Once again I'm responding to a column in the newspaper. I sent the following to my hometown paper:
I felt compelled to respond to the recent column by retired Army Colonel Clyde Meyer about militant Islam. I agree with Col. Meyer that Islam has a long history of violence. I also agree with his point that throughout history there have been fanatics from all religions who have used violence to advance their cause. Where I begin to disagree with the good Colonel is how best to fight Islamic extremists today.
Let me preface this by saying that, as a former military member myself, I am not reflexively anti-war. I understand its utility and occasional necessity, but I am not reflexively for war either. While I’ll leave the foreign policy side of the debate for another day, I would encourage anyone interested in the subject to read the book Imperial Hubris by CIA veteran Michael Scheuer for a thoughtful analysis of the motives of the Islamic terrorists.
Colonel Meyer states that since some terrorists have reached American soil they need to be “weeded out” through “counter-insurgency measures.” He casually shrugs off potential violations of the U.S. Constitution that he once swore an oath to defend. (As Republican activist and former-Marine Bill Salier likes to point out, that oath has no expiration date.) Meyer writes that the measures he endorses include “the control of people and resources and can infringe on some of the individual rights to which we are entitled by our constitution.”
Before we unleash the counter-insurgency tactics that we employed in Vietnam and Iraq on the American public, perhaps we could try something else: Freedom. I believe that we can defend ourselves against those who would harm us not by destroying our individual liberties but by defending them and expanding them.
For instance, Meyer mentions the recent Fort Hood attack by a suspected jihadist. Soldiers on that base were, as a matter of policy, denied the Second Amendment right to carry firearms that people elsewhere in Texas and 39 other states currently enjoy. That section of Ft. Hood (like Columbine and Virginia Tech) had become a “gun-free zone,” a proven magnet for mass murderers.
The same could also be said of the September 11th attacks. Government restrictions on the rights of Americans turned airliners into “gun-free zones” and government policy dictated that crews and passengers not resist hijackers. If people had been allowed to resist (as those on Flight 93 did anyway) or if the pilots had been allowed to keep pistols in the cockpit (as was common practice until the 1960’s) then 19 terrorists probably wouldn’t have been able to kill 2,976 Americans armed only with box cutters.
These are just two quick examples of how the answer is more freedom, not less. On this issue, as on many issues, the best thing the government can do for the American people is to stay out of our way. Surrendering our freedom and power to the government in exchange for promises of security ensures that the government will always find new threats so as to expand its power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post Topics
10 Questions with...
abortion
ACLU
alcohol
Alzheimer's
Ames Straw Poll
armed self defense
assault weapons ban
Audit the Fed
Austin Petersen
Barack Obama
Ben Lange
Beth Cody
Between Two Rivers
Bill Weld
Bob Barr
Bob Cashner
books
Bruce Braley
Bruce Hunter
Candidates
Carl Olsen
Cedar Rapids Gazette
charity
Chet Culver
Christopher Peters
Clel Baudler
communism
Confederate Flag
Constitution
Constitutional Convention
Corey D. Roberts
Crime
Cristina Kinsella
Dan Muhlbauer
debt
Declaration of Independence
Democrat Party
disasters
Donald Trump
drones
drugs
economy
education
elections
Eric Cooper
events
Facebook
Fast and Furious
First Amendment
food freedom
foreign policy
free markets
freedom
Gary Johnson
gay marriage
Glenn Beck
gold
gun control
Gun Owners of America
guns
health care
Hillary Clinton
history
Honey Creek Resort
Iowa
Iowa Caucus
Iowa City
Iowa Firearms Coalition
Iowa First District
Iowa Freedom Report
Iowa Gun Owners
Iowa Right To Life
Jake Porter
Joe Bolkom
John Boehner
John McAfee
John McCain
Judge Napolitano
Keith Laube
Lake Delhi
law
Lee Heib
Lee Hein
liberals
Libertarian Party
libertarianism
marijuana
Me
media
medical marijuana
memes
Memory Walk
Michele Bachmann
military
Mom
Nate Newsome
Nick Taiber
NRA
NSA
Obamacare
police
policy
politics
President Obama
primaries
privacy
property rights
Rand Paul
religion
Republican Party
resistance
Rick Santorum
right to carry
Rob Petsche
Rod Blum
Roger Fritz
Ron Paul
Rush Limbaugh
Ryan Flood
Sandy Hook Massacre
Sarah Palin
Second Amendment
smoking
Social Security
spending
Star Wars
State Defense Forces
Steve King
Steven Lukan
taxes
Tea Party Movement
Tenth Amendment
terrorism
Terry Branstad
Tom Harkin
traffic cams
TSA
TV/Movies
war
Wayne Jerman
weapons
Will Johnson
Yuri N. Maltsev
Zach Wahls
The Fort Hood shooting could also have been prevented if people were still allowed to utilize their First Amendment rights. Everybody knew Hasan was a loose cannon and an accident looking for a place to happen. But due to Political Correctness no one dares to say anything against a minority or a female, no matter what their actions. In all branches of government, not just the military, trying to discipline a member of the "protected classes", for even the most legitimate and essential of reasons, very easily results in having EO charges, warranted or not, filed against the supervisor. Even when the charges are proven groundless, that person's career is toast; the stigma will remain with them forever. Some animals are more equal than others. So, those of the "protected classes" WHO WISH TO ABUSE THE SYSTEM can essentially get away with murder and none dare speak out against it. Taking away more rights hardly seems the way to fix the problem.
ReplyDeleteGood point.
ReplyDelete