The Cancer Within
EDIT: Upon consideration (and due to feedback I've received from many friends), I decided to post this edit.
This is a rant, and as such, the argument presented here does not have concrete reasoning, and has a much more personal tone than all my previous posts. But is one I believe in. You will see very few rants on my blog, so you may choose to ignore them if you wish.
Jane Fonda.
That name means different things to different people. To some, it is synonymous with a (formerly) attractive woman and to others it may be with the leading lady in various
To me, however, the name Jane Fonda is associated with the term bitch. Now, I hesitate to use that word, for it is a harsh, and usually undeserved adjective. In this case, not only is it warranted, but it goes hand in hand with other despicable character traits, such as treachery and duplicity.
Many will have heard of Fonda's overwhelming opposition to the Vietnam War (and now Iraq). And to some, this is acceptable. After all, she was living in a democracy, and was free to voice differing opinions. However, while vocal opposition is one thing, posing on an enemy AA gun is another. That shot alone caused immeasurable damage to the morale of Vietnam War veterans, already under flak back home, and only heightened the abuse they were facing. Veterans returning home were termed baby-killers, butchers and psychopaths. The now-famous Norman Swarzpkof, architect of Desert Storm was snubbed even by his own family. All this against soldiers who were trying to do their duty by their country and by their people.
Undoubtedly, there were psychopathic killers who served in
Let's get back to
American forces won almost every military engagement in that campaign. They possessed control of the sea-lanes, total air-superiority and the territorial advantage. So where did they lose?
They lost on the Public Relations (PR) front.
PR? Surely that’s not very important in a war?
But it is. Many associate war with the 'big bang' factor and with comparisons of military strength. But to win a war, a nation must win both against its enemy, and at home. Because the war was so unpopular in the
And now it’s happening again. This time in
About now, you'll be thinking: 'This is all very interesting (or not, depending on whether you agree), but what does it have to do with
Such activists are becoming more common in
Recently, there was a protest over the killing of two innocent youths in
This is understandable, and one I agree with. The troops in question were mistaken, and their incorrect judgement had caused them to shoot innocent, unarmed civilians. What bothers me, however, are when Indian citizens further these calls to one advocating
Not only to viewpoints like this damage the morale of the troops (and thus damage national security), they strenghten the hand of India's enemies without them having to fire a shot. They weaken our position both internationally and domestically. How are our troops supposed to fight if they have one hand tied behind their backs? How are we supposed to hold onto a piece of our land when our own people are against it? How are we supposed to generate clean electricity if the people are against nuclear reactors? How are we supposed to raise employment and rid ourselves of poverty if people go against economic reform, claiming it to be a corporate plot?
As long as these viewpoints, put across by the 'intellectual elite' are taken seriously, India will be forever taking one step forward and two steps back, and we will cede supremacy to the rapidly growing Chinese, forever to remain in second place.