Obama’s policy: American soldiers die to satisfy Muslims

Diana West, the strongest conservative opponent of an expanded U.S. military presence in Afghanstian, rips apart Obama’s speech and the conservatives who like the “good” parts of it:

[The speech] was rhetorically deceptive—what with the 9/11 jihad further attributed to “men” from al Qaeda, a “group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions”—and it was symbolically diabolical, what with the lives of those dewy-faced cadets in the audience in the balance.

… More depressing still, however, was the conservative reaction, which was all about seeing its glass half full. (Make that three-quarters full.) The futility of “nation-building” anywhere in the Islamic world lost on these poor infidels, they are now saying the president’s message is correct—sending a big chunk of troops as requested by Commander On-the-ground to carry out the chimerical “counterinsurgency”—even if it was marred by an exit date.

In other words, the leftist White House and conservatives are pretty much on the same stupid page when it comes to this suicide pact to sink ourselves ever deeper into the Islamic Pit—I mean, Republic (I get them confused)—of Afghanistan.

West quotes at length a Washington Post article on the obviously doomed U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, and the obliviousness of U.S. commanders to same:

Marine commanders have little doubt that the additional 9,000 troops moving into the province will push the Taliban out of their remaining sanctuaries in the province.

But the gains will be transitory if U.S. forces do not build effective local police forces and foster a government that is relatively free of corruption and able to provide for the Afghan people, U.S. officials said.

“This will be a credibility test for the (Afghan) government to see if it can deliver,” said Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a spokesman for McChrystal.

West comments:

A credibility test. To see if they can deliver. Using real, flesh-and-blood Americans as game pieces. Sickening. And, more important, sick.

- end of initial entry -

John B. writes:
Subject: Nothing to me

Even though you and I agree on many things, you’ve probably noticed that I’m not a conservative in the way that many of your other correspondents are. In the first place, I don’t follow politics that closely: I barely know Ted Kennedy from—whom? Mitt Romney? Romney’s a politician, isn’t he? I don’t even know.

Anyway—I have to say that when I think about the American troops who will go over to Afghanistan and get killed and maimed for nothing—I don’t care. They mean nothing to me. They’re not “protecting my freedom.” They’re just grown-up versions of the schoolyard louts who made it impossible for me and the few other serious persons I knew in childhood to get anything done. They’re the ones who mocked us for taking our studies seriously, who ridiculed us for tucking our shirts in—and who now have to go off and “fight for our freedom” because their parents and grandparents—who are as loutish as they are—were similarly unserious, say, nearly half a century ago, when the Immigration Act of 1965 was being enacted. Most white persons are fools—and are hostile to anyone who is not a fool. They love going off to war to “die for their country.” Let them. They’re not going to work to accomplish anything serious—like a change in our immigration laws—so let them go fight. As I noticed in the schoolyard: That’s what they enjoy.

LA replies:

As you must have realized before you sent this to me, I am repelled by your statement. I am extremely offended that you said this to me. Your description of U.S. soldiers as mindless school yard bullies is beneath contempt. You are the mindless one, activated by mindless prejudices. What lost planet do you live on that you have such alienation toward other Americans, and that you think you have the right to say such things?

LA continues:

You wrote:

“Anyway—I have to say that when I think about the American troops who will go over to Afghanistan and get killed and maimed for nothing—I don’t care.”

Who do you think you are to say such a thing?

Either retract your e-mail, or I don’t want to hear from you again.

John B. replies:

I don’t retract it, Lawrence.

Rick U. writes:

This is where Diana West Nails it! Until this mentality is scourged from our military mindset, no plan will succeed—fighting some kind of altruistic war is beyond Orwellian.

She writes:

Ours, however, is a military that will continue to be tightly leashed, hands behind its back, bound by criminally perilous rules of engagement and limited strategies that actually cause US casualties, all in a criminally misguided effort to put over a hearts-and-mind ivory tower thesis to “protect the Afghan people from everything that can hurt them,” which is how Gen. McChrystal memorably and shamefully put it.

And this:

What if, instead of firebombing every important German city and killing tens of thousands of civilians from Hamburg to Dresden, and instead of firebombing Tokyo and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki and tens of thousands of Japanese in the all-out effort to defeat the Axis powers and End All Fighting, the Allies had sought instead to win hearts and minds?

What if Gen. Eisenhower, like Gen. McChrystal today in Afghanistan, wandered through German towns, asking das volk, “What do you need?” What if Gen. MacArthur had charged his troops with Japanese population protection over US force protection, to guard them from everything that can hurt them—namely the “extremists”? What if the US bought and paid for a “Nazi awakening”? Rewrote constitutions, enshrining Nazism in the German one, and Shintoism in the Japanese one, and then supported these governments against the “extremists” who had distorted and defiled their respective ideology/religion?

Long and short of it is, either go to war or don’t. Which is to say, use your power or don’t.

Or as Sun Tzu put it: He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

LA writes:

In relation to Diana West’s acute comment about how the speech “was symbolically diabolical, what with the lives of those dewy-faced cadets in the audience in the balance,” when I watched a few minutes of the speech last night, I was very put off by the fact that it was being delivered to West Point cadets. These are soldiers. They are not the public. They are not legislators or ordinary citizens. They are the ones who obey the orders of civilian authorities to go to war. It was extremely inappropriate to give such a speech to soldiers.

Bush also constantly gave political speeches to soldiers, which was highly inappropriate. He was their commander in chief, they were required to respect and obey him.

Michael S. writes:

Regarding John B’s ridiculous characterization of American soldiers, especially volunteer ones these days …

I understand why he doesn’t accept the claim that they are “protecting his freedom.” But then he just jumps into the deep end.

He wrote:

“They’re just grown-up versions of the schoolyard louts who made it impossible for me and the few other serious persons I knew in childhood to get anything done. They’re the ones who mocked us for taking our studies seriously, who ridiculed us for tucking our shirts in … “

My father is a West Point graduate. Schoolyard bully? Er, no. You don’t get into West Point—and graduate from West Point—by mocking people who take their studies seriously. You’re too busy studying yourself—and participating in athletics so you’re in suitable physical shape. And tucking your shirts in? Is John B. insane?

I have a friend from high school who is an Army captain. Schoolyard bully? My mother used to say that my friend was the kind of friend she’d want with me if we ever found ourselves in trouble. Mocking people who studied? My friend had a close to 4.0 average in college, and played in the jazz band.

I don’t know where John B. gets his “information.” Clearly he hasn’t spent any time with West Pointers or people like my friend.

I shake my head at such idiocy.

LA replies:

It’s clear from his comment that John had traumatic experiences from bullies in his childhood that he unfortunately has never gotten over, and, as a result, decades later he still sees the world through the filter of that experience. Notice now he admits that he knows nothing about American political reality. That he barely knows who Ted Kennedy is or Mitt Romney are. The same appears to be true of his knowledge of other common areas of American life. He seems to have no notion of what officers in the U.S. armed forces are like. When he looks at them or thinks about them, all he sees is the bullies who tormented him when he was a child. It’s pure projection, pure prejudice.

When a man says, “When American soldiers are killed and maimed, it means nothing to me,” he has separated himself from any common community. I think John knows this, and he doesn’t care.

Mark Jaws writes:

As a retired Army officer, I too was appalled by John B’s remark about the military, which displayed a disgusting amount of prejudice and lack of understanding. And by the way, in my childhood schools (PS 110 and JHS 56) on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, it was the black and Puerto Rican kids who were the school yard bullies, making sport of beating up and threatening the few remaining white kids.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 02, 2009 12:06 PM | Send