The things you can find offered as serious journalism.

PERHAPS the most insidious byproduct of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has been a reflexive sanctification of the military. To put this in bumper stickerese: Support the Troops.

Well, I have an ugly confession to make: I don’t support the troops – at least not unconditionally. When somebody tells me they serve in the military, my first impulse isn’t to say, “Thank you for your service!” like those insufferable chickenhawks on talk radio.

My first impulse is to say, “I’m sorry to hear that.” Because I am. I’m sorry to know that the person I’m talking to might someday be maimed or killed on the job, or might someday kill someone else. Or refuel a plane that drops bombs on buildings.

I can’t see how anyone who calls himself or herself Christian – or human, for that matter – wouldn’t be sorry.

The fact that we have an army, that we need an army, is inherently tragic. It’s an admission that our species is still ruled by fear and aggression.

Almond characterizes those who support the troops with a slogan. His intent is to point out, at least in his opinion, how unthinking and “knee-jerk” such a position is.

He then manages to quickly write himself into the same corner. In his case, the “bumper stickereese” is “war is never the answer.”

Both notions – unconditional support of the troops and “war is never the answer” – are naive and unthinking extremist positions.

Almond asserts that there are those out there on one extreme (like the evil “chickenhawks”) who unconditionally support the troops. Ironically Almond them proves there are extremists on the other side who believe war is never the answer. That would be him.

All of that was simply a preface to allow him to present, in all it’s splendor [/sarcasm], a boilerplate rant against the “military-industrial complex” and “war profiteers”.

I assume, although I can’t understand why, the Boston Globe pays him for this tripe.

Ain’t life grand?

[Crossposted at QandO]

0

Comments are closed.