My conservative friend has opinions on just about everything that differ from mine. Understandably at the moment one of our biggest differences is over the war in Iraq. He thinks we need to stay, I think we should probably go, but that we lose either way. He thinks it’s the centre of the ‘global war on terror’, I think that it was a distraction from it that has now become a part of it. I’m simplifying on both sides of course, but the idea is that we don’t agree. Nevertheless, as wrong as he thing he is, his positions are reasonable.
it’s unfortunate, therefore, that in a recent post he calls for white feathers to be sent to Republicans who oppose the recent troop escalation in Iraq. Quite apart from the unpleasantness of the gesture, it’s also poorly chosen. The white feather isn’t a symbol of cowardice – you don’t get a white feather because you don’t dare tell a woman you love her, or you won’t quit your job to go freelance, or you won’t make a parachute jump. A white feather is given because of perceived cowardice when an individual won’t fight in a war (such as in the Mason book Marty mentions).
The cowardice part is almost figurative – the person might be the most genuine conscientious objector, but the fact that they won’t fight is proof enough of their cowardice. In contrast the war is literal; it’s not a fight against something, or a struggle against ideology, it’s an actual war, people with guns shooting at other people with guns in a trench or a desert.
Without checking, I’ll guess that most if not all of the politicians Marty mentions can’t be presented with a white flower because they’re over the maximum recruitment age (recently raised to 42 from 35). Marty, ironically, is not.
6 Comments
G’Day!
I’m not so sure about the troop escalation either. I think it’s a band aid fix to a gaping wound. I think the bigger problem in Iraq is that the military was never allowed to control Iraq like it was supposed to. Once that statue came down, the politicians stepped in and ran the show (Vietnam anyone?).
Do I think we should pull out? Eventually. Do I think we should pull out now? No. Until Iraq is capable of taking care of itself, the US and the UK need a presence there.
I don’t think we’ll ever really pull out of Iraq because for the first time the US and UK have a stronghold in the middle east, and they can’t afford to give up such a significant military post.
As far as the white feather goes… I think most of the politicians deserve it simply because most of them are cowards and won’t speak what’s really on their minds. Troop escalations? Waste of time and money, and probably far more dangerous to both the US and UK.
Have a nice day, eh!
Thanks for the link!
Of course, you missed the point again regarding which battle the congressmen should be engaged in.
Regarding my personal situation, sometimes running to war is running away from a battle.
Of course, I didn’t miss your point at all. I understand exactly what battle you’re talking about, that’s why I was careful to emphasize that the white feather is given for not going to fight in an actual war, with actual bullets and actual soldiers. So you might think those participating in the political battle to be cowards, which is fair enough (and for many politicians on both sides, as Dan says, it’s probably true). But giving them a white feather signals their unwillingness to go and fight in an actual war, with actual bullets and actual soldiers, and that’s simply not the case.
In your own case, I should first make clear that I don’t think you or anyone else should get a white feather. But as I mentioned earlier, whatever your excuse is, all it is is an attempt to evade your cowardice, and doesn’t count – if you don’t go and fight in the actual war with actual bullets and actual soldiers, you are by (white feather) definition a coward. To me that’s just stupid, but I’m not the one sending white feathers.
There is a simplistic argument that says that anyone who aggressively supports a war and can’t demonstrate why their absence from that war is a net benefit should sign up. It’s an appealing simplification, but I read an excellent refutation of it some time ago that I can’t find, or even recall the gist of. It’s terrible when you don’t even know what you think, isn’t it?
But giving them a white feather signals their unwillingness to go and fight in an actual war, with actual bullets and actual soldiers, and that’s simply not the case.
No, it’s a metaphor for the war they should be fighting. Regarding the other, I’ll let my previous statement stand on its own.
Giving someone a white feather isn’t a metaphor. *Saying* that someone has a white feather is a metaphor (we understand that they don’t actually have pale plumage, you’re just illustrating their cowardly state through a literary allusion). *Giving* someone a white feather can’t be a metaphor, because it’s not a linguistic device. The idea of actually giving someone a white feather dates (iirc) from the book you mentioned, and was ‘popularized’ during the Great War. In both cases it was in reference not to avoiding a struggle, but to not actually going to an actual war.
As I said, you’re entirely free not to join up, and I wouldn’t expect you too. I’m surprised that you think you can do more here than there, however – no offense to you, I just don’t personally know anyone on either continent who could make more of a difference in the greater war you think of than the actual war.
(PS – This post brought to you by the number 2, and the word ‘actual’)
I think I get what Paul is saying, but it doesn’t mean that one cannot give a white feather to someone for metaphorically not facing bullets, as Marty is saying. It’s called poetic license, I think. And I think anyone familiar with the allusion would get it.
But to the reasons why Marty would give the white feather, that’s another thing. Can the US’s policy prevail in Iraq by adding another 20,000 troops? I think just about every military expert that matters, including General Abizaid, has weighed in an emphatic “no”. I agree with them, and I would go further. I think the US adding 200,000 more troops would not turn this fight around. There is a way that the US foreign policy would prevail in Iraq. Put a minimum of 1,000,000 boots on the ground and prepare for invasion of Iran in short order. You would, of course, require turning Iran into a parking lot, along with large parts of Iraq, killing millions of people in the process. This, I think, is the ONLY way the US could achieve it’s stated (and unstated) foreign policy goals in the region.
Of course it would require a draft of every man and woman between the ages of 18 and 25 (at least) to achieve this kind of force, and several years to build it up. This would cost the average American taxpayer more than their kids, of course. What was the tax rate for middle class and above in WWII? Something like 90%? Yeah, that means ever dollar you make the government takes 90 cents.
If Marty and his ilk really wants to win, this is what it would take. And the price, in my opinion, is not worth it.
If we take the half a trillion this war has cost so far and would have done something else with it, anything, you pick, Marty! Like take that money and buy home care and education for every mother who is contemplating abortion so that she can raise her kid with some kind of safety net…! Wouldn’t that have been a better use for that than putting out fire with gasoline like we are now?