The “No Right Answer” Game
The “No Right Answer” Game
(Inspired by “The Wrong Army,” by Jeff Edwards, USN, Ret., warrior and novelist)
America’s forces have won all their wars,
From Revolution to war in Iraq;
And Lefties don’t point to the Vietnam War,
Where you stabbed winning troops in the back.
No, the truth is we win; we win time and again;
Done it time after time after time.
Doesn’t matter to you, ’cause whatever we do,
We’ve always somehow dropped the dime.
To Lefties our generals just have to be wrong,
Wrong tactics, wrong weapons, wrong forces;
We’re the gang who somehow can never shoot straight,
To hear the mainstream media sources.
Just look at their headlines, view every day’s news,
With their blistering barrages of blame.
To warriors out here at the point of the spear,
It’s those losers’ “No Right Answer,” game.
In this lugubrious game loved by Liberal elites,
There’s just but one rule to enforce:
Whatever we do, in whatever war,
Must naturally be wrong of course.
There is no right answer, no matter what,
Even when our warriors are winning;
There’s always the sly implication we lie,
In the splenetic stories they’re spinning.
In peacetime they charge our forces too large
During wartime they squall they’re too small;
In peacetime they whine we’re spending too much;
But in war, “Where’s the armor for all?”
With consummate confidence they know what’s best,
Puerile pundits so smug and so smarmy,
Pontificate loud to their Liberal crowd,
That we once again have the wrong Army.
Pick a war, any war, or a period of peace;
Field marshals of the media are spinning;
If generals of journalism are so in the know,
Why are genuine generals winning?
So here at the front, harsh home of the grunt,
We ignore their attempts to defame.
The troops know the score, know what this war”s for;
They can stuff their “No Right Answer,” game.
SSGT Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66
“The Wrong Army” can be found here:
http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,14790,Edwards_031405-P1,00.html
K. Marx Says: March 29th, 2005 at 6:33 am
Why doesn’t Mr. Vaughn play the “Ignore the critics and the cynics” game? He’s complaining about the critics complaining. If they’re wrong, ignore them. By even taking the time to discuss these impossible-to-please-critics he’s giving them more credit than they deserve.
Julian Says: March 29th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Jeff, the problem in vietnam was that no matter how badly we defeated the North Vietnamese, we never could break the will of the vietnamese people. I fear that we will have the same problem with the Iraqi insurgents. How do you break the wills of people who pray to their god for the opportunity to commit suicide against the US or that we will kill them because they know that for every insurgent that we kill ten more rise up to take their places who are just as zealous as the “martyrs?” Wars can only be won if you can break the will of the enemy. As our forefathers knew, to defeat an occupation, all you have to do is to create a movement in the hearts of the people that will survive even after the battles kill the warriors. Wars are decided in the hearts of the people, not on the battle fields.
K. Marx Says: March 29th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Julian; re: 2. Point well taken. Although, I believe the point the author is trying to make is that many people, especially in the media, are very quick to critique but never offer a viable solution. As you pointed out, a revolution is most successful when it is done through the will of the people, not the will of a foreign country. Is there a time when it would be just to hand a revolution to a country because they dearly wanted it but were unable due to unbeatable circumstances? I’m clearly not implicating that Iraq was such a case, for I am no expert on the will of the people of Iraq. I only know what the media tells me, and according to the author, I am not to trust the media. Therefore, I am not to trust any good thing, or any bad thing, the media says about the military or the will of the Iraqi people.
For my scenario, our creativity must be great. Suppose Country X were to overtake the U.S. in the greatest upset victory of all time. Country X is a totalitarian regime, and the people of the U.S. have much hate for the athiest, socialist policies Country X forces upon the people of the U.S. The U.S. population is unable to revolt, try as they might. When is it the time for another country to step in and liberate the U.S.? Also, how can it be done? Do you arm the people through covert operations? Do you fund a coup and let the people themselves overtake the government? Or do you just go in and bomb every living thing and restructure from there? Or do you just leave the U.S. be?
Moreover, how can this be done when a good number of U.S. citizens have grown accustomed to the Country X regime and are fighting against the revolution? I realize this is an extreme scenario, but it gives us Monday morning quarterbacks something to chew on.
Julian Says: March 30th, 2005 at 1:38 am
K.Marx, I believe that Gandhi had it right. The will of the people is the strongest force in the universe. But the people need a leader that can convince them of that fact. Gandhi also showed us that a nonviolence is always more powerful than violence. First in South Africa and then in India, he led a nonviolent revolution to defeat one of the most powerful empires that the world has ever known, the UK, without ever spilling a drop of blood. He once said that tyrants rule with the people’s consent. No ruler can rule without the consent of the people. To be sure, nonviolent rebellion requires far more courage than violent rebellion does. But it is more effective in producing the desired result. I believe that the Iraqis could have, and would have, overthrown Saddam. Several obstacles slowed their progress. One of the biggest obstacles was US support of Saddam for two decades prior to Gulf War I. Saddam wouldn’t have lasted a decade without Reagan’s help. With Reagan’s support he was like a tyrant on steriods. The post war sanctions on Iraq were another mistake we made that hurt the Iraqi people and hindered their efforts to overthrow Saddam. By doing that we delivered the Iraqi people to Saddam’s feet because they depended on him for food. The sanctions just helped him control his people more effectively. I don’t think that we should meddle in other country’s affairs through sanctions or covert activity. It always ends up causing more harm than good (because we do it for our own strategic reasons and become entangled with really bad people like Chalabi and his associates, for example). We let our leaders use other countries as pawns in geopolitical matches. In saying that I favor nonviolence, don’t think that I endorse pacifism. Nonviolence is an active, organized, explicit, and dangerous endeavor because it begins with a declaration of freedom and then noncooperation with your adversary. As George Washington said, the American revolution was over before a shot was ever fired. The revolution in America, and all revolutions, consisted of convincing the people to declare that they were free. The war actually followed the revolution itself and was a defense of freedom. Once the American people declared their freedom from the British, and believe in it, there was simply no way for the British to take that away. The American insurgency against the British was a commitment that flowed from the heart of the people. Freedom can’t be won or granted, it must be declared by the people. I am affraid that by trying to give the Iraqi people freedom, which is not ours to give in the first place, we are undermining the developmental process that lays the foundation for upon which true freedom is built. I hope that I am wrong.
Julian Says: March 30th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
K.Marx, you always pose excellent questions. I put a few ideas on the table in my previous response (sorry about all of the typos. I need to proof read before I click the “say it” button) and would love to hear more about your answers to those questions.
K. Marx Says: March 31st, 2005 at 12:41 am
Julian; re:5. Thanks, I try my best to pose relevant questions. Although, answers are better than questions. Sadly, I cannot provide much in the way of answers as I am not very wise. Perhaps by way of thorough examination we can all come to gain some knowledge. Your example of Ghandi is a striking yet true one. What no man could accomplish, Ghandi did without pen or sword. Perhaps it’s no coincidence he was a lawyer.
Although I hold civil disobedience as the highest, most powerful form of persuasion, it could be that it is the most difficult. Presently in the U.S., it is not the union of Hindus and Muslims that need mending. It is not internal turmoil that plagues the United States: It is, for the vast majority, external. There is no violence and utter hatred among the only divide, i.e., partisanship. It is political: Purely for show. Therefore, the great divide is not so great, and there is little the U.S. citizen may do in his own right with his countrymen to mend the external troubles afflicting the U.S. It is the image of the government that encourages terrorism, the image the media puts out of the U.S., not the U.S. citizen himself. Although it is of no fault of John or Joe that a terrorist hates him, John or Joe is the one that suffers.
Your government cannot mend the relationship it ruined. This is not saying whether it should or should not, it is a statement affirming that the present state was not put upon ourselves by you or I: It was put upon us by the government. This is not saying that terrorists are just, for they in-fact are unjust in their actions. This is not a statement excusing the horrendous actions of terrorists. This is simply a statement of observation: You and I did not seek to infiltrate or gain spheres of influence in the Arab culture. Yes, perhaps we benefit from the spheres. Yes, perhaps we even encourage these spheres. But the fact remains: You or I did not enter Iraq, our government did, without the consent of its democratic nation. But, we are the ones that must mend the relationships if we do not wish to be attacked again. No matter of defense, no degree of offense will stop another attack. For you kill one terrorist and you make him a martyr that gives birth to ten terrorists.
So the question remains, how do you stop the terrorism if you can’t stop the terrorist?
Julian Says: April 3rd, 2005 at 4:11 am
The identity of the infamous Bush administration informant code named “Curve Ball” is revealed in an article in tomorrow’s edition of the British newspaper the Guardian. I am sure all of the visitors to this site already know this, but Curve Ball was the primary source of intelligence information that the Bush administration used to make their decision to invade Iraq. The Guardian article entitled, “US relied on ‘drunken liar’ to justify war” begins by saying; “An alcoholic cousin of an aide to Ahmed Chalabi has emerged as the key source in the US rationale for going to war in Iraq.” The story of the relationship between the neocons’ relationship with Chalabi, a world-famous crook, liar, spy, you name it…. is just remarkable. The weird thing is that Bush’s supporters don’t seem to care that Bush and his people have these relationships with horrible people and rely on them for guidance. I don’t think Bush’s supporters actually know anything about the inner workings of the Bush administration. “Dorothy, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
Brooks Kinch Says: June 15th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
Julian, I agree with your break the will of the enemy thing, and ti does apply to Vietnam, but I don’t think it applies to Iraq. Not everyone there hates us… only a minority. Did you not see the people dancing in the streets after the statue of Saddam went down? They might not love us, but they all certainly cannot hate us.
Remember, the single scream makes the most noise
( I think that’s how the saying goes ).
Lefty Says: June 16th, 2005 at 2:56 am
Brooks,
Do you seriously believe that the majority of Iraqis still like us? That may have been true in the first few weeks after Saddam fell. But now almost every person reporting from Iraq agrees that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis can’t stand us. Even our commanders in the field are reporting that the US is not welcome in Iraq any more.
Suzanne Says: June 16th, 2005 at 7:41 am
Anyone who believes that the majority of Iraqis still like us are living in a fantasy world.
They can not stand us, want us out of Iraq, and many would put a bullet in the back of any America as quick and easy as you write that the majority of Iraqis still like us - YEAH that fast
Suzanne
What other wonderful assumptions do you have Brooks? So far well, I have already written my quote on Assumptions.
Suzanne