Phony soldiers? How about “so-called” soldiers?

Posted on October 2, 2007

This was first posted at CourtZero.org.

The recent insanity in, of all places, the Senate of the United States of America, over talk show host Rush Limbaugh commenting on phony soldiers in the mold of Jesse Macbeth, called to mind something I’d researched a few months ago when Scott Beauchamp, the author of fantastic stories published by The New Republic, was still anonymous.

If you have no idea what I’m talking about, you can read this for background.

I’m writing this post to do something to help put to rest this nonsense over whether or not the nation — as directed by its Democrat Senate leadership — ought to be outraged when someone comments on the radio about the standing, if you will, of those who express an opinion about whether or not the United States should stay in the fight in Iraq.

So this whole thing is about “phony soldiers”, right? What is the opposite of phony? Real? What is another opposite of “real”? How about the phrase “so-called soldiers”?

I’ve had on my desktop for several months audio of an interview that a former soldier and conscientious objector named Clifton Hicks gave to NPR radio, specifically WMNF in Tampa. Part one of the audio of his interview is available in all its context here. Part two is here. I also have saved all of the interview in its entirety. For the record, friends, I have no beef with Mr. Hicks and do not seek to demonize him. He served in the same Army I served in. He and I disagree fundamentally about many, many things. I also happen to think that he is less than candid about some of the things he claims, both in the NPR interview of June 26, 2007, and as featured in a book called “Mission Rejected”.

But that’s not the point. I wish Mr. Hicks well, despite his usefulness to the pro-defeat left. The point is that this published hero of the pro-defeat crowd has an interesting point of view, in light of the recent firestorm about Rush Limbaugh’s comments.

He thinks that any Iraq veteran who supports the war, or the administration’s policy in executing it is a “so-called” soldier, a REMF (look it up when the kid’s aren’t around), or at best a mess hall janitor.

Click on this link for audio of Hicks, who had just finished saying that he hates and resents those in America who have yellow ribbons, or wave flags, or say “the boys” are doing a great job, responds to the NPR interviewer pointing out that some veterans had recently rallied in Tampa for the notion that not supporting the administration’s execution of the war is damaging to morale in the field. He says the following:

“[to paraphrase interviewer: some veterans think that the anti-war folks are damaging morale] Hicks: “[derisive laughter] That’s a damn foolish lie. I’d like to actually meet those two so-called soldiers and find out what they do in Iraq. I bet they pump gas and scrub mess hall floors. They — they — don’t know what they’re talking about. The only people you’ll ever see doing stuff like that are the — these National Guard types who are safe and don’t even know what an Iraqi looks like.”

Just in case you think I edited the quote to avoid context, you can click here for the longer version. Or hit the links above to the entire NPR broadcast.

So what’s my point? Hicks, quoted in Newsweek, interviewed in an anti-war book, and interviewed by NPR radio, has had more visibility and more of a forum than most of the rest of us to present his views, and has quite clearly presented his view that only “so-called soldiers” can be in favor of victory in Iraq. Only REMFs, or POGs as he described them in another portion of his interview, could possibly be pro-war, or pro-victory, or however you want to describe it.

How is that different, even in the alternate reality of the Senate’s current outrage over something that was not said by Mr. Limbaugh, from suggesting that “phony soldiers” ought not be taken seriously when opposing victory? Where do I tune in to see a Senate floor speech about Mr. Hicks’ statements? I knew when I first heard Rush’s remarks about Jesse Macbeth and others like him (that would be plural, for those Senate staffers reading this) what he was talking about. As a former soldier, I got it. No controversy.

Just by the way, the specific soldiers who were involved in the Tampa rally, the ones Mr. Hicks declares to be “so-called” soldiers who surely must have spent their time pumping gas or scrubbing mess hall floors, have among them these gentlemen. One was awarded the Silver Star for taking Baghdad Airport early in the war, with a Congressional Medal of Honor winner under his command because of the operation. The other helped actually find and capture Saddam Hussein.

Also see: Hot Air
Michelle Malkin

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under News, Politics As Usual

Trackback URL

Comments

3 Responses to “Phony soldiers? How about “so-called” soldiers?”

SomeGuy on October 2nd, 2007 6:45 pm

It wasn’t National Review. It was The New Republic.
ArrMatey on October 2nd, 2007 6:54 pm

You are very correct. Stupid mistake on my part. Thanks.
Mark on October 4th, 2007 8:26 am

“The only people you’ll ever see doing stuff like that are the â€” these National Guard types who are safe and donâ€™t even know what an Iraqi looks like.”

What an idiot. Probably 2/3rds of the troops I transported into Iraq in 2005 were National Guard.

And I would really like to understand the psychology and personal morality of someone who can be a “conscientious objector” and simultaneously “hate” people who put up yellow ribbons or wave flags. He doesn’t quite sound like a Quaker.