http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/30/214131.shtml
At War – But with Whom?
David C. Stolinsky, M.D.
Monday, March 31, 2003
War is merely the continuation of politics by other means. – Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831)
It’s amusing to take well-known sayings and reverse them – sometimes they still make sense. In this case, the words of the famous military commentator become “Politics is merely the continuation of war by other means.â€
Clearly that isn’t always true. Normal politics is designed to push an agenda, but by reasonable means. Normal politics is a rivalry between competitors, not a merciless struggle between bitter enemies.
There are legitimate reasons – philosophical and practical – to oppose this war. For example, the likely cost might exceed the possible gain. But nothing justifies self-righteous posturing, sneering contempt, vicious name-calling or blatant hatred.
In short, is much of the current political strife in America “normal�
Is it “normal†for Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle to vote for the resolution authorizing the president to use military force against Iraq, and then to wail and moan that force is being used? Didn’t he know what he was voting for?
Is it “normal†for a member of Congress to urge that the president be impeached – not for violating the congressional resolution, but for complying with it? Yes, that resolution, the one that was voted for by a large majority of both parties.
Is it “normal†for a law professor to declare in a leading newspaper, “The United States cannot expect other nations to treat our prisoners in accord with international law if we ignore it� At a time when some of our troops are held prisoner, this was an open invitation to mistreat or kill them. Indeed, Iraq began executing prisoners. Is the professor an accessory to murder? If so, he should spend the rest of his life in prison, where he can advise other inmates on their appeals.
Is it “normal†for the Academy Awards to include a virulent outburst against the president and the war, but not one expression of support, not one patriotic speech or song? I saw no small flags in lapels, either, though these are the people who claim to be for free expression. In fact, there was nothing to indicate that the show originated in America. And in a way, it didn’t.
Is it “normal†for the media to imply that things aren’t going well, when in less than a week we had advanced at record speed and were about 50 miles from Baghdad, and there wasn’t a single Iraqi plane in the sky?
Is it “normal†for commentators to complain that we’re in trouble, when none of their dire predictions had come true? There had been no use of chemical or biological weapons, no mass casualties (on either side), and no massive environmental damage from burning oil wells (as happened in the Gulf War).
Is it “normal†for restaurant patrons to refuse to sit next to people in uniform, or for teachers to make hurtful remarks to the kids of soldiers serving overseas? These are the people who claim to be pro-child.
Is it “normal†for protesters to carry a placard reading “We support our troops – when they shoot their officers� These are the people who claim to hate guns. Who taught them to hate their own country even more?
Is it “normal†for teens to throw stones at a female National Guard sergeant and call her “murderer†and “baby killer,†when she was merely going into a store? These are the people who claim to be pro-woman. Who taught them to hate those who are willing to risk death to protect them?
No, such goings-on are hardly “normal.†In fact, they represent the continuation of war by other means.
In fact, they reveal why many liberals and most of Hollywood oppose the war. Nobody wants to fight two wars at once, and they are already at war – with America.
Think about it. In the last 30 years, we’ve seen dozens of films depicting our leaders as scheming warmongers, our military as crazed killers, and our veterans as unemployed, mentally ill, alcoholics, addicts and losers. The most recent of these is “The Hunted,†depicting a veteran who likes to dismember people with a knife.
Is that how we want to portray ourselves to our next generation? Is that how we want to portray ourselves to the world? Is it possible that some of the current hatred for America was inspired by films depicting us as degraded and despicable? Is it possible that some of the hatred for our military stems from this source?
Just as Senator Daschle was “saddened†that what he voted for came to pass, we are “saddened†that the world sees us as we portray ourselves. But what did we expect? True, there were a few films depicting our military in a favorable light – “Tears of the Sun†comes to mind. But these were a tiny minority.
In years past, we showed ourselves to the world in films and TV as families, doctors, scientists, inventors, and brave soldiers fighting for freedom. “Spirit of Saint Louis†showed Lindbergh making the first solo flight across the Atlantic. “Sergeant York†showed a pacifist who recognized that he should fight despotism, then went on to earn the Medal of Honor. Such films helped build character.
Nobody claims that these older films were entirely realistic – there was some sugarcoating. But were the films of the last 30 years any more realistic? Didn’t they show America through a distorted lens? They showed us as a nation of bloodthirsty criminals, sex-crazed nitwits, drug addicts and all-around fools.
Of course there was some truth here, just as there was some exaggeration in the older films. But where does realism end, and slander and misrepresentation begin? How much blood and filth can we see before we become demoralized?
And what about coverage of the current war? Isn’t it a gamble?
So far, the war is going well, so the gamble is paying off. “Embedded†reporters and photographers are living with our troops, sharing many of the discomforts and some of the dangers. Clearly, this results in more accurate reports. There are fewer unfounded rumors of misfortunes befalling our troops – or of atrocities committed by them.
For a short war, this real-time reporting will undoubtedly evoke more pro-American feelings, both here and abroad. But what if the war drags on?
What if real-time TV reports had been available during World War II?
What if we saw sinking ships and drowning men as we ate breakfast?
What if we saw our dead troops sprawled on beaches as we took our lunch break?
What if we saw medics treating horribly wounded men as we sat down to dinner?
What if we saw the families of those killed or taken prisoner weeping over photos of their loved ones just before we went to bed?
And what if we awoke next morning to be told by pundits that the war was going badly, and that President Roosevelt and Gen. Eisenhower were to blame?
That is, what if we saw the grimness of war, laced with pessimistic commentary, while our enemies were being spoonfed cheerful propaganda, with their defeats, their casualties and their atrocities edited out? This couldn’t have gone on very long before we lost heart, while our enemies remained confident and shouted “Sieg heil!â€
The question remains: How much blood and filth can we see before we become demoralized?
Let’s pray that this war will be short. Let’s hope that the gamble on “embedded†reporters and real-time reports continues to pay off.
And let’s hope that some of the empathy the reporters have for our troops will rub off on media moguls, on Hollywood, and – who knows? – even on some of the hate-filled Americans who are at war with their own country.
Perhaps, confronted with vivid images of a real war, real heroes, real atrocities and a real tyrant, these people will finally understand who their real enemies are. At least we can hope.
At War – But with Whom?
David C. Stolinsky, M.D.
Monday, March 31, 2003
War is merely the continuation of politics by other means. – Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831)
It’s amusing to take well-known sayings and reverse them – sometimes they still make sense. In this case, the words of the famous military commentator become “Politics is merely the continuation of war by other means.â€
Clearly that isn’t always true. Normal politics is designed to push an agenda, but by reasonable means. Normal politics is a rivalry between competitors, not a merciless struggle between bitter enemies.
There are legitimate reasons – philosophical and practical – to oppose this war. For example, the likely cost might exceed the possible gain. But nothing justifies self-righteous posturing, sneering contempt, vicious name-calling or blatant hatred.
In short, is much of the current political strife in America “normal�
Is it “normal†for Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle to vote for the resolution authorizing the president to use military force against Iraq, and then to wail and moan that force is being used? Didn’t he know what he was voting for?
Is it “normal†for a member of Congress to urge that the president be impeached – not for violating the congressional resolution, but for complying with it? Yes, that resolution, the one that was voted for by a large majority of both parties.
Is it “normal†for a law professor to declare in a leading newspaper, “The United States cannot expect other nations to treat our prisoners in accord with international law if we ignore it� At a time when some of our troops are held prisoner, this was an open invitation to mistreat or kill them. Indeed, Iraq began executing prisoners. Is the professor an accessory to murder? If so, he should spend the rest of his life in prison, where he can advise other inmates on their appeals.
Is it “normal†for the Academy Awards to include a virulent outburst against the president and the war, but not one expression of support, not one patriotic speech or song? I saw no small flags in lapels, either, though these are the people who claim to be for free expression. In fact, there was nothing to indicate that the show originated in America. And in a way, it didn’t.
Is it “normal†for the media to imply that things aren’t going well, when in less than a week we had advanced at record speed and were about 50 miles from Baghdad, and there wasn’t a single Iraqi plane in the sky?
Is it “normal†for commentators to complain that we’re in trouble, when none of their dire predictions had come true? There had been no use of chemical or biological weapons, no mass casualties (on either side), and no massive environmental damage from burning oil wells (as happened in the Gulf War).
Is it “normal†for restaurant patrons to refuse to sit next to people in uniform, or for teachers to make hurtful remarks to the kids of soldiers serving overseas? These are the people who claim to be pro-child.
Is it “normal†for protesters to carry a placard reading “We support our troops – when they shoot their officers� These are the people who claim to hate guns. Who taught them to hate their own country even more?
Is it “normal†for teens to throw stones at a female National Guard sergeant and call her “murderer†and “baby killer,†when she was merely going into a store? These are the people who claim to be pro-woman. Who taught them to hate those who are willing to risk death to protect them?
No, such goings-on are hardly “normal.†In fact, they represent the continuation of war by other means.
In fact, they reveal why many liberals and most of Hollywood oppose the war. Nobody wants to fight two wars at once, and they are already at war – with America.
Think about it. In the last 30 years, we’ve seen dozens of films depicting our leaders as scheming warmongers, our military as crazed killers, and our veterans as unemployed, mentally ill, alcoholics, addicts and losers. The most recent of these is “The Hunted,†depicting a veteran who likes to dismember people with a knife.
Is that how we want to portray ourselves to our next generation? Is that how we want to portray ourselves to the world? Is it possible that some of the current hatred for America was inspired by films depicting us as degraded and despicable? Is it possible that some of the hatred for our military stems from this source?
Just as Senator Daschle was “saddened†that what he voted for came to pass, we are “saddened†that the world sees us as we portray ourselves. But what did we expect? True, there were a few films depicting our military in a favorable light – “Tears of the Sun†comes to mind. But these were a tiny minority.
In years past, we showed ourselves to the world in films and TV as families, doctors, scientists, inventors, and brave soldiers fighting for freedom. “Spirit of Saint Louis†showed Lindbergh making the first solo flight across the Atlantic. “Sergeant York†showed a pacifist who recognized that he should fight despotism, then went on to earn the Medal of Honor. Such films helped build character.
Nobody claims that these older films were entirely realistic – there was some sugarcoating. But were the films of the last 30 years any more realistic? Didn’t they show America through a distorted lens? They showed us as a nation of bloodthirsty criminals, sex-crazed nitwits, drug addicts and all-around fools.
Of course there was some truth here, just as there was some exaggeration in the older films. But where does realism end, and slander and misrepresentation begin? How much blood and filth can we see before we become demoralized?
And what about coverage of the current war? Isn’t it a gamble?
So far, the war is going well, so the gamble is paying off. “Embedded†reporters and photographers are living with our troops, sharing many of the discomforts and some of the dangers. Clearly, this results in more accurate reports. There are fewer unfounded rumors of misfortunes befalling our troops – or of atrocities committed by them.
For a short war, this real-time reporting will undoubtedly evoke more pro-American feelings, both here and abroad. But what if the war drags on?
What if real-time TV reports had been available during World War II?
What if we saw sinking ships and drowning men as we ate breakfast?
What if we saw our dead troops sprawled on beaches as we took our lunch break?
What if we saw medics treating horribly wounded men as we sat down to dinner?
What if we saw the families of those killed or taken prisoner weeping over photos of their loved ones just before we went to bed?
And what if we awoke next morning to be told by pundits that the war was going badly, and that President Roosevelt and Gen. Eisenhower were to blame?
That is, what if we saw the grimness of war, laced with pessimistic commentary, while our enemies were being spoonfed cheerful propaganda, with their defeats, their casualties and their atrocities edited out? This couldn’t have gone on very long before we lost heart, while our enemies remained confident and shouted “Sieg heil!â€
The question remains: How much blood and filth can we see before we become demoralized?
Let’s pray that this war will be short. Let’s hope that the gamble on “embedded†reporters and real-time reports continues to pay off.
And let’s hope that some of the empathy the reporters have for our troops will rub off on media moguls, on Hollywood, and – who knows? – even on some of the hate-filled Americans who are at war with their own country.
Perhaps, confronted with vivid images of a real war, real heroes, real atrocities and a real tyrant, these people will finally understand who their real enemies are. At least we can hope.