In Those Without Swords, our noted curmudgeon takes issue with those who rail against a war already begun.
I have the same feelings, and wondered whether it was my military background or the fact that I have two sons directly involved in the combat that made me relate this way.
Francis talks about how Charles Lindberg argued hard against our entering WWII, then went to the Pacific and flew combat missions once we were in it. Perhaps many of you don’t realize what a true hero Lindberg was, years after his solo flight across the Atlantic. People cared about his opinion. He spent time in Germany at Hitler’s invitation, and had glowing words about the state of aviation in the Reich. But when war was declared, he answered the call.
Vietnam was the first time it was fashionable (and that is a precise word for the sentiment) to be anti-war. It is interesting to me that the people in this country most vehement in this philosophy are those very people who made their name and reputation by being anti-war in the 1960s and ’70s. It is like they are searching for their lost relevance.
And they bring along younger zealots, most of whom are disciples. Others follow along as a result of group-think.
Are they sincere? I doubt it, at least as regards the war. They are sincere in their search for acceptance. Younger ones may be sincere, yet also naive. The point of all this dissent is to change the government’s action. That is precisely our enemy’s goal. Yet these folks don’t see themselves as allies of our enemies. They view themselves as patriotic because they are dissenting.
If they really want to see this war end as quickly as possible, they would show a united front to outsiders. I have to wonder whether they like the idea of being defeated.