Obama's America: Observing the Observance of Veterans Day

Former Navy Secretary-turned-U.S. Senator Jim Webb, the most highly decorated Marine combat officer of the Vietnam War, introducing Barack Obama three weeks ago in Roanoke, Virginia.

It's just a week since the election of Barack Obama, and we've already seen a telling new approach to one of America's most venerable holidays, Veterans Day.

President Bush downplayed the cost of war. He appeared frequently with able-bodied heroes he was decorating for bravery, but to my knowledge never attended even one of the thousands of funerals for those Americans killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In stark contrast to this sweep-it-under-the-rug approach favored by the outgoing administration, the president-elect yesterday laid a simple wreath at Chicago's Soldier Field to honor our nation's military veterans. He was accompanied by Illinois veterans affairs director Tammy Duckworth, a decorated Iraq War veteran and Army major who lost both her legs when the helicopter she piloted was shot down by Iraqi insurgents.

Without making a big deal of it, Obama thus acknowledged the cost of war in a way that the current administration -- which cut taxes and borrowed endlessly to finance its largely misbegotten strategies -- has never dared.

War has its costs, and military service has its costs, as I know from my own unremarkable Navy stint. It is only when you acknowledge the cost that you can recognize the value.

My father was a war hero. He was wounded three times in action, the last time taking shrapnel to the brain. Though he recovered, his wound deeply colored the rest of his life, making him moody and difficult, sometimes at a moment's notice.

And his wounds occurred in an era before technology allowed heroic savings of the still more grievously wounded. The number of those killed in action in Iraq is only -- only, a word to be used advisedly -- something over 4000 souls. But more than 30,000 have been wounded, many of them very grievously. In previous wars, many of them would have died. But the gift of their lives comes at a cost which will color the lives of every one of them, and their families, for decades to come.

This is the human cost of war, a cost which President Bush and Vice President Cheney -- neither of whom served in the military -- have sought, with the help of a complacent media, to keep out of the public spotlight. It's striking how most of America's most vehement war hawks were conveniently unavailable for military service in their younger years.

What is the meaning of Veterans Day in the Age of Obama? More to the point, what is the meaning of Veterans Day in the an age in which America is embroiled in two wars -- one a war of retribution, the other a war of faulty strategy -- in a world beset by Islamic jihadism and marked by an emerging multi-polarity?

Celebrating military service.

Let's start with a great irony. Veterans Day was originally Armistice Day, established to mark the end of World War I. Which, as you know, was "the war to end all wars." It didn't work out that way.

Humanity is, in many respects, defined by the differences between us. That won't be changing anytime soon. We do not live in a world in which pacifism is a winning approach.

We do live in a world in which military service is a necessity, and in which military force -- or at least its highly credible threat, explicit or implicit -- is necessary to pursue America's strategic ends.

Which makes the determination of those strategic ends literally a matter of life and death.

John McCain resurfaced, following his sweeping defeat at the hands of Obama, last night on The Tonight Show. He is certainly America's most famous Vietnam War hero. And his defeat means that Vietnam will be the only major war which did not produce a president of the United States. John Kerry and Al Gore, both Vietnam vets, lost their respective races in 2004 and 2000. (Though Gore, of course, actually won, which is a whole other matter.)

For all his evident heroism, McCain seemed out of sync to me throughout most of this campaign, even when discussing national security issues, the raison d'etre of his presidential candidacy.

He was especially out of sync when it came to emerging veterans issues.

Strangely, McCain opposed the New GI Bill authored by Virginia Senator Jim Webb, the former US Navy secretary under Ronald Reagan who was the most highly decorated Marine combat officer of the Vietnam War.

I remember last May, spending a day around McCain, and finding him in a fit of pique over Obama's criticisms of him for McCain's opposition to the Webb bill. Obama, he said, wasn't even qualified to venture an opinion on this or any other military-related issue.

But for all his evident anger, which we later saw manifested in the general election campaign, McCain could not bring himself to mention Webb, who was, after all, the actual author of the bill he opposed, and an old friend of his. McCain contributed a blurb to Webb's must-read book on the Scots-Irish tradition in America, "Born Fighting," calling Webb "a legendary fighting man."

McCain wanted to force service members to stay in service longer before getting new benefits. His rationale? That that would build the non-commissioned officer cadre necessary for any effective military. Webb saw things very differently, reasoning that the folks putting themselves at risk whenever they walked down a street in Iraq or Afghanistan need to know that they will be well-rewarded for that risk.

Although both McCain and Webb are Annapolis graduates, their paths after the Naval Academy took them in very different directions.

Webb was a a Marine, a ground pounder. McCain was a naval aviator, an airedale. In his Vietnam War, Webb was at risk, one way or the other, most every hour of the day. McCain had periods of intense risk, but at the end of the mission, he flew back to great food, Filipino stewards, and a warm bed on his aircraft carrier. Until the time he did not, of course.

These experiences led to very different perspectives.

As Webb put it last year on Veterans Day, as he began what turned out to be the overwhelmingly successful push for his bill, despite the opposition of McCain, Bush, and Cheney: On this Veteran's Day, we should remember that every day, our military is fighting across the world, and we owe those soldiers a debt, regardless of the political debates over the war(s) we fight. It is with pride that our party supports our troops as they return home as veterans, proposing and supporting legislation to fully fund the Veterans Administration, offer services at the Federal and State level upon their return home, and making sure their families are cared for.

Barack Obama showed an easy rapport with American troops on his trip to the Middle East.

Barack Obama has never worn the uniform. Had he done so, his path to the White House would have been easier. But he is part of a class and a generation that increasingly never experiences the military.

Yet he has more rapport with the most common experience of the American veteran -- and understanding of the cost that taking military action can ring up, in the lives of individuals, families, and a nation -- than the Republicans who are now in the process of relinquishing power to him and his allies.

And that is a very good thing.

You can check things out during the day on my site, New West Notes.

Comments

[iamdmann]

I think that it is a mischaracterization to say that Obama is of a class that never experiences the military. Obama is, I think, of a class that experiences the military the most. Remember, before Harvard, Obama grew up with very modest means. While the military has historically been a particularly honorable way for people not born rich to move up in society, in recent years those with lower incomes have been particularly targeted. While he did not serve, I think that in many ways his experiences growing up will make President Obama more familiar with the day to day non-military struggles of many enlisted men and women than just about any recent president.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Oh?

Let's see, Ivy Leaguers in the military?

Nope.

Upper middle class strivers in the military?

Nope.

Professional politicians in the military?

Nope.

Tick tock. Out of time.

[PlanetKansas]

The politicians have stolen the original meaning of Armistace day: to end war instead of glorify in it.

In England, every November 11, 11:11 am, all traffic, walking and speech stops for 2 minutes.

The following is what their annual silence is tribute to:

It was a brutal war where 60,000 English troops died in a single afternoon in Verdun in a pointless attack that gained no ground nor victory. An entire generation of young men was lost.

The horrors of the trenches and gas warfare led to the treaties of the Geneva Convention, an attempt to make future wars more "civilized."

The terms of the Treatise of Versailles was so unfair, it fueled the rise of Hitler and the Second World War.

WW I started out as a speculative lark, where the royal families of Europe fueled nationalism as an excuse for what was thought to be a quick land grab. Instead, the war grinded on for 4 years, obliterated the monarchies that once controled Europe, and redrew the colonial boundaries of the Middle East and Africa. What was once the Ottoman Empire crumbled, and the boundaries of what is now known as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were superficially drawn. In many ways, we are still fighting WW I, and have learned very little from its lessons.

Ironically, the very nationalism at the root of all modern wars is now the very thing we annually celebrate as Veteran's Day with our flags, parades and speeches.

[BottomLine2008]

You're not going to "end war."

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

You do realize that America has been a participant in only a tiny fraction of military conflicts over its history.

Right?

[Fudgefase]

Hate to be picky, but you're using English when you mean British. My grandad was at Verdun. And Ypres. And Passchendale. He was in the Black Watch, one of the oldest fighting regiments in the world, and based in the Angus area of Scotland. There were also men from India, Wales, Canada etc who fought in every battle of WW1. It might seem pedantic - but it's important. My grandad survived. How, I don't know. But we should never forget the sacrifices made by families the length and breadth of Great Britain, and the commonwealth.

[Coattails]

Yes, had Obama chosen to serve in the military he would have had good credentials to serve as the Commander and Chief of all who do decide to serve, as had more of their respect. (I do believe a non-scientific poll of military personnel overseas chose McCain 3:1, most likely because they identified with him in some way).

I do hope the Pres-elect does get the best advise possible, I think we all want to best for our future and for the defense our our homeland with regards to safety.

Having a longstanding military tradition in my family coming all the way to the first generation who came to this nation and served in WWI, I seriously hope that our next President conducts himself wisely.

[UltraClassic]

I don't hold Obama's lack of military service against him. Lack of military service is becoming more common these days. There are plenty of other things to be concerned about where Obama is concerned but I will support him with a wary eye.

[ICanHasDemocracy]

as GWB did slacking off in the Texas ANG? As Deferrment Dick Cheney did? All of the Iraq war hawks in Bush's cabinet DID not serve a day in the Armed Forces. Military service is not a pre-req but it gives the President a better perspective of the cost of war. Eisenhower knew that the MIL would be the undoing of this country and create a perpetual war machine- generation. It's also no bellweather for the Presidency

US Grant- crappy pres, Andrew Jackson- an OK pres, TR a great Pres, Eisenhower- an OK Pres.

[LawHoo97]

Really? I served in the military for just over seven years. Does that qualify me to be commander-in-chief? If it did, then why wasn't I promoted beyond Captain while I was in. While I think service in the military provides some perspective on the military, it doesn't necessarily "qualify" someone to hold the position. Rather, what is needed in the CINC is leadership, and that is what is tested in these grueling political campaigns.

[BottomLine2008]

That was a self-selected poll of a few hundred officers.

>>>> (I do believe a non-scientific poll of military personnel overseas chose McCain 3:1, most likely because they identified with him in some way).

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

That was not a non-scientific poll, that was a self-selecting poll.

In other words, not a poll at all.

[rmm4402]

You need to do a little more research.....

While the President has not attended funerals.... he has met many, many of the families of those who have been killed or wounded. He doesn't turn it into a publicity stunt but he has done it.

Strangely, those he has sent into combat and have bourne the brunt of the human cost of this war are much more understanding of the President than those on the sidelines expressing righteous indignation.

[booboo111]

It turned my stomach to see Bush and Chaney, giving their obligatory speeches they obviously do not write. Chaney beat the draft with numerous deferments, (his heart was fine back then) and we all know Bush's daddy got him into the guard, where he supposedly skipped out on anyway. It's these two that are primarily responsible for all these deaths in this fiasco called Iraq, or more precisely, what I refer to as "the war where the reason we're there changes every month! They don't attend the funerals, so they won't have to look the families in the eye. Does anyone actually think either Bush or Chaney ever lost one moment of sleep over our killed and injured soldiers?! Bush's only sacrifice has been to recently give up golf. He didn't think it would " look right.!" He will have a legacy, though; as one of the worst, if not, "the worst" president in American history. I'm not alone in thinking that the deaths of our young men was due to Bush and Cheneys, criminal, yes criminal negligence. Keep Gitmo open for these two!

[imajoebob]

Bush has only USED families for political currency. Whenever he's been challenged about his cold distatse for expressing any responsibility for these deaths he claims his rare meetings with a few very pro-Bush families as showing real concern. He can't even symbolically attend one. He not only won't attend any funerals - even those he has been invited to, but won't allow the FREE PRESS to photograph them, to the extreme of barring it even when expressly invited by the family.

He's a shameless chickenhawk with absolutely no compunction about sending others to a death he wasn't willing to risk. He's the lowest form of immoral scum. Any and all claim he ever had about being pro-life was crippled when he executed more prisoners - including the retarded - than any other governor. This vile thirst for bloody war without any personal consequence shreds that claim.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

I have all the research.

Your spin is wrong.

[DouginCT]

You wrote a lot, much of which I can identify with, but not all. I was in the military, though not in war-time, and was a police officer. My father was in the Pacific during WWII. Nevertheless, I shivered at this sentence:

"We do live in a world in which military service is a necessity, and in which military force -- or at least its highly credible threat, explicit or implicit -- is necessary to pursue America's strategic ends."

Our current strategic ends are aligned with the over-consumption of our economy and the greed/amorality of the financial and industrial sectors, which we enable by being mindless consumers. Our 700+ military bases have little to do with protecting our well-being here in our country and mostly to do with paving the way for corporate extraction. That is reality as it stands right now, even if many of the people like our soldiers in the middle of this global chess game don't realize this, and are serving with great intentions and honor. That is common....not seeing the forest for the trees.

That part of the equation is what we need to fix. But as long as we defend the use of expansionism and the violence that accompanies it as 'a strategic end', we are warping the meaning of honor and unforgivably churning through bodies like bullets to keep this game going. There is no honor in that.

[rnelsonbrown]

Bravo. I concur 100%. We live in a finite world, and the global insistence on military 'solutions' is not much more than the action of rabid dogs squabbling over the bones of a decaying carcass. We are human beings, with an intelligence unprecedented in time, and yet we are still defined more by our fears and our desires than by our reason. More honor in aiding disaster victims than fighting in wars that use specious idealism to further personal gain and dubious glory.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, this is chilling.

All the more so because it is true.

You should not imagine that America is the cause of war in the world.

The extraordinarily long history of conflict in the world well predates that sort of truncated view of history.

>"We do live in a world in which military service is a necessity, and in which military force -- or at least its highly credible threat, explicit or implicit -- is necessary to pursue America's strategic ends."

[eleutheros]

Here's todays question of the day .... Should President Obama continue the practice that began with Ronald Reagan (the actor) of saluting military?

[atrueveteran]

As a 21 year Army Vet (now honorably retired)...the Commander-in-Chief is the only civilian that should be allowed to render an official salute!

[atrueveteran]

As a 21 year Army Vet (now honorably retired), it is my opinion that the Commander-in-Chief is the only civilian that should be allowed to render an official salute!

[Sparhawk]

Why not? Why is this even a question? He's the Commander in Chief of the Military, the highest ranking Civilian. Like it or not, the Salute is a sign of respect.

Unless Obama doesn't respect the Military..

[cashaw]

Actually the salute is a sign of being unarmed, and/or not a threat, for the moment. This is why one salutes with the right hand. Also compare the salutes of the US Military to every other Western Military, and we are the only ones who do not give a full hand verification.

[5150]

General Janus Karpinski! Yes, but just imagine if the situation were reversed...a chromosome test followed by a bullet to the head and a grave without a headstone.

[BottomLine2008]

Huh?

[doober]

The 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month sounds very dramatic but the surrender was really signed at 5am on the 11th six hours before hostilities ended..One Canadian soldier was killed 5 minutes before the armistice was signed at 11am

I salute the soldiers on the 11th but I do not salute the hypocracy and stupidity of the elite Politicians and the Military of that day and in the present day in not learning from the past and getting us into foolish and unnecessary wars..

I remember a relative killed in the Great War but I will also remember the one Canadian soldier killed at 10:45 on the 11th day of the 11th month to remind me of the stupidity of war..

[coolbrotha00]

Barack Obama has never worn the uniform. Had he done so, his path to the White House would have been easier. But he is part of a class and a generation that increasingly never experiences the military.

I don't know what "class and generation" he's talking about, but I was born the day after the president-elect and I proudly served 20 years in the Navy. I can't recall a generation that didn't have a significant representation in the military. And they are still joining, despite the wars. While I can agree that the path would have been "easier" had he served, I'm not sure it worked against that much either.

I believe that the president-elect will keep the active duty troops, veterans, and their families at the forefront of his mandate for change. Good luck.

[BottomLine2008]

You haven't noticed that very few politicians or professionals nowadays have ever been in the military?

[imajoebob]

And fewer Republicans than Democrats. And a much higher percentage of Republican leaders eligible for the draft seem to have taken deferments.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Did I already answer this somewhere else?

You are the exception, not the rule. And you are not part of Obama's class.

[emptysuitsneednotapply]

alot of talk to try to prove a false point

[BottomLine2008]

What's the "false point?"

That Bush and Cheney were total frauds and failures who opposed veterans benefits and refused to honor the sacrifice shown by KIA by attending a funeral in their all miserable years in office?

That "false point?"

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Care to try again?

[BottomLine2008]

I love that video of Obama in the ME.

SWISH!

[BottomLine2008]

That's a nice video commemorating military service.

[OBAMATEXAN]

I for one would like to thank all the servicemen and women who are risking their lives to protect our
country. I too was in the military during desert storm and they should be rewarded for doing this great job. We all know that President Bush did not serve in the military either, so let's just pray that President -Elect Obama will show better care and compassion for those men and women who keep us safe. I believe he can and will.

[BottomLine2008]

That's a terrific speech by Jim Webb. I wish he'd been Obama's running mate though I like Biden.

[springsm]

No he has a trigger temper...and I appreciate all his service. Jim Webb has a place in this government and right now he is a Senator..and a successful one at that. He is too pragmatic and he is not an authority on foreign relations. That is what Obama needed when he picked Biden. I think we all will be watching for Joe Biden's service as vice president. At least he knows how to laugh..but he can do the pinning to the wall too when he is not pontificating. Jim Webb does not have the temperment. And that is not a put down. Thank God for JW in the Senate...and for this Country's service...I applaud him.

[BottomLine2008]

Great stuff. We'll never see the end of war, which is why we can't be cavalier about it.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Exactly.

[JBS]

I'd like to point out that GWBush did in fact "serve". He did not satisfactorily complete his service, but he did "serve". He went AWOL before completing his obligation, and never saw combat, but he was in the Texas Air National Guard ... at least for a while.

[BottomLine2008]

He was a daddy's boy playing around with a little plane.

[RobertAndropolis]

He went AWOL, which is an apt epithet for his judgment as president.

[nwwanderer]

It's a point worth making. Not so much because it makes GWB a "military man", but because implying (by omission) that service in the Guard isn't "real service" does thousands of volunteers nationwide a real disservice.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

See above.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Well, if you can come and go as you please, as W did, you aren't really in the military ...