At least Joel Stein is honest, unlike those who oppose the Iraq war but say they support our troops:
. . . I’m not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they’re wussy by definition. It’s as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn’t to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.
That’s Stein’s good point. Here’s the bad ones:
those little yellow ribbons aren’t really for the troops . . . The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day.
Who is Stein to tell me what my (and others’) motivations are? What evidence does he have. Does his statement apply to people who support the war? To families who have lost loved ones?
. . . people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they’re following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.
Does this apply only to the trigger-pullers in the Iraq war? What about those who did the same during World War II?
. . . when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you’re not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you’re willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism.
Once again, Stein sets himself up as the judge of others’ motivations. Has he asked them? Is every volunteer an imperialist?
I’m not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn’t be celebrating people for doing something we don’t think was a good idea.
No comment necessary.
[UPDATE. Hugh Hewitt interview with Stein]
Marc, thank you for making me aware of Mr. Stein. Had it not been for your post I probably would never have read his article in the LA Times.
Mr. Stein, like others who have never, ever, given of themselves, have a difficult time understanding (let alone appreciating) what others do in their name.
While I feel that Mr. Stein has his head firmly planted up his ass, he does, by this article, expose a bigger problem. One that effected the US citizenery durning Vietnam war and now again during OIF and the GWOT. We are at war but for the vast majority of Americans that war is something very distant and really has no impact on their daily lives. Without impact, it is easy to be against the operation in Iraq and indeed ambivalant about the war on terror.
Those of us that fought in Vietnam and or have family members serving in Iraq, know how important it is for our military to both know and feel that the American public is firmly behind them. That we support them AND their mission, and appreciate the sacrifies that they have and are making for us.
How sad it is that the privilaged Mr. Stein does not have the capasity to see the damage his words have. Perhaps he should spend some time with the wounded at Bethesda or Walter Reed and tell them he doesn’t support the effort or them. Better yet, if he has the stones, go to Iraq and spend a month with a line unit. Live with them, see Iraq from their perspective and tell to their face he doesn’t support them.
What Mr. Stein does not get, is that it matters little if he is against us being in Iraq. We’re there, like it or not and we must succed. To pull out now would not only dishonor all those who have fought and died and given blood and limbs but it would be a disaster for us internationally.
Thanks again for this and previous posts.
John,
It’s comments like yours that make the effort I put into blogging worthwhile. Thanks for reading my blog.
Dumb and Dumber
Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Joel Stein, made available by Radio Blogger, is hilarious or sad or some kind of combination of the two.
I commend to your reading the analysis from Instpunk, http://www.instapunk.com/#IP709 . I agree with him Joel Stein is probably basking in the attention from his abortive attempt at humor.
“Well, there’s no point in over-intellectualizing it the way we might if we were teaching Princeton undergraduates about the subject. Funny is always a change-up. Revealing the unexpected at precisely the moment the audience thinks it knows where you’re heading. For example, just showing the banana peel and then the dowager slipping on the banana peel isn’t funny. If you want laughs, after you show the banana peel, you have to make the audience forget that it’s there before she unexpectedly slips on it.
Joel doesn’t know this. He thinks it’s somehow unexpected that a good liberal would eschew the idea of supporting the troops. That’s his banana peel. He shows it to us immediately. Then, without even a hint of misdirection or original insight, WE are supposed to play the part of the stupid dowager who obediently slips on his neon banana peel so that the real audience—i.e., Joel—can laugh his ass off.”
Also, LTC Russelll’s letter to be found on The American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4272 .
These are, so far, the most appropriate responses I know of to Mr Stein. Except, of course, Hugh Hewitt’s suggestion to cancel my subscription. If I lived in that neighborhood, I would.
[...] Stein, of course, is the author of an op-ed in the LA Times about which I posted yesterday. In his column, Stein said: “I’m not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they’re wussy by definition.” [...]