Response to 2nd Lt Metzler

This is in response to the article: USAF 2nd LT: “It’s thanks to the Air Force Academy that I currently have an anti-war stance.”

By Lt Colonel Ken Hamlin, USAF ret, USAFA 1969

I would like to address the article by Lt Metzler. I suspect she failed to understand or even listen to the lectures and pay attention to the readings of her Military Science courses. Mostly, I learned “capability”, “ability”, and “willingness” of military strength.

To one extreme, there were and are nations who feel their military strength has one goal, to be so strong as to carry out is political/social goals directly. In other words, be Hitler.

The other extreme of that bar is to be so strong and perceptively capable to make it unworthwhile for any nation to interfere with that nation’s goals.

In other words, don’t mess with our people, our freedoms and our boundaries.

Lt. Metzler gave a couple of examples of how war can be a display of the inhumanity of man.

NO ONE SAID WAR WAS NOT UGLY. War is the epitome of man’s ugliness.

But since the dawn of written history, man chose the most violent course of action. That doesn’t make it right.

Nor does pacifism answer the question of being right. We’ve evolved from “an eye for an eye” to “turn the other cheek”.

A lot of people take those two validations to the extreme, but each had a “judgement clause” with them. An eye for an eye illustrated a “measured and even” response and turn the other cheek was given by the apostles to show a balance in the courts of the time.

Since God’s word is always true and accurate, apparent changes in God’s philosophy is very misplaced. Therefore, while we should not cheer the death of any human being, the use of force may be required to protect this nation, its people, its freedoms and those of our friends and is therefore, righteous.

I am not going to pretend our government has not made grave and unholy mistakes in the use of its military’s capabilities. In most cases it wasn’t because the cause was wrong but because the execution was abused and even sinful.

But do not confuse that with the general nature of holding and threatening the use of a dominate and powerful military for righteous causes.

The delicate act of building the “right” population of that military force is a sensitive subject.

For the military to have the deflecting nature to “scare off” all threats, there is a need for members to be of the “warrior” mentality.

Additionally, every true warrior would rather have peace than war. Warriors, because they are the tip of the spear, are also the first to die!

That is whole different discussion but if you want a bunch of “wimps” to protect you and your nation, you better give them a lot of bombs that they would be willing and capable of using. BTW, willing and capable are highly questionable.

Lt. Metzler, I am sorry you have changed your position on the military. That is your freedom to do so.

However, there was a point short of your graduation you came to the conclusions you have offered in your letter.

For that lack of character to then stand up for your beliefs, you should be held accountable for the wasted time the USAF Academy continued your education and training.