A National Disgrace

During the Vietnam conflict the American people had personal reasons to care about their country being at war. Now, if Americans don't have their own blood or money in the game, they couldn't care less.

During the Vietnam War emotions were high. Kids were being pulled into a draft right out of high school and sent off to fight and die in war most of them didn't believe in. In addition, we had the most crucial stages of the civil rights movement, the peace movement, the women's movement, and the labor movement. This powerful combination sparked a revolutionary time in American history that brought about great change for the betterment of this nation. At the same time it paved the way for "generation X" & the "me" generation - my generation.

Instead of choosing one of the many different capacities of serving one's country, most pursue routes that will ultimately benefit themselves.

Now, America's burdens are beard by only a handful of volunteers and their families.

How does a country fight two wars simultaneously without a military draft and tax cuts for those in the highest income brackets? How can a country turn a blind eye while the blood of their service members continues to flow and our lawmakers dump $12 billion dollars per month into the Iraq conflict? The answer is simple: Our country is not at war, our troops are, their families are, and the Iraqi people are.

Just like President Bush will leave this war and recession behind for the next administration, we are standing idle, and setting a course for our kids and grandkids to pick up the tab - so be sure to spend that stimulus check wisely.

I look out my front window and see a plethora of American flags decking out the entire block of my neighbors' homes - a true patriotism contest. Yet, if they didn't know me, they probably wouldn't know anyone who served in Iraq.

I see peace vigils countered by "victory" demonstrations populated by young males who lack the courage to put their own bodies where their rhetoric is. They stand on street corners like cowards chanting ... Victory, Victory, Victory - all while they stay completely out of harms way.

However, if these same young men were required (by a military draft) to fight the war they so strongly support, they would be on the other side of the street burning their draft cards chanting ... Bring the troops home, Bring the troops home, Bring the troops home. (That is the difference between my generation and the baby boom generation).

And while these same cowards will accept nothing less than victory, I wonder - What is victory in Iraq? Will we sail a battle ship into the Gulf and sign a treaty with Muqtada al-Sadr? Not likely.

Is Iran now our biggest threat? If so, why did we prepare them a bride (Iraq)?

If anyone has the answers, by all means, let me know - because I'm drawing a total blank.

For the record, I'm not advocating for a draft. Primarily because I wouldn't want these clueless, cowardly, street corner mouthpieces sharing a foxhole with our patriotic men and women who exemplify the best of all that is American. (The "victory" cheerleaders who refuse to serve exemplify all that is un-American).

Plus, my concern is that the "Dick Cheneys" of the world would always find an out, while the poor kids of small towns & urban ghettos would be the ones selected to have their blood spilled for rich elitists who feel entitled to live lavishly and protected during a time of war & recession - a true national disgrace.

At the same time, I fully acknowledge there are veterans groups out there who wholeheartedly agree with our mission in Iraq. Most of them have served in the "war on terror." I may disagree with them, but I respect them for their service. They fought the war they believe in.

My gripe is with this despicable element in American society who thump their chests, wave the flag, support the war, but just stay home - all under their perverted perception that they are doing their part by fighting the cultural war here at home -- oh how convenient for them.

I understand that Americans hate losing wars. I'm not relishing in the fact that Iraq has been a total disaster. Actually, it saddens me a great deal, but I can't ignore the obvious. Therefore, my perception of supporting the troops is not keeping them in Iraq indefinitely to achieve an undefined victory. The tragic fact is that we can not accurately define victory. We are just hoping the bad doesn't get worse.

But if you feel that you know what victory is and you advocate for the troops to be kept in harms way -- go join them.

My final message to all the young, able-bodied, male cheerleaders advocating for victory in Iraq with no intention of ever wearing the uniform is this: SUPPORT THE TROOPS - DRAFT YOURSELF.

Comments

[dogman44]

Good to see you expressing your anger. You've made this point before, but never so forcefully, and
never dedicated a whole column to it. (At least as far as I know). You are right on about the Viet war
being the thread linking the different social concerns into one mass movement. This needs to be done
again. All of the problems we are facing today are greatly exacerbated if not caused by this stupid war.
No need to explain it to you. You know the drill, "Don't mourn..........organize"
d.

[PioneerKing]

Yeah it's amazing how many of the college republicans say they support the troops and they are for the war in Iraq and they support Bush/Cheney/McCain but they are not enlisting. The republicans are such hypocrats.

[Spookcatcher]

To believe any Americans today, even while they have been led straight into a Depression worse than after the Crash of 1929, are going to do anything to stop the Fascist/Elitist Ruling Class AND THEIR SOCIAL ENGINEERING is pure patriotic pipedreaming, much less restore the U.S. Constitution. PSYOPS is running the election. PSYOPS has the media in the bag as it is only just now finally comng out about all the so-called "retired" pentagon nazi boys; a notoriously wholly corrupted (JFK Murder) Texas Governemnt and Sheriff's Department conspires and fakes an "anonymous" phone call from an unknown sixteen year old "abuse victim" (that doesn't exist) in order to raid an unarmed Religious compound and take hostage (using Baptist Church Busses!) hundreds of children from their biological parents and then force them onto the taxpayers dollars, so they can place them in "approved" homes to "reprogram" them to "our normal and so called Christiian Nation's beliefs", the Treasury prints billions to bail out Investment Banks from their fraud and but covers their ass ahead of time for knowing they were going to do this by setting up all the stupid American poor suckers a couple of hundred dollars to keep things under a lid so we don't riot in the streets at least until after the election and Martial Law is declared for our own safety and security.

[devadasi]

Exactly. At least we baby boomers had the audacity to take to the streets and it was our efforts that eventually ended the Vietnam war. Nothing will change unless we elect Obama. If McCain wins there will be a revolution in this country.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

devadasi,

Indeed. We do have people who take to the streets but are just ignored. Your analysis regarding a John McCain victory is valid -- sadly, it may take that for most people to finally understand just how bad things are. V/R John

[uberlefty]

The baby boomers also had also had the audacity to get us into this war. The courage to produce George W. Bush. This generation has lead us to the brink of disaster. This whole war is just a bunch of boomers who dodged the draft trying to regain their masculinity. This isnt about generations its about a class system that has broken. I do agree that the only way that this will end is if Obama is our next president. Your post seems to imply that somehow that young people are to blame. I would ask you who controls the wealth and political offices in this country? Boomers. If we are going to blame anybody it is our leaders not those who had the misfortune to be born after 1960.

[itmaybetoolate]

John, I always look forward to what you have to say. It is clear and cuts to the heart of the matter. The tragic loss of our dear patriotic citizens to a cynical and unnecessary war based on greed and hubris, and perhaps some level of insanity, is a national shame and a stain on our democracy. Here is my challenge to huffpost bloggers: when you encounter members of the armed forces in public, look them in the eye, shake their hand and thank them for their service to our country. It is the LEAST you can do.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

itmaybetoolate,

Thanks so much for the thoughtful response. V/R John

[LizM]

I hope people read your post and hear your plea and really start supporting the troops in all of the ways that count. But, you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath...people had a chance to solve the problem that is Iraq and that is US foreign policy in general by choosing the only presidential candidate who had the capacity to do all of this and so much more. But, I believe he got about...what was it...1% of the vote in Iowa?

I find it difficult to believe that the American people, vets and troops included, are destined to vote en masse in their own best interests and that of their country...well, now they don't have a good choice left, anyway...so there you go...good luck to us all...

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

LizM,

Yes, after speaking with many veterans who have served multiple tours in Iraq, along with many who have a strong intellectual grasp on the region, Senator Joe Biden would have been our best bet. But this is the classic case of us not picking the best candidate, and I am guilty as well. At this point, I'm convinced, the partition plan that would separate the warring factions , along with a central government sharing oil revenues equally among all factions would have been the best path to pursue. However, at the end of the day, the Iraqis have to determine their own future -- lets brace for the best. Good to hear from you again. V/R John

[LizM]

Thank-you, John...

I was surprised by how much those words mean to me...though, it"s not like there is anything and any of us can do about it now...I guess, I just never expected it...that"s the first time since the fiasco in Iowa that I have heard or read those sentiments. If I was the sentimental type, they would damn sure have brought a tear to my eye. Actually, truth be known, I was too busy entering into another apoplectic moment at the mere mention of "partition"! (Ha!) In fact, the Biden strategy offers the only hope there is for avoiding partition and the complete fragmentation of Iraq.

The best part of the Biden strategy is that it recognizes that Iraqis must determine their own future - political and otherwise - but, they will not get there on their own in the midst of a vicious civil war. The Biden strategy, in a nutshell, provides a mechanism or process to bring the warring factions together to hammer out a political accommodation that they can all live with, and to involve the major and regional powers to secure and support whatever power-sharing arrangement the Iraqis are able to achieve.

Anyway, thanks again, from the bottom of my heart! And, maybe there is still hope that the Biden strategy, or one very much like it, can yet be implemented. I look forward to more discussion with you. By the way, do you ever post over at VetVoice?

[deminmo]

As long as most Americans and especially those who have family
serving, view being in Iraq as the larger fight against terrorism, then
there will be no end to this occupation. Patriotism trumps all of the
other talking points. And to reinforce this, Bush reminds us that
he is "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here."
Lately, if you listen to news, read it or talk to anyone, the rehtoric is
coming fast for the Iranian threat in Iraq, N. Korea helping Syria, and.
attempts to goad a fight in the Persian Gulf. Yes, we are mired in Iraq,
but now the threat to our troops is in what happens next with Iran.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

deminmo,

Yes, they are propaganda artists -- all this saber rattling toward Iran is quite scary , so that should give us all motivation to keep making noise. V/R John

[taikan]

It's a mistake to give up on the draft simply because the previous version allowed people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to avoid military service. During the Viet Nam era, the draft was limited to supplying the needs of the military, and even at the height of the war there were many more people of draft age than were needed by the military. They included not only chickenhawks like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their ilk, but also people who weren't drafted simply because their draft number was too high or (before draft numbers were assigned) for some other reason.
No solution is perfect, especially while people who have the power to influence government decisions are willing to use that power to protect their children from having to serve in harm's way. Nevertheless, we would be much closer to a solution if every person, regardless of gender, were to be required to provide a minimum of two years' service before reaching the age of 26 (or some other age), with the government deciding in what capacity each person should serve based on his/her ability and the needs of the government at the time.
One final thought. You needn't fear sharing a foxhole with someone who is there only because he was drafted. During the Viet Nam era, by the time someone got out of MCRD (or the Army equivalent) and finished the rest of his training, it didn't make a difference whether he volunteered or was drafted.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

taikan,

I really appreciate your final thought:

"You needn't fear sharing a foxhole with someone who is there only because he was drafted. During the Viet Nam era, by the time someone got out of MCRD (or the Army equivalent) and finished the rest of his training, it didn't make a difference whether he volunteered or was drafted."

I guess you're right, at that point, you are as ready as you can be. V/R John

[joebhed]

Thanks for posting your patriotic anger, and for looking to a solution that will end the conflict.
There will be hundreds of answers to your question.
And, literally, unless we blow him up soon, we may be dealing with Muqtada after the next Iraq elections.
Unless, of course, OUR chosen ones legislate against his party.
Nobody believes in the militant who is willing to kill our soldiers in order to make HIS point, to secure his victory.
But, you asked, what is victory?
To al Sadr, victory is NOT killing Americans.
It is having the Americans leave Iraq to the Iraqi people.
Al Sadr's "militia" is nothing less than a bunch of Iraqis still trying to defend his beloved country from the American invaders who came in with shock-and-awe, and stayed.
No plan.
Al Sadr's is not one of those Iranian-clic parties in Iraq.
His is a nationalistic insurgency, fighting against the US invaders, who were loyal soldiers doing their duty to their country under the direction of Commander-inChief goofball.
It was Goofball heard from Curve-ball whatever he wanted to hear.
The plan to peace is a plan that begins with a commitment for US soldiers to leave Iraq.
A plan that commits our soldier's boots on the ground until we have a victory over the nationalists is a plan for a hundred year war.
When we're gone, both Sunni and Shia nationalists will take care of al Qaeda in very short order.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

joebhed,

Your comment is quite good:

"The plan to peace is a plan that begins with a commitment for US soldiers to leave Iraq.
A plan that commits our soldier's boots on the ground until we have a victory over the nationalists is a plan for a hundred year war. When we're gone, both Sunni and Shia nationalists will take care of al Qaeda in very short order."

I don't think I could have said it better myself. Thank you.

V/R
John

[ruleoflaw66]

"My gripe is with this despicable element in American society who thump their chests..."

Oh, you mean Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Feith, Limbaugh, Oreilly, and until our Generals actually begin leading the fight on the ground like they used to, let's include Petraeus and all his armchair buddies in the five sided building. Chest thumpers every one of them!

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

ruleoflaw66,

"Oh, you mean Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Feith, Limbaugh, Oreilly" -- not quite, I am focusing this piece on young able-bodied Americans who support the war but don't have the courage to fight it themselves, however, go ahead and include Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Feith, Limbaugh, Oreilly -- they fit the description too. V/R John

[HeevenSteven]

If we already had a draft there is no way we would be in Iraq now, so you wouldn't have to worry about who's in the fox-hole.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

HeevenSteven,

Yes, I agree.

V/R
John

[Ben Dixon]

You may or not be correct in your assessment, but one thing is for sure. If the American population faced a draft, even during peace time, they would be far more vested in paying attention to and debating this country's forgien and defense policies.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Ben Dixon,

Yes Sir, I am totally convinced -- sincerely. V/R John

[HeevenSteven]

Yes, that was my point.

[jfor]

When looking at the Bush administration it is very easy to see a pattern of secrecy, arrogance and ultimately failure. This pattern is seen in his energy policy, his education policy, his tax cut policy, his economic policy, his Iraq policy, his VA policy, his Katrina policy on and on and on it goes, never stopping always expanding tainting and destroying the things that made America great.

We the people sit here and refuse to hold him accountable because to do so would mean having to look at our own actions and hold ourselves partly responsible for the continuing failure of our nation. Make no mistake all of us are responsible for what Bush has done because NONE of us have done anything of note to stop him.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

jfor,

There are plenty of people who have fought hard to change the course of Bush's terrible policies. However, Congress ignores us. And as I outlined in my blog, there is no draft, so people won't care until they are asked to personally sacrifice -- just my opinion. Thank you for your reply. V/R John

[RoloTomassi]

Thanks John, your view is much shared by me and I"m sure by many other habitual posters here at Huffington Post. I believe it this same subset of individuals we have appearing here as GOP-trolls, constantly dropping comments filled with Neoconservative talking points and little else, all amounting to wasted commenting space, and thunderous holier-than-thou rhetoric that signifies nothing.

But it is somewhat understandable; though many of these people were conservative and polar opposites of liberal thinking citizens, they were generally sound and sane before 9-11-01. But the collusion of the government and media to manipulate intelligence got the best of them, and to this day their fear is what drives them to vilify the Left. They anger me on a daily basis, and it is very difficult to pity them in the way such a socio-political psychosis warrants.

But my biggest concern has to do with undiluted facts, the truth that the majority of Americans still aren"t able to accept: our interference and covert actions in the Middle East fostered the Neoconservative ideology, and that ideology took us into an unnecessary and illegal war. While no one would presume that those innocents who lost their live on 9-11-01 were personally responsible for their own deaths, at some point in the future this nation must embrace the fact that our government"s actions did indeed plant the seeds that bloomed horrific on 9-11-01.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

RoloTomassi,

I agree with everything you said except your last sentence, reason being is that I can't back it up. I just stick to what I feel comfortable enough to have an opinion on. Thank you kindly for your reply. V/R John

[StudentThinker]

First, thanks very much for your post and your courage. This is the face of real patriotism - not the flag-and-bunting BS of those who refuse to put their own lives on the line.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. While sticking to what you know well enough to have an opinion on is a commendable position, I think RoloTomassi does have a point with his last line. From what I've read (not an expert), a big part of the formation of Al-Qaeda and its anger at America concerns US actions in Afghanistan during the Cold War - arming the mujahideen to fight the Soviets on our behalf, then leaving them in the lurch afterwards, failing to provide real funding for rebuilding necessary services like schools, hospitals, etc. Regarding this aspect, I would agree that yes, the US government did have a role (a factor among others) in creating the situation that led to 9/11. Our other policies in the Middle East did not help the situation either - while terrorism is never justifiable, the anger that gives rise to it does have roots in what the people of the Middle East feel are real injuries done them by America. This is something which I too think the nation eventually will have to face - that US actions are as liable to have unpleasant consequences as those of any other nation, including making people angry enough to believe the murder of civilians is justified.

Just my thoughts.

[burnt]

"...if these same young men were required to fight the war they so strongly support, they would be on the other side of the street..."

no... they would be IN the street. There is a big difference.

"If anyone has the answers, by all means, let me know - because I'm drawing a total blank."

Perhaps overly simplistic, but... those who swore that they would ignore our viewpoint, could not... when we took to the streets. Some of those protest marches were very strong and went on long enough to disrupt routine to the point of forcing the MSM's attention... and bringing those who refused to question the validity and legality of US policy, into vigorous debate.

I have worked for decades to help build this virtual community that allows participatory politics. However, when we go analog and attend local marches, I repeatedly kick myself for making it too easy to "participate" by... sitting behind a keyboard. A full equation does not exist.

The powers that be simply hate it when individual citizens make themselves known by taking to the street. I suggest that we bring back physical presence. A national day of marching... or perhaps rolling regional dates. Of course, there's no sense in organizing a march if nobody shows... so the commitment for all... take a break from banging the keys and turn up your visibility to others.

... not "the" answer... just one of many available for anyone "drawing a total blank".

alienated in Seattle

[RoloTomassi]

I posted this on another thread earlier today, but given your post here I thought it was worth repeating:

Like so many things wrong with this country & it's government, this will not change until we change enough to make them FEAR US.

And that's one helluva big step, considering that most of us are mired in apathy; even what I'm doing right now is apathetic, as it is like a virtual political involvement game. We can raise all kinds of hell and pontificate and state our opinions, and in the end feel as though we've contributed something to the process, but that's just bunk. Like so many other media-driven traps for potential activists, what seems like a new advantage in freedom of speech and political access is actually a means of social and political activism containment.

Remember The Doobie Brothers? Their song "Takin' it to the streets" pretty much sums it up:

Take this message to my brother
You will find him everywhere
Wherever people live together
Tied in povertys despair
You, telling me the things youre gonna do for me
I aint blind and I dont like what I think I see

Takin it to the streets
****
It's the only thing that works, and it costs more than most of us are willing to give.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

burnt,

Your comment: no ... they would be IN the street. Yes, indeed, so true ... V/R John