The Media - Then and Now

Once upon a time, the American media was an organization that for all its faults, understood that American interests were more valuable than the interests of our enemies. Allow me to share with you a moment from World War II.

The San Francisco Examiner newspaper in 1944 wrote an editorial suggesting that the Marines were operating under incompetent leadership because they were in a bloody and desperate battle for the island known as Iwo Jima. The Examiner strongly suggested that perhaps the Army, under the leadership of the media's favorite general, Douglas MacArthur, could do a far better job. This provoked the San Francisco Chronicle - a that time a paper with some sympathy for American fighting men - to respond as follows:

To slur the United States Marines in one type of operation, however, to draw odious comparisons between theirs and the type of operations conducted by General MacArthur, is to raise a sinister fantasy. To hint that the Marines die fast and move slowly on Iwo Jima because Marine and Naval leadership in that assault is incompetent is an attempt at a damnable swindle of the American people.

The Chronicle does not propose to engage in controversy over the relative merits of our fighting forces in he various theaters of war. But neither does the Chronicle propose to remain mute when United States Marines or any force on the world battle line, is butchered at home to make a Roman holiday.

It is a pity that the media of today, and several of our supposed leaders - yes, John Murtha, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, I mean you - cannot give our armed forces the respect that once was considered their due. It is a greater pity that when elements of our so-called intelligentsia do relapse into cheap attacks on the men and women of our Armed Forces that the Press cannot bring themselves to defend those who have given them the privilege of writing so negatively about that same military. I follow the line proposed by the San Francisco Chronicle before it decided that playing the role of Democratic Party propaganda organ as preferable to reporting news. I wish that more of our so-called elites did as well.

The Chronicle quote was taken from page 169 of Richard F. Newcomb's 1965 book "Iwo Jima", published by Signet.

Happy Veteran's Day

Today is Veterans Day. It was established in 1954 to honor the veterans of all wars throughout the history of the United States.

Originally known as Armistice Day, it falls on the anniversary of the end of the First World War. However, in 1954, it was expanded to include all US veterans' regardless of the war in which they fought.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all veterans, and urge all readers to do likewise. As the old saying goes, it is not the Press that ensures freedom of the press. It is not the politicians who ensure free elections and it is not preachers who ensure freedom of religion.

Instead, it is the men and women of the United States Armed Forces- the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard and Merchant Marine- who guarantee that our great country remains free of whatever totalitarian philosophy is currently in vogue amongst the intelligentsia- whether that philosophy goes under the name of Communism, Nazism, or the currently popular imperialist Islam.

Thank you, veterans. Thank you. Your sacrifices are certainly appreciated by this American.

Burma and Aid

I have written previously on this blog about the United States' glowing record of humanitarian assistance in disasters, regardless of the country in which the disaster occurs. However, according to the USA Today, Burma (currently known as Myanmar) is refusing US military assistance. Their excuse? According to USA Today,

Burma's state-controlled media said that U.S. helicopters or naval ships were not welcome to join the relief effort.

The New Light of Myanmar newspaper said accepting military assistance "comes with strings attached" that are "not acceptable to the people of Myanmar."

The report cited fears of an American invasion aimed at grabbing the country's oil reserves.

An American invasion? Really? Somehow I doubt that the UNited States has any interest in Burma, other than the natural humanitarian interest in seeing Burma's people released from the tyranny of the junta's heavy-handed and disastrous policies. Captain Ed Morrissey chimes in with a brilliant demolition of the junta's claims, writing today at Hot Air,

The junta fears a collapse of its credibility more than anything else. If they are seen as so weak that the US has to step in and rescue the Burmese from the incompetence of the military dictatorship, then they risk a popular uprising when the country recovers. The junta already put down one round of demonstrations in the streets a few months ago, and now the people of Burma have even more motivation to put the dictators up against the wall.

I agree. Burma is certainly not a high priority on the United States' list of THings To Do, and I seriously doubt whether any US President would commit resources to overthrow the government in Burma. If any President did so, it would be due to a credible threat from Burma- a threat I simply do not see. But refusing to allow US military assistance into the country is simply ridiculous- especially on the heels of the US Navy's assistance in Bangladesh in 2007.

If Burma wishes to let their people die rather than allow the United States military to help, then I agree with Captain Ed's analysis- they may end up convincing their people that a change in government is better than allowing the incompetent and xenophobic 'leadership' currently in power to let the people die.

More on Relief

I posted yesterday on the United States' readiness to assist in any gloabl disaster, regardless of the friendliness of the subject nation (and equally regardless of the thanklessness this readiness to assist usually garners). Today, on the United States Navy's official site was a reminder that today is the anniversay of the Navy's arrival in Bangladesh after the 1991 Cyclone Marian disaster.

For those who may not remember Cyclone Marian (it was not well covered in the US media, probably because it reflected well on the US military, and once again there was a Republican President- can't give him any credit with an election year coming up!) the cyclone hit Bangladesh in April of 1991, and according to this story at globalsecurity.org,

Cyclone Marian (29-30 April 1991) was one of the most catastrophic natural disasters in recent times. Marian's 140 mile-per-hour winds and an eight-meter tidal wave devastated Bangladesh, killing nearly 140,000 people and leaving over 5 million people homeless.
...
Cyclone Marian struck this delta on the southeast coast during the evening of 29 April 1991 with winds in excess of 235 km/hr and tidal surges between 15 and 20 feet. Well over 100,000 people died and millions were left homeless. Over 1 million cattle (essential for pulling plows and providing transportation) died. Crops on 74,000 acres of land were destroyed; another 300,000 acres of cropland were damaged, and fields were covered with salt water, contaminating the soil and corrupting the drinking water.

Infrastructure destruction was widespread. Bangladesh’s major port, Chittagong, was severely damaged and was nonoperational for several days. Damaged/sunken ships, many of them belonging to the Bangladeshi Navy, blocked the port. Several key bridges, including the main bridge to Chittagong, were washed out or otherwise damaged. Throughout the storm-affected area, sea walls collapsed, jetties disappeared, dirt roads were flooded, buildings were ravaged, and transportation was virtually destroyed.

Bangladesh asked for help, and within 24 hours, again according to Globalsecurity.org, the United States was able to respond, sending elements of the III Marine Expeditionary Force, Amphibious Group 3 and 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigade to assist. Untimately the operation, code-named Sea-Angel, would involve over 6000 US personnel. In a unique feature, no personnel were armed save for guards of sensitive material. All other personnel went unarmed for the duration of the exercise.

For those who like to lament the 'belligerent' nature of the US armed services, this may serve as a reminder that US servicement and women are not the baby-killers so much of the Left likes to paint them as, and the United States' ability to project power is as useful for relief operations as it is for those of a more aggressive nature. In addition, although Bangladesh is much closer to China and Russia than it is to the United States, it was the US that did the bulk of the heavy lifting, not the CHinese or the Russians.

In any event, this will hopefully serve as one more reminder that the US, despite her many critics, stands ready to assist where other nations and organizations either cannot or will not. I do not expect this to register with the blame-America-first crowd, but perhaps it might remind more rational souls that the United States and her military are not the evil monster the Left and their fellow-travelers in the media so often make us out to be.

We Shoot Guns- Lots of Guns

So writes former Marine Marco Martinez, author of the new book Hard Corps: From Gangster to Marine Hero in a highly entertaining article for TownHall.com in which he asks the very valid question, "Why are conservatives and Republicans more likely to support the military than liberals and Democrats?"

As one might expect, Martinez provides an answer- a list of reasons why conservatives tend to be more supportive of the military than liberals. According to him, these reasons include,

1. The military sees a clear difference between good and evil.
2. Veterans view themselves as servants, not victims.
3. The military stresses hard work, self-discipline and personal responsibility.
4. Service members understand that freedom is not free.
5. The military shoots guns. Lots of guns.

Martinez then proceeds to illuminate each of his points with examples as to why conservatives find much more affinity with servicemen and servicewomen than liberals. As Martinez writes about the idea of good versus evil,

The minute you start thinking that there’s no such thing as good and evil, right and wrong, it’s virtually impossible to support an organization like the military. The military applies lethal force in the service of what our nation deems “good” and “right.” If you believe that nothing is black and white, and that everything is morally gray, it’s hard to choose sides.

Some liberals sort of remind me of that lyric from that old song that goes: “There ain’t no good guys, there ain’t no bad guys. There’s only you and me and we just disagree.”

Marines don’t “disagree” with the enemy. We shoot to kill.

This is an idea that most liberals reflectively recoil from. They prefer to go to photo-opportunities with people like Kim Jong Il as Madeleine Albright did, or to sit down and hug evil dictators, as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter so love to do. Conservatives and military members, in contrast, prefer to eliminate the menace before it can eliminate us.

But Martinez' best line comes when he writes Reason Number 5, "The military shoots guns. Lots of guns." about conservatives' affinity for the Second Amendment. Martinez then says of his final point,

Okay, so I thought I’d lighten it up a bit. But I’m only half-joking. Conservatives support gun rights and the use of lethal force to protect innocent people. The military does, too. As I say, violence isn’t senseless. Senseless violence is senseless.

Yes, and this is the fundamental difference between consservatives and liberals, and the ehart of why conservatives are so much more likely to support the military. Conservatives, as Martinez writes, believe that it is appropriate to use force, inlcuding lethal force, to protect their principles and to protect those who are innocent. Modern liberals, on the other hand, believe that force is never justified, unless it is for something that has absolutely no relationship to their own interests. This is why liberals like to use the military as a glorified police force- something for which it was never intended- and conservatives understand its true nature.

Until liberals can both understand and appreciate the need to use force in defence of one's peinciples, they will always lack in supporting a military that they can neither understand nor appreciate.

A Military Response

How come the Left in general and Democrats in particular (with the usual exception such as Senator Lieberman) have nothing good to say about their own country's military forces? Why is it that "news" organs such as the New York Times cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the debt they owe to our soldiers, but have no problem criticizing them at every turn? Well, today an un-named member of our great navy decided to answer all of these gutless naysayers in the Press, the Senate and in their comfortable, taxpayer-funded universities around the nation. The column can be found at Navy SEALs.com. The anonymous author closes with a suggestion for the military's many armchair critics, writing,

I'd like to close with an invitation to those
journalists, analysts,
experts, and politicians who sit up at night dreaming
up new ways to
criticize our armed forces. The next time you see a
man or woman in
uniform, stop for ten seconds and reflect upon how
much you owe that
person, and his or her fellow Sailors, Marines,
Soldiers, and Airmen.

...

Two words -- that's all I ask. "Thank you." If that's
too hard, if you
can't bring yourself to acknowledge the dedication,
sincerity and
sacrifice of your defenders, then I have a backup plan
for you. Put on
a uniform and show us how to do it right.

Good point. So how about it, Pelosi? Are you listening, Durbin? How about you, Sulzberg? Maybe you should cut out the shrillness and think about a little loyal opposition for once in your selfish, unpatriotic lives. Maybe? Link courtesy of Instapundit.