Interspersed... William Robb wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Sorenson" > Subject: Re: Bouncer > > >> Bill - >> >> That's where we diverge in our methodology. The unfortunate truth is >> that if you don't have a chain of command, you really don't have an >> effective military. So, yes, we do have heroes - everyone who puts >> their all on the line at the will of their commander is a hero in my >> book. No more so nor less now than when your father fought. > > I guess the difference is that my father never saw himself as a hero. He was > sent off to do a job, he did it competently (he was an artillery spotter), > and he came home and got on with life. He didn't want to be put on a plinthe > for his efforts, he just didn't ever want to pick up a gun, ever again. > He did a job that needed doing, but he never felt good about the number of > deaths he caused during his stint, and he never lost sight of the fact that > the people he killed were people.
The key phrase there is "never saw himself as a hero". With the exception of a very small group, vets who are doing the job because it needs to be done (and "needs to be" usually equates to "ordered to do") don't see themselves as heroes and are somewhat embarrassed to be referred to in that sense. Their usual attitude is "the heroes are the ones who didn't come home or came home in a box". I suspect your father, who didn't see himself as a hero, is, rightly so, a hero in *your* eyes, and probably those of others, because he had the courage to do the job that he was assigned. > > We don't have the long love affair with our military. > >> The problem lies with the politicians (and the "commander-in-chief", no >> matter what name you give him/her is *still* a politician) that make the >> policy to put the military into action. And with the populace who let >> themselves be led down the primrose path to where we are now under the >> guise of protecting us from something (which in reality didn't exist). >> >> We're not a fascist state yet, but if we become one it won't be because >> of military initiative, it will be from politicians ignoring the >> constitution and the people being apathetic enough to let them do it. >> > > If you do it will be a combination of apathy, a political arm willing take > advantage of said apathy, and a military arm willing to do the bidding of > the politicians, not because it is the right thing to do, but because they > are following orders, blindly and without concience. > > William Robb > > Agreed - and that's true of *any* country that purports to be governed according to the will of the people - it's the gamble we take. The key is to convince the people to *not* be apathetic...to not trust *any* politician...and to be willing to "throw the bums out" when they think they don't need to listen to the voters. I'm all for returning to the activism of the 1960's. Some of that action was wrong, but most was right and for a while, at least, government did take more notice of the will of the people. At least, then, we didn't lie on our backs with our legs spread willing to take whatever we were told was best for us. -p -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
