DISQUS

Justin J · 1 year ago

What sacrifices have you made to support the peace effort?


This post is ridiculous. Honestly, it is.

Brian · 1 year ago

Right on!

"All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Unfortunately, our country of good men and women are doing nothing.

K.T. Stevenson · 1 year ago

Thank you for this wonderfully insightful piece. Whether or not you support the war, it's a sad state of affairs when the home front is exhorted to spend, consume, and maintain a life of luxury while our uniformed women and men are going into harm's way. If you support the war, your lack of personal sacrifice is at best insensitive and at worst hypocritical. If you oppose the war, your lack of personal sacrifice lowers the overall impact of the war here at home and makes it easier for the powers that be to keep the war on indefinitely.

Again, my thanks and appreciation for writing this.

Mike · 1 year ago

Great post. I'm in the military and this is something I myself have never thought about. You bring up some really good points. Thanks for your support.

Duffy · 1 year ago

Sorry but I'm with Justin on this one. This post is absurd. It assumes nothing has changed since the 40's.

Andrew · 1 year ago

The last thing the gub'mint wants is for the public to feel the pinch of sacrifice. Like you said, that'll just make it all the harder for it to continue its wars and occupations. However your main thesis, that "we" aren't sacrificing, is wrong. We're all sacrificing or being sacrificed, however you want to look at it, through the devaluation of the dollar brought on in large part by the deficit spending being used to finance the welfare/warfare machine.

Brett McKay · 1 year ago

@Duffy and Justin-

Did you even read the whole post or just skim the introduction? Where does it say that nothing has changed since the 1940's? I also explicitly make the point that sacrificing for war is the way to attain peace.

@Andrew-My main thesis is not that we don't sacrifice because of the war, but that we aren't ASKED to sacrifice because of the war. There are many unfortunate consequences of this war, including the devalued dollar, but they are involuntary sacrifices. President Bush hasn't asked us as a people to voluntarily step up and doing anything.

Badger · 1 year ago

Excellent post, and great blog overall. Keep up the good work (although unfortunately I suspect that the people who need to hear what you say aren't among your regular readers).

iamsofaking · 1 year ago

So, I can help bring the troops home by riding my bike to work? This post is pretty asinine.

Mike G · 1 year ago

Duffy and Justin, I have to agree with Brett. Where does it say that we should do exactly what F.D.R. laid out? It's a simple statement that the American mindset has changed since previous wars and that most American's aren't even aware that the war is going on. If we actually had to sacrifice something for this war we would at least be aware of it and might make more everyday attempts to support our troops. It's not by any means pro-war, it's pro-troops and who is honestly against the troops here? The fact is that whether or not you like the war it is happening and people simply cannot live as if it's not there. As the American dollar suffers we will all need to make sacrifices to help the country gain economic strength and get out of the war.

Hell he even calls for people to buy fuel efficient cars and look to alternative energy... read the article before you post next time!

Steve · 1 year ago

This post is ridiculous. You are suggesting that all Americans sacrifice things for the indefinite wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The critical error with your argument, which is quickly swept away in your orgy of nostalgia, is that war is fundamentally different that it was 50 years ago.

President Bush doesn't see the Iraq war as a single war, but rather as part of the broader "War on Terror" or "Struggle against Islamofacism".

No matter how much Americans sacrifice, taxes are raised, or fuel is rationed, it will not help. We are not fighting a military war. We are fighting an indefinite "war" of ideas against terrorist organizations.

You speak of low morale among the troops and attribute that not to fighting a badly mismanaged war with no foreseeable end, but rather to lack of sacrifice and support at home. Regardless of how many MySpace rants you can find, the fact remains that every critic of this war has cleared stated their disagreements are on a policy level only and that they still support the troops. The only alternative you seem to offer is unquestioning support of any and every war, because if we question wars we will lose them.

Then you make the remark that we will continue the war indefinitely because Americans don't feel the impact of the war. I don't know what isolated bubble you live in, but everyone I know has a friend or a relative or someone who is impacted by this. Seeing a the news footage of a widowed mother or the obituary of a 19 year-old in the local paper makes a damn bigger difference that carpooling to work.

Your ideas for helping the situation are laughably ineffective. Of course the US has financial issues, but these were present long before the war began. Having 50% of US flight with draftees from the "Homeland Security Corps" doesn't stop a suicide bomber on a bus. And your assertion that "True patriots should conserve fuel" borders between being hyper-national or Orwellian.

Terrorism can't be solved by a war. We will never get to the point were every last terrorist is killed and we can have parades in the street and declare victory. Reducing terrorism is a complex process of international cooperation and understanding while increasing security measures and understanding that no matter how hard we try we can't stop terrorism, we can only reduce it.

Jonathan · 1 year ago

Brett,
I think this is probably the best post you have written so far. It is well thought out and well written. I have been talking about this very subject for months now with some of my close friends and family. I do not think that this country as a whole has any idea what personal sacrifice actually means. I'm not even sure that I know what it really means. I am scared to think how people would react if we had a true, nationwide tragedy. I'm not talking about an attack necessarily, I'm just talking about an incident that would affect every man, woman, and child in the country.
I listen to stories my grandparents tell and am greatly humbled by the conditions and sacrifices that they made for this country during the early years of their generation. I can only hope and pray that God continues to bless our country, but I not entirely convinced this country is still heading in that direction.

Jonathan · 1 year ago

@Steve

"Seeing a the news footage of a widowed mother or the obituary of a 19 year-old in the local paper makes a damn bigger difference that carpooling to work."

I disagree entirely with this statement. From my personal experience, people in this country are not generally affected more than a few days at most after reading or seeing this type of news. People are not generally affected by the deaths of individuals they know nothing about. People HATE small conveniences: carpooling, loss of cable TV, waiting 5 minutes in line at a fast food restaurant.

Alex Raditz · 1 year ago

Are you seriously comparing World War II with this "war on terror" that a retarded monkey in a suit started? Really?? You might as well compare a ton of diamonds to a steaming pile of dog-shit and ask, "why aren't they priced the same?"

I feel very sorry for you and for others who can't understand why the entire country backed the President during World War II and why they don't right now.

Billy · 1 year ago

To those people who are not understanding this post, please re-read it and see what it truly being said, and stop focusing on what you are projecting into it.

He's not comparing WW2 with the War On Terror. He's saying that no one has been asked to sacrifice anything to make this war happen. And if we truly want to win, and we want this war to end sooner, why are we not stepping up and sacrificing?

We keep making bravado statements about how we don't agree with the war but we support the troops. And what he is saying is if this is so, put your money where your mouth is.

Just because it is a different kind of war, that doesn't excuse the rest of us from doing what is right to support those who are fighting and dieing in the war.

Bradly Fletchall · 1 year ago

I whole heartedly agree with this post

1. The American public has lost all sense of what it means to "support the troops" yellow ribbon magnets on your SUV does NOT count.

Have you donated to any of the injured veterans funds? Have you written letters to any of the soldiers? Have you donated blood? Have you volunteered for any of the organizations that help the families of dead or injured soldiers?

There are many more ways to "support the troops" so go out and actually support them.

2. Riding your bike for short trips can help...something like 60% of the trips taken by car daily in this country are less than 2 miles. Have you ever noticed that cars get worse gas mileage in town because of all the stops at traffic lights and signs.

If you ride your bike for some of those short trips, you can eliminate a large portion of your own fuel consumption (putting money back in your pocket) and also decrease the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. If we don't need foreign oil, we wouldn't need to be involved in many of the destabilizing activities of the middle-eastern countries. If the oil supply is stopped now, fuel prices in the U.S. will shoot up and wreck the economy even more.

3. With the slumping economy and talks of recession, I think War Bonds would be an excellent idea. They are protected. They prevent war spending from bringing the country further into debt, and the people would get a decent return on their money.

Some will argue that War Bonds would just make the wars last longer...I would argue that they are going to take the same amount of time and we are going to fund it one way or another. Either with higher taxes that we won't earn interest on or a War Bond that will actually make you money in the long run.

I would also suggest that people read the books in "The Greatest Generation" series by Tom Brokaw if you really want to understand what WWII ment to people. You can really get a sense of how this country has taken a different course and you can see how things would be better if we all lived with more of the values that were present then.

pete · 1 year ago

I see the point you're trying to make with this post, and for the most part what you're saying makes sense, but I don't entirely agree with your assessment.
To answer the question asked in the title, the reason that Wartime Sacrifice is gone is that the wars that have been fought in recent history by the USA have no direct effect on the average joe. The average person doesn't really understand why there's a war on at all!
Historically speaking if you look at the wars that rallied the people, you'll see that there was an element of personal loss eg the sinking of the Lusitania or the attack on Pearl Harbour. These events were perpetrated by a plainly visible enemy, which allowed for a focus for the people and a reason to go without.
Later wars, such as Vietnam and the first Gulf war literally served no purpose that the common man could relate to.
You may have noticed that at the beginning of this latest period of war - namely the 911 attacks - did inspire people to do their part, be it volunteering at ground zero or donating money, enlisting in the army, or doing almost anything else the government asked of them. The fact that they weren't asked to ride their bikes to work doesn't mean that they wouldn't have done it if they had been asked!
So now the US is in a position of aggression against a country that did nothing against it, looking for "terrorists" - essentially an invisible enemy, led by a government that itself doesn't seem to know why it's fighting.
Maybe if there was a leader like FDR to inspire the people to do more, and to choose battles worth fighting, then maybe you might see a bit more of a "sacrifice" from the people...

Granata · 1 year ago

I enjoyed your article. I've had thoughts along the same lines but you did a great job writing a piece that brings everything together for me. I've heard some say that ours may be the next Great Generation (referring to those who sacrificed during WWII) but until we learn to stop being selfish wimps, I don't see it happening.

Rocketboy · 1 year ago

I really enjoy most of the posts on this blog. This one, however, is breathtaking in the scope of its idiocy. A national draft? Are you kidding me? Forced servitude, to the state or anyone, is slavery. Are you really going to get behind that? If you think that the armed forces have morale problems now, wait until 50% of them are there against their will, with only the threat of being killed by their own commanding officers for desertion keeping them where they are. Think the economy is going downhill? Wait until you tax entrepreneurship to the ground with your outlandish taxes. See what happens when you forbid new goods from being produced.

Also, which portion of the constitution gives the government the authority to force people into servitude? Or to force them to ration fuel. I can't find it anywhere in here.

Repugnant.

John · 1 year ago

@ Billy

Maybe you should reread the article. The author is asking, "What Happened to Wartime Sacrifice?" He then writes about the war in iraq. He then writes about World War II and the things Americans sacrificed back then. He then writes about things that we should sacrifice today, which (shockingly) are very similar to what was sacrificed during World War II. You should look up the definition of the word comparison.

He COMPARES the sacrifices made during World War II to the ones made now (none) and by doing that he is saying, "since we did it for WWII why don't we do it now" which equates the two wars to one another. Which is the most idiotic thing ever.

I can argue very easily that Bush does not support our troops because he has sent them into a war with no plan and no strategy and no idea of what to do besides stand around and get shot at.

P.S. the war bond idea is the stupidest thing ever. We are going to end up paying for this war and we are going to pay for it big time. You think China is aching to pay our debts for us? Please. This entire article reeks of mental retardation.

Jonathan Thomas · 1 year ago

We're not making sacrifices because this is largely a made up war. Instead of fighting the good fight and trying to save the world from fascism and tryanny (and saving people from genocide), allied with the allies of the world, we're fighting a boogeyman who may or may not exist while playing right into his hand. We're not making mass sacrifices because we're not fighting a country directly. Sorry, but this post is absurd. We should be evolving beyond war. True manliness is not needing to use violence to get your point across or be right.

James · 1 year ago

Interesting post! I agree that we need to sacrifice more as a country. Not just because of the war, but for many other reasons. I do not believe that raiseing taxes is the solution. We need more voluntary sacrifice, not government mandated sacrifice. (Reducing federal programs would be a great idea, though, as you mentioned!)

At any rate, I am interested in where you got your numbers from? Please provide your sources. I am especially interested in why you think that 1/4th of all vets are homeless. This sounds pretty absurd to me? Where did this number come from?

Brett McKay · 1 year ago

@James-

This was a pretty big story this year.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3835347

Google "1 in 4 veterans are homeless" for more.

Brett McKay · 1 year ago

Steve-I don't even know where to begin...did you read the same thing I wrote? Because I don't recognize the conclusions you are drawing from it.

"The critical error with your argument, which is quickly swept away in your orgy of nostalgia, is that war is fundamentally different that it was 50 years ago."

Really? I thought this covered it: "Of course this is a much different time and a much different war."

"You speak of low morale among the troops and attribute that not to fighting a badly mismanaged war with no foreseeable end,"

I actually I directly attribute low morale to fighting a war without a foreseeable end: "But without any noticeable signs of war, people feel comfortable voting to extend the war indefinitely."

"The only alternative you seem to offer is unquestioning support of any and every war, because if we question wars we will lose them."

Wow, where on earth do you find this in my post?? Every war should be questioned, this one especially.

Brett McKay · 1 year ago

@Jonathan-

"Sorry, but this post is absurd. We should be evolving beyond war. True manliness is not needing to use violence to get your point across or be right."

This post is not a call to war or violence. I am actually arguing that wartime sacrifice is the only way to end wars and bring peace. If we don't gave to sacrifice during war, then people will never feel motivated for peace, and we'll never evolve.

Brett McKay · 1 year ago

@Rocketboy-

Where in my post do I call for the government to forcibly ration fuel? I think people should simply and voluntarily start to drive more fuel efficient vehicles, carpool, ect.

Where in my post do I call for the government to stop producing new goods?

Where in my post do I call for outlandish taxes? Taxes will have to increase to pay for the war. But this could be done simply by repealing the tax cuts passed by Bush. Or more preferably, by cutting extraneous government programs.

Also, when I called for a national draft I clearly stated that their should be a choice between military service and serving at home in some capacity. Because forcing people to serve in the military would lower morale as you said. But in general, no, I honestly don't have a problem with compulsory service.

Matt B · 1 year ago

I couldn't agree more with this post.

Asking Americans to sacrifice is really the only way to bring about peace. If we don't, people will continue to ignore the war and its costs. Really, it seems to me that not asking people to sacrifice is another part of Bush's shady plans. By removing reminders of war from our daily lives he ensured voter apathy and his reelection.

wayne · 1 year ago

I'd bet dollars to donuts that most the haters posting how rediculous this is are under 30. Entitlement at it's finest. 'Sacrifice? Comeon, I'll just whine until mommy or daddy buys me what I want.' And they'll also be the first to complain about the govt not doing enough when it actually affects them in a tangible way. Anyone wonder why the ENTIRE world thinks Americans are soft and weak?

wayne · 1 year ago

AND ONE MORE THING, what happens to our country when we no longer have a decent armed forces? We throw money at the problem? Hire somone else to fight our battles? "Why is this happening? Why doesn't anyone protect me?" Wimps. Soft, self absorbed wimps. And, FYI, I'm against the war in Iraq AND on Terror. It's like the war on drugs, a war that can't be won. Freedom and Security are at opposite ends of the spectrum. You have to give up more of one to achieve more of the other.

Learned · 1 year ago

Brett,

Great post. I've said much of what you touched on, but you covered every base.

I see the post drew out some those who want something for nothing. They want to feel safe, but don't want to pay taxes. They want to have a strong military, but have never even considered serving. Nope, to most of these ingrates, the War on Terrorism is merely entertainment or a slogan they chant. However, why should they serve or sacrifice? Bush barely served, Cheney denied his duty 5 times and many of the neo-con architects of this war never served. The Bush cronies have only profitted from this war. Rising gas prices, record profits in the oil industry, and Haliburton (yes I wrote it) has treated the War on Terrorism as if it were some kind of cash grab.

Our country is in a sad state. You can't trrow a stone without hitting a self-professed patriot, but when ask them to serve or sacrifice, the silence becomes deafening.

Chris W · 1 year ago

Excellent post, sir!

I tend to agree that we have become a nation of spoiled selfish children. Many of the negative retorts to this article are fine examples.

Tyler · 1 year ago

Thank you Brett, this article is fantastic!

As a young soldier, I directly feel the impact of the low morale that currently plagues the military, particularly the Army. I long for the past (which unfortunately I wasn't around for) when pride in one's country and service to said country was one of the greatest qualities a man (or woman) could have. Yes I understand that the vast majority of people support our troops, regardless of their feelings on the war, but most of this support is simply in word, and not actually in deed. Unfortunately, due to the pissy nature of most people nowadays, we can't actually ask anyone to give any thing up. All that my fellow soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen ask is that the American civilian be more considerate when going about their daily lives! Think about every thing you do and how it might affect those around you, or even those not around you. Many of the critics of this article have bitched about your proposed methods. It's obvious that they don't actually understand the meaning of SACRIFICE. And maybe I don't grasp the full meaning of the word yet either (not even being old enough to buy a beer), but 4,000 of my comrades do.

Wayne, don't give up on my generation just yet, my friend! There are some of us out here that are willing to live life in a realistic fashion.

Thanks again Brett!

Jorge · 1 year ago

Should we all try to lead a life of temperance and frugality? yes if only for the reason that pursuing these virtues can lead to a pleasant life and all your life will be the better for it. Living a virtuous life is probably the easiest way to do your part in reducing the friction that causes conflict.

Should we all do what we can to help the troops? yes they vow to protect the public no matter the circumstances they do what they do out of sense of duty. Since they are willing to sacrifice themselves to carry out their jobs we should feel a duty to them; something that seems to have fallen by the wayside to the government that does not provide them with the proper resources once they are back home. The responsibility falls on us to pick up the slack regardless of our opinion of the war.

Reintroducing the draft will not end this conflict any sooner if Iraq has taught us anything is that to deal with terrorism there is no capital that can be toppled that will end the threat of terrorism, therefore no amount of manpower or technology will be the magic bullet. The path that the government set out upon to deal with terrorism was the wrong one due to the assumptions that were made. Now there are consequences that need to be dealt with and it is back to the drawing board to figure out a new strategy to deal with Terrorism because a "war" is obviously the wrong way to go about it.

I also see a problem with the issue of war bonds, debt is debt no matter what you call it just because China is footing less of the bill it does not make the bill smaller. Paying with a different credit card does not make it go away. America is already at the bottom of the accounts balance so measures need to be taken to reduce this if America is to persevere.

All of the things you have outlined in your article Brett are things we should already be doing. War really should not spur people to live responsibly it should instead be seen as the consequence of years doing things incorrectly. With that said the only option we have is to change our patterns of behavior to get through this crisis and to avoid falling into old patterns once the crisis is resolved.

Glen · 1 year ago

Wow! some seriously polarized responses. I'll admit that on my first read of the post I thought, "What the hell?!?!" My problem, and i think perhaps some of the commentors, was that the headings have connotations for me that were not exactly what Brett was getting at.

For example, the word draft instantly brings to mind mandatory military service. Brett is advocating mandatory service, but with a choice between civil and military service. Also, the word rationing brings to mind forced rationing, not a voluntary reduction in use. We're a nation of excess. I'm an example of that excess as are probably most of the US. We consume far more than we need, and we waste far more than we should.

I think the point Brett was trying to make that was missed, is that without the general public having to sacrifice, the general public will not force the politicians to end the war. As it is now, they'll just change the channel rather than actually do something about it.

Someone earlier made the point that the friends and family of the 4000 casualties of the war have all sacrificed their loved ones. That is true, and it's tragic. However, until enough people are personally affected so that the majority of the US demands a resolution, nothing will change.

The way or manner that people are "personally affected" can occur in any number of ways. For some it will be the death or injury of a loved one; for others it will be outrage over the devaluation of the dollar or the enrichment of Halliburton; for some it may be the orice of gas.

I'm example #1. I have not been personally affected. although I have a brother-in-law who is currently serving in Afganistan, he has not been killed or injured. I'm not too happy about the price of gas, or the devaluation of the dollar, but not enough to do anything about it.

That, in my opinion, is the point Brett was trying to make. Your mileage may vary.

Rodney Hampton · 1 year ago

This post is absolutely nuts. No sacrifice, are you kidding? First of all, nostalgia aside, I think you're missing the point that we've already pumped tons of money out of our economy for this war for zero gain. Conservative estimates of the damage to our economy put the total cost of the war at $1 trillion. Other economists put it closer to $3 trillion.

And lets not forget the 4000 deaths in theater, which does not count troops who died of complications later. It also doesn't count the long term psychological damage to our troops, nor does it count the countless troops physically maimed by this war. Lets not forget that advances in battlefield medicine have cut down the death/injured ratio so there are a lot more wounded vets around for each of those combat fatalities. And don't forget that private contractors aren't counted in the carnage.

How about the long term damage to our country's reputation abroad. This is not WWII: there is no declaration of war from Congress. There is a morally questionable preemptive war based on what we now know to be flawed intelligence. There were no links between Al-Quada and Iraq to justify the war (google it, the Army just admitted this in the last month or so). As for WMDs, page one of a report to the president says our intel was "dead wrong." See The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction Report to the President of the United States March 31, 2005.

Or perhaps you're forgetting all of the wonderful civil liberties we've given up here at home so some hapless soccer moms and metrosexuals can feel safe. Please! The last thing I need is for the government to try to keep me safe. They can't even keep the f-ing roads in good repair or keep illegal immigrants from pouring over our unprotected southern border.

Thanks for listening to my rant. I'll keep reading your column because most of it is top notch, but you're seriously glamorizing WWII and that's not cool. Maybe you should read "The Best War Ever" for a little reality check.





Rodney Hampton
Formerly SGT US Army Infantry holding a BA from Ohio State University in Military and Diplomatic History.

Rodney Hampton · 1 year ago

Oh yea....forgot to mention that torture thing. I'm sick of living in a country that thinks torturing anyone is A-OK. There have never been, and probably never will be, ticking time bomb scenarios like on 24. It's just not reality.

Justin C. J · 1 year ago

For those including the author who is searching for an America who knows how to sacrifice. You will not find one. I too have heard the stories and even lived through some of my own financial, emotional, and physical distresses which require sacrifice. The majority of people in this generation do not know what it means.

When television, cell phones, and icemakers are considered necessities then something is awry.

I AGREE, wholeheartedly that when sacrifice is apparent, clearly stated, and clearly defined, people are more directly involved either in supporting it or figuring out how to end it quicker.

HOWEVER, the evil of the current wars against objects and tactics (Dont forget the war on drugs) is that the huge sacrifices being made are NOT OBVIOUS they are hidden. If the American people saw what they are sacrificing perhaps there would be some change in the war. Instead no one sees the sacrifice. No one sees the degrading dollar, the reason for the higher prices, the largest spending deficit in American history, the long-term effects of billions of dollars redistributed and burned through government bureacucracies or else there would be an outcry.

True manliness is honest and open (the author is right, our president has not openly stated any of the sacrifices he has involuntarily imposed on us).
True manliness is fiscal responsibility.
True manliness is operating within a budget.
True manliness is fights an enemy, not a plant (war against drugs) or a tactic (how do you kill terror?).
True manliness values freedom over security.
True manliness will sacrifice when called upon for a noble cause.
True manliness will not force other people to sacrifice for a cause they think is noble.

Let's hope we could be half the men some of our founding fathers were who stood for entangling alliances with none, while trading and communicating with everyone.

As has been pointed out many times on this blog, true manliness is not always forceful and violent. A true gentlemen will spread his ideas through the barrel of a gun.

Justin C. J · 1 year ago

....uhm... a true gentleman will *NOT* spread his ideas through the barrel of a gun.

Brian in MD · 1 year ago

This is your single best posting that I have seen from "The Art of Manliness" yet, Brett. The basic point is apparently missed by many judging by the negative comments received thus far, but it isn't lost upon me. My WWII-serving and Victory-supporting grandparents are no longer around, but you have stimulated my thoughts as to how differently "The Greatest Generation" would have responded to your article - they certainly wouldn't have called it "asinine", and neither would I...

Brett McKay · 1 year ago

@Rodney-

I completely understand what you are saying and have appreciated your comments elsewhere, but I think you are misunderstanding the point of this post.

This post is not about supporting the war. In fact, I explicitly say that those who oppose the war should be the biggest supporters of shared sacrifice.

The sacrifices you mentioned, in the lives and mental health of the troops, in the money spent, with civil liberties, ect, are involuntary sacrifices. They have been forced upon us by this war. And for the vast majority of Americans, the pinch of these sacrifices does not reach through to their ordinary lives. They are huge sacrifices, but they are not tangible on a day to day basis. In fact, the current administration does it best to keep these sacrifices out of the news. For example, the financial costs of the war are kept separate from the annual budget voted on by Congress. And the government will not allow the media to tape the body bags and flag covered coffins coming home.

My point is that President has not asked ordinary Americans to perform VOLUNTARY sacrifice. We have not been asked to do anything to tangibly support the troops. This war, like all wars, is a terrible war. And Americans will continue to let it go on indefinitely unless they themselves as individuals are asked to give up something for it. The reason I support voluntary sacrifice is that it will end the war sooner, not prolong it.

There was nothing glamorous about WWII. But there is something really worthy about a time in which the government was not afraid to ask its citizens to practice some sort of self-denial.

Brett McKay · 1 year ago

@Justin C.-

I couldn't have said it better myself. I actually posted my comment to Rodney at the same time you posted yours. You get right to the heart of it-the sacrifices of today's war are hidden from view. So people pay no mind to the lives lost, the debt building up, the freedoms taken away.....

@Brian-Thanks Brian, I appreciate it.

Andrew Nepstad · 1 year ago

You know, sometimes I've read this blog and thought to myself 'oh, he's just being conservative and hidebound, he's mostly on-target' but then I find myself reading blogs like this.

So support a futile war like Iraq [and the nonsensical wars on drugs and terrorism] in the ways you suggest is ridiculous. Your critiques of how Americans don't react to wars might be more valid if it didn't apply to every war since World War 2. Americans don't react to wars as much anymore because we've been fighting them constantly for the last forty or so years uninterruptedly. Yet you, without critiquing our culture of war and consumerism, demand that we support these imperialist struggles beyond what we pay for taxes? Let's get gung-ho about neo-colonialism!

This post puts the last nail in the coffin as far as my opinion of this blog goes. You can yearn for antiquated chauvinism and myopic nationalism, I just won't be reading any of it anymore.

Andrew Nepstad · 1 year ago

You know, sometimes I've read this blog and thought to myself 'oh, he's just being conservative and hidebound, he's mostly on-target' but then I find myself reading blogs like this.

So support a futile war like Iraq [and the nonsensical wars on drugs and terrorism] in the ways you suggest is ridiculous. Your critiques of how Americans don't react to wars might be more valid if it didn't apply to every war since World War 2. Americans don't react to wars as much anymore because we've been fighting them constantly for the last forty or so years uninterruptedly. Yet you, without critiquing our culture of war and consumerism, demand that we support these imperialist struggles beyond what we pay for taxes? Let's get gung-ho about neo-colonialism!

This post puts the last nail in the coffin as far as my opinion of this blog goes. You can yearn for antiquated chauvinism and myopic nationalism, I just won't be reading any of it anymore.

Fuck you
-Andrew Nepstad

Brett McKay · 1 year ago

Andrew-

I could repeat the responses I have already made several times in the comments section to completely refute what you think this post is saying, but I'm too tired.

I'm sorry that your reading comprehension skills are so abysmal. It's probably a good thing you won't be reading the blog, you wouldn't have really enjoyed it anyway.

I like that you posted your comment twice simply to add your name and "F you." Classy.

Dan · 1 year ago

While the "war on terror" may be very different than WW2 one thing is the same, it still uses military power and the sacrifices made by civilians in the 40s supported the military directly. The military still needs support so why no sacrifice? I don't think there is a simple answer it a cultural change and the US gov has realised that.

Jack · 1 year ago

Wow, Brett...you really kicked the hornet's nest.

I'll keep my political 2 cents inside. I would just like to comment about the general selection of topic. Don't take this as any sort of insult, but just as another idiot reader pretending he knows better than the guy with the successful blog. = )

I was really hoping this article would shine a light on sacrifices made in more areas than just national. See, I view manliness as being the first to give up what you want. That means in war, in an emergency, in good times, and especially in a relationship.

One of the things that's kept my wife's and my relationship so close and happy is that I give up my own time and what I want to do so regularly that Dawn eventually starts forcing me to take time for myself. When she realizes how much I've been giving up lately for her happiness, it drives her to new levels of appreciation and love, which she then floods me with.

We stop getting along so well whenever I try to take what I want without offering it to her first. I think that in this day of "Me me me!" culture, that aspect has been utterly lost by many if not most people. The man isn't willing to sacrifice, but that's his God-given job.

When my wife's parents were having hard times, they would sacrifice their own meal to make sure their kids had enough. Beyond that, her father would give his food to her mother. That's the sort of sacrifice that I thought of when I read this. The personal kind, giving of yourself to help those around you. I think it inspires positive character much more than debating supply-side economics ever will. = )

Anna · 1 year ago

Wow, Brett. I really enjoyed this article. I estimate that probably 90% of the commentors on this post probably know nothing about personal sacrifice or sacrifice in general. Back in the 80s, when I was just a kid, my dad lost his job and we ate most of our food out of what was essentially a victory garden for our family. Being probably 5 years old, I really didn't understand what sacrifices were being made by my folks. I didn't really appreciate it. I also didn't appreciate it when they sacrificed my mom's yearly income to send my brother and I to private schooling because they wanted the best education for us.

Now that I'm older and really starting to see and understand the sacrifices that my parents made for us. Too many people now aren't forced to sacrifice their cars because gas is too high, or don't have to sacrifice their lives for freedom, or aren't forced to forgo buying groceries for a week because they're sending their kids to college. True sacrifice not only gives us a glimpse of what the brave men and women fighting the war on terror have to go through on a daily basis, it also motivates us to end the war once we are placed in the uncomfortable position of having to give up things we love. When it hits home, we become more inclined to speak up and speak out.

Instead, we think the writer's strike is a big sacrifice because we can't watch new episodes of The Office or Grey's Anatomy! Working while NCAA basketball is on is atrocious! I can't log in to iTunes to download the latest American Idol performance! Dear Lord, it cost me $70 to fill up my Escalade! This is not even close to true sacrifice.

It doesn't surprise me that everyone who is against this post is also against the war and completely misses the point of the post. They are folks who wish others to sacrifice their lives so that they can bitch and moan about this post during the lunch hour. They think sacrifice is ok as long as it doesn't involve them actually having to give up something.

Tony Ristaino · 1 year ago

I understand your point about sacrifice but your article is based on false premises.

It is not manly to initiate an attack on a country which presented no threat to us.It is cowardly to attack a country which is halfway around the world and has no Navy or Air Force to reach us.Iraq had an ill equipped Army which presented no threat to us. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection to El Queida and no connection of Iraq to 9/11.The war was based on false premises.

This war violates not only Iraq's national sovreignty and kills innocent people but our US rights are violated as well.Try going to the airport and giving up your Fourth Amendment rights.
We have the Patriot Act,warantless wiretaps,suspension of Habeus Corpus,corporate welfare at taxpayer expense in the form of no bid contracts and direct grants and nine trillion in Federal Debt.
We have larceny-via-inflation from the Federal Reserve. how ill we pay for this war of aggression? We have veterans with missing limbs and PSTD. Why,when there was no link to 9/11?
A national draft is Slavery. Women will be draafted,too. What country sends its young women off to war? A man does not send his wife or daughter downstairs to confront a burgular so why would we send our wives and daughters off to war?

Really,you need to be a man and not a bully by proxy. You sit in the comfort of your computer chair advocating that we send our sons and daughters off to war to kill innocent people. You and your buddies should volunteer and go over there on your own nickel.

Brett McKay · 1 year ago

@Jack-

I would definitely agree that manly sacrifice encompasses a myriad of different avenues. It one of the central tenets of manliness and we have plans to frequently return to the theme of. We hope the blog has a long life, and can't cover everything at once. We decided to pick war sacrifice first because my wife, who is a history professor, has lately been lecturing about WWII and we found ourselves musing on the topic. But look forward to future sacrifice posts, certainly including how it applies to marriage, in the future.

Brett McKay · 1 year ago

@Tony-

You clearly did not read the entire post and obviously just skimmed over the sections in bold before launching into your tirade.

I feel like a broken record here, but since people cannot sacrifice enough time to read the entire post and the previous comments, I guess I will keep on repeating myself.

This post has clearly been misunderstood. This is not a political post. It is not a post in support of the war in Iraq. I repeat, this is not a post in support of the war!

I personally do not now, and have not ever supported the war in Iraq. But this is not a political blog, and I do not want to belabor my personal beliefs on the subject. It is a place for readers on any part of the poltiucal specturm.

But I do support the troops and I do support peace. As I have repeated ad nauseum those who oppose the war should be the biggest supporters of sacrifice. Because that is how you get people to pressure the government to end it. Without that pressure the war will go on indefinitely. Sacrifice also serves as a reminder to not get involved in future wars. When people experience sacrifice, they will vote more carefully in the future for their leaders. Sacrifice is the path to peace.

To all those who erroneously read support for war and imperialism into this post, I would ask you kindly to point out where you find this. It's simply not there. I would ask the detractors what it is you plan to do to end the war and how you plan to support the troops? Do you think peace can come without sacrifice? Do you not think anything should be done to support those who lay down their lives for this country?

I have to admit I am quite befuddled by this response.

francetales.com · 1 year ago

While I did read the whole post I did not read all of the comments. This simply stated, restated, and re-restated ths same thing over and over.

I am against the current wars. I was intrigued by your statement
those who most adamantly oppose the war should be the most ardent supporters of shared national sacrifice

I was waiting for the explanation. Why would I support national sacrifice? You never really say why.

A little economics would help you as well. If thereis a shortage of something then a sacrifice, whether one agrees or not, is necessary. If there is no shortage why would one need to sacrifice?

I ride my bicycle to work and walk everywhere I can but then I live in France where they add train service and public transportation lines instead of cutting service. I do this whether or not I am asked to sacrifice because it is the right thing to do. I don't need some idiot president to tell me what to do. That is the real problem. Americans don't seem to know what is right and wrong so they look to others to tell them. PS I am an American.

Brett McKay · 1 year ago

@France-

You ask for an explanation of the statement: "those who most adamantly oppose the war should be the most ardent supporters of shared national sacrifice."

I thought had made this clear, and as you said, said it over and over, but here it is again: If there is no sacrifice during war, than there is no motivation to end the war and to prevent wars. I'm not sure how else to say it. Right now the American people are fairly apathetic about ending the war. And they're apathetic, because they're not asked to give up anything for it. They can go about their lives while 5,000 men and women are killed. The lack of sacrifice allows everyone to ignore what is happening. You can bet if they were feeling the pinch of sacrifice everyday, they would be far more politically involved and pushing for a candidate who wants to end the war. Instead the candidate who says we could be in Iraq for another 100 years is neck and neck with the others.

There are no shortages from the war? We have racked up a $500,000,000 debt thus far, gas prices are up to $3.15 a gallon, the dollar is in the crapper, and 5,000 soldiers have lost their lives. Just because you don't feel the immediate effects of these shortages, does not mean they aren't real. The payment for these things will come due. And we can't just stick our heads in the sand and shout about how we oppose the war. Whether we oppose the war or not, that huge war debt will loom over our heads. Unless we sacrifice with higher taxes or less government programs, that debt will eventually crush us.

I agree that the government should not have to tell people what to do in all things. If you notice in my post, the part about rationing fuel is completely voluntary. And this is the sacrifice that I think is most crucial for Americans to make. Yet as you yourself note, getting around without a car is far easier in Europe because of public transportation. And that is something only the government can establish here in the states. And what is it going to take to get it buil?....that's right, sacrifice.

Nickoli · 1 year ago

I read, understood, and appreciated this post. Thank you.

Rodney Hampton · 1 year ago

Brett,

My response was a bit harsh but I'll stand by it. I'm not at all convinced that the way to get Americans to end the war is by asking them to ratchet up their support for the war. However, I'd love to read about manly sacrafice in other contexts like marriage, raising kids, or the classic lifeboat scenario like on the Titantic.

Rodney

J. Tipton Taylor · 1 year ago

I enjoyed this article; it presents a viewpoint that warrants consideration.

Nevertheless, I will be more inclined to sacrifice when I see the self-serving clowns who start wars and by their policies invite disasters sacrifice as much as the serfs out here in the hinterlands are asked to - likewise their sycophants growing fat on government contracts. It seems to me that while the common man stands in line shuffling his ration cards the elite rush about with their motorcades and security details, jetting off on "fact-finding" junkets while we pick up the tab and are always asked to sacrifice just a little bit more. Obviously this says nothing of the kids who sacrifice so much for the megalomania or miscalculation of those in power.

Sacrifice is noble, but in the dehumanizing culture we have built for ourselves, it is more noble when done for family, friends, and the unfortunate individual we encounter - not for some misguided, jingoistic nationalism - let alone attempts to build and maintain an empire that enriches a few at the sacrifice of the many.

Sorry if this offends some - it's just another way to look at the issue.

While I've got the floor - well said Rodney.

Tip T.

Axxess · 1 year ago

"Create a National Draft."

What sort of neo-con crap is this?

Steve Summers · 1 year ago

This post has taken a lot of thought to make. and it does point out good points.

I would like to commend this post.

Tim · 1 year ago

We should be weary all the time, people are lazy, they here that the world is falling apart and they should be doing the same things their grandfathers did and they say nooo. Fighting Germany was enough? I dunno, but really, the people that suffer when we nickel and dime the government are not the higher ups, responsible for this completely bullshit war, it's my friend Mike, and RC, who, bless their hearts, thought it would be just awesome to join the army instead of staying here and playing Wii with me... Bastards.

NEwaayz, this war is unmainable, end it, and then focus on the economy, raise taxes and fix the shit we can't handle this as a society. Do you want America to last? I certainly wouldn't mind it, it's not too terrible. But seriously, Ipods are for pussies.

Ben · 1 year ago

@Brett: I am a new reader of your blog and judging by your past 10 or so posts, I believe I will continue to enjoy it for some time. Thank you especially for this post. It really helped me to gain a new perspective on this war even though I am against it. Keep up the good work!

Rob O. · 1 year ago

At a minimum, one of the personal sacrifices people should willingly make is to at the very least be better, smarter consumers. For God's sake, why are people still buying huge gas-guzzling SUVs and the like when there's such a direct coorelation between petroleum dependancy and the war?

This is just pure irresponsibility in action. Here in Texas, you see an awful lot of rednecks driving $40k quad-cab Ford Lariats, Chevy Tahoes, and other monstrously oversized vehicles for doing nothing more than commuting to work - alone. But the prevailing attitude here - and I suspect most other areas of this country - is something like, "By God, if you ain't got yerself a big dick truck, well heck, ya just ain't much of a man, now are ya?" So, what's most important to most people seems to be keeping up an appearance rather than purchasing a vehicle that's appropriate to the task.

Of course, this is also hugely irresponsible on the part of the automakers and the marketing wizards hired by them. They've convinced the American public that they need big honkin' SUVs to be safe or look tough. For more than 50 years, American car buyers have been suckered & steered into a fascination with useless and mostly inapplicable performance (a.k.a. horsepower) and it's time for the automotive industry to end the deception.

Eric L. Pheterson · 1 year ago

I agree so much with Roosevelt's stance on Wartime sacrifice. The scenario is that a terrible thing was happening in the world that we felt we could squelch, we wanted to help save the lives of the innocent people that were being murdered.

To do so, Roosevelt first wanted stability in America. He was dead on with that desire.

The fact of the matter during this war is before we entered it, innocent lives were not at stake. As it turns out, the result of us entering the war was hundreds of thousands of innocent people shot dead by the hands of my own country. Innocent people that posed no threat to the security of our nation, or the peacefulness of the world.

That aside, our president does not agree with your post. Bush wants, more than anything, for us all to spend every cent we own. He wants as much money moving around in the economy as possible because he believes that is a sign of a strong economy.

Also Bush does not appear to be interested in production in America. Bush happily allows the majority of the products in our country to be made overseas, using oil to ship them here, and buying these products on credit.

Bush is not interested in Wartime Sacrifice.

If this were Roosevelt's country, and Roosevelt's war, I'd gladly make sacrifices. For George Bush, and this sham of a war, I'll do everything in my power to oppose.

david · 1 year ago

Making people sacrifice may turn them against the war but turning people against the war has no effect on policy. Just ask Dick Cheney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SypeZjeOrY4

Justus · 1 year ago

I don't disagree with you but I don't feel it's the primary problem either. This country's biggest problem is a lack of patriotism. Nobody actually wants the country to succeed. We argue and fight all the time and don't support each other in any way. Democrats and Republicans disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.

Nobody thinks it's an honor to die in battle. Nobody thinks their country is worth fighting for.

Yeah. Maybe our president is a stupid asshole. But he's OUR stupid asshole and we voted him in and he needs our freakin support until we get someone else in there.

Look at it this way. When you were in High School you probably thought it was boring and dumb. But if someone from a different school said a word you were ready to crack some skulls for your mascot.

It's all a matter of patriotism. I don't like our idiot president any more than the next guy (and I definitely didn't vote for him) but I'm stuck with him and as long as I am I've got his back. If that asshole McCain or Hillary wins I'll support their decisions too.

We have so much freedom that we've become spoiled with it. We can say and do whatever we want so why risk your life for others? It's selfish and disgusting but true.

Sparta was a military state who's people lived to serve their country. Why can't we be a democracy that does the same?

GeographyGuy · 1 year ago

Brett and Kate,

Thank you both for this well thought out and insightful article. The only point that i would contest is the call for a Nation Draft. Since the advent of the Patriot Act my faith in our executive branch to work for our best interest has been bankrupted. If the option of joining the Peace Core or other diplomatic agencies was offered as an alternative to Killing Poor Brown People Duty or Illegal Wiretapping Duty, then I would support your suggestion. Personally, I think that making sacrifices for Peace is as patriotic and manly a goal as one can work towards.

I subscribed to your blog tonight and look forward to your future contributions.

Thanks.

Jason Taylor · 1 year ago

Oddly enough I disagree. One of the main points of war is to reduce sacrifice by "reducing" those that require it of us. Comparing it to World War II is false. It is more like the Barbary Pirates. Wars like that will always plague us-it is the price of being a Great Power. Giving them the psychological effort appropriate for a world wide conventional war is folly. It is like demanding that all civilians make "sacrifices" for the police. And the same argument applies. Their role is to reduce everyone's sacrifice.
And in any case we can at least be practical about it. Terrorists depend on getting attention paid to them. If the only ones paying them attention are their pursuers then they lose. That is why terrorists seldom succeeded before mass media came along.
If we "support our troops" one way to do so is to be assured enough of their competence not to be upset about the war. Because that will let them do their jobs. It is better to win complacently then to lose sacrificially.

Mark · 1 year ago

IN AIDE OF BRETT - this may help explain, tho correct me if I misunderstood.

From what I understand, Brett says people need to experience sacrifice during a time of war because that way the war is checked for value. In a sense, only a worthy war would have people be willing to sacrifice for it. WWII people sacrificed for it because it was necessary for securing the country's freedom. There was a very aggressive force expanding, and definitely, with time, threatening. However, now, the war is so distant from us, it's so abstract to most people, that it goes underway unchecked. Noone who opposes the war can do anything to show their opposition. Saying you oppose it doesn't accomplish anything because the government doesn't listen. Basically, by making sacrifices in only obscure ways, such as national debt, the government has taken away the citizen's abilities to show their approval or disapproval of the way. I have made huge sacrifices for this war without ever having supported it, because I've had no choice.

You see, because the war effort has been distanced from us, all of these people on this blog against the war should see that this separation is the dirty scheme with which this administration manages to carry out this war without opposition! BRETT IS INDEED AGAINST THE WAR. I just don't think it was clear to people who like to fight right away instead of listen, think, analyze, and use their imagination to extrapolate a very strong point. Here, I have tried to paint the picture clearly for you. I hope you understand now.

In short: Lack of personal sacrifice is lack of ability to vote on approval or disapproval of war. This allows the government to do what it wants without citizenry's involvement. You should demand for the right to choose whether to make personal sacrifices or not because only then can the massive portion of America that is against the war motivate its end.

Mark · 1 year ago

@ Jason Taylor

Doesn't it usually take sacrificing now to reap benefits later?

Also, it's worth noting that all civilians do make sacrifices for police. We pay taxes, police gets tax money. That's a type of regulated sacrifice for something that is always present: crime. Here we have a regular sacrifice, moderated, to try to keep crime low or, ideally, non-existent.

Finally, being aware of terrorism and potentially supporting the country's actions against it through sacrifice is not what grants terrorism success. The country itself supports terrorism with terrible media coverage based on _fear_. Fear is the successful means of terroristic tactics. Not awareness. Our country, if we really wanted to beat terrorism, should motivate the virtue of Resolve: resolve to be aware of terrorism's potential threat, resolve to make the necessary sacrifices to thwart it's means and ends (if we deem it a real threat), and most especially the resolve to not become scared nor illogical and especially not ignorant or disconnected in our ways of life.

Besides, are you telling me that the threat of terrorism -- which has been painted as such a large threat to our national security -- does not deserve our country's utmost attention and effort of eradication, if it is indeed real? If everything we've been lead to believe, if we agree that terrorism threatens our basic human freedoms, our way of life, how can we not ask everyone to make some partial sacrifice in superficial luxuries to secure this freedom for our children? I don't believe the case is so severe, I'm against this war, I do not believe the threat is nearly so great. But I believe that if this war were right, if it were against a real threat, we'd definitely all want to sacrifice for it to be taken care of, fiercely and resolutely.

With respect to the political argument: I just wish proof were present clearly that would allow each citizen to decide for themselves whether this threat is real or not. It all feels so mysterious and we're supposed to believe the decisions and promises of people that have a history of tweaking facts and outright lying at times. If we had honesty and disclosure regarding the situation of the world, and if we had competent, well educated citizens, we could trust that the citizenry could properly decide for themselves the severity of what is going on, and that the due amount of dedication and sacrifice would be given to this effort, whatever that quantity may be.

apollonian · 1 year ago

I would like to suggest that "wartime sacrifice" can include working to prevent and/or end a war that one disagrees with. An anti-war bumper sticker is a pittance. Those in opposition to a particular war should dedicate a significant portion of their means to activism.

Expressing one's opinion and working for an anti-war cause, targeting political opponents and not soldiers, honors the patriots who've sacrificed to secure free expression.

JackUH · 1 year ago

"Why not offer war bonds so that citizens can do something tangible to support the war effort and the government can borrow from actual Americans and American companies instead of selling their soul to a foreign power?"

Rash anti-foreign sentiment is knee-jerk and irrational in the 21st century. It doesn't matter if China or our own citizens hold the debt. It matters that the government should make an effort to pay it back.

Also, I would say to win this current War, we're going to need Americans NOT to look inwards and be hostile to foreigners. If anything, American strength is from engaging the world. We can start by expanding Arabic language programs throughout the United States, so that we can actually start communicating with the Mid East. The face of the US should not only be a soldier, or worse a UAV . It should be educators, diplomats, and engineers as well.

Gonzo · 1 year ago

Sorry for coming to the party late but I took this post at its face value: we're not being asked to sacrifice for this war. It is very sad that we hear more about Britney's cootchie or whatever the political gossip du jour is than we do about the sacrifices our boys and girls are making for us.

I saw a photo not long ago of a piece of graffiti on some wall over in Iraq. The essence was "America is not at war. Marines are at war. America is at a shopping mall".

Seth Gottlieb · 1 year ago

This is an amazing post. I have been thinking along these lines for a long time now but have not been able to express myself so articulately. The only things Americans have been asked to sacrifice are what we pride ourselves for: personal privacy and liberty (with the Patriot Act), our international leadership and stature (by our poor diplomacy), our honor and morality (by using torture), our promising future (with this debt).... The list goes on. That we sacrifice these things for material comforts, shows our weakness and vulnerability.

Ken McKinley · 1 year ago

In a sense I agree with this post. I do believe that the "average" American has no concept of sacrifice. However I disagree with one important point; namely this notion that sacrifice at home will bring the war to an end sooner. Here's a novel idea. Why not defeat our enemies so that the war will end. Rather than put the pinch on American's on the home front, (wich some say is exactly what our enemies want) why don't we pull out all the stops and defeat our enemies soundly and completely and thus end the war? The sooner we win, the sooner its over. By putting the "pinch" on American's back home, what results is a nation that is not necessarily tired of the war effort, but tired of making sacrifices, and thus the carpet is pulled out from under the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are doing the fighting.
As stated, I agree with some things in this post, but some of it just rubs me the wrong way.

glenn horlacher · 1 year ago

The American people have not been asked (nor have they volunteered) to sacrifice ANYTHING since WWII. Their motto is "Let's put it on the backs of the military schmoe's, then forget them when the fightin's over and screw them out of what we promised them when they joined."
I have come to hate all civilians. All of my friends are ex-military, I have no use for civilians whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, you can all go to blazes.

Dandy · 1 year ago

I am young, barely an adult, so I will readily admit that I don't know jack when it comes to true war effort, or even to the true meaning of a country at war. Here in Australia there have been assorted types of tax fiddling, and no one seems to be making much of an effort towards actually doing something at a grassroots level to end the war as soon as possible, except maybe a few letters from groups to assorted political figures.
I see that in order for a war to be over with, certain monetary issues need to be resolved. I hope we in Australia can do something tangible in this respect. Of course we have our own problems (drought and cities fighting with rural farming communities over water rights, the high costs of living due to inflation heading towards recession, the overall rental housing crisis etc) but that doesn't mean we should leave our troops out in the cold when it comes to monetary and actionable support.

mr. dont know · 1 year ago

would like to find the civilian gentleman who purchased a watch for me.if you would just write to my e-mail and tell me where you were stationed and when,I would like to make things right

Doogie · 1 year ago

Thank you for this post - An American Sailor in Afghanistan

Nofmeister · 1 year ago

Actually I think complacency is what got us here. Back in October 12, 2000, when the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists, 17 sailors were killed. There was literally NOTHING done about it in regards to retaliation or any military action. It is probably the motivator for terrorists to carry out the September 11 attacks on the US.

Why didn't the American public get more rattled about the attack that killed 17 sailors? I'd have to say it wasn't sacrifice at that time, but a severe lack of focus on what is important.

Avi · 1 year ago

Someone made the argument that the gov. does not want us to feel the pinch of sacrifice for then it would have to end its policies. I believe that if it is not worth sacrificing for, it's not worth it. When you want something done, you have to feel it. One may not agree with the war on terror, its phrasing, Huntingtons rediculous theories or neoconservative politicing, but the best thing we can do is support the cause for peace here. If the gulf states promoting terrorist activities and preaching anti-American sentiment did not have oil money to bypass its citizen's voices with, the world would be a better place. Yes, taxes are necessary to move to get things done, but instead of cursing the president, curse the unproportional dividend going to the Pentagon. Vote for a leaner, meaner fighting machine with competitive military suppliers rather than favorites. If we sacrifice at home, if we accept drafts, we will fight only when it is necessary and we will do it well.

Dan Hall · 1 year ago

I agree with you that National sacrifice is necessary during a time of war and hold several points in agreement with you. I'm not going to dissect every point of disagreement with you, only one:

I disagree wholeheartedly with you about any form of a National Homeland Security Force.

First, it runs counter to the Constitution of the United States. We a real military and real militias in the form of National Guards. If someone wants to make a sacrifice - a real sacrifice - let him join the military. By the way, I'm on active duty myself and have 17 years in.

Second, every nation that has started a second form of pseudo-military manned by civilians who wanted sacrifice without real-military service turned either socialist or fascist - remember the brown shirts?

Third, it weakens the pool of potential candidates for the military. The military does its best work when given the opportunity to draw upon the strength of America. When given the chance to possibly go to a mountainous range in Afghanistan or a comfortable "post" in the states, today's XBox generation would prefer the wi-fi connected post.

If there must be a Homeland Security Force, let it be the US Military.

Mark · 1 year ago

Thank God for the soldiers! This war CAN be won, but not by THIS generation of "Americans." They're weak-willed, arrogant, and have no real ability to clearly differentiate right from wrong. They wouldn't even think of joining the service for a cause which was just and right because they wouldn't know what one was! The islamic terrorists have been starting this war with the US for decades, not just on 9/11. But we stood by, time and again, and refused to act with appropriate actions to stave off the cancer, so it grew. Now, we have evil islamic extremists, who are totally dedicated to THEIR cause and religion, versus "Americans" who cry "separation of Church and State" when someone wants to say a silent prayer in school! Please! Who do you really think will win this war of ideology and perserverence?! WE are NOT anything like the Americans who founded this great nation. We aren't even close. "Americans" of today have pushed away the tenets of Judeo-Christian values, which were the very tenents on which this country was based - the very values that gave us our "rights"...and, in doing so, we have created a dangerous vaccuum. I mean, c'mon, do you really think THIS generation could have stopped the Nazi's in the 40's??! No way! If this generation had to sacrifice and fight that war, I would be writing this in German right now! No one wants a war! But, some foes won't settle for anything less. Talk won't work. Sanctions won't work. They must be stopped by force first. We gave peace a chance... It didn't work.

Wylde Brumby · 1 year ago

I think that America has great potential but people don't have access to what is really happening - being fed sound bites instead of discussion of the real issues.

I thought Americans were limited by their constitution against having a permanently raised army(defense force). I was under the impression that was the reason for the amendment about the right to bear arms.

When a country has a permanently raised army it encourages the leaders and those who influence them to look for trouble.

After reading the ebook "Web of Debt" it describes the Western world being held in bondage as fiscal slaves - the bankers control your "federal" reserve by a private bankers cartel that stole the American government's ability to " ~ coin and regulate the value of their currency ~ ".

A description of how the "federal " reserve creates debt through loans that appear out of thin air. More money is borrowed when the government goes to war - creating larger profits for the bankers.


BTW the website where you can buy the ebook is [ www.webofdebt.com ] .

Wylde Brumby · 1 year ago

If you bought and read the ebook "Web of Debt", you would realise that a large part of WW2 was really that Germany copied the American concept of creating its own currency, that was in place at the time of President Lincoln. A currency free from the malign influence of the bankers.

This currency is what allowed Germany to regain its strength after being bankrupted by the Treaty of Versailles reparations forced on the losers. The bankers were fearful that they would lose their precious monopoly to control the peoples of the world, and their countries, to be able to steal resources at bargain basement prices.

Dick · 1 year ago

That was a concise and well written article. Bravo. To all the people criticizing the author, just give it another read. But, keep in mind that he is calling for the same goal as you.

Brett is not agreeing with the war. He is saying we need to feel it so that we will further rethink the consequences of entering into conflict. The only way sure way to cease the fighting is to feel the results of the conflict at home. Wars that are in a foreign land are out of site and for the average American, out of mind.

This board is an area for posting intelligent content. For that intelligent content to be criticized in a way based on faulty interpretations is a waste of space.

To 'you people': Stop whining on an internet board and go better your community. Try to show the world that I'm not part of the entitlement generation.

young money · 10 months ago

the goverment does nothing but cheat us