USA Today News Article
Veterans Face Conundrum: Kerry
or Bush?
February 19, 2004
Both Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and President Bush have had
their attackers and defenders on the issue of Vietnam War service.
But given Kerry's infamous anti-war activities, it is striking that
many Vietnam veterans have chosen either to support him or maintain
a skeptical distance from both camps. Indeed, Kerry's wins in Iowa
and New Hampshire, which jump-started his campaign, often are
attributed to his support among veterans.
Having been involved in veterans' issues since the 1970s, I
know many veterans who in earlier days spoke of their disdain for
Kerry but are now holding their fire. Kerry's negatives, however, do
not automatically become Bush's positives, particularly when the
focus of many now is on America's involvement in postwar Iraq. And
in that context, the most important question is how - or whether -
each candidate proposes to end the United States' military presence
there.
To be sure, Kerry deserves condemnation for his activities
as the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (WAW). In the
early 1970s, this small organization - never more than 7,000
veterans out of a potential pool of 9 million- became the darling of
the anti-war movement and the liberal media. Its activities went far
beyond simply criticizing the politics of the war to repeatedly and
dishonestly misrepresenting the service of Vietnam veterans and the
positive feelings most felt after serving.
Kerry and his WAW compatriots portrayed their fellow
veterans as unwilling soldiers, morally debased and haunted by their
service. While this might have fit a small minority, the most
accurate survey, done by the Harris Poll in 1980, showed that 91% of
those who went to Vietnam were "glad they served their country,"
74%"enjoyed their time in the military" and 89% agreed with the
statement that "our troops were asked to fight in a war which our
political leaders in Washington would not let them win."
Kerry's own comments were filled with hyperbolic
exaggerations that sought to make egregious acts seem commonplace.
During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 1971, he
testified that fellow veterans had routinely "raped, cut off ears,
cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Genghis Khan. "With those words, he defamed a generation of
honorable men. No matter how he spins it today, at a minimum, he
owes them a full and complete apology.
The view that Kerry remained on the "wrong side" of the war
was compounded by his failure to consult with leaders of America's
million-plus Vietnamese community while playing a dominant role in
the normalization of relations with communist Vietnam during the
early 1990s. Many Vietnamese-Americans believe Kerry has been an
apologist for the Hanoi government on such key issues as human
rights. Kerry personally has bottled up the Vietnamese Human Rights
Act, which twice passed the House by wide majorities, so that it
cannot even be debated on the Senate floor.
But in the zero-sum game of a presidential campaign, to go
after Kerry is to give a free pass to Bush, whose actions then and
now deserve no prizes. Recent statements defending Bush claim that
the National Guard was not a haven for those who wished to avoid
Vietnam; but it clearly was. According to the National Guard
Association, only some 9,000 Army Guardsmen and 9,343 Air Guardsmen
served in Vietnam. Considering that nearly 3 million from the active
forces did so, one begins to understand why so many of America's
elites headed for the Guard when their draft numbers were called.
Bush used his father's political influence to move past
many on the Texas Guard's waiting list. He was not required to
attend Officer Candidate School to earn his commission. He lost his
flight status after failing to show up for a required annual
physical. These facts alone raise the eyebrows of those who took a
different path in a war that for the Marine Corps brought more
casualties than even World War II.
The Bush campaign now claims that these issues are largely
moot and that Bush has proved himself as a competent and daring "war
president." And yet his actions in Iraq, and the vicious attacks
against anyone who disagrees with his administration's logic, give
many veterans serious pause.
Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder
in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target.
While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far
more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was
not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged
down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has
known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its
maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being
placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully
accept its presence.
There is no historical precedent for taking such action
when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless
course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic
and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the
tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has
protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves.
At the same time, those around Bush, many of whom came of
age during Vietnam and almost none of whom served, have attempted to
assassinate the character and insult the patriotism of anyone who
disagrees with them. Some have impugned the culture, history and
integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe, that have been
our country's great friends for generations and, in some cases, for
centuries.
Bush has yet to fire a single person responsible for this
strategy. Nor has he reined in those who have made irresponsible
comments while claiming to represent his administration. One only
can conclude that he agrees with both their methods and their
message.
Most seriously, Bush has yet to explain the exact
circumstances under which American military forces will be withdrawn
from Iraq.
Nor has Kerry given us a picture of how his strategy would
differ from the course that has been set.
Once these answers are given, all of us will be able to
understand more clearly the true legacy of the past.
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS