The Price of Loyalty
M.Y.T.H. is… Belief in the game controls
that keeps us in a box of fear
We never listen
--Faithful, Pearl Jam
So don't be afraid to let them show
your true colors
true colors are beautiful
like a rainbow
--True Colors, Cyndi Lauper
________________
Is the price of loyalty also the price of liberty? Or is it the other way around? Are you not free if your loyalty is for sale?
Ranger recently went mano a mano with a retired military man who disagreed with Ranger's contention that the U.S. military is more dangerous than the terror threat facing America. More dangerous because, once the military is applied to any equation, people will start dying in rather violent fashion and fancy information officers will apologize and explain how regretful yet necessary the deaths were, since it is all in the name of fighting terrorism.
The U.S. war machine has made great strides since the Vietnam War. In that war, we just killed 'em, counted 'em, stacked 'em and moved on. No need for apologies since they were better dead than red.
Friend Dark Wraith summed up what the U.S. military delivers with eloquence:
But this man would have none of it. His opposition to Ranger was that he should shut his trap because he receives monies from Uncle Sam as a result of his military service. What this man was saying is, his loyalty was for sale.
For him to have not toed the party line would be akin to a prostitute taking the money and not fellating the john. For him, to strike an oppositional stance would be akin to bad faith, and he had his standards.
This is the armamentarium of the 30 percenters (as Fixer at Alternate Brain refers to them) -- those who will gallop (figuratively, if not literally) into the maws of death behind the war hawks. Be grateful for what you have; you are an ingrate if you dare to question your handlers. It especially grates when the questioning comes from one who should still be marching in lockstep behind his C in C (not).
But that game is corrosive. Liberty will die when loyalties are for sale. Then, the highest bidder will rule the roost.
Written on the 41st anniversary of his commission in the U.S. Army as a RA, 2 LT, INF., serving as grateful (ingrate?) nation. Well, grateful, as long as he keeps his trap shut.
Ranger recently went mano a mano with a retired military man who disagreed with Ranger's contention that the U.S. military is more dangerous than the terror threat facing America. More dangerous because, once the military is applied to any equation, people will start dying in rather violent fashion and fancy information officers will apologize and explain how regretful yet necessary the deaths were, since it is all in the name of fighting terrorism.
The U.S. war machine has made great strides since the Vietnam War. In that war, we just killed 'em, counted 'em, stacked 'em and moved on. No need for apologies since they were better dead than red.
Friend Dark Wraith summed up what the U.S. military delivers with eloquence:
"As we endow the arena of our enemies with confusion, we deliver to them a battlefield of chaos over which they have no control, for which they have no training, upon which they have no hope of domination. They are just unwelcome visitors to our home, temporary intruders in our world. We are not the instrument of chaos; we are chaos.
"And as we are chaos, we are more than just the owners of the battlefield: we are the battlefield (I Am Become Battle)."
But this man would have none of it. His opposition to Ranger was that he should shut his trap because he receives monies from Uncle Sam as a result of his military service. What this man was saying is, his loyalty was for sale.
For him to have not toed the party line would be akin to a prostitute taking the money and not fellating the john. For him, to strike an oppositional stance would be akin to bad faith, and he had his standards.
This is the armamentarium of the 30 percenters (as Fixer at Alternate Brain refers to them) -- those who will gallop (figuratively, if not literally) into the maws of death behind the war hawks. Be grateful for what you have; you are an ingrate if you dare to question your handlers. It especially grates when the questioning comes from one who should still be marching in lockstep behind his C in C (not).
But that game is corrosive. Liberty will die when loyalties are for sale. Then, the highest bidder will rule the roost.
Written on the 41st anniversary of his commission in the U.S. Army as a RA, 2 LT, INF., serving as grateful (ingrate?) nation. Well, grateful, as long as he keeps his trap shut.
Labels: definition of liberty, faithfulness, loyalty, price of liberty, ranger criticized, shut yer trap
posted by rangeragainstwar at 10:28 PM
4 Comments:
You earned your money. Say what you want to.
I'd opine that your disputant has made the intellectual transition from citizen to subject. As such he is correct; the subjects have no right to criticize or resist the king; it is the very definition of lese' majeste'. And he is correct in that the relationship between soldier and state, even in a democracy - especially in a democracy - is similar. Because of the coercive power of military force it, and the soldier who comprises it, MUST be subservient to the nation.
But that relationship changes when the citizen is no longer a soldier. At this point the most you can be accused of is ingratitude (although I would argue that the case can be made for your retirement being owed for past services not qualified by your opinions regarding the present conduct of the Army). By your opponant's logic, having once promised to love, honor and obey would prohibit you from criticizing your spouse's current infatuation with wrapping housepets with det cord.
So I would say that this fellow isn't exactly "selling" his loyalty for a pension, rather, he is confusing the loyalty of a subject with the loyalty of a citizen. A fairly common confusion amongst the 30-percenters.
FDChief,
I like to think that we are both subservient to the nation, but in a rather unique manner.
I find it strange that we were taught to think critically in IOAC/CGSC but nobody likes it when we do so.It twists my little brain in knots.
jim
FDChief -he is confusing the loyalty of a subject with the loyalty of a citizen.
Chief -- AMEN AMEN AMEN and thanks for the comment. You are right on here. Far too many of our "citizens" accept their place as "subjects" -- what bothers me is that they accept it so willingly. Why?
Jim - I find it strange that we were taught to think critically in IOAC/CGSC but nobody likes it when we do so.
Indeed, this problem still persists widely among the uniformed leadership. Those who can continue to think critically often find their longevity stunted and end up happy to make it to that magic vestment point. Others "critically think" themselves into believing they will change the system when they become "The Man" but in the process, are corrupted by the effort and lose that critical thinking skill. Finally, there are those "grads" who never learn the critical thinking bit -- except as it applies to their own career advancement -- and wouldn't you know it? Way too many of them become the GO-FOs that somehow are never fired for the screw-ups we witness time and again in the PWOT.
Great post! Thanks!
SP
Post a Comment
<< Home