Redstate

'We serve. We do so, especially in the commissioned ranks, as a calling.'

I can assure you Streiff, as a 25 year veteran of the Enlisted ranks, that the calling to service in the military is not especial among its officer corps. There's a reason that Tommy Atkins is an enlisted man, after all.

the less it hurts your brain.  That's not to say that isn't still damaging but you numb to the pain after a while.

and the conversation turned to the War and her son's part in it.

She told me she wished she had a way to contact her son's recruiter so that she could give him a piece of her mind and tear him a new one because she wasn't happy that he joined.

On the other hand, her son has been in for 13 years as of today.  Obviously, he doesn't feel the same ambivalency toward his recruiter...

If we can fight wars without changing our way of life at home, then exactly what kind of sacrifice are we supposed to make up?

Raising taxes to build more phony baloney bridges in Alaska to ensure Senator Stevens' perpetual re-election, and then calling that a SACRIFICE, would just make a mockery of the real sacrifices for freedom and security being made.

So this is just as silly as some man strapping on a pillow to say he's sharing his pregnant wife's burden.

This is the first time I ever heard the sheepdog thing, other than out of my own mouth.  

Years and years ago, my (then) girlfriend did not understand why I enjoyed kenpo so much, and why I especially enjoyed engaging in the sparring sessions that got pretty, shall we say, intense.  I also had been in the military, and I had numerous guns that I use skillfully and practice with often.  Yet I was this gentle, thoughtful, considerate guy.[current note -- ancient history, that]

There were also certain habits I had that were chivalry/safety related.  When walking with a lady at the mall, or traveling, or sitting at a restaurant, I took certain actions or positions that seemed the gentlemanly thing to do.  She thought it was quaint and a little cute.  Until the first time something went down that demonstrated the practicality of that sort of thing.  Because I was vigilant and in the correct position, a potentially very bad situation was thwarted -- and some gratuitous harm was done to the would-be wolf, because, well, that's just the way it is.

In my effort to explain to the lady, later on, how I could be normally gentle  but then suddenly and drastically violent, I came up with exactly this -- the sheepdog analogy.  I told her that there are many, many men whose natural heart is protective, and who so despise the wolves and respect the danger they offer, that we had no second thoughts, no guilt issues, no qualms whatsoever about going to war, even aggressively going on the offense, and if need be, taking the fall, to protect the sheep.

And our military, I think, perfectly demonstrates this, as you have aptly described.  And  I also have had the experience of showing gratitude to a uniformed American, whose response was surprise and a little embarrassment over being recognized for what was perfectly natural to him.

To which your answer is "very little" as well. To say that treating the war as consequential is important is not to say that anything is due to those who fight the war, right?

you disagree with him at all.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often

their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog

quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with

yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there

helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically

destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is

counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and

horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth

when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't

train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy.

Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you

are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at

your moment of truth.

If you refuse to act because you're afraid that there's the slightest possibility that you're wrong, then well, you're abnormal.

y'all are drifting. Flyerhawk made the reasonable point that being a sheep is not necessarily being a coward. Hard to disagree with such pure logic I should think.

The implication here is that tens of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqis died because of AMERICA'S bombs. I am not buying it, and I am also sure that is not your point. You use it to bolster what I believe is the main thrust of your argument, however, and I do not accept the premise.

You don't think that innocent Iraqis died?  

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

We can quibble over the number but innocent civilians died.  It doesn't much matter whether they died from American bombs or insurgent bombs.  The dead are dead either way.  Your unwillingness to dent this "premise" is just an attempt to rationalize their deaths.

But if these beliefs prevent these same people from fulfilling their obligation to protect their loved ones, then the labels apply.

Except that isn't what we are talking about here.  We aren't talking about people who have to choose to physically protect their families or not. We are talking about people who accept a specific political worldview.  We are talking about people who support or oppose the war, yes?  Or are we talking about people who choose to join our armed forces to actively fight?

I firmly believe it is a matter of life and death, and just as the decisions made by Bill Clinton years prior to September 11th paved the way for that attack, so do the decisions made now by President Bush affect our children, and grandchildren. I choose to err on the side of their safety in every circumstance

I agree in spirit.  However that doesn't mean that opposing the Bush doctrine makes you a cowardly sheep.  It simply means you oppose this doctrine.  It could mean because you are blinded by partisanship.  It could mean because you oppose essentially unilateral preemptive war.  It could mean that you find that policy decision a poor one.  All 3 reasons come from different perspectives but come to the same conclusions.

While I appreciate the sentiments behind all the articles here- I do have to disagree to a certain extent.

There were standing ovations for two servicemen wounded in Iraq at the Independence Day ceremony in downtown DC yesterday. There was loud and sustained applause for all of the veterans in the parade. I have seen many times in DC the military being honored. As I was commissioned in the USAF a year ago, I am acutely aware of how society views those who serve. It would be nice if EVERY American was more involved in supporting the war effort, but I am guessing that it is 1000 times better now than in Vietnam..

And Esp SNCOs are in the same boat. When you become a lifer, the effect is the same, I think.

I know it wasn't a jab at us enlisted pukes. But officers need a prod from us now and again to remind you we're still here.  :)

If a woman is alone, and she crosses the street in order not to come in contact with a group of black men, is she racist?

So if a group of black lawyers in Armani suits come down the street and she crosses the street is she being cautious or racist?

If a group of white kids dressed in Gangsta Chic come walking down the road would she stay on the same side of the street or would she cross?

You fail at the most basic level to understand the point I'm making here.  I'm not suggesting that we should never act.  I'm not suggesting that violence can NEVER be the right path.  I'm not even suggesting that past actions should not be taken into consideration.  

But the reality is that tens of thousands of Iraqis died because of the war.  Perhaps that is just a unfortunate necessity.  I'm not going to arguing that.  But to some people that is considered an UNACCEPTABLE consequence.  It doesn't make them sheep, stupid, or cowardly.  

This thread is devolving into some pretty ugly caricatures.

This is the meaning of the quote.

apparently my comment was nothing more than being a troublemaker whereas Jack's needless snark was insightful commentary.

Cause I would really like to know what you mean by it.  

you're debating the mechanics of the decision-making process without addressing the underlying principle.

You can take a position about whether or not there can ever be a possibility of justifiable preemptive action without bogging down in the intricacies of the process.

There are plenty of circumstances in the world wherein it is possible to agree to the principle while second-guessing the application. For example, a soldier has a responsibility to object to immoral orders, but having done so, must endure examination of his decision to find if it was sound.

Likewise, you don't have to provide that preemption is never sound in order to present a position that a particular case of preemption was unjust.

It just seems this conversation is degenerating into a morasse of probability and hypotheticals, when it could be resolved more simply by taking a position about preemption as a principle.

but I have no idea what that quote is supposed to mean in this context.

I have to admit never giving this much thought though perhaps I should have. Quite honestly, it is so far outside my experience that I've never taken the time to explore it.

Maybe a diary tomorrow?

that becomes the norm but I'm not terribly sanguine about the odds given our history.

But that reaction does not go to the issue of the op-ed or my story. What is due the man or woman who serves in the military from his fellow citizens?

I agree with flyerhawk about something. Now my brain hurts!

See here for a rather egregious example of lack of gratitude - beneficiaries of insurance policies issued to WWI veterans had to sue all the way to the Supreme Court to get the government to pay.

I see a lot of problems with the whole sheep/sheepdog analogy:

• citizens in the US are the BOSS of the military, not vice-versa. The commander-in-chief is elected by us and speaks on our behalf. In other words, our "sheepdogs" answer to us, the supposed "sheep." (In the pastoral analogy this kind of makes us both the "sheep" and the "shepherd.") Sheepdogs bossing sheep while protecting them would seem like a better analogy for a military dictatorship than for our system.
• Sheep are (presumably) unaware of their need for protection. I don't know where Grossman or anyone else could get the idea that the American public wants to abolish the military. I've never heard anyone call for that. Have you? (Showing proper gratitude to people in uniform is another matter entirely.)
• Sheepdogs are smart and highly trained, while sheep are dumb and undisciplined. Grossman says he doesn't think sheepdogs are morally superior to sheep, but the analogy can't help but suggest that. And he does seem to disapprove of people "turning into sheep" and says he is "proud" that more people are becoming sheepdogs, which strongly implies he really thinks sheepdogs are better. Then is it really fitting that they should die for the sake of the sheep?

The Amish are cowards?  The Mennonites are cowards?  How bout Muhatma Ghandi?

There is no question that some people are cowards and thus avoid fighting.  

But some people hold strong convictions regarding violence.  Some people come to a philosophical point in which they believe that violence is not the answer.  Forgiveness and grace take precedence over violence.  A guy I would imagine most here respect a great deal lived his entire life following this ethos.

I fully agree that those who have open disdain for the military are likely not these type of people.  But let's not lump all the "sheep" together as cowards.

If you think we can indefinitely continue deficit spending at the rate we are, then I am grateful you are not in charge of our fiscal policy, though I do wonder what happened to the fiscal conservatives.

As far as there being calls for a national effort to replace oil, yes, there have been--the question is from whom. Certain segments of the population have been up in arms about that for a long time, and alternative energy is a fad that lots of people tinker with and a very few truly dedicate themselves to. But if you think there's been anything remotely comparable to the national effort, spearheaded by visionary presidents, that went into our space program in order to beat the Soviets at the space race, then you simply have not been paying attention to the issue.

As far as oil being cheaper than any other energy source? Ridiculous. Oil is only cheaper because we do not factor in all the ancillary and secondary costs. We don't factor in government subsidies, environmental impact, to say nothing of the cost of being beholden to ME tyrants and Islamic extremists.

We've strayed far afield here. My original point was, simply, that pace streiff, it may be a sign of strength that we can conduct an expensive war without making any changes at home, but it's not really wise. This is a complex subject that doesn't really lend itself to pithy soundbites, and I regret trying for brevity by doing so, because it's opened me up to superficial attacks that derail the point by haggling over details. If you want to discuss this further, I'm willing to take it offline so that we don't threadjack streiff's post any further.

"You don't think that innocent Iraqis died?"

Straw man. Read the statement that you referenced again, more carefully.

Then:  

"It doesn't much matter whether they died from American bombs or insurgent bombs.  The dead are dead either way.  Your unwillingness to dent this "premise" is just an attempt to rationalize their deaths."

What a breathtaking statement - I really do not know where to begin. As a matter of fact, I am going to give you a do-over on that one. If you truly believe it, we don't have a lot more to talk about.

"We aren't talking about people who have to choose to physically protect their families or not. We are talking about people who accept a specific political worldview."

These policy decisions are all about phsyically protecting our families, like it or not. I reference again Bill Clinton and 9/11.

"However that doesn't mean that opposing the Bush doctrine makes you a cowardly sheep."

A case of label drift. In the original essay, the definition of sheep is pretty clear. I believe opposition to the Bush doctrine is primarily "sheep" mentality, as so defined. The main point is that sheep should not be given the job of protecting other sheep - that job belongs to the sheepdog.

find you guys mind boggling frustrating at times as well.  

We see things differently and when we talk about something that goes to our very core beliefs it is extremely difficult to believe that someone can think otherwise.  So people tend to assume that the other person is either ignorant or willfully deceitful.  However sometimes it's just a matter of different views on the world.  I personally believe that by coming here and having my beliefs challenge I get a better understanding of how others see things and I hope that sometimes my comments might give others the same perspective.  

At least that's my hope.

I don't mean to cheapen an excellent post in any way but this reminds me of why I have always liked these words from the fictional Col. Nathan R. Jessep in A Few Good Men:.

"You see Danny, I can deal with the bullets, and the bombs, and the blood. I don't want money, and I don't want medals. What I do want is for you to stand there in that ... white uniform and with your Harvard mouth extend me some ... courtesy. You gotta ask me nicely.

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"

The sheepdog principal boiled down with just the right amount of evil to be usable by the Hollywood establishment...?

People are naturally endowed with the capacity for violence, be it "good" or "bad." What can overcome that capacity is fear. People that are mortified of violence are not "productive citizens," they are cowards. Hating the military is just an expression of that fear.

which you referred to. I recognize the truth in Grossman's description of the sheepdogs mindset; that he or she sees it as a chosen path to be walked, not as a means to an end of appreciation or reward.

Yet, the ingredient which separates the sheepdog from the wolf is loyalty; to the sheep (his neighbors and countrymen), to the flock (his nation), to justice (separating illegitimate aggression and legitimate defense), and to the ideals of the flock (the U.S. Constitution).

I have for many years held the belief that this loyalty should be taught, encouraged, and reciprocated from the sheep to the sheepdogs as well. It has dictated my own actions, (although to a large degree I have become a sheepdog), it is what I have taught my children, and it is what they are teaching their children.

The degree to which it exists now or has existed in the past is, to my mind, irrelevant to the question of whether or not such a reciprocal loyalty could be achieved in our society, and whether or not it would be good for our society to have such a covenant. In my estimation, it could, and it would. We have changed more difficult pandemic attitudes than this in our society, and in it's way, such loyalty among the sheep would serve to heal many scars and divisions.

While benefitting the sheepdogs, I believe this would be most advantageous to the sheep, and would promote a much healthier society. I also believe the reasons there is so little loyalty to the sheepdogs now are quantifiable and reversible.

As a sheepdog, what importance do you place on this as a goal, and of what benefit would it be to our nation?

I'm not sure how you come up with probabilities on these matters.

What were the odds that Saddam had lots of WMDs?  What were the odds that he was going to attack the US with said WMDs?

These are rhetorical questions as I am not looking to debate what the actual odds were.  However I think you might be able to agree that not everyone may felt as certain, or certain at all, about Saddam's imminent danger.  If you believe that life must be preserved whenever it is possible then you may oppose such a war.  You can call that being a sheep or a coward I guess.  I call it abiding by your conscience, which is not to say that person is right.  

Anyone who looks at past behaviors, then predicts future behaviors from them, is using magic powers.  Because the rest of us good wholesome people just blunder about in the dark, amazed every day when the Sun comes up again.

I have pondered several times the decision by the President to not call for service from the Nation. Clearly the decision was made to have the Country continue to act/function at a pre-war pace rather than call for rationing, national military service, increased taxes or war bonds. It would be nice to have the populace more engaged. At the same time, we can't ignore the hundreds of thousands who send packages, well wishes, and millions who pray and cheer for our troops. It would be nice if it was like WWII all over again, but as long as the libs stay out of the way I am satisfied.

   With some of my dear friends who are pacifists. To them, the pre-emptive war in Iraq is an abomination. To me, it is an extension of common sense. Would you watch while a child was being murdered, or would you stop the murderer - even if you had to kill him? They have to stop, think and debate this point, whereas I would simply pull the trigger, or break his neck, etc etc.

    Would you go to war if you thought your child might be on the observation tower of the next World Trade Center, or having their throat slit on the next Flight 93? Or sparing someone in another country the same fate? Or are other people in other countries not worth it? Or is all war bad all the time?

Sheepdog / sheep or Sheepdog / contemplative coward? It seems to me that sheep are not dangerous, but cowards are.

     Taking the point further, with America as the sheepdog, the essay is right on point. The sheep (rest of the world, liberals) despise the sheepdog, and wish he would go away, all the while not realizing that they would be devoured without him. He asks nothing for his sacrifice, just the knowledge that he is doing the right thing. When the sheep realize that indeed, the sheepdog has saved them (Reagan / Cold War), they will take as much credit as the press will allow them, then move on (Democrats).

Excellent essay.

Is that if they are unwilling to defend what is theirs 9 including their freedom), then they don't deserve to have it at the cost of others ho Are willing to fight for it.

On the other hand (oh, such wonderful human dichotomy) I am still going to fight and, perhaps, die to protect what they have.  Kind of makes me feel a sucker every now and then, but I couldn't look in a mirror if I did otherwise...

How do you determine that one person is likely to commit the next 9/11 and another isn't?

You are justifying actions based on future events.  Now you feel ok with that.  Others do not.  Some people do not find it acceptable to say that because Iran MIGHT someday develop nukes and that they might someday use those nukes that justifies deadly force against them now.  You may feel it does but others do not.  

That doesn't make them cowardly, at least no in any sense of the word that I am familiar with.

a pacifist would argue that a child in Falujah that dies from an American bomb is the price you pay in order to try to protect another child from dying.  

Your theoreticals assume that a person has clairvoyance.  Maybe the person walking down the street towards you intends to rob and kill you but that possibility doesn't give you the right to preemptively kill them.  

A lot of the people here seem to be associating the sheepdog with a specific political group and the sheep with another political group.  It isn't nearly that simple.  

Is a person who loudly opposes a war but joins anyway a sheep or a sheepdog?  Is a person who loudly endorces a war but who is unwulling to fight that war a sheep or a sheepdog?  Cowardice and courage are not a reflection of your rhetoric.  They are a reflection of your actions.  Note: this isn't some backhanded chickenhawk attack.  These are generalizations regarding specific types of people.  They are not directed towards anyone specifically.

Of course the imagery of sheep and sheepdog is somewhat misguided in a general sense.  But there is little reason to go down that road here.

Believe or not I actually brings these points up in an attempt to have honest debate.  I believe that sometimes people here post things without thinking through what it is they are saying and tend to get away with it because of if flies with the general tone of RedState.  

But if these comments aren't challenged they became accepted.  I don't think that serves anyone well.

I won't deny that sometimes I can get pulled into the weeds on topics and sometimes I can be unclear.  And, yes, sometimes I can stubbornly fight on in a debate that is either pointless or one in which I have lost my bearing completely.  However, unlike when one of the people on your side does the same, I generally get jumped on for doing such.  That's the price of doing business here.  But let's all try and be honest.

To tell us all exactly WHAT you believe.

about effort for effort's sake, not as means to an end.  Token gestures like embracing ethanol (which probably utilizes as much oil to produce as it replaces) make us feel better but they do not make a measurable difference.  In WWII rationing and other sacrifices were necessary to confront the threat.  In this case, there are few if any sacrifices that would contribute materially to our success in the war on terror (save liberties).  An expanded aid budget would be PR on the cheap, but it would probably be unsuccessful in eradicating poverty.  An end to the pork barreling of defense appropriations would be another sacrifice, but heaven forbid we endanger incumbency.  Thus this call for sacrifice seems largely designed to make us feel better about asking people to fight and die for us, not about effecting the success of this endeavor.  

If you have no capacity for violence then you don't deserve to be free, and you won't be in the long term.

First off this flies in the face of Streiff very well thought out and written essay.  Second of all do you really believe this?

People that aren't willing to be violent do not deserve to be free?

that a random stranger walking by will mug you if you shoot them dead first?  Zero.  

Truth be told I was basically trying to say the same thing as you just did in this post.  That's why I kept pointing out that my examples were illustrative  and not intended to argue the specific merits of Iraq or our actions in general.  

I was arguing against blanket statements by using specific counterpoints.  A difficult tactic which I obviously allowed myself to get pulled into the weeds on.

but the point I was making, somewhat poorly it seems, is that while men enlist for all variety of reasons (job skills, get out of town, college) in addition a desire to serve, accepting a commission offers few, if any, of these reasons.

This was not meant as a jab at the enlisted ranks, only to point out that accepting a commission really takes away any reason you have to gripe when you feel unappreciated.

I "can" pay all my bills and still have that home entertainment system I want. But it'll take putting myself in debt to do so.

We're putting ourselves in debt to fight this war, and I'm not just talking about Iraq here. That doesn't mean it's not worth fighting. But it does call into question the seriousness of the people holding the purse strings.

Don't manufacture ridiculous straw men just because they're easier to tear down than what I actually said. I'm not talking about false or phony anything, and I could give two hoots about Senator Stevens' blessed bridge to nowhere. Our dependence on ME oil severely ties our hands on how effectively we can deal with Islamic terrorism, but instead of a call for a national effort to develop effective alternatives on par with the space race against the Soviets, we get lip service. You don't like raising taxes to keep things the way they are? Fine--find ways to cut spending to pay for the struggle of our generation, instead of kicking the cost down the line to my son by padding the national debt.

your service is not unappreciated by me and mine, and this piece should serve the unfortunate many who don't know WHAT or HOW to think about the Military and it's members a reminder.  

If I could, I would recommend this 100 times.

God bless you and yours.

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep.

If you have no capacity for violence then you don't deserve to be free, and you won't be in the long term.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog.

They certainly don't, and they do everything in their power to breed them out i.e. to discourage young people from thinking that way. Peering into the crystal ball, America a generation down the road looks much like Europe.

I disagree.

I see that whole concept of inflicting bogus sacrifice as intrinsically dishonest. It is sort of the flip side to the whole "photographs of coffins" debate. The idea being that the support for what I see as a necessary war can be undercut if we can just make the people hurt enough. The coffin photos didn't do it. Cindy Sheehan didn't do. So let's raise their taxes, let's have meatless weeks, etc.

Guess we'll just have to disagree here.

Woof...

And thanks to the man who bought lunch for my family and me yesterday, just because I was in uniform.  It's the last thing I expected in Carmel, California, but it made my day.  It's good to know that, even if the nation isn't suffering with us, it's still full of people who want us to know they support us.  

Blogged on the whole issues of Sheep, Sheepdogs and Wolves, based on the same article. It was in the American Legion Magazine.

Here's another example. Parents (sheep) who have children in school demand the best possible fire doors and alarm systems. Fact is, that their child has less than a 2% chance of being injured in a fire at school.  

Children have a much better chance of being shot and/or murdered these days at school by other students (wolves)--RE: Colombine and the others.

But let the school district put a police officer (sheepdog) in the school, and listen to the sheep howl!!  Those kids who were taken out of Colombine clinging and crying on the cops who rescued them showed the need for a sheepdog amongst the lambs (children of the sheep).  But they didn't want that.

Since we're being honest with each other, and flyerhawk took the first leap, I never really understood completely what "snark" was. Really. And if there is a word to describe it, is it really "needless"?

Little help?

First of all:

"This thread is devolving into some pretty ugly caricatures."

You missed the point, which was to examine the reality of how people negotiate their way in the world, and the information they use. We may hate labels, but they are used to help sort information. Sometimes they turn into caricatures, or stereotypes, but the intent is the same - sorting information so every single decision doesn't take a week. No group is immune from being a victim of stereotypes, or using them as a lens to view another group.

Next:

"But the reality is that tens of thousands of Iraqis died because of the war."

The implication here is that tens of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqis died because of AMERICA'S bombs. I am not buying it, and I am also sure that is not your point. You use it to bolster what I believe is the main thrust of your argument, however, and I do not accept the premise.

"But to some people that is considered an UNACCEPTABLE consequence.  It doesn't make them sheep, stupid, or cowardly."

I will accept the premise that the beliefs of the people you reference are noble, well thought out and deeply held. But if these beliefs prevent these same people from fulfilling their obligation to protect their loved ones, then the labels apply.

Here is my main problem - the same people arguing this point would have been the same ones going berserk if we had killed Bin Laden, all of his lieutenants, the members of the cell in the U.S. and invaded Afghanistan PRIOR to September 11th. They would have viewed this preemptive action as unacceptable. I, on the other hand believe 3,000 truly innocent Americans dead is unacceptable.

Now - is this simply a "let's agree to disagree" argument, or is it a matter of life and death? I firmly believe it is a matter of life and death, and just as the decisions made by Bill Clinton years prior to September 11th paved the way for that attack, so do the decisions made now by President Bush affect our children, and grandchildren. I choose to err on the side of their safety in every circumstance.

Important stuff. All the best.

However, based on this new information, I hereby reject your characterization of my comment as "snark". I will, however, replace the word "smartass" in my daily usage.

On second thought, maybe not.

snarky comments are cynical sarcasm in which you are trying to score a cheap zinger rather than further the discussion.  

Means: snide, sarcastic, nasty, malicious, unkind, cutting, spiteful, unpleasant, mean...

I must admit too many of my comments are snark. I wish I could be more pleasant, but sometimes snark is all that will do.

Mr. Stevens was taking the shot at me, not you.  Thank you for explaining what he was trying to do.

Thankfully there are enough people here that are willing to discuss topics with resorting to invective to make most discussions worthwhile.  Unfortunately even some of the better posters allow their lesser demons to shout down their angels. :)

Can mean: snide, nasty, malicious, unkind, spiteful, unpleasant, mean...

but always means: sarcastic, sardonic, witty, cutting ...

snark doesn't have to be seen as malicious. Sarcastically clever isn't tantamount to evil after all.

reading through the thread, Neil's quote from Calvin Coolidge is like hitting a speed bump. Going back and rereading it just makes me laugh as I imagine you scratching your head.

I don't think of you as a troublemaker,just frustrating to the point of making my head explode (hat tip to streiff I think), but I think Neil's approach will work wonders on the drive-by posters.

I like yours better. Most of my favorite posts have been Nick Danger snark. Although most of those left marks, I'm sure.

He does this routine all the time, as do many leftists here.

Contrary to popular belief, I think there ARE such things as stupid questions.  And since I don't think he really is that brain-dead (nobody stupid on the left could last on this site as long as he has, I mean come on!), I think it's a deliberate game he's playing.

we put ourselves in debt fighting WW II and Korea and Vietnam.

And it would've been worse if we hadn't made a lot of the changes we did. Faced with a shortage of copper for ammunition and weapons, we minted steel pennies for a year. I think at the very least Ted Stevens can do without his damn bridge. After we dispense with that sort of pork silliness perhaps we can get on to a real discussion about priorities.

It seems like you assume this "national effort to develop effective alternatives on par with the space race " would be cost-free?

If you can point out where I said or implied that, let me know.

Either that or you are willing to go into debt for things you like... much like everyone else.

While I appreciate your efforts to distill my position down into something you can knock around like a ping-pong ball, you're wildly off the mark. Perhaps you missed the multiple occasions where I stated outright that I'm willing to see spending cuts to offset the cost of things that are important to me. Perhaps you also missed the part where I suggested the net positive effects that reducing our dependence on ME oil would have on fighting Islamic terrorism.

Perhaps you just don't take any of the above seriously. I don't know--and I can't know, since all you do is throw out one-liners and launch bold assaults on oversimplified straw men instead of what I actually said.

Once again, you wrote a very good post with which I have a few points of disagreement. As for the rest, I'm done.

just letting you in on the reason for the irrelevant quote. I appreciate you trying your best to argue the losing side [ ;) ] of discussions in a polite manner. One of these days you will be assimilated.

I cross streets to thank men and women for their service in uniform every chance I get.

And, probably also why they are unfailingly  taken aback by my actions.

Brilliantly done, streiff

Our Constitution has a military to provide for the common defense. As time goes on our defense parameters have rightfully expanded on a global basis. Does this keep us safer? Absolutely and keeping vigil has always been a thankless, but the most honorable of all jobs.

I don't buy this anti-war 60's mentality because it is intellectually bankrupt and disgracefully in opposition to history. It is a shameful footnote to an otherwise timeless majority support for military service and the goals of civilian-military governments.

I remember visiting a base in Germany and watching my brother stand guard duty at 2:00 am in a torrential thunderstorm with no cover. I asked him, why do you do it? His first reply was: "what"? It took me a moment to realize he had no idea what I was talking about. When I further expounded on the question, he said: "that's what I do, I serve". I was in awe of him from that day on.

What do we owe our men and women in uniform? A lifetime of respect, awe and realization their sacrifice is something we will never be able to repay.

"Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped." -- Calvin Coolidge

we put ourselves in debt fighting WW II and Korea and Vietnam.

It seems like you assume this "national effort to develop effective alternatives on par with the space race " would be cost-free? Either that or you are willing to go into debt for things you like... much like everyone else.

Is that what this is about: you don't like the budget deficit?

I'm sure you'll be glad to know then, that your son won't have to pay it off any more than you've had to.  We'll roll that puppy over forever if we have to.

As for a 'national effort,' haven't there been calls for national efforts to replace oil for 30 years?  It sure seems to me that there have been.  The problem is though that 1) oil is fungible and 2) oil is vastly, vastly cheaper than any other fuel and energy source.

To stop using it would be suicide, not sacrifice.

The correct answer. What more is there to add? Nailed it.

Thanks.

There is a great deal of truth in what you wrote, but I need to disagree, partially, with one point. You view it as a strength that the sacrifices of those who serve allow us to conduct wars without requiring commensurate sacrifice from the citizenry. I agree. But just because we can do a thing, it does not follow that it is right that we do a thing.

In the past, our leaders have called upon the people of this country who do not or can not wear a uniform to serve and make sacrifices in times of war. We've cut discretionary spending, raised taxes, changed our consumption habits, and whole communities worked together to form support networks for the troops.

We do have some of that. Groups like AnySoldier, for example. But I haven't seen a shred of awareness from most of our elected officials that they're really taking the fight against terrorism seriously as a long-haul effort that will require serious changes in how we, as a country, manage our finite material resources and infinite spiritual resources.

It is a sign of our strength that we can plow blithely along with our selfish lives while conducting a war, yes. But it is not a sign of wisdom.

what was so breathtaking...

What a breathtaking statement - I really do not know where to begin. As a matter of fact, I am going to give you a do-over on that one. If you truly believe it, we don't have a lot more to talk about.

Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant.  Many people DO believe this.  They hold human life to be the most precious thing on the planet.  Not just American lives but ALL lives.  This is the point of bringing up those deaths.  I'm not passing judgement on anyone.  I'm saying that to some people those deaths are unforgivable.

These policy decisions are all about phsyically protecting our families, like it or not. I reference again Bill Clinton and 9/11.

These policy decisions are about your BELIEF that you are protecting your family.  

In the original essay, the definition of sheep is pretty clear. I believe opposition to the Bush doctrine is primarily "sheep" mentality, as so defined.

Right.  So you are coopting the term to fit your political view.  We aren't talking about pacifism or militarism.  We are talking about the Bush Doctrine in your mind.  Those who support it are the sheepdogs and those who don't are the sheep regardless of their reasons.

"What do we owe our men and women in uniform? A lifetime of respect, awe and realization their sacrifice is something we will never be able to repay."  Absolutely!

As I've tried to explain to my 3 year old, the soldiers protect us from the bad people.  Then he asks why the bad people want to hurt us.  And he just doesn't understand that it's because of our way of life, our freedoms, our country.  But he does get that the soldiers protect us from the bad people, and that is a pretty good start for now.

I consider it a mission in life to correct this expression. It's actually "Hear Hear".

though I think NCOs tend to discover the calling after they enlist for another reason and often officers discover they don't have the calling after they accept a commission. But by year 4 or 5 we're all in the same boat.

Just ran into a butter bar yesterday that I think has come to that realization already.

NCOs of today's military, to last very long at all, need to be committed to their job (or even to an institution....LOL).

And SNCOs have to be TRULY dedicated to the Calling. SNCOs, at least in the USAF, find themselves on the move alot. If not getting their share of deployments in for their Numbered Air Force, then moving between Major Commands, to broaden their experience. Competition for Chief Master Seargent (E9) is tighter and tighter every year. Experience in lots of airframes and different Commands is a must. A Masters degree doesn't hurt either!!

If a woman is alone, and she crosses the street in order not to come in contact with a group of black men, is she racist? Or, based on crime statistics, is she being prudent? What would you encourage your daughters to do? Do you want on her tombstone "Raped and Killed, But Not A Racist"? Or for that matter, would you want her to go to a frat party alone?

How in the hell else do you get along in this world but by using past experiences and reasonable assumptions about the behavior of people? People who refuse to do that aren't cowards, they're idiots - however principled. And thank goodness they are not in control right now.

The sheep will soon forget, and elect a another sheep, and we will be bombing aspirin factories and "doing business with" North Korea, while Muslims with box cutters become part of a protected minority. Don't want to pre-judge people based on past behavior now, would we?

What are the odds that Saddam will use WMD now?

ZERO.

on several levels.

In the words of David Grossman:

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.

Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously.

Although I am not one of them, capacity for violence can also be denied by choice, by some who have proven their own courage in the face of terrible opposition as flyerhawk noted above.

(NOTE: I find myself in a strange position, agreeing with flyerhawk. File this entry under "gross anomalies" :)

He also says this:

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.

So this seems to contradict his contention that somebody with no capacity for violence is a healthy productive citizen. Lets just say his speech is subject to varying interpetations.

Your question is, what is due from the larger society to those who serve in the military. To which your answer is, very little.

Our job, our service, is to sacrifice so that our countrymen can go about their business without having to worry about anything more important that what's for dinner tonight.

I don't agree with that. We all, as citizens, have some degree of responsibility to our fellow citizens. Sending some of our fellow citizens to fight a war on our our behalf is one of the most consequential decisions we can make.

To the extent that there are significant numbers of people who don't know or don't care that some of their fellow Americans are fighting and dying, that is a serious problem, and not only or even chiefly for the military. I have more respect for the anti-war types than I do for those who regard the war as completely inconsequential. At least the former are treating the issue with the proper degree of importance.

There are several types of people - warriors are one. Obviously they would include those in the armed services, but also include policemen, firemen and even atheletes, generally being those who use physical prowess as their operating mode. Sheepdogs, while considered warriors of the armed services and police forces in the above line of thinking, should also include those who fight to maintain "the sheep" in ways other than with physical force. But they are sheepdogs none the less.

Warriors can obviously be those who would take from others,wolves, using their prowess to do so, so sheepdogs would seem to be more associated with a protective ethic than otherwise. The point here is that warriors use their prowess as their primary work - if possible.

Then their are intellectuals. These include journalists, professors, doctors, lawyers etc. Some of them will be sheepdogs, others wolves. In any event they use their intellectual capacity as their line of work.

There are also materialists (I forget the exact term) who use their ability to produce. The ones referred to are the captains of industry, the ones who get ahead, who work to make things happen.

Then there are the sheep, but being sheep does not mean they contain none of the traits of the others, but they are not as strong or as focused. Nor does being a warrior preclude being an intellectual or materialist, in fact being some of all is more likely than being exclusive.

The history of every society will show this division of types.

In any event it takes warriors to do their part, but the warriors cannot survive without the support of the rest of their society. They must be fed, clothed etc.

They are no better, no worse, they just are.