BCT Editorial – 4/15/08

This page was last updated on April 15, 2008.

A call to arms; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 15, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “President Bush must rally Americans to go beyond lip service to support the troops.”

Given its editorial history on this topic, the Times sure has nerve referring to anyone’s support of the troops as “lip service.” This is the second editorial on this topic in four days.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“President Bush has vowed to stay the course in Iraq.

“That means 140,000 U.S. military personnel are going to continue to be stuck in Iraq, with many enduring multiple rotations under intense combat conditions. Because Bush and his minions have botched the job so badly, our troops are going to be there for quite a while, no matter who is elected president in November.”

[RWC] Hmm, if how long we have a military presence in an area is the result of botching the job, is the Times telling us Presidents FDR and Truman botched World War II and the Korean War because we still have about 170,000 troops on active duty in Europe, Japan, and South Korea? By this measure, I guess JFK and LBJ handled Vietnam OK since we don’t have any troops stationed there.

“The toll this is taking on the U.S. military is well-documented. Equipment and personnel (and their families) are paying an incredibly high price as the occupation of Iraq drags on.

“Our men and women in the military and their families, who represent about 0.5 percent of the American people, can’t keep up this pace. They’re breaking down under the stress. Too much is being asked of too few.

“And there’s no relief in sight for them. Immediate withdrawal is impossible; long-term troop commitment is a distinct possibility. But our troops and their families need help, and they need it now.

“What is to be done? A military draft is impractical politically and unwanted militarily.”

[RWC] Read this closely. The Times wants a draft, but recognizes it would get no traction. If you doubt me, please read “Universal soldiers.”

For leftists like the Times editorial board, the all-volunteer military didn’t work out as planned. You see, when we eliminated the draft, these folks believed (hoped?) no one would volunteer to defend the country

“So how do we support the troops?”

[RWC] Using the Times as an example, “we support the troops” by telling them they are “stuck in Iraq” because President “Bush and his minions have botched the job so badly.” In previous editorials, Times support took the form of calling the effort of our volunteers a “casual waste of human life” and their sacrifices as being “in vain.”

“Bush can use his office as a bully pulpit to spur enlistments by calling for 200,000 patriotic volunteers to sign up to serve in the Army and Marine Corps, the two branches of the military that are doing the brunt of the fighting (and dying and being wounded and maimed) in Iraq.”

[RWC] Is the Times aware Congress sets an authorized troop level and that all branches of the military have been meeting their recruitment goals?

Consider that when not ignoring attacks on recruiting offices, Times editorials have made excuses for them. Also, don’t expect to find any editorials criticizing colleges and municipalities that ban military recruiters from school campuses. I couldn’t find any published during the last four years.

“As a recruiting tool, the president and enthusiasts of sending other people’s sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers to die in Iraq can have their children or grandchildren sign up to serve there. Those who are under 40 can volunteer.”

[RWC] This is sad, old BS spewed by folks who recognize facts, history, and logic aren’t on their side. I guess this means the Times believes that if you didn’t support World War II, you could opt out of the draft.

“[T]he president and enthusiasts of sending other people’s sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers to die?” If you believe we can’t cut-and-run from Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other war not sanctioned by the Times, you want to send “other people’s sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers to die?” This is just another example of how little Times editorial authors really are.

I wonder why the editorial failed to note one of John McCain’s sons (Jimmy, a Marine who enlisted at 17) has served in Iraq and another (Jack) may end up serving in Iraq after he graduates from the Naval Academy next year.

Did the Times make this argument when Bill Clinton was president? After all, Chelsea Clinton turned 17 in 1997 and could have enlisted as did John McCain’s son Jimmy. If we elect either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, will we hear this argument if they don’t immediately remove all combat troops from Afghanistan and Iraq?

“Their enlistments would show the American people that their leaders and their families understand the importance of stabilizing Iraq and in fighting terrorism in other parts of the world, and that they are willing to make the same sacrifices they are asking other Americans to make.”

[RWC] I guess now we know why the editorial failed to mention John McCain’s sons. Before the election is over, the Times may wish it had omitted the previous two paragraphs.

“To pay for the bulked-up military, the president must, as other presidents have done in time of war, tell the American people that they must make financial sacrifices to support the war effort. That means higher taxes, gasoline rationing and surcharges on imported luxury goods such as high-definition televisions and high-tech personal gadgets.”

[RWC] Notice the editorial didn’t put spending cuts for extraconstitutional programs on the table.

Regarding “higher taxes,” our current tax rate is already 25% higher than its highest point (26.1% in 1943) during World War II. Further, history shows us increasing tax rates ultimately leads to less tax revenue, not more.

Regarding “gasoline rationing,” how would that help the war effort? I didn’t know our armed forces had a fuel shortage. Also, rationing would run counter to “higher taxes” since cutting domestic consumption would reduce fuel tax revenue. Of course, perhaps increasing fuel taxes is part of the Times proposal.

Regarding “surcharges on imported luxury goods,” again how would that help the war effort? Is our military short on “high-definition televisions and high-tech personal gadgets?”

If the Times recommendations would do nothing to help the troops, why make them? The idea is to stir up discontent. You see, an all-volunteer military makes it difficult for the Times and its fellow travelers to drum up mass anti-war demonstrations they can use to bash President Bush and Republicans during an election year. After all, the only people serving are people who choose to serve.

“If this is war, let’s approach it that way.”

[RWC] “If this is war?” Isn’t the Times sure?

“As President John F. Kennedy said so eloquently in his inaugural address, ‘Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’

“Nah, that’s too hard. Let somebody else do the heavy lifting.”

[RWC] Maybe I missed it, but where in the editorial did we learn what “heavy lifting” the Times is doing or planning to do. Consider all the oil consumed delivering the Times and the trees being killed for paper. Of course, it’s possible that contrary to its actions in editorials, the Times really is supporting the troops in a meaningful way and just not telling us about it. It’s an incredible long shot, but anything’s possible.