One of the truly valuable voices in the world on military issues belongs to David Hackworth. Hack is one of our most highly decorated military veterans, from his days as an underage merchant marine at the end of World War II through Korea, where he was the youngest captain in the Army, and Vietnam, where he was the Army's youngest colonel. In 1971, having spent 5 years in combat in Vietnam, Hack returned to the US and, as an active senior military officer, publicly told the truth about that war - that it was a war we could not win and it was time to get out. Since that time, he has been a war correspondent, seeing many more conflicts as a commentator and observer, and a bestselling author. The one thing you can be sure of with Hack is that you're getting the unvarnished reality. He is fiercely loyal to the grunts on the ground, and harshly critical when the politicians and armchair generals let them down.
There is a new column up on his website about the political abuse of Vietnam that is now dividing the nation again. As usual, he is blunt:
Sure, Bush dodged the draft, along with a reported 14 million other Americans with the savvy to work out that Vietnam was a no-win, sorry war. But although he had the luck and the connections to land a spot in the Air Guard, he did put his butt on the line flying a machine for which he was entitled to hazardous-duty pay and that's because zooming around in a jet fighter was and still is highly dangerous.And sure, Kerrys campaign push on how he Ramboed his way through the war for four months rubs a lot of vets the wrong way. And it does take its toll on those of us who prefer our heroes to be modest, unassuming types like Alvin York who stayed the course until it was Over, over there.
But politics and style aside, Kerry did serve with distinction in Vietnam when he easily could have avoided that killing field. His service to his country shouldnt be diminished by the same despicable, politically motivated tactics visited upon Sens. John McCain in South Carolina and Max Cleland in Georgia, also Viet vets. This kind of gutter-bashing doesnt belong in American politics, and vets shouldnt allow themselves to be used as ammo for cheap shots at one of their own.
The stalwart Brown Water Navy warriors who fought at Kerrys side say he was A-OK, which is good enough for me. The muckrakers such as John ONeill and his Swiftboat snipers who didnt sail on his boat but served anywhere from 100 meters to 300 miles away are now coming off like eyewitnesses when in fact not one of their testimonies would hold up in a court of law. A judge would call these men liars and disallow their biased statements...
McCain has already asked President Bush to distance himself from this dishonest and dishonorable attack. Advice that Bush should take one step further by ordering Vietnam draft-dodger Karl Rove and the rest of the character-assassination squad who zapped McCain and Cleland to back off. And then publicly stand tall and say that this type of behavior insults every vet whos served America in peace and war.
I keep waiting for someone to point out the obvious here, that the Bush administration, while making political hay of their patriotic fervor, do not behave like patriots. True patriots would not have outed Valerie Plame to get a little cheap payback on her husband, whether he was right or wrong about the yellowcake from Niger. They burned an important intelligence asset and put a lot of lives and an ongoing counter-proliferation project in danger.
And I don't want to hear any of that "if you say anything against us you're insulting the troops" nonsense from an administration that sent tens of thousands of American soldiers into battle without body armor, and with thin-skinned vehicles so vulnerable to roadside IED and RPG attacks that the soldiers were forced to take what few flakjackets they had and attach them to the outside of the vehicles and hope that would protect them.
Mr. Bush, don't give me weepy-eyed speeches about supporting the troops when you're sending them into battle so unprepared that a lot of them died in attacks they should have been able to survive. And don't tell me how patriotic you are when your underlings are burning national security assets to settle political scores. And don't give me that old song and dance about honoring our war heroes while your campaign attack dogs have dishonestly savaged decorated veterans. While you were partying it up back home in a cushy assignment your dad pulled strings to get for you, Max Cleland was winning a silver star and a bronze star before giving an arm and both legs for his country. Yet your party dared to attack his patriotism and put ads on TV with his face morphing into Osama Bin Laden. While you were bravely defending Alabama against the Vietcong, John McCain was being tortured as a prisoner of war. Yet you saw fit to smear him in 2000 because he was a threat to beat you in the presidential campaign. Don't talk to me about patriotism because your actions have already spoken far louder than your empty words can now.
And by the same token, Mr. Kerry, I don't wanna hear about your time in Vietnam anymore. It doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't tell me anything about what you would do in office as president. As dishonest as most of the Republican attacks on your service has been, you are also guilty of exaggerating your heroism for political gain. You didn't volunteer for the "dangerous duty" as swift boat captain because when you began that duty, the swift boats weren't sent up the rivers, they only did coastal patrols and that was among the safest jobs you could have in the Navy during Vietnam. And it appears that your claim about taking your boat into Cambodia is complete fiction. So give it a rest, already. I don't wanna hear about what you did 35 years ago on the other side of the world, whether it's real or invented. I wanna hear what you've been doing for the last 20 years in the Senate, and I wanna hear what you'll do if you're elected president.
- Log in to post comments
Good Morning
I am new to this blog and find it very interesting.
One Question:
What happened to your rebuttal of William Gibbons treatise on evolutionaries vs creationists? I seem to have missed the outcome.
I do agree with you wholeheartedly on the status of the political debate in this country. Nothing new, of course. I think we should bring back public dueling. I am also getting a little tired of my friends saying "I dont like Kerry but I hate Bush". I admire anyone who has the gumption to, at least, try and lead.
Ed, It doesn't take take a great deal of intelligence and wisdom to point out all the shortcomings, dichotomies and weaknesses present in our world.
Wisdom brings leadership and solutions to issues.
Sincerely
Steve
What happened to your rebuttal of William Gibbons treatise on evolutionaries vs creationists? I seem to have missed the outcome.
There wasn't an outcome. On July 8th, after I posted a long article about biostratigraphy, he replied, "I will reply more directly (hopefully tonight) regarding your question on biostratigraphy.." A day or two later, he emailed me a couple of articles he has written about Mokele-mbembe, and that was the last appearance he made. He never replied, either directly or indirectly.
Ed, It doesn't take take a great deal of intelligence and wisdom to point out all the shortcomings, dichotomies and weaknesses present in our world. Wisdom brings leadership and solutions to issues.
I think I offered a solution. Bush needs to either stop pretending to be a patriot, or start actually being one, and Kerry needs to shut up about Vietnam and tell us what he would actually do in office. And Americans need to stop voting for men like either of them. None of that is likely to happen, but they're still the only solutions.
Maybe the solution is to stop lying, but I view that as more of a symptom. We didnt care when it was proved that Clinton lied to a Grand Jury, however noble his reasons.
Lying is modus operandi in Washington. It is how the business of the country is done. We have to put up with it because we as a culture refuse to do anything about it.
FDR took us to war with Germany when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. There was a huge fuss made then but now they are our Greatest Generation. Our morals changed with history
Kerry hasn't done much lately in the Senate except vote for the war in Iraq.
Bush maybe is operating on a belief system that he deems as a moral imperative.
Maybe moral authority is evolving even more.
Sincerely
Steve
Maybe the solution is to stop lying, but I view that as more of a symptom. We didnt care when it was proved that Clinton lied to a Grand Jury, however noble his reasons.
We've never cared about it, and that goes back long before Clinton. Our government has lied to us since long before Clinton came along, and about far more important things. We went to Vietnam on a lie (the Gulf of Tonkin incident). The ultimate blame has to rest with the citizenry, which consistently votes for people who lie the best.
Lying is modus operandi in Washington. It is how the business of the country is done. We have to put up with it because we as a culture refuse to do anything about it.
That's a tautology - we've put up with it because we've put up with it. I disagree that it's how the business of the country is done, however. It's how the business of politics is done, and that is the case because, of course, it works. The populace prefers lies to the truth, the truth is difficult and uncomfortable and often not what we want to hear. Mencken said nearly a century ago:
And that is a statement even more accurate today than in 1918.
Kerry hasn't done much lately in the Senate except vote for the war in Iraq.
He's too busy telling lies on the campaign trail to get elected to actually do his job. His opponent, naturally, is doing the same thing. They will both spend the next few months trying to convince us that the other is corrupt, dishonest and unfit to lead, and they will both succeed brilliantly at it.
Bush maybe is operating on a belief system that he deems as a moral imperative.
If he deems it a moral imperative to behave in an unpatriotic manner, launching dishonest attacks on men with a far better record of service to their country than he has, while selling prepackaged patriotic fervor to his followers, then I would suggest his moral compass is more than just a bit off course.
So what is the solution?
What do we need to do?
I'm not sure there is a solution. As long as a majority of the people prefer comforting lies to uncomfortable truths, they are easily manipulated. The same techniques of psychological manipulation - the tools of marketing and public relations - that convince people to buy a certain type of car or a certain brand of clothing because it will confer upon them greater status, are also used to convince them that Republicans are in favor of smaller government and Democrats are for the common man, both palpable lies. But as long as those lies are accepted by the public, as long as they remain content to settle for meaningless cliches and open emotional appeals and never to peer behind the curtain, I see little hope of change. Historically, I don't think it's ever been much different in the past except perhaps in small populations. Larger civilizations tend to have the same basic structure, only the names of the groups change: serf = peasants = consumers/workers, and king = chief = prime ministers = CEOs.
Bravo! I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils! I get the feeling that you feel the same about Kerry as I do about Bush.
As for there not being a solution to the situation, I'm a bit more optimistic. The advanced global society that we are heading towards is new and may effect things in a positive manner. The internet has taken off only recently. It is much easier for regular folks to get access to information than it has ever before especially about political candidates. I just think that it is up to people like us to try to show others just how rotten all the candidates are. Hopefully the impact of this easy info over the next fifty+ years will be positive.
You are quite correct.
However , while much of history has been the same, there have been punctuations of great leaders or event that have made society better
Do we as a nation, make it possible for a great leader, or do the times not require it yet? In the history of the world, things are pretty good in America, comparatively.
I think dueling is the solution.
I do not find the global society any more advanced or any more or less egotistical then at any other time in history.
The world just has more people with faster communication. Basic desires are still exactly the same.
Have nots want to be the Haves. Haves want to keep on being the Haves.
Basic human condition
Good to see Hack getting some attention from outside the Military Bloggers. You have an astonishingly good cyber-eye for character.
As you know I was initially supportive of the war in Iraq. One of the first signs I knew I was wrong was some of the stuff Hack wrote about the war and the tactics.
Alhough at the time much of what he speculated on had yet to happen, his integrity and down right no-bullshit bluntness has always held a lot of wieght with me. he helped clue me in from the get go that I might be wrong. Not an easy task ebcuase as every knows, I'm always right...
Being on the opposite side of Hack in any military endeavor should give anyone pause to carefully reconsider their position. (I loved it when he won the war games in which he played the insurgent.)
I met Hackworth around 1982 when he was living in Australia and doing the rounds, as a student newspaper editor/author/artist etc. He has an enormous personal presence, but I found him an amazing fellow, though at that time I was not in agreement with him, can't recall why.
He told me that he became really worried when he heard LBJ say "Let's nuke the bastards - I don't want to be the first American President to lose a war!" Hack was on the President's executive staff. Basically, this shows how American foreign policy is skewed from the get-go.
Ed, how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that Kerry's saying he was in Cambodia was a "complete fiction"? The only people who contradict him on this, as far as I can tell, are members of the Republican swift-boat veterans group. Maybe you choose to take their word for it over his, but does that justify a proclamation as decisive as "complete fiction"?
Ed, how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that Kerry's saying he was in Cambodia was a "complete fiction"? The only people who contradict him on this, as far as I can tell, are members of the Republican swift-boat veterans group. Maybe you choose to take their word for it over his, but does that justify a proclamation as decisive as "complete fiction"?
My understanding, from the National Review article, was that a man who actually served on his boat specifically (as opposed to the SwiftVet group that didn't serve in his boat at all) said that they were never in Cambodia and that there were blockades to prevent that from happening and they were never there. I combine that with Kerry's multiple versions of the story - sometimes he's said that the patrols took them "near" Cambodia, other times he's actually claimed that they were on a secret mission for the CIA to go in to Cambodia, and both times he's related that to Nixon's denial of our presence in Cambodia, but he was out of Vietnam before that took place - and it sounds a lot like fiction to me. I haven't checked into it all that closely because, frankly, it just doesn't matter to me. I'm tired of hearing about Vietnam from both sides.
John-
You bring up an interesting point, and one that I've mulled over in the past. In America, the dominant view of Vietnam is that we could have won the war if only the politicians would have let the military people fight to win, including perhaps even using nukes. I've always found this a bizarre position, and it cuts to the heart of how Americans perceive war, I think. I think Americans think that a war is a game to be won, as opposed to being an action taken to get a result. War is a continuation of politics by other means, the old saying goes, which means that when you go to war you have to have a goal in mind, a result to be gained, and that result isn't just to "win the game" and get the other side to yell "Uncle!". But when I ask people what goal we could have achieved in Vietnam, they're dumbfounded. "Well we should have fought to win". But win WHAT? What positive result would have happened if we'd "won"? Would we be safer? Would we have gained control of an important strategic area? I've never heard a good answer to that, and I think that's because Americans, as a group, really do just view war as a game. The goal is simply to win the game, even if that doesn't achieve anything valuable.