This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
It’s Time to Start Speaking Up
If growing up means learning words do not always mean what they seem to and learning an adult must make distinctions and recognize differences, a fair amount of the country has not yet grown up.
Public debate is increasingly conducted in codewords, the advocates’ substitute for the difficulties of thinking. Phrases like “right to life” or “right of choice” are ladened with emotional and political baggage, eliminating utility except to identify closed minds.
The word “peace” (as in “peace activist”) and the phrase “avoiding nuclear war” have also become cliches, describing attitudes which seem to assume that being against war is enough to prevent it. The rhetoric that transformed “The Day After,” a routine television movie, into a national event because of its “powerful peace message” or the current media fascination with nuclear winter are based on the notion that the discovery that war is horrible is somehow a sufficient contribution to peace.
While the perversion of language is disturbing enough, the inability to tell things apart is even more appalling. Here too a growing segment of the population seems trapped in a very early stage of childhood when an infant cannot distinguish between very different things—in this case between the United States and the Soviet Union. Three examples suggest the depth of the problem:
► In February 1984, after hearing a debate that included Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, the Oxford Union voted by 271 to 232 to reject the proposition there is “no moral difference beween the world policies of the United States and the Soviet Union.” The vote was hailed in this country as a victory for Secretary Weinberger and his power of persuasion. Think about that—we brag about the fact that only 46% are unable to see any difference between the foreign policy that gave the world the Marshall
Plan and the foreign policy that gave it Afghanistan. What is of concern is not the attitude of the Oxford students but the attitude of the American press and public—which seemed surprised at how favorable the result was.
- At a luncheon with a group of military officers and their wives, Carl Sagan, noted astronomer and author of Cosmos, spoke eloquently of the exploration of space which would be remembered long after the “petty political squabbles” of today are forgotten. The concept of the organizing principle is fundamental to science, yet this world- renowned scientist could, apparently, discern no difference between the organizing principles of Soviet society and of our own. A fundamental disagreement over the nature of society and the future of mankind seemed to him merely a “petty political squabble.” Once again, it is not the attitude of Dr. Sagan that should concern us but the fact that none of the officers present appeared to think it amiss.
- In the summer of 1984, Theodor Geisel, the beloved Dr. Suess whom many of us grew up reading, published a new book, The Butter Battle Book. Those who remember the whimsical Cat-in-the-Hat or the faithful Horton hatching his egg will find the new book startling. It describes two groups— the Yooks and the Zooks—engaged in an arms race that will destroy them, all because they disagree on how to butter bread. The parable could not be more poignant: The survival of man is being endangered over essentially trivial differences.
These examples should give pause to any American, but they are of particular concern to military officers. If there are no differences between the two societies, if nothing is worth fighting over, if being vaguely in favor of “peace” is an adequate deterrent to war, then why are we here? Since the bulk of us are here because we believe we serve a vital function in protecting a free society, the fact that important segments of that society see no difference between a nation of free speech and a nation of Gulags should concern us a great deal.
So what? All of us are concerned every day about things that we cannot change. Is this any different? Are there things we can or should do? There are obviously some things we should not do. We should not decide that we need a vast new program to teach “Americanism” or democracy to sailors. The problem is not with the men and women of the armed forces in any event. And we should not object to the statements themselves. If we argue that people should not say things we disagree with, we are advocating a world in which there really is no difference between the two societies.
What we should do is simple: We should speak up. Not as an organized body—the military has no business acting as a pressure group—but as individuals. We have an obligation to ourselves, to our nation, and to our profession not to allow ridiculous statements to go unchallenged.
Nuclear war in particular would be horrible beyond belief; that is why it must be prevented. But those who are preventing it are not the people speaking of the day after, but military professionals concerned with the day before. We need to make that clear, not in an emotional way, but simply by not allowing the contrary opinion to go unanswered, whether at parties, the parent-teacher organization’s get-togethers, or at community meetings. Our neighbors deserve that candor from us and so does our profession.
No nation, no grouping, no society is ever as good as one would wish. Ours is no exception. But compared with most nations today or most nations throughout history, we have an immense amount of which to be proud. A nation, one of whose problems is that too many people want to come here, both for economic and political reasons, cannot be compared with a nation, one of whose problems is to prevent its citizens from departing. There really is a difference, and we really are the good guys. It is time for action. It is time we started speaking up and saying so.
108
Proceedings / January 1985