Op-Ed
Symbolic Surrender and the Surge
Email: 
Share: 
John Manetta Once Told Me
Heartless, Not Stupid
.jpg "Heartless, Not Stupid")
Amid Bush’s calls for a surge in troop levels in Iraq, the anti-war left gathered in Washington to express their love for their country — or lack thereof.
All of our most famous traitors were there. Sean Penn was overheard bragging about partying it up with Uday and Qusay at their private mansion (read: sex slave and torture compound); it was a party so exclusive that Paris Hilton couldn’t even get in. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins turned out to show the world the direct relationship between plastic surgery and diminishing brain function. “Hanoi” Jane Fonda stepped up to the microphone to revamp her image, shedding the out of style “Hanoi” for the more “in touch” title of Jihad Jane Fonda. Sadly enough for J.J. her presence was not as well received as she anticipated. Organizers thought that her appearance would only serve to reinforce the out-of-work, over-the-hill hippy stereotype that plagues the anti-war movement. One official, who asked not to be named, had this to say: “Even talentless Ben Affleck was able to find a role following his performance in Gigli. The least J.J. could have done was to request a cameo in Monster in Law II.” This, however, was just the beginning of a march that was chalk full of disappointment.
United for Peace and Justice, the leading organizer of the march, had hoped that 400,000 activists would gather to listen to inspiring orators like perennial presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich and astute foreign policy experts like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) who was the only elected official in this country to vote against the war in Afghanistan.
The march, however, only managed to muster several thousand America haters. Estimates in the size of the crowd ranged from 30,000 to 90,000 in attendance. The large gaps between these two estimates can be attributed to several factors. Some of the pollsters admitted to mistakenly counting homeless people along the route; other pollsters, meanwhile, admitted that they chose not to include children in their count because they did not want to encourage other anti-war agitators to lie to their kids about “Take Your Daughter to (Non-Existent) ‘Work’ Day.” The protesters made up for the disappointing turnout with even more over-the-top rhetoric.
The steps of the Capitol Building were spray painted by demonstrators. When police attempted to stop the vandalism, United States Capitol Police Chief Phillip Morse ordered the officers to stand down, saying, “it is the USCP’s duty and responsibility to protect the Capitol complex … while allowing the public to exercise their First Amendment rights … at the end of the day, both occurred without injury to protestors.” Hopefully, some other activists might use Chief Morse’s home as a canvas for political expression sometime soon.
One can only imagine what would be said if social activists had vandalized government property during the March for Life a week earlier. Nancy Pelosi would be harping about the disruption the vandalism had caused. John Kerry would call the pro-life movement an “international pariah.” Ted Kennedy would amend the minimum wage hike to also prohibit pro-life activists from protesting in front of abortion clinics, just as he did during the Clinton Administration. Standing in front of an abortion clinic is considered an abomination, but spray-painting the Capitol Dome is a protected form of expression.
Spray paint may have replaced flag burning, but if there is one style of protest that will never go out of style, it is spitting on heroes. Liberals are always quick to showcase their masculine side by parading around likeminded heroic soldiers. War veterans with opposing viewpoints, however, do not receive the same level of support from the Left. While some activists turned out to laugh at John Kerry jokes and support the insurgency, others came to D.C. to defend the mission. One of these men was Corporal Joshua Sparling of the 82nd Airborne Division. Corporal Sparling could not have walked with the protesters, even if he wanted to — his right leg was still somewhere in Ramadi, Iraq. He sacrificed it so that the legions of anti-American defeatists could spit at him on their way to listen to Jihad Jane and gang.
It is no secret that Leftists do not just hate war or Bush: they hate our soldiers. Their sound bites may hide their true feelings, but numbers do not. In polls taken among registered Democrats after the State of Union, only 12 percent supported the troop surge. Even more disturbing is the fact that 49 percent said they either did not want the surge to succeed or they were not sure if they wanted the surge to succeed.
Leftists claim that their “symbolic” anti-surge resolution and the March for Peace are not aimed at hurting troops but helping Iraqis. The only Iraqis these events serve are insurgents. The insurgents, like the Viet Cong, have enjoyed nothing but “symbolic” victories, having never been able to defeat American forces on the battlefield. The “lazy” Iraqi army that Democrats are so quick to deprecate killed 200 insurgents on Sunday with the help of U.S. air support. Those superior insurgents that we hear so much about from the Democrats didn’t have a chance against the Iraqi army we trained. This resolution and the Democratic pot-shots at the Iraqi government do not inspire confidence in our allies, only our enemies.
Democrats are rooting for failure in Iraq. They believe that such failure translates into a black mark on Bush’s record and a Democratic president in ’08. Failure also requires more American and Iraqi casualties. Democrats claim that they are helping the Iraqis while expressing the will of the American people through activism — but the only people I know that actively serve the people of Iraq and this country are wearing desert camouflage, not tie-dye.
Billy McMorris is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at wjm27@cornell.edu. John Manetta Once Told Me appears alternate Wednesdays.
Sparling story is full of holes
I was actually at the protest in DC. There are numerous articles, the best of these being at TPMCafe, about the holes in the Sparling story, as well as the way the story has changed a couple of times since he first told it. Mr McMorris may wish to withhold his judgment until he does better research and views all of the evidence.
With respect to the alleged spray painting incident, I have photos taken within seconds of when the kids charged the line of police and there was no conflict and the police were not terribly concerned. I was right there when that happened. I also looked around the Internet for photos of the alleged spray painting, since I saw none, but there were many cameras in the area and people were taking pictures and many of them have been published at this point. The only photo of any of this alleged vandalism that occurred shows something that looks much more like charcoal than spray paint.
In any event, Mr McMorris seems to be outraged that the Capitol Police didn't do something more significant with regard to the alleged spray painting incident(s). I was there and I regard the performance of the Capitol Police as disciplined, professional, and judicious. They could have over-reacted and started making arrests with a large crowd all around them and maybe things would have stayed calm and maybe they would have gotten ugly. However, because cooler heads prevailed, the entire "incident" amounted to some workers (who were there anyway because there are always cleanup crews around after a big protest rally--that's why the protest organizers have to pay so much for their license) cleaning up some spray paint ina few, isolated areas on the steps. It was a big nothing.
Mr McMorris, you seem awfully emotional and excitable. It may be because your only involvement with these events, which are defining events in the social history of the time, is from a great distance. If you ever actually participate in events rather than comment on them from second-hand reports from afar, you might discover that the reports are somewhat exaggerated and events are not what your imagination makes them.
By the way, I am a Cornell alum, class of '80. Hello, Professor McClane. How's tricks?
One word.
Enlist.
Will Mr. McMorris be enlisting now?
The knee-jerk dissent-is-unpatriotic opinion Billy is espousing here is exactly why the United States is stuck in the Iraq war. In fact, opponents of the war have good grounds to believe that it was started on false pretenses, in the service of an agenda the public in general opposes. They have good grounds to believe the war is unwinnable, and that pursuing it will only cost more blood and treasure.
Whether they are right or wrong remains to be seen. One thing is certain. The US Army is stretched beyond its limits in Iraq. If victory remains possible it will only come through the eager service of committed young soldiers who step up to take on the challenge. It's easy to cheerlead from the safety of a college campus. Without strong actions to andback them up, strong words are only cowardice hiding behind hot air. What I want to know is, when will Billy McMorris be putting on that desert camouflage uniform he speaks so highly of?
Spitting @ Amputee War Hero
You really need to see to believe how these fascist street thugs (euphemistically called "peace protestors") cursed and spit at amputee war hero, Joshua Sparling.
Were any Cornell peace toadies there to flick cigarette butts at this disabled war vet?
Leftists must be so proud to be associated with pro-Castro UFPJ Marxist thuggery.
/spitting @ appeaseniks
Heard it all before
Yes, yes. We know. Anti-war Americans, particularly those who demonstrate publicly, are "traitors". They're helping the enemy. They're America haters. They're Leftists with a capital "L", ascribing to some whacko far-out philosophy akin to Marxism or Stalinism. They hang out with people like Jihad Jane and they root for failure.
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
Billy McMorris commits a number of sins in this column, but first among them is a complete and utter lack of originality. It doesn't take a lot of brains or guts to call names and sling mud. It takes even fewer to call names and sling mud that have been called and slung so many times before.
If you're a conservative, great. We welcome you to the national debate. If you're a mudslinger, go home. We don't need you, we don't want you, and you do your country a grave disservice.
another...
Another fantastic piece of ultra-conservative propaganda from everyone's favorite columnist, Billy Mcmorris. There is a DISTINCT difference between supporting the WAR and supporting the TROOPS. I am as patriotic as the next guy and support the American and coalition forces in Iraq. However, I do not support the reason for them being there. Unfortunately we can't turn back the clock and change that, so the only reasonable thing to do is support them. You will not find any American who will tell you that they actively do NOT support the troops; that would amount to saying that they enjoy seeing dead and wounded Americans. You know as well as I that no sane person wants Americans to lose limbs and die. Calling liberals "anti-American defeatists" is naieve and narrow-minded.
I also find it interesting that denouncing a troop surge is seen as "hating" the troops. Have enough Americans (and Canadians, and Brits, and everyone else) not died already? Has there not been enough needless grief for their families? Sending more troops will only exacerbate an already volatile situation in which the American troop presence is seen as inappropriate by the average Iraqi. As several above me have said, enlist. If you are so passionate about it, go there yourself and spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. The Iraq war began on false pretenses, and has continued needlessly. You can't simply create democracy from nothing in a culture where it has never truly existed. It is a long process and a painful transition taking decades if not centuries, and more American troops will only slow it down.
Poll citations, please
I haven't anything more to say about "Spit" Sparling's unfortunate habit of being wherever some "Osama lovin' hippie" is lookin' for a soldier to abuse--It's all been pointed out, already--but I would like to know where the author found those nifty poll numbers about Democrats not wanting the "surge" to succeed. I find them... ...unbelievable, and in need of verification.
Various points, in no
Various points, in no particular order:
1. One cannot realistically claim to support the troops and not support the war. The principal battleground on which the Iraq war has been fought since the coalition's battlefield victory has been in the worldwide media. Our enemies realize that the only way to defeat the U.S. military is from within; relying on the cowardice that has come to characterize today's America. Every time we speak out against the war, it only further encourages our enemies to hold out a little longer. Our troops deserve better. We would have suffered far fewer casualties had support been unwavering.
2. The democrats opposition to the war is merely a stand-in for their opposition to republicans in general and George Bush in particular. The craven desire for public office has outweighed the lives of our troops and has undermined our success every step of the way. The millions of Iraqis now living in freedom bears witness to the value of the war effort. There have been three nationwide elections in Iraq without major incident since the coalition deposed Saddam.
3. The documents uncovered in the raid on Iranian infiltrators in Iraq yielded an interesting discovery: this supposed civil war finds Iran bankrolling and supporting both the Sunnis and the Shiites. They have figured out that all you need to do to convince weak-willed Americans to pack up and leave is to make things appear "messy"; you can count on the demo-featists to do the rest.
4. In time of war, republicans historically have stood behind the democrat President (the usual combination, by the way). Not so the democrats; not so.
5. It took the US 13 years to go from Declaration to Constitution. We still have troops stationed in Korea and Europe. When are they coming home? We fought a sometimes hot (through proxies) Cold War for more than 40 years before achieving victory. The Iraqi people deserve the same consideration and support as their Korean and European counterparts; they do not deserve the fate of the South Vietnamese who we abandoned.
6. If you have an issue with "remote" reporting, why not focus your attention on the major US news media outlets who write their stories from nowhere near a battlefield; they rely on information provided to them by others. Returning vets will tell you that one of their biggest frustrations upon returning from a tour is news coverage that bears no relation to their experience in country, and that completely ignores all the good that has come from the coalition’s efforts.
7. I love the "enlist" comment. I have forwarded other commentary on military issues by Mr. McMorris to various friends I have who currently serve in Iraq and they are thrilled that Mr. McMorris is supporting them, and wish that more of his peers would do the same. Our professional soliders do not expect everyone to serve, but they expect every Ameircan to support them. As one of my Marine friends is fond of saying: "Freedom is not free, but the Marines are willing to pay your share."