|
|
Montevideo American-News
  • Letters to the Editor, Thursday, November 21

  • The American-News welcomes letters of opinion from our readers. Letters regarding current local and national news items are encouraged. All letters are subject to editing for length and style. Letters containing potentially libelous or obscene statements will not be published. Letters must contain name, address and phone numb...
    • email print
      Comment
  • The American-News welcomes letters of opinion from our readers. Letters regarding current local and national news items are encouraged. All letters are subject to editing for length and style. Letters containing potentially libelous or obscene statements will not be published. Letters must contain name, address and phone number for verification and in case of questions. E-mail letters to:  jjones@montenews.com Letters may also be mailed to:  Editor, Montevideo Publishing, P.O. Box 99, Montevideo, MN 56265
     
    Ideology and the armed forces
    There are a number of retired military officers who have expressed themselves lately concerning their fear that there is an ideological purge going on within the ranks of the military services.
    This has been exemplified by the removal of those who have not been seen to be in lock step with the administration. Such an action has certainly been demonstrated even to the casual observer by the inroads of political correctness which has been manifested in the cashiering of don’t ask, don’t tell, and referring to the Fort Hood massacre as work place violence, when that certainly was not the case.
    There have been nine senior generals fired this year and approximately 197 officers relieved of duty for a myriad of reasons.
    Gen. Carter Ham, once head of the U.S.. African command was fired because he disagreed with orders not to mount a Sept. 11 Benghazi rescue mission. Rear Admiral Chuck Gaouette, commander of a naval strike force, was told to walk the plank when he backed up Gen. Ham.
    If in fact the current administration is interjecting their ideological politically correct “fundamental transformation of America” into our armed services, this is a very dangerous precedent. I hear President Obama give a speech in which he referred to the military as “my military.” I always thought it was “our military,” cemented by the connection of every member to their neighborhood community and family. To separate the thinking of the officer corps from the thinking of the people as a whole is a very bad idea which can only be based on the accruing of greater control in ideological power over the corps.
    Please regard for a moment the German Army in World War II. That was a highly professional, extremely efficient organization. It has been calculated that it inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than the British and American troops. When the German Army became fundamentally, ideologically transformed into the image of the ruling elite, the army became much more self-consciously ideological and became, to a great extent, separated from the morals the officer corps hitherto had exhibited.
    The American soldier of that time period did not feel driven by much of an ideological bent. He just fought to survive and insure the survival of his friends and go home.
    Page 2 of 3 - If Obama-directed edeology is beginning in higher military officers, to stand between their decisions and the folks on the street, then we have a real problem. It is our military’s heart connection to the people, to friends and family and communities that have made it such a force for good in the past, not an ideological connection to any commander in chief.
    A commander in chief that does not exhibit the highest veracity, cannot lead our forces along a straight path.
    —Doug Hodge
    Montevideo
    And the moral of the story is?
    Once upon a time there were 50 villages of hard-working, freedom-loving people. These people had chosen a leader to go to the enchanted city to oversee the business of the villages.  This leader was elevated to “Wizard of Smart” because he had promised them hope, change and if they liked their unicorn they could keep it.  
    The wizard said he needed helpers so the villagers sent others to the enchanted city. Not long after the helpers arrived in the enchanted city, the villagers began to notice that they were losing jobs and struggling with hundreds of new laws and regulations which diminished their hopes for the future.  
    But then they began losing their unicorns, so they rose up in protest against the helpers and the wizard only to discover that many of the helpers had fallen under the wizard’s spell. Those helpers had been turned into lying weasels and began to speak harshly against the good helpers who had resisted the spell.    
    The lying weasels had forgotten why they were sent to the enchanted city. They forgot about the villagers’ needs and became pompous, obsessed with money and power.  
    The good helpers were crying out to the villagers to remember how they had loved their freedom and pleaded with them to fire the lying weasels and send more good helpers to the enchanted city. They implored the villagers to see that the wizard was nothing more than a lying weasel disguised as Santa.  
    But, alas many of the villagers had grown dependent upon the gifts they were receiving from the wizard and lying weasels thereby losing their will to work and help themselves; they had lost their self esteem and became slaves to the wizard and lying weasels.  
    Sadly, we don’t yet know how this story ends. How would you like it to end? Do you want the villagers to remind the lying weasels who they work for insisting they listen to them, be more transparent and reign in spending thus living happily ever after?  
    Or should they choose to continue receiving the gifts leaving a legacy of debt and hopelessness for their children and grandchildren?  
    Page 3 of 3 - —Patty Hahn
    Montevideo

        calendar