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 theyre 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 theyre 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, thats 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 its actually anti-charity and anti-freedom because its 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 wasnt 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. governments 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. Thats why the soldiers on those Black Hawk helicopters in Somalia died. Its why those soldiers in Vietnam died. Its 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?
Paragraph 3, last sentence. I copied it right out of the article. I am due an apology.
Absolutely not. However, most of the wars we've been involved in for the past 50 years have had some element of that used as and excuse for acting. The fact that we haven't attacked China is proof of the hypocrisy of such "justification."
Bosnia and Kosovo were both predicated on so-called human rights violations. The continuation of the Iraq conflict is most certainly "justified" using the Kurdish struggle as an example even while the Turks wipe out their Kurdish population and are called our "allies."
It was on the History Channel. I was glued to the TV screen. It was very good and I learned a lot that I didn't know before.
That's funny. Washington was elected unanamously and this was exactly his position.
Al-Quaeda is not a nation. There is a constitutional remedy for such things but alas, out congress and President do not respect the constitution and thus won't use it.
Please inform us how American intervention in WWI was better than an American presence in WWI.
You have stated that Japan was a legit situation where the President could act when such a threat was present even before an attack occurred. Well, we were attacked. And there were threats of more attacks. And we still have those threats of attack. If Japan was legit, why isn't Al Queda and its supporters who make the same threats?
That was your original objection. It is a strawman because it was this that you claimed was one of the statements that discredited author. He never claimed that our mere presence was what caused WWII. He said that our intervention in WWI is what helped predicate WWII. And he is exactly right. He is of course looking back. But his view is not unique. Churchill stated this explicitly.
Secondly, while you can nitpick that Bush originally sent in the marines. He also withdrew the marines as has been also pointed out on this thread. Since Clinton sent in the rangers in order to stop the looting of food supplies, it isn't that inaccurate to say that Clinton's orders were in fact related to the feeding of hungry Somalians. There were two distinct missions and Bush did not order the Rangers into Somalia. Your statements are just as inaccurate if you want to nitpick in this fashion. Shall I now believe all your statments to be just as irrelvant as you claim this entire article is on the basis of a very minor "error." (if indeed it is an error at all).
Japan is a nation. Al Quaeda is not. I'm surprised you don't know this.
I would go so far as to say that it would be unconstitutional for a leader to take Demidog's position. It is the reponsibility of the government to provide for the general defense.
No. It raises interesting challenges to those who think they are supporting American GIs when they elect officials based on how much of the public dole/welfare they will bilk from the hard working wage earner/entrepeneur in this country (emphasis on socialist philandering democrats with wealth redistribution agendas).
There is a case to be made for that. Why shouldn't those thresholds be high? When we send in troops, we are essentially asking them to forfeit their lives. Domestically, we do not make that kind of demand lightly. For example, before someone is sentenced to death in a court of law, they are allowed every luxury available under the auspice of "due process." The typical soldier in the field is not allowed that luxury. He is expected to kill and/or die when ordered to do so. If we are going to ask our soldiers to make that kind of sacrifice, shouldn't we at least make sure we are doing so for the right reasons? In my opinion, sending those 18 men to their deaths in Somalia, for no other reason than to deliver care packages, demonstrated a blatant disregard for the sanctity of human life on the part of our government. In that situation, the Constitution was not threatened. The rights of U.S. citizens were not threatened. The security of our borders was not threatened. To say that those soldiers in Somalia died fighting to defend their country and fulfill their sworn oath would be an overstatement. It would merely be an attempt to con ourselves into somehow justifying their deaths.
Wrong. The invasion of France was because the French and British declared war on Germany as a direct result of Hitler's invasion of Poland. Hitler did not attack them because of Versailles. He attacked them before they could build up the strength to attack him. (Thats not saying he wouldnt have done it eventually, but Hitlers first aims at conquest were to the east --- liebstrauben.
To say that Versailles was the cause of Hitler's rise to power is speculative at best and not strongly supported by the facts. Germany had only been a 'nation' for 50 years or so at the end of WWI and had no history of democracy or self-government. Republican self-government was not wanted or admired among the majority of German people. They looked for a strong leader who would bring predictability. They wanted a totalitarian form of government because they did not trust that republican forms would work in Germany. Hitler took their natural inclination for ethnic self-identity, sprinkled it liberally with state socialism while promising the return to a fictions Aryan golden age that never existed and seized power with the consent of the people. He could have done the same if WWI had never happened or even if it had ended in stalemate, which would have been the case if the US had not entered the war. The German economy along with the economies of all of Europe, was in tatters at the end of WWI. The victors and the losers were all in equally bad shape. Germanys economic situation was complicated by the end of monarchy and the governmental vacuum that followed. Italy, a victor in WWI faced the same inability to function in a democracy when faced with economic problems and also chose a fascist/socialist strong man as dictator. Did Versailles or the US entry into WWI bring Mousolinni to power?
I note your use of the past tense.
I maintain that Demidog will never have the opportunity to test his beliefs about military intervention because no one with that set of beliefs will ever be elected to the appropriate position of authority
I note my use of the future tense.
You will never have the opportunity to test your theories because no one will subject this country to the level of risk you ascribe to. Therefore, you argue from your position with no risk of refutation not because it is correct but because it is not testable.
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.