Color me confused...
...And finding no fault with the Senate Minority Leader in this case.
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Anti-war liberals | Democrats | Mitch McConnell | War — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As an aside before beginning, I have to say this: I really don't see how this issue speaks to a single moderate or conservative -- nor, in fact, to anybody who doesn't already hold the fringe-left view that all (American) war (carried out under a Republican president) is evil, and that (volunteer) soldiers are helpless and hapless victims (of being asked to actually do their jobs) who deserve support (but only when they shoot their officers).
That being said, it appears that an effort is being made to paint Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell as a heartless chickenhawk Republican who thinks that soldiers' lives are not only expendable, but that, since they are volunteers, the lives of American servicemembers are worth less than if they were conscripts. This controversy (such as it is -- in my opinion, it's quite the manufactured bit of nothingness) stems from the following statement by McConnell:
"Our brave soldiers have protected us for six years successfully. If we brought all of them home today (terrorists) they would be back here, so we need to stay the course. It's gotten better and there is a dramatic decrease in causalities and we have begun to withdraw troops." said McConnell. "The polls are reflecting that there is a 15% increase in optimism in American's views about the war.
"I won't tell you everything is great in Iraq; it is not. But we want to keep a steady flow of funds so that we don't disrupt the military," said McConnell. "Unfortunately, most of our friends on the other isle are having a hard time admitting things are getting better; some days I almost think the critics of this war don't want us to win. Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers.
Read on, por favor...
That last line (emphasis added by me), grabbed by ultralib organization ThinkProgress, has made it into the mainstream media in the context of a callous, revealing comment by a Republican leader that the Left desperately wants to take down in 2008. The Louisville Courier-Journal picked it up, and then featured a page dedicated only to "reader outrage over the McConnell comments" (complete with planted letter-writers -- see Dan Reihl for more on that).
There are two problems with this (well, two that I will actually take the time to address here). First, the comments McConnell made -- as you can see from the unedited passage above the fold -- came in the context of supporting the heck out of the soldiers fighting in Iraq, whose actions he said "have protected us for six years successfully," and of excoriating the opposition, who he rightly says "don't want us to win." There's no ambiguity in his statements -- that's what he said, and that's what he meant. The fact that the anti-troop left can't handle being called exactly what they are is their problem, though they are doing their absolute best to make it into a big, big election year problem for McConnell as well (perhaps as revenge for Daschle's inglorious exit from the Senate after his own failed stint in leadership?)
The second issue is this: what McConnell said in that supposedly controversial clause was absolutely true. Every single one of America's servicemen and -women in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Korea, Africa, and elsewhere are, in fact, volunteers. None are conscripts; none enlisted in or were commissioned into the military against their will.
As I said this past spring, while eulogizing SPC Robert Dixon, a soldier killed by an EFP in Iraq just after I left my embed with his unit:
Dixon simply did what was asked of him, and what he wanted to do. That task happened to be living on the edge, putting his life on the line for an ideal (and for the people at home), and operating under conditions so dangerous, and so intense, that to function as he and his comrades have, one must have an inner heroism which 99% of the population will never have nor understand.[...]
It is of the utmost importance that we at home remember Robert Dixon, and the sacrifice of men like him, and that we constantly reflect on the fact that America’s uniformed services are full of men and women who would willingly give their lives for their comrades, as well as for every man, woman, and child at home.America’s armed forces are made up entirely of volunteers who knew the risks of service when they joined, and who willingly embrace those risks and their accompanying responsibilities every day, both to protect their homeland and to protect each other while working for the greater good of accomplishing their various missions throughout the world.
Not one of them is a victim. While there is not -- and never will be -- unanimity among the soldiers (or any other population) with regard to opinion and feeling on the war, on their specific mission, or on anything else, these young men and women have voluntarily put aside their personal comforts and desires to take on a job and to perform a mission which is dangerous (deadly, in fact) and, all too often, beyond thankless.
It is the height of disrespect (and I use that word purposefully, knowing that it could be replaced with a far stronger, and less appropriate, term) for any person or group of people to insinuate that the people who volunteer to take on the unimaginably dangerous job of standing guard on freedom's frontier are helpless victims of a machine that the leftist fringe here at home hates so much. Conversely, what Senator McConnell said in his speech (which many are trying so desperately to use against him), rather than denigrating those serving and insinuating that, because they are volunteers rather than conscripts, their lives are somehow worth less than they would be were the latter true, actually served to honor the men and women who make such a sacrifice by acknowledging that they have gone above and beyond that required of ordinary Americans, and have volunteered to do such a dangerous, controversial, and thankless job.
The manufactured controversy surrounding Senator McConnell's remarks is bogus to say the least. What the Minority Leader said was perfectly clear and requires no apology or clarification -- and I believe that the majority of the American and Kentuckian population that isn't blinded by their hatred of all things American military (and their dedication to a view of these brave men and women as pathetic victims of the Bush Machine) will recognize the truly positive meaning of his words for themselves, without needing any prompting from McConnell or from his defenders.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | NBC backs down on Freedom's Watch ads — Comments (26) »
Color me confused... 17 Comments (0 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
But thats just my own humble opinion...
I dont mean that to be smart-alecky, which I realize it might have come across as. but anyway...
...(a) the LCJ is the major daily paper of Louisville, KY.
(b)
I dont think that this is some big manufactured controversy. This happens a lot when a politician does a bad job of articulating themselves, and instead says something that raises a few eyebrows.
My point here is largely that I don't think that he did a bad job of articulating himself at all -- he said what he meant, and I believe that most people will see his remarks for exactly what they were.
(c)
I would disagree with the notion that a soldier's sacrifice is made bigger by the fact that he volunteered
And I would disagree that I said that in the first place. What I said was that the manufactured claims that what McConnell said meant that volunteers' sacrifices were smaller because they weren't conscripted was a load of hogwash.
a) Well I guess I learned something new today.
b)
Conversely, what Senator McConnell said in his speech (which many are trying so desperately to use against him), rather than denigrating those serving and insinuating that, because they are volunteers rather than conscripts, their lives are somehow worth less than they would be were the latter true, actually served to honor the men and women who make such a sacrifice by acknowledging that they have gone above and beyond that required of ordinary Americans, and have volunteered to do such a dangerous, controversial, and thankless job.
I agree that this is probably what he meant, but I disagree that that is clear from what he said, unless you assume this is what he is trying to say from the start. In other words, if you dont like Senator McConnell, or are neutral towards him, then I don't think you will get this out of his comments.
This passage comes during an argument about the war/attacking the other side, so I originally read it as a continuance of his argument in favor of the war/against war critics. I think that people like me (who dislike or are neutral toward the Senator) will tend to read that too, and in that context it seems out of place. And he may have been making the soldiers-are-not-victims argument, but he did not mention that explicitly in the speech so I did not get that out of it.
c) I guess I felt like defending draftees anyway, lest somebody think less of them after reasoning that all the good people volunteered without having to be drafted.
"loathed the military".
Back in my day it was considered an eventuality-especially after taking (gulp) and passing the pre-induction physical.
I distinctly remember being preoccupied with thoughts of when my draft notice would arrive. Christmas Eve, 1968 it came. The mailman had placed it at the bottom of a handful of mail he handed my dad. Strange as it may seem, it came as a relief-as everything in my life had been put on hold anyway.
My experience was that some of the best soldiers I served with were drafted as I was. I went through an NCO school in Fort Benning, Ga that was patterned after OCS. 99% of the graduates were sent to Vietnam. I'd wager that more than half of those who went through the school were draftees with leadership capabilities. We bore the moniker of "Shake 'n Bake". Eight months in the Army and I was already an E5. Exceptional candidates (a handful) in the NCO school graduated E6. To the best of my recollection, every one I knew that made E6 was a draftee.
Most of us made the decision that we would do the very best we could. And we did.
Soldiers are not victims. They are the best of us.
The left has this idea that true bravery comes from running off to Canada during war. Especially when a person volunteers for duty. Somehow that lunacy fits into the puzzle of their bizarre view of reality and that is why they think the way they do. Liberalism is a psychological disorder.
one it is the campaign season so everything is disected.
Two, media loves controversy even if they have to manufacture most of it.
Three, it is always difficult to put a soldier's death into words.
Four, the P.C. police came out in full force on this one. This is manufactured so as soon as it starts it will stop just as soon.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Our lives aren't any less valuable because we are volunteers. The national leadership has just as strong an obligation to use us wisely.
But we're professionals, we know what we are getting into, and most of us want to be there. Actually pointing that out should not be off limits. This is a manufactured controversy.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
It is a silly controversy. I mean, why did they join the military, or the National Guard, or the reserves, if they didn't want to die?
Love the sound of a well deserved 2x4....
This is such a load of hooey. Liberals carp about being "taken out of context" and the like. Here the MSM purposefully snips and clips to present things with the worst possible spin, when the original meaning was completely clear. Apparently there are no depths to which they cannot sink. This is what makes the internet so invaluable.
"The day you think you know it all is the day your trouble starts."
To volunteer in a time of war, does show a level of valor which is not available during peace time. The sacrifices of our soldiers is that they may die in war, they do not want to die but want to secure victory in honor of the USA. It is a non-story, and should be left as such.
I'm not sure why he would bother making the distinction at all. People enlist for all kinds of reasons, but the sacrifice and the risk is the same.
I know a fair number of Iraqi vets--most of who enlisted in the National Guard. Does their sacrifice mean more because they were not full time professional soldiers before they were deployed?
Sorry, volunteering beats "having" to - though that does not mean that those drafted do not serve honorably & with great heroism. Volunteering, especially those who volunteer now, get an extra 'bump' because they know that combat is not a remote possibility but is very likely...
I live in Louisville.I just went on a rant on Newsbusters on the same subject.I can't do it again.
Summary:The courier-journal is a liberal rag.

I would disagree with the notion that a soldier's sacrifice is made bigger by the fact that he volunteered. My guess is I am in the minority, but on the other hand a volunteer is probably the type of person who would do well in the military in the first place. A person who volunteers was likely planning on joining up for awhile, is more physically fit/mentally prepared, etc. I think it is an equally big sacrifice for somebody who can barely run a mile and never planned on doing anything with their lives that required any sort of exertion or risk of injury to be thrust into a situation where they have to fight and possibly die, and then perform well. And somebody who volunteers is more likely to be fully in agreement with the war in which they are fighting, whereas a conscript might be somebody who was always against the war but is putting aside their reservations to do what is needed. And during Vietnam we saw that a draft was by no means a guarantee that one had to serve - a "conscript" in Vietnam likely still made the conscious decision to fight when he/she could have avoided service with no consequences.
And I dont think that this is some big manufactured controversy. This happens a lot when a politician does a bad job of articulating themselves, and instead says something that raises a few eyebrows. Then everyone realizes he did not really mean what he said, and the whole thing goes away. For example, think about the whole John Kerry "botched joke" thing and what a big deal that was.
And the fact that the Louisville Courier-Journal did something does not mean that it is indicative of any nationwide effort. I for one had never heard of the Louisville Courier-Journal. But thats just my own humble opinion...