Meanwhile, at West Point.......
A U.S. Army cadet reads a book entitled "Kill Bin Laden" as he waits with other cadets for U.S. President Barack Obama to deliver an address on U.S. policy and the war in Afghanistan at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point.Not surprisngly, the mass media fails to note a few things about this particular cadet that sets him apart. You don't get that geedunk from a gumball machine.
Another excellent read.......... It's good to see that the men destined to defend my ass are not reading "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance"
Labels: Media Bias
posted by Xavier at 5:55 AM
16 Comments:
Let's see... combat infantryman badge, Army good conduct medal. National Defense Service award, middle east campaign ribbons, etc.,
Looks like an accomplished enlisted man has advanced to the USMA. Kudos to him for serving his country.
The showmanship of bundling the whole dog-and-pony bunch up to USMA for this event was outrageous. It was appropriately an Oval Office speech.
That the creative cadets would one-up the fool was inevitable.
I often used to appall folks by referring them to Hemingway's "Death in the Afternoon" which has a chapter on the art of killing well. They would be aghast and remain so even when I went on to explain it was about bull-fighting not humans. Regardless, it is an art.
Please note that the cadet in the top picture is wearing a CIB and other ribbons that identify him as a combat vet...probably reading up so he doesn't miss next time he goes over....
I do believe that the cadet wearing the CIB has already done some defending of our collective asses. He also bears an uncanny resemblance to a young George Patten.
Glad to see that they are reading quality material as well! "On Killing" is a book I have been meaning to get. I have read some other things by Dave Grossman and this book seems to be a pretty good one from what I can gather.
Exactly Roger.
Anthony:
I would highly recommend "On Killing" and "On Combat" if you have not read either. I had the pleasure of meeting LtCol Grossman earlier this year and found him to be pleasant, literate, an excellent speaker, and amazingly energetic on what was about four hours of sleep (missed flights the night before).
Xav, thanks for pointing out that cadet. He has a "Been There" collection to be proud of, and fortunately no "I forgot to duck" award. God bless the USA and the USofA.
With all due respect, can someone explain, with logic, how joining the military, going overseas and killing people ultimately at the behest and command of politicians (the majority of whom you acknowledge as self-seeking swine) is automatically and objectively "protecting Americans?" Or are the soldiers ultimately doing it at the behest of the simple majority of voters? Is that any better? As Mark Twain said, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."
I get the impression that many people on this blog believe that American soldiers (but not foreign soldiers) always kill only people who pose a threat to Americans. That their actions are infallibly and invariably "protecting America."
Again, using logic, and not emotion, can you prove that this is the case?
Sans,
It is not something that could be argued logically to your satisfaction, I think. Suffice to say that in an age when many of the cadets at the USMA could attend an ivy league school, and graduate with a nice paying entry level job, they chose to attend West Point and serve under the command of those they despise for those who are usually ungrateful, for very little payment. Intelligent men, and these men have proven intelligence, do not make such a choice unless they believe they are serving a greater good.
It would be illogical to think that a soldier in any capacity "always kills only people who pose a threat to Americans." That is not the nature of war, any war, at any time, fought by any military or guerilla force on any continent.
I simply respect the men who make this sacrifice of their own comfort, convienence and ultimately perhaps their body and life to provide a strong military for my nation. It is my firm belief that without a strong military, any nation would be over run by those who would usurp it's resources and enslave its people.
That is my belief, and I do not feel the need to justify it or defend it. I think history bears it out time and again. Until the nature of the human race itself changes, I believe this will hold true. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
I am certain that small nations with next to no military could be held up as examples to the contrary, but such nations have few resources, and usually have treaties with stronger allies. Case in point, Kuwait in 1990.
1. Submit that there was less reading than point making going on.
2. Unusually ballsy conduct for young men in this climate.
3. Suspect that the message got through loud and clear.
4. Hope they don't suffer for it.
V/R JWest
Xavier,
To add to your comment, I would only add that small nations who don't have allies are often the 'recipient' of the attention of larger, more aggressive nations. For example, Belgium! The German Wehrmacht "flowed through" during World War II in order to "go around" the French Maginot Line (and France, because they didn't wish to "offend" a good and decent neighbor, also lost when the Nazis continued to "flow into" France too).
I agree with you, a strong and well-motivated military is our strongest deterrent against the "bullies" of the world...
Amen Xavier.
Second the recommendation on 'On Killing' and 'On Combat'. Excellent books, not only on military matters but on self-defense as well.
Xavier,
As a [poor] Christian, I look back on the history of Israel, and see that God tried to show, over and over again, that the Hebrews would not be successful in war through superior numbers, superior training, or advanced technology. They did not have or need any of that. They had God fighting their battles. They were simple shepherds against the most modern military technology of the day, scythian chariots. He only supported them when their cause was truly righteous, however. And only when they were subservient to his will. Whenever they tried to succeed of their own skills, technology and numbers, they failed miserably.
Do I believe in having a strong defense? Absolutely. But I do not believe, along with former CIA Bin Laden Unit chief Michael Scheuer, that having all those troops in the Middle East is protecting anyone. I believe that it is quite the contrary.
Thomas Jefferson lamented the fact that the "pretense" of the "Whiskey Rebellion" was used to increase the standing army from 1,600 to a staggering 2,400 troops. All the Founding Fathers hated the idea of a large standing army. They said why: if men in with an artificial amount of power have a standing army, they will use it. Politicians call the shots on who soldiers go to kill, Xavier. Politicians are invariably not noble, they are not wise, and they are not prudent.
That is why the Founding Fathers wanted a militia. They would only be a defensive force, because they have no interest in going off to war. Politicians and professional soldiers do not want to lose their jobs. Citizens have their own, separate jobs. They stand to lose everything in the face of an invasion.
There is nothing the military is doing, or can do to prevent any other people from attacking the U.S., like the Saudis (not Iraqis) did on 9/11. There was nothing they could do the first time, either. As Michael Scheuer and Bin Laden said, their presence overseas was the motivating factor for the attacks in the first place. They don't hate "us" because "we're" free. They hate the United State military and political presence, and I don't blame them for that. I blame them for killing civilians, however.
Would a militia be able to defend Americans against a full-scale nuclear attack? No, but neither could any United State ground troops of any MOS. It seems as though the shepherd and shopkeeper Afghanis are doing a pretty decent job at driving out their third modern military in a little over a century.
If a society cannot defend itself without taking money from non-violent people by force or threat of force, or from forcing people to fight for them by threatening them with imprisonment or execution [the draft, which we do not currently have, but they do threaten current "volunteers" with prison and execution if they decide to quit] then that society has forfeited its right to continue to exist.
If achieving one's end requires the use of evil means, then one's end may not be morally achieved.
Sans
A militia was sufficient for the United States in the early 1800s, with troops coming via sailing ship. To protect the interests of the United States in 2009, we need to project power overseas. Isolationism is nice, and is impossible today, and frankly became impossible in 1900.
Lybia changed its actions because Gaddafi believed the US would stomp his country. Iran is pursuing nukes because the Mullahs believe it WON'T.
And non-violent peoples who refuse to support the military are free riders, parasites who gain the benefits of freedom without being willing to pay for it. If they do not wish to have the protection of the violent, they are free to leave.
William,
Who are the politicians of the United States to say who may or may not have nuclear weapons? North Korea already has them. Where are the airstrikes and invasions to "protect us?"
I am not a pacifist. I believe in the appropriate use of violence, something politicians, 98% of the time, are not able to discern.
United State soldiers do not keep us free. As the Founding Fathers said, they are the "bane of liberty," insofar as they are a standing army. That is incontrovertible. They said that based on human nature, not "recent events." Human nature does not change.
Post a Comment
<< Home