One Grizzled Veteran's Dream
Thirty years ago, I attended Boys State. Run by the American Legion, Boys State introduces high school students to civics and government in a climate that bears a passing resemblance to military basic training. Arranged in "companies," we students did our share of hurrying up, lining up, and waiting (sound preparation, in fact, for my career in the military). I recall that one morning a "company" of students got to eat first because they launched into a lusty rendition of the Marine Corps hymn. I wasn't angry at them: I was angry at myself for not thinking of the ruse first.
Today, most of my Boys State experience is a blur, but one event looms large: the remarks made by a grizzled veteran to us assembled boys. Standing humbly before us, he confessed that he hoped organizations like the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars would soon wither away. And he said that he hoped none of us would ever become a member of his post.
At first, we didn't get it. Didn't he like us? Weren't we tough enough? (Indeed, I recall that one of our adolescent complaints was that the name "Boys State" didn't seem manly enough.)
Then it dawned on us what the withering away of organizations like the American Legion and the VFW would mean. That in our future young Americans would no longer be fighting and dying in foreign wars. That our world would be both saner and safer, and only members of an "old guard" like this unnamed veteran would be able to swap true war stories. Our role would simply be to listen with unmeasured awe and undisguised thanks, grateful that our own sons and daughters no longer had to risk life or limb to enemy bullets and bombs.
It pains me that we as a country have allowed this veteran's dream to die. We as a country continue to enlarge our military, expand our foreign commitments, and fight seemingly endless wars, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or in other far-off realms of less-than-vital interest to us.
As a result of these wars, we continue to churn out so many new veterans, including so many wounded veterans, not forgetting those who never made it back.
Collectively, we Americans tend to suppress whatever doubts we have about the wisdom of our wars with unequivocal statements of support for our troops. And on days like Veteran's Day, we honor those who served, and especially those who paid the ultimate price on the battlefield.
Yet, wouldn't the best support for our troops be the achievement of the dream of that grizzled vet who cut through a young man's fog thirty years ago? 
Shouldn't we be working to achieve a new age in which the rosters of our local VFWs and Legion posts are no longer renewed with the broken bodies and shattered minds of American combat veterans?
Sadly, as we raise more troops and fight more wars, we seem committed to the opposite. Our military just enjoyed its best recruiting class in years. This "success" is not entirely surprising. It's no longer that difficult to fill our military's expanding ranks because many of our young men and women simply have little choice but to enlist, whether for economic opportunity, money for college, or benefits like free health care.
Many of course enlist for patriotic reasons as well. Yet the ease of expanding our military ranks during a shooting war is also a painful reminder of the impoverishment of opportunities for young, able-bodied Americans - the bitter fruit of manufacturing jobs sent overseas, of farming jobs eliminated by our own version of corporate collectivization, of a real national unemployment rate that is approaching twenty percent.
On this Veteran's Day, what if we began to measure our national success and power, not by our military arsenal or by the number of new recruits in the ranks, but rather by the gradual shrinking of our military ranks, the decline of our spending on defense, perhaps even by the growing quiet of our legion posts and VFW halls?
Wouldn't that be a truer measure of national success: fewer American combat veterans?
Wouldn't that give us something to celebrate this Veteran's Day?
I know one old grizzled veteran who would quietly nod his agreement.
Professor Astore currently teaches History at the Pennsylvania College of Technology in Williamsport, PA. He writes regularly for TomDispatch.com and can be reached at wastore@pct.edu.
Daniel Robelo: Veterans: Casualties of the Drug War
It's a sad day in America when, instead of being offered compassion and treatment, veterans struggling with substance abuse and PTSD as a result of their service are locked up for these conditions.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
That's a heartfelt and a heart-breaking post, Mr. Astore. I don't know when that dream may come, if ever, but I hope so too.
Pronese, You sound as though you agree with the Old Testament rationale "an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth." I do not, nor do many other peaceful warriors. Remember, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves us all blind and toothless." Peace to you.
Correction: September 11, 2001
The article is something i will send to all my friends--it brought me to tears-- i am a vet.-- and I say we will never stop this until we re-elect nobody in the house--send a message---- and refuse to go to work and pay taxes until it is stopped. put our money where our mouth is.
MY father was a WWII Decorated hero, retired as a colonel-- my brother was Green Beret-Viet.--I served between wars-- your article made me weep-- we must simply refuse to fund these criminal activities by holding a general strike and demanding they stop-- That is sorta of how we stopped the Viet. war-- and my father and I did not speak for several years-- when we finally stopped the war he came to me and said "You were right-we should not have been there." He was an honorable man.
I would like to thank all veterans living and those who made the ultimate sacrifice. I believe we all agree with the article. Its the greed that keeps us in constant war and/or military buildup. The financiers fund and equip both sides making huge amounts of money. Its a true pincer they control both sides and reap the rewards of the resources even the contraband its a huge booty and these people are pirates. They own everything and think they own us. Their bullies and you know what continues to happen when you don't stand up to them. Saving wall street and the banks looks to be a mistake. It'd be hard rebuilding from the bottom up and dispensing with the Federal Reserve's control of our currency but nothings going to change until we do.
The warriors would agree with you, sir. However, those who typically never served, obtain power and make policy. This atrocity must be addressed.
This is a quote from Lt. Gen Gregory Newbold
(Marines, director of operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2000-2002):
"My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight (Iraq) was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions---or bury the results."
Yes-Bush & Cheney are chickenhawks-Its fine for others sons & daughters to "sacrifice" . But when it was their time-where were they?? When I was in VN they were hiding behind thier phony deferments & their daddys deep pockets!!
That's my dream too.
I was impressed with the veterans during the Vietnam protests.
Unfortunately the USA's business IS war.
The USA spends more on war than the rest of the world combined.
The USA is War Inc.
You are quite right. It's a tough sell though because people do not want to be told they are making sacrifices for nothing- worse than nothing- wars of aggression. Harder still for families of the dead.
just the same it's the only way we will ever be able to stop war.
Beautifully written and a worthy goal for which to strive. There was a time when we lived in peace. Do you remember? It's part of our collective memory. If only we could harness that memory to bring world peace. It doesn't take everyone to agree, only a critical mass and then Voila, yes voila, peace - as it should be and will be forever more. That is my wish.
President Obama end the wars now and bring our traumatized troops home to their traumatized families and country. Enough is enough. Let's work on peace rather than military might. Such a sham and such a shame. Support our troops and their families with the care they'll need to heal.
My heart goes out to all the veterans and their families who are suffering today and who have suffered in the past. Peace to you all.
Yes-most of us agree that our current policies are misguided. However it should not take away from this day which is to honor all veterans especially those who gave their lives.people are smarter now and most beleive-Hate the war-but love the warrior.Unlike "our" war-we were called murderers-baby killers &such nonsense.Peace. Viet Vet 1971-72
Someday we will measure our strength, not by the weapons we have, but by the weapons that we do not need.
I can't even in my wildest imagination, imagine that I'll ever see that day come. It hasn't happened since the first caveman picked up a club in anger. I mean this is not a one way street. We could have the best of intentions but we can't even begin to control what other nations do. So we will always remain on guard or fall by the way side. That is just the way it is. So today we thanked those that made the sacrifice and understand that others, not yet born will follow.
The wars we fight, from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan are wars of choice. You may believe that these wars were necessary, but they weren’t. You may believe that these was were in response to what other nations did, but they were not. They were and are wars of aggression on the part of the U.S. So until the U.S. stops starting wars to serve its oligarchy, we will have no one to blame but our own government.
Thanks for sharing this beautiful vision, William. "Lack of political will" is the all-too-common explanation I hear for this type of progressive idea. Couple that with the vested interests of everyone engaged in the military-industrial complex, and there's precious little incentive to reduce our military forces.
As a society, we have not yet made peace-through-nonviolence - a peace that benefits all nations - a priority. The previously mentioned Department of Peace would be a good start. Seventy Representatives already cosponsor H.R. 808 in the House - we need more progressive warriors such as yourself to step up and help make the case.
Trying to hijack moral authority stating that no American soldier should ever die is a specious argument. Everyone in the United States wants peace. OK, a few military contractors might not, but that's about it.
Sadly, the world doesn't always work the way lawyers think it should. At some point there has to be a policing force (and usually a strong Navy) to enforce law. Whether it's the Romans, the Brits, or Americans they were all eras of relative piece. Note that the time frame without a dominant international strong man were called "The Dark Ages", a correlation hopefully not lost on some Huffington Post readers.
There are some that believe America has a unique role in this world (Reagan's City on a Hill) and some that think we're just another country amongst many (Obama's Berlin speech and moral relativism). There will be no "Tear Down This Wall" moments from Obama, as he has no moral compass equivalent to Reagan's. When he's able to lie about his church, his friends, his business dealings, and even his political views for expediency that trait is abundantly clear.
Ultimately the question of dealing with bad guys comes down to the basics. Do you fight them there (say Afghanistan or Iraq) or here (say Manhattan or Ft. Hood)? After our previous national distraction over pacifism and socialism we ended up having to Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo simultaneously. Lest we forget the real lesson of the 1930's.
The lesson of World War II should be that the U.S. never should have entered into World War I. Without American involvement in that war to benefit arms manufactures (read Smedley Butler), World War I would have probably ended in a stalemate with much better terms offered to Germany. Minus the humiliation of Versailles, it is quite likely that a despot like Hitler never would have had a chance to rise in Germany the way he did.
The "Dark Ages" is relativistic. Only western Europe after Rome. Not the entire Roman Empire: the eastern half, Byzantium, did fine until 1453. Even after the Crusaders tried to destroy it twice. Christian empire with Islamic neighbors. In the 400's, St. John Chrystostom, known for writing the Eastern Orthodox liturgy still in use, said Christians should convert others by example, never by force. Furthermore, a soldier who killed in battle, even protecting the homeland, could not take communion for three years. Might be necessary, but it was still a sin.
As for fighting them there... who's "them" and where's"there?" Afghanistan is a quagmire that Alexander the Great, the western European empires, and the Soviets found impossible. Iraq has nothing to do with Manhattan nor with Ft. Hood. The Axis was gone in four years, less time than the current mess. In the 30's, it was the arch-conservatives who were against foreign entanglements. And were anti-Semitic.
If "them" means all Muslims, then why claim that we are there to help the people of the countries in which we're fighting?
Everyone wants peace? None of the loud mouth Republicans in Congress, the previous administration, or on the air are vets. None of their kids serve. They're chicken hawks. The current volunteer military is the result of the economic draft. I have five members of my immediate family in the service. Plus two now retired. We all think this current adventurism is either misinformed-- or outright profiteering.
While helping a much older WWII veteran move into a new house thirty years, I noticed in one of the boxes a bunch of medals. I asked him about them. They were his. He had never talked about the bravery or the savagery of the battle in Europe he had fought, never mentioned the medals he had won. I asked him about it and he replied, much as you say in your article, he hoped no other men would ever have to fight as he had, ever saw the slaughter he witnessed
We owe a great deal to those who fight and die and those who fight and live. Most of all, we owe them a wish for peace fulfilled. Thank you for reminding us that war should only be fought to end something - aggression - and to restore something - peace.
Gen Smedley Butler, USMC, "War is a Racket," to add a little emphasis to required reading.
How many of you know that the Nobel Peace Prize, as determined by the founder, Alfred Nobel, goes to the person who does most to eliminate or decrease military? By any standards, surely, Obama, who has already sent more troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, Diego Garcia, and the other 1000 U.S. military bases in the U.S. empire around the world, does not qualify for the prize.
Certainly not the warmonger & overthrower of democratically elected governments, who, incidentally is persona non grata in some European countries, having been branded as a war criminal, Henry Kissinger, who was also give the "peace" prize.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
