| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| LTC Steve Russell answers LA Times "I don't support the troops" |
| 2006-01-26 |
| He's sent this to the Times -- I could be a wealthy woman (as in a bet) that they won't publish this response A Soldier's Response to Joel Stein No doubt readers are aware of yesterday’s LA unabashedly anti-war/anti-soldier column in the Los Angeles Times, “Warriors and Wusses” by Joel Stein. Reuters among others has a piece on the huge fallout, while talk host and blogger Hugh Hewitt interviewed Stein yesterday. LTC Steve Russell sent me his reply to the Times, which it may or may not print. LTC Russell commanded Task Force 1/22nd Infantry in Iraq (bagged Saddam) and is currently Chief of Tactics at the Infantry School. John B. Dwyer 1 25 06 Here is what LTC Russell wrote: Mr. Stein’s commentary on soldier support is remarkable because it reflects more than just his opinion. It may even express a viewpoint. While most of Mr. Stein’s commentary is indicative of a man who has enjoyed our freedoms with none of the responsibility (by his own admission), he has at least one point of merit. He does not conceal his true conviction. When one considers those that say they support the troops but not the war, it is hard to distinguish which is more harmful to the soldier. Mr. Stein alludes to this as trying to have it both ways and implies this is a moral cop out. He may be right. It can also be viewed as similar to telling the trash man, “Thanks.” It is seldom sincere. It is just so the trash will keep being taken away by someone willing to do it so one does not have to get his hands dirty. Mr. Stein’s tragedy is not his clear conviction but rather that he steals freedom from his sacrificing countrymen. He sees no moral dilemma with that—which is indicative of an attitude prevalent among some self-proclaimed, high-browed, educated types that believe there is somehow a moral superiority in non-involvement. To defend his position, Mr. Stein is critical of what he calls ‘American imperialism.’ To borrow what he surely intended as a denigrating analogy, we can indeed see parallels in attitude if not government and conquest. Rome had its internal critics. So did Greece. But when the vast majority of Romans began to view the finer points of life as morally superior to the lower points of necessity, Roman youth lost their appreciation for what held Rome together in the first place. Soon, hired or conquered levies replaced Romans in the ranks. Why should Romans fight wars that they could not see any reason for fighting? After all, what impact did they have in Rome? Eventually, the theory of a moral superiority in non-involvement met the cold steel of non-theoretically superior sword thrusts from Vandals and Huns that replaced Romans in the Roman empire. I take exception to Mr. Stein’s comment about soldiers ignoring their morality. And as a soldier that has served in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, none of those experiences ever made me feel ‘lucky.’ The noble ‘wars’ and ‘fights’ are seldom noble for the soldier. They involve pain and human suffering on a grand scale. Mr. Stein I am quite certain has never killed a man and is proud of that. I have had to kill several men in desperate, close combat while I watched my opponents facial expressions change as life ebbed out of them. I am quite certain that I am not proud of that. But what separates him from me is certainly not education. Nor is it conviction of purpose. It is indeed morality. But of a nobler kind. No greater love has a man, than he lay down his life for his friends—even when they act and write unfriendly. As an American, I no longer draw a distinction of who qualifies to be one or is best suited to appreciate democracy. After serving nine years overseas and on multiple continents, I do not see white or black or Hispanic or Indian or oriental or educated or simple-minded Americans. I only see Americans. Even the unfriendly kind. And when I am old, I will be able to look in the mirror and know that I acted on my convictions to preserve what others will not. Cannot. Do not. And what I will see is a man with a clear conscience and a moral sense of purpose. I am thankful I do not have to look into Mr. Stein’s mirror. LTC Steve Russell |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #7 The Colonel is right, but he is wrong in his rebuttal, in that he is not the issue. He is an honorable man in an honorable cause, and such men need little justification--it is obvious to those who know and respect them, both who they are, and what they do and have done. Their carriage alone speaks to their personal pride, even without earned rank and decorations on display. That is, the subject here is not the honorable men. Not in the rebuttal, and not in the original story. The subject is the dishonorable man. The man who must explain his cowardice, who rationalizes his spite and hatred as a noble cause, and who seeks profit in agitation--in defiling that which is honorable and beloved. Such dishonorable men learn early on that they do not have the intestinal fortitude to be great and noble. And thus they are consigned to never following the paths of glory, but only to walk in the gutter, unheralded, uncelebrated and unremembered. It fills them with spite, which they easily convert to contempt and the desire to blacken and corrupt that which is better than them. Later, these dishonorable men, knowing they cannot truly challenge the honorable, pretend to be honorable themselves. They feign rank, commendation, and the scars of battle, so that they can brag of their imaginary achievements, and dispute the honor of others. Sometimes they even claim dishonorable acts, sacrificing their imaginary character to disabuse others; such as pretending to have committed war crimes, "which we all did." But the sorriest comment that can be made about Joel Stein is that he is just the willing toady of his publisher. A publisher who is losing more and more money with the paradigm of the LA Times. A publisher who directed Stein to write something so offensive that it would give publicity to that failing leftist rag. Given this assignment, at least it can be said that Stein wrote from the heart. Or at least the gall bladder, wherein resides the bile on which he chokes. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-26 18:07 |
| #6 Hell, I may have to change my name to Steve after this response. |
| Posted by: BH 2006-01-26 18:04 |
| #5 My goodness, that's quite a response. Thank you Colonel Steve. Penguin: the 'Amry of Steve' started here as an in-joke (two moderators and several regulars of the name). When we learned that LTC Steve was, well, a Steve, we were proud to include him in the ranks. And based on what he wrote today, along with the kind of man he's been all along, I'm proud, as well as not worthy, to share the name. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-01-26 17:39 |
| #4 Penguin -- yes, this is our "Army of Steve" guy. Assumed he was in Iraq with the 4th Infantry, but seems not. "LTC Russell commanded Task Force 1/22nd Infantry in Iraq (bagged Saddam) and is currently Chief of Tactics at the Infantry School." |
| Posted by: Sherry 2006-01-26 17:32 |
| #3 Penguin __ get serious. This will mean a promotion to the NYT as OOE - Offensice Opinion Editor. |
| Posted by: Jomong Craiter9134 2006-01-26 17:25 |
| #2 I'd be willing to bet that Stein's career is over. He'll be selling shoes or possible fetching coffee by next year. LTC Russell is our "Army of Steve" guy, right? |
| Posted by: Penguin 2006-01-26 17:19 |
| #1 I am thankful I do not have to look into Mr. SteinÂ’s mirror. As am I as well. What a piece of kak. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-26 16:59 |