Posted on 01/29/2004 6:28:15 AM PST by dixiepatriot
I Don't Owe the Military Anything
by Brad Edmonds
I get impassioned emails from readers who are military veterans or relatives of military veterans, saying, in essence, "You go ahead and say your terrible things. The men and women of the armed forces will continue risking their lives to defend your right to say it." These readers claim that the only reason I'm free to say the things I do, and the reason I owe the military all sorts of my money, is because the military has for 200 years defended my freedom all over the world.
I say, Hogwash!
First, let me distinguish between "the military" and "the men and women." The "military" is the administrative unit that constitutes the careers of millions in the US, and gobbles up a huge chunk of our federal budget. The "men and women" are individuals, all of whom entered the military for personal reasons. Such people are often honorable individuals. My father served 25 years in the Air Force, running accounting and finance operations, and was so successful that even as a lowly major, two- and three-star generals sought his advice and ignored his bosses. Yes, I'm proud of my dad, and of his record.
I still don't owe the military anything, and my case is based on two facts: (1) That these men and women served does not create a positive obligation on my part to pay for their medical care or anything else (it is dishonorable, by the way, when women are involved in any way in combat; chivalrous men would not have women serve except in administrative and medical positions, far away from combat). (2) The military has failed in its duty to protect our freedoms.
With regard to (1): Most, probably nearly all, in the military entered for personal reasons, not just to "protect our freedoms." I entered the CIA for adventure, an income, and federal benefits. This would apply to most, particularly those in the most dangerous and glorified jobs (Seals, Rangers, etc.). I did not ask these people to serve, just as nobody asked me to serve in the CIA; and the only people whose report of self-sacrifice I believe are those who accept salaries far below their potentials. How many Wharton MBA or Harvard law graduates run to the military? I'm prepared to accept the self-sacrifice testimony of careerists in the Salvation Army and the YMCA. Anyone else enjoys too many personal benefits for me to accept much of the "selfless" claim.
With regard to (2), I have three questions:
If the military is supposed to be defending our freedoms in the US, why is all the action in other countries? The only foreign action the US has seen is Pearl Harbor, into which the Japanese were goaded by FDR with his full knowledge and intent, as has been declassified only recently; and 9/11, which was most plausibly retaliation for 40 years of bombing women and children in the Middle East. I would be more willing to believe that the military was about defending our freedoms if they would limit themselves to defending our borders, and if they would do so successfully. Remember, on 9/11, the military couldn't even defend the Pentagon.
It is much more plausible that the military is merely a tool for Congress and the White House to enact their foreign-policy desires. "Defending American interests abroad" explains the last 200 years far better than "defending freedoms at home." Unfortunately, Congress and the White House lost track of the fact that entangling alliances with none, and free trade with all, furthers individual Americans' interests more successfully than the policy we've embraced since Jefferson: Entangling alliances with whomever, free trade only with those with whom we have entangling alliances.
Second question: If the military has done such a great job of defending our freedoms at home, why do we need a Department of Homeland Security? Wasn't the Department of Defense supposed to provide defense? Instead, the Department of Fatherland Defense is an open, if unwitting, admission that the Department of Defense is in reality the Department of Offense, going abroad to force Congressional and White House foreign policy on whomever they want, whether the foreign party is willing or not. Just as one example: Hussein is accused of killing some 185,000 of his own countrymen. The Sudan is accused of killing perhaps 2 million. Why select Hussein for regime change? The 9/11 connection and WMDs (the only ones of which Hussein ever had he was given by the US to begin with) have both proven false. Oil interests are a much more plausible explanation.
Finally, if the military were doing such a great job of defending our freedom, why do we have so much less of it than we had in 1787? In 1865? In 1912? In 1932? In 1960? Our freedoms, particularly our property rights (specifically, our right to our own earnings) have been eroded dramatically. Our tax burden, approaching 50% for those of us who pay taxes, is monstrously larger than it was in each of those other years. The military has done nothing to keep Congress and the White House from treating us as chattel slaves. Again, that the military exists for the benefit of the White House and members of Congress explains military events and outcomes of the last 200 years far better than "defending our freedom" does.
An additional note: It is by this point uncontroversial that our freedoms would have been better defended without a standing military. The founders knew it; and Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto knew it, saying, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." He didn't say you should not, or that it would be costly or difficult. He said "you cannot." The gun rights we had then have only been eroded since, hence the military has done nothing for the real power of the US to defend itself.
I'm sorry that so many honorable military men and women have been misled. I'm sorry that so many believe they fought for our freedoms. I'm sorry that a smaller, but significant, percentage of those believe that I personally owe them an involuntarily-taken chunk of my income. Morally, I do not owe them this. I did not ask them to do what they did; they already have been, and are being, paid; I believe my freedom has only been eroded, not enhanced, by their presence; and I believe my actual personal safety is more threatened by their existence, not less, as a result of how they have been used by Congress and the White House.
I don't idolize, but I do admire those 99% of the members of the armed forces who have served honorably. But I owe them nothing.
January 29, 2004
http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds177.html
What a perverse audience they have.
Just a temporary condition. All will be restored when we defeat "Goldsteinism".
Unfortunately, this probably won't be allowed to stand. Instead of addressing the issues brought up in the article, people will summarily dismiss it as "hogwash".
And I'm sure his father is very proud of this screed from his son's feverish brain.
"Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son."
Pacifists are Parasites on FreedomA Cuban woman came up to me in the parking log 3 days ago and asked where I got it. I had to tell her that I had it made and as far as I knew it wasn’t sold. She relied, “It’s so true” and walked away.
[By the way, the new Homeland Security Bill has passed. Things will be different now. Internet surfing will be tracked by the FBI with a non-intrusive method. The FBI says you will not notice anything different. For a demonstration Click on the link below...]
This writer also has some congenital defect I'm at a loss to diagnose.
Perhaps he was rejected by the military and has been angry ever since ??
Maybe he's just jealous.
This is such a broad attack against so many different elements of a big picture (opening with military health care, then headed to Pearl Harbor, then gun control) that it is incoherent.
If he's got a point to make, not only does he fail to make it -- we don't even understand what it is.
Claiming not to owe the military establishment anything is bizarre, who said he did ??
It's just a rant.
The only foreign action the US has seen is Pearl Harbor
At the time, Hawaii was a territory and not a state (just like the Philippines and Wake Island that the Japs invaded). How about the the War of 1812 when the Brits burned Washington? The Civil War? Mexican-American War? Indian Wars?
I don't idolize, but I do admire those 99% of the members of the armed forces who have served honorably. But I owe them nothing.
Spoken by someone who lives in a safe neighborhood, works in a safe building and does not worry about heat, food or clothing. Wonder how he would change his tune if he lived in the constant fear of an invading army that would execute him if they won (Israeli) or would sell him into slavery (Sudan) or force him to convert to Islam (Nigeria).
Most, probably nearly all, in the military entered for personal reasons, not just to "protect our freedoms."
Maybe pre 9/11. Not post 9/11. He needs to actually go visit and talk with some of our troops...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.