The Right Stuff

Monday, August 21, 2006

The (D)Evolution of Military Leadership

If Liberals can support the troops, but not support the war—a contradiction of sentiments so obvious and alarming that it warrants no intelligent discourse from news analysts(that is the reason, right?)—then I feel as though I can espouse the other extreme. While I support the war, I do not support the leadership of the troops. The only place where the average Liberal and I may agree on Iraq is on the campaign’s mismanagement. Whereas our troops should have made every day a Day of Shock and Awe since entering the Iraqi theatre in March of 2003, they’ve been handcuffed by the politically correct military policies dictated by Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration. The best, most recent example of this mismanagement? For your consideration, I present a stark contrast in the treatment of our troops by military leadership.
Here we see two complete opposites. On one hand, we have a man who volunteered to serve in the armed services three years ago, who has gained rank and leadership clout only to refuse a tour of duty in Iraq. A man who of his own free will and clear conscience enlisted in the service at the time of the Iraq invasion, only to refuse to take part in the military’s continued efforts in that nation. A man who is a deserter, a traitor, and at any other time in history would be hanged, shot, or otherwise executed for his outright refusal to serve.
And on the other: no less than eight soldiers held in United States armed forces prisons in solitary confinement for war crimes. Their crimes, which are deplorable if proven, are substantiated only by the testimony of enemy combatants and others of questionable credibility at best.

Consider the mismanagement, the utter lunacy. Lt. Ehren Watada stands before news cameras, is idolized and lauded as a hero, and granted the freedoms of an innocent man in spite of the fact that he is admittedly guilty of his crime. Then look at the treatment of our brave men held in solitary confinement, treated in ways that are prohibited for our own prisoners of war, on the mere accusations of the enemy. Generals with this level of ineptitude make Custer look like a careful and contemplative strategic mastermind.

Here’s what I find supremely ironic: imagine if Lt. Watada had engaged in this kind of public refusal to serve during the Viet Nam War. During Viet Nam, men who refused to be conscripted—conscripted!, without freedom of choice or thought—into the armed forces and refused to serve were immediately imprisoned. Others fled to Canada and became pariahs, persona non grata in their own homeland. These men were compelled to serve and did so bravely and selflessly, much the our soldiers overseas do today. Had a man refused to serve during World War II, the consequences would have been even more dire. Go back further in history, and you find treatment that becomes more brutal aggressive towards this type of treason. Yet no sooner did Lt. Watada go public with his insubordination did websites like www.thankyoult.com pop up in support of this man.

Today I find myself united with Liberals and others entrenched against the Iraq War in wondering “When will the insanity end?” Though the question is posed for contrasting reasons, any kind of answer, any clear leadership, any brand of justice, would be most welcome.

2 Comments:

  • Just to clear up something. Supporting the troops but not the war isn't as contradictory as it sounds. The main point of that statement is to differentiate onself from the protesters during vietnam who would go so far as to hold individual soldiers responsible for what happened there. People who say that don't want to be associated with the people who spit in the faces of returning soldiers.

    By Blogger X, at 4:53 PM  

  • I have to admit, I don't understand that situation with the refusal of duty. Was he at least dishonorably discharged? I can't imagine him still serving after that stunt.

    I have to agree. On so many fronts Rumsfeld and his buddies have screwed up and mis-managed the war. Ultimately, it's better to seen it run well if it has to happen, rather than this mess.

    I don't quite agree with your point about accusations by enemy combatants. Weren't they just civilans? They haven't been found guilty yet, at any rate, so the system should be able to find out if they have been falsely accused. That's the whole point of them going to trial for this.

    By Blogger X, at 4:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home