Friday, November 30, 2007

Why I Joined

Please read and digest this MySpace entry that I found at

WarRoom is a website hosted by Quinn and Rose, local Conservative radio talk show hosts in Western, Pa. Their popularity is steadily growing as their syndicated show adds stations almost weekly.

I read this and wanted to share this fallen soldier's powerful words with our readers (and plug a local program at the same time).....

Original Link

2nd LT Mark Daily was killed in an IED attack
He was named the ROTC's outstanding cadet for 2005 and also a Distinguished Military Graduate, the highest ROTC award.

This was his MySpace post
Sunday, October 29, 2006

WHY I JOINED Current mood: optimistic

Why I Joined:
This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.
And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.
So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.
I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

On his MySpace front page, he featured this quote:

"Patience demolishes mountains" -Arab proverb
He wanted to be a journalist.

These are the kind and caliber of men who fight for us. Forever twenty-three years young. God rest his soul. And never, never forget.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

As to the content of the soldier’s entry:

Throughout history, two sides with opposite views clash. The victor’s cause is seen as “right” and the loser’s side is seen as “wrong”.

As I read a lot of journal entries, such as the one posted, I find myself wondering "If blogs existed during WWII, how would a Nazi blog entry read and would the content of the blog be much different than the one posted?"

I am sure the first reaction would be that they would be very different because many people, including myself, believe the Holocaust was horrific. Yet, when we can align ourselves with the cause, we tend to justify it. At the basic level, both sides would hold beliefs that each was willing to fight/die for. In the American case, we should support. In the Nazi case, we would be appalled.

The question is not to try to persuade people that the Iraq war is right or wrong, but to wonder if “rightly intended actions can turn upon themselves to make them ‘un-right’”.
That is kind of confusing but I will try to give an example.

Saddam Hussein has tortured people. The American government holds a terrorist who knows information but refuses to reveal that information. Should the American government use torture to get this information? If the government does use torture, is that government any better than the government they are attempting to overthrow?

As to the individual soldier that wrote the entry:

I believe that a lot of soldiers are in Iraq and they are willing to sacrifice all they have to improve Iraq (in their eyes). I believe the American government uses this sentimental string to justify the government actions. I believe the American government is there for reasons that ultimately only support those of the United States. If the Iraq position is improved, then that is only because that is the path, not the reason. I believe that the government is doing a disservice to its service members, especially like the one in the blog posted, to “fool” them into thinking they are there for the Iraqi’s.