My father worked nights for most of my childhood, and as such, he was not able to attend the majority of my ball games. When he was not able to make a game, the first thing I would do upon returning home was to call him at work and give him a recap. Naturally, it was much more fun when I had played a great game and we had won, but I looked forward to these conversations regardless. I consider it a great gift that I have an innate desire to make my parents proud, while at the same time having never felt some overbearing pressure to achieve. This desire is no different today than it was during Little League, so it was with some degree of difficulty that I listened to my father say of my last article that I sounded like an angry liberal. He even went on to say that Jane Fonda could have written it.
Now, while I obviously disagree with my father's remarks, he did hit on something: I am angry. I am angry that the political spectrum in this country has become so narrow that Bush and Kerry are seen as polar opposites, and that the denouncing of one means the embracing of the other. I am angry that while doctors were probing Saddam Hussein's hair for lice, President Bush was signing the Patriot Act into law with a degree of stealth that members of Delta Force could applaud. This act, which has now been denounced by at least 300 separate municipalities, was originally fought by librarians. I am angry that it takes a librarian uprising to bring attention to government surveillance the likes of which the Nazis would have been proud. I am angry that a supposed conservative congress passed a $400 billion prescription drug bill, only to learn later that the cost was underestimated by at least a third. I am angry at every gutless congressman who abdicated their duties and gave President Bush a blank check with which to deal with 9-11. The political expediency of shelving the Constitutional requirement to declare war was apparently too good an opportunity to pass up. The Monday morning quarterback routine that it created is laughable. I am angry that it has taken the American invasion of Afghanistan to bring the plague of abortion to that country. Enduring Freedom apparently is not a concept to be shared with the unborn. In short, my father properly surmised that I was angry; perhaps I can do a better job in the future of explaining why.
Having articles placed on a website in which the underlying principles are openly stated is a great benefit to those who write for the site because it eliminates the need for one's position on issues to be mentioned in each and every article. Unfortunately, that is not a foolproof way of ensuring that readers do not mistake certain words or view them through a distorted lens. Though the vast majority of respondents to my last article were positive, there were a few attacks worth addressing. For example, I was accused of having not properly learned the Marine Corps motto: "Semper Fidelis," or "Always Faithful." The retired Colonel who accused me of this, and the Lieutenant Colonel who claimed the Corps was better off without me, no doubt saw treason in my words. This is difficult to swallow only because they seem unwilling to ask themselves what I am in fact remaining faithful to by taking the stance that I have. In order of priority, I make every effort to be faithful to the Gospels, to my wife, (pretty much one and the same), to the Constitution, and to the Oath of Enlistment. It was only when the curtain was pulled back and I saw the wizard's misguided political policy that I felt obligated to speak up. If that is the work of a traitor, then hang me as such, but do not accuse me of failing to understand the concept of being faithful. Sure, Jane Fonda and I may agree on this particular issue, but no one should mistake this one-time occurrence for a common ideology between her kind and mine. To do so would be like looking at a northbound-southbound accident on I-95 and claiming that since both cars were for a brief moment at the same point, they must have had the same destination in mind.
What is particularly troubling about the few negative responses I received is the fact that I believe most of my detractors would agree with several core principles that I hold. They are not attacking my beliefs, but rather my refusal to go along with the program. I doubt Colonel X is an advocate of socialism, and I doubt Lt Colonel Y is a fan of government aggrandizement. In attacking my stance and being "Always Faithful" to whatever the government agenda is, they are in fact supporting concepts most military officers claim to disdain. What has truly been disappointing about the negative e-mails is that they offered nothing to make me consider another point of view. There were no opinions on the current situation backed up by optimistic facts. No one bothered to claim that the invasion of Iraq would ultimately bring benefits to the region and the world. Nor did anyone bother with how we freed the people of Iraq. My problem with these attacks is that if you are going to take a stance, base it on a little bit more than simply because George W. Bush said so.
One of the reasons given by war supporters as to why our invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do is based on their belief that Christian and Muslim have been on a collision course for centuries. While this is true to an extent, it does not reflect reality today. The Christian-Muslim clashes of the past were actually Catholic-Muslim clashes. Lepanto, Granada, and other battles were fought under one unified Church banner. No such banner exists today. Though the majority of Americans may celebrate Christmas, there is nothing overly Christian about our culture today; in fact, the Supreme Court continues to interpret the Constitution in a manner which assures that Christianity is demonized. It may be what our culture is based on, but it is hardly something that one fights for in 21st century America. Further, when the Ottoman Empire was broken up after World War I, the Arabs petitioned the UN to have the US be the administrators, not Britain or France. This largely diffuses the myth that they have always hated us. That hatred reached its boiling point not because we have the Big Mac and American Idol, but because we support Israel in all it does, and manage to plant our flag wherever we please in the Middle East and around the world. If one thinks that the young Arab blows himself up in a shopping mall because we get to vote on Super Tuesday, then you really have been taken in by Fox News. Sure, if you want to be afraid of another 9-11 type attack, feel free to head to the hardware store and tape up your windows, but do not rationalize all-out war with a country 6000 miles away that can not feed its own people while sitting on the world's most required natural resource.
One of the great thinkers/writers of the last century was England's G. K. Chesterton. His writing encompassed everything from poetry to politics and everything in between. The fact that so few Americans know of him today is another clear sign that our culture does not have much farther to go before we bottom out. On the concept of empire, he once said: "I would defend England against the whole European continent. With even greater joy would I defend England against the whole British Empire." Despite America's claim to the contrary, empire building is what this war is about, and like Chesterton, I am trying to fight against it in the only way I currently can. So, to any Marine out there who thinks I have lost my way, my nerve, or my mind, have no fear, I am in possession of all three. The notion of a fight does not scare me. The notion of being on the wrong side does.
May 7, 2004
John Schroder [send him mail] is a graduate of the Naval Academy and a former Marine infantry officer. Having resigned his commission, he is to begin doctoral work in political science this fall at Louisiana State.
