tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533420989959483861.post6490065237902521629..comments2023-10-24T10:55:10.279-04:00Comments on NOOCYTE: Memorial Day, 2008Noocytehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14669229067251260711noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533420989959483861.post-21910153788761257622008-05-27T11:38:00.000-04:002008-05-27T11:38:00.000-04:00Brian Mcallister Linn wrote, "The sooner the war e...Brian Mcallister Linn wrote, <I>"The sooner the war ends in victory, the better-for everyone, but especially for us."</I> I'd contend that, given the American mindsets for war he describes, the sooner the war ends in victory, the better is is for everyone, but especially for <B>them</B>. If WWII is the template then it would have been better for the Axis to have surrendered before their countries were crushed, whereas by that point, although American losses were frightful and escalating, American industry was ramped up and gaining momentum. Even given the horrific losses we suffered in our push to the Japanese mainland, the main assault was shaping up to be one that would have annihilated the Japanese as a people had they not surrendered. Nevertheless, this template seems to be less applicable in the American wars that followed. <BR/><BR/>At any rate, I've also read the critiques from anti-war Liberals that the American populace has not been asked to sacrifice. I always found that argument to be rather odd, in that it's often accompanied by the woeful lamentation of the excessively high monetary costs and military casualties we've suffered. Let's leave aside the historical comparisons in terms of our losses in the GWOT vs., well, every other war in which we've fought, or the kill ratio (how many of our side are killed by the enemy vs. how many our side of the enemy), both of which are very much in our favor. Again, that's from an historical perspective, and not to say that casualties are a favorable thing per se. Also leave aside also the low percentage of our GNP this war has cost us as compared to previous wars.<BR/><BR/>What's stuck me as odd is the juxtaposition of the two ideas - that we should suffer, and that we've suffered too much. My speculation is that while the second criticism is historically unjustified it's also somewhat subjective, whereas the first criticism is disingenuous. By way of example, recall that during the 2004 political campaign there were dark rumors and accusations spread that the Bush Administration was going to bring back the draft. Those rumors were almost entirely unsubstantiated, although there <I>was</I> a "secret" bill to bring back the draft. That bill, however, was not authored by Republicans; it was <A HREF="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.163:" REL="nofollow">authored by Democrats</A>. It was a deeply dishonest and shameful political ploy in which Democrats authored the bill and then turned around and scared voters into thinking it was a "secret" plan of the Bush Administration to bring back the draft.<BR/><BR/>It's my opinion that Liberal complaints that we Americans haven't sacrificed enough is in much the same vein, in that they do want us to suffer more - so that they can use that as a basis for arguing that we should end our sacrifice by ending the war.Mr.Hengisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09222310760196934547noreply@blogger.com