MIke, re: "don't you worry whether kerry is up to the task? I am older than you are and i remeber vietnam very clearly and many vets today have an agenda--prowar guys like unclewest who feel that they were inches away from winning the war if only folks like kerry and fonda had shut up and antiwar vets like kerry who have never come to terms with their service and have become fundamentally pseudo-pacifists (my opinion).
I think you do Kerry and a lot of others, like me, a disservice when you question our opinions based on some sort of "never come to terms with [our] service" assertion. The simple fact is that different people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions. The test of which conclusions were most in tune with reality is one that relies upon history. The fact is that we did "win" the peace in Vietnam, at least from Americas's perspective. Vietnam is a trading partner, is not a threat to us and is not a threat to its neighbors. That's a win in my book.
I think that Kerry and I and a lot of other veterans who felt that war was unjustified and unwinnable, should never be lumped together with Jane Fonda who had only an opposition to the war in common with us. Fonda turned against the American soldiers who were fighting that war. I, and in my opinion Kerry, accepted the facts of the war, including the frequencey and extent of the atrocities, and knew the pressures that drove our soldiers. We blamed those who lied about the facts and put them in deadly peril with no POSSIBLE way to "win;" we didn't blame them.
Once again, for those who don't know the facts, it wasn't the 500,000 men in Vietnam at any given time who were susceptible to the pressures that led to atrocities, it was, according to a book I read recently, only 50 infantry battalions that took 80% of the causualties. That's a total of 25,000 men. When you consider that we were losing over 10,000 DEAD each year at the height of the war and then apply that 80% statistic, it may be more easily understood what kind of pressures and fears motivated those few men.
Most of those veterans supported the invasion of Afghanistan and are cleary not "pseudo-pacifists." We are, however, more versed in the limits of conventional military power and less inclined to get all "patriotic" and start jumping up and down with pom poms whenever someone starts beating the war drums. War has smells, sounds and sights that we understand and that's part of the reason. The other part is that we understand that in the runnup to a war the hype is ALWAYS greater than the facts will support.
By the way, in spite of your protestations I predict you will vote for Bush since you often slip into what "we" must do when you're talking about the Bush campaign. No matter, as I recently commented on another thread; those who see doomsday coming with a John Kerry presidency or, alternatively, see doomsday coming with a second Bush term, ought to take a deep breath and listen to themselves. Bush is wounded severely and has lost the support of the moderate Republican wing of the party and Kerry will have to deal with a Republican majority in the House, at least. Both will, therefor, be forced toward moderation no matter who wins. |
