So, only vets can speak about war?

Tue, 11/28/2006 - 4:46pm
By: Letters to the ...

My, my, my. I really hope that Timothy Parker doesn’t know what I look like. After his parting shot about “fighting word[s]” I fear Mr. Parker may put down his poison pen in favor of an upper cut. Who said liberals weren’t tough?

But, remembering that liberals and Democrats are very sensitive souls, let me clarify my comment in question. When I said it was “cowardly” to refer to “deployment,” I was referring specifically to Democratic politicians who used the term to disguise their true intention of “withdrawal” and/or “cutting and running.” Clear enough?

Okay, to Mr. Parker’s (and others) next point, which is that I should put my money where my mouth is and sign up if I’m so gung ho about Iraq. The corollary to that is that unless you’ve had the distinction to serve, you shouldn’t even express an opinion, much less make decisions, about military matters. An interesting point, considering neither Woodrow Wilson nor FDR had military experience and managed to marshall our forces through both world wars. But, they were Democrats and we know how inconsistent Democrats are when it comes to applying their own rules to themselves.

On a more philosophical note, our country is founded on the principle of civilian control of the military. But if the Mr. Parkers of the world want to restrict military decision-making to active or retired military men only, let’s go ahead and chuck the Constitution and get on with instituting a military junta.

Speaking of military dictatorships, let’s discuss Saddam Hussein for a bit. In the post 9/11 world, is it not unreasonable to carefully monitor those states which give money, arms, and protection to not only al Qaeda, but to any terrorist group?

And, if that country has a history of acquiring, building, and using WMD, and has violated the terms of a cease-fire and will not allow the UN to conduct full and detailed inspections, and one which has definite links to terrorists in the form of payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers and of hosting terrorists operatives like Abu Nidel, is it not reasonable to at least consider military action?

All the little, petty arguments about who knew what and what someone said about such and such cause us to lose the forest for the trees. Iraq was a dangerous, rogue state in clear violation of UN resolutions and a cease fire. Something had to be done, and we all know the UN wasn’t going to do it.

And let’s remember this other salient fact. The vast majority of Democrats, including Mr. Parker’s hero John Kerry, voted in approval of the war. And here’s another: we’re there now and must not surrender the country to terrorist/insurgents/Islamofascists. We owe it to our own security and that of the Iraqi people.

We are in a worldwide conflict with Islamic terrorists. These people seek to overthrow the West through their willpower, not their fire power. It is a battle of wills. If we cut and run in Iraq without a clear victory, the terrorists will consider it a victory and be emboldened to continue their attack on our will and resolve.

They’ve already succeeded in Spain and much of Europe, where politicians spend more time figuring out how to appease angry Muslim inhabitants while many of those same inhabitants work even harder to hatch plots to kill their well-meaning European neighbors.

So, Mr. Parker and all of you others, until you can demonstrate to me how pulling out of Iraq too soon will NOT be a disaster, please refrain from trying to bury the argument in minutiae of peripheral considerations.

Meantime, I will continue to ponder the wisdom of someone who holds up John Kerry as an exemplar of leadership. Here’s a guy who, once he served, came back and began denouncing his fellow soldiers and deliberately rode his resultant popularity to marriages with rich heiresses and a wonderful political career, which again seems to be characterized by his denigrating the military.

Hey, you go right ahead and attach your cart to that horse, but for me, I prefer a young marine just back from Iraq, who said that once we lost one soldier on the sands of Iraq, we became obligated to see the fight to the finish. I assume HIS opinion is legitimate on this matter.

Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by bladderq on Wed, 12/06/2006 - 11:53pm.

ABC Nightline was very illuminating. The only study group member that ventured out of the "Green Zone" was former Sen. Robb (LBJ's son-in-law.)
This is a more misguided strategy than the one that got us into Viet Nam.
Support Our Troops...Bring'm Home ALIVE.

Submitted by Mrs_L on Wed, 12/06/2006 - 8:48pm.

Very well articulated, Trey! I could not agree with you more! BRAVO ZULU!

Mrs. L

Submitted by AMDG on Thu, 12/07/2006 - 10:34am.

Thank Mrs. L.

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 10:14am.

I love how certain democrats claim that disagreeing with them on their foreign policy and Defense stands means we are questioning their patriotism.

When really at a loss for a valid arguement they pull the chickenhawk counterattack. Funny how Jon Cary said that Vietnam was over and it shouldn't matter who served and who didn't when he introduced Bill Clinton at the 1992 Democtaric National Convemtion.

You are right Trey, anyone should be able to speak their mind about the war. Lord knows defense experts like Howard Dean (no military service), Harry Reid (must have been too busy to serve), Nancy Pelosi (a Wack job but never a WAC) and Hillary (I wanted to be a Marine) Clinton can opine!


Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 4:50pm.

If there were an Olympics for dissembling and outright falsehood, Trey Hoffman would surely be the odds-on favorite for the gold medal.

Take Mr. Hoffman’s deconstruction and re-interpretation of Lt. Colonel Parker’s reply, for example.

In the first paragraph Mr. Hoffman waxes indignent that LTC Parker took issue with his (Mr. Hoffman’s) painting all Democrats as “cowards”. Sure, that’s what I said, opined Hoffman, but it’s not what I meant. He then proceeds to dissemble and re-interpret his own remarks to a degree not seen since Renaissance philosophers debated how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

It was in later paragraphs, though, that Mr. Hoffman’s selective outrage really shines. Unwilling (or more likely, unable) to bring himself to answer the primary thesis of LTC Parker’s letter (which could be summarized as “If you worship war so fervently, Mr. Hoffman, why haven’t you volunteered to serve?”), Mr Hoffman instead invents a “corollary” out of whole cloth, and attempts to attribute this strawman position (“only veterans can speak about war”) and falsely attributes this to LTC Parker. Mr. Hoffman then attacks the position he conveniently hoisted upon LTC Parker.

Mr. Hoffman, as is typical of him, then questions LTC Parker’s patriotism by saying (direct quote here) “if the Mr. Parkers of the world want to restrict military decision-making to active or retired military men only, let’s go ahead and chuck the Constitution and get on with instituting a military junta.”

Of course, LTC Parker said no such thing.

A few more boilerplate Hoffman paragraphs ensue, largely not germane to the situation. This includes an obligatory Hoffmanesque swipe at John Kerry.

Lieutenant Colonel Parker’s underlying question is never answered by Trey Hoffman.

So I will ask it again, at the risk of seeming redundant:
Trey Hoffman, for someone who seems to worship both war and military might, why haven’t you volunteered to serve?

Why is this simple question so very hard for you to answer?


Submitted by Mrs_L on Wed, 12/06/2006 - 8:54pm.

So I will ask it again, at the risk of seeming redundant:
Trey Hoffman, for someone who seems to worship both war and military might, why haven’t you volunteered to serve?

Speaking for myself.....and I am a woman.....I have served. My husband and I have 24 years of combined service. And I will tell you the way I told a misguided teenager yesterday. The military is not ALL about war and military might. It's about humanitarian efforts and the preservation of FREEDOM......even if it takes us to all corners of the world to keep it terrorism, WMD's and dictators away from the United States. Now I ask you. Is that really so hard to understand?

Mrs. L

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Wed, 12/06/2006 - 9:06pm.

I thank you and your husband for keeping me and my family safe.

Please have a Merry Christmas, not happy holidays, but a Merry Christmas!


Submitted by AMDG on Tue, 12/05/2006 - 4:06pm.

Basmati, I usually refrain from responding to you because of your abrasiveness and anger, but I can't help it here.

So, why didn't I volunteer? Well, because I was a liberal and felt no obligation to do so. I have since had a change of heart of do feel regret for not having volunteered.

As for your silly charge that I worship war and military might: to deny it is sort of ridiculous from the start. Only those who can't defend their positions resort to such inane charges.

And for goodness' sake, can we dispense with this hyper-paranoia about being labelled unpatriotic? I went back and read my original letter and I SPECIFICALLY limited my comment about "cowardly" usage of the term "redeployment" to Democratic politicians. It is cowardly to cover up your real intentions with deceptive language. Is that so hard to understand? It has nothing to do with patriotism or cowardice in general. Jeez!

And you may think I engaged in a jump of logic (funny to be charged that by you), but I think I was simply drawing out of Mr. Parker's statements a natural implication. He was criticizing me for having my views since I had not served. That would imply that unless one serves, one ought not to express (or even have?) views about military action.

Explain to me, if you can, how I am wrong.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.