I don't know if Richard Mack was the one who came up with the plan to use women as human shields in defending the Bundy ranch against a federal invasion in Nevada, but he's the one who said it to the national media.
In September of 2011, hundreds of protesters from the other side of Mack's political aisle employed the same tactic across the country, using their children & the elderly to absorb the batons & pepper spray of local police in defense of some vague idea they never quite agreed on. They didn't know it at the time, but that vague idea was a promotional stunt intended to coax millions of struggling Americans & illegal immigrants into giving a portion of their paychecks to the SEIU. These people were risking their children so a company they couldn't even identify could make money.
What makes the original complainers so special that they can't go to the front line themselves? Is everybody a general? Is everybody a golden child? Is everybody the leader of their own "leaderless movement"? Everybody says they're fighting for all of us (whether we asked them to or not, whether we believe as they do or not, whether it affects us or not). But when the fighting starts they run to the safety of the tents & push everybody else up to the front to get beaten, arrested, & killed.
Is this going to be the new normal in 21st century conflict?
Right & wrong are concepts that burn away at the very beginning of any conflict. Strategies can't really be judged as good or evil... there are only degrees of effectiveness. But hiding behind the people you claim to be protecting....that's strictly for cowards. There is no ambiguity about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment