Stoopid Stuff

Embolden - Nation

Ok. That's it. This has gone beyond stupid. There are two ideas that continue to be in play, and they both have to be put to rest. They are two sides of the same disingenuous rhetorical coin. One is that {some action} is emboldening the enemy. The other is that {some other action} is hurting the morale of our troops. Now, for those of you with critical thinking skills, you can see that this is Prima Facie nonsense. For the rest of you, I'll try to help.

First, let's consider "the enemy". There are a number of different forces arrayed against the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have various, if similar, reasons for fighting us, some quite obvious and reasonable, others less so. But I think it's reasonable and honest to conclude that they have decided to engage in combat with American troops without any consultation with the western media. It's very important to remind ourselves that it was us who invaded their country, killed their soldiers, fought our way to the capital and deposed their leadership, and stayed on as a military occupation force. In that capacity, we have killed and detained thousands of their people, some for good reason, others for no reason, and destroyed homes and workplaces all over the country. It is utterly blind to believe that our very presence in those countries does not inflame the insurgents every day. To believe for even a second that something said in an American newspaper or in a political debate will somehow cause people to suddenly decide "hey, I think I ought to start fighting these people" is crazy. Simply put, it is not our debate that causes them to hate our government and fight our military, it is the behavior of our government and the actions of our military.

As to the debate hurting the American troops, that's even more farfetched. These are professional, disciplined soldiers and marines. They are there, at least in part, because of a sense of duty instilled in them by their training. But let's be honest. Very few of them WANT to be there. They'd like to be home, with their families and loved ones, going to school, working, raising kids and dogs, maybe having a beer or bowling on weekends. Anyone who takes the position that we need to bring them home is not going to cause them unhappiness or melancholy, whether they agree with the politics of it or not.

In combat, you don't fight for god, country, ideals or ideology. You just don't. Once the blood starts to spill and the rounds are incoming, you fight for your own survival, and for the guys around you. You are not an American, not a nation, not a political doctrine. You are a platoon, a squad, a fire team. You fight and move and dig and shoot and call for support for the people you know, and the people you have lost. Later, when the guns are silent, you might discuss the politics of the situation, and there will be soldiers on every side. But understand this: Even for the men and women on the firing line, the reason we are fighting and the goals we hope to accomplish are obscure concepts, not in any way related to the day-to-day reality of life in a combat zone.

And there is so much that CAN affect the troops morale in the field. Second, third, even fourth deployments are toxic to morale. That's when you start impacting personal lives, breaking marriages and causing depression and suicide. But nobody questions the wisdom of that. Coupled with the stop-loss programs, the urban combat, the deaths by IED rather than by real combat, and you are creating an entire lost generation of troubled, damaged, depressed, lost souls. Souls who know that quality health care will not be available to them, that they will have reduced prospects once they come home. And who even raises the issue?

posted by mikey @ 12:18 AM