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?
My view is that such a response is woefully inadequate to the point that the government would no longer be providing for the common defense. And because it is so inadequate, I believe that the government would be abdicating one of its primary functions. In this case, letters of Marque and Reprisal are unconstitutional because they are inadequate.
Obviously, you do not understand my laughter because it was not the Constitution that I was laughing at.
Absolutely. Our massive military sure hasn't done the job. OBL has evaded our best efforts and at the same time, here we are performing "nation building" excercises which have nothing to do with the task at hand.
Furthermore, releasing the hounds of hell on OBL from a varied group of professional soldiers and computer hackers would render Al Quaeda impotent while at the same time saving taxpayers billions and reducing the possibility that we will be intractibly involved in the internal affairs of nations which neither appreciate nor need the "help."
Politically, this "war on terror" is a minefield. And it exposes us to even more terrorism.
No, I went to a private school (Andover) instead of public high school. But since you are so well educated, then perhaps you can fill me in on where I am in error. In post #8, I attacked several historical revisions that this article makes (I made no personal attacks on you, so your homo-erotic insults were entirely unwarranted). Perhaps you can refute my attacks. Some references would be nice (gubmint or non-gubmint). Or perhaps all that you capable of is insults that reveal your true homosexual tendencies. What's it going to be 'Rat? More back-water buggering bullcrap or intelligent discussion?
Of course it was. You obviously believe letters of Marque to be antiquated instruments for the modern world. Not only that but by saying this equates to "merceneries" shows a shallow understanding of just what letters of Marque are intended to accomplish.
And I was saying we should adhere to the constitution. Thus my assesment is not at all inaccurate. You were also laughing at the constitution.
Capturing/disabling OBL was never an objective; it was desirable, but not an objective. Who knows, it may have been done - we haven't heard from him in 3 months. As far as nation building goes, I would partially agree with you. Afgansitan was already in a war before US troops arrived, we simply tilted the scales to favor the N.Alliance. There seems to be little objection to the change in power.
Where would we get these hackers and professional soldiers that you mentioned? Why would we use them instead of a small Delta Force contingent? Are they ready to go now, or would they require a couple of months of preparation? Who is accountable if they fail, or if they take too long? What would be their objective? How will they function in a manner that doesn't interfere with the internal affairs of Afganistan? How completely could they eliminate the problem of terrorism so that we would not have a reoccurrance of the WTC?
I ask these questions not to put you down. I believe that it may be a viable solution in the Iraqi situation. However, the Afgan situation required an immediate response and a show of force in a situation where the objectives were unclear because we lacked adequate intelligence.
And this is due to military intervention? That is a convenient thing to say but it is hardly based on any factual evidence.
The goal was to bust up Al Quaeda and capture bin Laden. So far we've done everything but and have managed to sacrifice many American soldiers and by many estimates thousands of civilian non-combatants.
That's not success in my view.
Why does this matter to you? As to your other questions, the talent is abundant. The privateers could have probably gone in and captured key operatives within Al Quaeda in short order and without loss of civilian lives.
Furthermore, they get their remuneration from the property they sieze.
The requirement for obtaining a letter of Marque (basically a license to steal) is a bond which insures that if they get the wrong target or commit crimes under color of authority, they will be held financially responsible if not criminally liable for acts that are committed outside the bounds of their authority.
It's far more efficient. The military has had 6 months. It doesn't take private militias that long to get ramped up and they can travel with more security and secrecy than any large military force.
And as to using Delta forces....the very idea behind the Delta force was counter-terrorism and yet I haven't seen even the slightest mention of Delta force involvement.
Um, what does Afganistan have to offer that would be worth the high risk involved?
So in addition to having to evade tens of thousands of heavily armed, well trained, battle seasoned terrorists, kill OBL, confiscate their WMD, topple the Taliban, tie up their finances, and gather intelligence about other AlQuaeda operations, the privateer is going to have to knock off a 7-11 too?
ROFL!
I have a picture of Indiana Jones in my mind. He's running through a crowded market place in a desert setting, where everyone is walking in pairs, carrying a large basket on their shoulders between each pair. Indiana is running frantically from basket to basket, knocking each to the ground, usually knocking over a basket of fruit or clothing. All the while Indiana is shouting, "Osama! Osama! Where are you??"
The Taliban isn't the target. Al Queada is and bin Laden who is a multi-billionaire by all reports has quite alot to offer for the privateer as well as all of the various bank accounts of his operatives and organizations. Chump change according to you? LOL.
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.