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?
Really? Who were we saved from?
I'm not sure that this was the assertion. However, it was Churchill himself that said if it weren't for our involvement in WWI and the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler would never have come to power. And he is not the only one to have mentioned that fact. WWII was predicted by an English economist who said that if Versailles was enforced, it would bring about another war. He was absolutely correct and WWII was precipitated by the French marching into Germany in order to physically demand payments that were impossible for the Germans to make.
The invasion of France by Hitler was a direct retribution for that act. Perhaps it is you who needs to come to grips with the actual historical record rather than your imigination.
Only when they pose an eminant threat against the U.S.
Actually, the term is "imminent threat". Nonetheless, can you clarify what constitutes an imminent threat? How would you define it and who would determine it?
That about covers it. Any of those is an act of war and merit a swift and deadly response.
It's easy to figure out if you just imagine what course of action you are allowed to take when you are yourself threatened. When are you as an individual allowed to use deadly force?
Exactly right.
According to the warmongers, anything is cause for an attack as long as the country in question is not likely to inflict any real damage.
China, for instance, has one of the most egregious human rights violation records on the planet but for some bizarre reason, we haven't invaded. Well not so bizarre. We'd likely send thousands upon thousands of soldiers to "die for our freedoms" and the public wouldn't stand for that.
This is of course the very same reason our police departments will disarm the poor in our nation's ghettos and then send in a bunch of thugs to "keep the peace."
Those of us who are lucky enough not to live in Watts or Cook county, are relatively free from police intrusions or weapons confiscations. After we've been thoroughly conditioned and taxed, the entire country will be a ghetto ruled by thugs acting under color of law. Now that just occcurs amongst those not financially prepared to weave their way in and out of the courts as a plaintiff.
For discussion purposes, however, you do have an advantage in arguing that position. It is basically an untestable hypothesis since no one with those views will ever be elected to a position to implement them. Therefore, it is easy to argue about it being an idealistic position without ever running the risk of being disproven.
Reply #22: Who were we saved from? Duh.
Reply #23: What assertion? The article directly states: 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. US intervention ended a stalemate that had been going on for three years. In that sense, the US ended the ongoing "chaos and instability". It was a lack of US involvement, and European "ostrich-diplomacy" that led to WWII. The Russian revolution took place two months before the United States declared war, so communism was already on the rise. This article is revisionist garbage.
Doesn't really matter - there's so few of your ilk, you guys have all the prestige and power of a Flat Earth Society.
I never said you must wait until attacked. I said immenant threat (spelling errors notwithstanding).
The President under the constitution was always given the leeway to act when such a threat was present even before an attack occurred. It can't even be rationally argued that Somolia posed a threat to the US nor can it be argued that any nation this century apart from Japan has posed such a threat.
Do you believe that human rights violations is a good basis for military intervention?
Al-Queda?
You asserted that the author of this piece stated that US presence is what caused WWII. This is not what he stated as evidenced by your quote. That you will not concede the point proves that you are being disengenuous. Furthermore, your assertion that it was Chamberlain's fault that WWII occurred along with American resistence to get involved ignores all of the history leading up to WWII including the treaty of Versailles. You cannot pick out a small piece of history and argue that it makes your point while refusing to look at the rest.
Does the fact that this statement doesn't exist in the article bother you? It should. It is starting to look like you are not a truthful person.
Other than a direct attack on American citizens on American soil, the gruesome murder of an American reporter and threats to unleash nuclear and chemical weapons on America, those Al Qaeda guys and their supporters in other countries are really pretty nice people, huh?
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.