Looking forward from the past

[aadler]

 
So, it’s that day again.

On December 7th, 1986, I stopped into the office of a co-worker in an administrative department at my university. She was an older lady, so I was confident that she would know my meaning when I asked, “Do you think anybody else around here has noticed the date?” She had, of course: the 45th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. After we’d discussed it for a few minutes, I said, “That was the unforgettable moment for your generation. For mine, it was the Kennedy assassination. I wonder what will be the day-they’ll-never-forget for today’s school kids?”

Fifty-two days later, the Challenger exploded barely a minute into lift-off, and I had my answer.

And, fifteen years later, just in time for another generation, we got another moment.

That moment is still with us, though many disagree what it means. For me, there are no doubts. What we’re doing in the world right now? It’s not about getting cheap oil. It’s not about Bush Junior finishing Bush Senior’s grudge against Saddam Hussein. It’s not about American imperialism or a neo-con power grab or a vast right-wing conspiracy. It’s a war, and we weren’t the ones to declare it.

I’ve dealt with some of those people. They’ve tried to kill members of my unit (and me) with bullets and RPGs and mortars and rockets and IEDs and — once — hand grenades. In the field, they’re resourceful and adaptable and never short of determination or ingenuity. Wounded and captured and in the hospital, they’re stoic and defiant. Under long-term imprisonment, they keep resisting and praying and sharing information with one another and doing whatever they can to further their cause. I will never, absolutely never, underestimate their commitment or their courage.

Of course, there’s also the fact that they and their fellows have killed far more Muslims than we have.

The point is, these are serious people. They’re not playing. They believe in what they’re doing. They’re dedicated to a long-term vision of what they want the world to be. They mean it. There is much, very much to admire about them.

At the end of all other considerations, however, a central fact remains: all these undeniable virtues operate through a world-view not only alien to us, but loathsome. Every time we use pinpoint missile strikes to hit a leadership cell, their propaganda machine instantly reports — and often invents — how many women and children were killed; then they blow up a school or a marketplace (filled with their own people!), and celebrate it with shouts of, “God is great!”

I certainly hope I’m following God’s path. I doubt that I’m as devout as the mujahadin are. Somehow, though, I can’t believe that He’s telling me to murder civilians, in the greatest possible numbers, as the proper fulfillment of my faith.

That was the purpose of September 11th, 2001. The Pentagon could be considered a military target, even if killing a plane-load of noncombatants in order to hit it would still be a despicable act. If United 93 was in fact intended to strike the White House, that too could be seen as a valid target, though with the same disclaimer. Crashing into the Twin Towers, however … the only reason for that was to kill, to kill as many as possible, and to kill people who weren’t their enemies, except through the questionable claim that ALL Americans were their enemies.

I wish that last were true. I wish all of us were as hell-bent on defeating them as they are on destroying us.

But — as long as we’re allowed to do the job — enough of us are.

Comments

[trinfaneb.livejournal.com]

Hello, saw you post on the Robot's page and thought I would look you up...

I was thinking about the Challenger too. I wish that was it the most shocking event that had transpired in my lifetime. I often visited relatives who lived 200 yards away from the McNair memorial in Lake City, SC.

I place the hard core terrorists among the Germans and the Vietnamese as the toughest enemies America has faced in the last hundred years. Just like Charlie, they learn from what doesn't work too well against us and they adapt. They know their limitations.

I think these guys see the very real threat of Western (i.e. American) culture forever changing their way of life and they are trying to do something about it. The culture of Islam fell on some tough times in the last few hundred years and its trying to make a comeback and some people have decided that taking on the two countries that drew the national boundaries after WWII (i.e. America and Russia) is the best way to do that. I'm convinced that a big reason so many of them hate Israel is because the Zionists got their act together faster and better than the rest of the people in that region. Everyone hates the whiz-kid, especially if they have a different culture and religion.

I've never admitted this before, but after 9/11 I would have willingly strapped explosives to myself or done whatever else it took to take a few terrorists with me. My anger has cooled down since then, but I would probably still do it if the opportunity occurred and I thought there was a good enough reason for it.

I salute you and your brothers in arms. I sincerely hope that the people in power let you carry out your job. America usually doesn't start wars, but we are pretty good at finishing them.

[aadler]

There’s been a small problem recently with staying power … which our enemies have noted, and against which weakness they’re focusing most of their strategy. When Bin Ladin’s latest videotape sounds like a communiqué from Democratic Party headquarters, you know something has gone seriously wrong. Right now, the news is good and getting better, but that could change very quickly.

[trinfaneb.livejournal.com]

Hopefully we can make it past the 2008 election without getting off the track in Iraq. They need a strong government and national infrastructure and it may take time for them to build it. Hopefully we have learned alot of lessons from the weak, corrupt South Vietnamese government and our often times counter-productive efforts to help them.

[aadler]

In my opinion, the weakness and corruption of the South Vietnamese government was always more myth than fact, highlighted and exaggerated to advance the cause of American defeat. Following American withdrawal, the South Vietnamese government fought a North Vietnamese invasion to a standstill, before running out of ammunition because the U.S. Congress had passed laws specifically forbidding continued support to the South (in violation of explicit treaty obligations), while the North continued to benefit from Russian and Chinese support.

You can see some of the same mechanism operating today. The surge strategy was pronounced a failure before it had a chance to begin … and then, when it proved successful despite dire predictions and attempts at legislative sabotage, the defeat-mongers instantly shifted the focus to the ‘failures’ of the Iraqi government. (“How can they not be successful and stable after being given four full years to achieve that state? We managed it in only eleven years!”)

The strategies ultimately matter less than what the strategies are intended to achieve. Bush’s strategies, whatever their failings, have always been aimed at victory, because it was good for America. Democratic Party strategy, for the last several years, has increasingly been directed toward defeat in Iraq, because it would be good (they think) for the Democratic Party.

[trinfaneb.livejournal.com]

Yeah the new Iraqi government has it tough because so many groups out there want them to fail and many of them are actively working in that direction. Iraq don't really have a democratic tradition, so it makes it that much harder for them to get support from their people.

Just about everything I've read about the Vietnam War at least alludes to the weakness of the South Vietnamese government, but I have to confess that nothing I read really concentrated on the government. I could use some more information about that and the period after the Americans left.

My main source about the Post-American period is the movie version of "A Bright Shining Lie," which does make it seem like ARVN was able to get its act together. I also remember reading that the North Vietnamese ulimately had more tanks than the Germans when they invaded France in 1940, so ARVN also had big targets to go after, which the US rarely had.

Just read about ARVN on Wikipedia. I really hadn't thought about the fact that the ultimate defeat of South Vietnam had alot to do with the resignation of Nixon and the cutting of aid under Ford. I was only 9 when Hanoi fell but from what I remember it wasn't a big deal in the news. I think for most Americans, the Vietnam War ended after US ground troops left the country.