Fighting in the Heart of Liberal Madison for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This blog will focus on liberal hypocrisy and the small, but significant victories of the right at the University of Wisconsin - Madison.

10 October 2005

Freedom Fighter Feature: Who is Really Protesting the War? Part V

Today, in our on going look of who is really protesting the war, I am going to state a fact that the MSM is afraid to say: The Anti-War movement is quickly becoming an anti-troop movement. On campus, they call it "anti-recruiting" and it is focused on ROTC cadets, military personal at job fairs, and high school recruiting.

They say "we support our troops, but we do not support recruiters." Guess what? Recruiters ARE troops!

The consequence of this rhetoric is a collective slap in the face of military personal both home and abroad. They are saying that "signing up for the military is wrong" and "most enlistees are duped into it." What is that saying about our troops? The answer is simple: They are calling us stupid and ignorant!!

Their own words are even more telling:

In the late 1960s, during a period of growing student, black, and working-class militancy which eventually played a central role in defeating U.S. imperialism in Vietnam, protesters were able to shut down ROTC departments and make many campuses off-limits to recruiters. Today, we can draw from the lessons and experience of the Vietnam anti-war movement, and successfully kick military recruiters out of our schools.

Anti-recruitment committees need to be organized at every high school and college. Already this fall, campaigns are emerging to kick military recruiters out of high schools and college campuses. Socialist Alternative is working to launch and build these campaigns in a number of schools. These structures can mobilize students to participate in informational pickets, educational forums, counter-recruitment protests, office occupations, and other events.

Through these actions, we can send military recruiters packing with the message that working-class youth and youth of color will not fight and die for corporate profits and the U.S. empire.

First, they claim responsibility for the loss of US lives in Vietnam. Then they are proud of kicking ROTC off of campuses. ROTC is a RIGHT for students. We have the same rights to pursuit a future in the military as the liberals have a right to pursuit a future in Women's Studies or LGBT Studies. Now they want to prevent High Schoolers from making a decision to join the military! Folks, if you believe that recruiting for the military is wrong in High School and Colleges because these students are being tricked into service, then you are calling every soldier that has ever worn a uniform a moron.

A Piece of advice to the anti-war troop haters out there: Your right to protest, to say these hateful things are protected and guaranteed by the very soldiers that you don't want to exist.


Anonymous Ryan S said...

Great piece. I just had this very debate with someone back home. I, of course, was pro-recruiting.

Mon Oct 10, 01:57:00 PM CDT

Blogger RT the LT said...

I would expect as much Ryan.

Mon Oct 10, 03:07:00 PM CDT

Blogger Jenna said...

I think that is the strongest argument one can make for recruitment: "Your right to protest, to say these hateful things are protected and guaranteed by the very soldiers that you don't want to exist."

Mon Oct 10, 04:19:00 PM CDT

Blogger RT the LT said...

True. These people are biting the hand that protects them. How would their protests go in Iran, North Korea, or China? Our constitution is only as strong as those willing to die for it. I wish they understood that.

Mon Oct 10, 05:06:00 PM CDT

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dudes. Most soldiers are morons, or just terribly desperate. As are most people who blindly follow one ideology, party, leader, or religion. It ain't the liberals who feel that. Most of them are morons too. Read a little conservative philosophy: Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Quine. Just listen to Rumsfeld and you'll understand what big-brains think about the pawns in the field.

Thu Oct 13, 01:10:00 PM CDT

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Long live the Communists! And we don't mean the wimpy living-wage, worker-rights variety in the U.S, that only got us the 40 hour work week and workers comp. We're talking about the big boys the world-beater types, you know the SOVIET UNION. They managed to contain the US War Machine for almost 50 years (OK, Korea, Vietnam, Central America excepted). Think Missiles of October, if not for the Soviets, Cuba would be a cinder, no more great cigars and mambo. Think of nuclear tipped missiles that the Hawks are using as bunker busters. Think we'd be tossing out treaties and threatening every regime if the Russkies still had some fight in 'em. The world is sad to see them go. How much terrorism was there against the US when the USSR was around to limit US aggression and provide a much more tempting target for jihadist angst? That's right, when the Russkies were real men, we got to be the allies of Bin-Laden against godless Communism!

Thu Oct 13, 01:27:00 PM CDT

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.

Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard.

That is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now. But, we can learn from our mistakes and ensure that this does not happen again. Take a major step in that direction; eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification provides clear evidence that confusion over standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation.

Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.

Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America."

Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.

With the Utmost Respect,

-- Capt. Ian Fishback

Sun Oct 16, 11:29:00 PM CDT


Post a Comment

<< Home