I've stayed out of the brouhaha about the U. Mass student who vented his spleen about the coverage of the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan. I've read quite a bit about the editorial, as I'm sure many have. For that reason, I won't quote it here. You can try the link above if you want to read it, though the site is receiving more traffic than it can handle right now.
I winced, as one who is overtly anti-war, when I read some of the things this kid had to say, knowing that his ignorance would become a big sopping wet brush with which some on the right would proceed to paint the rest of us who oppose this war. Great. Just what we needed. Thank you, Rene Gonzales.
Among the things I've read in response to Mr. Gonzales' statements, The Uncivil Litigator said some things I'd like to echo.
Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of our system of government knows that the individual members of our armed forces are not policy-makers. Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, sole and exclusive authority over what our military does and how it does it lies with its Commander in Chief, i.e., the President of the United States. ("The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"). Thus, when young men and women join the U.S. Army, as did Tillman, they subject themselves to a strict code of allegiance that requires them to obey, without question, the commands of their superior officers leading all the way up to the President himself.
…The President's power, given to him by our soldiers, can be abused and misused, and history has proven that. But there is a difference between attacking the President's use of his powers on one hand, and on the other attacking the individuals who sacrifice to give him--and ultimately us--those very powers to begin with. This is a critical distinction I thought our society learned to make through our experience in Viet Nam.
I've said it before, and will probably be called upon to repeat it again in the future. Being opposed to this war, and bearing antipathy towards those who are fighting it are not one and the same. As UL so eloquently states, our men and women in uniform do not make policy. They carry out the missions they are assigned from our elected leaders and/or those they appoint.
Let me be clear. As one who opposed this war before it began, protested against it, blogged against it, and continues to oppose how it has been carried out, I bear no ill will towards any of our servicemembers who have and are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. From my point of view, when they return home in caskets, with injuries, or with mental and emotional scars from what they have seen an experienced, they are victims of war too. I want each and every one of them home soon, safe, and whole.
I have no beef with any of our men and women in uniform. They are carrying out the mission they were assigned. My problem is with those who formulated such an ill-advised mission and then sent our servicemembers—with much less than was needed in terms of numbers, equipment, and training—into what is quickly becoming a quagmire with no real, forseeable end in sight.
Maybe it's me, but I think that when people are willing to put their lives on the line we owe it to them to send them into areas where realiable intelligence indicates an emminent threat, to send them in the numbers necessary to do the job, and with the training and equipment necessary to keep them as safe as possible while carrying out their mission and aid them in carrying it out. I think our servicemembers deserve better than what George W. Bush and his administration have given them.
So, I am opposed to this war—yes—and the administration that got us into it. But Mr. Gonzales does not speak for me. I daresay he does not speak for any thinking person who was and is opposed to this war and tothe current administration.
Recent Comments