previous post next post  

Different strokes for different folks.

Ah, ambiguity.  A compare and contrast of two people with common feelings, but likely springing from vastly different premises...

Seen at Fort Benning. Infantrymen aren't noted for their subtlety, and can have a somewhat binary view of the world around them. This costs them, in that they don't get invited to faculty parties on campus much. Which, of course, also keeps down the health insurance expenditures of those institutions...
By contrast, here at Fortress Leavenworth, we're just chock full of subtlety and PC. Seen yesterday morning on my drive into post on a [car] driven by a civlian DoD employee (which you can tell from the car's stickerage)...

"Treehugging Dirt Worshipper"

Mind you, I'm fine with that, and, in fact, an Infantryman under fire is *also* a treehugging dirt worshipper... though not, I suspect in the manner of this individual, based on other cues in the car and about the driver.  

Second bumper sticker on the same car:

"I'm already against the next war."

The irony here, of course, is probably so is the Infantryman.  But most likely from a different perspective, involving much less coffee at Harbor Lights (insert "college town coffee bar" for you non-Leavenworthians...)


The problem is that liberal pu$$ies think their Constitutional rights are guaranteed by circle-jerking diplomats at the UN, instead of by the American military bleeding on foreign soil.
 Toyota, not Honda for the Prius.
Was the treehugging dirt worshipper referring to his occupation, avocation, or hygienic practices...?
 Bill, for most of that set I've known it would refer to all three.
In 1993 I was slightly chastised by my BDE CDR for displaying a "defeat the dope smoking draft dodger in 96" sticker on my pickup.  He kept cracking up as he explained to me how it was wrong according to the various AR's and then quietly said "I like it but it's gotta go".
Well, fdcol,  I think the "bleeding on foreign soil" is part of the problem. The Neo-Cons, or Neo-Jacobins as Jerry Pournelle calls them, think that's just fine, but I don't think it necessarily advances the interests of the USA and Their citizens.  Besides, we can't afford it anyway. I could see the advantage of shedding some blood on our southern border though, and not ours.

It used to go:  "We are the friends of Liberty everywhere, but the guardians only of our own."
Well, JTG, I agree that we have to be careful just where .... and how much ... bleeding is done on foreign soil, and I'm personally not convinced that everyone, everywhere are culturally ready to handle the responsibilities of "democracy" no matter how much we might hope they are.

But to be honest, I'd rather that our military bleed on FOREIGN soil than for us to wait and have them bleed in our own streets.  If that happens, you can bet that the enemy and the battlefield is HERE, and a lot of American civilians, including women and children, will also bleed and we'll suffer the death and destruction that I'd prefer be kept on the enemy's territory.

If we have to fight, fight on THEIR soil.  And don't wait to allow THEM to set the schedule. Do it when it's to OUR advantage, even if that means "pre-emptive" action.

If that makes me a "neo-con", I accept the label.

The problem with the paleoconism type military isolationism is that it stopped being competent the day the first transoceanic flight took place.

A foreign problem stemming from anywhere on this planet can reach us with no warning in a day or two's travel time. And such problems wont always be in uniform either.
The following is just my opinion. No one has to agree with my opinion, as well.
 It is the end of March in 2011.
 President Obama has sent the U.S. into a civil war in Libya. Obama seems to want us in a major war for only 7 days. Will our side, the anti-Kaddafi soldiers, win at this time?
 Obama also handed off the U.S. lead in this NATO operation, as soon as he could. Obama also seems to have no backup plan, if his No-Fly-Zone tactic doesn't remove Kaddafi from power.
 And today, 3/31/2011, Secretary of Defense Gates says that some nation, that is not the U.S. should train and/or arm the anti-Kaddafi rebels. I guess that Obama might have put us in this war, so that the U.S. doesn't look like we're afraid of a real war. A real war that lasts a week.
Obama and the main stream press, don't seem to know why Obama and most of the press went to war in Libya.
 I'd really like to ask Obama: President Obama, what good reason did you have, to put the American people into this war?
Oh, yeah, Grimmy. I hold here, right now, in my hand my copy of Heinlein's "On the Slopes of Vesuvius", written in 1947, before we knew that Joe had The Bomb.

A quote:  "Why, there might be a tramp steamer lying out there in the East River right now---"  (He's writing about sneaking a nuke into the country.)
P.s., to Grimmy:  Also I recall reading that Churchill, as much as he liked airplanes, regretted that they'd been invented, because that reduced the isolation of the right little tight little insulated isolated little insula, or island.
Secretary of Defense Gates says that some nation, that is not the U.S. should train and/or arm the anti-Kaddafi rebels.

He went even further, and said there wouldn't be any US trainers in Libys "for as long as I hold this office."

And then the Administration leaked that there were US Special Forces on the ground in Libya, and the Special Forces specialize in -- training.

But I doubt he'll leave. I remember when William Perry said, in 1994, that if US ground troops were sent to Bosnia, he'd resign. One year later, there were US ground troops in Bosnia, but Perry hung around for another two years -- no doubt trying to decide if he'd really meant that he'd quit...