David C. Stolinsky
Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2001

A late-night TV personality believes our military are "cowards" for using high-tech weapons to defeat our enemies, instead of using suicidal attacks as our enemies do.

A leading senator expresses similar views, believing that our military should go "mano a mano" with our enemies.

But at least these two pundits are liberals, who may simply not understand things military or be sympathetic to our service people.

Perhaps even more depressing is the conservative newspaper editor who, in the Wall Street Journal of Nov. 14, asserts: "This is not a war being won with American blood and guts. It is being won with the blood and guts of the Northern Alliance, helped by copious quantities of American ordnance and a handful of American advisers. After Sept. 11, President Bush promised that this would not be another bloodless, push-button war, but that is precisely what it has been."

Excuse me, but is that something to complain about? Besides, it is inaccurate. Americans have died, but apparently too few to please the editor. Precisely how many American military personnel must die before these pundits are satisfied? Exactly how many of their modern weapons must be discarded, so they can fight "mano a mano"? Just how much bleeding and dying must our military do, and how much weeping and loneliness must their families endure, before these self-proclaimed proponents of machismo will be content?

The editor goes on to question whether we have "the determination to stick a bayonet in the guts of our enemy." Of course, this means getting close enough for our enemies to stick bayonets in the guts of our soldiers – but not in the guts (if any) of the editor, who remains at a safe distance.

Contrast these attitudes with those of Tom Clancy. In one of his novels, two American agents are discussing a hated enemy of their country. The younger agent says he wants to see that person's eyes when he kills him. The older agent replies, "So put a good scope on the rifle." Clancy's approach is more realistic, and much more sympathetic to our side.

In order to decide whether someone has a legitimate complaint or is merely whining, one can ask, "All right, suppose the reverse of what you complain about were to happen – then would you be happy?"

Suppose our military didn't employ high-tech weapons, but instead fought hand to hand. Suppose they didn't rely on the indigenous people to do most of the fighting, but did it themselves. Suppose they suffered hundreds of dead and wounded. What then?

I can hear it now. The pundits would whimper that our leaders were bloodthirsty warmongers utterly unconcerned with human life. They would harshly criticize our lack of modern equipment. They would claim that our high casualty count, and the low casualty count of the Afghans, proved that it wasn't their fight, and that we were imposing our will on them – just as the critics claimed during the Vietnam War.

No, these pundits aren't voicing legitimate complaints; they are merely whining. What do they know about self-sacrifice anyhow? Who are they to criticize? Their idea of suffering is missing lunch or breaking a shoelace before a staff meeting.

My father was a private in the infantry in France in World War I. I still have a photo of him in his high-collared uniform. One of my ROTC instructors had been wounded by a German machine-gun bullet in World War II, and another had been a prisoner of war of the Japanese. I learned from them what patriotism really means.

I am not in their league. I never heard a shot fired in anger. My service was only in the Army Reserve and Public Health Service. But I was injured in a vehicle accident returning from annual training, and I have the scars to prove it.

Believe me, my father would rather have stayed home, my ROTC instructors would rather have been victorious without pain, and I would rather have completed my reserve duty uninjured.

Yearning for "blood and guts" is inversely proportional to the person's actual experience with these factors. Battlefields look a lot more attractive from armchairs, and ambulance rides look much more exciting from computer terminals.

If we wish to discover what "blood and guts" really mean, we must ask the people who actually shed the blood and demonstrated the guts, and not those who merely stand aside idly and criticize the achievements of others.

But ingratitude is not limited to critics of the military. Part of the problem is that an infantile narcissism is common – almost normal – in America today. Narcissists feel little gratitude, because they have an enormous sense of entitlement.

Why be grateful to family, if you are entitled to love? Why be grateful to friends, if you are entitled to friendship? Why be grateful to capitalism, if you are entitled to abundance? Why be grateful to science, if you are entitled to medicines and computers? Why be grateful to police officers, firefighters, and the armed services, if you are entitled to safety?

Why be grateful to America, if you are entitled to freedom? Why be grateful to God, if you are entitled to life and health? Rather than feeling grateful for all these gifts, many Americans feel angry and resentful when any one of them is lacking.

Angry ingrates make unhappy spouses, selfish parents, complaining children, grouchy neighbors, and poor citizens. They also make lousy commentators. Ingratitude is a serious problem, because it leads to so many other problems.

God doesn't need our gratitude. We need to express it. We need to remind ourselves of how incredibly lucky we are to live in a free country. We need to pause and thank all those, living and dead, who fought and suffered to keep us free.

And we need to give thanks that our service people haven't had to suffer even more. If we don't, we are merely ingrates who don't appreciate what we have – and don't deserve it.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
War on Terrorism
Media Bias

A product that might interest you:
Incredible Watch! Keep Time Like a Navy SEAL