Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Thomas Donnelly - TPMCafe Posting
Thomas Donnelly wrote a very serious and thoughtul posting on the Iraq war at TPMCafe. Of course, it attracted a lot of anklebiters.
We are not at the decision point of whether to invade Iraq or not. Endless attacks on that decision help no one. Personally, I thought the President made a mistake in attacking Iraq. That is a moot question at this point. We need to focus on a going forward strategy.
Comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam indicate the ignorance of the speaker. The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese had massive logistical support from outside the country and a great deal of support within South Vietnam. While foreign terrorists continue to infiltrate into Iraq and it now appears that Iran may be supplying bombs, this does not compare to the experience in Vietnam.
If the terrorists were to mount a military attack as the North Vietnamese did regularly, they would be destroyed very quickly. A recent film of terrorists firing a few mortar rounds and fleeing to a "safe house" shows the rapid response of US arms. A drone plane followed the terrorists to the house and bombed it just as they walked in.
The Iraqis are rapidly building a government and military to rule and defend their own country. Reports clearly indicate that most of the country already is clear of terrorists. That is the basis for the proposed draw down of US troops. Undoubtedly, the Iraqi military will need some continued military support for some time. One does not develop an effective air force and other specialized arms overnight.
It would also be nice if Democrats got serious about the business of helping shape a strategy rather than simply bashing the president. To win in Iraq and the Greater Middle East, it's got to be more than a one-party war.
Whether we agree with the original decision or not, the West cannot afford lose the war in Iraq. To do so would turn a failed country over to Jihadists who would use it to train and export terrorists to the rest of the world.
There will be time enough for historians to debate the merits of the initial decision to invade Iraq after the war is won.
We are not at the decision point of whether to invade Iraq or not. Endless attacks on that decision help no one. Personally, I thought the President made a mistake in attacking Iraq. That is a moot question at this point. We need to focus on a going forward strategy.
Comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam indicate the ignorance of the speaker. The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese had massive logistical support from outside the country and a great deal of support within South Vietnam. While foreign terrorists continue to infiltrate into Iraq and it now appears that Iran may be supplying bombs, this does not compare to the experience in Vietnam.
If the terrorists were to mount a military attack as the North Vietnamese did regularly, they would be destroyed very quickly. A recent film of terrorists firing a few mortar rounds and fleeing to a "safe house" shows the rapid response of US arms. A drone plane followed the terrorists to the house and bombed it just as they walked in.
The Iraqis are rapidly building a government and military to rule and defend their own country. Reports clearly indicate that most of the country already is clear of terrorists. That is the basis for the proposed draw down of US troops. Undoubtedly, the Iraqi military will need some continued military support for some time. One does not develop an effective air force and other specialized arms overnight.
It would also be nice if Democrats got serious about the business of helping shape a strategy rather than simply bashing the president. To win in Iraq and the Greater Middle East, it's got to be more than a one-party war.
Whether we agree with the original decision or not, the West cannot afford lose the war in Iraq. To do so would turn a failed country over to Jihadists who would use it to train and export terrorists to the rest of the world.
There will be time enough for historians to debate the merits of the initial decision to invade Iraq after the war is won.
Monday, August 08, 2005
DailyKos and Griswold
Armando at DailyKos attempt to discuss Griswold, Roe and Casey, but fails to understand their complexities. It is enough for him to announce that anyone who disagrees with his position is an extremist.
Armando: "Learn to read (none / 0) The Constitution is not what is described as neutral - Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are described as neutral on abortion rights."
In fact, Whelen argues that the Constitution does not speak to abortion and is, therefore, "neutral" with regard to it. In the same way, he regards Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas as neutral on abortion since they would allow the political branches of State governments to determine abortion law.
Armando: "Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas disagree with this consensus view, of over 100 year vintage. That is not "neutral." That is extremist."
In fact the "consensus view" is from the opinion of only three justices of the Court and represents a position carefully and specifically rejected by the Court in Griswold. The Griswold majority opinion tried mightily to avoid the substantive due process position presented in Casey.
The Griswold Court pointed to "penumbras, formed by emanations from [the Bill of Rights] that help give them life and substance." Griswold, p. 484. They rejected use of Lochner v. New York as the basis of the opinion, since its use of substantive due process had long been held in disrepute.
The Griswold majority contended that "We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and proriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions." This, of course, was the criticism of Lochner, that substantive due process permitted the Court to reject New Deal legislation simply because the justices had different opinions as to economic policy.
The three justices in Casey seem to have gone where prior Courts feared to go by embracing substantive due process, "The inescapable fact is that adjudication of substantive due process claims may call upon the Court in interpreting the Constitution to exercise that same capacity which, by tradition, courts always have exercise: reasoned judgment."
To attempt to describe that position as a "consensus" view with a 100 year history has no basis whatsoever in reality. As recognized by the Griswold Court, it returns to a concept long scorned when applied in the economic area. To suggest that Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are extremist for adopting the position of jurists of the standing of Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart shows either a lack of legal understanding or a mere application of political cant.
Armando: "Now Whelan has a right to believe that these views, which he attributes to Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas (and Roberts), are correct. But he can not in good faith label them 'neutral.' That is egregious spin. These views are not neutral. They are extremist."
You obviously do not understand Whelen's point. Whether the Justices' opinion is mainstream or extreme is immaterial. Whelen merely indicates that their view and that of the Constitution is neutral as to the right of State legislatures to determine abortion policy by law.
Your point that a Supreme Court opinion found the Constitution to create a right of privacy carries as much weight as a commentator's argument that the Plessy Court found a "right of separate but equal" in the Constitution.
The extreme difficulty of the Court in Griswold, Roe and Casey to articulate a coherent basis for the opinions suggests the lack of clear Constitutional support for the opinions. Neither side of the Court in the debate in the cases was extreme. They merely disagreed in a very difficult area of the law.
Armando: "Learn to read (none / 0) The Constitution is not what is described as neutral - Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are described as neutral on abortion rights."
In fact, Whelen argues that the Constitution does not speak to abortion and is, therefore, "neutral" with regard to it. In the same way, he regards Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas as neutral on abortion since they would allow the political branches of State governments to determine abortion law.
Armando: "Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas disagree with this consensus view, of over 100 year vintage. That is not "neutral." That is extremist."
In fact the "consensus view" is from the opinion of only three justices of the Court and represents a position carefully and specifically rejected by the Court in Griswold. The Griswold majority opinion tried mightily to avoid the substantive due process position presented in Casey.
The Griswold Court pointed to "penumbras, formed by emanations from [the Bill of Rights] that help give them life and substance." Griswold, p. 484. They rejected use of Lochner v. New York as the basis of the opinion, since its use of substantive due process had long been held in disrepute.
The Griswold majority contended that "We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and proriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions." This, of course, was the criticism of Lochner, that substantive due process permitted the Court to reject New Deal legislation simply because the justices had different opinions as to economic policy.
The three justices in Casey seem to have gone where prior Courts feared to go by embracing substantive due process, "The inescapable fact is that adjudication of substantive due process claims may call upon the Court in interpreting the Constitution to exercise that same capacity which, by tradition, courts always have exercise: reasoned judgment."
To attempt to describe that position as a "consensus" view with a 100 year history has no basis whatsoever in reality. As recognized by the Griswold Court, it returns to a concept long scorned when applied in the economic area. To suggest that Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are extremist for adopting the position of jurists of the standing of Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart shows either a lack of legal understanding or a mere application of political cant.
Armando: "Now Whelan has a right to believe that these views, which he attributes to Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas (and Roberts), are correct. But he can not in good faith label them 'neutral.' That is egregious spin. These views are not neutral. They are extremist."
You obviously do not understand Whelen's point. Whether the Justices' opinion is mainstream or extreme is immaterial. Whelen merely indicates that their view and that of the Constitution is neutral as to the right of State legislatures to determine abortion policy by law.
Your point that a Supreme Court opinion found the Constitution to create a right of privacy carries as much weight as a commentator's argument that the Plessy Court found a "right of separate but equal" in the Constitution.
The extreme difficulty of the Court in Griswold, Roe and Casey to articulate a coherent basis for the opinions suggests the lack of clear Constitutional support for the opinions. Neither side of the Court in the debate in the cases was extreme. They merely disagreed in a very difficult area of the law.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Right of Privacy
The court in Griswold and Roe faced a very complex problem in finding a Constitutional basis for the creation of a Right of Privacy without running afoul of the Substantive Due Process analysis discredited after Lochner v. New York.
Griswold attempted to distinguish its holding from Lochner: "We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation."
Unable to point to a Constitutional provision to support their position, the majority argued that various cases "suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
That is why many supporters of Griswold are finding great difficulty in finding a specific amendment on which to ground the Right of Privacy. Neither could the Griswold court.
Some supporters point to the 9th and 10th Amendments as a basis for a Right of Privacy. The problem with those amendments is that they assume the continued existence of the original doctrine of the Constitution - that the Federal government only those powers specifically granted to it.
This position was abandoned with the massive expansion of the regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause. I doubt that many posters to this site want to revisit that issue.
In dissent, Mr. Justice Black argued that the Supreme Court should overturn statutes only on the basis of a conflict with "particular standards enumerated in the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution." In the "application of 'natural law' deemed to be above and undefined by the Constitution ... [judges] roam at will in the limitless area of their own beliefs as to reasonableness and actually select policies, a responsibility which the Constitution entrusts to the legislative representatives of the people." [from Federal Power Commission v Pipeline Co.]
While the majority in Griswold attempted to avoid the creation of a social substantive due process analysis, as argued by Mr. Justice Black, they failed to do so. Just as the Lochner court substituted its policy views for that of reform legislatures, the Griswold court did the same as to a social issue.
Mr. Justice Stewart captured the essence of the issue and the proper role of judges: "It is the essence of judicial duty to subordinate our own personal views, our own ideas of what legilation is wise and what is not. If, as I should surely hope, the law before us does not reflect the standards of the people of Connecticut, the people of Connecticut can freely exercise their true Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights to persuade their elected representatives to repeal it."
The continued application of substantive due process in social issues has brought this country to the sorry state we now face. Both sides demand ideological purity on the part of potential judges rather than a proper judicial temperment and superior legal skills.
Griswold attempted to distinguish its holding from Lochner: "We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation."
Unable to point to a Constitutional provision to support their position, the majority argued that various cases "suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
That is why many supporters of Griswold are finding great difficulty in finding a specific amendment on which to ground the Right of Privacy. Neither could the Griswold court.
Some supporters point to the 9th and 10th Amendments as a basis for a Right of Privacy. The problem with those amendments is that they assume the continued existence of the original doctrine of the Constitution - that the Federal government only those powers specifically granted to it.
This position was abandoned with the massive expansion of the regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause. I doubt that many posters to this site want to revisit that issue.
In dissent, Mr. Justice Black argued that the Supreme Court should overturn statutes only on the basis of a conflict with "particular standards enumerated in the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution." In the "application of 'natural law' deemed to be above and undefined by the Constitution ... [judges] roam at will in the limitless area of their own beliefs as to reasonableness and actually select policies, a responsibility which the Constitution entrusts to the legislative representatives of the people." [from Federal Power Commission v Pipeline Co.]
While the majority in Griswold attempted to avoid the creation of a social substantive due process analysis, as argued by Mr. Justice Black, they failed to do so. Just as the Lochner court substituted its policy views for that of reform legislatures, the Griswold court did the same as to a social issue.
Mr. Justice Stewart captured the essence of the issue and the proper role of judges: "It is the essence of judicial duty to subordinate our own personal views, our own ideas of what legilation is wise and what is not. If, as I should surely hope, the law before us does not reflect the standards of the people of Connecticut, the people of Connecticut can freely exercise their true Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights to persuade their elected representatives to repeal it."
The continued application of substantive due process in social issues has brought this country to the sorry state we now face. Both sides demand ideological purity on the part of potential judges rather than a proper judicial temperment and superior legal skills.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
John Roberts - Reciprocity and Comity
Jack Balkin in TPMCafee tries to justify Democratic obstructionism in voting against John Roberts:
The problem is that we are not in a period in which this sort of comity and reciprocity is much respected. The Republican Party is a social movement party that wants to move the Constitution in a strongly conservative direction and therefore is not very much intersted in compromise. Seeing this, the Democrats have become less interested in compromise themselves. Nor should they be.
The last Supreme Court justices appointed by President Clinton were approved by a vote of 96-3 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) and 87-9 (Stephen Breyer). Justice Breyer had been General Counsel of the ACLU. The prior vote had been that of Clarence Thomas (52-48) in 1991 and the trashing of Robert Bork before that.
This would suggest that the reciprocity and commity lies on the side of the Republicans rather than the Democrats. If anyone needs to earn reciprocity and comity as suggested, it is the Democrats. The new verb created by lack of commity was "borked" not "breyered."
Things change, and someday, one hopes, the two parties will return to a less antagonistic relationship. But that happy day will not be hastened by Democratic acquiesence. The Democrats must earn reciprocity and respect through their resistance ....
Yes, the way to the happy return to a "less antagonistic relationship" is greater antagonism. Right. Does that mean that the Republicans should do the same if the Democrats win the presidency in 2008?
If Democratic Senators properly should vote against confirmation of Republican court nominees whom they believe will move constitutional law in an improper direction, Republican Senators should properly do the same. If Democrats have the right of filibuster, Republicans have the same right. The same duty and right of "advice and consent" applies to Senators of both parties.
This approach will lead to deadlock and suggests the need for reciprocity and comity last exemplified by Republicans in the Ginsburg and Breyer nominations. The way to earn such reciprocity and commity is for Democrats to practice it beginning with John Roberts, rather than once again practicing the politics of personal destruction used against Bork and Thomas.
The problem is that we are not in a period in which this sort of comity and reciprocity is much respected. The Republican Party is a social movement party that wants to move the Constitution in a strongly conservative direction and therefore is not very much intersted in compromise. Seeing this, the Democrats have become less interested in compromise themselves. Nor should they be.
The last Supreme Court justices appointed by President Clinton were approved by a vote of 96-3 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) and 87-9 (Stephen Breyer). Justice Breyer had been General Counsel of the ACLU. The prior vote had been that of Clarence Thomas (52-48) in 1991 and the trashing of Robert Bork before that.
This would suggest that the reciprocity and commity lies on the side of the Republicans rather than the Democrats. If anyone needs to earn reciprocity and comity as suggested, it is the Democrats. The new verb created by lack of commity was "borked" not "breyered."
Things change, and someday, one hopes, the two parties will return to a less antagonistic relationship. But that happy day will not be hastened by Democratic acquiesence. The Democrats must earn reciprocity and respect through their resistance ....
Yes, the way to the happy return to a "less antagonistic relationship" is greater antagonism. Right. Does that mean that the Republicans should do the same if the Democrats win the presidency in 2008?
If Democratic Senators properly should vote against confirmation of Republican court nominees whom they believe will move constitutional law in an improper direction, Republican Senators should properly do the same. If Democrats have the right of filibuster, Republicans have the same right. The same duty and right of "advice and consent" applies to Senators of both parties.
This approach will lead to deadlock and suggests the need for reciprocity and comity last exemplified by Republicans in the Ginsburg and Breyer nominations. The way to earn such reciprocity and commity is for Democrats to practice it beginning with John Roberts, rather than once again practicing the politics of personal destruction used against Bork and Thomas.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Richard Cohen - Guantanamo and Auschwitz
Richard Cohen wrote a rather incoherent column in the Washington Post comparing Auschwitz to Guantanamo.
I believe passionately in free speech. In free debate and discussion, the best ideas are honed and improved and triumph while error quickly shows itself as such.
The comparison that Mr. Cohen makes of Guantanamo to Auschwitz certainly fits the latter category. I recently saw "Schindler's List" with a group. It was extremely difficult to watch. I had to leave the room several times to avoid being seen in tears.
For Mr. Cohen to suggest any sort of equivalence boggles the mind. How does putting panties on a prisoner's head compare to the gassing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people? How does the incarceration of murderers captured on the field of battle compare to the putting of innocent people in death camps merely on the basis of their religion?
There is no equivalency; there is no basis that one even elicits a thought of the other no matter how careful one may be in saying precisely what is meant and leaving nothing to chance.
The comparison disgusts me and should disgust any reasonable person who has any concept whatsoever of the horrors of Auschwitz and what the Nazis did to 6,000,000 Jews.
How can anyone even offer such a comparison? Does partisanship so warp one's analytical ability or one's sense of judgment to such an extent that Guantanamo somehow equates to Auschwitz?
We need to take a serious look at how far we have sunk in partisan hatred when a columnist in a major newspaper can make such a comparison.
Please, Mr. Cohen, watch "Schindler's List" again and then ask yourself again if there is any equivalency whatsoever between Auschwitz and Guantanamo. One of the scenes that caused my quck exit from the room was when the Germans gathered the children together at Auschwitz to go to the gas chambers. How dare you make a comparison of that to Guantanamo.
I believe passionately in free speech. In free debate and discussion, the best ideas are honed and improved and triumph while error quickly shows itself as such.
The comparison that Mr. Cohen makes of Guantanamo to Auschwitz certainly fits the latter category. I recently saw "Schindler's List" with a group. It was extremely difficult to watch. I had to leave the room several times to avoid being seen in tears.
For Mr. Cohen to suggest any sort of equivalence boggles the mind. How does putting panties on a prisoner's head compare to the gassing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people? How does the incarceration of murderers captured on the field of battle compare to the putting of innocent people in death camps merely on the basis of their religion?
There is no equivalency; there is no basis that one even elicits a thought of the other no matter how careful one may be in saying precisely what is meant and leaving nothing to chance.
The comparison disgusts me and should disgust any reasonable person who has any concept whatsoever of the horrors of Auschwitz and what the Nazis did to 6,000,000 Jews.
How can anyone even offer such a comparison? Does partisanship so warp one's analytical ability or one's sense of judgment to such an extent that Guantanamo somehow equates to Auschwitz?
We need to take a serious look at how far we have sunk in partisan hatred when a columnist in a major newspaper can make such a comparison.
Please, Mr. Cohen, watch "Schindler's List" again and then ask yourself again if there is any equivalency whatsoever between Auschwitz and Guantanamo. One of the scenes that caused my quck exit from the room was when the Germans gathered the children together at Auschwitz to go to the gas chambers. How dare you make a comparison of that to Guantanamo.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Saudi Arabia may well be target number 1 for Al Qaeda. Taking control of the principal religious sites of Islam would provide great control for the Jihadists.
In spite of its tremendous oil wealth, the country is extremely unstable. A look at a few statistics (from Dept. of State and CIA) provides some important insights:
Per capita income - US$12,000
Unemployment - 25%
Oil - over 90% of exports, 75% of government revenues
4.7 million non-Saudis employed in economy
Non-oil industry - 8% of GDP
The State Department states that a "shortage of skilled Saudi workers at all levels remains the principal obstacle to economic diversification and development; about 4.7 million non-Saudis are employed in the economy." Thus, with an unemployment rate of 25% Saudi Arabia has 4.7 million foreign workers.
These facts suggest bases for much discontent on the part of many Saudis. Undoubtedly, they feel capable and desire to contribute to their society, but are foreclosed from doing so as a result of the high unemployment even as many foreign workers find employment.
In spite of its tremendous oil wealth, the country is extremely unstable. A look at a few statistics (from Dept. of State and CIA) provides some important insights:
Per capita income - US$12,000
Unemployment - 25%
Oil - over 90% of exports, 75% of government revenues
4.7 million non-Saudis employed in economy
Non-oil industry - 8% of GDP
The State Department states that a "shortage of skilled Saudi workers at all levels remains the principal obstacle to economic diversification and development; about 4.7 million non-Saudis are employed in the economy." Thus, with an unemployment rate of 25% Saudi Arabia has 4.7 million foreign workers.
These facts suggest bases for much discontent on the part of many Saudis. Undoubtedly, they feel capable and desire to contribute to their society, but are foreclosed from doing so as a result of the high unemployment even as many foreign workers find employment.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Mercenaries or Citizen-Soldiers
David M. Kennedy wrote a column in the New York Times claiming that the American military are "mercenaries."
Wikipedia defines "mercenary" as a "soldier who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for private gain, usually with little regard for ideological, national or political considerations. However, when the term is used to refer to a soldier in a regular national army, it is usually considered an insult, epithet or pejorative."
Clearly, the "professor" did not use the term to advance an intellectually useful analysis of any issue but as a pejorative.
He points out that "today's volunteers sign up for some mighty dangerous work largely for wages and benefits - a compensation package that may not always be commensurate with the dangers in store, as current recruiting problems testify." This defeats his contention that the soldiers are mere mercenaries. Clearly, they volunteer not for reasons of private gain, but for reasons of patriotism.
As an historian should understand, the founders of this country and others feared standing armies because of their threat to democracy, their expense in peace time and the tremendous expense of war in terms of lives and treasure.
Yet, what Mr. Kennedy finds unhealthy is that "history's most potent military force can now be put into the field by a society that scarcely breaks a sweat when it does so" with risk to very few citizens and "no significant burdens on the larger body of citizens in whose name war is being waged."
That sounds like a very well organized and efficient military that this country should be proud of rather than ashamed of. In fact, Mr. Kennedy quotes Thomas Jefferson warning of the dangers of Napoleon for "having 'transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm." Napoleon greatly enlarged the size of the military and transferred massive economic resources to it.
These are the very actions that Mr. Kennedy complains are not occurring in the US today. He complains that the US does not need to draft great numbers of its sons and daughters into the military and transfer vast sums to its support as Napoleon did and as Mr. Jefferson feared would occur with a standing army.
I fail to understand why our men and women in the military somehow lose their standing as citizen-soldiers because they volunteered for service rather than being drafted. We have the best trained, best equipped military in the history of the world.
Rather than denigrating our volunteer citizen-soldiers as "mercenaries" seeking private gain, we should be celebrating their courage and dedication to the defense of their country in a very serious war against Jihadist terrorists.
In truth, Mr. Kennedy simply objects to the war in Iraq and has generated a very transparently fraudulent argument to attempt to justify his position. In doing so, he insults our citizen-soldiers' patriotism in serving their country and the intelligence of his readers.
Wikipedia defines "mercenary" as a "soldier who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for private gain, usually with little regard for ideological, national or political considerations. However, when the term is used to refer to a soldier in a regular national army, it is usually considered an insult, epithet or pejorative."
Clearly, the "professor" did not use the term to advance an intellectually useful analysis of any issue but as a pejorative.
He points out that "today's volunteers sign up for some mighty dangerous work largely for wages and benefits - a compensation package that may not always be commensurate with the dangers in store, as current recruiting problems testify." This defeats his contention that the soldiers are mere mercenaries. Clearly, they volunteer not for reasons of private gain, but for reasons of patriotism.
As an historian should understand, the founders of this country and others feared standing armies because of their threat to democracy, their expense in peace time and the tremendous expense of war in terms of lives and treasure.
Yet, what Mr. Kennedy finds unhealthy is that "history's most potent military force can now be put into the field by a society that scarcely breaks a sweat when it does so" with risk to very few citizens and "no significant burdens on the larger body of citizens in whose name war is being waged."
That sounds like a very well organized and efficient military that this country should be proud of rather than ashamed of. In fact, Mr. Kennedy quotes Thomas Jefferson warning of the dangers of Napoleon for "having 'transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm." Napoleon greatly enlarged the size of the military and transferred massive economic resources to it.
These are the very actions that Mr. Kennedy complains are not occurring in the US today. He complains that the US does not need to draft great numbers of its sons and daughters into the military and transfer vast sums to its support as Napoleon did and as Mr. Jefferson feared would occur with a standing army.
I fail to understand why our men and women in the military somehow lose their standing as citizen-soldiers because they volunteered for service rather than being drafted. We have the best trained, best equipped military in the history of the world.
Rather than denigrating our volunteer citizen-soldiers as "mercenaries" seeking private gain, we should be celebrating their courage and dedication to the defense of their country in a very serious war against Jihadist terrorists.
In truth, Mr. Kennedy simply objects to the war in Iraq and has generated a very transparently fraudulent argument to attempt to justify his position. In doing so, he insults our citizen-soldiers' patriotism in serving their country and the intelligence of his readers.
