Colman McCarthy has a really exasperating op-ed in the Post today arguing that ROTC must remain banned from campuses, even after the DADT repeal. As I briefly mentioned in my column yesterday, the lifting of DADT is really inconvenient for peaceniks and other folks who hold anti-military views because it lends credibility to the military (among liberals and leftists).
If the point of the column was simply to honestly admit this, I’d find it admirable. But it gets worse. McCarthy adds this:
To oppose ROTC, as I have since my college days in the 1960s, when my school enticed too many of my classmates into joining, is not to be anti-soldier. I admire those who join armies, whether America’s or the Taliban’s: for their discipline, for their loyalty to their buddies and to their principles, for their sacrifices to be away from home. In recent years, I’ve had several Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans in my college classes. If only the peace movement were as populated by people of such resolve and daring.
ROTC and its warrior ethic taint the intellectual purity of a school, if by purity we mean trying to rise above the foul idea that nations can kill and destroy their way to peace. If a school such as Harvard does sell out to the military, let it at least be honest and add a sign at its Cambridge front portal: Harvard, a Pentagon Annex.
This is a riot of intellectual and moral confusion. First of all, the idea that any of the Ivies currently enjoys something that might be called “intellectual purity” is a compliment unearned (but such flattery will no doubt be eagerly accepted). Second, the notion that intellectualism is somehow at odds with military values or ethics is willfully dishonest (paging VDH!). Since when has “intellectual purity” or intellectualism of any kind been defined by its antipathy to the military? Third, the idea that nations cannot wage war for peace is one of the most easily disproved and transparently silly utopian notions out there. The post-WWII peace was bought with a lot of killing and destroying, not with a seminar.
And, last, there’s this execrable bit of moral equivalence: “To oppose ROTC, as I have since my college days in the 1960s, when my school enticed too many of my classmates into joining, is not to be anti-soldier. I admire those who join armies, whether America’s or the Taliban’s: for their discipline, for their loyalty to their buddies and to their principles, for their sacrifices …”
This is the sort of obtuse even-handedness that drove Orwell crazy. Moreover McCarthy clearly doesn’t even believe it. Of course he’s anti-soldier. He believes they dedicate themselves to a “foul notion.”
Er, no. In America, they dedicate themselves to protecting America, her liberties and her Constitution. The Taliban’s priorities are very different and one cannot wave them away by prattling on about the “discipline” and “loyalty” of Jihadist murderers.
Are elite academics and journalists this concerned about the "warrior ethic" of students, faculty members, and administrators on campus who support (or even become) fighters against the US?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder if Colman McCarthy even read a biography of Helmut von Moltke (the Elder). He was fluent in 6 languages; he was an outstanding engineer (while assigned to Rome he mapped the entire city by himself); and he was a lover of both poetry and classical music. He was not a divided man. Motlke not only was one of the greatest Prussian Chief's of Staffs, but he was a towering intellect. The organization reforms he carried out were later adopted by most militaries around the world. And while, he did not have the flair or tactical genius of a Robert E. Lee, he had an ability to cooly apply his intellect during wartime. As one English writer observed, "Moltke didn't defeat the French in 1870 with better guns or tactics; he defeated them with a map and a slide rule."
History is full of military figures who possessed great culture, intellect, and learning.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMyKu:
Goalposts keep moving
but are always planted in
free soil we fought for.
------------------
I'm not too impressed with the education McCarthy received if he really believes that violence never solved anything.
The Capital "T" Truth is that *perfectly symmetrical* violence never solved anything. Just ask the residents of Oceania, Eurasia, or Eastasia. Asymmetrical violence gets all sorts of things done that need to be done. That's where the grown-ups come into play.
The Left's contempt with the would-be ROTC crowd is definitely an "-ism" that should be defined and thrown in their faces until they feel afraid to spew this hatred in public. For lack of something more specific, let's just settle for "un-Americanism" for now because it fits.
I'll see your McCarthy and raise you another one...from the dead. Zombie Joe FTW! Let's just hope he doesn't require brains for nourishment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo Labels.
Reach Across the Aisle.
Bi-Partisanship.
Feel-good-ism.
Pacifism.
Relativism.
All of it is the inconsistent mush you get when you have no core beliefs outside of yourself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNotice that these high moral stands don't preclude the institutions that make them from accepting money, directly and indirectly, from that same morally loathsome government they detest.
Their practice of accepting federal funding but refusing to allow that government the same on campus recruiting rights asother employers, who haven't contributed a dime to anyone, is hypocritical and morally and intellectually vapid. It reminds me of Homer's prideful stand when Flanders offered to pay him to plow his driveway even he had just had it plowed:
"Forget it Flanders. I don't need your pity job. I'll take your money, but I WON'T plow your driveway!"
We've let Harvard and their ilk get away far too long with taking our money and yet superiorly refusing to plow the driveway. Personally I think the government should play hardball with anti-ROTC schools the same way it did with The Citadel. There's a lot more justification for doing so here than there was in forcing women into The Citadel against pretty much everyone's desires and interests, including the poor young women forced to be used as propaganda tools.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt seems nobody here can distinguish between institutions and individuals. It is certainly practical to admire the personal attributes of soldiers while detesting the very notion of war. It is even possible to admire the character and discipline promoted by their military training while at the same time despising organized violence.
In another sense, it is possible to respect the military as an institution while disapproving of the decisions of civilian leadership to utilize the military for deplorable goals.
The moral and intellectual mush, if any, belongs to those who can't make such gross distinctions -- conflating anti-war with anti-soldier.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The moral and intellectual mush, if any, belongs to those who can't make such gross distinctions -- conflating anti-war with anti-soldier."
I'm tired of giving credence to that absurd tightrope walk.
Just because the angry Left set the bar incredibly low during the Vietnam area by literally spitting on individual soldiers doesn't make that a delineation between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
The idea might stick a *little* if we had a military full of people who didn't believe in the missions at hand. They volunteered. They believe. When people disparage the institutions and their goals, they are also disparaging the actual people in the service of those institutions and goals. If there is any separation, that is up to the individual folks in the military to decide, not the people commenting from the sidelines. The peanut gallery doesn't have that luxury regardless of how they've deluded themselves and their audiences to the contrary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOrder66:
How do you feel about "the government"? What did Ronald Reagan say -- "government IS the problem", and "the nine most terrifying words: I'm from the government and I'm here to help"? Most NRO readers, I think it's fair to say, dislike and even hate the government.
Yet the same group -- you included, I assume -- claim to love and revere the Constitution, even though that document lays out the blueprint for the government you dislike and distrust.
Personally, I don't think these views are inconsistent. After all, one can love the Founder's vision while despising its current incarnation. But if you can make that distinction you ought to be able to see the difference among opinions regarding war in general, the military as an institution, and the decisions taken by its civilian leadership.
Taking your line of reasoning, it is difficult for me to see how you could disparage government and its goals without at the same time disparaging its principles, founding documents, framers, and the entire nation that the government is "of, by, and for".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, they do have a kind of intellectual purity; as long as you consider left-wing group-think intellectual purity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@"Taking your line of reasoning, it is difficult for me to see how you could disparage government and its goals without at the same time disparaging its principles, founding documents, framers, and the entire nation that the government is 'of, by, and for'."
The principles, founding documents, framers, etc... are not related to what I said. Obviously, if I disagree with the goals the government has, it will be, at least in part, because I believe those goals to be non-compliant with those various things and ideas. I would hope my friends on the left would have similar [albeit twisted] roots in principle.
I said, "When people disparage the institutions and their goals, they are also disparaging the ***actual people*** in the service of those institutions and goals."
If you don't like one of the goals - let's say Iraq - groovy. Shout out against it. Know for a fact, though, that there are boots on the ground. Within those boots are feet bones that are connected to the leg bones that are connected...[edited for time]...connected to the brain bones of a person who is voluntarily dedicated to making that happen. They will be offended by your criticism, as they should be.
You saying, "...oh, but I support *YOU*..." is about as condescending and ineffective as telling a black friend, "...oh, but *YOU'RE* not like that..." after making an ill-advised off-color remark. No dice.
When I say Obamacare can kiss my posterior, I definitely mean that *anybody* drawing a paycheck in an effort to develop, deploy, or maintain Obamacare is also invited to do the same. I sincerely hope they become fearful of their jobs. I want them unemployed. I want to see news footage of them tearfully carrying tchotchke-laden W.B. Mason boxes out of government buildings in droves.
That's right. If I was an anti-military sort, I'd be the same way - from the top down to the person. Why? Because there is no separating them. Those anti-military types exist, you know. They outwardly expressed or secretly harbored disappointment when predictions of mass casualties (due to WMD, no less! LOL!) during the invasion Iraq did not come to pass. They had to settle for museums [not] being looted. The DummiesUnderground boards feature quite a few if you need references. I give them credit for their honesty, but that's about it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@AndyS
You said:
"In another sense, it is possible to respect the military as an institution while disapproving of the decisions of civilian leadership to utilize the military for deplorable goals."
That is a truth. It also depends on what you think is deplorable. One can disagree, and still hold high regard for those who execute those goals. For they are the best and the brightest for willing to lay it on the line so that we may discuss it.
It also reminds me of a comment a Secretary of State once said: "What's the point of you saving this superb military for, Colin, if we can't use it?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo sum up Colman McCarthy, he respects service men, but hates the recruiting stations that brain wash young minds to abandon the good pursuits of higher education for the evil pursuit of serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How exactly do you respect someone who has been brainwashed to do something evil, or worse willingly does it? One would have pity or hate for them, respectively, but respect just seems weird. It's like respecting someone who works in a gulag. And he says he admires their principles, so it isn't just a respect for their abilities.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe navel gazing excerpt from that Op-ed makes tripe look like prime rib.
I'm a Navy ROTC grad from an Ivy who spent four years as part of the USN in college and another 5-1/2 on active duty during the Viet Nam war. My school didn't love the Navy, but, for a few more years, it supported the program's presence. I like to think officers like Bill Bradley who was a few years behind me (in the Air Force ROTC) not only enhanced military readiness through excellent performance but also provided balance to the more traditional military educations of officers commissioned from our military academies. The net result was an improved officer corps. That was why Uncle Sam funded the ROTC programs.
[Before releasing this comment, I took a quick look at Wikipedia to see what Mr. McCarthy has been about. Recommended.]
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAndyS Corman is the one that fails to make distinctions. The Taliban and the US military recreate very different kinds of soldiers that do very different kinds of things. The goals they fight for are also important. The Taliban fight the right to throw acid in the face of an educated girl the American Solider fights to keep acid out of the girl's face. You can't have equal admiration for the two very different kinds of men. If his point is really all fighting is equally evil and indefensible than he is being morally an idiot.
Warriors for evil regimes and ideology do brave and remarkable things but they still don't deserve our respect or admiration. It is only when the virtues of the warrior are harnessed to good cause that respect and admiration should be given. The American military used only that discretion of elected Representatives deserve extra respect and care because even if they are fighting a war you disagree with they are doing it expressly at the will of the people. That makes your problem with a war a political problem not a problem with them military. The Taliban are imposing views that would be rejected by most Afghans there power comes from their guns and the will of their tribe alone. Again making a very large difference between a Taliban and an American solider.
Equating the two is morally idiotic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@"To sum up Colman McCarthy, he respects service men, but hates the recruiting stations that brain wash young minds to abandon the good pursuits of higher education for the evil pursuit of serving in Iraq and Afghanistan."
McCarthy's view is absolutely borne in condescension.
I was all of 17 when I enlisted in the Navy - the summer before my senior year of high school (one year delayed enlistment). In other words, I was completely certain what my next step in life was. I had a year to think about it. A year of one particular guidance counselor, essentially, calling me a waste of a high SAT score. A year of my friends making "don't drop the soap" jokes (yay late 1980's!). A year of a super-annoying dorky-to-the-nth-degree Navy recruiter spamming me with calls and mail to try to get me to recruit my friends (Um, no.). It was not a hasty decision made without due consideration.
McCarthy would likely be critical of me and doubt my ability - if not my right - to make a decision like that. Just another case of infantilizing our people in the military - a recurring phenomenon that drives me up a wall.
However - if I was the same age and was, with equal dedication, taking up some leftist cause, it'd doubtlessly be a mark of maturity in his view. Even if it was a complete waste of time and of no benefit to anyone, in the end.
Considering that I believe chronic hard leftism to be a sign of arrested mental development - the victim never advancing beyond kindergarten ideals - I try to just find it all amusing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePatrick J: Hardball, yes.
AndyS: Republicans are not libertarians, and at the very least support a strong defense and all of the military-industrial complex that goes with it. I like my government just fine.
It is not possible to stand for liberal tolerance and also be against ROTC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse'To oppose ROTC, as I have since my college days in the 1960s'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo he is a coward who didn't want to go to 'nam. And the worst kind of coward because he wants to hide his fear behind a 'I care for humanity pacifism', instead of being a man and admitting his fear.
Coleman McCarthy thinks nations can't kill and destroy their way to peace? History is full of examples of how peace has been achieved by killing and destroying those who made predatory war and were unalterable obstacles to peace. You certainly don't have peace when characters who are intentionally obstacles to peace (Hitler, Arafat, Ahmadinejad, bin Laden, et al) are allowed to get away with their agendas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse