W. Thomas Smith, whose NRO piece on the Hunley I criticized, wrote Jeff Quinton (but not me) as follows:
This is great stuff... even if Bainbridge DOES refuse to read my piece in its entirety in order to grasp my premise. I'm talking about the honor and courage of the individual soldier for pete's sake. It's NOT about the POLITICS of the Confederacy. It's about the NOBILITY in the willing, obedient response to the call to arms.
If we were to follow the logic of the good professor, everyone who believes Bush was wrong for going into Iraq would also have to condemn every single soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine operating under Central Command.
This is so specious that it is difficult to know where to begin, but here goes. I did understand Smith's premise. Unlike him, however, I see no nobility - zero, zilch, nada - in a willing and obedient response to a call to arms when that call is issued by traitors and rebels. (What about the American revolutionaries, you ask? Setting aside the merits of the respective causes, the American revolutionaries did have this going for them: Treason never prospers, for if treason prospers none dare call it treason. And, moreover, I don't think you can set aside the merits of the cause. After all, by Smith's logic, Rommel was noble for responding willingly to Hitler's call to arms.) Hence, my logic does not extend to criticizing the soldiers in Iraq. Whatever the merits of the Iraq war, nobody except a few loonies thinks that Bush committed treason when he issued that call to arms. If Smith can't see that difference, he is beyond my ability to educate him.
