Mon 12 Dec 2005

« Vote Drezner ’90

Purple Fingers »

---

5 Responses to “Worth Fighting and Dying For”

1. Mike says:

   With regards to the question which is not today’s topic, Ronald Reagan, as usual, hits the nail on his head. And also, as usual, it comes from his “A Time For Choosing” speech:

   Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face — that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand — the ultimatum. And what then — when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

   You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

   You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this — this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits — not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

   You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

   We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

   Good stuff.

   December 12th, 2005 at 10:06 am



2. Guy Creese '75 says:

   I would disagree. If we’re into giving out Bicentennial Medals just for people’s jobs/vocations, how about one each year for an investment banker?

   You get a Bicentennial Medal for doing something unique and outstanding, and just showing up for work doesn’t count. (Yes, although it is dangerous and takes skill and courage, being a soldier is just a job).

   Now if an Eph serving in the military came up with a new form of fighting, was pre-eminent in military history, or invented a new form of battlefield awareness communications, then he or she should certainly be considered for a Medal.

   December 12th, 2005 at 11:24 am



3. David says:

   Guy raises a fair point and I realize that, officially, Bicentennial Medals are for “members of the Williams community for distinguished achievement in any field of endeavor.” But:

   1) There is a bit of a wink-wink aspect to this description. The College still manages to award lots of rich Ephs Bicentennial Medals. Now, it is true that rich people are often quite successful in their fields. But this isn’t always true.

   2) There is also a fair amount of defining down the definition of “distinguished,” at least when it comes to younger Ephs. I am sure that Marisa Reddy Randazzo ’89 is a wonderful person, but her achievements are certainly no more distinguished that those of Ephs in combat.

   I guess that it all comes down to what we mean by “distinguished.” Perhaps you think that clearing IEDs from the roads of Fallujah is no more “distinguished” than buying/selling stocks. I disagree.

   Guy, do you really believe that, in this day and age, volunteering to serve your country in war time is not “unique and outstanding?”

   I would have pegged you as more of a patriot than that . . .

   December 12th, 2005 at 11:50 am



4. Jeff Zeeman says:

   On a related topic, an interesting website to review:

   http://operationtruth.com//index.php

   Interesting in and of itself, and also particularly relevant to Ephblog readers as it was founded by an Amherst alum — I imagine there are even fewer Jeffs in the armed services (or certainly not appreciably more) than their Eph counterparts. He would be an interesting guy to invite to campus to speak … and were he an Eph, I’d say worth of a bicentennial medal. I think that if someone does something particularly heroic or unusual or rises to a high rank in the military, they certainly would deserve a medal, but I think just by serving, while worthy of plaudits, doesn’t really distinguish something — after all, millions of Americans have served, so military service (again, while honorable and worthy of praise) doesn’t really — standing alone — serve as a distinguishing mark. I think the idea of these medals should be, someone who distinguished themselves in their chosen field, whatever that may be.

   By the way, Mike, you could just as easily apply Reagan’s words to Vietnam circa 1971 — actually, they are far more relevant and applicable than they are to the instant conflict, because it was a lot easier to identify and isolate the enemy faced by Reagan — Communism — than it is to identify and isolate terrorists. Moreover, I don’t think a lot of people were arguing that our cold-war policies were directly responsible for creating MORE communists, yet it’s a very credible argument (and I’d say a winning one) that our policy in Iraq has created legions more terrorists, and will continue to do so until we have a regime change. So the cost-benefit calculation was a lot simpler to make.

   Are you saying, by citing to this speech as somehow the end-and-and-be-all blanket statement that applies to any conflict in any era, that leaving Vietnam was a mistake? That’s kind of the Jean Schmidt approach — you know, anytime we don’t use military force, we are cowardly and weak. Sometimes force is appropriate, but sometimes refraining from military force is the more courageous action. I don’t think anyone is afraid that the terrorists are going to triumph over the US militarily — their weapons are creating enough hatred and bile aimed in the US direction that people are willing to sacrifice themselves to kill as many civilians as possible. And that’s impossible to ever completely stop using force alone — just ask Israel.

   December 12th, 2005 at 1:22 pm



5. Mike says:

   I was more referring to the “Should Jesus have refused the cross” bit as simply some great rhetoric about the fact that some causes are worth dying from. But I agree with you that Reagan’s clarity of vision would have been extremely useful during the Vietnam War.

   December 12th, 2005 at 1:59 pm

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post

If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.