The Taliban Are Not Terrorists

There are a few common misconceptions regarding the Afghanistan War that I would like to address.  

First: “Our military is fighting Taliban terrorists.”

The Taliban our military is fighting are not terrorists but rather enemy combatants of an insurgency that seeks to regain control of Afghanistan.  As such, when an enemy combatant is captured they become a prisoner of war (POW) and afforded the rights acknowledged by both U.S. and international law.   

Second: “We traded 5 terrorists for 1 U.S. soldier.  We don’t negotiate with terrorists.”

The tradition of conducting POW exchanges has an historical precedent found throughout modern warfare.  During the current Afghanistan War the U.S. has returned over 600 Taliban POWs since 2002.

Third: “The terrorists we have released are dangerous.”

Possibly.  This is more of an assumption than a misconception.  The recently released Taliban POWs swore to cease from hostilities for the duration of the war and must remain in Doha for the next year with monitored, restricted liberty.  One in ten released Taliban POWs have returned to fight in the war.  Will the recently released Taliban POWs rejoin the fight?  Possible, but not probable as the Afghanistan War will likely come to a close in the next year or two.  At that point in time, the remaining 140 Taliban POWs in Guantanamo will also be returned.  This is not to be lamented but solemnly accepted as a necessary condition for the completion of a tragic period of the early 21st century.  

What is to be lamented is that after nearly 13 years of war Americans still call the Taliban terrorists, demonstrating their significant lack of knowledge regarding the entering arguments for the war to begin with.  I say lament, but as an Active Duty Armed Forces member, Americans' general ignorance regarding U.S. foreign policy scares the hell out of me.

We Say Goodbye to Trip

Our dog, Trip, passed away last night. He lived a full life of 13 years.  As we bury him this Memorial Day morning, Trip was in a way a veteran to us. A few years ago he protected the children from a rattle snake. Taking a bite on the paw as he placed himself between the snake and our children typified his life of safeguarding us from danger over the years.

Our five year old asked the expected, universal question of all children that age (and all adults, if we are honest with ourselves), “Will we see Trip in heaven?” Our response is that we don’t know.  We do know God is love. We know God loves us. We know the Father is the creator of all things, including our precious Trip. If it would please us to be with Trip again in heaven, we believe it would please our Father, who in His providence both brought and took Trip away, to unite us once again.

The New Order: A Worthy Addition

The Wolfenstein family of games have come a long way since I got involved with Wolfenstein 3D back in 1992. The newest installment of Wolfenstein: The New World Order was released on May 20th and it does not disappoint. As one would expect from Bethesda, who brought us hits like Fallout 3 and Skyrim, The New Order is fantastic. The game takes place in 1960 Europe in an alternate timeline where the Nazis had won the Second World War. The gamer takes on the perspective of an American soldier attempting to overthrow the heavily technocratic Nazi powers that have since taken over the world.  One faces cyber men, robots, and drones in a dark, dirty distopia, where it is as if Nazis have joined powers with Skynet. The soundtrack is noteworthy, as well. The alternate timeline theme continues with a comical but somewhat creepy twist on our familiar sounds of the 1960s.  What if The Animals' “House of the Rising Sun” did not take place in New Orleans but rather NeuBerlin?

I was living in Germany when Return to Castle Wolfenstein was released in 2001.  The American edition of the game was illegal in Germany because of the Nazi symbols found throughout.  Because of this, the German edition had the Wolfenstein eagle symbol in place of Swastikas.  Anything related to the Nazis in games or toys is still illegal in Germany today; as such the German version of The New Order has been white-washed of any Nazi symbols.  Even the term “Nazis” has been replaced with simply “The Regime.”  I know anything related to Nazis is a sensitive issue in Germany, but the removal of such related symbols and terms always struck me as odd.  Like a vampire at the sight of blood or a werewolf at the sight of a full moon, is there a fear that there is something inherent to the German that will uncontrollably turn him or her into a psychopathic, world dominating Nazi at the mere sight of a Swastika?  Perhaps our way in America is also strange; train our youth through games to shoot those that wear the symbol.  

Awkward for One, Awkward for All

Social etiquette requires that we, if at all possible, not make others around us uncomfortable.  We have all experienced it; the collective, uncomfortable silence.  “Somebody say something,” we think to ourselves.  I was once at a social gathering where my host commented that although she was already my wife’s Facebook “Friend,” she would not “Friend” me because “that would just be weird because you’re a married man.”  I thought, “Yes.  That is weird...now...because you’ve just made it awkward for everybody listening.”  I do understand that for some people social media can mean nefarious business.  One does not need to be Facebook “Friends,” however, to engage in such activity as even the messaging capability is available to everyone, “Friend” or not.  Regardless, this person felt awkward with the concept.  I can comprehend that.  However, she made her awkwardness everyone’s awkwardness as thoughts of infidelity spread throughout the room.  I call this the “Awkward for One, Awkward for All” scenario.

A mother is nursing her infant in public...with her breast!  This may be an awkward situation for some, especially Americans, even if the woman is covered.   When I was stationed in Europe, I often witnessed women breastfeeding their baby uncovered.  At first I was uncomfortable.  I grew up in the U.S. where women rarely breastfed and when they did they were most certainly covered.  Rather than make my discomfort everyone’s discomfort, I took my cue from the Europeans around me who did not make a scene of it.  Today, I am fine being around a woman breastfeeding, covered or uncovered, but I know not all are.  In fact, some may not only feel awkward about public breastfeeding but may actually be against it.  They may even make passive aggressive comments about it.  Their discomfort becomes everyone’s discomfort, and that is poor social etiquette.

This post itself may have made you feel uncomfortable but what did you expect on Hardly Tolerable?

Does a Name Prefix Matter?

Every child enjoys receiving mail addressed to them personally.  I enjoyed receiving birthday cards from my great-grandmother more than anyone else as the envelopes were always addressed to “Master Kevin Reed.”  At first I was confused and my mother explained to me that “Master” was the proper title for a boy and that upon becoming a man I would be addressed as “Mr.” I then learned that young girls were addressed as “Miss,” unmarried women as “Ms.” and married women as “Mrs.” In this light, I found that the title “Master” made me feel significant.  I knew that while only a young boy, society was already acknowledging me and my place in it.

Today it is common for unmarried and married women alike to be addressed as “Ms.” In many situations one may not know if a woman is married or not and so it is believed safer to address a woman simply as “Ms.” However, I recently received a letter addressed to “Mr. and Ms.” Clearly in context of the correspondence the “Ms.” was really a “Mrs.” Was it a typo?  Not likely.  My experience has witnessed that many professional women today prefer to be addressed as “Ms.” Just as I understood as a young boy; a title reflects how society acknowledges a woman and her place in it.  The title “Mrs.” can be seen as too submissive to her husband, an irreconcilable trait for today’s professional woman seeking to be taken as an equal among male co-workers.  It is not enough that a married woman reject her husband’s surname, for a maiden name could also be mistaken for her husband's surname, and that just wont do.

If this sounds like a lament for the loss of the title “Mrs.” among married women of my time, it is true.  Hold the accusations of “misogynist,” however.  Remember that a title is how society acknowledges you and your place in it.  Women in my time have adopted the title “Ms.” because men have not treated them well in decades past, most specifically in the professional environment.  I regret the loss of the title “Mrs.” not only because the married association in the title of a woman is gone, but because it reminds me of why it has been dropped in the first place.

Pipe Smoking and the Doctor Visit

Six months ago I discovered the joy of pipe smoking, a leisure activity I occasionally indulge in.  Contrary to American suburban life in the twenty first century, the pipe smoking ritual is a slow one.  I often smoke alone, but enjoy the thought provoking company of other pipe smokers.  I smoke on my back deck, not just out of consideration for my family but because the view and weather in Colorado is great.  With my pipe in hand I entertain my thoughts uninterrupted to the pleasant aroma of pipe tobacco.

 

It used to be an annual requirement to meet with my doctor in the military.  Due to recent cost cuts, I have not seen a doctor in a few years.  Instead, I meet with an 18 year old airman who takes my blood pressure, height and weight, and then asks me a series of questions relating to eating habits, frequency of drinking and smoking, mental health, sleeping habits etc.  During my recent meeting, the airman asked me if I used tobacco products, to which I almost replied with a “no” out of habit.  I affirmed that I started smoking six months ago. 

“Cigarette, pipe, or smokeless tobacco?” asked the monotone airman, his back to me and face glued to the computer screen.

“Pipe,” I responded, perhaps with a hint of pride.  The airman glanced over his shoulder at me, raised a classic Spock eyebrow, and then returned to typing.

 

“How many times a day do you smoke?” asked the airman, returning to his zombie like state of data entry.

 

“I don’t smoke daily,” I replied a bit too defensively, “just on weekends.”  The airman continued to click the data away into the electronic medical archive, where it will remain hidden until reluctantly discovered by a future, equally disinterested VA employee.

“Have you made plans to quit?” the airman asked, not out of genuine concern but because he had come to his final required question. 

“Why would I do that?” I asked, unable to control a laugh.  “I just started!”

Defense of a Pro-Life Libertarian

As a Libertarian I have been slammed from both sides of the “political aisle.”  Being a Confessional and Reformed Christian, some of my harshest critics, however, have come from my Christian friends on the Right.  Their contention has been primarily centered around the Libertarian Party’s position on abortion.  From my experience, the common belief seems to be that the Libertarian Party is pro-abortion.  It is not.  Section 1.4 of the Libertarian Party's platform states:

“Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”

This position does allow the possibility for a Libertarian to be pro-abortion.  It also allows for one to be pro-life, as well.  However, Section 1.4 most accurately represents the pro-choice Libertarian; one who is personally pro-life, but believes one has the right to make a choice.  I hold to neither the pro-abortion or pro-choice positions.  Being pro-life, I believe the unborn child is an individual and should be afforded the same right to life as one who has already been born.  The party platform states under “Statement of Principles” that:

“…individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal rights of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

A pro-life Libertarian views abortion as an infringement on the right to life for the unborn, who are the ultimate voiceless minority in any society.  The Libertarian Party takes great pride in rejecting the historical premise that “the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals.”  I, therefore, find the pro-abortion and even pro-choice positions to be inherently anti-libertarian.  Abortion simply is the most totalitarian act any individual could ever make.  While the State should not have the right to dispose of the lives of individuals, neither should an individual.  The Libertarian Party is the penultimate anti-government party and yet concedes that a legitimate use of government is to uphold prohibition of murder.

I disagree with Libertarian Party platform Section 1.4.  I am still a Libertarian and will remain so for the foreseeable future.  One can be a member of a political party without agreeing with every single tenet and action of that party.  I sincerely doubt that Christian Republicans and Democrats want to kill or ruin the lives of their Christian brothers and sisters in the Middle East, yet their party’s foreign policies have done just that.  I would hardly call a Republican or Democrat a persecutor of Christians even though their foreign policy says otherwise.