Reggie, this is a well-written thought process. You have articulated a set of paradigms that works for and against us as a nation. My English is good enough to point out the disconnect between fighting, peace keeping, invading, and support for troops. Often these elements are thrown together as if they share the same parents or make sense together. It has been a selling point I contest and thinking peoples in Africa, Europe and Asia point out in horror and ridicule.
You pointed out an American illusion about democracy. In diplomatic circles the fact is that our style of democracy works here for a host of reasons that do not work in other places of the world like Iraq for instance. We are a nation of war immature and naïve enough to misunderstand and believe in conflicting ideals.
“Whether the common soldier agrees with the war or not they aren't given the luxury of an opinion about it, they still have to follow the orders of the officers placed above them. This ensures that our nation endures. This type of vigilance also protects our nation's citizens and the many freedoms that they are guaranteed by our constitution.”
What type of vigilance? We, as a nation, missed the opportunity to restore peace in the days and weeks following 9/11. The opportunity was not even perceived. We declare war on problems and believe a lack of conflict is peace. We believe that fighting ensures peace and is peace keeping! Dismissing introspective discourse and historical perspective on global and national issues we like to say, we have “…a constitution which is backed up by the force of our nation's military. Which gives me the luxury of having an opinion, an opinion that I never fail to exercise; and that's how I choose to honor the memory of our fallen soldiers.”
Honoring soldiers is good. It is good for the soldiers but our honoring is duplicitous. We have made duplicity acceptable. It is easier than saying aloud that our soldiers are cannon fodder. ~ Dawn Wolf , (07/15/07)
No comments:
Post a Comment