The Military Lies

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

Not exactly
a bold, controversial statement, right? Even the most ardent supporter
will agree that the military lies during its day-to-day mission
of "defending" the country, in part to confuse the enemy
de jour. But the far greater deceit lies in justifying the reasons
for this organization's mere existence.

My recent
piece
asked honest, logical questions disputing certain rationalizations
pertaining to the military. The response from readers was overwhelmingly
positive and the vast majority of those respondents were veterans!
Among the small minority of dissenters, only a few made polite,
thoughtful rebuttals. Not surprisingly, their arguments failed to
convince me. However, their points did cause me to realize that
the military's claim of "defending my freedom" was not
only untrue but an impossible task for the military to accomplish.

Military supporters
certainly claim the organization "protects my freedom."
Does the military make identical, documented claims? The
Army
sees itself as "protecting America's freedoms at home
and abroad, securing our homeland, and defending democracy worldwide."
The
Soldier's Creed
for the Army and Army National Guard claims
"I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life."

The
Airmen's Creed
for members of the Air Force maintains themselves
to be a "Guardian of Freedom and Justice."

The
Creed of a United States Marine
seems more about a love affair
with their rifle (their rifle is human?) than a claim of protecting
anyone's freedom. However, one
of their numerous websites
does explain the motto, "Semper
Fidelis" and how "this phrase defines the honesty
and dedication of the Marines for their work of protecting the U.S.A."
The Marine's recruiting literature also mentions their search for
"men and women to join their organization who are ready to
fight for their country and protect their people."

The
Sailor's Creed
, for those in the Navy, remembers "those
who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the
world."

And let's
not forget the US Coast
Guard
whose stated mission includes "protecting" the
public and boasts of it role in the Homeland Security apparatus.

Although their
defense claims are rather broad, I think it can be accurately stated
that the military professes to protect my person and my freedom.
But is this reality?

Lie #1:
The military protects your freedom.

Imagine that
I have a conversation concerning this assertion with a member of
the military or a supporter:

Militarist:
"The military protects your freedom from those who would take
it."

Me: "I
disagree. More and more of my freedoms are disappearing through
actions initiated by the government that claims to represent me."
[Numerous examples are given including illegal assaults by state
and federal law enforcement, denial of habeas corpus, spying on
American citizens, being searched without warrant or probable cause
at airports, etc.]"

Militarist:
"I stay very well informed on such matters and I agree –
many areas of the government have overstepped their constitutional
authority and damaged or taken some of your freedoms. However, the
military did not take those illegal actions. Other areas of the
government did."

Me: "Agreed.
But earlier you claimed, unequivocally, that the military protects
my freedom. You have agreed with my assertion that my freedoms
are quickly disappearing. Therefore I can conclude that the military,
despite their claims to the contrary, is not protecting my
freedom. The military may not have the authority to counter other
rogue elements of the government that threaten my freedom, but that
fact is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that my freedom
is not being protected and you claim the military is
protecting my freedom. I'm not so much upset that the military canu2018t
(through legal restrictions) defend my freedom as I am that
they claim they do protect my freedom. When the military
claims to protect my freedom they do so without listing any qualifiers
or exceptions. Therefore, the military and its supporters are promoting
a lie."

Lie #2:
The military protects and defends the US Constitution

Again, imagine
that I have a conversation concerning this assertion with a member
of the military or a supporter:

Militarist:
"The military protects and defends the US Constitution in obedience
to its member's
pledge
to defend it "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Me: "I
disagree. Many areas of the government have damaged, taken, and
continue to threaten my liberties guaranteed under the US Constitution.
You have previously agreed to this claim. But the military makes
no effort to protect or rectify these abuses. It cannot do so because
it lacks the legal authority to interfere in the activities
of other areas of the government. Yet, the military claims it does
protect the US Constitution and therefore protects the individuals
safeguarded by that document. Clearly, as these examples prove,
the military does not and can not. The military is
telling a lie."

"In addition,
the military continues to execute acts of war against other states
without the declaration of war
required for such action
by
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
By doing so, the
military actively participates in an illegal, unconstitutional action.
How can the military be defending the Constitution at the
same time it is actively violating it? The military may be
excused for not having the authority to question or refuse participation
in such illegal actions. It is, in effect, impotent. But by not
having this authority to refuse participation it is clearly unable
to take steps that would stop such an action. The military claims
to defend the Constitution without offering any qualifiers or exceptions.
Therefore, this unequivocal, categorical claim is a lie."

"To top
it off, members of the US military swear
an oath
to defend the Constitution "from all enemies,
foreign and domestic." They obviously violate this oath for
the reasons stated above. Strict Constitutionalists may consider
this offense "treasonous." More importantly, this fact
exposes one of the weaknesses of such a document. Members of the
US military swear an oath to defend a rule of law (the US Constitution)
even though they don't have the Constitutional authority
(in many cases) to defend it! How bizarre is that?"

Conclusion

The military
does not and cannot, protect my freedom. It is in fact a threat
to my freedom by protecting or ignoring those "domestic enemies"
from which they claim to protect me. It is a threat to my freedom
by claiming it protects me when it does not even have the authority
to defend me from the most immediate threats; those of the "domestic"
variety originating from numerous areas of the federal government.
The military is a threat to my freedom by protecting and defending
that very entity that is the greatest danger to my safety
and freedom – the United States Federal Government and the
regime that controls it. There is no "foreign" threat
that can equal it, particularly since so many perceived foreign
threats wind up being
manufactured.
Personally, I have more faith in the protection
offered by two large oceans than a
trillion dollar/year
"defense" agency that can't
protect its own building.

To
some, my analysis may be viewed as nit picking. But I refuse to
apologize for demanding accountability from an organization that
fraudulently claims to provide a service while pointing a gun to
my head forcing me to finance it.

Why don't the
military and its supporters revise their claim to, "The military
"tries to protect your freedom?" Such a statement
might actually be grounded in honesty, though no more convincing
than the original claim. Or how about, "The military protects
your freedom when it is legally allowed to do so?" Somehow,
that statement just does not have the sound-bite simplicity necessary
to excite supporters, reassure the masses and continue the deception.

Knowing that
the military and its supporters can be proud
of failure
(despite any valid excuses), they should have no problem taking
pride in the fact that they "tried." However, if they
have tried and still failed, how does that benefit me?

And please,
cease and desist the strident demands that I be "grateful."

August
6, 2008

Roger
Young [send him mail]
is a
freelance photographer
in Texas and has a
blog
.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare