Medal of Honor winner vs. recruitment center vandal
In search of a real hero
By Geoff Loper
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
Who decided that it would be a good thing to wreck and deface a military recruiting office?
We may have forgotten all about it, but the U.S. Army recruiting center near campus was vandalized by a group of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee students last March. A large demonstration of students crowded the sidewalk in front of the building trying to find a way to win the war in Iraq, by use of a voluntary military.
But this seemingly peaceful demonstration turned violent as the windows of the recruiting center were smashed and “bombs” of paint were thrown into the office. In the end of it all, 21 people (most students) were arrested with some connection to the destruction.
While I applaud their efforts to try and bring about change, smashing up a government building is probably not the smartest way ever thought up to bring about a positive change...but hindsight is always 20-20. And while I am not against protesting something that you hold morally wrong or reprehensible, I think that perhaps that this incident is the focal point of a couple of people who went in with differing intentions than the other protesters who were there truthfully in peace, just trying to get people to think about the war before signing up to fight in it.
But I want to remain focused on the, for lack of a better word, idiots who decided that it would be a good thing to wreck and deface a military recruiting office. I was not there when it happened, but I could guess that the majority of the destruction took place at night so that there would be less of a chance that they [the vandals] would get caught.
OK, so the war REALLY sucks; how does that make it right to go and nearly destroy a building? How much bravery does it take to smash a few windows and lob some paintballs into someone’s workplace? My guess, it probably only takes as much courage that a couple of beers can provide. Am I saying that the people responsible were drunks? No way, but we all know that we are more prone to act on something when our inhibitions are lowered a bit.
Do you know what does take guts? Throwing yourself on a live grenade only for the hope that it will prevent some of you friends from dying. And that is exactly what happened before the actions on the recruiting center were even thought of. Navy Seal Petty Officer Second Class Michael A. Monsoor died in 2006 after throwing himself on a grenade that had been thrown onto the rooftop that he and his fellow SEALS were positioned during a sniper detail in Iraq.
They were there on a mission to try and quell a rash of insurgents. Shortly after their presence was known, the leaders of the nearby mosque called for more fighters to attack all the coalition forces in the area.
Last week, Pres. Bush presented Monsoor’s parents with the Medal of Honor posthumously for their son for his incredible level of bravery.
The president said during his presentation, “In that terrible moment he had two options — to save himself, or to save his friends. For Mike, this was no choice at all. He threw himself onto the grenade, and absorbed the blast with his body.” Monsoor died about a half an hour later; his five friends, and fellow SEALS, on the rooftop with him were saved from the blast.
Monsoor had previously been decorated for his bravery in the face of the danger. He had already received the Bronze Star for his efforts, guidance, extraordinary initiative, and dedication to his duty. He received the Sliver Star for saving a fallen comrade and fearlessly heading to pull his friend to safety under heavy enemy fire.
OK, sure. You are probably thinking now, “way to paint a nice picture of something so horrible.” And I am sure that I will hear the comment from someone that his death could have been prevented had we never gone to war in the first place. And I will wholeheartedly agree with you on that thought.
But the fact remains that we are at war. And the only way that the war is going to end is by the selfless acts of the men and women in uniform fighting for our freedoms.
Do I want the war to end? You bet I do. I would love to not have to dread the thought of hearing that my cousin died broadcast on the nightly news. He is a major in the Marines and has served at least 4 tours since Sept. 11 in both Afghanistan and Iraq; it is hard to keep track with the limited communication he is allowed.
I guess in the end of all of this, only one question really remains: What kind of personal sacrifice would you be brave enough to make in order to really try to change the world?
> Comments
Aaron Jeske on Apr 21, 2008 at 08:55 AM:
Thank God someone at the Post has it straight.
Wonderful editorial Mr. Loper!
James on Apr 21, 2008 at 09:56 AM:
The first part of this article is definitely valid. However, the connection between the former and the latter are very weak.
"But the fact remains that we are at war. And the only way that the war is going to end is by the selfless acts of the men and women in uniform fighting for our freedoms."
First, we have to realize that this is not a war, but an occupation of Iraq. The goal of this occupation are the establishment of military forces in Iraq with the purpose of maintaining hegemony within the region. This is coincided with the creation of a government whose purpose is to put the interests of the US government and foreign capital over the interests of the Iraqi people. It is important to note that occupations, while they may last, will always end in a "loss"; the Iraqis (some of the most progressive and conscious people of the entire region) will not accept occupation, and in the end the occupying forces WILL be driven out.
Second, the military is not fighting for my freedoms (or yours, probably). They are fighting for the interests of US and European corporations; within the context of this occupation it couldn't be more obvious.
James on Apr 21, 2008 at 10:00 AM:
I also wanted to add, and this is something that I forgot to put in my last post, that the creation of military bases in Iraq for the purposes of maintaining hegemony in the region is completely in line with the various "presidential doctrines" issued regarding the middle east in the past, most notably the Carter Doctrine (of all people).
Aaron Jeske on Apr 21, 2008 at 10:31 AM:
@ James
You mentioned that "The goal of this occupation are the establishment of military forces in Iraq with the purpose of maintaining hegemony within the region." but where is the hegemony? I don't see our one unified rule over the entire middle east.
And you also mentioned that the government we helped create heavily coincides with US interests, which makes perfect sense. Why would we make a government that doesn't protect US interests. Can you imagine the turmoil if we kicked Saddam out and said "well now you are on your own, good luck!". We would be back in Iraq to clean up another horrible government, perhaps worse due to the Islamic militants that would have taken over.
If it is in the US interest to protect its citizens by stabilizing the middle east with the creation of a pro-US government, then I say go ahead.
James on Apr 21, 2008 at 10:54 AM:
"but where is the hegemony?"
It is clearly evident. The use of Israel as a satellite state, as well as the development of Iraq for similar (although not as important) purposes, as well as the military bases scattered throughout the region, are a means of keeping the region in check to "protect US interests" (which is exactly what the hegemony I was talking about is). The governments of the various regions have been put in a position where they have to comply to a certain extent with US policy; this is why we see only lip service being paid to the Palestinian cause by the governments of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other countries.
"And you also mentioned that the government we helped create heavily coincides with US interests, which makes perfect sense."
Apparently you missed the part where I said that they are creating a government with the interests of the US in mind and not that of the Iraqi people. It is a government that protects US interests and that of foreign capital AT THE EXPENSE OF the Iraqi people.
"If it is in the US interest to protect its citizens by stabilizing the middle east with the creation of a pro-US government, then I say go ahead."
It is in the US interest to protect its capital by stabilizing the Middle East. This has nothing to do with the actual working and poor people of this country (or any other, for that matter). It is all about political domination for the extraction of profits and the protection of US and European capital for the perpetuation of that extraction.
Johanan Raatz on Apr 21, 2008 at 01:32 PM:
James;
"It is in the US interest to protect its capital by stabilizing the Middle East. This has nothing to do with the actual working and poor people of this country (or any other, for that matter)."
That's a common lie propagated by Marxists to try to undermine national interests. Failure in Iraq could very easily lead to the destablization of the petrodollar. With the dollar already devaluing, the poor in our country will be among the ones hardest hit by this.
http://www.uwmpost.com/article/52/15/2912-The-Iraq-situation
Being a member of the middle-class it would probably hit me to though perhaps less hard. I'm not looking forward to that.
"Second, the military is not fighting for my freedoms (or yours, probably).They are fighting for the interests of US and European corporations; within the context of this occupation it couldn't be more obvious."
If these corporations are made to sell their goods in dollars then these corporate interests coincide with the economic and national interests of the rest of society. So that's not a good argument.
"It is all about political domination for the extraction of profits and the protection of US and European capital for the perpetuation of that extraction."
I'm amused about how everything is reduced to class interests here. Think about the other side of this for a second. Why do you think so many countries in the middle east are constantly able to promote terrorism, oppress their own people and remain fairly closed to the West? It's because they have us over a barrel (literally). Yes you can villify Halliburton as an evil corporation all you want, but the simple truth is that if we don't control the oil dangerous Islamist regimes will. And if you economically empower those kinds of regimes they will only promote their dangerous ideologies further.
Many of the states in the Middle-East hate us for deep-seated religious and ideological reasons. It would be the height of folly for the West to treat them as equals with other Western societies.
"The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him."
We really need to smarten up. Radical Islamists don't care about class warfare. When we try to argue that radical Islam is about class warfare the Islamist radicals laugh at us for our foolishness. Short-sighted class warfare is causing us to lose sight of and more dangerously cause confusion over our broader national interests.
"When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology." ~Hassan Butt; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2115891,00.html
That's straight from the horses mouth. When they can see this and we can't I really fear for our civilization.
Inaccuracies on Apr 21, 2008 at 04:22 PM:
2.No paint was thrown into the recruiting office because protestors never gained access.
4."And the only way that the war is going to end is by the selfless acts of the men and women in uniform fighting for our freedoms." -- Not True
Geoff Loper on Apr 21, 2008 at 08:18 PM:
In response to "innaccuracies"
1) I understand the point the protesters were trying to make, never said that they were looking for a way to end the war, did I? I said that the building they were protesting in front of was looking for that solution.
2) You need to check the facts, becuase both the police report and the Journal Sentinel reported that windows were smashed and paint "bombs", like those used in paintball gun games, were thrown into the office through the broken windows.
3)learn how to number your points a little better...
4) Destorying a building can come in many shapes/forms... and I feel that covering an office with paint fits that description well. If you do not, that is why this is an editorial opinion
4) you say that that my idea of how the war will end is not true (again my opinion)... but offer no other option... any suggestions for the audience???
James on Apr 21, 2008 at 11:09 PM:
"4) you say that that my idea of how the war will end is not true (again my opinion)... but offer no other option... any suggestions for the audience???"
Selfless acts of desertion, refusing to fight and protesting in other forms by the men and women in uniform; a solid anti-war movement in the United States; a strong resistance to the occupation (which more or less already exists).
The politicians won't end this war because it is too important to them and their funders.
How To End The War Really Quick: By B.M. on Apr 21, 2008 at 11:11 PM:
"any suggestions for the audience???"
SURE! :) Pull our troops out of the problem cities and NUKE the BASTARDS! That will end the war really quick! And then we will never have to deal with the insurgents crap EVER AGAIN! HOORAY!
Don't feel so sad about this you silly lefties. They would have just blown themselves up eventually anyway. We might as well speed it up the getting blown up part.
B.M. on Apr 21, 2008 at 11:15 PM:
"Selfless acts of desertion, refusing to fight and protesting in other forms by the men and women in uniform; a solid anti-war movement in the United States; a strong resistance to the occupation (which more or less already exists)."
James your a filthy traitor. What you are asking of them is treasonous. Frankly I am disgusted to be in the same country with you. If you don't like America than GET OUT!
Aaron Jeske on Apr 22, 2008 at 12:11 AM:
What is the left's problem with winning anyway?
Johanan Raatz on Apr 22, 2008 at 09:30 AM:
"What is the left's problem with winning anyway?"
Well because they (at least the modern left) are losers and do not like to feel bad with winners around.
The New Left has is militantly anti-bourgeois and this have a thing against excellence which includes of course winning.
Though BMs suggestion was childish it may not be a bad idea to try to win the war with unconventional warfare. In particular if we could upgrade the military as suggested at PNAC and employ automated warfare we could probably win the war in a cost-effective manner with zero American casualties. In a worst case scenario we could use oil proceeds from the region to constantly replenish destroyed drones with newly manufactured ones. If this could be done cheaply enough we could in theory break even with it. The war would then litterally pay for itself and we could in principle continue it indefinitely until we win it.
Johanan Raatz on Apr 22, 2008 at 10:15 AM:
James what you are proposing is despicable. Desertion is cowardice and that's one thing but going out and actively promoting it is something else altogether. What you propose is sedition against the United States --betrayal of your own country. Your appalling attitude disgusts me. That you would sit there and advocate for the undermining of the very society that allows you the freedom to sit there and do so. You should be ashamed of yourself.
James on Apr 22, 2008 at 05:05 PM:
"James your a filthy traitor. What you are asking of them is treasonous. Frankly I am disgusted to be in the same country with you. If you don't like America than GET OUT!"
No I will try to change it instead, but thank you for your profound insight through blind nationalism.
"What is the left's problem with winning anyway?"
Define "win".
Johanan Raatz on Apr 22, 2008 at 05:21 PM:
James;
"Define "win"."
Reduce violence sufficiently enough to allow for the Iraqi government to maintain itself. Technically we already won. Right now we are just trying to keep Iraq secure from criminals and terrorists. We will stop when they are stopped. Then we will "win."
Now if you don't like the Iraq war don't fight it, but don't try to encourage soldiers to desert. That's trying to undermine the US. Lack of patriotism is one thing but anti-patriotism ranks right up there with racism and sexism. In fact I think it's even worse.
Geoff Loper on Apr 22, 2008 at 05:28 PM:
James,
If you know anyone in active service in the military right now, ask them what they think about their fellow soilders deserting their post to protest the war... I think that their answer might just shock you....
And to B.M. : That was my idea in the first place... Line up all of our planes on the west side of the Red Sea and bomb everything heading in a northwest direction until you hit China... thus eliminating any further threat to the "evil" western world, and anyone else for that matter. But I like the idea of just letting them blow themselves up... saves us the time and effort :)
And one more for james: Win: eliminating the global terrorist threat so that the world can live in peace. yes, I am going to go geeky here: "with great power comes great responsibility..." Because we have the power to correct a big global wrong, we must take action to preserve the world order. There is no one else who is jumping to the front of the fight to end this thing, so it might as well be us. And having the biggest guns helps too.
Johanan Raatz on Apr 22, 2008 at 05:39 PM:
What I find peculiar is that many on the left complain about blind nationalism but then only replace it with a blind classism.
In reality class consciousness is mostly false consciousness that blinds people to the national interest and their duties in society.
Geoff Loper on Apr 22, 2008 at 05:49 PM:
Well Johanan....
They can't have their cake AND eat it too....
They don't want to seem too proud of their counrty because then it looks like they are headed toward the Right....
gotta maintain the standards
Johanan on Apr 22, 2008 at 07:33 PM:
"They can't have their cake AND eat it too...."
Well then we should remind them that being unpatriotic or worse yet anti-patriotic is ever bit as bad as being racist or sexist probably more so.
They don't want to seem too proud of their counrty because then it looks like they are headed toward the Right....
The sad thing is that the pre-60's left was also proud of America. They've really gone down the toilet since then.
"gotta maintain the standards"
Yup
James on Apr 22, 2008 at 10:02 PM:
"If you know anyone in active service in the military right now, ask them what they think about their fellow soilders deserting their post to protest the war... I think that their answer might just shock you.... "
Actually, it probably wouldn't. Also, I forgot to mention Search and Avoid missions, where it is common in Iraq and Afghanistan to radio in that they are going on a mission when in reality they are going somewhere else to avoid getting killed for nothing.
"And one more for james: Win: eliminating the global terrorist threat so that the world can live in peace. yes, I am going to go geeky here: "with great power comes great responsibility..." Because we have the power to correct a big global wrong, we must take action to preserve the world order. There is no one else who is jumping to the front of the fight to end this thing, so it might as well be us. And having the biggest guns helps too."
Shooting families, bombing their homes, destabilizing their country, exporting all of their country's oil wealth and occupying their cities is a pretty bad way of going about it. Of course, the entire point of occupation is always to pacify the local population through violence and the threat of violence which, surprisingly (to people like you, at least) goes in the exact opposite direction of creating resistance and increasing violence against the occupiers.
You don't create peace or solidarity by shooting people (well, unless you kill them all, but I wouldn't really call that peace).
Dr. on Apr 22, 2008 at 11:22 PM:
Draft SUFC to fight the war.
Seriously. They fight dirty.
Either send those lousy yuppies over, or get them to mix my drink... I'm growing somewhat impatient.
Allyson Wartick on Apr 23, 2008 at 06:51 AM:
"Draft SUFC to fight the war."
Funny you should say that... I was in the Air Force, and several other party members (this year and last) have done time in the military as well.
:)
Geoff Loper on Apr 23, 2008 at 08:32 PM:
James:
"exporting all of their country's oil wealth"???
Yeah, and that is why Iraq is posting a gain of $70 BILLION this past year and why we are looking for them to start footing the bill on rebuilding a little more.... but we are taking all of their money????
And the occupations are to find out who are the ones that are resisting with violence so that collateral damage to civilains is minimized
Johanan Raatz on Apr 24, 2008 at 09:04 AM:
Geoff you don't understand. EVERYTHING is about oil and corporate interests. Everthing bad in the world is because of EVIL corporation and their EVIL minions bent on enslaving all of humanity.
So if there is something bad evil or undesirable in the world it MUST be caused by corporations somehow.
Just like how corporations are responsible for AIDS the Ebola virus, the extinction of the dinosaurs and the existence of Hell.
It's always the fault of corporations somehow.
--At least in their peculiar outlook on life.
Not Geoff Loper on Apr 24, 2008 at 02:32 PM:
Loper isn't an organizer. Loper does not know organizer's tactics. Loper is a nobody and has no credibility.
However, Loper may be correct that ruining a recruitment center is a bad idea. This is coming from the comment of an actual political organizer. The people who attacked the center were most likely anarchist bums who have no affiliation with any respectable student organization.
Loper, you are also a bum. Why don't you try to do something that will make this world a better place?
Not Geoff Loper on Apr 25, 2008 at 08:55 AM:
in addition!!
Loper you are not only a bum, but a poser.
Geoff Loper on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:59 AM:
So I am a poser because I write an OPINION article for a university newspaper and that article pisses you off????
I would LOVE to see your credentials that show that you have even begun to make some kind of lasting global change that will immortalize your name (which you so boldly have added to your posting).
So if we are going to resort to ridiculous, and childish name calling, who is the poser now? You use "not" my name for your post.... Nice and bold on you part.
And define make the world a better place. You have no idea how I am or what I have done with my life...
so basically, if you don't like my article, good. It was meant to evoke an emotional response, which you have done so eloquently!
Thanks for reading!!!!
"There are only two things that can truly immortalize a man: have children, and become a published author." William Shakespeare.
Geoff Loper on Apr 26, 2008 at 01:03 AM:
for Johanan,
Thanks for setting me straight on that... I must have forgotten my place in the world....
The newest conspiracy that I absolutely love, is that the US government created the genre of Gansta Rap in order to increase the levels of violence in the black communities in an attempt to reduce the "swelling populations of welfare recipients"....
Thank you Alicia Keys...
And again, thanks for setting me straight
Aaron Jeske on Apr 27, 2008 at 11:16 AM:
I think we just defined win in this comment thread, as in the conservative voice won here.
Johanan Raatz on Apr 27, 2008 at 08:56 PM:
Geoff;
"The newest conspiracy that I absolutely love,"
Actually I have a whole article on modern leftists conspiracy theories coming out tommorrow.
I found it so funny when Bush was elected we stopped with the crazy theories just as they were getting started. Unfortunately their conspiracy theories are so monotone (corporation this, corporate interest that).
Geoff Loper on Apr 27, 2008 at 10:00 PM:
Sounds good! Can't wait to read it...
I am sure that it will cause a stir like this one did