Search  |  Login  |  Register

By David French1326913467000

Over at the New York Post, Arthur Herman has penned an outstanding piece that outlines the double standards inherent in every American conflict since Vietnam. Here’s the core point:

After Vietnam, our politicians demanded that our armed forces be trained to wield the most lethal weapons ever made, with the moral and cultural sensitivity of Peace Corps volunteers. To anyone who knows history, our troops have met this challenge with overwhelming and unprecedented success — as our real record in Iraq and Afghanistan attests.

But it has left our military trapped in a strange double bind, one reflected in the furor over this video. If Somalis drag our dead through the streets or Iraqi insurgents dismember captured Marines or the Taliban gang-rape and mutilate women to enforce their vicious version of sharia law, the media treat it as irrelevant to understanding who we are fighting, or why. They even suppress those stories and images — such as the beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg. Their grounds for that censorship is that such reporting might “inflame hatred” — in other words, make us fight harder.

On the other hand, if an American warrior oversteps civilized bounds, his behavior becomes proof that our mission is a moral failure and no longer deserving of support.

This actually understates the severity of the problem. When the media confronts enemy atrocities, they’ll often argue that the very horror of those atrocities demonstrates the desperation we’ve allegedly caused. In other words, our atrocities are our fault and their (much worse) atrocities are our fault. Heads, we lose. Tails, they win.

The vast majority of our soldiers not only fight honorably (in fact, one of the tragic and untold stories of the war is the number of American soldiers who died because they showed restraint), they are keenly aware of the extraordinary scrutiny. When I deployed, countless soldiers asked me if they were “going to jail” if they made an honest mistake outside the wire. The question itself grieved me. Imagine the stress of fighting for your life while constantly looking over your shoulder for the long arm of the law.

At the same time, while we knew that the slightest error (or malicious report) could become world news overnight, we also knew that al-Qaeda actions like shooting babies in the face or decapitating women was no news at all. Double standards have consequences. And as Arthur Herman rightly notes, for Americans the consequences can include terrible wounds and sudden death on an overly sensitized battlefield.

This article is crossposted on National Review Online.

Latest in
Constitution

Restoring Our Republic

By Jay Sekulow1432305120477

Red tape in America is rising. Exponentially. It’s suffocating our Constitution and our freedoms. This is confirmed in a report recently released by the Heritage Foundation . The report states that since President Obama took office six years ago, his Administration has issued 184 major rules...

read more

State Department Uses IRS Playbook

By Matthew Clark1432157351344

Yesterday’s revelation that the State Department is processing (read: stonewalling) 50,000 emails from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton but that none of those emails will be ready for public consumption until sometime in January 2016 is unsurprising. Those emails cover everything from the...

read more

A Rogue 4th Branch Of Government?

By Jay Sekulow1432046193785

Two years ago this month, we learned of the burgeoning scandal at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – the deliberate targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups – a coordinated move to keep these groups on the sidelines during a critical election. We are in federal court representing dozens of...

read more

Bureaucracy Rises, Our Liberties Fall

By Edward White1431954000000

During the 1980s, there was a popular comedy show on the BBC called Yes Minister . The show involved a politician who was often thwarted by a member of the unelected civil service bureaucracy when he proposed legislation or reforms that were not beneficial to the bureaucracy. As in the fictional...

read more