I have recently read articles and heard news stories about cities deciding whether they are pro-military or anti-military. Some city councils have voted their dissent of the Iraqi war - as if that's within their jurisdiction or something. Colleges have indicated that the armed forces could not recruit on campus (hello, Berkeley).
I'm fine with this, on one condition: If these cities have decided that they won't support the military, then the military should be under no mandate to defend them.
I'd love to see a city like San Francisco get rid of all military presence, cut police staff, etc., then have a problem and get no help. You make the bed you lie in; these cities should be held accountable for their irresponsible, self-centered choices.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Selective Defense
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Quipper! I like the way you think. Seems fair to me. They don't want to have anything to do with the military but if something happened where they needed protection or help they would demand the military come in and bail them out. They are a bunch of whiney cry babies.
and that's the beauty (and irony) of our wonderful country...burn the flag, protest the president, defame the military and remain protected to do so by those verify things they criticize and reject.
Jonathan,
I think a line has been crossed, though. This is no longer about being against the war. It's about pacifism being the only option, and anything else being uncivilized. These folks think any kind of planned protection is barbaric. So be it.
If you want to be a pacifist, then no one should be under any obligation to defend you - especially if your whole city council or state house/senate vote to ban the military. You live by the sword - oops, I mean, the white flag - and you die by it.
I agree..but this is just "us guys (and gals)" ranting and raving about it on a blog. Is it realistic that we could legislate that type of inaction? Could the military truly chose where on our soil they chose not to defend and protect? It would be like they were permitted to cecede from "The Union". Oh, if it were that easy...
Even if we couldn't care less for a certain town who "voted out" the military, we would be forced to erradicate the enemy from there because you couldn't let them have a stronghold INSIDE your country. If it were for a natural disaster, I am sure that not all the normal citizens felt the same as their misguided leadership, and would be deserving of assistance.
It feels good to say it, but it just isn't realistic, unless you live in anarchy.
Ah, but the military oath is to support and defend the Constitution, which includes upholding the right for people to disagree with you or even despise the military. Even pacifists are granted protection under the constitution.
What you propose, to protect only those who agree with you, and who support you unconditionally has a long history. We call them armed mobs. They're the bad guys.
American soldiers are better than that. They don't just defend their land and their families, they defend an ideal.
First: yes, I am ranting. I believe in and uphold the Constitution, and what I am talking about would never happen. If you've been reading my blog for a while, you'd know that I understand that.
Second: the problem I have here is with the attitude of the leaders. These are the people who expect - even mandate - that they receive assistance when necessary, then when their institutional support leaves (military, police, fire, etc.), they cast stones, spit on, and kick out those that help keep them safe. It is extremely aggravating that these "leaders" do not carry the burden of responsibility that comes with their leadership offices.
Third: This is not a namby-pamby, pacifist, utopian blog. It is affixed in reality, not looking to create Nirvana on earth. I realize that life is not perfect and never will be. Anonymous, I did not propose to protect only those who agree with me; how nice of you to spin the argument in that direction (again, check out more of my posts and you'll understand that).
For everyone that expects their rights to be upheld, they also have a responsibility to ensure that those rights are upheld. Those political pacifist leaders are the same ones that are quick to strike down freedom of speech when it's not their own speech.
Consistency is vital.
"Accountability" - now that's an interesting concept. It seems to apply more to normal citizens, but not to irresponsible leadership, except for the occasional scapegoat...
If you want to be a pacifist, then no one should be under any obligation to defend you
Indeed. But far too few pacifists are willing to be held accountable for their words. Perhaps they should be called 'chickendoves'?
Post a Comment