Are we really fighting to protect our freedoms?

CW2 Jonathan Kantor — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:17:23 -0400

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.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Apr 13 at 2014 10:48 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:48:32 -0400

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.

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Apr 13 at 2014 10:52 AM

CW2 Jonathan Kantor — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:52:35 -0400

Before this one blows up like my other conversations, I feel I should point out that I, in no way, undermine the sacrifices we have all made, especially those who have fallen. We each fight for our own reasons and so long as we hold to our own convictions, no sacrifice is in vain. Please do not take my interest in this subject as anything other than an attempt to have an interesting, opinionated discussion. We have all lost friends and family, myself included.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 13 at 2014 11:08 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 11:08:02 -0400

I believe the existence and capabilities of our military deter foreign invasion, certainly. Do we actively defend our freedoms? Well, there really isn't anyone to defend them from. Mexico and Canada don't really seem intent on invasion at this point.

Actively, I'd say our role at this point is to enforce our foreign policy, but I'm not inclined to think that has anything to do with the defense of our freedoms. At least not directly. I suppose an argument can be made that the threat of our "bringing American freedom" to other peoples shores keeps them off our door step, but I suspect that's a weak argument. There really isn't an actual invasion/takeover threat at this point, not a strong one anyway..

Mostly I think it's a nice catch phrase/ bumper sticker.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made Apr 13 at 2014 2:21 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:21:36 -0400

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

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2014 3:35 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:35:25 -0400

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.

Response by A1C Michael David Severson made Apr 14 at 2014 10:41 PM

A1C Michael David Severson — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 22:41:50 -0400

I want to address a deeper issue that will start with an analogy. All of
us live someplace, and one typical enemy of a home with a green lawn is
weeds. Crabgrass, dandelions, etc.

During the growing season, we
often mow the grass about once a week. However, we are also aware of
these "menaces" to the law, and often perform a superficial management
of them by whacking off the tops of these invasive plants, and calling
it "good."

That said, if we are concerned with actually
addressing the problem at its source, then there is the matter of going
deeper. Roots are the real issue. I can mow the tops off until Kingdom
Come, but without eliminating the roots, the problem will only return.

In
my purview so far, it seems we are doing a great job of mowing, but not
getting down to roots. So let's indulge a moment or two and look at the
root of our country, which is the Constitution. We could also reference
the Federalist Papers, the Mayflower Compact, and the Declaration of
Independence if we choose, in order to give a robust foundation to this
discussion at the root level.

Certain phrases our Founding
Fathers stated really resonate in this analogous point of reference,
here is one that rings out the loudest: "We hold these TRUTHS to be
self-evident"... (Emphasis mine) is just one that we can feast our minds
on all day.

Is this reference to "truth" a philosophical point
of view, or an absolute, bedrock benchmark that we would do well to
reference accurately? Assuming the latter, how do we assert this
benchmark into the discussion at hand?

As such, this inferences a
moral precedent. Many of the answers I have read invoke either a
personal moral standard, or allude to a broader one. Once again, the
root, or foundation (some would say "fundamentalist") likely addresses
these questions, and what sort of bearing we should embark on with this
in mind.

Could it be that invoking this benchmark will serve as a
tool to clarify the course of this discussion to some degree? I will
leave it to you all to consider that. I might actually be a huge
distraction to the discourse already in progress, but then again, maybe
not.

The response will be either a thermometer to gauge the
discussion, or a thermostat to regulate it. I am curious of that outcome
also.

So, what say you all?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Apr 14 at 2014 10:54 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 22:54:13 -0400

I didn't join to fight. I joined to get the hell out of dodge, I was sick of school, Sick of Kansas City and I wanted to see the world. Little did I know the first thing the Navy Would do was put me back in school and actually teach me something. Now just the lucik of the draw that after 21 years I got involved in El Dorado Canyon, Desert Storm and Desert Strike. I am thankful for those of you willing to get up close and personal with the enemy. I'm a Sailor we have long range weapons. Also as a Spook rarely do we get to see the Havock we Wreck.

Response by CMSgt Mark Schubert made Apr 15 at 2014 9:56 AM

CMSgt Mark Schubert — Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:56:43 -0400

Greetings CW2 K.

I think of Freedom as the right for people to determine their own way forward to build a place to live as they choose to reach their own determined potential - even if that's unlimited. I know some people are more content with less and that's OK (I'm one of those).

With that in mind, there are countries, extremist groups and terrorist who hate US for that and want to control, limit or attack those freedoms.

So I do believe as a proud member of the military community that my service and the service of all those brave men and women who served before me and are still serving that we ALL are protecting our "freedoms" and providing a safer environment to enjoy our families and friends.

It feel so blessed that God led me to serve and I stand tall with the utmost faith that there are still enough men and women who feel the same way and will lay down their life for our great country!

When people thank me for my service and/or protecting our freedom, I respond with "Thank you for your support and it is truly an honor for me to serve our country"

I never really liked to "criticize" the past - that's too easy... decisions are made with information known at the time - to easy to say afterward whether they were right or not. What's much more important is to LEARN from the past rather than place blame. Accountability is one thing, but not repeating mistakes is what makes our present "better" and our future outlook positive.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Mar 5 at 2015 3:26 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:26:03 -0500

CW2 Jonathan Kantor, these are excellent thoughts, excellently spoken.

You're right: we aren't really fighting for our Freedoms, and we haven't since WWII, or maybe Vietnam, in a broad sense.

It doesn't bother me. In Iraq we took out a bad man, then we proceeded to try to rebuild the country, and defend ourselves at the same time. In Afghanistan we went after the people who attacked us. Unfortunately, sometimes "accidental guerrillas" decide to take the side of the guys who attacked us, and we have to kill them, too.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 19 at 2015 7:43 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 19:43:59 -0400

Right now we are a stick in the mud in the ME, however, the Chinese and Russians have global strategic power that we must be able to counter if needed. We are fighting terrorist organizations with a desire to attack this country internally and from external sources.

Response by SSgt Chris Enslow made Nov 9 at 2015 12:54 PM

SSgt Chris Enslow — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 12:54:00 -0500

The very tradition of the Army expressed in De Oppresso Liber is rooted in liberating others from oppression. I, for one, did not swear an oath to defend the soil of the United States. I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and we all swore to follow the orders of our Commander in Chief. While it is healthy to debate getting involved in liberating others from tyrrany, once that decision is made then it's time to get on board and invest 100% of our effort to nothing less than total victory. Take a look at the link, which actually describes the liberation of France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_oppresso_liber Hitler didn't attack the United States, and it could be argued that we didn't need to be involved. But Congress and the President decided that we would commit, and commit we did. Once the decision is made, it is our duty to carry out our orders while in the service, and do everything we can at home to ensure victory once we become civilians.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Sep 5 at 2017 1:10 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 13:10:07 -0400

I fail to see how my tours on the DMZ in Korea or multiple tours in Vietnam did anything to effect our Freedoms The clusterfuck in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan did anything. I'm just a soldier who goes where he is ordered

Response by SGT Eric Knutson made Sep 5 at 2017 2:27 PM

SGT Eric Knutson — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 14:27:53 -0400

for myself, I would say yes, we fight the wars that need to be fought (mostly) all of our big fights had something realistic going for them (I am not too sure about fixing the CIA screw up in Panama, but that is a different discussion) every war had some nobility involved, if not at the beginning. Someone once said to me that we fight them as small as possible in their country, so we do not have to fight them in ours. The Revolution was a noble fight, it gave us our freedom from England, The Civil war started as basicly a land grab, but became Nobel after the emancipation proclamation signed towards the end. Every other fight was outside the US for major significance. WW1, we went to the aid of our friends, to help protect them (long term interests that have generally paid off for us) Spanish American war, we removed the yolk of slavery from several countries including Cuba and the Philippines, but not to possess them for ourselves, but because it was the right thing to do. WW2 was 2 fold, we were attacked directly as well as helping our friends from being destroyed, both noble in themselves, but with the underling issue of the Holocaust which SOME in DC knew was happening. Korea happened because Sec of State was not clear in a speech to the UN, when he said that attacking certain countries in the Pacific would be viewed as an attack on our mainland, and he left S Korea off that list. so that was our 1st official combat interaction with Communisim / Socialisim to protect our friend and ally (there were other very small fights with the larval form of Special Forces doing all of the fighting for America with their local allies). After WW2 there were only 2 main trains of thought left. Freedom loving West (US, England, France) and Communisim (Russia being the biggest, but not the only one) I think China could have be diverted if we handled it better, but that is water under the bridge. Viet Nam, is the only one I think that we really did not belong in at any level, It was bailing the French out of (another) failed situation, but I heard that Macnamera wanted a war under his belt to make himself look better. But again, we were there, and if the Politicians had let SF do their job without interference, I think the OSS element that worked with Ho Chi Minh, MIGHT have been able to talk him down with very little fight. He did not want a fight with the US, his beef was with the French and no one else, but he was a top ally in the region during WW2 and I have heard that he actually liked his American Liaison officer, This would have cut short if not eliminated the fighting in VN. So instead of telling the French that in this case THEY were the bad guys, we end up in a fight that cost us dearly at home and overseas. Grenada was a very short op to rescue Americans in Danger (one of our primary duties), Panama, as I said earlier was cleaning up for the CIA.
Then the wall came down, Russia was still a threat, but greatly reduced, along comes Kuwait. Being one of those who deployed to that one, my perspective was simply this, we have no MAJOR issue projected, and here we have a little guy country, that is unable to defend itself, being gobbled up by the local bully. I was raised to hate bullies, so I had no problem going into that fight, seemed a clean noble reason to me, and to many others around me at the time. Was the fight over oil as some say, well, yes, it was, but not for ourselves, had we become the worlds policeman, again, yes, who else was (or is) CAPABLE of doing that job. The only other countries who have the manpower available, were Russia (who was still trying to figure out what happened to themselves, let alone what was next) and China, who, because of (my opinion) bad diplomacy over the prior 40 - 70 years, would have not been just, in their handling of the situation if anyone could even convince them to get involved. (again, my opinion)
After that, we have made several bad calls politically that have lead to 9/11 and since. But we were attacked, we waited to identify the people who did it, and that has brought us to this point. Which comes back to one of my very first points, Our job is to fight our enemies, and IF we have to fight, I for one, would rather it be in THEIR country, than ours. Sorry for the long post, but this was my 2 pennies for your inquiry. For the fighting of OUR Freedoms, we are trying (as the Military) to keep other beliefs outside our boarders, so that the people here can make up their own minds. and until recently, the threat was primarily from outside with combat forces. and our people have become soft and whiny, so the bad forces were INVITED into our country, and THAT is an issue that the Military is not trained or geared to work against (There are units that are, but few and small CA/PSYOPS)

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Sep 7 at 2017 8:25 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:25:55 -0400

I always had a problem relating the Freedoms of someone in the US and burning leeches off my butt. I was a soldier, it is what I wanted to be. To me everything is training until you use your skills against an enemy.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Sep 7 at 2017 9:36 PM

LtCol Robert Quinter — Thu, 07 Sep 2017 21:36:10 -0400

Yes, but we are just one of the tools that protect our freedoms. Realistically, no matter how much our military capability is expanded, we would not be capable of protecting our nation, or freedoms, from a properly configured alliance against us. Our freedoms are protected through treaties, diplomacy and effective relationships with other nations. When all the diplomatic tools have failed, they send us in. Given that "big picture" very few of the battles, or even wars we fought can be said to have defended our freedoms. Perhaps a more appropriate description of our role would be setting the tone so that agreements can be negotiated, or demanded, that ensure the continued existence or our great experiment.