Giving Real Meaning to Veterans Day

by | Nov 11, 2020 | Military, POLITICS

Any element of self-sacrifice in war is a betrayal of our soldiers and the American freedom they fight for.

Veterans Day arouses three emotions in most Americans: solemnity, because it celebrates the veterans who have defended our great country; sadness, because so many have lost their lives in the process; and pride, because they have fought so well.

The supreme value that our veterans have fought and died for (with some tragic exceptions) from the American Revolution to the Civil War to two World Wars is–freedom. America is the country of freedom. We were the first to declare that government exists to serve men; men do not exist to serve government. We were the first to proclaim that all men are equal before the law. We were the first to say that each individual has inalienable rights–the right to his life, his liberty, his property, and the pursuit of his happiness.

There is no more precious possession than one’s own life. But without political freedom, human life is empty. Man cannot exist in any meaningful sense as a serf. The New Hampshire motto says it perfectly: “Live Free or Die.”

Because human life is so precious, war should never be undertaken unless our rights are threatened. It is often said that our soldiers must sacrifice themselves for our country. This is precisely what we must not ask them to do. A sacrifice entails the surrender of a greater value for a lesser one. But if a man loses his life on the premise, “I would rather die than live in slavery,” it is a tragic loss–but it is not a sacrifice. Such a man is acting in his own interests, to protect his most precious values.

On the other hand, it is a sacrifice to send our soldiers to a country that has no connection to their interests and values. An example is Somalia. Many brave American soldiers died there–for what? To capture warlords who posed no threat to America.

Vietnam is another example of a senseless, self-sacrificial tragedy. While it was in our interest to oppose the communist threat to America, it did not benefit Americans to throw away their lives in defense of a primitive nation whose people did not value freedom. The mere fact that they needed help should not have created a claim on the efforts and the lives of U.S. soldiers.

Any element of self-sacrifice in war is a betrayal of our soldiers and the American freedom they fight for. Witness the debacle in Iraq, where the Bush Administration had forced American soldiers to fight with self-crippling restrictions, leading to hundreds of unnecessary American deaths and enabling a militarily puny insurgency to take over Iraqi cities–all in the name of saving Iraqi civilians and mosques.

Our heroic fighting men and women are not to blame for these disasters. It is the politicians who are responsible. It is they who believe that our soldiers are sacrificial fodder to fulfill the politicians’ desire for “prestige-enhancing” adventures. They believe that our armed forces can be sent to aid Somalia–or Haiti or Bosnia–in order to be able to show the world how “humanitarian” the politicians are.

But politicians desperate for prestige to assuage their self-doubts should be told that they may not utilize our armed forces as the tool for obtaining it. And they should be told we have no duty to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of any country in need of our assistance. Our soldiers are sovereign beings who have a right to their own lives.

Furthermore, our armed forces should consist only of volunteers. It is an ugly contradiction to claim that we must protect freedom–by coercing people to fight. If the cause is just and the American interests clear, there will be no shortage of enlistments. In fact, a volunteer force helps make sure that our soldiers do battle only when serious threats to our interests are at stake. A volunteer force will prevent politicians from involving us in senseless wars.

We must be proud of our soldiers, but it is equally true that they should be proud of the cause they fight for. It is terrible to die in war, but there is one thing worse: to die in a war that has no meaning, a war that offers no reason for risking one’s life.

The best way we can honor our veterans and give real meaning to Veterans Day–aside from ceremonies honoring their past and present dedication and bravery–is to promise that we will go to war only when America’s interests as a free nation are threatened, and wage it in the uncompromising pursuit of victory.

Copyright © 2004 Ayn Rand® Institute (ARI). All rights reserved. Cartoon by Cox & Forkum.

4 Comments

  1. “Any element of self-sacrifice in war is a betrayal of our soldiers and the American freedom they fight for.”

    A war without sacrifice and with minimum casualties is achieved as follows:

    “There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.” – General George S. Patton, Jr.

    “In battle, casualties vary directly with the time you are exposed to effective fire. Your own fire reduces the effectiveness and volume of the enemy’s fire, while rapidity of attack shortens the time of exposure. A pint of sweat will save a gallon of blood.” –-General George S. Patton, Jr., War as I knew it, 1947.

    In Patton’s drive for the Rhine, non-combat casualties exceeded those casaulties suffered in combat.

    Because, despite what his critics said about “Old Blood and Guts,” it wasn’t his soldiers’ blood & his guts; it was the enemies’ blood because of his guts.

  2. In my experience both as a physician and a naval officer, I have found that most people in and out of the military do not really have a clear concept of ‘sacrifice.’ Most vaguely think it occurs anytime you do anything that somehow benefits other people, period. The fuzzy notion is, it seems, that the ‘sacrificing’ person could have been doing something entirely for themselves during that time. Whenever, a person does something that is in fact good for other people AND their life is possibly on the line, then it is nearly impossible to convince anyone that this is not necessarily (NECESSARILY) a sacrifice. Most do not have the clear definition that Rand gave – that of giving up a greater value (to one’s self in FULL context) for a lesser value (to one’s self in full context.) For most, anyone who signs up to train hard, learn to fight, go overseas for months or years away from their family, risk death, etc. is ‘sacrificing,’ because they *could* be sitting home with their family working 9 to 5 in safety. Most do not go on to ask WHY the soldier does what he does. To be sure, there are young men in the military who don’t know, or are there to escape their home, or simply to have a job, or to grow up. Many in the military do however know that ALL of their own values, their family’s values, and their friend’s values depend on freedom. They know that life that is particularly human and worthwhile requires freedom. These men and women are not sacrificing for anyone. They are pursuing a personal value (protected freedom) that they see as so important as to be a requirement for worthwhile life, and thus worth setting aside many of the dependent values for a time to assure the continuation of freedom. This is worth admiring. It is worth our thanks. It is human action aligned with truth about the human condition. But it is not sacrifice.

  3. Thank you. Well done, and well written.
    By the way, how do you put links in your posts? Whenever I try to link, my post gets held for a review that never occurs.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Edwin A. Locke is Dean's Professor of Leadership and Motivation Emeritus at the R.H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland. He is a Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science (APS), the American Psychological Association, the Society for Industrial & Organizational Behavior, and the Academy of Management. He is the recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award (Society for I/O Psychology), the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy of Management (OB Division), the J. M. Cattell Award (APS) and the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award from the Academy of Management. He, with Gary Latham, has spent over 50 years developing Goal Setting Theory, ranked No. 1 in importance among 73 management theories. He has published over 320 chapters, articles, reviews and notes, and has authored or edited 13 books including (w. Kenner) The Selfish Path to Romance, (w. Latham) New Directions in Goal Setting and Task Performance, and The Prime Movers: Traits of the Great Wealth Creators. He is internationally known for his research on motivation, job satisfaction, leadership, and other topics. His website is: EdwinLocke.com

SHOW PROFILE

What do you think?

We are always interested in rational feedback and criticism. Feel free to share your thoughts using this form.

We will post responses that we think are of interest to our readers in our Letters section.

Help Capitalism Magazine get the pro-capitalist message out.

With over 10,000 articles readable online Capitalism Magazine is completely free. We rely on the generosity of our readers to keep us going. So if you already donate to us, thank you! And if you don’t, please do consider making a donation today. One-off donations – or better yet, monthly donations – are hugely appreciated. You can find out more here. Thank you!

Related Articles

When Reason is Out, Violence is In

When Reason is Out, Violence is In

What explains today’s bi-partisan violence? When reason is out, persuasion and peaceful assembly-protest also are out. What remains is emotionalism – and violence.

Voice of Capitalism

Free email weekly newsletter.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest