A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
August 24, 2005The Danger of Yellow Ribbon PatriotismBaring any majour developments, this is going to be the last I say on Iraq. I'm running out of eloquent ways of saying that this country needs to shit or get off the pot, and no one reads them anyway. As soon as people see the word "Iraq" they already have a pre-conceived opinion, and instead of reading what you have to say they just look for an opening to attack. Disciples of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore, followers of the Christian Right or MoveOn.org...they're all the same. Just with a different opinion that is better than yours. If I say nine negative things about the President, I'll get attacked for the one time I don't. If I say nine negative things about protesters, I'll get attacked for the one time I don't. Agree with the war and you're a blind patriotic warmonger. Disagree and you hate America. Liberal or Conservative. Red state or blue state. I'm in the minority trying to figure out what's right and what's wrong, in a country that only seems to cares about who's right and who's wrong. And I've just simply had enough. Anyway Time had a great editorial called "The Danger of Yellow Ribbon Patriotism." I highly suggest reading the whole thing, but here are some excerpts: ...The military is frustrated by both the mission and the sense that the war isn't front and center for the rest of the country. There is a fair amount of anger among the returning troops, especially the noncareer soldiers, the National Guard and reservists whose tours were extended and then extended again ...They echoed a question that the battalion commander who had lost five of his lieutenants had asked me. "Why hasn't the President issued a national call to service? I don't mean a draft," he said. "But if the President called on people to serve, they would. And not just in the military. My mother mentioned this the other day: 'Why aren't there the war-bond drives we had in World War II? Why aren't we being asked to collect clothing for the children of Iraq?' ...There's no coffin, just the inverted rifle, boots and helmet of the fallen. We call the roll, up to the name of the missing trooper. We call his name: Specialist Doe. Then a second time: Specialist John Doe. A third time: Specialist John R. Doe. And then taps is played. It really gets to you. It's an important emotional experience for the troops. It closes the door and enables you to move on. Posted by Brodigan2016 at August 24, 2005 07:44 AMComments
OK. I did the work and went to your website (which I previously had not heard of), and deduced that this was a cross-post. Also OK. I scrolled down the whole page (which got me to 8/12). Forgive me, but what the hell is your point? Are you pro-war? Anti-war? For the war, but disgusted with the way Busco screwed it up? Opposed to MSM treatment of war news? What? You have to clue us in here. Posted by: Literally Retarded at August 24, 2005 08:04 AMI don't like the phrase "for the war," but for the most part I think we're there (right or wrong) so we should actually try to win. My biggest problem is that, different issues come up concerning the war, and when they do I make an opinion accrodingly. But people automatically want to paint you as being pro-war or anti-war. I had done three post in a row about how the President has screwed things up. Then I posted the article from Newsweek about how he meets with families, and I got bombarded with, "How could you support him. War of special interests. No blood for oil." Posted by: Brodigan at August 24, 2005 08:17 AMI think the quotes by the battallion commander are right on the money. I support our continued presence in Iraq, but the Bush Administration has done a horrible job of explaining the strategic commitment the war represents and advocating a long term response. In the war zone they have fought to win (IMO, despite all the blunders) but domestically they have treated the war effort as politics and played not-to-lose. I don't know that a call for national service is pertinent -- all the units of the military are meeting their quotas now and the rate of reenlistment is high, even for national guard and reserve troops. However a call for shared sacrifice was and is warranted. This might cover: * Subsidies and incentives for selected war industries (e.g. body armor, and while we're at it, vaccine production) * More pay to the troops (beyond combat pay) and support for their families, especially for those troops on extended tours of duty * Special taxes (or a roll-back of some tax cuts) to cover the cost of the war effort But more important than any of these issues would be for the administration to just start addressing the enormity of the situation, acknowledge the price, and advocate a continued commitment to the effort. It's impossible to conceive of a propaganda effort in the model of World War II or the Cold War, but the administration needs to take the effort to convince as seriously as the free world did then. Posted by: Henry Woodbury at August 24, 2005 09:51 AMHenry, very well put. I agree 100%. Posted by: bk at August 24, 2005 11:09 AMExactly. Now, how do you convince W to do so? Posted by: Blue Jean at August 24, 2005 11:56 PMBrodigan, And you're correct: Nobody's listening. At least nobody of any consequence. Posted by: GoSlash27 at August 25, 2005 07:15 AMBrodigan bk -- thanks Blue Jean -- I haven't the slightest idea and maybe its too late. Maybe the Bush doctrine ends in January 2009. Maybe the Bush people already figure that's the case. It would be nice to see some Democrats get out ahead of Bush on national security, but that doesn't seem to be happening either. Posted by: Henry Woodbury at August 25, 2005 01:05 PMAnd it's terribly frustrating to be placed 'in the enemy camp' every time you open your mouth, regardless of which side you're speaking to. What he said. |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
