Posted on Apr 13, 2014
Are we really fighting to protect our freedoms?
11.8K
49
43
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.
Freedom
Military History
Warfare
Constitution
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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?
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?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google