Today is Memorial Day, a day when even diehard partisans honor the fallen. And everyone else has an excuse to imbibe in their favorite alcoholic beverage and make small talk with people they dislike. In concordance with my post last Monday, I've always harbored a strong reverence for the military, primarily due to the ascetic lifestyle and the theatrics comprising military imagery. Perhaps not all of our militaristic aggression has been justified, whether from a nationalist or a wholly moral perspective. Nonetheless, today is one day when America isn't depicted as an entirely noxious entity, but rather one with ideals and values worthy protecting.
But aside from the sentimentality, what does this extant phenomenon tell us about the human condition?
Some conservative voices recently criticized Elena Kagan for opposing an ROTC presence at Harvard. While this claim is disputable, it does reflect the liberal bias against the military, a default position that undoubtedly tells us something about what the military represents. In general, the left opposes any institution that betrays their narrative of humanity. Thus, any truth, no matter how veracious the relevant argument, that undermines the PC construction of man becomes an enemy of the left.
The mere presence of a military, the notion that a nation must possess even a minimal federal protection unit, reflects the unavoidable behavior of man. Man is attracted to nationalism, especially the brand pertaining to ethnic kin. He's a social animal who seeks to form groups of similar individuals and, by default, such inclusion often leads to exclusionary enmity. He seeks hegemonic power and finds much satisfaction in achieving this predominance through aggressive means.
Ostensibly, the ubiquity of war and the prevalence of collectivist uprisings throughout human history corroborate these observations. Yet the left seeks a utopic order absent of nationalist conflict or even national boundaries. They envision an entirely globalist order where individual countries become servile pawns to an international body. They believe diversity initiatives that demand the coalescence of disparate groups can succeed. And that cultural indoctrination can temper man's carnal hostility.
Yet what does history tell us? History tells us such romanticism constitutes an unrealistic delusion. And the military reflects these maxims, thus branding them an enemy of the left.
24 comments:
Just as the left likes to believe that a criminal is an otherwise decent person who happened to have access to a gun and who did not have enough opportunities, so too the left likes to believe that aggressive nations who sponsor terrorism and intimidate their neighbors behave that way only because of western misconduct.
I would guess that's probably a big part of the reason Obama is going around kissing up to the likes of Hugo Chavez and King whats-his-face of Saudi Arabia. He's like the idealistic white teacher who's just started working in an inner-city school.
Some conservative voices recently criticized Elena Kagan for opposing an ROTC presence at Harvard. While this claim is disputable, it does reflect the liberal bias against the military, a default position that undoubtedly tells us something about what the military represents. In general, the left opposes any institution that betrays their narrative of humanity. Thus, any truth, no matter how veracious the relevant argument, that undermines the PC construction of man becomes an enemy of the left.
You need to define your terms. If by "Left" you mean Democratic Party, they have no problem supporting all kinds of interventionism and foreign alliances. If you mean humanities professors then you may be thinking too hard about it. They could just as easily hate terrorists for discrediting their worldview.
You aré correct about extremist leftists, but Obama's Nobel speech was a strong defense of the military. Europeans aré moré deluded than american leftists.
America's military is too powerful for America's ruling class to handle responsibly.
The military is not powerful enough. Nuclear proliferation in unstable regimes are the equalizer, with delivery through deniable terrorist proxies.
Will the US nuke Pakistan out of existence, if NYC is nuked, with say, 4 million dead, the city wrecked, buildings destroyed, and no real proof it was the Pakistanis, or elements within Pakistan, or perhaps Iran, or maybe just elements within Iran, that gave a nuke to a deniable proxy?
My guess is no, the US will do nothing, because a deeply feminized West finds aggressive, dominant, non-Western men sexy. As Sandra Tsing Loh noted in the Atlantic, liberated feminist Swedish women are marrying Muslim men. Because the men are dominant, even if they force the women into polygamy and tents. Women will do anything to get dominance from men if left to their own devices and without social restraint.
We lack the will, and means, to properly threaten unstable regimes like Iran and Pakistan. Largely because women loathe our own power, which is too restrained and worship foreign power which is not, and the demographic changes. In 1940, about 90% of America was White. That is why you got total War in the Pacific. Today it is 66% -- and that is why 9/11 got such a limited response (had we nuked Afghanistan and Pakistan out of existence, killing perhaps about 200 million people, we would have left little doubt about our resolve, instilled a healthy fear, and had no need to invade Iraq and showed Iran whats what).
Instead we get the bare absolute minimum, because of racial divisions (Blacks are not patriotic, by and large, and neither are Mexicans), and sexual / gender dynamics of power.
Switzerland, Germany, and Italy could all go nuclear and it would not matter. Neither would Japan being nuclear matter. Iran matters very much, not the least of which is it will guarantee Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Oman, Kuwait, and every other unstable regime to nuke up rapidly.
"9/11 got such a limited response (had we nuked Afghanistan and Pakistan out of existence, killing perhaps about 200 million people, we would have left little doubt about our resolve, instilled a healthy fear, and had no need to invade Iraq and showed Iran whats what)."
As a woman with sons, that is my idea of a response to those f--kers who hit the towers, not sending my boys to die trying to establish civil society among the tent dwelling stone age losers.
Libs should like it too. It would be very inexpensive and would control population.
Had we nuked them, their leaders would be bowing to us.
"I would guess that's probably a big part of the reason Obama is going around kissing up to the likes of Hugo Chavez and King whats-his-face of Saudi Arabia. He's like the idealistic white teacher who's just started working in an inner-city school. "
Which country are you from? We Americans have ALWAYS kissed the faces of the Saudi Royals. They are our allies in oil.
"9/11 got such a limited response (had we nuked Afghanistan and Pakistan out of existence, killing perhaps about 200 million people, we would have left little doubt about our resolve, instilled a healthy fear, and had no need to invade Iraq and showed Iran whats what)."
As a woman with sons, that is my idea of a response to those f--kers who hit the towers, not sending my boys to die trying to establish civil society among the tent dwelling stone age losers."
But neither the "state" (government) of Pakistan OR Afghanistan are responsible for 9/11.
NO COUNTRY IS.
These terrorists are paranationalists. They belong to no nation nor heed the calling of any Prime Minister or President.
I would guess that's probably a big part of the reason Obama is going around kissing up to the likes of Hugo Chavez and King whats-his-face of Saudi Arabia.
As a staunch conservative, I have very little faith in Obama's economic and/or social policies here in the US. But, I find myself breaking with many warhawking conservatives who think that you have to rattle sabers at people like Hugo Chavez or Ahmadinejad simply because they don't agree with us.
As it plays out, I see nothing wrong with Obama's attempts at being overly nice. Neither Chavez nor Ahmadinejad pose any credible military threat to the US, so let those two loudmouths talk all that they want.
War is just politics by another means. If Obama can help the world image of the US by kissing butts I really don't care, as long as it's not costing us money. In fact, if he can influence world politics on the cheap in this fashion, I am all for it.
His predecessor (who lacked any sense of tact or propriety) got us tied up in a war that accomplishes zilch, but costs the US treasury about $5 billion per month, and actually has the net effect of DECREASING American influence across the globe.
When it comes to US foreign policy, why not try some actual politics, babykissing and handshaking for a change?
I would guess that's probably a big part of the reason Obama is going around kissing up to the likes of Hugo Chavez and King whats-his-face of Saudi Arabia.
As a staunch conservative, I have very little faith in Obama's economic and/or social policies here in the US. But, I find myself breaking with many warhawking conservatives who think that you have to rattle sabers at people like Hugo Chavez or Ahmadinejad simply because they don't agree with us.
As it plays out, I see nothing wrong with Obama's attempts at being overly nice. Neither Chavez nor Ahmadinejad pose any credible military threat to the US, so let those two loudmouths talk all that they want.
War is just politics by another means. If Obama can help the world image of the US by kissing butts I really don't care, as long as it's not costing us money. In fact, if he can influence world politics on the cheap in this fashion, I am all for it.
His predecessor got us tied up in a war that accomplishes zilch, but costs the US treasury about $5 billion per month, and actually has the net effect of DECREASING American influence across the globe.
@ Camlost:
There's a big difference between being diplomatic or trying to foster common bonds and apologizing for America or being subservient to foreign leaders. US Presidents don't bow.
US Presidents don't bow
Yes, they only bow to the zionists.
Do other nations have military bases on OUR soil? If not, we have no business having bases on THEIR soil. The US currently has bases in numerous sovereign nations, which is insulting and if I were PM of any of those nations I would tell the US military where they could shove it.
Unless of course they were they in my employment, like in the case of Saudi. In that case I would still kick them out and "hire" someone else to do the job, like my own people. But the US is there to protect it's oil interests.
FREE SOLAR POWER IS THE ANSWER.
As soon as the corporate world figures out a way to charge us for breathing oxygen, it will. In fact, I think I read somewhere where that is being "worked on".
The left does not like the American military because the American government has at times used it as an aggressive tool to further US interests.
I am sure the left love the Swiss army.
"Yes, they only bow to the zionists"
Sheesh. When Israel's prime minister visited the US a few months ago, Obama refused to be photographed with him.
"Sheesh. When Israel's prime minister visited the US a few months ago, Obama refused to be photographed with him. "
Seriously? I'm impressed.
"Seriously? I'm impressed."
Why? That whole Leftist set hates Israel.
I'd be impressed only if he made a statement that he refused to be photographed with him on priciple. However, I know this is not how it could have panned out. There had to be another reason.
The US will not stand up to Israel. They are in cahoots.
"There had to be another reason."
The obvious reason is that Obama wants to kiss up to folks like the King of Saudi Arabia. He knows that pictures of him paling around with Netanyahu will damage him in the Muslim world. Leftists like Obama always want to kiss up to folks like this. Duh.
"The US will not stand up to Israel."
Stand up? How exactly is Israel bullying or threatening us?
"The obvious reason is that Obama wants to kiss up to folks like the King of Saudi Arabia."
Since we've gone into the oil business with them, can you name ONE US president who has not "kissed up" to the Al Sauds?
"Since we've gone into the oil business with them, can you name ONE US president who has not "kissed up" to the Al Sauds?"
I don't recall seeing any US President bowing the way Obama did. Show me a picture of Bush or Reagan bowing like that and I'll admit I'm wrong.
Bowing, cowing, fowing.... it's all the same. Saudi is the beloved of every US Pres and the Oil Corporations who put him in charge.
Now........... what is this about Israeli soldiers attacking a boat and holding 700 people hostage? Most of those people being lovely, porcelin skinned Europeans?
"Bowing, cowing, fowing.... it's all the same."
Lol, I guess that explains why Ronald Reagan snubbed Menachem Begin at the White House, eh?
"what is this about Israeli soldiers attacking a boat and holding 700 people hostage? "
Well comon, they need to find Christian babies to sacrafice.
"Well comon, they need to find Christian babies to sacrafice."
Alright, then I'm not opposed.
Everyone knows my disdain for Xtianity.
No religious relativism from this side!
Post a Comment