Principles in Practice: The Blog of the Objective Standard

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

A Soldier Speaks

Posted by Craig Biddle at 4:38 PM

Here is some correspondence I had with Maj. Wendy Milling, who is stationed in Camp Victory, Iraq. I post this with Maj. Milling’s permission and with her disclaimer that “the views expressed are solely my own and do not reflect that of the Department of Defense or any other government agency.”

Sir,

Craig Biddle writes, “The life of one American soldier is worth more than any economic costs my proposed campaign would impose on America.” The life we are talking about is mine. I would like to express my utmost gratitude to him and to other Objectivists, especially Elan Journo and David Holcberg, for their defense of a soldier’s right to life and their salute to the nobility of the American soldier in recent op-eds and letters to the editor. It is a relief to have true defenders in the ideological realm.

We are under constant intellectual attack in the form of maudlin, self-indulgent portrayals of the soldier as a God-driven, self-effacing nursemaid to the world’s poor by conservatives on the one hand—and in the form of screeching, self-righteous portrayals of the soldier as the neurotic, PTSD-driven criminal by liberals on the other. The one side advocates useless national military action not despite the fact that soldiers will die, but because of it (there can be no glory without sacrifice); the other side just wants us to die.

Regarding attacking Iran, I wish to point out that wars cannot be won solely by means of air power; decisive victory always requires ground forces. This is standard military doctrine for decades, and there has never been a case where air power alone secured victory. (A complete nuclear annihilation of all human beings in the enemy country, if that were possible, would be the exception to this rule). Although air power is critical and has even precipitated surrender in some cases, there must always be ground troops to occupy the enemy country. The reason is that control over a country requires humans on the ground to oversee local conditions, to make observations and collect intelligence, to make decisions on what will be done and what is permissible, to dictate to individuals on the ground regarding implementing specific terms and decisions, and to enforce those edicts. Without the physical presence of troops, the vanquished would be neither willing nor able to comply with the victor’s intent. Any military plan of action must unavoidably incorporate ground forces. It also means that American civilian leaders and ground force commanders had better know exactly what they are doing during the occupation phase, because an incomplete strangulation of the fountainhead of Islamic Totalitarianism would be a serious strategic loss, resulting in trouble for America.

Sincerely,

MAJ Wendy Milling
Camp Victory , Iraq

***

Dear Maj. Milling,

Thank you for your kind and eloquent note—and for your courageous efforts to defend America.

I’m not necessarily opposed to sending in ground forces—after we’ve destroyed via long-distance bombing everything we can that is known to support Iran’s military. My point is that we should not send troops in on foot to do a job that can be done with bombs from long distance. But nor do I think we need to occupy Iran in order to eliminate the threat posed thereby. If we were to obliterate from long distance everything known to support the regime, and then airdrop leaflets across the Middle East explaining: “From now on, this is how America will respond to any and all threats to her citizens or allies. We will be watching the entire region via satellites and other hi-tech means. If we see anything that appears to threaten our interests, we will obliterate it and everything in its proximity without further warning”—I think occupation would be unnecessary. But I’m open to persuasion on this. (Several months ago, I posted a 5-step plan incorporating this idea, which I think would work well.)

Whether or not we need to occupy the enemy state, we certainly should use whatever tools are available and necessary to destroy the enemy regime—and, in so doing, we should make every effort to keep our soldiers out of harm’s way.

With great admiration and appreciation,

Craig Biddle

P.S. May I post your letter to Principles in Practice? I would of course omit your name—unless you’d prefer that I include it.

***

Dear Craig,

Thank you again. Objectivists are the best kind of patriots. You have my permission to publish my letter, with or without my name as you see fit, but I would kindly ask that you add a disclaimer to the effect that the views expressed are solely my own and do not reflect that of the Department of Defense or any other government agency.

A thorough bombing campaign would be an essential part of the military action, but I am convinced that without a follow-on physical occupation, the enemy would simply declare a victory after the bombing stopped. The denizens in this part of the world are very superstitious and already believe that American soldiers possess technology which gives us superpowers, and yet they continue to launch attacks anyway. The only deterrent has been constant, continuous, overwhelming presence and force. Don’t overestimate their rationality. Without an occupation, I believe containing the threat would be impossible.

Sincerely,

MAJ Wendy Milling
Camp Victory , Iraq

Although I remain unconvinced that an occupation is necessary to eliminate the Iranian threat, I greatly appreciate Maj. Milling’s thoughtful views, and I hope that, on her excellent example, more Americans (especially civilians) will speak out against soldiers being used as cannon fodder for Bush and company’s altruistic ends—and in favor of thoroughly destroying our enemy.

Labels: Foreign Policy and War