Do you know where your children are?
And, if you’re as heavily invested as Ms Dowd in the notion that those ‘killed in Iraq’ are ‘children’, then Mrs Sheehan’s status as grieving matriarch is a bonanza. I agree with Mrs Ryan: they’re not children in Iraq; they’re thinking adults who ‘made a decision to join the Armed Forces and defend our country’. Whenever I’m on a radio show these days, someone calls in and demands to know whether my children are in Iraq. Well, not right now. They range in age from five to nine, and though that’s plenty old enough to sign up for the jihad and toddle into an Israeli pizza parlour wearing a suicide-bomb, in most advanced societies’ armed forces they prefer to use grown-ups.
That seems to be difficult for the Left to grasp. Ever since America’s all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterise them as ‘children’. If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that’s her decision and her parents shouldn’t get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the Oval Office shagpile and chow down on Bill Clinton, she’s a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year old is serving his country overseas, he’s a wee ‘child’ who isn’t really old enough to know what he’s doing.
Mark Steyn, in the Specatator (registration required)
Posted on August 18th, 2005 by pwyll
Filed under: politics
Entries RSS
First, if the “autonomous decision-making adults” you rant about here were not making their decisions on the basis of blatant lie after lie after lie after lie out of the Bush administration, your argument would hold some, though little, water.
Second, to use one of the great film quotes of our time: Sergeant Hulka says at just the right moment in the Bill Murray movie “Stripes”: “Lighten up Francis!”
Paco Malo
Ah yes, how original. Bush lied. As I recall, somewhere in the Constitution, right between guaranteed free abortions and and mandatory PBS, it is mentioned that it is the President’s duty to satisfy every American citizen, individually, as to the truth of any claim whatsoever. Each soldier, in particular, must be completely satisfied with the detailed explanation of every item of US foreign policy, else he is not bound to obey orders. He may instead opt to be intervied on CNN.
Other president’s had troubles with this too. FDR struggled mightily with this, but finally gave in and announced the date of the D-day invasion in order to get Congresssional, UN, and NYT approval.
Did you have any particular lie in mind, or is it simply that Chimpy McBusHilter spoke? And stipulating that every word Mr. Bush utters is a lie, how does this transform grown men and women into chidren, the topic of the original post?
Prefatory note: The following started out as commentary addressing weaknesses in Mr. Steyn’s reasoning, and was written from 4 to 6 am this morning before I had to take a “Bombs over Aqaba” break. First, however, I address pwyll’s comment posted at 6:38 a.m. this morning.
You want a “Bush and the Neo Cons” lie, fine. In large part, due to the aggressive investigative journalism in Steve Coll’s article “IN THE KILL ZONE : The Unnecessary Death of Pat Tillman” in the December 5, 2004 edition of The Washington Post, we knew last winter that Spec. Pat Tillman’s death was a tragic “friendly fire” error.
The original Pentagon version was a fiction masterwork. As Mr. Coll eloquently wrote in the above-referenced article, “The records show Tillman fought bravely and honorably until his last breath. They also show that his superiors exaggerated his actions and invented details as they burnished his legend in public, at the same time suppressing details that might tarnish Tillman’s commanders.”
In the grand scheme, that’s a minor lie. Now to a major one (or, giving the Neo Cons the benefit of the doubt: a negligent, catastrophic failure to understand the implications of regime change in the Middle East). Big Lie: Going into Iraq was a necessary next step in this so-called “war on terror”.
Iraq (aka Gulf War II) has absolutely nothing to do with a war on terror – it is nothing more than picking out an already-crippled war criminal despot and taking him out for strategic geo-political purposes. Gulf War II was sold to the American soldier, the American people, and the U.S. Congress on the argument that Saddam Hussein presented a threat to the United States. As the drumbeat of that sales pitch continues, the American people, understandably, continue to be distracted from tough, real problems this country faces in foreign policy. North Korea and Iran come first to mind.
Now, to leap across the pond, to Mr. Steyn’s piece in “Spectator”.
Mr. Steyn is entitled to apply his own code of ethics to the “my Tory opinion” pieces he writes. If so, then I am entitled to apply my code of ethics, and I will lace it with a little American constitutional law.
Dear Mr. Stein: leave your children — and name-dropping ad hominem smart remarks about the White House Press Corp. — out of this. In the U.S., we are traditionally, and constitutionally, a nation of laws and not men; and we’re sensitive –- at least those of us who remember Viet Nam are –- on the issue of teenagers dying in illegal, undeclared wars.
Only the United States Congress has the power to declare war on behalf of the United States. Just because George H. Bush and his buddies up at the Supreme Court and on Capital Hill choose to ignore this now in the “war on terror” doesn’t make “Gulf War II” any more legal under the United States constitution.
Further, Mr. Steyn’s assumption that the “infantilisation of the military promoted by the Left is deeply insulting to America’s warriors” is over-the-top presumptuous. Who made him spokesperson regarding what “American Warriors” find insulting? When I sang the Stones’ “Gimmie Shelter” at a pub karaoke event last week, I got 7 good reviews on my anti-war protest and 1 bad. Where’s your data?
As for Ms. Cindy Sheehan’s one-woman protest outside the vacationing President’s ranch: Yo! Mr. Steyn, let’s review just a few examples of a lone, seemingly powerless individual changing history by taking a political stand, whatever their motivation and psychological diagnosis may be. What about the Buddhist monk who set himself on fire with gasoline in the middle of an urban intersection in Viet Nam to protest that war? What about the student in Tiananmen Square standing, by himself, and stopping a tank belonging to the communist Chinese military? And what about Rosa Parks saying ‘No, I won’t move to the back of the bus’?
Mr. Steyn, do the serious people in this world a favor: write a cookbook.
Paco Malo
Indeed, NK and Iran are “strategic geo-politcal” problems. Notice the geographical proximity of Iraq and Iran. I wonder whether American forces in Iraq might be useful in dealing with Iran. Notice too that who controls Iraq controls not the oil, but the far more important fresh water in the region. That might be useful somewhere down the line. But of course Iraq has nothing to do with a war on terror, as you define it. Do you have a alternative plan to share? Say pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, sell out Israel, and institute Islamic law training in US K-12 schools?
As to the war being “sold” to American soldiers. You seem to harbor the notion that it is somehow the place of the military to pass judgement on foreign policy. Civilians dictate policy; the military carries it out. Granted, American soldiers lack ready access to your opinion, and are thus ready dupes for any huckster, even that lying liar BusHitler. That said, Mr. Bush seems rather more popular with them than, say, Mr. Clinton ever was.
Now, to leap across the pond, to Mr. Steyn’s piece in “Spectator”.
Dear Mr. Stein: leave your children — and name-dropping ad hominem smart remarks about the White House Press Corp. — out of this. In the U.S., we are traditionally, and constitutionally, a nation of laws and not men; and we’re sensitive –- at least those of us who remember Viet Nam are –- on the issue of teenagers dying in illegal, undeclared wars.
Further, Mr. Steyn’s assumption that the “infantilisation of the military promoted by the Left is deeply insulting to America’s warriors” is over-the-top presumptuous. Who made him spokesperson regarding what “American Warriors” find insulting?
An interesting question, coming from someone who believes these soldiers to be a pack of dupes, incompetent to decide for themselves whether their service is worthwhile.
The remark about teenagers at least borders on the original topic. I gather you have no objections to 20 year olds dying in the same wars? Or is age not the issue? You’re not over Viet Nam, and every war, forever, is Viet Nam. Well, the other side is using Uncle Ho’s playbook, so there’s a similarity. And much of the press is working for the other side, as per the playbook, so there’s another. Shall we cut and run, again?
I am curious. We are fighting an enemy straight out of a bad movie. Theocrats, misogynists, homophobes, with tactics culled from the Charlie Manson / Jeffrey Dahmer school of war. Unlike the VC, they cannot fight worth a damn. But we shouldn’t be fighting them. Is there any possible enemy that the US could ever legitimately fight, or should we just fold up the military? Maybe paint their helmets blue?
As to Constitutional law, the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (H.J.Res. 114) was passed in October 2002 by Congress, authorizing the 2003 invasion of Iraq under the War Powers Resolution. The authorization was sought by President Bush, and passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23. (I think Kerry voted for it before he voted against it). Congress has formally declared war 11 times, and authorized military action another 13 times. Seems the illegal wars outnumber the legal ones. When you take it up with the SCOTUS, please ask them for me how McCain-Feingold fits in with the whole “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” thing. Might as well kill two birds with one stone.
I received the following from Paco Malo, who asked me to post it.
=============================================
As long as the United States Congress, following prescribed legal precedent for declaring war, does so, then, by definition, military involvement abroad is a legal “War” under the Constitution of the United States.
Korea (aka “police action”), Viet Nam (aka “conflict”)… Gulf War II (constitutionally ILLEGAL “war on terror” that is nothing more than a Nixonian / Reagan-style constitutional crime (to wit, Executive Branch usurpation of power not granted in the constitution and, further, completely inconsistent with the framers of said Constitution’s “Separation of Powers” design theory.
You got that — Viet Nam, a “war” I am accused of “not being over (emotionally)” IS NOT A LEGAL WAR — Viet Nam is no more than a “conflict” that an early 60’s Cold War “twist of fate” the U.S. got us bogged down in; by the way, American teenagers were drafted and died in that “conflict”/ Cold War “quagmire”, side by side with a number of other U.S. military and CIA personnel who, as Spec. Pat Tillman did, “fought bravely until [their] last breath.” I respect and admire them all.
We did not “cut and run” in Viet Nam — Uncle Ho, as the Viet Namese have been doing for 3000 years, threw our asses out.
But let’s move on, ASAP (i.e. we can debate this “until the cow’s come home”).
Any foreign entity / force that the United States Congress legal declares war on, and the President, in his/her role as Commander-in-Chief of the military says “Git ‘er done.” to, then and only then, the U.S. military regarding same — under those conditions, the U.S. could legally, “legitimately fight” a U.S. war.
Otherwise, let’s debate it some more.
House Joint Resolutions are merely statements of the “opinion” of one branch of a bicameral legislature — such resolutions ARE NOT LAWS. “Allora!”
“E basta”! Enough, I give. To use a poker metaphor, “I fold; this is too rich for my blood.” That debate was important, and fun. Thank you.
Peace,
Paco Malo
Interesting that you think Viet Nam was a Nixon/Reagan style constitutional crime rather than a Kennedy/Johnson style constitutional crime. Democrats get a pass, eh?
Also, I notice you did not question the legality of the first Gulf War. Was that an omission, or do you grant it was legal?
Dear pwyll,
Under the operational definition of “legal American war” I set out, Truman (re: Korea), Kennedy, Johnson, George Herbert Walker Bush, and Clinton, DO NOT get “a pass”. Thank you for helping articulate the details of the underlying contitutional law principle I was attempting to set out.
“But tomorrow is another day” (Scarlett O’Hara), and the Stones are on stage in Boston, even as I write, doin’ that Brit boy Rock n’ Roll thang.
Life is too short. {if possible, post the jpg.file “beaddress.jpg”, sent under separate cover with this comment}.
I’ll sleep when I’m dead.
“Be the Rain”
Paco Malo