Should NYU faculty and their dependent children receive full tuition remission?
In response to "We thank the troops, but for what?" written by Aaron Leonard in the Feb. 1 issue of WSN.
Appreciation for the military is not something that "seeped into the culture," but is a long American tradition and a natural response to one person volunteering to defend the interests of his nation. America was founded, built and defended by a volunteer military. Gratitude was an even more natural and uncontroversial response when far greater numbers of Americans fought necessary wars with clear missions, such as World War II. America has long celebrated its WWII veterans, and with good reason — they protected the world from evil regimes that would have continued to terrorize millions had they not been stopped.
Many veterans of this time are proud of their service and eager to discuss it with fellow veterans and their descendants; I know because my grandfather was one of them.
Of course, attitudes changed during the Vietnam War. Vietnam was a more limited and discretionary war with fewer troops involved. This difference made it possible for some Americans to oppose the war for political reasons or avoid service for personal reasons. A split developed in American society between those who go to war and those who pontificate from the home front. But progressives who opposed the Vietnam War for sound political and moral reasons made a mistake, which Mr. Leonard repeats today.
Rather than focus their criticism strictly on elected politicians' errors, Vietnam protesters blamed the troops for the actions they were ordered to take and cultivated an anti-military movement. Whether or not one person literally spat on another in 1973 is irrelevant — Mr. Leonard's ingratitude to someone who volunteered to serve and had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq is a clear enough indication of unwarranted disrespect.
As a progressive-leaning independent, I am saddened when I see liberal activists bash the soldiers rather than directing their ire at the elected politicians who actually created our bloated military budget and shoddily-planned wars. This misguided critique distracts from important goals and enables the reactionary slanders that all liberals hate America and don't support the troops. "Support the troops; bring them home" builds consensus and shows respect much more effectively than shouting, "I'm not thanking you!"
— Chris Garos
In response to "We thank the troops, but for what?" written by Aaron Leonard in the Jan. 31 issue of WSN.
Though it is obvious that Aaron is opposed to the current war going on, and would've been opposed to all past wars, that distinction has nothing to do with whether our troops deserve recognition or not. Aaron must fail to realize that someone often signs up for the military in a time of peace to serve this country, to protect civilians and to do something completely selfless with his or her life. The men or women that Aaron mentions who have gone to jail for refusing to deploy to Iraq had to have been enlisted in the armed forces in the first place. They were not civilians who got drafted, but soldiers who disagreed with the war.
While a soldier is free to oppose a war, he or she is still a soldier and it is now their duty to follow orders. The people that Aaron mentions are not victims of the military. In fact, they are refusing their responsibility that they knowingly took on.
If Aaron believes thanking our troops is just "nice" and not "right," then maybe he should think just for a second what it would be like to make such a huge and selfless sacrifice. If soldiers do not agree with the war, then when they come home they should be thanked even more for moving beyond their personal beliefs and acting wholly for their country.
It disgusts me to think how inconsiderate and un-appreciative Aaron was when writing this article. If thanking our troops isn't right, then it seems to me that Aaron would rather have no troops at all. Even though it was the U.S. military that protected Aaron after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, he is too blinded by his own views of war to be thankful for someone putting their own life before his.
Lastly, if Aaron has a problem with why troops are serving where, he should realize that this is often not the troops' decision. It is the government that starts wars; the military is simply the means by which this is carried out. Aaron, please place blame where it should be blamed: on the government. The military is not responsible. In fact, they do just like what Aaron says in the article and that is "extend and protect U.S. interests globally."
If Aaron would rather not be protected, then maybe he should move to a country without a military. Among some of his choices are Andorra, Kiribati, Micronesia and Palau.
If he doesn't want to move, then I suggest Aaron works on gaining some respect and appreciation.
— Joy Wallace
EPJ
Feb 07, 2010
8:26 a.m.
At what point do people need to examine what they are asked to do? In terms of Nazi Germany, do we look back at the Nazi soldiers and say, "Let's just blame the government?" No, that is not the line taken up by too many people. In fact, almost all Germans were made out to be the monsters that allowed the Holocaust to occur.
So, I ask again, do we really want to take on the belief that the military is beyond question, beyond responsibility, beyond criticism? I think that's an extremely dangerous stance. That is not to say that the government and their policies are not to blame - it is obviously the US empire that is to blame.
Aaron ended his column with this, "I don't think the intention of people saying "thanks" is bad — but it's not right. Rather than thanking people for serving, we should be questioning what they're being asked to serve." And I think that Aaron would argue that people serving should be doing as much questioning as anyone else. This is not to make enemies with people that believed they were signing on to a noble job, but instead to push us all to question what they are serving. Are they really serving us?
Card carrying pacifist
Mar 11, 2010
11:23 p.m.
"I am saddened when I see liberal activists bash the soldiers rather than directing their ire at the elected politicians": Yes, but why would you volunteer to serve in the armed forces knowing full well that you may have to fight an unpopular and unjust war due to a command from above (i.e. self-serving politicians). Soldiers do not so much volunteer to protect their own citizens as volunteer to kill people on the other side of the world who never did them any harm. Just watch "All Quiet on the Western Front", especially the scene where Baumer kills the French soldier and you will realize why.
Unfortunately all these idealistic-schoolboy Army recruits simply gives the politicians the instrument they need to carry out their loathsome foreign policies. Saying we cannot blame people for volunteering for the armed forces is like saying we cannot blame hitmen who carry out contract killings.
US Census posters in the subway entices people's cooperation by claiming this will help to decide how $400 billion a year of discretionary spending will be allocated (a mere $1300 per person for healthcare, education and transportation), but doesn't mention that the military budget is a staggering $782 billion in 2009, or 23 percent of the federal budget, or $25000 per second, . And yet people continue to support this bottomless pit while the healthcare, education and other social services go down the drain. What a terrible case of misplaced priorities that sounds like!
leave a comment
Comments from unregistered users will appear once they are approved. Log in to have your comment show up immediately.