Politics

Obama Gets Carried Away With the Whole Commander in Chief Thing

|

Imagine you are a Navy SEAL, part of a team hunting down the world's most wanted terrorist. That is not the scenario of a new video game; it is the most conspicuous theme of the speech that President Obama delivered last night. Obama began and ended his State of the Union address by urging all of us to think and act more like soldiers fighting for a common cause:

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world.  (Applause.)  For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.  (Applause.)  For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country.  (Applause.)  Most of al Qaeda's top lieutenants have been defeated.  The Taliban's momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America's Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They're not consumed with personal ambition. They don't obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand.  They work together. 

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example….

Those of us who've been sent here to serve can learn a thing or two from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn't matter if you're black or white; Asian, Latino, Native American; conservative, liberal; rich, poor; gay, straight. When you're marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you're in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one nation, leaving no one behind.

One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans.  But that doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates—a man who was George Bush's defense secretary—and Hillary Clinton—a woman who ran against me for president. 

All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn't deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job—the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other—because you can't charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there's somebody behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I'm reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other's backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

Banal, inspiring, or creepily collectivist? You be the judge.

To some extent, Obama is addressing Republican members of Congress, implicitly rebuking them for elevating partisan politics above the public interest. He surely is right that blind partisanship, the kind that is more about tribalism than ideology, plays too big a role in politics. But to the extent that Obama clashes with Republicans because they have different ideas about how best to govern, it is not reasonable to expect them to set aside their differences for the good of the country. They believe that would be bad for the country. If there is no real substance to these differences, why doesn't Obama just go along with everything the Republicans want? His notion of content-free unity among politicians, regardless of party, simply elevates mindless tribalism to a higher level.

There's a reason that politics in a constitutional democracy does not resemble the military chain of command: No single person is in charge—not even the president. People disagree not only about how to accomplish the "mission" but about what the mission is. According to The New York Times, Obama wants to "use government power to balance the scale between America's rich and the rest of the public." I don't even know what that means, but I'm supposed to fall in line anyway?

By the end of his speech, it is clear that Obama is urging this military mindset on all Americans, not just politicians. We are all supposed to "work…as a team," "get each other's backs," "maintain our common resolve," and "join…in common purpose" so we can accomplish our "mission." But if America has a mission, it is to guard people's liberty so they can accomplish their own missions, whether as individuals or in voluntary cooperation with their families, friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens. That concept is completely at odds with the idea of all Americans putting their own interests aside and following government orders like good soldiers in the service of a mission defined by their superiors. And the difference between those two visions is, I think, worth fighting over. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Sheldon Richman on Stopping the Rush to War Against Iran

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Banal, inspiring, or creepily collectivist?

    2 of 3 ain’t bad.

    1. I fucking hate Meat Loaf.

      1. But Karla Devito….yum.

      2. I’ll love you till the end of time.

    2. 2 of 3 ain’t bad.

      Yup, my immediate first thought was one of those old SAT multiple choice questions where the right answer is “(a) and (c) but not (b).”

  2. i’d like to command his chief!

    1. in soviet russia, command chiefs you, ha!

  3. Wonderful post, Mr. Sullum.

    1. +1. One of the most eloquent things I’ve ever read on this site.

      1. Apparently you’ve never run across a Steve Smith post.

  4. How many centuries are we going to have to put up with this same, old, tired, diversionary tripe? Were the idea so great, there would be no need to couch it in other terms.

    “I am not mine. You are not yours. We are, all of us, ours.”

  5. We are all supposed to “work…as a on Obama’s team,” “get each other’s Obama’s backs,” “maintain our common Obama’s resolve,” and “join…in common Obama’s purpose” so we can accomplish our Obama’s “mission.”

    So, basically, Obama went for the royal “we”?

    1. There is a fundamental disconnect between Obama’s stated willingness to triple-down on failed policies–new and old–that are running Europe into the ground, with us following close on their heels, and adopting policies that will actually solve our problems. Namely, reducing the role of government in most things, dramatic, permanent cuts to spending, promoting much freer markets in all industries, and getting the debt paid down.

      While the GOP doesn’t promise much more than rhetorical opposition to the president’s and his party’s idiotic policies, at least their opposition does include, however vague, the premise that government should spend less and not be involved in everything.

      We need to categorically reject statism and socialism, regardless of who supports it, and if the GOP does nothing other than completely oppose this madness, that’s fine with me.

  6. The problem is Republican dogmatism. Reasonable people can find middle ground–ask any liberal whether Obama has trouble compromising. The problem is Republicans won’t. Beyond dogmatic allegiance to free market fairy tales and other aspects of thinly veiled plutocratic looting, they’ve decided to make their entire worldview not-Obama, forcing them to be against things they used to be for. Governing has always been about making compromises between political factions. What happens when one faction sees compromise as defeat in an eternal struggle against an enemy (duly elected representatives of the people whom they disagree with)? What gets me is how these people can often be very old yet not seem to remember a time before rabid antigovernment dogmatism was considered acceptable in public discourse, or when Republicans raised taxes, etc. I get that this is all part of a multi-decade plan to kill the welfare state and give the loot to their corporate friends, but at the very least a policy of total obstinacy is a political dead end.

    1. What happens when one faction sees compromise as defeat in an eternal struggle against an enemy?

      The Bush years!

      There is no swamp more fevered than Tony’s mind.

      1. You mean when Democrats pathetically caved to most of what Bush asked for out of fear of being labeled terrorist lovers?

        1. Looks like your sarcometer is broken, you drama queen. Your conspiracy mongering is still pathetic, though.

        2. give it a rest tony. Nearly 100 newbies were elected to Congress in 2010 because of spending. Your side and establishment Repubs pissed on those folks and, by extension, us. Obama is not about compromise or anything of the kind. He’s a community organizer. Rousing the rabble is all he knows. Might be why chiefs of staff go through the Oval like shit through a goose.

    2. ROFL! You really are a fucking idiot, Tony. 🙂

      Tony, my daughter at 3 years old called “We should do it my way because I am right” a reasonable compromise.

      A year later she had outgrown it.

      Obama hasn’t.

      You guys are headed for the ash-heap of history. You can get off, or enjoy the ride.

      1. Obama hasn’t compromised? What do you call a right-wing healthcare bill, not a dime in tax hikes, and constant placating of Republican interests? As I said, ask a liberal if Obama doesn’t know how to compromise. What planet are you on?

        1. a right-wing healthcare bill

          That no Republican voted for.

          not a dime in tax hikes

          But Barry is just happy as a clam to borrow more money to paper over the FICA tax deduction.

          constant placating of Republican interests

          Given that Obama and Le Mitt seem to be getting their money from the exact same sources, I’d say their interests are one in the same.

          Guess you ought to compromise and vote for Mitt.

          1. That no Republican voted for.

            Thank you for acknowledging my entire point.

            1. Well maybe they wanted to see what was in the bill…Oh wait Mme Pelosi took care of that by ramming it through. TEAM BLUE: Still making it up as they go along!

              1. Cheap bullshit Republican talking points. Those always win me over.

            2. maybe Repubs did not vote for it because they don’t want govt taking over health care. Or because they were not allowed any input. Or because even some Dems had to bribed into voting for it.

            3. Saying you want to stab me in the heart, but then compromise to only kicking me in the balls, over me objecting to being stabbed or kick, does not count as me being obstructionist.

            4. Thank you for acknowledging my entire point.

              Tony, I must ask, does your acute cognitive dissonance cause you any physical pain? Headaches? Overwhelming visual or aural symptoms? Rectal bleeding?

      2. Most children have more sense than Tony. Unless they are retarded. Like Tony.

    3. Republican … dogmatic allegiance to free market fairy tales

      If only this were true!

      No, the sad reality is that TeamRed is as economically interventionist as TeamBlue.

    4. @Tony – Republicans only hate big government when there are Democrats in power. Democrats only hate war when there are Republicans in power.

      Now, if we could just get them to hate all these things at once…

    5. Reasonable people can find middle ground–ask any liberal whether Obama has trouble compromising.

      Goddammit, Tony! I can’t drink at work!

    6. “ask any liberal whether Obama has trouble compromising.”
      I hope this is a spoof. Of course Obama doesn’t have a hard time compromisng with liberals….he is a liberal and agrees with most other liberals. It’s not too hard to compromise with someone you agree with.

    7. they’ve decided to make their entire worldview not-Obama

      As with every other problem Obama is having, it’s Bush’s fault.

      Because this is exactly what the Dems did by the end of Bush’s second term. They made their entire worldview not-Bush.

      So now that there might be some degree of that going on in the other direction, they stamp their feet and whine “no fair! You have to do what we want.”

      Answer: no, we don’t.

    8. What happens when one faction sees compromise as defeat in an eternal struggle against an enemy

      Even the slightest bit of compromise between good and evil is a victory for evil. If Obama gets even one tenth of what he’s always trying to get, it is a victory for him and I’m sure he considers it such.

    9. Reasonable people can find middle ground

      Smart people recognize that there is no ground worth finding between Republicans (red-skinned authoritarians) and Democrats (blue-skinned authoritarians).

  7. Obama’s never been big on the rugged individualist meme.

    1. You wouldn’t expect that a guy with such delicate wrist would.

  8. “…why doesn’t Obama just go along with everything the Republicans want?”
    _

    because the moment he does, the house gop stop agreeing to their own proposals like the individual mandate & cap n trade.

  9. According to The New York Times, Obama wants to “use government power to balance the scale between America’s rich and the rest of the public.” I don’t even know what that means, but I’m supposed to fall in line anyway?

    It means that government can protect your right to private property while also giving you a right to the private property of other people.

    1. And that property, which is intrinsically and objectively “theirs,” was legitimately bought and paid for just like the lobbyists who work for them. Somehow no amount of influence on the part of wealthy private interests can make Congress stop doing the bidding of those all-powerful poor and middle class people. But you freedom lovers are working on that disparity!

      1. Tony is right! If we give the elites more power it will balance the scale toward the benefit of the plebes!

        The fact that it hasn’t worked in 6,000 years is only bad luck! It’s due to work this time, man! It’s due!

        1. I don’t want to give the elites more power, you do. Those would be unelected elites whose power derives from wealth.

          1. Tony, if you were right, at the end of the gilded age, the middle class would be smaller than at the beginning of the industrial revolution, and most wealth would be concentrated in the hands of the descendants of the feudal or landed aristocracy.

            Your savagery and backward superstition would be charming if you and your ilk didn’t have most of the guns.

          2. As opposed to the elected elites whose power derives from wealth and legalized violence?

            1. what part of “elected” do you fucking peasants not fucking understand?!!1 why do you hate democracy?!1oneoneone

              That’s it, none of you get to vote when we choose our Wise Elitorate.

          3. Tony, while it’s true that wealth can give you a measure of power, at least our system separates official legitimate uses of power, from money. They have to work indirectly, through proxies.

            If you give the government control over the economy, the same people will be controlling BOTH the money AND the official organs of government. It’s not some accident of history that countries with centralized economies, the central planners and the wealthy elite were one and the same.

            1. But, but, but… Inequality! Externalities!

            2. All governments have control over their respective economies! That’s the point of a government. What exactly do you propose, if not ceding power to nondemocratic entities?

              1. Is this the spoof?

                How come you don’t consider the market “democratic”?
                After all it is composed of millions of individual choices, and is much more immediately responsive to the demands of “the people” than any government in existence.

                The point of government control of the economy is to stop “the people” from making certain undesirable choices. I can’t see any other purpose.

        2. Exactly! Only by giving more power to the people who are controlled by the rich will they be able to wrest themselves from control of the rich and then control the rich who control them!

      2. Tony ?

        If you give an organization violent power, people will try to sway that organization to their economic advantage. Some of these people will succeed, and become very rich.

        You cannot solve this problem by giving that organization even more power, or creating another organization.

        1. States that have governments without a monopoly on the legitimate use of force are called failed states. Know any you want to move to?

          This whole line of reasoning doesn’t get any less absurd with repetition. There will always be a government with this power–reduce that power in democratic government and it just transfers to nondemocratic sources of power.

          1. reduce that power in democratic government and it just transfers to nondemocratic nongovernmental sources of power.

            With me so far? One more step:

            reduce that power in democratic government and it just transfers to nondemocratic nonviolent, non-coercive sources of power.

            1. Balderdash RCD!

              Nobody does anything unless the government tells them to!

              Well, not quite. Nobody does anything right unless the government tells them to.

              Besides… EXTERNALITIES!

              1. I don’t know how long it is going to take to get you all to just stop responding to Tony-troll, but I hope it is sooner rather than later.

                1. I thought Thursday was that day. Between last night’s speech from the throne, the hangovers, and Tony’s general stupidity…things happen.

          2. States that have governments without a monopoly on the legitimate use of force are called failed states. Know any you want to move to?

            This whole line of reasoning doesn’t get any less absurd with repetition. There will always be a government with this power–reduce that power in democratic government and it just transfers to nondemocratic sources of power.

            So why not repeal the Bill of Rights?

            After all, the Bill of Rights removes power from a democratic government, thus transferring it to non-democratic sources.

  10. “work…as a team,” “get each other’s backs,” “maintain our common resolve,” and “join…in common purpose” so we can accomplish our “mission.”

    Then we’ll lock and load!

    1. quit using that name or my name’s not danger!

  11. I get that the SOTU is necessarily about America as a nation, but does it have to be so… inward-facing? The whole thing just felt like the only way it was OK to acknowledge that other countries and other humans who are not Americans exist was to frame them as some kind of threat, large or small. Whether from trade, illegal immigrants at the border, damn furriners taking our education and leaving, or actual military threat. The tone was so out of date it was actually jarring. Obama: improving America’s global image!

    1. Did you torture yourself by watching a president, beloved Dagny? Why?

      1. I should have heeded your wise advice and cleaned the bathroom instead but noooo. To compound my suffering, I even read Jezebel’s SOTU post. They used the word “fun.” *baaaarrrrfff*

        1. If you’re determined to be a masochist, why not at least go for some more fun activities? It’s better to get literally peed on than metaphorically peed on, you know.

        2. I even read Jezebel’s SOTU post. They used the word “fun.”

          This is almost enough to convince me that someone at Jezebel has a sense of humor, which in turn is forcing me to head over there and ascertain (“It’s my right to ascertain things!”) for myself that their post is not an elaborate spoof.

          Thanks a million.

    2. Yeah, I was struck by that too. I was tempted to look out the window to see if Chinese troops were rolling down the street. And here I thought liberals were too enlightened to invoke foreign boogeymen.

    3. Bad on the economy. Bad on foreign policy. Bad on leadership.

      Vote bad. Vote Obama 2012!

      1. That’s Badness “Built to Last(tm)”

    4. Why should we give a shit about Canada? :-p

  12. “That a man can take pleasure in marching in formation to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; a backbone was all he needed. This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed.”

  13. Bleckk. I hate being used.

    Poll actual combat troops. No way more than 10% like Obama.

    1. Yet you guys obey his orders…

      If you shoot people he and the officers he has appointed above you direct you to, your dislike is worth less than a handful of spit.

      1. I’m long out – but Soldiers and Marines don’t think that way. But we do have very acute bullshit detectors. Obama’s full of shit, we all know that. And, he’s a wimp – a Drill Instructor would have had him in tears on day one.

        He should just leave us out of his bullshit.

      2. Yes. Because what you want is the Armed Forces deciding for themselves which orders, and from which officers, they should follow.

        THAT is a course of action that has never, ever gone awry.

        You keep failing to elect people who will give us lawful orders to go places you want us to go, but it is OUR opinion that is worth less than spit.

        Got it.

      3. Yet you guys obey his orders…

        You wouldn’t like what would happen if we didn’t, tarran.

        1. That’s a nice city you have there, be a shame if it got messed up.

      4. He doesn’t like the military either…why do you think he called for a civilian force just as well equipped as the military back in 2008.

        Gotta use ACORN and SEIU for something I guess.

  14. Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example….

    So we should all become government employees trained to follow orders without question, and kill people if ordered to do so without pondering the rightness of such killing?

    I’ll pass on following that example, thanks.

    1. That…..pretty much describes the Obama core constituency.

      1. Bob Hope nailed it back in the 40’s…

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEjdao3F-j4

        1. Lol. Yeah – like Democrats. 🙂

    2. Just remember: Jonah Goldberg was crazy, stupid, and wrong when he described fascism as a leftist phenomenon.

  15. I would be curious to know how the Navy SEALs felt when Obama exploited their life-risking mission for his own political gain.

  16. These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

    Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example….

    This comment reminds me of Chesterton’s criticism of Rudyard Kipling’s militarism. He pointed out that the more power and prestige the Roman military attained, the less free Rome’s citizens became and the more chaotic their everyday lives were. He also argued that it was not the so-called courage of the military that Kipling admired, it was their discipline.

    Ah yes, here it is, from Heretics:

    The evil of militarism is not that it shows certain men to be fierce and haughty and excessively warlike. The evil of militarism is that it shows most men to be tame and timid and excessively peaceable. The professional soldier gains more and more power as the general courage of a community declines. Thus the Pretorian guard became more and more important in Rome as Rome became more and more luxurious and feeble. The military man gains the civil power in proportion as the civilian loses the military virtues. And as it was in ancient Rome so it is in contemporary Europe. There never was a time when nations were more militarist. There never was a time when men were less brave. All ages and all epics have sung of arms and the man; but we have effected simultaneously the deterioration of the man and the fantastic perfection of the arms. Militarism demonstrated the decadence of Rome, and it demonstrates the decadence of Prussia…The fact is that what attracts Mr. Kipling to militarism is not the idea of courage, but the idea of discipline. There was far more courage to the square mile in the Middle Ages, when no king had a standing army, but every man had a bow or sword. But the fascination of the standing army upon Mr. Kipling is not courage, which scarcely interests him, but discipline, which is, when all is said and done, his primary theme. The modern army is not a miracle of courage; it has not enough opportunities, owing to the cowardice of everybody else. But it is really a miracle of organization, and that is the truly Kiplingite ideal.

    1. At what cost to us is world order? Are we willing to trade our economic health and our freedoms to maintain it?

  17. I’m voting for creepily collectivist. This isn’t exactly the first time people on the left have involked militaristic imagery to exhort people to a common social goal.

    Most socialist regimes have basically been military dictatoriships. (Cuba, N. Korea, USSR, Venezuela)

    If you look at the social democracies of Europe, they’re fanatically careful NOT to involk militarism, given 20th century history.

    Involking militaristic imagery in the service of “social justice” causes is something they do in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, not Western Europe.

    1. Tut, tut, Hazel. This is how its done:

      You know who else invoked militaristic imagery to exhort people to a common social goal?

        1. Why doesn’t Obama obey the Prime Directive?

    2. “I’m voting for creepily collectivist. This isn’t exactly the first time people on the left have involked militaristic imagery to exhort people to a common social goal.”

      A lot of my friends on the left love to claim that glorification of the military is a common tendency of fascists, and of the American right. I think most of them are too blinded by Obama-love to notice or care when Obama praises the military above everything else, though, or think about what it means.

      1. A lot of my friends on the left love to claim that glorification of the military is a common tendency of fascists, and of the American right.

        And then, without irony, they pick up a drum and go marching down the street chanting slogans.

  18. To some extent, Obama is addressing Republican members of Congress, implicitly rebuking them for elevating partisan politics above the public interest. He surely is right that blind partisanship, the kind that is more about tribalism than ideology, plays too big a role in politics. But to the extent that Obama clashes with Republicans because they have different ideas about how best to govern, it is not reasonable to expect them to set aside their differences for the good of the country. They believe that would be bad for the country. If there is no real substance to these differences, why doesn’t Obama just go along with everything the Republicans want? His notion of content-free unity among politicians, regardless of party, simply elevates mindless tribalism to a higher level.

    How is it that Mr. Sullum isn’t acutely aware that creating an atmosphere where tribalism rules is the entire fucking point? There is no substantive difference between the parties. They’re both parties of war both abroad and here at home. They’re both the parties of corporatism that rob the American people in order to line the pockets of their supporters. They’re both parties that believe everything will be just fine so long as the correct Top Men? are the ones making decisions for the rest of us. They need for the American people to think they are different from one another so that they can A) keep us divided, and B) advance their power over autonomous citizens without interference.

  19. Why was the State of the Union only about where he hopes it will be next year?

  20. He obviously has never been in the military. There is more bureaucratic red tape and bullshit than you can imagine, careerism amongst the officers, deptartmental infighting, etc.

    It works so well in spite of being a big gov’t boondoggle, mostly because we pour so much goddamn money into it.

    1. I’d argue that far more than the money, it works as well as it does because the entire structure of everything they do requires that you either do exactly what you’re told, or you go to jail.

      1. Well yeah, but if that’s the model for achievement, then North Korea would be King of the World.

        I think it’s because we pour so many resources into making sure that our shit is hella better than anybody we may have to fight.

        1. If we took the defense budget, and rather than give it to the US military, we gave it to the DPRK, they would be the King of the World.

    2. If Obama were in the military, he’d get the soap in a sock treatment, if not fragged.

      1. At least a blanket party.

  21. Sometimes I think that partisanship is the only thing that saves us.

  22. I was looking for a good Randolph Bourne quote, but the entire “War is the health of the state” essay seemed applicable, so fuck it. Just read it.

    1. “War is the health of the State.
      It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate co-operation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense”

      That last bit means us.

      1. Us? What’s this us crap? Speak for yourself. 🙂

    2. War – or at least modern war waged by a democratic republic against a powerful enemy – seems to achieve for a nation almost all that the most inflamed political idealist could desire. Citizens are no longer indifferent to their Government but each cell of the body politic is brimming with life and activity. We are at least on the way to full realization of that collective community in which each individual somehow contains the virtue of the whole.

    3. A people at war have become in the most literal sense obedient, respectful, trustful children again, full of that naive faith in the all-wisdom and all-power of the adult who takes care of them, imposes his mild but necessary rule upon them and in whom they lose their responsibility and anxieties.

  23. Get your tinfoil hats ready, ladies and gentlemen, I’m about to start talking paranoid.

    I think this is just another example of the government and the media getting us prepared for the war in Iran.

    over the last 6 or so months (maybe logner) there’s been a subtle push from leadership. A change in vocabulary, and actions that’s all designed to make the American public softer and more accepting of a war in Iran, and the reinstatement of the draft. All of this fancy Navy SEAL/black ops showboating, the military grand standing, it’s all coming down to something. you can even see changes in our media, from video games like black ops and MW3, or the upcoming propaganda film Act of Valor.

    And now the language is changing too. I fully expect more “What you can do for your country” type speeches coming up, with an even bigger theme of “be more like our troops, think lik eour troops, don’t you wanna be a hero, too?”

    By the time the war and draft comes, we’ll be so ready for it, we’ll practically be begging for it.

    1. Unfortunately you might be on to something. Of course where is the logic of cutting 100K troops if you are going to start a another war? Unless its under the premise of re-instating the draft cause we are short handed.

    2. You sounded slightly plausible until you mentioned the reinstatement of the draft part.

      1. Shit, progressives want to enslave the non-elite so hard they get a boner every time they think about forced community service for the young. The draft is the perfect excuse.

  24. The U.S. flag has 50 stars?

    What happened to the stars representing the other 7 states?

  25. The U.S. flag has 50 stars?

    What happened to the stars representing the other 7 states?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.