There's been no shortage of news about the death of Arizona safety Pat Tillman, who opted out of a several million dollar contract with the Cardinals to become an Army Ranger and died while serving in Afghanistan.
Was Tillman a hero? We've heard him called that ever since news broke of his death, but the person most uncomfortable with that designation would have been Tillman himself?
After the 9-11 attacks Tillman simply felt a call to serve his country. He never thought of himself as a hero, nor did he want anybody else to make the same claim for him. He repeatedly denied interviews during his service, stressing the importance that he be treated the same as the guy next to him. I think it's safe to say he's a good example and his all too rare display of self-sacrifice for the common good was a breath of fresh air.
But Tony, what does the political left have to say about Tillman? I'm glad you asked, disembodied voice in my head. An editorial appeared in the UMass student newspaper today criticizing Tillman for serving and commenting on his death that he "got what he deserved."
From an ESPN.com story on the editorial: (Read the whole thing at indymedia.org)
"You know he was a real Rambo, who wanted to be in the 'real' thick of things," Gonzalez writes in his column, which is posted on the collegiate paper's Web site. "I could tell he was that type of macho guy, from his scowling, beefy face on the CNN pictures. Well, he got his wish. Even Rambo got shot in the third movie, but in real life, you die as a result of being shot. They should call Pat Tillman's army life 'Rambo 4: Rambo Attempts to Strike Back at His Former Rambo 3 Taliban Friends, and Gets Killed.'"Gonzalez also says that Tillman's service was not "necessary."
"It wasn't like he was defending the East coast from an invasion of a foreign power. THAT would have been heroic and laudable," Gonzalez writes. "What he did was make himself useful to a foreign invading army, and he paid for it. It's hard to say I have any sympathy for his death because I don't feel like his 'service' was necessary. He wasn't defending me, nor was he defending the Afghani people. He was acting out his macho, patriotic crap and I guess someone with a bigger gun did him in."
It's not unusual for opponents of wars to demonize the soldiers fighting those wars and to try to cast them as the villians in the overly-simplified morality play that is their view of American foreign policy. I just didn't see it coming this time. The cynicism expressed in this editorial -- that Tillman's only motivation for joing the army was bloodlust, because why else would someone trade in the good life in order to risk their own life -- is astounding.
Cynicism aside, what this editorial truly speaks to is the inability for opponents of American foreign policy to come to terms with the fact that the terrorist attack on New York City was an act of war. And acts of war require military retaliation.
It's not that this guy doesn't like Tillman, or soldiers in general, for that matter. What he is expressing is his belief that all soldiers are blind patirots being rushed off to fight an unjust war whose main goal is lower gas prices. It's a belief that is arrogant and elitist, not to mention blind to the facts and ignorant of the current state of world affairs.
There's nothing wrong with healthy and vocal oppossition to the polcies of your government. What we have here, however, is a poorly thought out leftist, cocoon-induced rant against the United States and those that believe in the ideals of this country, that used Tillman's death as a jumping off point.
And there's certainly nothing heroic about that.
Tony
