Monday, January 6, 2014

Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Culture--Dismissing Women Soldiers

One of the books I read over the holidays was Anthony Esolen's Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Culture.  This 357-page book is a delightful guide to western culture from its beginnings in Greece through Rome up until about the 19th Century.  At that point about two centuries ago, Esolen thinks our culture went off the rails.  The book continues through the time just before the Great Recession began at the end of the Bush administration in 2008.

This is the fourth book I have read by Esolen.  The other three I read in Iraq: Inferno, Purgatorio and Paradiso, Esolen's excellent translations of the three sections of Dante's Divine Comedy.

Throughout the book Esolen makes points for the Conservative view of politics and rarely concedes its excesses.  He does at one point admit Senator Joseph McCarthy might have been a bit much, but the entire right wing talk radio universe gets not a whisper of criticism.

Although Esolen is pro-military, he throws scorn on women soldiers.  He said that any "Private Benjamin" would be crushed by a third-string, bench-riding high school football player.  That may be true, but the modern military is not all about brute strength and Esolen, along with most leading Conservatives in America, helped to create the circumstances that made women an integral part of the modern volunteer Army.

When I enlisted during the Viet Nam War in 1972, the draft still technically existed but it was clear that suburban boys like me from the Northeast were not getting drafted.  Women were a small part of the military.

When I enlisted, Mitt Romney and William Kristol were deployed at Harvard University seven miles from my home town.  Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly and thousands of other big names in the Conservative movement got deferments and let poor kids serve in their place.  After the draft was over and military service was optional, Esolen and other men younger than draft age did not serve.  Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck or most other Conservatives in their 50s fall in this category.

Now you could say that those who did not serve had every right to avoid the draft by legal means, or choose not to enlist when the draft was over.  And you would be right.  But when draft evasion is the norm someone else has to serve.  Women stepped up while Esolen got a PhD.  And in his book, Esolen admires the Athens of Pericles where all the men were required to be fit and ready to defend their city.

In 2007 I was able to re-enlist at 54 years old after 23 years as a civilian because the Army had temporarily raised the enlistment age. I was too old to re-enlist when 9-11 happened, but I got in with a waiver six years later when the law changed.  Why did the law change?  Because right when The Surge was in full swing in Iraq, a country that claims to have nearly 100 million Conservatives could not fill its recruiting goals.  So old men like me and women filled the of the places left vacant by those who did not serve.

When I was in Iraq, I saw women take off in horrible dust storms to rescue soldiers attacked on the roads and at Forward Operating Bases around Camp Adder.

Until that bench-riding football player flies a Blackhawk Helicopter into a sandstorm to rescue fellow soldiers or jumps out of that helicopter and runs to care for that wounded soldier, like the female pilots and flight medics I knew, the fact that he could possibly beat one of them in a school-yard brawl means nothing.

Esolen and Limbaugh and other Conservatives can make fun of women in the military, but that bench-riding football player will most likely get a college education and never serve while a women steps up and takes her place in the military.




3 comments:

  1. I realize you're a liberal, but this time you paint the conservative with too broad a brush. Can you name all the liberals (media and politicians) of the same age who served in the military? The military is and always has been full of patriotic conservatives serving to preserve freedoms here and liberate others abroad. It was the liberals, including the feminazis, who decided that women should have equal opportunity to serve in the military and pushed this as a good thing. While there are many good places for women to serve (our daughter is an AF linguist in Korea), there are some places where women should not be. I won't bore you with why. We can agree to disagree on this. I believe that, generally speaking, conservatives want to "conserve" our God given liberties and restore the Constitution; liberals seem to want to regress to a monarchy/peasant model of living. I thought we once fought a revolution to overthrow that model.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rozy,
      Thanks for your comment. I was trying to be narrowly focused in this case. In his book, Esolen dismisses women as Pvt. Benjamin's who could get their butts kicked by a 3rd-string football player. Esolen never served and I picked other Conservatives who both did not serve and who have been critical of women in the military. As you know from my other posts the author I admire most is CS Lewis. He wrote a scathing criticism of pacifists, but he presented that criticism to a group of pacifists. And Lewis was a decorated, twice wounded, combat veteran of the First World War. If you have not read it, "Why I am not a Pacifist" is one of his best essays.

      Whatever the larger issues around this topic, I was angry to read this dismissal of ALL women who volunteered serve in our nation's wars, by a guy who did not serve.

      Delete
    2. Rozy,
      Since you brought up the Constitution, I can add the off-topic comment that the Founders read Greek and Latin and modeled the Constitution on what they considered the best of Athens and Rome. But they also borrowed heavily from British system, particularly in the making of laws. If you have read "Democracy in America" the best book on our government ever written, you would see our government, like the British system is built on precedent. The Constitution is a living framework and our laws work out daily life. In our system, as in Britain, our laws rely on precedent. Our laws are judged on precedent by the courts. An American or British lawyer asks about precedent. Other democracies feel more free to innovate. In this way our government is Conservative by the model of Edmund Burke by design.
      People who want to dismiss 200 years of precedent and start over are far from the intent of the founders. The most radical thing anyone can do is throw away 200 years of precedent and start over by their own lights. They are saying they are smarter than Madison, Jefferson and every one of the leaders of our nation from 1789 till now.
      I'll take Madison and Jefferson and 200-plus years of wisdom and experience and compromise or a radical.
      If you have never done a Bible study on rebellion, look up all 70-plus occurrences. The Lord never has a good thing to say about rebels. We got lucky once. We should not do it again.

      Delete

Persia Renamed Iran in 1935 By a Nazi-Admiring Shah

Reza Shah Pahlavi, Nazi devotee In 1935, Reza Shah, founder of the Pahlavi dynasty felt the winds of history blowing across the world. He wa...