Am I angry or sad? I am confused that someone who found it in themselves to serve her country honorably in the U.S. military would be outraged that her daughter is being taught to place her "allegiance" in only her country. It certainly helps to remind me, sadly, that all of the political correctness and multi-cultural baloney that has become part of the new military "culture" has been a complete disaster. That we are manning a military with a bunch of soft, self-centered "warriors" whose main allegiance is to themselves. It's true that there are many, in fact the vast majority, who join the military because they have a sense of duty to something greater than themselves, but increasingly we are seeing men and women joining because of college benefits, job security, and other less than selfless reasons.
Liberal policies and activists are destroying the esprit de corps of what has been the greatest military in the history of mankind, trying to create a "compassionate" fighting force. This, all with the goal of fighting "clean" wars, and winning the hearts and minds of our enemies by not using "disproportionate" force in battles. I can't disagree more. You win wars by using disproportionate, overwhelming force against your enemy. You demoralize your enemy by inflicting such disproportionate losses on them that they give up. You break their will to fight. You don't trade casualties one-for-one. You kill them ten-to-one, or one hundred-to-one! That kind of disproportion ends wars so they don't drag on for ten or twenty years, saving tens or hundreds of thousands of lives. War is inhumane, and brutal by it's very nature. The best way to minimize the carnage is to have it the war be as swift and decisive as possible. Yes, innocents are killed, as they are in every war, no matter how "smart" the bombs are. Having a limited war of attrition is one of the most inhumane ways to wage a war, both in casualties and in the psychological effects it has on those in the "war zone".
That someone can serve and get out of the U.S. military with this "global" community idea that this woman has just shows how soft, and misguided, that out military leadership has become.
Pledge of Allegiance sparks controversy at John Stanford
A new principal's implementation of a routine Seattle Public Schools policy has ignited a debate over the meaning of an "international school."
Seattle Times education reporter
When Haley Sides moved to Seattle after four years in the Air Force, she chose to settle in Wallingford so her 6-year-old daughter could attend John Stanford International School — an educational community promoting the same type of multiculturalism Sides has tried to instill in her half-Jamaican daughter.
Sides was outraged when the school's new principal announced this week that students will be asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of each day. The practice, which has long been mandated by district policy and state law but has not traditionally been observed at John Stanford, will start Monday.
"It pains me to think that at a school that emphasizes thinking globally we would institute something that makes our children think that this country alone is where their allegiance lies," said Sides, her voice oscillating between disappointment and anger. "This has no educational value for young children. Absolutely none."
No comments:
Post a Comment