Ten Excellent Reasons NOT to buy this book!
Co -authored by that leftwing, dictator supporting, Isreal bashing, jihadist loving, lunatic Cindy Sheehan, this book is a misguided anti war, anti military propaganda piece by a group of fools who believe that "words" alone will bring peace to the world, and that one should not enroll in the military because "refusing to enlist is more than a career decision. It is a moral and political act, a contribution to the burgeoning, international movement for a better, more peaceful world"
Yes, that's right, in the warped minds of these self appointed "enlightened progressive " liberals, if no one enlists, the military becomes weak or non existant, and an America without military power would ensure that no other country invades us, no other country uses nuclear weapons against us, and that Al Queda will simply go away and leave us alone.
According to Rae Abeliah of Code Pink(o):
" it takes more honor and courage to dedicate one's life to working for social change. Teachers, community organizers, activists, engineers, public defense attorneys, lobbyists, and artists are the true patriots.
I'd laugh......except that this kind of liberal lunacy is so dangerous to our security, and to the very values of secular freedom that they proclaim to uphold, that it's frightening. Understandably, Al Queda, the Iranian President and his merry band of theocratic mullahs, and every rogue nation trying to secure nuclear weapons, must love Rae. She is a their mouthpiece, after all!
Rob Anderson makes a somewhat chilling point when he says
10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military is not a lone dissent from within an otherwise pro-military left; on the contrary, it speaks for the growing ranks of liberals who are uneasy with the idea of American strength, and the institutions that guarantee it.
This type of misguided thinking on the part of liberals is a throwback to the Viet Nam era and speaks to a huge lack of understanding about who are enemies are in today's complicated world, and just how serious they are in their intent to eradicate Israel, islamify Europe, subjucate the Arab world to an even more theocratic form of Islam, and subjucate, if not completely destroy America, democracy, and freedom!
How does Sheehan propose America face its increasing national security threats? "We need to demand that our leaders use their words to solve problems. We need to demand that other nations use their words, too."
Cindy and her band of loons would like the Iranian President Ahmedinejad to use his words:"Israel should be wiped off the map".
Enough said about her brilliant (note the dripping sarcasm) proposal for handling our national security threats! But then again, Cindy feels the U.S support of Israel is unfounded, so it's understandable that she would like to demand that the Iranian President "use his words".
However, I'd prefer if he didn't use his words!
Cindy and her band of anti war activSHITs also forget that Al Queda belongs to NO state. This terrorist organization is hellbent on killing her, along with all Americans. The terrorist threat to our security does not belong to one state, one country, one part of the world. These terrrorists are found scattered around the globe, some even living and working within our own borders. The only words they ever utter involve destruction to the infidels of which they consider all Americans, Canadians, and most Europeans.
I'd prefer if they didn't use their words, thank you!
In "New Instabilities, New Priorities", James Schlesinger reminds us that
"Americans tend to be rather romantic. The world seems a benign place, with a natural harmony among peoples only intermittently disrupted by evil men or hostile ideologies. Once those are removed, the natural harmony will be restored."
This is exactly the type of utopian thinking Cindy, along with the "progressive" authors of this book, most "progressive" liberals and their leaders within the democratic party, subscribe to. It speaks to an immature quixotic worldview, steeped in idealism, and far removed from reality.
Schlesinger reminds us that post Cold War, the world may appear to be safer from cataclysmic destruction, but in reality, it is far more unstable.
The dissolution of Cold War lines, which provided us with a kind of stability,belies the hope that the future world order will be less unstable.He reminds us that the world today faces 'new instabilities' that would be familiar to those who have any knowledge of the world pre 1939 and more so after WW1: a world marked by power policitics, national rivaleries and ethnic tensions.
Despite its menace,The Cold War Era, had an elegant simplicity but today's world is far more fluid, amorphous, and ambiguous, and this is why the fundamentals of power along with the perception of power are even more important!
Instability throughout the world is NOT caused by America, rather it is American military might that prevents the instability from turning into a worse conflaguration. This reality is what is lost on Cindy and her ilk!
Sorry to break your utopian bubble, Cindy, but "using words" ain't gonna solve our security problems or prove to be any kind of deterrent! We have in fact been using "words" - aka diplomacy- for 30 years with many rogue states and those "words 'have fallen on deaf ears.
Diplomacy or "words" to use Cindy's terminology, can prove to be effective, BUT only with rationale people. The threats being posed to us come from the minds of highly irrational people.
This is why a strong Military force from the world's largest most successful democracy, serves us well. It is the SOLDIER that provides Cindy, Rae, and the rest of these anti war activists with the freedom to write and spew forth their opinions, and "speak words" however uneducated, unrealistic, myopic, utopian, and dangerous their thinking often proves to be.
I'll leave the final words, about Cindy's solution to solving world problems, mitigating the security threats against us, and anti- military sentiment, to Rob Anderson:
"It's a point that strikes at the heart of the book's fatal flaw--and at the fatal flaw with liberal anti-military sentiment: Sure, it'd be nice if we could "demand" that world leaders use words "to solve problems." But if the Sudanese government were so enthralled with diplomacy, would it be slowly obliterating an entire portion of its own population? And if the president of Iran valued words above all else, would he be so worried about building a nuclear arsenal?
Of all groups, liberals especially should know that protecting human rights, promoting democracy, and ending genocide are ends to strive for on a global scale. The means, of course, should not usually be military; and in a perfect world, they would never be. Moreover, if the Iraq war has proven anything, it is that we are not always capable of fulfilling our role as a completely moral force abroad. But sometimes, as in the Balkans seven years ago, as in Darfur today, we have no choice but to try.
It is for those moments in particular that liberals should want to fix and strengthen the military, not tear it down. And if the authors of 10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military think that effort unpatriotic, they can count me a traitor."