and because it's right, we must believe in the mission, too.
We refuse to allow Cindy Sheehan to speak for all of us. Instead, we ask you to learn the individual stories. They are glorious. Honor their memories.
Honor their service. Never dishonor them by giving in. They never did.
posted by Victor Laszlo @ 8/19/2005
5 comments
5 Comments:
Sounds good to me. You think this argument will persuade the author of this article? The author seems to have no way to be able to question the "current administration."
Look, taking the author's argument at face value, it's just a statement of faith, not one of reason. He thinks it's unamerican to question the infinite wisdome of our commander-in-chief. He thinks that when a soldier signs on for the "ultimate sacrifice" it is a noble cause, which is only sullied by after the fact second-guessing. These are statements of faith in "truth, justice, and the American way."
It seems the only way to reach an idiot like the author of that article might be to question whether the military was put in a position where "winning" could never be defined, where military leaders were commanded to enter a war without sufficient planning, equipment, troop strength... But then to criticize our president at a time of war is unamerican also...
You know what, I don't give a shit what that idiot thinks, although there's a lot of love in that statement.
Yes maudlin is a good word to describe it, and I agree about it being a statement of faith--no wonder I couldn't understand it. But apparently this is how a lot of people think/feel about this issue. Is it wrong to attribute irrationality to them? This means they would need a kind of de-programming instead of rational argument, which makes me uncomfortable. Oh and Dumplingeater, so much for the left being inclined to read the other side? (Btw, I'm going to take down much of the full text after today.)
Vic, I read it (while trying to stifle the urge to throw up). And I've heard the same garbage on right-wing talk radio, and read similar reactions to the whole Sheehan thing elsewhere. It's not like I'm unaware of those perspectives or uninformed about them. I even read where a so-called "progressive" expressed a similar point of view. My point is that it is useless to try to argue logically against such perspectives, because they are articles of faith.
On the other hand, somehow I think that it is worth fighitng against the kind of MSM radicalization of reasoned viewpoints from which such ignorance stems, as Art mentions in his comments, and as I wrote in response to a criticism of Sheehan on the Phillypolitics blog. Such radicialization is primary weapon in the arsenal of the right, and I'm more interested fighting the root cause of the problem. So, I think rather than pursuasion, we need to attack the problem at its source.
But I admit, I'm confused. Assuming that we won't be able to prevent the MSM from handing out the faith-based kool-aid that the right wing is manufacturing, and if I'm right that once folks have swallowed that kool-aid, trying to pursuade them with reason is pointless, what can I do? I guess I should just drink my latte while driving my saab (I wish I COULD afford a saab), and listen to NPR on the radio.
Arthur articulates some good points about the right's intimidating people into a pro-war position. I hear you Dumplingeater.
Post a Comment
<< Home