Why has so much written about the war against terrorism been so
far off the mark? And why has so much of this stuff come from
conservatives? What makes the Weekly Standard’s Bill
Kristol say, only days after the Afghanistan campaign began, that
we were doing it wrong, and should be more aggressive? What makes
the magazine that was the milk of my conservative youth,
National Review, so damnably wrong about so much? Call it
punk conservatism.
Most conservatives, like the rest of America, have not been a
part of the military or its culture. The vast majority of
conservative politicians, with the exceptions of a few people like
California Congressman Duke Cunningham, have never worn the
uniform. The military itself is partly to blame. The professional
military made no effort to maintain the bridges that had existed
with the civilian culture. As ROTC was kicked off campuses, and the
military life no longer envisioned as an honorable career, fewer
and fewer Americans became informed about the military culture, why
it’s important, and what’s necessary to make it work. You didn’t
have to be Dan Rather to be critical of the military. It was the
natural thing to do for reporters who are overwhelmingly Democrats.
And then came Nine-Eleven.
Suddenly, everyone had to be involved, which was good. But when
writers who hadn’t previously thought about how our military works
started to opine on everything from special operations to fuel-air
weapons, there was a lot of misinformation passed on to a public
that was eager to hear anything about how we were fighting in
Afghanistan. A lot of them studied up quickly, and turned to
military experts for advice. What misinformation there was came
mostly from reporters’ ignorance. But sometimes it betrayed a
condescending attitude toward the military that I thought was the
exclusive province of the liberals. Sad to say, it wasn’t. Now, we
have reached a low point that I hope will mark the low point of
punk conservatives’ loathing of the military.
It takes a lot to shock people these days. But Rob Long’s “Uncle
Sam Wants Them” in the March 25 edition of National Review
succeeded. It was probably meant as praise to the young men and
women who joined the military long before 9-11, and who are now
kicking tail in Afghanistan. But what came out is so basically
wrong, and so contemptuous of the people in uniform, that it has to
be set straight.
Mr. Long says, for starters, that the only difference between
the young people “guiding screaming jets onto the deck of the
USS John C. Stennis” and the “black-clad, lip-pierced,
tongue-studded, sullen-eyed girl” at the supermarket checkout, is
the random intake of the armed services and a couple of months of
training. The fact is that the nitwit at the checkout counter
probably couldn’t qualify for enlistment. But Mr. Long’s argument
sinks much lower.
Mr. Long says that war is only for the young because, “Only they
have the unblemished confidence in the tools God gave them —
strength, reflexes, good eyesight — and the tools provided them by
the American taxpayer — Harrier jets, cruise missiles, satellite
telemetry — to fight without fear, and win without remorse.” He
says, “There is, in fact, something a little too facile about the
argument that these young people all chose — clear-eyed and sober
— to submit themselves to the dangers of war.” Wow.
If Jane Fonda had a conservative epiphany, I expect it would
read like that. Yes, the young are gifted with the strength,
reflexes and good eyesight we geezers no longer can brag of, and
few ever could. But these days, the average military grunt is also
intelligent, far more so than in any time in the past. And there
are so many people in so many specialties — from pilot to SEAL
operator — who are not just smarter than the average bear, they’re
intellectually equal — or superior to — any of us. You’d better
revise your list, Mr. Long, and add brains to it.
I don’t know who among our troops fights without fear. I’ve
never seen combat, but every combat vet I know says he was scared,
either before the fight — thinking about what was going to happen
— or after it, thinking about what he’d been through. They do it
despite the fear, Mr. Long, not without it. And that’s one of the
things of which we should be very proud. Winning without remorse?
The only remorse an American soldier should have is for any
comrades who were lost in the battle, or for unintended civilian
casualties. They feel it deeply, as well they should. But what
other remorse should one of our guys have, Mr. Long? None. Not one
bit. Guilt is for liberals who think America winning any fight is
wrong. In war, as Coach Lombardi said, winning isn’t everything,
it’s the only thing.
I’m sure that many still join the military to escape the ghetto,
or for lack of a better way to start a career. But the enlisted
people and the officers have chosen, clear-eyed and sober, to
serve, and take whatever risks Uncle Sam may need them to take. The
kids who are serving now are not the sullen-eyed girl at the
grocery checkout, or the high-school dropout who can’t qualify for
any other job. They’re just as good as you or me, Mr. Long. And
probably a damned sight better.
