Posted on Apr 13, 2014
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
11.4K
49
44
9
9
0
I have always heard that we fight to protect our nation's freedoms.  Freedoms.  Not freedom... at least, not always.  When I think of our freedoms, I think of the amendments made to the Constitution as well as those guaranteed in the original document itself.

Being a historian, I tend to look at things from multiple angles, especially when analyzing warfare.  I analyze cause & effect more so than the actual combat because I find that when studying global history, these have more importance than the 'what.'  A quick example is when you look at the history of the Great War under the lens of global history, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand began a series of events that didn't end until the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Since the current campaign began, I have heard that we are fighting to protect our freedoms.  But are we really?  When we invaded Afghanistan, we did so to route the terrorists and eliminate them after being attacked at home.  Some would say we were protecting our own freedoms by protecting our security and our way of life, but the sad truth is that as a result of the 9/11 attacks, our security has been compromised and our way of life has changed significantly.  The Patriot Act made sure of that.  That being said (And I am sure some will disagree with me), we were protecting our physical security more so than our cultural security, much less our liberty.  

Benjamin Franklin wrote that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  I have never found a way to disagree with this statement.

So, how are we protecting our own freedoms?  I don't really see how we are at the moment.  When we went into Vietnam, it was more about the fight against the spread of Communism than our own liberty.  As we now know, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was falsified, so it couldn't have been about that.  Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was more about stabilizing a tenuous region than about Kuwait's liberty.  Our most recent war with Iraq was over what exactly?  I don't even know.

The most recent military campaign that the United States has fought that truly was about our own freedoms was the second World War.  We faced an enemy who would not have stopped at our coastal borders so our freedoms, much less our very freedom was at stake.  Having written all of that, I personally don't understand how we can say we are protecting the liberties of the United States when we fight abroad.  

I would really like to engage my fellow service-members and veterans on their opinions about this.  Please state your own opinions on the subject.  How does it make you feel when people thank you for protecting their own freedom (As often happens to me when I am in uniform and in a public place).  Many service-members don't even care about the 'why' of the situation and ruck-up and move out.  Frankly, we all do that, but some, like myself, will always ask why.  Please share your thoughts.

I am sure I will get a bunch of thumbs down votes for even bringing this up and for having the nerve to express my opinion.  If you do so, please let me know why.  Disagree all you want but the conversation doesn't move forward without comment.
Avatar feed
Responses: 15
SPC Charles Brown
5
5
0
Edited >1 y ago
Are we really fighting to protect our freedoms?



Hello CW2 Kantor:

I agree with you 100%. We are overseas fighting wars and defending nations that have nothing whatsoever to do with our personal freedoms or the freedom of our own nation. Since the attacks on 9-11 we have been slowly losing our personal freedoms, We have elected officials who are doing their best to deny us our 2nd amendment rights because the fear that we will or may use those very same weapons to take our freedoms back. Our phones, whether hard lines or cellular are subject to monitoring for no good reason. The fact that the "Patriot Act" is still in effect shows us that we will lay down and not question the bullshit that our government is passing on to us.

Your quote from Benjamin Franklin is spot on. There are 86% of us who willingly lay down, sit, roll over, speak, and play dead while the other 14% do as they please. While I can understand the need for some of the regulations that have been passed down are for our own good, but elimination of the Bill of Rights has begun and the 86% need to stand up and do something about what is going on here at home. I will never be elected to any public office, which is fine with me but remember this people. These things I will defend:
1) My God
2) My Country
3) The Constitution
4)  My Family and Friends
5) My Guns
6) And the rights of some people to be stupid
I fought and served my country because I believe in this nation. However over the past 12 years since I left the service I have lost faith in the leadership of this great nation. Once again the Rally Cry should be "DON'T TREAD ON ME" and do what needs to be done to regain control. I am not advocating anarchy or rebellion, but obviously something needs to be done here.

These are my opinions and I expect to get slammed, voted down, or outright ridiculed for them. But give me your best shot, I have heard it all before.


Just to add a bit more to this response:


"If ever the time should come, when vain & aspiring Men shall possess the highest Seats in Government, our Country will stand in Need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its Ruin."


                                                           Samuel Adams

(5)
Comment
(0)
SPC Charles Brown
SPC Charles Brown
>1 y
I will take what I can get. You created the post, all I did was try to enhance what you said. Thanks for your approval.
(1)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Artemis Entreri
PO3 Artemis Entreri
8 y
The entire idea of "do as your told not as you think" is starting to be an issue with both police and Military, if you are controlled by a crook you SHOULD be able to speak up! And lets be real how many honost politicians are left?
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Artemis Entreri
PO3 Artemis Entreri
8 y
The truth is what people refuse to accept, we are good people, but the elitist, Ivy League, politician's in charge of Everything is a different story! Come on, we let a war start on false pretense (and no one has been punished for a DAMN thing), just so wealthy pig's could insure a never ending war & endless warmongering/wealth! Sheeple plod on along and accept it, PATRIOT"S Question false ideal's and use their brain's!
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Artemis Entreri
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Forensic Meteorological Consultant
4
4
0

Well let's back up.   You said that you are an historian so what is your take on the Philippines?  Considering that we cannot change the past,  would it be better that they continued in slavery?   Are they better off now being free or being overrun by China,  Japan or some other Asian country?


The next question could be,  is our way of life best?  I happen to think so.    I will agree that many wars seem to be ill-advised and poorly executed.  Why?   Vietnam comes to mind.   Robert S. McNamara especially.   He was for limited war and a flexible response.    We saw how that worked out.   Involve our military and then vacillate.  Tell that to the dead warriors and their families.


The Cold War was very nuanced and you are left wondering if the buildup really brought the USSR to it's knees?   Was freedom an important enough concept to die for?   I am pretty sure that South Vietnam felt betrayed by our leaving.  Broken promises and faulty tactics (Agent Orange comes to mind) that inevitably made this war hated and damaged the American psyche.


War sucks but it's aims can be noble.   That is we wanted to save Jews and stop the massacres in Europe and parts of Asia.   Regardless of what politicians did like firing General McArthur,   we must be inspired to carry through.   Communism is not good but certain liberals and libertarians disagree.   This is all too complex to break down in neat little terms,  talking points and political sloganeering.

(4)
Comment
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
>1 y
Those are all very good points.  I don't really have a counterpoint.  I think the Cold War ended because of growing costs more than anything else... at least for the Soviets.  Cold Wars aren't that bad for development.  They weren't for scientific advances at the very least.

You can call what we did in the liberation of Europe noble but we didn't go in to free the Jews.  That was more of a side-effect of our victory.  Sad too since the powers knew about it... not that they could have done anything about it until we liberated Europe but I think you know what I mean.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Forensic Meteorological Consultant
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
Yes I do because we all knew about the White Papers chronicling that mess but at least we were the ones who accepted most disaffected Jews.  
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Robert Burton II
SGT Robert Burton II
8 y
I did not denote a reference to a withdrawal of military power, but to one of proper use of.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Robert Burns
4
4
0
It's a very simple answer despite your lengthy what seems like a ramble.  Our (military) presence is what protects our freedom.  Take away our military and we'd be occupied by next week by a line of governments.  Much like 2 big brothers walking the school halls with their little freshmen sister.  It is their presence alone protecting her.  They don't have to be engaged in conflict to do that.  You have tunnel vision in this topic.
(4)
Comment
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
SSG Robert Burns
>1 y
Your structure is just poor, or I shouldn't say poor just not typical.  Normally your thesis goes in the first paragraph to avoid confusion.
(2)
Reply
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
>1 y
I understand where you are going with the analogy, but don't you think that the application of military force against another nation should not be predicated on suppositions and then a reapplication of reasoning following the refutation of those suppositions?  That makes us a blunt instrument instead of a scalpel.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
>1 y
I admit, hindsight is 20/20 but there are a lot of people who didn't believe we should have gone into Iraq in the first place.  For me, it wasn't hindsight, it was vindication.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
>1 y
The thesis does not have to go in the first paragraph, at least not when writing about history (Which I am).  It can go anywhere so long as it doesn't fall after a presented explanation (Basically, anywhere in your body).  I have written theses that have fallen in the 16th paragraph before... of course, my papers usually end up being 30-50 pages.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close