Lawrence O'Donnall trashes Romney and sons for lack of military service.
Now without a link I can only describe the general gist of what he said.
Lawrence O'Donnall rightfully attacked Romney for doging the draft. Now while it is true there is nothing in the Mormon religion from serving in the military(there was an abscure law allowing only Mormons to use a deferment if they chose, many Mormons during Nam did not use the deferment Romney did).
Now O'donnall rightfully also said there were draft dodgers who were lagit because they were going with their concious because they did not support the war. Romney did and still dodged.
However, where I dissagree about "dodging" with O'Donnall, while agreeing with the dishonest tactic on Romney's part, is caling him a coward.
I am too, I would not be emotionally or even physically fit to handle getting shot at. I do not see it as cowardice to know oneself and one owns limits. The cowardice was in the lying, not if one admits they would be in over their head. If I am on the battlefield and any soilder who does serve will tell you, in that time of life threating stress they want EVERYONE arouind them focused on the task to either win or survive.
I would have more value for Romney and or his sons for telling the truth instead of lying and saying "we can serve our country in other ways", instead of saying "No I couldn't handle it". I hate this macho bravado that men are all the same physically or emotionally. So on the one hand if they had simply said "There is no way I could do that myself, but I am glad there are people who can" would be honest, and in that respect O'Donnall would not have a case.
I don't think by one admiting they cant handle something means that there will be a lack of people who can. If evolution is a range, then so are men so there cannot be a right way to "be a man". The crime Romney commited wasn't being a "wimp", his crime was using a deferment while hypocritically supporting a war he wasn't willing to fight himself.
I think the issue could be settled quite easily by allowing in the vetting process, especially now that the military is completely voluntary, to allow honest talk between the person who wants to join and a psychological evaluation prior to basic training. But not serving or being scared of serving, by itself doesn not make one a coward. The cowardice is in the lying, not the self awarness.
I have supported the Afgan war and not the Iraq war and there would have been in either case no way I could emotionally handle combat. So O'Donnall is both right and wrong and at the same time would have to call me a coward too. I might be in a physical sense and most certainly seeing that kind of violence knowing myself would scramble not only my brains, but get others killed. But most certainly would be a coward if I simply went along with a social norm and ended up getting others killed because I was too "ashamed" to admit I couldn't handle it.
Why would any soldier want someone next to them who simply bowed to peer pressure because that person was too afriad to admit they couldn't handle it and did it merely because they didn't want to "look like wimp". It is bad enough war exists and bad enough that people die. I think it is worse when you send someone into combat who is unfit emotionally to serve. Even those who manage to do it come home with PTSD, depression, take it out on their spouses, become addicted to a drug. Now while that isn't a majority, it cannot be minimized by forcing someone to live a lie and is certainly dangerous to the other soldiers around them.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37