Moral Compromise of the ICRC and It's Members

There are many things I have come to loathe during my years on this earth but nothing so much as the coward. Our country and this world at large, has so given into the forces of darkness that there are people on this planet that can no longer tell black from white, right from wrong, good from bad and who are blissful in their willful ignorance. People have chosen to not stand for anything rather than take a stand that might 'cost' them. Consider the following definitions:

From 'Websters New World College Dictionary 2010' :

Compromise:

1. to settle or adjust by concessions on both sides (legal definition)

2. to lay open to danger, suspicion, or disrepute

3. to weaken or give up (one's principles, ideals, etc.) as for reasons of expediency (personal failure)

Compromise, by most standards is not a good thing. All it says is that two or more people willingly gave up some of what they believed for something they did not, all in the name of reconciliation. What was that Ben Franklin said again? 'Those who would give up essential freedom for a little security, deserve neither'. This principle can be applied to almost any endeavor in life where you are prepared to do that which you know is not right in order to meet some other standard. For those of you who are struggling with this; This is bad; very bad. The fact is there is absolute right and absolute wrong and it is only someone who finds that concept...troubling that won't live his life accordingly.

Back to the ICRC: The ICRC is the Red Cross by any other name and they have decided they are 'above it all' and choose to ignore all of those testy problems of right and wrong when they decide to go somewhere and help people. To be sure, they have helped many people stricken by natural disasters and famine and that is good, and just. They have, however, shown far less concern for the uniformed Servicemen in this country than I would like to see.

But now we are told that the ICRC, that bastion of rising above it all, has decided to bring aid and comfort to the Taliban. Not only are they bringing aid and comfort to the Taliban, they intend to teach them 'Battle Field Skills'. First aid is not a battle field skill you say? Then you Sir, or Ma'am, have never worn a uniform, trained for battle, or served on the battle field. First aid is one of those essential subjects taught to all uniformed men and women in the United States and I suspect, Britain, Canada, Australia and so on.

The intent of this training for our troops is to save lives and ultimately, return them to the battle field. So why is the ICRC intending to train the Taliban? They are our enemy by virtue of the fact they believe in world submission to Allah, by force. And let's not forget they are presently in armed conflict with American, British, Canadian, Australian etc troops. Why is the ICRC preparing to teach our enemy a Battle Field Skill which WILL aid them in sending those healed murderers back to the battle field to fight our men - fellow citizens of the Red Cross members? Well; because they are above it all. They have, apparently been able to compromise their very souls, what they know to be right and wrong and have effectively divorced themselves from their various nations all in the name of some misplaced compassion.

This is not a complicated point. The Taliban are not legitimate soldiers. They are alternately, thugs, murderers, henchmen, drug lords, gang members, 'soldiers of Islam', purveyors of chaos and, oh yeah, the enemy of this nation currently.

If the Red Cross feels the need to ramp up it's mission to dispense compassion, how about showing a little more compassion for the men and women, in uniform, trying to stop these animals who, under any other circumstances, would be just as happy and justified in their ideology to remove the heads of Red Cross workers from their shoulders, use them like footballs and televise the action for all the world to see.

The fact is that this has a lot less to do with dispensing compassion than it has to do with using this act as a 'bully pulpit'. The Red Cross, for all of it's posturing has never stepped away from the fact they abhor war. Of course they assume those who fight, love war. The fact is, the Red Cross's ranks are apparently filled with people who would rather compromise all that they are, their families, their very nation, their beliefs, their right to self-determination and the sanctity of innocent life, rather than to do that which must occasionally be worked out on the field of battle.

Compromise is almost never a good thing. More often than not it brings out that which is most loathsome in men; cowardice and the willing destruction of the innocent through the lack of action and self-sacrifice. The Red Cross personnel who will be teaching the enemy these battle field skills, are sacrificing nothing, jeopardizing nothing. As long as they are giving the enemy, aid and comfort and skills they can use, those morally compromised Red Cross members will remain the safest people in Afghanistan. But what of our American Warriors in harms way under the current ROE ? They will have to face the very same jihadists who will have been returned to the battle field by the efforts of the Red Cross.

Hey ICRC members; does Memorial Day mean nothing to you?

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard