The Conservative Son

"War is not the answer."

I see the bumper stickers, the t-shirts and hear this mantra chanted on a daily basis. Other than just being a shallow, completely un-thought out, asinine thing to say, it's nothing more than a pathetic slogan for know-nothings and wanna-know-nothings. It doesn't' go to the heart of the matter.

What is the answer when terrorists are trying to sink our harbored ships overseas? What is the answer when terrorists are bombing our embassies? What is the answer when terrorists are attacking our allies? What is the answer when terrorists are blowing up our cities?

The pacifists say, "War is not the answer." I say, "It all depends on the question."

Labels: military, terrorists, war

So, Prince Harry has been covertly fighting on the front lines in Afghanistan? Well, that proves one thing: There's at least one real man left in Great Britain. God bless Prince Harry!

Labels: Great Britain, heroes, Prince Harry, war

I still vividly remember when Michael Dukakis, in 1988, was asked in a presidential debate, if his wife was raped and murdered would he then be for the death penalty for the perpetrator. He answered with a curt "no" and then broke into a long diatribe remonstrating the morality and dubious effectiveness of the death penalty.

In a recent Republican debate, a "24" scenario was offered to the candidates in which, I forget all the details, but a number of nuclear bombs had been set off by terrorists and we knew another was about to be exploded. Further, the government, in this hypothetical, had a terrorist in custody whom we were sure had information about the location of the nuclear device. The clock was ticking and we had no solid leads on the bomb's whereabouts. The question was, should we torture him for intelligence or not?

Well, the point, in both cases, was missed. The greater point was ignored.

When John McCain was put to the question, he rambled on about how that if America tortures prisoners, our enemies would think it alright to torture our troops. Now that sounds like a very high idea and nobody was willing to challenge a former P.O.W. who knows from first-hand experience about the awfulness of torture. Still, someone should really have asked him, "What prisoners did we torture that caused the North Vietnamese Communists to think it proper to torture him?" The answer? None!

The communists were infamous for torturing for propaganda purposes. John McCain was not tortured in the Hanoi Hilton for years for information, but for propaganda. His perspective is skewed by his experience. God bless him for his immeasurable courage, sacrifice and love of country, but all that doesn't make him right. The cowardice and confoundedness of his fellow presidential candidates only shows their misunderstanding and lack of resolve concerning this very question.

Alan Colmes also showed his ignorance and insincerity, by flippantly dismissing, without even a moment's hesitation, the thought of torturing a terrorist. I suppose if it was his family in clear, present and immediate danger, he would still take the "high road" and say it's not worth it? Would he still argue that it would diminish American prestige in the eyes of the world? Would he care if it was his family?

This scenario is no longer just an abstract discussion for college class thesis papers. We are now faced with the very real possibility of very real people dying in their thousands at the hands of a small group of lunatics who may or may not be attached to Al Quida or other similar organizations of hate mongers.

The point is that no country, Geneva Convention signer or not, has ever hesitated to abuse and torture American soldiers, sailors and Marines. They have tortured for information, propaganda and for no reason at all. No matter how good we were to Japanese, German, Korean or North Vietnamese soldiers. et al., our servicemen have always been abused in loathsome, unimaginable ways .

Is it our fault? Were our troops mistreated because we somehow mistreated theirs? Was Pearl Harbor bombed because we first attacked Japan? Was the World Trade Center attacked because we attacked the Muslim radicals first? Of course not! (Although, one fool on that stage seemed to think so.)

The next point missed, and one very important, is that you do not torture for confessions. Any moron knows that you can inflict enough pain to get a man to confess to anything you want. (What did you expect, the Spanish Inquisition?) Only an idiot or a monster would torture a P.O.W. for political and/or propaganda purposes or for coerced confessions. Yet, torture for information can be very effective simply because the information is verifiable. The one being tortured can be made to know this and also that the pain will continue if the information is misleading.

Now, I'm not advocating that we mistreat P.O.W.'s just for the sake of it. Most detainees are foot soldiers who know little or nothing about the plans of their leaders. They merely do as ordered. Still, it's a new world and a new enemy where one terrorist can kill tens or even hundreds of thousands with the right virus or dirty bomb.

Torture should never be the first choice, but neither should it's use, under the most extreme circumstances, be flatly forbidden. To some unreasonable individuals in Congress and the media, not providing all the comforts and freedoms of home to mass murderers qualifies as torture. The swine locked up in Club Gitmo, for example, often receive better food and treatment than our own troops and our people would certainly get no such consideration from them.

Taking the "high road" whenever possible is the road that America has always taken and should continue to do so. Any deviation, as is war itself, should be taken with deliberation, contemplation and much prayer. Remember, though, it's entirely possible to hold your head so high that it winds up in the sand...or somewhere even worse!

So, what would Jack Bauer do? Jack, although a fictional character, is, in many ways, a metaphor of America. We don't go looking for trouble, still, not everyone likes us, but neither do we mind. We do the hard work and we get the job done. We understand that, sometimes, getting the job done is all that matters.

Labels: 24, campaign, politics, torture, war

I wrote this letter to the editor of my local newspaper and he was kind enough to publish it. He must be insane!


******************************************************************************

“No more Vietnams!” I hear it more and more as the war in Iraq goes into another year. “No more Vietnams!” It’s like some sort of macabre rallying cry for those who think that the war in Iraq, or even the War on Terrorism in general, is a waste of American time, resources and lives.

Well, I for one am in full agreement. I say, “No more Vietnams!” No more a war in which the American soldier is called a “Nazi” or a “baby killer”not only by crazed, bitter and anti-American residents of our nation, but by like-minded Congressmen and Senators. No more those who oppose the war cherry-picking disgruntled veterans and using them as naive, (or in some cases not so naive,) propaganda tools. No more a war in which the American soldier is not honored and supported for his service and sacrifice while at the front and on his return home.

“No more Vietnams!” No more a war in which deserters and, if not draft-dodgers, per se, veritable traitors who attack and undermine the policy and strategy of their commanders are called “heroes” by those who loathe the American military and all the goodness for which they stand. No more an American electorate which is so willfully ignorant and self-absorbed that they quickly lose their tenacity because they don’t see a threat that is global, evil, tireless and will not go away just because we don’t want to be bothered.

“No more Vietnams!” No more equating murderous pigs who torture, behead and blow up women and children, not to mention, our soldiers and marines, with “freedom fighters” from our country’s past. No more using euphemisms for the enemy like “insurgent.”

“No more Vietnams!” No more a war where Allied troops win every battle along with the hearts and minds of indigenous friendlies only to have our Congress declare defeat in the face of victory. No more American Senators and Congressmen who don’t have the leadership, patience or intestinal fortitude to fight the good fight and keep the faith even though the battle may be long and hard.

“No more Vietnams!” No more a war in which our Congress passes arcane, myopic and convoluted “non-binding resolutions” designed to micro-manage the war and hog-tie our military because the Legislature mysteriously fears simply cutting off funding for something they claim is wrong. No more our military being slowly bled to death by cowards and small-minded, little men and women who would rather please Hollywood and schmooze with silly, mindless actors than make the mature, hard choices that being at war for our survival involves.

“No more Vietnams!” No more a war where our military’s full might is not unleashed against our enemy wherever they may be including contiguous nations who supply our foe with the wherewithal to murder men and women.No more a war in which the national troops with whom we stand are demeaned and reproached by those who think of themselves as “leaders” of our country.

“No more Vietnams!” No more a war where politicians with aspirations to one day take up residence on Pennsylvania Avenue, deride and falsely accuse our Commander-in-Chief in nothing more than cynical endeavors to advance their own careers. No more pathetic, parochial politicians who believe the world revolves around them and their political campaigns, nay-saying any and every thing that the commanders on the ground and the commander in the White House does to win the war.

“No more Vietnams!” No more giving a tinker’s dam about what the U.N.,the French, the Germans or any other back-water, has-been, jealous of America, petty little “second world” nations think about us or how we conduct our business and our defense! (They really don’t like us anyway, and for my part, with few exceptions, I don’t like them.)

“No more Vietnams!” No more a war where America abandons and betrays our friends and allies who have already sacrificed more than we can imagine and who will pay even more once the “Great Satan” has been sent home with his tail tucked neatly between his legs. No more a war that when that ally is under attack and requests we return to save the day, they receive only a rude “no!” and then fall to the very predator we had given so many lives to protect them from.

“No more Vietnams!” No more war where the only memorial to the sacrifice of our patriots is a wall full of names and not a newly liberated nation where people know freedom, who had not known it before and that our own nation is a little more respected and trusted by our friends. More importantly, our nation is a little more safe and secure and we have a little more respect for ourselves.

No more Vietnams? I’ll say!

Labels: politics, war

Who is the lieutenant who says the war is "immoral" and that he doesn't have to deploy with his troops? Exactly what kind of coward is he?

Is he supposed to pick and choose his fights? Was he so stupid that when he volunteered for the Army that he didn't know he might have to follow a few orders that he didn't like?

What are commanders supposed to do when they order a soldier to charge a machine gun nest? Are they supposed to form a committee and discuss the moral implications and legalities of charging machine gun nests?

Does he think that he will have the moral authority to order men into situations that they deem immoral and illegal should he ever find himself in a combat situation? Will he expect his troops to follow his orders to the letter without argument?

Why doesn't this scum resign his commission if he doesn't like the war? Why is he hanging around with all those Hollywood hot-shots who use him to undermine troop moral? Why is he not in Leavenworth yet?

Labels: actors, hollywood, honor, military, war