Posted on 05/23/2007 8:00:34 AM PDT by Raymann
Every Memorial Day, we pay tribute to the American men and women who have died in combat. With speeches and solemn ceremonies, we recognize their courage and valor. But one fact goes unacknowledged in our Memorial Day tributes: all too many of our soldiers have died unnecessarily—because they were sent to fight for a purpose other than America's freedom.
The proper purpose of a government is to protect its citizens' lives and freedom against the initiation of force by criminals at home and aggressors abroad. The American government has a sacred responsibility to recognize the individual value of every one of its citizens' lives, and thus to do everything possible to protect the rights of each to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This absolutely includes our soldiers.
Soldiers are not sacrificial objects; they are full-fledged Americans with the same moral right as the rest of us to the pursuit of their own goals, their own dreams, their own happiness. Rational soldiers enjoy much of the work of military service, take pride in their ability to do it superlatively, and gain profound satisfaction in protecting the freedom of every American, including their own freedom.
Soldiers know that in entering the military, they are risking their lives in the event of war. But this risk is not, as it is often described, a "sacrifice" for a "higher cause." When there is a true threat to America, it is a threat to all of our lives and loved ones, soldiers included. Many become soldiers for precisely this reason; it was, for instance, the realization of the threat of Islamic terrorism after September 11—when 3,000 innocent Americans were slaughtered in cold blood on a random Tuesday morning—that prompted so many to join the military.
(Excerpt) Read more at theobjectivestandard.com ...
I remember very well that at the outset of hostilities, the President moved forward with deployment with full resolve in the ability of the troops and their leadership. At the same time, he had to know, and so did we, that a more dramatic, larger and more comprehensive approach would work better, faster and be less costly in human lives. However, even going to Iraq and deploying in A’stan as we did, at the level we did, was asking ‘public opinion’ to swallow a lot. How then or since could or would the President have been permitted to conduct the war at the level full US military potential?? The same Liberal dissenters who accepted only grudgingly (if at all) our WOT mission would all have been howling up in their trees. (BTW, most have since and almost immediately reneged on their agreement with US policy as initiated after 9/11.)
These are the same sniveling and disgusting critics who NOW say the US and Coalition efforts were too limited, poorly conducted and doomed to ANY success EVER.
I am real sick of their flip-flopping horses&^%!!!! How many ways can they possibly have their argument????
So, according to him, the only thing worth sacrificing our soldiers for is if we are attacked at home since that is the only “clear” justification...all others are peripheral and therefore not worthy. Sorry, I don’t buy it. This is isolationist BS to the “nth” degree. It’s like saying you won’t kill the snake in your bed until it actually strikes. The conflicts he mentions were mostly not wars but more like battles in the Cold War that contained Communism and checked Russian and Chinese aggression. You can say we won, lost or stalemated these battles but we did win the war.
I’ll take a good mission in a bad war over a bad mission in a good war every time.
“The proper purpose of a government is to protect its citizens’ lives and freedom against the initiation of force by criminals at home and aggressors abroad.”
“...all too many of our soldiers have died unnecessarily because they were sent to fight for a purpose other than America’s freedom.”
This guy appears to be nothing more than a Libertarian flack. Initiation of force is a high priority plank. A better description of a government’s purpose is to protect the volition of its citizens. The ability to choose, succeed, fail, based on nothing more than the content of an individual character. This includes defense against enemies foreign and domestic, and makes the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq valid, just and honorable!
This fellow may appear for the war on terror, but there aren’t to many Libertarians out there who, abhorring the whole “force continuum,” don’t think September 11, 2001 wasn’t a plot by the American government to ratchet up its own power.
Just a thought.
Top sends
It's shortsighted isolationism to think that any front in the war on terror ISN'T for the purpose of defending our freedom.
Wow, it looks like I should have insisted people read more then the excerpted piece or I should have explained it better.
Alex is not against the WoT, he is very much for it, in fact I remember him writing an article on how we should have nuked Fallujah. His problem is with the altruistic purposes Bush and co. have made this war to be. We should be doing everything in our power to rout out the Islamists and we’re not. Read the article, he explains why our strategy, from the rules of engagement on up is flawed on its very premise; the soldiers of the United States should be fighting FOR the United States, not the people of Iraq or Afghanistan.
Thanks for the further explanation. I think our military IS fighting for us. As I said before, it’s foolish to believe that any military engagement we undertake isn’t for the purpose of our national security. The world is far too small in this day and age for it to be otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.