Supporting The Wrong Team

Tuesday, 25 February, at lunch, after picking up a sandwich from a Cambridge deli we detoured through Hahvahd Yahd with a couple of colleagues. While hustling across the quad with streams of students we spied four students holding a pair of Palestinian Liberation Organization flags and a sign. I couldn't read the sign, and the students stood peacefully, largely ignored.

We commented to our colleagues that this a great place where you can stand holding the flag of a sworn enemy of our country and no one bothers you. One colleague commented sarcastically that they were exercising their First Amendment rights. We asked what would happen if we stood across from them with an Israeli or a U.S. flag; or let them know that we thought them idiots. Somehow, we knew that our exercise of our own First Amendment rights would not have been viewed as kindly upon HU's hallowed campus.

The third member of our trio is dating a Marine Aviator currently on station in Iraq. She wondered what would happen if she carried the Marine Corp flag across the quad. We laughed, because we all the knew answer.

In a terrific article in today's WSJ, Daniel Henninger writes about this divide between the men and women of our armed forces and the civilian establishment. He relates the tale of U.S. Army Major Bruce Crandall (ret.) and his recent receipt of the Congressional Medal of Honor and the lack of coverage of either the feat or the ceremony in the mainstream media.

Henninger writes the following about the words of Gen. Peter Shoomaker, the Army chief of staff:

"Look at his words and consider whether they still stand today, or whether as a matter of the nation's broader ethos of commonly accepted beliefs, they are under challenge. Gen. Schoomaker said: 'The words of the warrior ethos that we have today--I will always place the mission first; I will never accept defeat; I will never quit; and I will never leave a fallen comrade--were made real that day in the la Drang Valley.'"

Henninger continues:

"The secretary of the Army, Francis Harvey, went on in this vein: 'The courage and fortitude of America's soldiers in combat exemplified by these individuals is, without question, the highest level of human behavior. It demonstrates the basic goodness of mankind as well as the inherent kindness and patriotism of American soldiers.'"

The "warrior ethos" and soldiers as exemplars of "the highest level of human behavior" are certainly not views held by critics of the war in Iraq, the military or the bush administration. Henninger concludes:

"All nations celebrate personal icons, and ours now tend to be doers of good. That's fine. But if we suppress the martial feats of a Bruce Crandall, we distance ourselves further from our military. And in time, we will change. At some risk."

Indeed. To the protesters on the Harvard Quad, celebrate Bruce Crandall. Celebrate the (true) warrior ethos of our military. Honor the exemplars of human behavior who serve in our armed forces -- not the PLO.

Front Lawn Activism

As the country approaches the 2006 mid-term elections we can't help but notice the blossoming of lawn signs proclaiming fealty to one candidate, or one cause or another. Throughout our neck of Metro-Boston the liberal Democrat candidate Deval Patrick seems to be the darling of our neighbors -- his dominance in opinion polls echoed by the prevalence of his campaign signs that have sprouted on suburban lawns like dandelions in July.

We do not begrudge our neighbors the opportunity to tout their man, and support a candidate who will finally move the Commonwealth into the single party model of the old USSR. Surely, a socialist utopia will ensue. We have no problem with any statement of political affiliation, but we chuckle over the following, prevalent political signs:

War is NOT the Answer.
A Call to Our Conscience: Save Darfur.org

These are statements from the same chapter of the liberal rhetorical playbook that reflexively promotes "dialogue" over fisticuffs, in all instances. These signs express a cherished liberal ideal that talk will fix everything. No doubt, dialogue has reigned in Iran's nuclear aspirations and subdued Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; The Six Party Talks prevented the N. Korean nuclear test of 9 October 2006; negotiation has convinced Omar al Bashir of Sudan to spare the lives and folkways of the animistic peoples of Darfur. This, however, is not the world in which we live.

Because of our extreme civilization, we often forget that it is necessary to "go medieval" particularly when dealing with those who are themselves medieval. As terrifying as hordes of self-satisfied American suburbanites brandishing lawn signs can be, their anger and the concomitant desire to dialogue is hardly a motivator for folks such as Bashir, Kim and Ahmadinejad. Repeated, disciplined beatings with an iron fist and an even steelier resolve to stay with the fist until our enemies relent is the answer -- despite what we want to tell ourselves with our lawn signs.