Stephen,
Thank you for an eloquent statement that should remind all of us about
keeping our priorities straight. In my opinion, you're correct about the
flag, correct about the blessing of a non-political military, and most of
all correct about remembering that the ones who get killed are ordinary
boys and girls, not so different from UTC students, who are enlisted
personnel and junior officers on all sides, as well as civilians of all ages.
I also agree with your comment about the inexcusable treatment of Vietnam
vets. Any anti-war protester who disrespected a vet was not only rude but
also amazingly stupid. Far worse was the treatment by the VA and the US
government generally. Two friends of mine, Bobby Muller and Ron Kovic,
were in the Bronx VA hospital at the same time; that's where they became
anti-war activists in the DAV. We have a history of that in this country
going back to the bonus marchers from WWI being burned out of their camps
by Major Eisenhower serving under Colonel MacArthur.
I've copied below a couple of e'mails I've received lately that echo some
of what you're saying. Horace Coleman is a vet in L.A., Ben Chitty is in
New York, and Chuck Yates is in Indiana. The list of chickenhawks Horace
refers to can be found at
http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
It's always good to look back where people of a certain age were years ago.
Including myself (not a veteran). In that vein, I'd like to refer to a
memorable statement John Kerry made 32 years ago to the Senate Commitee on
Foreign Relations at a time when Vietnam vets were storming the Capitol to
return their medals. It can also be found at
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/vietnam/vets_a
gainst.txt
Fritz Efaw.
At 10:16 AM 3/22/03 -0500, Stephen Leather wrote:
>Dear University Community,
>
>In my previous post (attached below) I indicated my concern for the message
>that we send to people who choose to fight for us. Here is another reason.
>
>We as a nation are incredibly fortunate to have a military that is in
>essence non-political. It does not make social or economic policy for the
>nation, nor does it decide upon national objectives. Politically oriented
>militaries typically result in dictatorial military governments (I bet you
>can name a few). This makes the military into a tool.
>
>Is this good or bad?
>
>Pretty much any tool can be used for good or ill. A hammer can be used to
>kill a person or it can be used to build a house. A military organization
>can be used to destroy freedom (see the dictatorships of the world) or to
>protect and promote it (UN peacekeeping missions, election monitoring
>missions, and humanitarian aid and relief missions).
>
>When a person kills with a hammer we don't prosecute or denounce the
>hammer, we prosecute and denounce the wielder of that hammer. My plea to
>you is that we not denounce our military, our tool, but support it.
>Denounce the policy decision maker if you so choose.
>
>I now change my references to the military from "it" to "them" because the
>military is composed of people, most of whom believe in what they are
>doing, or did at one time, and people typically require support when they
>are under extreme stress and are having to make incredibly difficult
>decisions. I'm not necessarily talking about admirals and generals, I'm
>talking about Joe and Jane Average Enlisted Person or even junior officers.
>The majority of those in the military. The ones who can actually get killed.
>
>If you wish to denounce someone, make sure its the right person for the
>right reason according to your beliefs.
>
>Please don't ask all the people whom you pay to risk their lives to regret
>their decision. Ask the ones who sent them.
>
>Support your local hammer.
>
>Thank you for your time and attention.
>
>Stephen Leather
>
>>Dear University Community,
>>
>>I was honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy just over a year ago. I am
>>not fond of life in the Navy and I am definitely not fond of this war or
>>the decisions that brought us here. That is for personal reasons (I have
>>friends on the USS Abraham Lincoln right now) but mostly for political and
>>economic reasons.
>>
>>When the nation flies the flag at half staff, it is flown at half mast on
>>all U.S. Navy ships and on U.S. military bases and embassies overseas. I
>>disagree with this war but I DO NOT WANT ANY KIND OF MESSAGE SENT TO MY
>>FRIENDS THAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT THEIR ACTIONS!!! That smells of the
>>treatment that Vietnam Veterans received upon their return. If anyone can
>>explain to me why that treatment was not reprehensible and inexcusable,
>>please do so. (I do not condone all actions taken in war, so there is no
>>need to address the wholesale slaughters of children and villages with me.
>>They were the actions of a few, and in many cases were the result of
>>decisions of more senior personnel and policy makers.)
>>
>>After the conflict is concluded will be an appropriate time to lower the
flag.
>>
>>Thank you for your time and attention.
>>
>>Stephen Leather
>>
From Chuck Yates:
Will,
Pay careful attention to what Ben says here. Then think about this: nobody
wants those warriors to suffer over there in Iraq. Nobody wants them to
feel any pain, any fear, any sorrow, any uncertainty about what they do or
why they do it. Nobody wants them to have a bad time. But never forget
that every single one of them volunteered to be in uniform. They didn't
just volunteer to "serve their country" or "protect America's freedoms" or
any of those other sweet things the president likes to say. They also
volunteered to be where they are now, doing what they're doing now, and
feeling whatever pain, fear, sorrow, uncertainty, or whatever else they
might be feeling right now. They volunteered to get all that innocent
Iraqi blood on their hands, and they volunteered to spend the rest of their
lives wondering, just like us old dumb over the hill Viet vets, whether
they did right or wrong, whether their president lied to them, duped them,
used them, threw them away, all in the pursuit of his own pathetic
glory. Those warriors don't need to be there, but there they are, of their
own free will. They don't need our support. Their parents, brothers,
sisters, uncles, aunts, wives, children, neighbors -- that's who will need
our support, when those warriors start coming home in bags, in pieces,
because their government put them in harm's way for no reason. Just like
us, Will. Just like you and me.
Chuck Yates
USN, VN 11/68-3/70
At 10:09 AM 3/21/2003, you wrote:
>Hello Will --
>
>You wrote:
>
>Listen folks...now that we're in there, don't we owe those troops our
>total support? Nobody is going to change the way in which this thing
>proceeds from here. Let's just support the troops.
>Will Cannava
>VietNam, USAF 1969-1970
>
>Here's a response. Don't take the tone personally... actually I started
>writing this in my head yesterday driving to work, and it's not finished
>yet. You didn't provoke it -- I'm already provoked. I'm 55 now, and it's
>been almost 35 years since I left Danang. I sure would like to sit down,
>shut up, and support the troops. I don't think I can, and I'm sure I
>should not...
>-- Ben Chitty USN 65-9 VN 66-7 68 NY/VVAW
>---- mailto:[log in to unmask]
>---- http://www.vvaw.org/
>
>- - - - - - - - -
>
>You ask me if I support the troops?
>
>The men and women in uniform took an oath to protect and defend the
>Constitution and to obey the orders of the President. Now the President
>issues unconstitutional orders.
>
>You ask me if I support the troops?
>
>Under "don't ask, don't tell" men and women in the Armed Forces can be
>good at their jobs and honorable in their profession, then harassed,
>discharged, imprisoned, and sometimes murdered if they tell the truth
>about who they love.
>
>You ask me if I support the troops?
>
>For nearly a quarter century at the Air Force Academy women students were
>abused and raped and silenced for the good of the service, while their
>rapists became officers (and gentlemen) and the men who told the women to
>keep quiet have since retired full of honor and pay.
>
>You ask me if I support the troops?
>
>The Pentagon uses weapons so toxic they sicken everyone exposed to them,
>for years afterwards.
>
>You ask me if I support the troops?
>
>Again and again, the Corps sent Marines to their deaths test flying an
>airplane (the Osprey) which the service did not need and cannot use.
>
>You ask me if I support the troops?
>
>The President's advisors give him intelligence briefings custom-fitted to
>their imperial political agendas, and the President orders soldiers into
>action based on this faulty intelligence.
>
>You ask me if I support the troops?
>
>One out of every three veterans of Desert Shield and Desert Storm is rated
>disabled by the Veterans Administration. The V.A. says it doesn't know
>what happened to them, and the Pentagon just doesn't
>say period. But the President does propose to cut the V.A.'s budget. And
>the Senate Majority Leader says veterans will have to make sacrifices to
>help pay for this war.
>
>You ask me if I support the troops?
>
>I spent years of my youth in Vietnam learning hard and brutal lessons
>about war, and about my country. In his own youth the President joined the
>National Guard to keep from going to Vietnam, then went A.W.O.L. from the
>Guard. Now he turns my lessons upside down, and sends the children of my
>friends and neighbors into the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong
time.
>
>You ask me if I support the troops?
>
>You might say, in a way, I reckon I do.
From Horace Coleman:
From: Horace W Coleman <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Dear Carl,
You sent a message to VVAW in which you said "I'm concerned however, that
there doesn't seem to be a message being sent to all concerned stating
that no actions will taken against U.S. Service personnel."
A VVAW motto is "Honor the warrior, not the war." What does that suggest
to you?
No one ever spit on me; and I'm a skinny SOB. I got a phone call from my
son tonight during which he said he'll be deployed shortly. If any
one--man, woman or child--ever spits on him because of his service I hope
he decks 'em on the spot, beats them with their own cane, snatches away
their walker or dumps 'em out of their wheelchair--which ever is
appropriate.
I told him what the deal was well *before* he'd committed himself. Part
of that consisted of telling him how most people (people across the
board) would be indifferent to his service and he'd probably have to
fight the government to get the benefits that were promised to him. And
that was about two years before the Gulf got hot--again.
People, aside from friends and family, basically ignored Nam vets as a
class or projected stereotypes on us that satisfied their own guilt or
indifference. Most people who yell about "backing" out boys won't do any
thing practical to help them in any way before, during or after their
military service. You know that as well as we do.
One reason VVAW was formed was to try to prevent others from being
exposed to the same kind of useless war we participated in. One reason it
continued was to fight for veteran's rights. Why would *we* put down
another generation of vets? You're talkin' to the choir, brother. VVAW is
not in the spitting mode. We don't speak for any one but ourselves and
aren't any more responsible for any one else any more than you are.
Ask the "civilian" class of people who never served, avoided service, and
whose children follow that same path what *they* plan to do to actually
and practically help Gulf War II service people--their immediate
families--and Gulf War II vets--before, during and after their service?
Other then celebrate *themselves* at a parade, fly a made-in-China US
flag on their vehicle, tie a yellow ribbon around a tree or buy a sweat
shirt or baseball cap to "show" their "patriotism."
The "civilian" class includes the president, all but one member of his
cabinet and almost all of the Senate, the House and their children.
Troops don't decide who they're going to fight or when or where or how.
Within the narrow framework of command SOP they *are* responsible for how
they execute their orders, however. And, whether the orders they follow
are legal and moral a la the Nuremberg Trials and the Geneva
convention--practicality and Lt. Calley not withstanding.
No one gives any one the right to protest--or freedom. You take that upon
yourself and deal with the reactions that come. That's what freedom
really is--the nerve to act as you think you should, the willingness to
deal with the consequences and the ability to defend yourself and your
rights. Few things that are really important are ever given to you. Any
thing of consequence that is "given" to you can also be taken from you.
You don't buy freedom at the ballot box or the mall or select it with a
channel changer. Don't worry about VVAW members "acting out" toward
service people. That's not going to happen.
Be more concerned about the American chickenhawks who sanctioned this
mess and instigated it, the people who blindly go along with them and the
blow back and aftermath we're all going to have to deal with. That and
how the government (that's *all* us citizens and residents) that sends
troops onto the battle field is going to deal with our troops after the
parade is over.
Horace Coleman
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:03:30 -0600 Vietnam Veterans Against the War
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Thu, 06 Mar 2003 08:34:30 -0800
> From: carlyoung <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Good morning, and thank you for the messages. I'm a Vietnam Veteran
> and
> I agree with your right to protest. I'm concerned however, that
> there
> doesn't seem to be a message being sent to all concerned stating
> that no
> actions will taken against U.S. Service personnel. I was spite on
> and
> called a baby killer when I returned from Vietnam, needless to say,
> these types of actions ruined the lives of many returning veterans.
> I
> urge you to remind all concerned not to let this type of activities
> ever
> happen again.Thank youCarl YoungCommander, Disabled American
> VeteransChapter 84Vacaville, [log in to unmask]
>
Fritz Efaw,
Emma Goldman Distinguished Professor of
Political Economy and Inorganic Psychology.
|
