Over at SarcasticSoutherner, I came across the following paragraph, part of a longer post entitled The Gelding of the American Male:

Kim is right that this phenomenon has had profound effects. I think we see that in the reaction to the War in Iraq. We see more and more people whining for the troops to come home, because we've lost a couple hundred soldiers since May. Sure, each loss is tragic, but during Vietnam we frequently lost over 500 soldiers a week. The loss of a few soldiers is taken as evidence that we "don't have a plan." How about toughing it out until the job is done and killing all the terrorists we can find? That sounds like a plan to me, but I'm afraid that Americans increasingly disagree. Can anyone out there doubt that America is losing its manhood?

Normally, I'd add a comment, but Ryan doesn't offer that--so I'll post it here.

First, I went over to Kim Du Tiot's site. His thought processes are pretty standard for a guy who sounds like he doesn't get laid much. Frustration boils over to violence, or, in his case, fantasy violence. Then I took a look at Spoon's take--ok, so he's got a gripe or two, but mostly sees the piece as valid. More on this later.

So Ryan opines that the feminization of men is responsible for the reaction to the disaster in Iraq. Hmmn. My first respone is that it's pretty goddamned easy to toss off each casuality as "tragic" when you're several thousand miles away. Young men and women in Iraq who've seen their buddy's face half blown off or their leg shattered into a bloody mass of splinters might have a different take--think about it. One minute, a good friend is alive and well, the next, she/he is screaming in pain--if they're lucky. If your head is blown off by an RPG, it's not likely you'll be able make much noise.

The families of the dead and wounded might also have a different take. Losing a husband, wife, son, or daughter is pretty awful--regardless of the circumstances. If you are religious, you might want to look at 2 Samuel 18, verse 33. If not, maybe ask a trusted friend or relative, if you know someone who has lost a loved one. Yes, the pain is excruciating. No, dealing with the pain is NOT the feminization of the self.

Sure, we lost a lot more people in Vietnam. We lost a lot more in Korea, World War II, World War I, and the Spanish-American war as well. The point of war, however, is not to LOSE soldiers. Yes, it's a mean business, but the idea is to avoid casualties if possible. I'll add a link to Sun Tzu again. The point of war is to obtain an objective. Casualties are accepted as a cost of war, but not celebrated as central concept.

If I recall, the massive defense buildup, beginning with CARTER, by the way, and ACCELERATED under Reagan, was justified on the grounds that having such a large military would in itself deter any threat from potential aggressors. What was the line? Something like "by preparing for war, we can ensure the peace." Yeah, I think that was it. And, in the course of military development, we managed to add in things like lightweight body armor, night vision goggles, laser sighted rifles, and more. I believe this is done because, one, the military doesn't like to lose the investment made in a trained soldier, and, two, because, yes, there are some considerations made to simple human decency: Morale is a LOT higher in the ranks when troops are treated better than dogs.

Of course, we could just tell all the soldiers over there that they're damn luckier than the Vietnam/Korea/WWII generation. That'll really raise their spirit.

Sure, troop losses are small--not enough to affect operational logistics. But the fact is, operational logistics have been tossed out the window. Stan Goff, former Special Forces Seargent, is blunt in this regard:

Since the political decision in August to cut US casualties, the US has minimized operations and largely drawn the troops back inside the concertina wire. They were tangled up with pinprick strikes, and the slow, steady stream of US casualties was harming Bush politically. It still isn't working. Fixed installations need logistical support, and that means convoys, so the Iraqi resistance is schooling itself on the art of ambush.

Iraqis are also learning how to use mortars and rockets to great effect on the fixed positions.

This is at a time when we should have ALREADY won the hearts and minds of the people, or, to be honest, enough of the people so that the opposition was truly isolated. As it stands, the general population of Iraq seems to want to be left alone while US soldiers and the opposition/resistance play a deadly game of hide and seek.

In other words, the occupation isn't working. That's the major reason why support for the war is waning--as far as whiners, the only one I can think of offhand is Regis Philbin (see below), but I'm still not sure what he's whining about. I don't watch his show, and only saw him being cross promoted on Nightline.

Re: toughing this out till the job is done...what? The War on Terror suffered a SETBACK in Iraq. We should be going after bin Laden for chrissakes. The handful of Al Qaeda who've managed to smuggle themselves into Iraq are of no more significance than a couple of street hoods in a city dominated by organized crime. It's bin Laden we need to be chasing. By extension, we need to work with Muslim nations worldwide to minimize then eliminate forces like fundamentalist Wahabban Islam. Now, I'll admit, this is going to be a problem, given that the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia is the biggest promoter of this sect. Concurrent with this is the necessity of resolving the Palestinian/Israeli dispute in a manner fair to both sides. It's our responsibility, given our special relationship with the Israeli state. Once we DO this, we might actually find some allies amongst the nations of the Middle East--allies that can work with us to isolate the fundamentalists. Simultaneously, our police/FBI/CIA etc., need to work with the respective police forces abroad to collect evidence, then arrest, propagators of terrorism. This is not as difficult as it seems, provided you don't alienate the shit out of the rest of the world. Terrorists need money, weapons, documents (visas, passports, fraudulent identification, etc.), communication tools, transportation, and more. This stuff is not all that difficult to track--again, if you do this correctly. By correctly, I mean you use your BRAIN--gather intelligence, analyze it, and then act based on it. Faith-based military initiatives using Ahmad Chalabi as the primary intel source are senseless.

No, the opposition to the war is NOT the result of some secret scheme to rob males of our supply of testosterone. It is a carefully considered position based on real facts regarding war, terrorism, political objectives, and a host of other factors. Hell, at least one reason why I oppose this war is that I think it's simply goddamned stupid that we're wasting the lives of highly trained soldiers...whose training cost quite a bit of money. To draw an anology: Michael Vick broke his leg in a meaningless exhibition football game. You think Atlanta fans are happy about that? Do you think, if somehow they could go back, Vick would be in the lineup for a meaningless game? Atlanta went from a playoff team with Vick to the cellar in his absence.

And, to go full circle and return to Kim Du Toit and Spoon: It seems, in the end, that both writers try to argue that men are defined somehow by our innate violence and we men should take pride in being violent slobs. OK. To each their own, I say. If they want to take pride in being violent slobs, fine. I'll take pride in my ability to read and analyze, my skills in basketball and tennis, the fact that, if pressed, I can do some automotive work. Oh, and I'll also take some pride in my ability to draw and paint, cook edible food, write good letters (or so I'm told by my friends) and so on...

I even take pride in my ability to defend myself--although I prefer to not use my self-defense skills unless I have no alternative.

Finally, in conclusion: hey, in case Kim and Spoon, and anyone else who fantasizes about violence and being a slob hasn't noticed, there's a war in Iraq. Get off your goddamned candy asses and get in the ranks. Get in touch with your inner, violent slob on a day to day basis. If you don't get your face, arms, or legs blown away (body armor, which most but by no means all soldiers have tends to reduce torso trauma, meaning the head/face and appendages tend to be the most vulnerable areas of the body), then you may even have some fun stories to tell about killing people and how it helped you obtain self actualization.

But I seriously doubt you have the guts to go.