Happy Birthday to the Gipper

Today would have been Ronald Reagan's 95th birthday. So, on behalf of the Conservative Files, Happy Birthday to the Great Communicator, the man who made us all proud to be Americans once again. To Mrs. Reagan our thoughts and prayers are with you, may you find peace that Ron is in the shining city on a hill.

MEDIA ARROGANCE

By William F. Sauerwein

Joel Stein provides ample evidence of why we must hold the media as accountable as we do our government. Stein states his opinion without venom toward the troops, unlike so many in the “anti-war” movement. However, his belief that he understands the criteria for a “just war,” displays little knowledge of warfare, or military personnel. The underlying message in this article reflects Stein’s focus on himself, and that only those thinking like him are worthy of consideration.
First, I commend Stein for not launching personal attacks on the troops, though he appeared somewhat condescending. He makes the troops appear misguided and naïve, while he admits he does not know them. At this stage of the war I believe no one who enters a recruiting station does so blindly. I base this on my experience of enlisting in the Army during the Viet Nam War.
However, Stein makes no such comparison of the young people who blindly follow the various “anti-war” movements. The Viet Nam-era protestors also blindly followed such “causes,” with most unable to find Southeast Asia on a map. No one exposes the lies of people like Professor Ward Churchill, or who finances these various groups. The few media sources that cover the “protestors” expose them as regurgitating rhetoric, with no depth of knowledge.
Nor does anyone question the statements and actions of our enemies, while questioning everything that we do. For example, CNN journalist Eason Jordan admitted that he deliberately covered up Saddam Hussein’s atrocities. He did this so that CNN’s Baghdad office would remain open, and protecting the safety of Iraqi staff members. In a pre-war interview CBS’s Dan Rather showed more deference for Saddam Hussein than for his own president.
Stein further states that he has no problem with those who support the war, how generous. At least he recognizes the right of people who disagree with him of possessing First Amendment rights. A fault with most of those against the war is that they do not respect those who oppose them. For some reason they believe those who oppose them must not have all of the relevant information. For if they did certainly they could only come to the “anti-war” position.
In Stein’s opinion only those who support the troops, and support their mission, are “blind.” He believes that those of us who display our ribbons and bumper stickers supporting the troops do so out of guilty feelings. Now that opinion demonstrates “blindness,” and the unwillingness for communicating with those outside his “group think.” I thought journalists supported “diversity,” and searched deep for stories reflecting “diverse opinions.”
The mention of “Viet Nam” exposes the main thrust of today’s “anti-war” movement. Today’s “protestors” use the same rhetoric as those of the Viet Nam era; they merely changed some words and phrases. Viet Nam represents the best times of the overwhelming majority of the “protestors,” their frivolous youth. They overlook the results of their actions, the enslavement of the people of Cambodia, Laos and South Viet Nam.
If Stein read anything except his selective readings on this war he might see the reasons we waged it. When Japan moved into then-French Indochina in 1940 it so alarmed then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) that he imposed an embargo. He may also see that during the time of our commitment our British allies fought communist insurgencies in Burma and Malaya. Simultaneously, we helped the Philippines defeat a communist insurgency in 1954, but information like this threatens his worldview.
The so-called “anti-war” movement during the Viet Nam era never blamed the enemy for anything. They totally ignored atrocities committed by the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army, particularly during the Tet Offensive. I do not remember them protesting the atrocities and reeducation camps following the fall of Saigon in 1975.
I could go on for a long time about our reasons for fighting in Viet Nam, but that is not the current subject.
Stein then mentions a “50.7%” figure without explanation, and then uses it in conjunction with a “mandate.” Anyone can grab statistics from the air, since most journalism today seems based on continuous polling, derived from skewed questions. No one ever mentions that then-President Bill Clinton never received 50% of the popular vote, though no one questioned his “mandate.” I believe that is because Clinton reflects Stein’s world and political views, therefore no one should question him.
He then demonstrates his ignorance of the military by calling on our soldiers to disobey their orders. First, he substitutes his view of “morality,” meaning do not support wars that he opposes. A soldier in combat does not have the luxury of contemplation, as Stein does, while sitting in his safe office. Soldiers facing the horrors of war possess a deeper understanding of the morality of their cause than do journalists from afar. Furthermore, the Army teaches soldiers in basic training, and thereafter, to disobey unlawful orders, or face punishment.
Stein then furthers that ignorance by claiming some soldiers “just hang out in Germany.” If he understood the military he would know that for the Army peacetime is preparing for the next war. Because of human nature we will never be without war, despite our best efforts. Therefore we must maintain military strength as a deterrent, and use it when deterrence fails.
I guess Stein never “hangs out,” and works at his job 24/7. Otherwise he would understand that you must not keep a soldier in combat constantly. Combat places a severe strain on people, and equipment, requiring periods of rest and maintenance. As a superpower we are obligated to maintain troops in potential trouble spots, and Germany’s strategic location enhances contingency deployments.
At no time does Stein mention the morality of liberating the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator. Saddam Hussein’s regime brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of his people, including “ethnic cleansing” of the Kurds. Saddam felt himself the modern incarnation of Saladin, who defeated the Crusaders and “liberated” the Holy Land. He saw himself as “liberating” Jerusalem from the “Zionists,” and posed a threat to his neighbors. He threatened revenge for his defeat during Operation Desert Storm, and still does not recognize the sovereignty of Kuwait.
The armistice that ended hostilities in 1991 imposed certain restrictions on Saddam, as the defeated party. He failed to follow these UN-imposed restrictions, as apparent with the passage of subsequent resolutions. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 Iraq became the major focus of the US Army. Subsequent training missions reflected that scenario, and Saddam kept us on our toes. Every time Iraqi forces maneuvered near Kuwait, the United States (US) responded by deploying troops into the region. One brigade from the 1st Cavalry Division deployed there three times in about six months.
Clinton increased the operations tempo (optempo) of our troops by about 300%, while decreasing personnel strength by 40%. This forced an unprecedented increase in the peacetime deployment of National Guard and Reserve forces. Most of these missions had little to do with our “national interest,” nor did anyone encourage soldiers to disobey orders. Given Stein’s emphasis on “individual morality,” how many soldiers would willingly deploy to Somalia, Haiti or the Balkans. I remember Michael New, a soldier who refused to wear a United Nation’s (UN) blue beret receiving a court-martial. He believed he swore his oath to the US Constitution, not the UN, a moral choice. New was not a coward, he served honorably during Operation Desert Storm; it was the UN beret which bothered him. Maybe Clinton should have pardoned New instead of Mark Rich when he issued all of those questionable pardons.
For some reason Stein believes that the air war over Kosovo as a “moral” war. Clinton did not seek UN approval, nor the approval of his entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. Furthermore, public opinion polls showed the majority of Americans opposed military operations in Kosovo. The media stated that sometimes the President must ignore the polls and do what is right, according to them.
Clinton lied, nothing new for him, about the danger of a “wider war,” and that “two world wars” started in this region. Little evidence existed of this war expanding beyond the Balkans, except maybe from the people we supported. While World War I began from the assassination of Austria-Hungary’s archduke, the main battlefront was Western Europe. World War II began from the resentment following World War I and the Balkans was a minor theater.
When Clinton ordered the bombing of Serbia, resulting in the death of innocent civilians, it is “moral.” Maybe soldiers should have individually used their “morals” and refused to obey their orders. However, the media “beat the war drum,” declaring we must fight the Serbs for ending “ethnic cleansing.” Using Stein’s logic, Serbia presented no threat to us, therefore the war was “unjust” and “immoral.”
Unlike now, no one in the media “humanized” the Serbs, they were all evil. Now the media refuses to call the enemy terrorists, despite their deliberate targeting of innocent women and children. The media compared the Serbs with Hitler’s Nazis, yet overlooked a convenient fact. Albania was an ally of Germany during World War II and the 13th SS Division consisted largely of Bosnian Muslims. The Left, so eager to prosecute anyone remotely connected with the Nazis, suddenly defended them.
The media further overlooked the long history of warfare in the Balkans, and that each ethnic group rotated between villains and victims. Now evidence exists of the Muslims becoming the villains, and the vaunted “international community” does nothing, nor does the media. The war may indeed “widen” into neighboring Macedonia, but from Albanian aggression.
Stein, and those of his ilk, do not support this war because they do not like President George W. Bush. I remember not long after 9/11 Chris Matthews and others bemoaning the fact that Clinton did not have this event. He could have really demonstrated his greatness, something his supporters keep trying to create. Unfortunately for us, Clinton ignored his chances for fighting terrorism, the first World Trade Center bombing occurred on “his watch.” We further suffered attacks on our troops in Saudi Arabia; embassies in Africa and the bombing of the USS Cole.
Regarding the “faulty intelligence” claim, every major ally’s intelligence services believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He used them previously against his own people, and against the Iranians. Once “Pandora’s Box” is open, it is impossible to close, and no one forgets WMD knowledge. Clinton and the Democrats all stated this during the 1990’s, long before Bush became president.
Since Saddam became our major enemy during the 1990’s why did we have such faulty intelligence? Why did we not have our human intelligence assets on the ground, instead of relying on the UN, and Iraqi dissidents?
I downloaded former weapons inspector David Kay’s congressional report and statements from his successor, Charles Duelfer. Neither person denies that Saddam possessed WMD capabilities; they only did not find “huge stockpiles.” Further reports surfaced in 2004 from a defecting Syrian journalist, Nizar Najoef, that Saddam’s WMD’s entered Syria before the war began. If the police announced in advance a raid on a “crack house” the “dealer” would certainly move the drugs.
Saddam’s links with terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda, became known during the 1990’s. When Usama bin Laden received sanctuary in Sudan several Iraqi intelligence operatives visited him, tracked by the CIA. However the CIA stopped this observation when it became “too dangerous,” and the CIA moved to Kenya. Our troops liberated the Salman Pak terrorist training camp in Iraq, complete with aircraft fuselage, during the war. Of course the “anti-war” critics claim that no “operational” cooperation exists, therefore nothing else matters.
Stein’s article includes several selfish reasons for not supporting the troops. First, since he feels the war unjust, we do not owe the troops’ any gratitude. That may make him feel guilty, or maybe make him think more of his position. He likens military service in Iraq with “clicking on a pop-up ad” on his computer. If that is his only inconvenience in life, he leads a very sheltered life.
He then magnanimously believes we should not spit on the troops, as sometimes happened during Viet Nam. That demonstrates a lot of tolerance, since when the “anti-war” crowd does not get their way they throw tantrums like spoiled children. However, he does not believe we should celebrate their return because he believes the war wrong. Apparently he does not believe the soldiers have families and friends who are thankful they returned. Nor should we hold parades for them, because the traffic is insufferable.
Unfortunately for Stein the world changed following 9/11, yet people like him refuse to accept it. They berate Bush for not “connecting the dots,” when no hard evidence for this “connection” existed. “Monday morning quarterbacking” is easy, especially when you bear no responsibility for the consequences. You merely erase your mistakes and start over, no lives lost, no wars lost. They live a sheltered existence, protected from the “barbarians” by people who understand the world’s realities. For these people the war is little more than a computer game, where you start over if you make a mistake.
That includes the politicians who voted for the war, and now are against it. They were not “deceived,” they made their decisions based on political calculations, regarding the 2002 election. Most of the current war’s opponents were “hawks” during Clinton’s Kosovo war, though they lacked personal military experience. Again, for them it is not the war, but the president that they oppose. Furthermore, they have no plan for winning the war, except retreat and withdrawal, which leaves us vulnerable.
The same holds true for the “mainstream” media, who urged us into the Balkan wars. Now they refuse to wear American flag pins because as journalists they are “neutral.” Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly exposed the media’s emphasis on negative reporting, unfortunately I did not save the statistics. I do remember the media’s outrage when the Pentagon fed them erroneous information for deceiving the terrorists. It did not matter that this erroneous information gave our troops intelligence, and enhanced their success. The American media could not support the mission of American troops in combat, now that is “immoral.”
War is not neat and tidy, nor is it waged between friends like computer games. We do not possess the “cheat codes,” nor can we eliminate “the fog of war.” Decisions are made based on the best intelligence available, and Congress approved this war. Our troops and their families exhibit magnificent courage daily, the least we can do is support them.