As I been reading the continuing commentary on the Washington Post piece that has really got the attention of bloggers and readers from the daily pundit

DADT as the reason for ROTC’s banning was always a sham. Now the mask is finally off. The elite professoriat doesn’t hate ROTC because of DADT, they hate ROTC because they just can’t stand “the warrior ethic”. That’s code for courage, honor, and duty, ethics all anathema to Leftist indoctrinators. They prefer us supine, afraid, and dependent on them.”

an opinion I share to Vodkapundit

See there, Mr. U.S. Marine Captain — McCarthy doesn’t hate you. Why, he thinks you’re every bit as respectable as a Taliban.

who adds a graphic that says it all to this post at Ace of Spades HQ that compares the course requirement for ROTC at Sienna College and woman and gender studies at Columbia guess which one is more challenging academically?

While all of these are first-rate there is a thought that hit me this morning that hasn’t been touched on. Namely that the McCarthy’s of the world actually bring about the results they claim to deplore.

Consider; our media tends to reflect the views of people like McCarthy and the movies and media we put out there tend to show our troops in a very poor light, particularly over the last 40 years that has been exported as American Cultural and elite opinion to foes all over the world that the Saddam’s, Bin Ladin’s and Chavez’s et/al have bought into. It is precisely believe they have bought into the weakness of American culture and the people opposition to the military and the troops as uneducated rabble that they have been bold enough to make war figuring we can’t defeat them or oppose them.

Hundreds of thousands of idiotic and fanatical followers of these fools have learned the hard way that this is not true (in fact it was the last thing they ever learned), yet their fanatical leaders who are not hiding in caves manage to convince them that America will simply roll over. Why don’t they believe the evidence of the empty chairs where their predecessors have been? Because men like McCarthy promote the idea of a military unwanted and supported, because our media is so focused on the number of our casualties in war that they ignored the losses of our foes that dwarf ours.

These men are the enablers of the very wars they claim to oppose, and even more ironically are only able to be such enablers because our military is precisely NOT like the Taliban or any of these guys.

The secret here is that the McCarthy’s on the left’s position is really less about their hatred of the military, but more about convincing themselves of their own moral superiority. They can’t match the courage or the honor or the sacrifice of these men and women so they denigrate them in a vain attempt to convince themselves that it is their words and good wishes, dare I say it their faith in their own love for their fellow-man that outweighs the works of the military in risking their own lives to save others.

That’s liberalism in a nutshell belief and good intention trump works and results every time.

Update: Oh Brother!

Hitler could have been waited out. He might have been overthrown by his own government. Who knows? To have 50 million people killed: Hitler would have died within 10 years no matter what he did.

Oh and Lincoln was wrong to fight the civil war too. Moe Lane nails it:

Whichever editor approved this Washington Post article should be ashamed of him- or herself. I do not expect shame, but it’s long past time that we started telling these people when they’ve done something foul.

He certainly has the right to free speech but did he have the right to a Washington Post op-ed?

If you only listen to the MSM you might not realize that long before anyone was talking about open homosexuality in the military universities on the left were banning ROTC. Those on the left used DADT as a convenient mask to justify such bans on grounds other than “I hate the US military” In the Washington Post today Colman McCarthy takes the mask of outrage off and puts the face of the left out there for all to see:

It should not be forgotten that schools have legitimate and moral reasons for keeping the military at bay, regardless of the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” They can stand with those who for reasons of conscience reject military solutions to conflicts.

Yeah I’m sure the British would have given us independence without a fight, the slaveholders would have freed their slaves without a battle, Saddam would have left Kuwait in his own good time, the North Koreans really weren’t planning to say in the south and of course there’s the guy with the silly mustache would have gotten sick of Paris or at least run out of Jews to kill.

The kicker however is this:

I admire those who join armies, whether America’s or the Taliban’s: for their discipline, for their loyalty to their buddies and to their principles, for their sacrifices to be away from home.

Because of course we know deep down aren’t the US Soldiers and the Taliban just two sides of the same coin!

This Washington Post pinata has already been smacked by Jonah Goldberg, booted by Allahpundit and dismembered by Victor Davis Hanson mocked by Blackfive, denounced by the moderate voice (yes you read that right), and analyzed by Glenn Reynolds who notes:

Looking at Colman McCarthy’s language drawing equivalence between U.S. soldiers and the Taliban, I don’t think he’s just a dreamy peacenik. And I’ve grown increasingly skeptical of the good intentions of “dreamy peacenik” types anyway, since, somehow, they always seem to promote things that help the other side. At best, they’re oikophobes.

I would suggest that US elite universities have been on the other side of US wars and interests since the 60’s, they supported the NVA, backed the soviets at every chance, opposed fighting against communism in central America, fought against Star Wars, opposed the gulf wars and the current wars that we are fighting. To them a weak, demoralized and defeated United States is not a bug…its a feature.

The problem for them is those same elites no longer have the exclusive access to disseminating the message, the internet, social networking, and conservative media provides an effective counter to this nonsense.

The tactical mistake of the left in turning DADT, which was meant as a compromise to allow gays to serve (but was apparently used as a quick way out for many who didn’t want to serve) into THE public reason for opposing ROTC meant that once repeal did come, the moral urgency of keeping soldiers away, was now gone.

This op-ed is the first salvo for the left to find a new excuse to bar the military from campus. If this meme is picked up by leftist blogs in support of banning ROTC we will know that this has been plan B from the get go.

I call on blogs on the left to denounce this comparison and the argument of this “gentleman”. Their actions will answer a lot of questions about whose side the left is actually on. I know a lot of people on the left of good faith who won’t stand for this nonsense, it’s time for them to say it loudly.

The blog Fiat Lux has an interesting post up about the ROTC at Stanford University. He links to an anti ROTC Op Ed that argues the following:

So the question we must all consider is clear: should we permit the military to have an ROTC presence on campus? The answer will logically depend on what the effects of on-campus ROTC would be and, if the effects of on-campus ROTC would be positive overall, whether Stanford’s resources could instead be allocated in ways that would have greater positive overall effects.

Fiat Lux answers these questions, a peek:

Mr. Windley’s next observation, that there exists some resource trade-off in allowing ROTC back, is true only to an insignificant extent. To my knowledge, the military would pay for the trainers, the gear, the development of a curriculum, etc. The real stumbling block to bringing ROTC back is more a question of whether students should receive academic credit, which does not really affect the University’s bottom line. In fact, one could contend that allowing ROTC back would actually be net-positive for the University in terms of resources because it would free up more money for financial aid (because ROTC participants have their tuition paid for by the U.S. government).

What I find most interesting is the last argument of the Op-Ed writer, namely that it would be more efficient for the military to train in a single location rather than at different campus. I find it fascinating. Basically the idea is We don’t want ROTC but if they can be trained elsewhere away from us wouldn’t that be OK?

Or to put it the way I would. As long as equal facilities are available you don’t need to be here. Separate but equal. Now where have I heard this kind of philosophy?

The bottom line is the university in the name of fighting discrimination that was imposed by congress (and not repealed by congress) is discriminating against those who wish to serve their country and have a different political philosophy. Same bigotry different target. I guess history does repeat itself the 2nd time as farce.