Well, that's the choice I've made. My son is Taiwanese and is in the reserves.
I understand your pain, but your position is terminally short-sighted and will only result in the sacrifice of even more sons later. Once China occupies Taiwan, it will move on Japan and on Philippines, where we have bases and mutual defense treaties.
Japan knowing that, is already investing in defending Taiwan, because Tokyo understands that defense of Taiwan is defense of Japan.
So the real question is not whether US boys will die, but when. Do you want them to fight with every advantage, or do you want them fighting with Beijing porting its ships and aircraft and missiles in Taiwan? That is the choice we face. A lot fewer boys will die if we can keep Taiwan out Beijing's hands. That is the math we face out here. That is why my son will fight, and why I will let him -- because in the long run it will mean fewer deaths. The sick calculus of war...
You think a pox on everyone and we stay home in America? No problem. After that, Beijing will grab parts of indonesia, Phils, Vietnam, all nations it claims part of, and eventually move on Australia -- China already sniffing around the Solomons because that is the key to Australia. You aren't going to be given the no-war choice, Beijing plans to take that from you. Your only available choice is which war?
I respect the choice your son has made. Truly. But it's not the choice I would make for my own son. (And again, ultimately, it will be his choice.)
It's possible you're right about China's expansive designs -- though I'm skeptical that it would actually go to war to take Japan and the Philippines and Australia. That would bring war: Expensive in blood and treasure. More likely it would do what the U.S. has done over the years (and what China has been doing, btw) which is to leverage its military/economic might to bring those countries into a sort of alliance -- or at least aqcuiescence -- as U.S. power fades. That's a lot cheaper and more sustainable way to get what it wants.
In other words: I'm skeptical of the scenario you lay out here.
Thanks for your comment. I do appreciate your thoughts.
We are at a historic crossroads now with Russia. If we allow a nation like Russia to over-run a neighbor, commit thousands of war crimes and murder 100,000+ civilians for zero military effect but only for terror, a nation that was no threat and hadn’t done anything wrong, it doesn’t stop there. It will only encourage more. Would we let them overrun Georgia next? Absorb Kazahtstan? How bout Finland? Does it stop with NATO? Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania?
At some point good people have to say, “this far, no further”. There is simply no other good choice. This choice will lead to death, suffering, and hardship. That is true. But we did not lead the way down this path. The only choice is to refuse to follow people like Putin (or bin laden) when they try to lead that direction. Try to stop them short of war, sure. But allowing them to walk away from actions like Ukraine is not stopping them. It only leads to more and worse.
Taiwan has to be the line with China. It’s a vibrant, thriving democracy with a great economy. That must be preserved and protected.
"This far no further" is a line from a Star Trek movie where the character who utters it plans to wage a war he can't win when the smarter thing to do would be to save everybody's lives and conduct a strategic retreat.
First, you decided to go after the decorative quote for your perception of shorthand rather than actually engage my point. I expected better (you can read dripping derision in this understatement). Care to try again?
Second, the quote is from the movie "Star Trek: First Contact" but in that movie it alluded to other places dating back many centuries. The sentiment is not new and underlies any successful argument for Just War. In the movie, it is Picard that says it because he's facing a Borg invasion and subjugation of Earth to not only take the planet under oppressive control, but also to prevent the future formation of Starfleet and the United Federation of Planets, which waged successful war against the Borg in the future. In the movie, you should note, Picard wins that fight. He saves countless billions of humans, plus the rest of Earth's environment and species, from a brutal, indescribable fate. Countless because they only catch a glimpse of a radically altered Earth centuries after invasion. Failure to act would result in centuries of unspeakable fate for billions of humans. That is not acceptable.
Many occupations have a "duty to act" as part of their legal obligations, including law enforcement, medical personnel, and military. Failure to act is legally punishable. Morally, in the face of what can objectively be called evil, we collectively as humans have a duty to act. It isn't legally enforceable, but failure to act will certainly be punished, and in horrible, unspeakable ways.
"Morally, in the face of what can objectively be called evil, we collectively as humans have a duty to act."
In general, I agree. Practically, we prioritize. There was terrible evil done in Rwanda during the early 1990s -- the United States didn't lift a finger to put a stop to it, even in non-military ways. Right now, Uighurs are a persecuted minority in China. Should we send in the troops? For that matter, should we be sending Americans to fight right this second in Ukraine to throw out the Russians? Or would that just potentially make everything much, much worse?
So your observation is really the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it. You're welcome to try to convince me that China invading Taiwan is worth the risk of nuclear war or sacrificing a few thousand American lives in, but I'd need something more specific than "opposing evil" as a response.
P.S.: I did note the derision. You're a guest in my space. I don't have to engage. Let's try to be respectful to each other, even if this ends up a lively conversation.
About the rest of your reply, yes, we are at the start of this conversation. I've been around too long to be convinced that the USA always wears the white hat and goes to the rescue of everyone. We have limited resources. As you noted in your original article, one resource we must safeguard is that of our military service members, both their lives and their well-being. We must not spend that resource without just cause, without intent and commitment to win, and without a clearly made and well-supported national security goal. Want to know the people who want war the least? People in uniform. We see war. We lose friends. We miss birthdays, holidays, anniversaries. Marriages fail. Emotional baggage isn't universal, but it is real and veteran suicide is only one horrible aspect of that. We spend our human resources at our own peril. I have children as well, and culturally, children of veterans serve in uniform at a much higher rate since we went all-volunteer.
One thing I know President Bill Clinton regrets (he has stated this) was failure to intervene in Rwanda. I don't know what that would look like militarily, but it was necessary at the time, and we failed. As a nation, we need to do better than that. For context, remember that even launching cruise missiles at Al Qaeda targets earned President Clinton some harsh political attacks from Speaker Gingrich, et al. While intervention was the morally correct choice, they made a decision in part on political reality of the time. I think it was the wrong choice, but that is what happened.
I think we are of similar ages but different moral background. I turned 18 days before Bush 41's 1991 "Line in the Sand" and had just registered for the draft. I'm a recovering Catholic and was never a conscientious objector, but I was nervous and stressed as well. Before seeing combat, that sort of stress is real and should never be diminished or insulted. It is real, and normal, for any sane, moral human. I joined up after 9/11, after several college degrees, to do my part in what at the time was the fight of our generation. Turns out military service has aspects I found valuable. Now I've served 4 Presidents for going on 22 years. To borrow another film quote (that has its older origins, including US Navy traditions), soon my watch will be ended and I will hang up my stripes.
To put my position in perspective, I don't think that our 2003 Iraq invasion was sufficiently justified. It certainly was not resourced well or paired with a commitment to win. National security goals was the easier argument - Saddam was in direct violation of international law and had committed war crimes against the Kurds, among others, and a friendly Iraq in the Middle East is clearly to our national advantage. But I think we didn't fight to win, and are still paying the costs of, among other things, Rumsfeld's "Transformation" idealistic silliness. We needed at minimum half a million troops to secure Iraq into a sustainable peacetime paradigm, even though we could break Saddam with a fraction of the necessary occupation force. Worse, Iraq was a toxic sideshow to the fight we really needed to win in Afghanistan, resulting in the horrifying end we just witnessed (and I had to help manage as a Sergeant).
China is not our friend, and never has been. While Nixon did the smart thing and peeled the PRC away from the Soviets at a crucial juncture in the Cold War, there is no getting around the horrors of the Cultural Revolution, your more contemporary example of the Uighurs, or countless other atrocities committed by Mao and his underlings and successors. If China invades Taiwan with a violent military act, we will have no moral choice. America might choose not to act, but that does not make it the right choice.
You've given me a lot to chew on, and clearly you've got a lot of expertise on the topic. Thanks for engaging, and I want to respond, but I also need some time to consider all this! I do appreciate your comments.
Please note that after all my words, the thought of my children going to war horrifies me, as it should any parent. War is hell on Earth, and I won't lie about that. I am proud of my service. I did hard things under bad circumstances and I got through it with my honor and pride and life and body intact. This is one reason we have the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Yes, they protect civilians. They also protect soldiers, give them clear lines of right and wrong. We have seen and continue to see what wrong looks like, and we have to continue to struggle against that type of wrong. I see it in Ukraine daily as I talk to my friends there.
But sometimes war is necessary. Don't start the fight, but make sure you are the one in the position to end it. Walk softly but carry a big stick. Or, as General Mattis said, "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet." Mattis sounds brutal, but translated to civilian, it is "Act according to the laws of armed conflict and sound military doctrine, protect innocents and bystanders and friends, and make sure you, your brothers, and your sisters come home at the end of this."
"P.S.: I did note the derision. You're a guest in my space. I don't have to engage. Let's try to be respectful to each other, even if this ends up a lively conversation."
Perhaps I should apologize for coming from more than two decades of military service. We don't hold back. We say what we mean, and we say it when it matters. Failure to do so tacitly accepts whatever circumstance happened and invites further problems. I'm a sergeant - it's my job to say things immediately and in ways that snap people's attention. It has been for a long time. Then we can joke about "filing a hurt-feelings report" after the moment passes and the problem is fixed. I'm going to have to learn how to talk to civilians soon. I'm honestly not looking forward to it. Directness is incredibly refreshing.
I do understand this is your space, but take this from an old, crusty Sergeant: you've some success as a journalist and are in the foreign-policy, Just War, Laws of Armed Conflict realms. Going after a statement from a commenter that your understanding was incorrect on (it wasn't as you characterized, as I explained) rather than engaging their point does you actual harm. While my statement might have been more direct than you want in your space, in most ways it is actually generous in intent. If you want to be taken seriously as a journalist in these realms, you need to do better. From an old, crusty Sergeant who's seen 3 combat zones over more than 2 decades.
Oddly from that experience, one thing that is impossible to forget is the smell of months or years of uncollected trash mixed with poor water and sewer infrastructure. You never, ever forget that smell. And it makes you absolutely adore any Western trash and recycling service.
The 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine was a watershed moment for Europe. A nuclear power had violated international law in ways unprecedented since before nuclear weapons were real. Europe and the USA started re-arming. While President Obama suffered political damage for thoughtless critiques of his response to both Ukraine and Syria, he did the opposite of "failing to act". He took stock of the state of our military after 13 years of war and realized it wasn't set up to take on Russia, much less China. We are just now seeing the fruits of his rebuilding effort. The unveiling of the B21 Raider yesterday is one example of a fast-tracked, efficient, and effective effort to re-arm started by President Obama in 2014. Much-upgraded AMRAAMs plus an AMRAAM replacement, vastly upgraded Patriot missile batteries, Burke Flight IIA and III destroyers, Hellfire missile upgrades and replacement.... The list goes on. President Obama started in motion a complete upgrade and re-arming of America that had been put off since 1991. NATO as well, notably the proliferation of more modern MBTs plus the re-equipping of former Warsaw Pact air forces with F16s and F35s to replace ancient MiGs (21s and 29s mostly). Just as important, we worked closely with Ukraine to reform their military, root out political and business corruption, and make Ukraine into the worthy ally they themselves desperately want to be. Ukraine didn't need a draft - they got more than 1 million volunteers to build a motivated, effective military that Russia can only look jealously on. I have a dozen friends in that fight now.
For the record, I also know the children of many of those Ukrainians fighting this very minute. In one case, a father and son fight side by side in the same unit. The father is a musician in civilian life, a friend of mine. He's fighting for his own life, the lives of his family, and the future of his children and grandchildren.
Your son doesn't need to serve or sacrifice. I've served in the military and I'd do it again to fight against Chinese Communist aggression. Taiwan is strategically important to the U.S., and especially important to our democratic allies in the indo-pacific - Japan, Australia, Korea etc. PRC control over Taiwan would enable China to project military power mutch further, and that would severely threaten our allies in the region. The PRC seeks to undetnine American power and influence worldwide, and its attacking democracy now. A successful PRC invasion of Taiwan would harm the entire region. Maintaining deterrence against the PRC is the answer.
You realize that no one really cares about Taiwan in regards to its independence. The issue with Taiwan is its chip manufacturing. Who controls the chips controls the world. China grab of Taiwan besides besides making the communist party feel better about itself is really a story about China trying to take control over the manufacturing of computer chips. It has tried to do it on its own and failed but after acquiring Taiwan, it would be in the position to dictate both economic and military terms to the rest of the world.
I never asked, but I suspect if someone had asked my grandfather in 1939 if he were willing for his sons to die for Iwo Jima, he’d have said of course not. Nor any other American, but guess what happened.
Because "My God. My God." the "post-Sept. 11 wars" didn't cause those 30k veterans to commit suicide. Likely some. But you present zero evidence that those conflicts caused any of those suicides, much less imply they caused all of them.
From the VA: " In each year from 2001 through 2020, age- and sex-adjusted suicide rates of Veterans exceeded those of non- Veteran U.S. adults. The differential in adjusted rates was smallest in 2002, when the Veteran rate was 12.1% higher than for non-Veterans, and largest in 2017, when the Veteran rate was 66.2% higher. In 2020, the rate for Veterans was 57.3% higher than that of non-Veteran adults."
Your own data refutes your argument. It's gotten worse, correct? Which would mean that the soldiers of WWI & WWII were somehow mentally suicide resistant or that their experiences were maybe, less traumatic. Or not.
Perhaps, there are other circumstances in play. Hasn't the number of single, lonely men skyrocketed over the last two decades?
Just so I understand the author….let me get this straight. So the FIRST thing YOU did when Saddam invaded Kuwait was to fill out conscientious objector paperwork…. WOW. That says a lot there sally. Oh and by the way…just like in Quaker graveyards on Memorial Day, I’m sure there are plenty of American flags on graves in Mennonite graveyards. Moral clarity eventually leads you to understand there ARE things worth fighting and dying for.
….So apparently the sacrifices of others to prevent the predations of despotic regimes of the world should be left to some other family. You either haven’t thought that through, or you mustn’t have to look yourself in the mirror very often.
Interesting that you use the term "moral clarity," because hawks bandied it about quite a bit when making the case for war in Iraq after 9/11. The results were ... less than morally admirable.
I don't doubt there are things worth dying for, though I suspect the list isn't all that long. The list of things worth killing for is even shorter.
That said: Youve just used up your free pass. Use insulting terms again - like "Sally" - and you will be blocked.
Well, that's the choice I've made. My son is Taiwanese and is in the reserves.
I understand your pain, but your position is terminally short-sighted and will only result in the sacrifice of even more sons later. Once China occupies Taiwan, it will move on Japan and on Philippines, where we have bases and mutual defense treaties.
Japan knowing that, is already investing in defending Taiwan, because Tokyo understands that defense of Taiwan is defense of Japan.
So the real question is not whether US boys will die, but when. Do you want them to fight with every advantage, or do you want them fighting with Beijing porting its ships and aircraft and missiles in Taiwan? That is the choice we face. A lot fewer boys will die if we can keep Taiwan out Beijing's hands. That is the math we face out here. That is why my son will fight, and why I will let him -- because in the long run it will mean fewer deaths. The sick calculus of war...
You think a pox on everyone and we stay home in America? No problem. After that, Beijing will grab parts of indonesia, Phils, Vietnam, all nations it claims part of, and eventually move on Australia -- China already sniffing around the Solomons because that is the key to Australia. You aren't going to be given the no-war choice, Beijing plans to take that from you. Your only available choice is which war?
Michael Turton
I respect the choice your son has made. Truly. But it's not the choice I would make for my own son. (And again, ultimately, it will be his choice.)
It's possible you're right about China's expansive designs -- though I'm skeptical that it would actually go to war to take Japan and the Philippines and Australia. That would bring war: Expensive in blood and treasure. More likely it would do what the U.S. has done over the years (and what China has been doing, btw) which is to leverage its military/economic might to bring those countries into a sort of alliance -- or at least aqcuiescence -- as U.S. power fades. That's a lot cheaper and more sustainable way to get what it wants.
In other words: I'm skeptical of the scenario you lay out here.
Thanks for your comment. I do appreciate your thoughts.
It is never wrong to hope for no war.
However…
We are at a historic crossroads now with Russia. If we allow a nation like Russia to over-run a neighbor, commit thousands of war crimes and murder 100,000+ civilians for zero military effect but only for terror, a nation that was no threat and hadn’t done anything wrong, it doesn’t stop there. It will only encourage more. Would we let them overrun Georgia next? Absorb Kazahtstan? How bout Finland? Does it stop with NATO? Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania?
At some point good people have to say, “this far, no further”. There is simply no other good choice. This choice will lead to death, suffering, and hardship. That is true. But we did not lead the way down this path. The only choice is to refuse to follow people like Putin (or bin laden) when they try to lead that direction. Try to stop them short of war, sure. But allowing them to walk away from actions like Ukraine is not stopping them. It only leads to more and worse.
Taiwan has to be the line with China. It’s a vibrant, thriving democracy with a great economy. That must be preserved and protected.
"This far no further" is a line from a Star Trek movie where the character who utters it plans to wage a war he can't win when the smarter thing to do would be to save everybody's lives and conduct a strategic retreat.
First, you decided to go after the decorative quote for your perception of shorthand rather than actually engage my point. I expected better (you can read dripping derision in this understatement). Care to try again?
Second, the quote is from the movie "Star Trek: First Contact" but in that movie it alluded to other places dating back many centuries. The sentiment is not new and underlies any successful argument for Just War. In the movie, it is Picard that says it because he's facing a Borg invasion and subjugation of Earth to not only take the planet under oppressive control, but also to prevent the future formation of Starfleet and the United Federation of Planets, which waged successful war against the Borg in the future. In the movie, you should note, Picard wins that fight. He saves countless billions of humans, plus the rest of Earth's environment and species, from a brutal, indescribable fate. Countless because they only catch a glimpse of a radically altered Earth centuries after invasion. Failure to act would result in centuries of unspeakable fate for billions of humans. That is not acceptable.
Many occupations have a "duty to act" as part of their legal obligations, including law enforcement, medical personnel, and military. Failure to act is legally punishable. Morally, in the face of what can objectively be called evil, we collectively as humans have a duty to act. It isn't legally enforceable, but failure to act will certainly be punished, and in horrible, unspeakable ways.
"Morally, in the face of what can objectively be called evil, we collectively as humans have a duty to act."
In general, I agree. Practically, we prioritize. There was terrible evil done in Rwanda during the early 1990s -- the United States didn't lift a finger to put a stop to it, even in non-military ways. Right now, Uighurs are a persecuted minority in China. Should we send in the troops? For that matter, should we be sending Americans to fight right this second in Ukraine to throw out the Russians? Or would that just potentially make everything much, much worse?
So your observation is really the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it. You're welcome to try to convince me that China invading Taiwan is worth the risk of nuclear war or sacrificing a few thousand American lives in, but I'd need something more specific than "opposing evil" as a response.
P.S.: I did note the derision. You're a guest in my space. I don't have to engage. Let's try to be respectful to each other, even if this ends up a lively conversation.
About the rest of your reply, yes, we are at the start of this conversation. I've been around too long to be convinced that the USA always wears the white hat and goes to the rescue of everyone. We have limited resources. As you noted in your original article, one resource we must safeguard is that of our military service members, both their lives and their well-being. We must not spend that resource without just cause, without intent and commitment to win, and without a clearly made and well-supported national security goal. Want to know the people who want war the least? People in uniform. We see war. We lose friends. We miss birthdays, holidays, anniversaries. Marriages fail. Emotional baggage isn't universal, but it is real and veteran suicide is only one horrible aspect of that. We spend our human resources at our own peril. I have children as well, and culturally, children of veterans serve in uniform at a much higher rate since we went all-volunteer.
One thing I know President Bill Clinton regrets (he has stated this) was failure to intervene in Rwanda. I don't know what that would look like militarily, but it was necessary at the time, and we failed. As a nation, we need to do better than that. For context, remember that even launching cruise missiles at Al Qaeda targets earned President Clinton some harsh political attacks from Speaker Gingrich, et al. While intervention was the morally correct choice, they made a decision in part on political reality of the time. I think it was the wrong choice, but that is what happened.
I think we are of similar ages but different moral background. I turned 18 days before Bush 41's 1991 "Line in the Sand" and had just registered for the draft. I'm a recovering Catholic and was never a conscientious objector, but I was nervous and stressed as well. Before seeing combat, that sort of stress is real and should never be diminished or insulted. It is real, and normal, for any sane, moral human. I joined up after 9/11, after several college degrees, to do my part in what at the time was the fight of our generation. Turns out military service has aspects I found valuable. Now I've served 4 Presidents for going on 22 years. To borrow another film quote (that has its older origins, including US Navy traditions), soon my watch will be ended and I will hang up my stripes.
To put my position in perspective, I don't think that our 2003 Iraq invasion was sufficiently justified. It certainly was not resourced well or paired with a commitment to win. National security goals was the easier argument - Saddam was in direct violation of international law and had committed war crimes against the Kurds, among others, and a friendly Iraq in the Middle East is clearly to our national advantage. But I think we didn't fight to win, and are still paying the costs of, among other things, Rumsfeld's "Transformation" idealistic silliness. We needed at minimum half a million troops to secure Iraq into a sustainable peacetime paradigm, even though we could break Saddam with a fraction of the necessary occupation force. Worse, Iraq was a toxic sideshow to the fight we really needed to win in Afghanistan, resulting in the horrifying end we just witnessed (and I had to help manage as a Sergeant).
China is not our friend, and never has been. While Nixon did the smart thing and peeled the PRC away from the Soviets at a crucial juncture in the Cold War, there is no getting around the horrors of the Cultural Revolution, your more contemporary example of the Uighurs, or countless other atrocities committed by Mao and his underlings and successors. If China invades Taiwan with a violent military act, we will have no moral choice. America might choose not to act, but that does not make it the right choice.
You've given me a lot to chew on, and clearly you've got a lot of expertise on the topic. Thanks for engaging, and I want to respond, but I also need some time to consider all this! I do appreciate your comments.
Please note that after all my words, the thought of my children going to war horrifies me, as it should any parent. War is hell on Earth, and I won't lie about that. I am proud of my service. I did hard things under bad circumstances and I got through it with my honor and pride and life and body intact. This is one reason we have the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Yes, they protect civilians. They also protect soldiers, give them clear lines of right and wrong. We have seen and continue to see what wrong looks like, and we have to continue to struggle against that type of wrong. I see it in Ukraine daily as I talk to my friends there.
But sometimes war is necessary. Don't start the fight, but make sure you are the one in the position to end it. Walk softly but carry a big stick. Or, as General Mattis said, "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet." Mattis sounds brutal, but translated to civilian, it is "Act according to the laws of armed conflict and sound military doctrine, protect innocents and bystanders and friends, and make sure you, your brothers, and your sisters come home at the end of this."
"P.S.: I did note the derision. You're a guest in my space. I don't have to engage. Let's try to be respectful to each other, even if this ends up a lively conversation."
Perhaps I should apologize for coming from more than two decades of military service. We don't hold back. We say what we mean, and we say it when it matters. Failure to do so tacitly accepts whatever circumstance happened and invites further problems. I'm a sergeant - it's my job to say things immediately and in ways that snap people's attention. It has been for a long time. Then we can joke about "filing a hurt-feelings report" after the moment passes and the problem is fixed. I'm going to have to learn how to talk to civilians soon. I'm honestly not looking forward to it. Directness is incredibly refreshing.
I do understand this is your space, but take this from an old, crusty Sergeant: you've some success as a journalist and are in the foreign-policy, Just War, Laws of Armed Conflict realms. Going after a statement from a commenter that your understanding was incorrect on (it wasn't as you characterized, as I explained) rather than engaging their point does you actual harm. While my statement might have been more direct than you want in your space, in most ways it is actually generous in intent. If you want to be taken seriously as a journalist in these realms, you need to do better. From an old, crusty Sergeant who's seen 3 combat zones over more than 2 decades.
Oddly from that experience, one thing that is impossible to forget is the smell of months or years of uncollected trash mixed with poor water and sewer infrastructure. You never, ever forget that smell. And it makes you absolutely adore any Western trash and recycling service.
Specific to Ukraine.
The 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine was a watershed moment for Europe. A nuclear power had violated international law in ways unprecedented since before nuclear weapons were real. Europe and the USA started re-arming. While President Obama suffered political damage for thoughtless critiques of his response to both Ukraine and Syria, he did the opposite of "failing to act". He took stock of the state of our military after 13 years of war and realized it wasn't set up to take on Russia, much less China. We are just now seeing the fruits of his rebuilding effort. The unveiling of the B21 Raider yesterday is one example of a fast-tracked, efficient, and effective effort to re-arm started by President Obama in 2014. Much-upgraded AMRAAMs plus an AMRAAM replacement, vastly upgraded Patriot missile batteries, Burke Flight IIA and III destroyers, Hellfire missile upgrades and replacement.... The list goes on. President Obama started in motion a complete upgrade and re-arming of America that had been put off since 1991. NATO as well, notably the proliferation of more modern MBTs plus the re-equipping of former Warsaw Pact air forces with F16s and F35s to replace ancient MiGs (21s and 29s mostly). Just as important, we worked closely with Ukraine to reform their military, root out political and business corruption, and make Ukraine into the worthy ally they themselves desperately want to be. Ukraine didn't need a draft - they got more than 1 million volunteers to build a motivated, effective military that Russia can only look jealously on. I have a dozen friends in that fight now.
For the record, I also know the children of many of those Ukrainians fighting this very minute. In one case, a father and son fight side by side in the same unit. The father is a musician in civilian life, a friend of mine. He's fighting for his own life, the lives of his family, and the future of his children and grandchildren.
Your son doesn't need to serve or sacrifice. I've served in the military and I'd do it again to fight against Chinese Communist aggression. Taiwan is strategically important to the U.S., and especially important to our democratic allies in the indo-pacific - Japan, Australia, Korea etc. PRC control over Taiwan would enable China to project military power mutch further, and that would severely threaten our allies in the region. The PRC seeks to undetnine American power and influence worldwide, and its attacking democracy now. A successful PRC invasion of Taiwan would harm the entire region. Maintaining deterrence against the PRC is the answer.
No u shouldn’t. But then Taiwan should have nukes or some form of WMD to deter an invasion
You realize that no one really cares about Taiwan in regards to its independence. The issue with Taiwan is its chip manufacturing. Who controls the chips controls the world. China grab of Taiwan besides besides making the communist party feel better about itself is really a story about China trying to take control over the manufacturing of computer chips. It has tried to do it on its own and failed but after acquiring Taiwan, it would be in the position to dictate both economic and military terms to the rest of the world.
I never asked, but I suspect if someone had asked my grandfather in 1939 if he were willing for his sons to die for Iwo Jima, he’d have said of course not. Nor any other American, but guess what happened.
Correlation is not causation.
Sure. How does that apply in this case?
Because "My God. My God." the "post-Sept. 11 wars" didn't cause those 30k veterans to commit suicide. Likely some. But you present zero evidence that those conflicts caused any of those suicides, much less imply they caused all of them.
From the VA: " In each year from 2001 through 2020, age- and sex-adjusted suicide rates of Veterans exceeded those of non- Veteran U.S. adults. The differential in adjusted rates was smallest in 2002, when the Veteran rate was 12.1% higher than for non-Veterans, and largest in 2017, when the Veteran rate was 66.2% higher. In 2020, the rate for Veterans was 57.3% higher than that of non-Veteran adults."
I doubt that's a coincidence.
Coincidence isn't causation either.
Your own data refutes your argument. It's gotten worse, correct? Which would mean that the soldiers of WWI & WWII were somehow mentally suicide resistant or that their experiences were maybe, less traumatic. Or not.
Perhaps, there are other circumstances in play. Hasn't the number of single, lonely men skyrocketed over the last two decades?
Just so I understand the author….let me get this straight. So the FIRST thing YOU did when Saddam invaded Kuwait was to fill out conscientious objector paperwork…. WOW. That says a lot there sally. Oh and by the way…just like in Quaker graveyards on Memorial Day, I’m sure there are plenty of American flags on graves in Mennonite graveyards. Moral clarity eventually leads you to understand there ARE things worth fighting and dying for.
….So apparently the sacrifices of others to prevent the predations of despotic regimes of the world should be left to some other family. You either haven’t thought that through, or you mustn’t have to look yourself in the mirror very often.
Interesting that you use the term "moral clarity," because hawks bandied it about quite a bit when making the case for war in Iraq after 9/11. The results were ... less than morally admirable.
I don't doubt there are things worth dying for, though I suspect the list isn't all that long. The list of things worth killing for is even shorter.
That said: Youve just used up your free pass. Use insulting terms again - like "Sally" - and you will be blocked.