Andrew Bacevich says he didn't do enough to stop the war, and that, in this way, he failed his soldier son who died in Iraq.
Jules Crittenden asks the $64,000 question: short of insurrection, what could Bacevich have done?
One of the frustrating things about having adult children is that they have that gosh-darn freedom of will thing going and they get to make decisions with which we disagree. At that point, we are supposed to support those decisions, regardless of our personal feelings.
I'm too old for military service. My husband wouldn't have passed the physical because of health concerns. None of my children are old enough for military service. But I can say unequivocally that I would be proud of them if they chose the military for a career.
Bacevich seems to think that he "didn't do enough" to oppose the war and that his Congressmen and Senators failed him by putting the brakes on the war immediately. But the truth is, this is still a democracy and there are other states filled with people who supported the war at the beginning and still support it now. Why is their opinion less worthy of consideration?
It's hard to lose a child under any circumstances. Bacevich should be proud of his son's service to his country in a time of war and let the political consideration fall to the wayside. His son's sacrifice allows his own protest. That should be a heavy enough burden to bear.
UPDATE: This guy thinks you are too ignorant because you supported the war in 2003 (and/or still do). Since you don't vote the way he thinks is logical, he suggests that certain people who pass tests get extra votes to cancel yours out. Given that this would be entirely unconstitutional--we do have that whole one-man-one-vote thing--it's a ridiculous suggestion. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone took it seriously.
Well, I'm way to old for the military, and when I took a military physical in 1977, I was rejected because my vision in my right eye was so bad that it was unacceptable for military service.
ReplyDeleteBut my older daughter has been awarded a Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps scholarship, something she actively sought. Assuming that all goes well, she will be commissioned as an ensign in 2010.
Your Son Died So That You Have the Freedom to Protest
ReplyDeleteWhich assumes that his son's death kept this particular freedom, which had been guaranteed a long time ago, safe for perpetuity.
Just to say, that aspect definitely does not follow given the actual situation. The question becomes, would he have that freedom had his son not died. Can you make that argument logically? Or must you make it using a pathos-based argument? Because I see nothing else here.
I expected this argument from the Left, that a particular person's death couldn't have preserved the right to free speech.
ReplyDeleteIn torts, we talk about assumption of risk. Indeed, soldiers do assume a certain amount of risk when they join the armed services. But this doesn't negate the importance of the service for society as a whole.
I can't say if his son's particular death preserved his right of say stupid, obnoxious things. What I can say is that without his son's service--and that of every other soldier in the U.S.--this man's ability to shoot off his mouth could come under fire from other sources.
But that wasn't your argument. It's fine and dandy to say that someone serving their country's defense is defending the rights of the citizens of said country, but that's just stating a truism. Whether or not the actions of the military as a whole actually do make the world safe for democracy (heh) is a completely different question, and you've conveniently fudged the distinction by saying that this man's son, by virtue of his death, made this man's right to free speech safe. That does not follow and neglects the circumstances surrounding his death. You can say that he joined up to defend our rights, but you can't say the military's actions actually do defend those rights.
ReplyDeletebut you can't say the military's actions actually do defend those rights
ReplyDeleteOoh, ooh, I'll play this game!
You can't say it didn't.
Ok, now lets start playing: Nuh uh, Uh huh!
Really, if you're going to point out the weakness in an argument, don't use the weakness you pointed out as the backbone of your own.