As some of you already know, I’m a veteran. I served in the US Army for about four years and did a tour in
If you know a veteran understand that he or she is not necessarily proud of what had to be done under the guise of fighting for freedom. Sometimes we were forced to (or chose to) kill or watch others be killed in ways you can’t imagine--others never left the safety of the US. Consider that most of us fighting were between 18 and 25—very young and burdened with orders and responsibilities that few would force on anyone so young. While you might feel compelled to ask a veteran about his or her service, understand that not all veterans want to revisit these memories. Many are proud of how they helped each other survive—and they should be. However, some carry wounds you’ll never see until a car backfires or they’re awakened by a terrible dream. We now understand this very common illness as post traumatic stress disorder—many of us have it; some afflicted more than others. Some of us still suffer (and die) from exposure to chemical agents (like Agent Orange or spent uranium), vaccinations taken in dangerous combination and other illnesses that cripple or kill us before our time. It’s too bad the Veteran’s Administration charged with the veteran’s care does not always understand how to treat veterans without stigmatizing them. I think they do the best they can (in most cases) given their funding but a significant part of the problem is that the Bush administration has consistently cut the VA budget as they increased the troop counts in
I support our troops. I support them by trying to get them back home where their families and jobs need them. I support them by willingly paying taxes to pay them an honest (well-earned wage), to pay for their medical care, housing, food and equipment. I support them by willingly buying them the equipment not supplied by the government and military that sent them into harm’s way. I support them by watching after their families while they are gone and helping them adjust when they return. I support them by trying to get the government to stop wasting taxpayer’s money to pay companies that are profiting from the war instead of supporting our men and women on the front lines. I support our troops by trying to elect government officials that understand that you can’t send a man or woman into combat without also funding the care he or she and their family needs when they return—if they return.I support our troops by doing what little I can to stop the war.
I think that before any President takes us to war, he or she needs to have served in the Military and been on the front lines where his or her life is on the line. Perhaps these Presidents would know the real cost of war and (hopefully) how today’s international problems are rarely solved by killing or imprisoning the leaders, combatants and private citizens of other countries. Any President that has been a prisoner of war knows that the only thing a tortured prisoner will tell you is what you want to hear—whether or not it’s the truth.
I’m proud to be an American, but all-too-often ashamed of what the elected government has done to our prestige and honor. It’s time we stood up and make the government know that we want to be proud again—of them and our country.
So please tell me that the Kevlar jacket had nothing to do with the above.
And Thanks :)
Nothing what-so-ever...
While I DO in fact respect your right to say whatever you want, I disagree with you on your belief that that a President taking us into war should have had to have served in the military. I believe it is entirely possible for someone that has not been in the military to lead us in a war better than some that may have been in the military. Having been in the military, on the front lines where your life is on the line does not even begin to qualify one as an "expert" in war.
Ideally a President, whether or not he has been on the front lines, would rely on the expertise of his military advisors and leaders when it comes to tactics and decisions regarding war, noting that Congress still has to give the go ahead for a War.
My other comment would be... what do you suggest? I don't necessarily agree with Bush's handling of the war but I agree with his reasons for having gone in. Were we wrong on our information? Yes. I can admit that. But we weren't the only ones wrong and it's irrelevant now anyway. But to all those who say war was never the answer, then what should we have done? Sitting back and letting Saddam play his games with the UN was no longer an option and that's all I have heard people suggest. I would LOVE to hear what other ideas people have. Someday, I would love to be in Congress, or at least the Illinois government, and unlike most politicians, I acknowledge that I NEED other people's input, on all sides, not just Rep and Dem.
Well said. We absolutely need to make darn sure that if we send people to fight for us, that the very best of medical care is available for those who come home needing healing of mind and/or body. Cuts in the VA cannot possibly be justified. Folks who would have previously died on the field are thses days getting home very often, but getting home absent limbs in numbers that are out of proportion with previous wars. We better make darn sure we continue to properly fund the VA as these vets need continuing care, replacement limbs (they should get the best available), etc.
While I do not think that a president needs to have served in the military, I think having a better understanding of what it takes to go to war would not be a bad thing for the current administration (hawkish on war now, not so much when they were of an age to do the fighting).
An interesting quote from a Republican Senator about questioning government policies:
"The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them.... To question your government is not unpatriotic - to not question your government is unpatriotic."
- Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), responding to the president's suggestion earlier this week that critics of the war in Iraq are "sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy."
Source: The Washington Post
i'm a veteran too. U.S. Army Infantry. i was active duty during first gulf war.
I agree with your comments 100% and appreciate your saying this. I served a commander in chief i respected in Bush 41. I couldn't say the same for 43.
How could a president who never served in war be "better" than one who did? - getting advice isn't the same as serving. Particularly with 43 who never listens to advice anyway. Chicken Hawk got 5 deferrments because he was too "busy" to serve in Vietnam. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz - they look at war like a chess game or a map room excercise.
War is too important to be left to imperial cowboys and the neocon professors who run (and i use this term loosley) this one.
What would i suggest? difficult to say at this decision branch. Kind of like having your wife get you lost and driving you in the middle of nowhere then having her say "if your so smart get us out of here"
but here i go ...
1) stop attacking americans who disagree as unpatriotic or likening them to Michael Moore - that's a good start.
2) stop lying about the war and perpetrating myths - like trying to still link Iraq to 9/11
3) either send in another 100K troops to get the job done or pull them ALL out - now. either one is fine but quit Vietnamming the conflict - not enough troops to win, too few to lose. while good young men and women are killed and critically maimed daily and we make no progress.
and on another note - i was going to blog about this myself but chickened out. Veterans day isn't a Republican holiday. taking this solemn holiday to attack people - including other veterans while surrounding yourself in trappings of the military (which didn't suit him while he was supposed to be serving) personally sickens me.
I'm not a democrat. I supported this war in the beginning. but i make a mistake in trusting our government. i'm against it now.
support the troops. Bring 'em home.
Brian, I agree with you almost 100%. I really agree with you on your point stop attacking those who disagree and stop lying...
But I still think that it is possible for one who has never severd to be "better" than one who has. As you said, "43 who never listens to advice anyway" he's not getting advice then...
If one surrounded themselves with adequate advisors and heeded their advice... they could be just as good as one who has served.
I heard something the other day that has evolved my point of view on what I read, watch and to whom I listen for advice. The advice was to read, listen and seek out those opinions with which one does not agree. That is, if we all read authors that share our opinion, we’ll never grow to understand others or the points they are trying to make. We won’t understand the strengths of their arguments or their weaknesses. The problem is that George Bush (43) has surrounded himself with people who have a similar agenda (or an agenda of their own) and simply does not understand the point of view many of (a growing many) of us share.
I heard from another Veteran that feels that if we had committed more troops to Vietnam we could have “prevailed”. Having lived in Thailand and Vietnam for over six years, having seen the political climate there, having heard first-hand from the French who tried and failed and having studied the political and economic climate in Southeast Asia I doubt very seriously if any foreign power could cleanse South Vietnam from those that would have us leave. We would have had to invade North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos which would have (undoubtedly) bring in the Chinese, North Korean and their Russian allies. Like Iraq, propping up a government that can’t protect itself can only go so far if the people they “govern” don’t want them in power. In Thailand (where conditions were and are very different), it was often the people, not the Thai (or American) army that made sure foreign insurgents were arrested and dealt with. When the “Thai-cong” came into villages in the north and began to spread their lies, it was the village people that sent their heads back to Bangkok. Every village from north to south has a revered picture of the King and Queen. No such loyalty to the government existed in Vietnam. No such loyalty to the government (past or present) exists in Iraq.
If George Bush had read (and understood) a bit more history before swaggering into Iraq looking for cheap oil, he would have realized the French were right. The country is barely governable. Ever since it was partitioned after World War I, the Iraqis, Turks and Iranians (and their neighbors) have had a tough time living together. I think that sometimes it’s best if the west just leaves these places alone to settle their own differences.
Where we might have done some good would have been in Sudan. But that’s another story. Perhaps the Republicans will take the military there after they’re done with Iraq and Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan—spreading Christianity and their twisted concept of Freedom that include spying on their own citizens without a court order, secret foreign (and domestic) prisons, no habeas corpus protection and clandestine operations within our own borders.
I applaud the Senate for standing up for our rights. It’s about time they got some backbone.