roasted chicken hawks - a skippy rant

instapundit referred us to a new york post editorial by one retired army officer ralph peters, author and novelist. lt. col. peters makes some points that we would like to address.

lt. col. peters starts out, "there are few things more repugnant to a soldier than a coward who claims to speak on his behalf." at first, we thought he was going to be referring to the people in the adminstration who are happy to start a war without ever having served in combat, or even in the peacetime armed forces themselves (people like dick cheney, karl rove, andrew card, paul wolfowtiz, richard perle, ted olson, john ashcroft...oh, the list goes on. and don't get us started on the very very short list of commanders in chief who were in the service but went awol).

but no. lt. col. peters is talking about people who are against an armed invasion of iraq. apparently, he does not differentiate among the various points of view in the anti-iraq-invasion philosophies; there's no difference between a conscientious objector (pope john paul) or somebody who hopes saddam hussein wins (saddam hussein).

"self-appointed voices of conscience warn of tens of thousands of american dead. that's nonsense," he says, and he could well be right about that. although, personally, we have not seen anybody warn of "tens of thousands" dead; most reports indicate a few thousand young american service men and women could lose their lives in a worst case scenario. michael o'hanlon, in testimony to the armed services committee in congress, estimates casualties "could plausibly range from roughly 100 to 5,000, with total numbers of wounded about three to four times as great."

however, lt. col. peters goes on: "and when those who despise the men and women in uniform invoke the welfare of our troops to further their failing agendas, they transcend the commonplace cynicism of washington. this is hypocrisy as a moral disease."

ok, setting aside the question of what else besides a moral disease hypocrisy could possibly be, we must take offense at lt. col. peters' assertion that those of us who invoke the welfare of our troops are also those who despise our troops. we at skippy, and most of the people we know who are against a first strike against iraq, don't want our service men and women to die in such a war, because we think the war is not inevitable, necessary, or advisable, and therefore would only be political and economic in value. we don't want americans dying for that.

we don't want any young american troops falling in a first-strike battle against a small, weak country, which hasn't been proven to have any direct link to al qaeda terrorism, which hasn't made any aggressive moves against us, or anyone else for that matter, in recent history (yes, it invaded kuwait 12 years ago, and yes, we fought them back, and yes, we won. and the time before that when iraq used chemical weapons against another country, iran, it was with don rumsfeld's personally-delivered blessings).

but to say that those of us who oppose disregarding the united states' 200 year-plus standing position of not making the first strike, to say that we are in bed with saddam hussein, is to impune our patriotism, and our love of this, the greatest country in the world. yes, lt. col. peters, we admire and respect your service in the army for our country; but those bars do not give you the right to call us cowards because we refuse to support an obviously political drum-march into bloody battle, with no provocation, which is quite contrary to our country's moral code.

lt. col. peters goes on: "make no mistake: the anti-war voices long for us to lose any war they cannot prevent." whoa! hold the phone! way, way wrong, sir. when this country goes to battle, we want our troops to prevail. what kind of monsters to do you take us for? do you think we want our country to lose? just because we question the validity of one administration's aggression? maybe in the army there's no room for debate or questions, but sir, this is america, where debate and questions are the right of every citizen.

does lt. col. peters say that same thing about charles sheehan-miles, a decorated gulf war veteran who opposes a first strike against iraq? does he say it to any gulf war veteran who asks that we debate the validity of such a first strike?

does lt. col. peters say that about ordinary americans who express uncertainty about such a move? does he lump all of us into one big vat of cowardly traitors?

let us make one thing perfectly clear here: skippy's father served proudly in the pacific theater in world war two, and in fact was on one of the submarines in tokyo bay when the uss missouri hosted the signing of the surrender treaty. skippy's aunt and sister served in the navy, and both of skippy's sisters have husbands who served in the military. skippy's best friend was in the army. skippy will not stand for someone calling him a coward, or anti-military, or against our troops, just because that same someone questions skippy's right to disagree with one particular administration.

if this country goes to war, we are 100% on the side of our armed forces prevailing. we are not traitors, nor are we even so self-righteous or self-hating as to hope our country is defeated. but more to the point, we want as few casualties as possible when it comes to our young american men and women serving in our military. we support them all so much, we want them to return alive and well. you can't be much more supportive than than.

we would hope that the politicians back home don't put them in harm's way for nothing more than political expediency, or to pad somebody's pocket book, or to just make sure one party gets re-elected. the lives of service personnel are worth more than a seat in the house or senate. in fact, we'd rather see the politicians go to the front lines and experience the horrors of battle firsthand, and then make the decision as to whether or not they want to start a war.

make no mistake. if this nation commits to war, we want america to prevail. but it is not a game. it's not an x-box. it's not a pissing contest. it's not a political boost. it's war. it's life and death. and these decisions should be made with the gravitas and reverence that such weighty risks demand.