All wars are a pain in the ass - at the very least - including that wonderful, magic, 100% patriotic extravaganza of WWII, . After the war is over we still have to resolve the original problem, such as the existence of terrorists, and in addition to that, solve those that are created by the war.
I’m sorry if I came off as too glib in my OP but the subject of this thread is not so much about who served in the war and who didn’t but instead whether the fact someone opposed the war more than 30 years ago should still be an issue today. It’s all but obvious that the real motivating factor behind the anti-Kerry campaign of SBVT and their supporters is not the half-assed accusation that Kerry’s medals were fraudulently earned but his public opposition to the Vietnam War. It just seems that a lot of people on the right want to keep fighting the war and refuse to move on. About ten years ago, after Clinton was elected (despite his avoidance of service) and the U.S. resumed diplomatic and economic relations with Vietnam (with the support of former P.O.W. Senator John McCain), I naively thought we were finally putting the whole unpleasant episode behind us, letting our wounds heal, and getting on with the future. Unfortunately, the ugliness and animosity of the smear about Kerry’s medals and position on Vietnam seem to indicate otherwise. I’m afraid colunmist David Broder was right when he said that the people when the Boomers end up in nursing homes, they are going to be beating each other over the head with their canes as they lean on their walkers over this issue.
So did I. I naively thought that we had learned our national lessons there and were ready to move forward–if nothing else at least we had gained wisdom from the whole horrific experience. I think most citizens felt the same way, hence the fact that service in the military wasn’t considered a major election issue in any recent election until this one. 9/11 changed that. We now find ourselves in a militaristic environment, with two wars in the books and the possibility of any number of more wars in the near future.
I recently viewed the documentary on McNamara, “The Fog of War”. IIRC, McNamara stated that Vietnam’s biggest lesson for him was: never unilaterally undertake a military operation that your allies don’t agree with.
Another figure who was intimately involved in that war, Colin Powell, formulated a whole Doctrine about it: never project military power without overwhelming force, clearly stated objectives, and a realistic workable plan for withdrawal.
John Kerry no doubt drew similarly profound lessons from Vietnam. Without knowing his internal thoughts, I can guess at some of them from his public pronouncents:
-
It is not “unpatriotic” to question your government during wartime.
-
It is not “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” to demand openness from your government regarding justifications for war.
-
It is not “betraying the troops” to insist that the Geneva Conventions be followed in prosecuting a war.
-
Wars of “liberation” are likely to be seen differently from the POV of those who are being “liberated”, so plan accordingly.
Knowing that my President has been through the ring of fire and has internalized the above lessons (among a great many others) would give me comfort as a citizen in these newly paranoid times.
I am the sort of voter that the Kerry campaign is striving to win over. I voted for Bush in 2000 because he seemed to espouse the principles of conservatism that I have always found sensible. The rush to war after 9/11 alarmed me deeply, but the prospect of a tax-and-spend, wimpy Democrat in the White House was also deeply disturbing. I was well on my way to sitting this election out when the Vietnam stuff started making headlines.
In researching Kerry’s service and his anti-war activities, I uncovered a picture of a man that I can feel comfortable with as my President. For example, his 1971 speech to the House Foreign Relations Committee shows a man who is thoughtful, intelligent, articulate, moral, and socially aware.
I suppose, given what I’ve said above, my answer to the OP “Should the Vietnam War matter to us now?” would be, “only if you are struggling with casting an anti-Bush vote and need some hand-holding in making that decision.”
Welcome, Dio2112. Well said.
I want to second what Zoe said, but more to the point tell you that I dig your handle.
I’m sorry but my last sentence came out muddled. It should read:
Sneak up behind NDP, jump out yell “Boo!” (I’m a stealth Boomer…)
Sure, I used it already. No, I don’t have any shame. So?
Furt:
But thus far it appears that most of the criticism is focused on Kerry’s combat record rather than his anti-war activitues. His war record is impeccible, so how could they be expected to have anticipated attacks on it?
Having said that, it’s getting to be a slight peeve of mine that occasionlly we spend more time criticizing a candidates campaign tactics than criticizing his positions on issues.
IMO, Kerry is running as an Empty Suit as the ideal alternative to Gilligan The Hun.
I think the Vietnam “war” is pretty irrelevant at this stage of the game. I say “war” because it was NOT a declared war. The strange thing about Vietnam was that it was close to being a total disaster…it had no stated goal, no clear strategy, and no benefit (that I am aware of) to the US, in case we “won”. Lyndon Johnson seemed to have a death wish about Vietnam-he was told by everyone of his advisors, that getting involved would bring more problems, yet he plunged in, deeper and deeper.
That said, we had a president (Bill Clinton) who used all means at his disposal to avoid serving in Vietnam…people didn’t hold that against him-so why should it have any bearing on Bush?
As for the lessons of Vietnam (that Bush should have learned)" if something isn’t working, don’t repeat the same thing. Wither you decide that this waris worth it (and totally crush the enemy), or you get out!
I think this came up in many discussions… and though I agree that criticizing Bush but not Clinton for not serving is hypocritical. Still like I said before… its Bush Jr’s perceived enthusiasm for War and warmongering ways that contrast heavily with his AWOL and comfy National Guard duty. Clinton did bomb stuff and so forth but wasn’t advocating invading other countries for “freedom”.
Dio 2112… great stuff you posted… can I copy it ?
I think Kerry’s extending the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s 15 minutes of fame is actually working. Seeing that he is losing support with vets, especially those who have issue with his strident anti-Nam war past, he is using the issue to wedge moderate Republicans, many who happen to be vets, and conservative Republicans apart, so the Republicans slouch into New York next week.
The Republicans have to put Giuliani in prime time, so the free networks will broadcast him.
Well, we had a stated goal…to prevent the takeover of South Vietnam by North Vietnam/the communists. We also identified benefits from winning…an allied South Vietnam, naval basing at Cam Ranh, and a way to limit Soviet expansion and communist subversion in South East Asia
Zoe, Hentor, Rashak, thanks for the welcome. Lots of big brains here, a bit intimidating, but good to be aboard.
sqweels, I am going to shamelessly steal the “Gilligan the Hun” thing if you don’t mind, lol.
Rashak, of course you may distribute any comments of mine anywhere. I’m curious though, your location says you are Brazilian. My admittedly weak understanding of international issues and globalism suggests that the US and Brazil don’t really interact much. Does the outcome of the US 2004 election actually matter to you? Does it matter to anyone outside of the US who isn’t about to get the smackdown, or about to be drawn into “coalition of the smackdown”? Forgive my ignorance.
NDP, not my place to say as a newbie, but thanks for a thread topic good enough to induce thoughtful responses.
Anyone, should I take Elucidator seriously? He is a master of wit, no doubt, as I’ve noted in my lurking. And he has a lot of posts. Can he bring it? Or does he serve as the court jester?
Carry on…
Thanks…
The US is the only superpower left. I would warrant that all countries should follow US politics. Economically Bush has been bad too… especially regarding high oil prices. When the USA coughs the world sneezes is a common saying. Brazilians of all classes loathe Bush and come november we hope to comemorate.
Directly Brazil isn’t menaced… but intelectually I certainly find Bush abhorent. I majored in International Relations and Bush is wreaking havoc into the system without really making anything good or enduring. I would love to see terrorism stamped out… and instead the flames of islamic hate are being fed. The US as an example of democracy and western civilization is failing badly and giving a boost to the “enemy”. (BTW I’m US educated and I do have family in the US.)
Naturally the more paranoid brazilians think that the US and UK want to make the Amazon into some sort of international reserve and see Bush’s preemptive doctrines as anathema to sovereignty (sp?).
First, very nice post.
Second, a complete hijack but just curious how one can not call the current admin’s actual economic policies of slash-taxes-and-jack-up-spending as worse than the liberal stereotype of tax-and-spend
Kerry is running as a war hero, so it’s not unreasonable for a bit of scrutiny of his war record to be had during a presidential campaign. McGovern never made his war record an issue, for example. In those days, it was just expected that people of his age group had served in the war. It wasn’t cause for comment.
Vietnam, of course, changed the dynamic, and Sen. Kerry, along with various other scrofulous types, played a major role in the transformation of popular sentiment about the military, “the establishment”, etc., in general that has taken decades to expunge.
“…scrofulous types, played a major role in the transformation of popular sentiment about the military, “the establishment”, etc., in general that has taken decades to expunge.”
One politely assumes you mean “scruffy”.
It has not been expunged, it ain’t gonna get expunged. Cold, dead hands. Rusty Calley ain’t Audie Murphy.
A considerable portion of the outrage was the shattering of illussions. We grew up believers, there was no doubt, no question. Ours was the Army of the wise and the just. When the poor and oppressed in the world heard “The Americans are coming!”, that meant help was on the way, no need for the timid to fear, the Americans are coming.
Wasn’t so, of course, and from our vantage point it seems clearly foolish to have believed otherwise, but we did, and that’s the fact. The rupture of that malignant illusion was one of the very few good things to come out of that nightmare. Wasn’t worth it, but to spurn the wisdom of a bitter lesson is even more foolish.
We must have soldiers, they must be willing to kill. But I demand to be the citizen of a moral nation, made up of moral people, to the extent that is possible. If my President stands there and tells me that there is no choice, all the options are exhausted, war is an unavoidable necessity, it must be so! Anything less is entirely unacceptable, no excuse is sufficient. If that is a demanding and harsh requirement, so be it, nobody gets drafted President.
This President has “miscalculated” (oh! the endless variety of euphemism!). “Mistakes were made”. Well, that’s too bad, I’m sure you did your best.
Now git.
“Just because you can laugh doesn’t mean you can’t tell the truth. The truth is often told by the jester.” - Anonymous
Yeah, that’s how it starts, Dio, that’s how it starts. First couple hundred posts, everybody’s nice, always complimentary. Then it starts to fade. That first dink who can’t help but point out you made the same lame pun 6 months ago. Or worse, somebody else did. Start shortening your username derisively, can’t be bothered.
Then you got a reputation, quick on the drawl. Every time you come to some new thread, there’s always some fresh-faced poster, wants to know, can you “bring it”?
(E. gazes intently across the bar, into the mirror, throws down a shot of Red Eye…)
Boot Hill is full of 'em.
(Walks away through the swinging doors, spurs, leather, sunset…)
The book ‘All quiet on the Western Front’, is a very bad one, though a good piece of proganda for the time. Just because the German National Socialists hated it does not make the previous sentence less true. A far better read (by a German author) is Junger’s ‘Storm of Steel’ (reworked a little and published under different titles). Junger was no nazi-lover.
There are many excellent accounts by British soldiers of that conflict. Norman Gladden, George Coppard, David Jones, to quote a minuscule few.
It is true that those who have had no experience of war tend to support it more, though it does take some time(usually) for those who have had this experience to fully realise the truth of it, and even then with some complications!
For example, there is mass war on the roads every single day. Every time you get (all by yourself) into your giant-motor-vehicule and storm off, you are waging war. Sure, somewhat different to soldiers fighting soldiers, but it is still war!