Posted on 03/19/2002 7:36:22 AM PST by sheltonmac
The recently released movie Black Hawk Down raises interesting challenges to those who think they’re supporting American GIs when they support U.S. government decisions to send them into battle.
In 1993, the Clinton administration sent U.S. soldiers into the capital city of Mogadishu, which was in the midst of a civil war, to capture a Somali warlord named Mohammad Farrah Aidid. The Somalis fought back, ultimately shooting down two Black Hawk helicopters and killing 18 American men. Soon after their deaths, Clinton ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Somalia.
All too many Americans, even while regretting the loss of American soldiers in battle, fail to ask a fundamentally important question: Have American soldiers been sacrificed for a worthless, perhaps even immoral, cause? The attitude always seems to be that Americans soldiers die for “freedom” simply because they’re fighting on the orders of the U.S. government. But unfortunately, such is not always the case. Consider Somalia. What were those 18 American soldiers doing in Somalia in the first place? They were there because President Clinton ordered them to help feed people who were starving to death in that country.
Three questions arise: First, is it a legitimate role of government to feed starving people (either internationally or domestically)? Second, is feeding starving people in the world a cause worth sacrificing American GIs for? Third, does that mission have anything to do with the freedom of the American people?
I would submit that the answer to all three questions is “No.” For one thing, helping others means nothing unless it comes from the voluntary heart of individuals. When people voluntarily donate money to feed starving people in the world, that’s what genuine charity is all about.
But government “charity” is founded on a totally different premise — coercion, which is contrary to voluntary action. A political system in which government taxes people in order to distribute the money to the needy is not charity at all — it’s actually anti-charity and anti-freedom because it’s founded on force rather than voluntary action.
Thus, despite any lofty suggestions that those 18 American men died in Somalia for “freedom,” the truth is that the U.S. government sent them to their deaths for a worthless cause.
It wasn’t the first time. Consider Vietnam, a country thousands of miles away, where 60,000 American GIs lost their lives. Their mission? “To kill communists.” How many? No one ever really knew. All that mattered were the daily body counts, confirming that American GIs were “killing communists.” Fortunately, the American people finally questioned whether “killing communists” was a cause worth dying for (or, more accurately, sacrificing American soldiers for), and they successfully demanded a withdrawal from the Vietnam War.
How about World War I, in which tens of thousands of American men died on European battlefields? What was their mission? It was a lofty one: “To make the world safe for democracy” and to finally bring an end to war.
Not only were those aims not achieved, however, U.S. intervention in World War I actually contributed to the conditions of chaos and instability that gave rise to Adolf Hitler and World War II as well as to the rise of the Soviet Union and the threat of international communism. The American men whom the U.S. government sent to Europe in World War I did not die for freedom; they died for nothing.
Recently eight U.S. servicemen lost their lives on some icy mountaintop in Afghanistan as part of the U.S. government’s new nebulous, undefined “war on terrorism.” Their mission: “to kill terrorists.” How many terrorists must they kill before victory is declared? Unfortunately, no one really knows, not even U.S. officials.
It is the duty of soldiers to follow orders, not to question the mission that they are sent on. That’s why the soldiers on those Black Hawk helicopters in Somalia died. It’s why those soldiers in Vietnam died. It’s why those GIs in World War I died.
But it is the duty of the citizenry to question and challenge the missions for which their government sends their fighting men and women into action. As Americans have learned the hard way, the U.S. government sometimes sacrifices American GIs for worthless causes. How many more American soldiers must die in Afghanistan before Americans begin challenging their mission there?
Curses. You found me out. I thought if I called myself a "privateer" that no one would ever find me! I used to call myself a mercinary, but people told me that was old-fashioned. Yes, yes, yes! I am he! The famous pirate of old!
Breaking: Text of H.R. 3076- September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001
Breaking: Ron Paul introduces Marque and Reprisal Bills in House
To halt the operation of terrorist training camps, arrest perps that formerly led al queda and Taliban ops, and insure the installation of a government that forbids and takes action against re-establishment of terrorist schools.
" What is our exit strategy?"
when the above stated goals are achieved, we leave.
"How will we know when we have achieved our goal?"
Simple intel and observation.
"Where do we strike next?"
Any terrorist ops are targets. The intent of a strike is to neutralize the threat.
"How hard do we hit?"
As hard as needs be, to insure success.
"How often? "
Remove the threat and there's no reason to strike again.
"What will our stated objective be in our next offensive? "
Depends on what's going on. If it's similar to the Afghan campaign, then the objective's the same.
"Do we just keep going until all "oppressive" regimes are wiped from the face of the earth?"
If oppressive regimes are a direct threat, yes. Oppressive regimes are not by and in themselves a threat.
"Or are we just playing it by ear?"
The US is not playing by ear now. The above outlines the sit now. Liberals play things by ear and by feelings. That's how we got the job as perpetual policeman in the Balkans and attacked and invaded other countries under x42.
That's the way it's supposed to be. You wouldn't know.
I detest smirking sarcasm. Strong men don't resort to it.
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.