Yesterday while catching up with my reading I saw this title “Sally Field doesn’t speak for me” as one of the most popular articles syndicated through Yahoo news. I clicked and read the article and decided to write this entry. The article very clearly and succinctly demonstrates the problem we’re facing as a nation. The original article is republished in its entirety below:

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. Via Yahoo News

Like actress Sally Field, I am a mom. Unlike Sally Field, I do not live in La-La Land. We breathe a different brand of oxygen. We hold diametrically opposed worldviews. We have nothing in common but stretch marks.

Contrary to tongue-tied Sally’s incoherent Primetime Emmy Awards diatribe, childbearing and childrearing experiences do not bond all women in a universal sorority of non-confrontation. There are sheep moms. There are lion moms. We know which kind Sally Field is.

“If mothers ruled the, ruled the world, there would be no god-damned wars in the first place,” Field bleated. In the Gidget Guide to Parenting, mothers are appeasers and hand-holders. Our maternal instincts supposedly lead us to shun fights and coddle bullies instead of disciplining them.

There would be “no god-damned wars,” Silly Sally, because we’d all be conquered chattel if Field Diplomacy “ruled the world.”

Motherhood and peace-making are not synonymous. Motherhood requires ferocity, the will and resolve to protect one’s own children at all costs, and a life-long commitment to sacrifice for a family’s betterment and survival. Conflict avoidance is incompatible with good mothering.

On the playground of life, Sally Field is the mom who looks the other way when the brat on the elementary school slide pushes your son to the ground or throws dirt in your daughter’s face.

She’s the mom who holds her tongue at the mall when thugs spew profanities and make crude gestures in front of her brood. She’s the mom who tells her child never to point out when a teacher gets her facts wrong.

She’s the mom who buys her teenager beer, condoms and a hotel room on prom night, because she’d rather give in than assert her parental authority and do battle.

She’s the mom whose minivan sports insipid bumper stickers preaching non-intervention at all costs: “Peace is patriotic.” “War is not the answer.” “It Will Be a Great Day When Our Schools Get All the Money They Need and the Air Force Has to Hold a Bake Sale to Buy a Bomber.”

Hollywood can afford to indulge Sally Field’s inarticulate naivete. America cannot. And the very moms that Sally Field claims to speak for know it.

This weekend, I met dozens of military mothers in Washington, D.C., who fervently oppose the Sally Field/Cindy Sheehan model of maternal submission and immediate surrender. They were among several thousand grass-roots activists who turned out for the “Gathering of Eagles” counter-demonstration on the National Mall.

Deborah Johns, mother of William, a Marine who has served three tours of duty in Iraq, condemned the Left’s demonization of Gen. David Petraeus and urged Congress to oppose a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. “Cindy Sheehan doesn’t speak for me,” Johns said. “She has never spoken for me. And she will never speak for me. . . . We are not going to let the domestic enemies at home defeat us like they did” during the Vietnam War.

Debbie Lee, mother of Mark, the first Navy SEAL killed in Iraq, rejected the anti-war movement’s infantilization of the troops. She was galled at the George Soros-funded ANSWER “die-in” usurping the names and legacies of those who have died serving in Iraq. Describing her son’s heroism and her support of the counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq, she said: “You can’t ‘take’ someone’s life who gives it . . . and Mark willingly gave his life. . . . God redeployed Mark to heaven.”

In Sally World, these mothers and their sons are helpless victims. In Sally World, self-defense is for “war-mongers.” In Sally World, you can pretend that the bloodthirsty mothers who strap al Qaeda suicide bomb vests on their toddlers and sit them down in front of the television to watch the Jew-hating Hamas Mickey Mouse don’t exist. In Sally World, you need only to embrace our enemies, “imagine” peace and rub your Emmy Award like a magic lamp as you wish global jihad away.

In the real world, not all women think with their wombs instead of their brains. In the real world, you can’t just give evil a “time-out.” Sally Field fancies herself the mother of all spokesmothers. To which I say, in my most maternally combative tone: Speak for your own bleepin’ self, sister.

Michelle Malkin is author of “Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.” Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

Normally I just ignore stuff like this, but in this case, it’s impossible. Let’s start off with common ground, Sally Field is annoying and Sally Field does not speak for me either. On both extremes, left and right, there is an unrealistically simple and flawed world view: “left: war is bad, there should be no wars.” and “right: there’s good and evil, we’re good, they’re evil, let’s kill them.”

In her article, Mrs. Malkin asserts that there are lions and there are lambs and that confrontation is the essence of parenting. That there are only two choices, surrender to your child or make a large confrontation. Well, I hope this is hyperbole for her children’s sake. Every parent with half a brain knows that it takes creativity and consistency across a range of activities and situations to effectively parent. Most situations require neither surrender nor confrontation, they are somewhere in the middle and it requires discretion on the part of parents to decide how to handle those situations.

That’s where we’re going wrong in this country, we’re reducing the solution set to two extreme points of view. We’re over simplifying very complex situations that actually require thought and discretion in terms of our actions. This abstract stuff doesn’t really bring home the point, so let’s move to real examples.

This one is pretty clear cut, and in my opinion, represents America at its best. Middle east bully, Saddam Hussein, invades and occupies the sovereign nation of Kuwait. The international community, of which the US is a leader, confronts Saddam and demands withdrawl. Steady, consistent pressure is first applied through diplomatic channels, an international consensus forms that force will be required to restore order, many nations participate in using force to restore order in the region and liberate Kuwait. This action was supported by our nation as reasonable in response to an unreasonable world event where the application of force and the commitment of our sons & daughters was “worth it.” After the battles were fought and won, our fighting forces came home, we didn’t occupy Kuwait. Like World Wars I & II, we participated in the global community as a leader and helped draw the conflict to a successful end. When we behave this way, I’m proud to be an American.

Were there anti-war protests? You bet. Were these protests reasonable in this instance, nope. Are some of the same people protesting now that protested then? You bet.

Now let’s work a gray area example, Afganistan. Post 9/11 it seemed to take about 20 minutes to come to the conclusion that Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden were responsible for the attacks and retribution was in order. The mood of the nation was black and only in retribution would we find salvation. So we sharpened our talons and stared into Asia Minor at Afganistan who post-Soviet occupation had become a fundamentalist Islamic state ruled by the Taliban who were suspected of providing safe harbor to Al Quaeda. Unilaterally, we decided to use force to bring about regime change and flush those “terrorists” out of their caves. I’m a little more troubled with this example, but ultimately, I do believe it was the right course of action even in the absence of an international consensus or exhaustive investigation. If we had committed the manpower required to actually capture the “terrorists” including bin Laden, then we wouldn’t be getting tapes from him today – that was a mistake. We’ve also chosen to occupy rather than liberate Afganistan, which is another major faux pas. Did we not see what happened to the Soviet Union in the 1980’s in Afganistan? We’ve dropped the ball there by shifting our gaze to other, non-necessary activities. It’s not too late to fix these problems, but they’re not front and center, are they? Confrontation may become a failed tactic in Afganistan.

Were people protesting this action? Yes, but not very loudly. Were they the same people who protested in 1990? Yes, some of them. Were they on to something? Perhaps.

Finally, the contra-example, Iraq. Why Iraq? It’s simple, it’s a monetization strategy for large money donors, access to strategic material for the US (oil,) and a misguided sense of revenge from a son. A hell of a way to make national policy. There were no credible threats from Iraq, the intelligence did not support that there were threats (contrary to the Administration’s story,) Al Queada was not in Iraq (Hussein wouldn’t tolerate competition,) and post-1990 Gulf War, there was no capacity for Iraq to make war. In short, there was no credible reason for the US to take unilateral action in that place at that time. None. Nothing. Bupkiss. This situation, like Vietnam and to a lesser extent Korea, makes me cringe as an American. Rather than upholding our democratic principals and behaving as a responsible leader in the world community, we are the bully. Rather than fighting for a principal like liberation, we’re an occupying force trying to act like policemen among a populace that is scared to death and does not want us there.

Were there weapons of mass destruction? No. Were there terrorists in Iraq? No. Are there terrorists in Iraq now? Yes, and they’ve now killed more Americans than the original 9/11 incident in combat with “dumb bombs.” Are people protesting this? You bet. Are they the same people who protested before, yes, only the people now protesting represent the majority of the populace.

What the people now realize is that they were sold a bill of goods wrapped in the flag and garnished with the pain and emotion of 9/11. They’re waking up. And while Sally Field wouldn’t be my first choice to express that sentiment nor does the “no war under any circumstance” message resonate with me, in this instance, the protesters have it right. They recognize the hypocrisy of our actions and wish for us to stop throwing away the lives of our sons and daughters on something that is un-American and not “worth it.”

With your simple reduction of this issue to “wacky liberals” Mrs. Malkin, you too have become a member of the flock. The flock that is blindly following a deeply flawed shepard which is slowly but surely rending the fabric of our democracy. No Mrs. Malkin, in this instance, Sally Field is confronting the bullies on the playground, the same bullies you are blindly following over the cliff on the right. Face the facts Mrs. Malkin, you arenot the lioness you think you see when you look in the mirror, you are a sheeple.

We always talk about strength and character in leaders. Strength is not simply “staying the course” – real strength comes from honest introspection to understand what’s working, and what’s not. To formulate and learn from experiences and to consistently apply those lessons in the context of a strong and simple value system in one’s dealings with the world. Those principals are what makes America great and when we live up to them, make me proud to be an American.