philosophy
Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004 Status: offline
|
"To put boots on the ground puts people at risk. Not to put boots on the ground puts people at risk. What is the right answer? I don't know." Ken, thank you for your thoughtful and honest post. i hope you don't mind that, rather than quoting the whole thing, i have pasted in your closing question. It is an excellent question, and arguably the only important one. You know, or have at least guessed, that my military experience is virtually nil.....consisting of being in the Boy Scouts and playing a bit of Counterstrike. However, one thing has struck me throughout all my interactions with military personnel over the years. That is, when you come right down to it, risk is what a soldier signs up for. The difference between a civil engineer and a military one is nothing to do with the fact they both build bridges, its to do with the fact that the military one will do so while being shot at. As a society we (most of the time hopefully) recognise this. There are Remembrance days and parades. Museums and anniversaries. Here in the Uk, we wear a red poppy at certain times of the year. It is ubiquitous. The flip side of this is that the soldier has to accept that risk is part of the bargain. So when you ask about feet on the ground or not...to me the answer is simple. Feet on the ground may be risky, but it is the point. Soldiers aren't civilians. If Israel had gone into the Lebanon, not with artillary and rockets strikes, but had gone to the very door of a terrorist then i would have very little argument with their recent incursion. To stand off and shell areas which one knows contains civilians but also think may contain terrorists is to abdicate the moral high ground. To go into the dangerous place, and do the difficult thing, despite the risk, is to occupy the moral high ground. If we wish to win a War on Terror we must occupy that high ground, or we have lost as surely as if we just laid down now.
|