This deserves to be read. It is a MySpace post written by 2nd Lt. Mark Daily back in October. He was killed along with three others by an IED in Iraq earlier this week.
Quote:
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has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who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
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Location: On an Island in the west coast of New England
Posts: 13,132
RE: Why I joined (to go to Iraq)
Another side of the Iraq issue as posted in this mornings Burlington Free Press (Vermont). Certainly tainted towards an anti war stance but interesting reading for a different perspective.
Vermont vets speak out against Iraq war
January 20, 2007
Matt Howard, 25, said he listened all night as tanks moved ahead in Nasiriyah, Iraq, in 2003. A member of the 1st Marine Division during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Howard knew that 18 Marines had recently been killed, and the rules of engagement had changed to "weapons-free."
"You can only shoot someone under certain terms, if they were wearing a uniform or carrying a weapon. Weapons-free meant you could shoot anyone," Howard said as he addressed a standing-room-only crowd at Contois Auditorium in Burlington's City Hall on Friday evening. "While I sat on the other side of the bridge, waiting to go through, I got to listen to the tanks and the mortars and the gunshots, as they all leveled this town."
"I had to drive through and see what it looked like the next morning. Everything was shot. Man, woman, donkey, it didn't matter. If it was moving, it died," he said.
Howard, now a Burlington resident, served two tours in Iraq as a Marine. He was part of the first wave into Iraq; Drew Cameron, 24, a University of Vermont student, was with the Army in the second wave. Both now members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, the men said during an anti-war panel discussion Friday that a U.S. military presence in Iraq was doing nothing to quiet violence and insurgence -- it was only making it worse.
"I cannot express to you how urgent the situation is on the ground in Iraq. Clean water, access to sewage, education, health care. It's to the point that it's so dire that it's worse than when Saddam was running the place," Cameron said, referring to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "This is supposed to be a country heralded for spreading democracy and changing the map of the Middle East. How can that be the case when after two years of occupation, it has gotten so much worse?"
Cameron said he served as a field artillery soldier in Iraq for eight months in 2003, and he participated in one humanitarian mission. He and fellow Army soldiers delivered desks to a school and, after the delivery, were ordered to take a defensive position and wait. About a half hour later, a convoy arrived containing high-ranking Army officials and public relations staffers.
"Our humanitarian mission was a hoax. It was a contrived thing. A PR representative came up with this idea, 'Look, it's only a few months after we invaded their country and we're already rebuilding. Isn't it amazing?' It was absolutely disgusting."
Howard and Cameron's urgings were matched by Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss, who told the crowd that military occupation in Iraq was harming those overseas and those facing the economic repercussions back in the U.S.
Sen. Ginny Lyons, D-Chittenden, received a loud round of applause when she said she and other lawmakers expected to introduce legislation next week asking President Bush, the Congress and the Senate to withdraw troops immediately.
__________________
Too busy with fishing to spend much time here.
Champlain Islander, the point of this thread wasn't the soldier's personal stance on whether the war was/is justified but to post his thoughts on joining the service after he's paid the ultimate sacrifice for something he died for. I personally think it is pathetic that this thread becomes yet another thread debating the war. Show this soldier a little more respect and put politics aside for a minute, for Christ's sake.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
I personally think it is pathetic that this thread becomes yet another thread debating the war. Show this soldier a little more respect and put politics aside for a minute, for Christ's sake.
The irony of the your comments is monolithic.
It is respect for this soldier and thousands like him that cause us to question questionable intentions.
It is respect for this soldier, who represents his generation and generations of others before him as they also hoisted high-minded and philosophical reasons for joining, that makes some of us demand that we know what we're doing before we begin doing it, that demands we reflect upon past mistakes that they never again be repeated at his expense.
It is respect for this representative human life, this thinking breathing human being, this young and courageous man, that make some of us shrill when people like Rumsfeld make excuses for taking two years to properly address armor for IED's and puke insolence in response such as "You go to war with the army you have."
It is respect for his life and his potential, that cause us to summon courage to speak out against the supposedly "patriotic" who are willing to salute our leaders and ask for "more time" despite the glaring idiocy of failing to plan for the obvious.
He's dead. He's given his life. He was perhaps a brother, an uncle, a son, a husband. We collectively share his loss and admire his bravery and aspire to the same ideals.
The difference is that some of us ask, "For what? For whom?"
Other tell us to just shut up and keep waving the flag.
It is this soldier and those like him, present and past, who give us the freedom to question our leaders, leader like Bush, who only recently could barely so much as summon the courage to admit that we essentially repeated past mistakes by way of lousy planning and failing to understand the people we were "freeing."
And you think that is pathetic? Pathetic that we should make sure his death won't be in vain? You are wont to silence the questions and instead pretend to honor that death without question, honor his aspirations and idealism despite the backdrop of inept leadership and planning Iraq?
Instead pray that such questions are always part of his death and the deaths of those like him... and that his leaders and those who surround and follow them are held to the highest standards of fiduciary responsibility...because he was trusting them to do just that. That was the premise, the very bedrock upon which he arrived at his decision to serve and perhaps die.
Another side of the Iraq issue as posted in this mornings Burlington Free Press (Vermont). Certainly tainted towards an anti war stance but interesting reading for a different perspective.
Vermont vets speak out against Iraq war
January 20, 2007
Matt Howard, 25, said he listened all night as tanks moved ahead in Nasiriyah, Iraq, in 2003. A member of the 1st Marine Division during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Howard knew that 18 Marines had recently been killed, and the rules of engagement had changed to "weapons-free."
"You can only shoot someone under certain terms, if they were wearing a uniform or carrying a weapon. Weapons-free meant you could shoot anyone," Howard said as he addressed a standing-room-only crowd at Contois Auditorium in Burlington's City Hall on Friday evening. "While I sat on the other side of the bridge, waiting to go through, I got to listen to the tanks and the mortars and the gunshots, as they all leveled this town."
"I had to drive through and see what it looked like the next morning. Everything was shot. Man, woman, donkey, it didn't matter. If it was moving, it died," he said.
Howard, now a Burlington resident, served two tours in Iraq as a Marine. He was part of the first wave into Iraq; Drew Cameron, 24, a University of Vermont student, was with the Army in the second wave. Both now members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, the men said during an anti-war panel discussion Friday that a U.S. military presence in Iraq was doing nothing to quiet violence and insurgence -- it was only making it worse.
"I cannot express to you how urgent the situation is on the ground in Iraq. Clean water, access to sewage, education, health care. It's to the point that it's so dire that it's worse than when Saddam was running the place," Cameron said, referring to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "This is supposed to be a country heralded for spreading democracy and changing the map of the Middle East. How can that be the case when after two years of occupation, it has gotten so much worse?"
Cameron said he served as a field artillery soldier in Iraq for eight months in 2003, and he participated in one humanitarian mission. He and fellow Army soldiers delivered desks to a school and, after the delivery, were ordered to take a defensive position and wait. About a half hour later, a convoy arrived containing high-ranking Army officials and public relations staffers.
"Our humanitarian mission was a hoax. It was a contrived thing. A PR representative came up with this idea, 'Look, it's only a few months after we invaded their country and we're already rebuilding. Isn't it amazing?' It was absolutely disgusting."
Howard and Cameron's urgings were matched by Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss, who told the crowd that military occupation in Iraq was harming those overseas and those facing the economic repercussions back in the U.S.
Sen. Ginny Lyons, D-Chittenden, received a loud round of applause when she said she and other lawmakers expected to introduce legislation next week asking President Bush, the Congress and the Senate to withdraw troops immediately.
I think it was this past Monday, but one of the Discovery-type channels did the whole day of their series "Off to War". It was very interesting how opinions and attitudes changed from the beginning of their deployment until their tour of duty was over.
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
I personally think it is pathetic that this thread becomes yet another thread debating the war. Show this soldier a little more respect and put politics aside for a minute, for Christ's sake.
The irony of the your comments is monolithic.
It is respect for this soldier and thousands like him that cause us to question questionable intentions.
It is respect for this soldier, who represents his generation and generations of others before him as they also hoisted high-minded and philosophical reasons for joining, that makes some of us demand that we know what we're doing before we begin doing it, that demands we reflect upon past mistakes that they never again be repeated at his expense.
It is respect for this representative human life, this thinking breathing human being, this young and courageous man, that make some of us shrill when people like Rumsfeld make excuses for taking two years to properly address armor for IED's and puke insolence in response such as "You go to war with the army you have."
It is respect for his life and his potential, that cause us to summon courage to speak out against the supposedly "patriotic" who are willing to salute our leaders and ask for "more time" despite the glaring idiocy of failing to plan for the obvious.
He's dead. He's given his life. He was perhaps a brother, an uncle, a son, a husband. We collectively share his loss and admire his bravery and aspire to the same ideals.
The difference is that some of us ask, "For what? For whom?"
Other tell us to just shut up and keep waving the flag.
It is this soldier and those like him, present and past, who give us the freedom to question our leaders, leader like Bush, who only recently could barely so much as summon the courage to admit that we essentially repeated past mistakes by way of lousy planning and failing to understand the people we were "freeing."
And you think that is pathetic? Pathetic that we should make sure his death won't be in vain? You are wont to silence the questions and instead pretend to honor that death without question, honor his aspirations and idealism despite the backdrop of inept leadership and planning Iraq?
Instead pray that such questions are always part of his death and the deaths of those like him... and that his leaders and those who surround and follow them are held to the highest standards of fiduciary responsibility...because he was trusting them to do just that. That was the premise, the very bedrock upon which he arrived at his decision to serve and perhaps die.
Excellent post, VC
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
Why I joined (to go to Iraq)
