Veteran's Day 2005
By Michael Bailey of Portland, Oregon. Michael is a life-long activist and a freelance author, currently writing a book on special education.
Veteran's Day honors the memory of our young men, and now young women, who lost their lives in 'service' to our country. Truth would be a good place to start to understand why they died. The least we can do for them is to tell the truth. But truth is war's first casualty.
I had a friend in high school. He went on to be Capt. James Smith, United States Army and he died in Vietnam in 1968. The more time that passes the more obvious it becomes that his 'sacrifice' met nothing. Simply a young life wasted in a monumental blunder. He never really grew up. He just died.
A few days ago I stood on Marye's Heights overlooking Fredericksburg, Virginia and pondered at the stone wall and the long slope leading up to it. The lines of Union soldiers assaulting that stone wall on a December afternoon in 1862 suffered casualties at the rate of one/second for two full days and none came near the top of the slope. General Burnside (yes, that Burnside) was simply too stubborn to see his blunder and sacrificed the lives of thousands rather than admit the error. Did these young men die for freedom? Like my friend Jim, they died for nothing.
During the War of 1812 thousands of American soldiers died invading Canada, skirmishes with Tecumseh and disease. Most Americans do not even remember a US invasion of Canada. The offensive in the Argonne Forest in 1918 did nothing to impact the end of WW I. It was simply an experiment by US Commanders to see how the US Army would do on its own. Of the 180,000 fatalities in that war half occurred in the Argonne. They died in a 'war game' with live ammunition. The list goes on and on.
These deaths break my heart, like they do yours. We could honor these soldiers better if some truth were told. Most didn't die to 'make men holy,' of 'die to make them free.' They died because of policy errors, ambitious politicians and officers and a public too quick to accept an implausible and simplistic spin on heroism, patriotism and sacrifice.
We don't honor dead soldiers by pretending their deaths were necessary and noble. We could honor them with headstones that say, 'Died because of President Nixon's ambition,' 'Died as a result of a tactical blunder,' 'Sacrificed for something no one can remember.' 'Killed because nobody gave a damn.'
Telling the truth would really honor the dead. Now, even in death, they continue to be just a pawn in the game of power and politics and perpetual war.
No wonder we weep.
|
Nov. 11, 2005
Posted in guest column. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Nov 11, '05
While I sympathize with the loss that war has caused you and others, your response is so extremist as to deny the veterans of those wars the respect which they are due.
In the real world there are causes for which it is worth fighting. I despise those who misuse the power they are given in order to advance their personal agendas, as surely is the case with the current C-in-C, but even under such circumstances honor is due to those who commit their lives to service (quotes being irrelevant here!) to their country. If it is the case that their leaders are incompetent, it is still an honorable sacrifice to commit themself to a higher cause.
I am a veteran, but certainly no flag-waving lunatic shouting "My country right or wrong": I firmly believe that war is course of last resort. You cannot successfully oppose extremism by becoming even more irrationally extremist yourself. You become your enemy. You trample innocent people in headlong support of your agenda.
Nov 11, '05
You know how best to honor the war dead? Keep the politcal rhetoric to the other 364 days of the year. Isn't that enough time for you to be an activist?
8:43 a.m.
Nov 11, '05
Michael,
When I came home from Vietnam I considered myself very lucky. I survived more or less intact and nobody screamed at me and called me a baby killer. Of course there were no parades or thanks either. Your commentary seems to fit that period when vets were treated with disdain. I thought we had moved past that point.
Yes war is stupid, wasteful, and ugly. The deaths are not always noble and they are not always fought for the reasons given the troops, but we need to respect and honor those like your friend that died in our country's name. They went because our congress, acting in our name, asked (or forced) them to go. Do not denigrate them for the sins of our leaders and our failure as a nation to select better leaders.
8:44 a.m.
Nov 11, '05
Michael,
When I came home from Vietnam I considered myself very lucky. I survived more or less intact and nobody screamed at me and called me a baby killer. Of course there were no parades or thanks either. Your commentary seems to fit that period when vets were treated with disdain. I thought we had moved past that point.
Yes war is stupid, wasteful, and ugly. The deaths are not always noble and they are not always fought for the reasons given the troops, but we need to respect and honor those like your friend that died in our country's name. They went because our congress, acting in our name, asked (or forced) them to go. Do not denigrate them for the sins of our leaders and our failure as a nation to select better leaders.
Thanks for making my Veteran's Day.
Nov 11, '05
Veterans Day Resources for the Troops and Their Families:
Nov 11, '05
Unlike the other commentors, I don't think Michael's piece is either political or disrespectful to veterans. On the contrary, I think it simply recognizes that not all battles, not all wars, are worth the price. In honesty, I think that some people go to war in the noble spirit of self-sacrifice no matter what the cause. Others go to war for other reasons that are not really deserving of a national holiday. The same can be said for those who wage war. Of this I am convinced: we must continually examine our motives for slaughter; especially when we are the aggressors.
Nov 11, '05
Grief for the tragic loss of young lives in the cruel stupidity of war must be allowed without tarring it as lack of respect for those who fought and died, thinking they were doing something noble. In most cases,war is the tool of bankers, investors and business people, who have the money to get their ends met by weak-willed politicians. Looking back on the sorry trail of tears of just our country, one can see the Revolutionary and Civil Wars and World War II as necessary and unavoidable, to prevent madmen from taking over the world or committing genocide/slavery. As a nation, we must find the courage and brains to stop the madness without thinking it impugns young warriors -- most of who don't understand how their being used.
Nov 11, '05
they're...sted their...i mean, duh.
Nov 11, '05
Let's not speak of the humaness of Jesus on Christmas. We should avoid discussing the various crimes and misdemeanors various presidents have committed over the years on Presidents Day. Never should we whisper on Valentine's Day that Hallmark invented it to make lots of MONEY.
I agree with mr. Bailey wholeheartedly. For far too long we have allowed the good men and women of this country to die in the hushed name of religion and greed. There are just as many veterans who agree with this point as who don't. My father who served as a Seargent in WW II was one who supported me and my brothers in speaking out against the war in Vietnam in the late 60's and early 70's. We need to find a way to stop these wars, and the first step is telling the truth.
Speaking of WWII, I believe that is when this holiday was changed from Armistace Day to Veteran's Day. Armistace day was supposed to be a day when we celebrated the end of war, and laying down of weapons. We have no day to celebrate THAT anymore. Hmmmm...
Nov 12, '05
Michael Bailey: We could honor them with headstones that say, 'Died because of President Nixon's ambition,
JK: Don't forget that Johnson, a Democrat, started our large scale involvment. Maybe you should have said: 'Died because of President Johnson's ambition,'
JK
2:36 a.m.
Nov 12, '05
My Dad still carries shrapnel as a souvenir of the Battle of the Bulge; his car wears his "disabled vet" license plate with pride.
He'll tell you war is really stupid. Awful. Nasty. Dumb. (Unlike the Chaney's of the world who'll refuse the sacrifice --if you'll recall Chaney said he had "other priorities"-- but stuff their pockets with war's profits, while bowing their head in phoney but humble honor.)
When I worked in the anti-war movement in the sixties and seventies, I never knew an activist who treated our soldiers with "disdain." Those who treated them as cannon fodder were the disdainful ones. We wanted to save our soldiers' lives. The returning vets were our heroes, who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us, working to end the insanity.
Go ahead and seperate soldiering from policy, tell us "dying for your country" is the noblest sacrifice...but then let's include the young men who marched under all the flags and banners, from Napolean's retreating troops, to the kama-kazi's of Emperor Hirohito. (Or do we believe God really is on our side only?)
One does not dishonor the troops by saying war is awful, or saying that Nixon --or Johnson, you're so right, JK-- was an immoral
monster who debased and marched off to unnecessary death so many thousands of our friends, and brothers and sisters.
Honoring the truth --that war doesn't end war, and is a continuing horror and waste-- is honoring the troops.
Nov 13, '05
I cannot for the life of me understand what is "extremist" about simply setting out a group of related facts and drawing a logical conclusion based on those facts. Were the facts not true? Is the logic not sound? Are there facts Michael ignored which would rebut his conclusion? None of those who demurred to his essay answered those questions, and it seems to me they must before taking exception.
John Calhoun, how does it "denigrate" those who served to illuminate the "sins of their leaders?" Does it not honor their sacrifice more to see to it that no one else dies for greed or powermongering or superstition or stupidity?
Where is this coming from? Isn't it the truth that sets us free?
Nov 13, '05
Your commentary seems to fit that period when vets were treated with disdain. I thought we had moved past that point. Yes war is stupid, wasteful, and ugly. The deaths are not always noble and they are not always fought for the reasons given the troops, but we need to respect and honor those like your friend that died in our country's name. They went because our congress, acting in our name, asked (or forced) them to go. Do not denigrate them for the sins of our leaders and our failure as a nation to select better leaders.
Back when I was actively involved in lobbying veterans legislation in the 1980s, there was a saying that with 5 veterans in a room, there are often 4 factions and a moderator. I don't think that remark is disdain given that it was a vet I heard it from.
I don't think this post shows disdain or denigration for vets.
What does is what happened to a friend of mine, a former drill instructor. Who moved back to the old home town due to a variety of circumstances, and who went to the State Employment Office in the old home town to see about veterans benefits. This is someone I met while doing the above mentioned lobbying in the 1980s.
What does denigrate veterans is when they are shown the disrespect of what happened to my friend. The "vet rep" said "No one cares that you were a veteran 30 years ago".
And by the way, this friend has never given an opinion of what is going on in Iraq.
But someone who has voiced opinions is Paul Hackett. He won 4 rural counties this summer in that special election, and from what I have read the things he said about the Iraq War are closer to Michael's than to John C.
I support veterans (aside from the work I did on veterans issues) by saying they have the right to express their opinions publicly and the right to disagree. That means both Paul Hackett and John Calhoun have the right to debate any aspect of Iraq or any other war, and the right to disagree with each other.
If the above paragraph is taken as disdain or denigration of veterans, I certainly don't know how or why.
<hr/>