Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

CHUCK ROGÉR: DID AMERICAN MILITARY OVERINVOLVEMENT HASTEN EUROPE’S CULTURAL DECAY?

 

Originally atAmerican Thinker

It has always seemed to me that the argument for American military intervention in other nations rests on shaky ground. Contending that the United States must “police” the world, “build” nations, “spread” democracy, and “fight” for other people’s freedom sounds convincing, even lofty. But sacrificing human and economic treasure to fight for people who’ve shown little willingness to fight for themselves smacks of contrived moral superiority and is logically indefensible.

I thought of the typical military spending talking points when a reader called my attention to a post on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website. The author presents one of the best arguments that I’ve seen for severely curtailing U.S. military involvement across the globe. Jason Ivey observes:

Britain and other European states became the rotting cultural cesspools they are today because of the American military. Thanks to our superiority, none of these other Western nations had to train men to fight, nor did they need worry much about the enemy next door. They were allowed to grow soft because the U.S. was still hard. Their governments could become bloated service-providers furthering the objective of creating a permanent dependent class because they were safe to do so and no longer had to spend money on defense. America kept the Western safe for cultural destruction. Freeloaders can be freeloaders, because not only do we encourage and promote freeloading, we militarily protect it.

We can create and support millions of Amy Winehouses because others have created the necessary wealth, the social engineers have replaced stigma with romanticism, and the military ensures this path can continue indefinitely. As Frank Miniter noted at National Review Online, back in Winston Churchill’s day, when Britons were fighting off Germans invading their shores, it’s hard to imagine any proud Anglo stripping off his clothes at the demands of some hooligan, as happened during last week’s riots. The Left’s degenerative morality successfully strengthened the parasite while weakening the host, and we all know at some point the host will die.

When Americans are dying to stop the spread of aggressive Islamism into a Europe that mounts only the weakest resistance, a Europe that has grown diseased under economic and cultural Marxism, isn’t it time to rethink our “morality?” And our economics? Or will our gallantry demand spending trillions more and sending American soldiers to die in Europe proper when it becomes impossible to ignore that the Europeans haven’t the intestinal fortitude to do what must be done?

On one hand, progressive high-mindedness has bred the American welfare state. Consequently, trillions must be cut from spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — and Obamacare repealed — if we are to avert a final downslide into a European-style socialist democracy. Yet on the other hand, what about “defense spending”–a grand illusion of linguistic gymnastics? Where will the trillions come from to support the military spending necessitated by a continuation of neocon high-mindedness?

Click here to email your elected representatives.

Comments

Avatar for Sally Morris

Chuck Roger has this absolutely right.  If one reads the daily news feeds from Europe - England, last week is an example - he finds that not only is Europe being undermined by reckless, unbridled immigration, including dangerous criminals, from the Muslim regions, but the Europeans themselves have decayed morally and in every other way.  Mark Steyn, too, has commented on the way Europeans have been allowed to dispense with their own responsibilities for their own defense because of American strength and how it has created the dependency that fosters the very concepts we have fought against -  dictatorships and undemocratic government - and the welfare state.  It stands to reason, if a people is to enjoy self-government they must do it themselves.  They must fix their own mistakes.  Strong free nations can come to bat for smaller ones when they are under military attack, perhaps, or in times of natural disasters, but when that help becomes permanent nursemaid service we subvert the very thing we thought we were helping to preserve.  Just like here at home. And here at home we should note the decline of private-sector and religious charity as the government more and more takes over on it.  One more sign of weakening of our moral fabric here.

Sally Morris on August 17, 2011 at 01:21 pm

In the early morning of September 12th, 2001 President Bush returned many phone calls from world leaders. Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain said he was “in a state of shock” and that he would stand with America “one hundred percent” in fighting terror. Later and FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ITS HISTORY, the “changing of the guard” at Buckingham Palace played our national anthem in place of “God Save the Queen”. As the years passed and the wartime decisions grew tougher, some of our allies wavered. Tony Blair and the Brits never did. I had visited London in early 2001 during which I had attended a Sunday service at Westminster Cathedral and took the opportunity to view its huge wall of remembrance of the U.S. servicemen who liberated Europe from Hitler. Britain honors their military (and their allies) profoundly for every single act of heroism in its history, something we have largely emulated over our relatively short history.

That same morning, Silvio Berlusconi of Italy told President Bush that he had “cried like a little boy and could not stop”. Jiang Zemin of China, Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, and Jacques Chirac of France promised to help in any way they could. Junichiro Koizumi of Japan called the events of September 11, 2001 “not an attack against just the United States but an attack against freedom and democracy.”

That same day, in contrast, South Dakota Democrat Tom Daschle, the Senate majority leader, suggested that President Bush should be careful about the word “war” because it had such powerful implications. But Daschle’s shrinking timidity, so prophetic of what was to reveal itself in the years to come as a deep, cowardly, and stomach turning anti-war element within the Democrat Party was offset by the words of eighty-three year old Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who said to the President and others, “Despite Hollywood and TV, there is an army of people who believe in divine guidance and the Creator… mighty forces will come to your aid.”

It is not the defense of America from the enemies of freedom that threatens our country, it is those who Albert Einstein warned the world about when he said “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but BECAUSE OF THOSE WHO LOOK ON AND DO NOTHING.”

Pacifism has its place…when only one’s individual well being is threatened by evil, it is Christlike to “turn the other cheek”. However, when those around us are threatened, a more appropriate verse from the bible is the message of Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God.

And anyone who believes that our service men and women are not “peacemakers” who simply wish to rid the world of the evil they encounter so all people can live in peace, security, and freedom… has a lot to learn about life and its callings.

Lynn Bergman on September 5, 2011 at 06:27 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?