Absolute Moral Authority

Cindy Sheehan and other detractors who have suffered loss because of the war in Iraq or the Global War on Terror have absolute moral authority according to the media. Their loss gives them unassailable insight and the final word on the conflict.

What could possibly trump that kind of authority? What about a voice from the grave, a testimonial from someone who gave their life for a cause they believed in.

2LT Mark Daily, of Los Angeles, answered the question, "Why I joined," on his My Space page Oct. 29, 2006, while serving in Iraq. He was killed Jan. 15, 2007, by an IED while on patrol in Mosul along with Sgt. Ian C. Anderson, a native of Prairie Village, Kan.; Staff Sgt. John E. Cooper, a native of Cleveland, Ohio; and Spec. Mathew T. Grimm, a native of Wisconsin Rapids, Wis. They were all serving with the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division.

I don't usually quote an entire post or story but this is an exception. I want you and me to read this – often. All of it. I want you and me to remember what he wrote and why he served and why he died. I want us to carry his thoughts as a reminder when we feel weak or like it might not be worth it. This is a testimony sealed in his life's blood.

Why I Joined:

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.

So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

Overheating Oversold?

According to this article in the Houston Chronicle, some scientists are questioning whether their talk about weather is what's overheated.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

The global warming debate is like so many other "discussions" in our society. You're either in total agreement that it's real, man-made, catastrophic and George Bush's fault or you're some kind of flat-earther neocon.

Scientific or political debate has value only if there are informed, reasoned discussions between proponents of opposing perspectives who are willing to examine the issues in a search for truth.

Weather data seems to confirm that average temperatures are rising slightly. But there are so many variables and unanswered questions it seems reasonable there should be a vigorous examination and debate.

For more skepticism here's a long list of links.

Another Favorite MilBlog: Acute Politics

This blog doesn't get many readers outside family members looking for the latest photos of the grandkids. But whenever I find a blog that's new to me and worth reading It seems appropriate to share it. My short links list has a new addition.

Acute Politics, written by a soldier at Camp Fallujah, is well worth your time. It's well written, has a sense of history and the blogger's place in it, has very nice photos and it's NOT the mainstream media.

Tony Blair Calls It

Kurt at Flopping Aces posted on a speech given by Tony Blair Friday. As usual, Blair says what needs to be said.

What we face is not a criminal conspiracy or even a fanatical but fringe terrorist organisation. We face something more akin to revolutionary Communism in its early and most militant phase. It is global. It has a narrative about the world and Islam's place within it that has a reach into most Muslim societies and countries. It adherents may be limited. Its sympathisers are not. It has states or at least parts of the governing apparatus of states that give it succour.

I totally agree with Kurt's commentary.

I find it incredible how anyone with even a teeny little bit of common sense could be so brainwashed, so ignorant, not to see the danger we face from fanatical Islam. Iraq is one battle in this long war and to run and hide from it, as Clinton did for so long, would be one of the greatest single disasters in a generation. We've lived through the Carter and Clinton years, haven't we had enough of disasters?

Read Kurt's post and Blair's complete speech and share it with the willfully ignorant, like your local newspaper or television station.

Too-long Absent

I've discovered that the Christmas/New Year holiday is a difficult time for blogging for me. All's well, just busy with family, work and thoughts distant from blogging. Hopefully I'll be back at it in the next few days.