An Open Letter to the Troops: You’re Not Defending Our Freedoms!

[Sallow]

OK, you just keep on telling yourself all that. Also remind yourself that you can do that because you never have to prove it.

K.

Let's do the Q&A thing.

Let's see how honest you are?

Who was head of the CIA when the United States was supporting the mujahideen?

And don't give me no ISI crapola.

I don't know but I would Guess Bush 41. And I say so what?

And whom did George W. Bush open up Arbusto with?

 

[Sallow]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

******* conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

Really? Quite a few VC and NVA could tell you that this one can shoot VERY straight, with or without a scope...except that their discovery of that fact was a terminal event for them, and they are no longer around to discuss the matter.

And WTF were Americans doing in Vietnam?

 

[Jessica Blume]

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign relations." -- Henry Kissinger

 

[The Gadfly]

Iraq was a war crime. So was Vietnam.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To bad the wrong person did it and screwed the pooch in front of the whole wide world.

Obama got it right by offing Osama.

******* conservatives can't shoot straight with a scope.

Really? Quite a few VC and NVA could tell you that this one can shoot VERY straight, with or without a scope...except that their discovery of that fact was a terminal event for them, and they are no longer around to discuss the matter.

And how do you feel about that?

To fully understand that, you'd have to have seen some examples of their handiwork. Ever seen a village they decided to "make an example of"? No? Well, I have, and it's not something you'd ever forget; everything from babies to old men and women, tortured in ways that made us puke; stuff I would never imagine a human being capable of doing. You want to know how I feel about killing "people" who did that? Just grim satisfaction, nothing more. What am I "supposed" to feel? Should I feel sad? Guilty? Well, I don't.

 

[MikeK]

Mike,

Mr. Hornberger directed his remarks to the troops. Since they are , to use your words, "only doing what is required by the UCMJ", it can be easily inferred that the intended purpose of those remarks would be to encourage them to (a) desert, (b) resist deployment, (c)resist and/or disobey orders (d) not re-enlist or any and all of the foregoing. Well, that's not new, either; did the "protest movement not encourage any or all of the same, in its messages/comments to soldiers during Vietnam? A simple yes or no will suffice. I am not asking if you personally did so, or if any members of VVAW did so (I already know the answer to the latter). Did people involved in the protest movement advocate MUTINY? Isn't that what Mr. Hornberger in effect advocates now? I was just informing him (and you) that despite your hopes, that is not going to happen; it didn't back then, and won't now.

P.S. You have any idea of what the majority of Vietnam vets think of VVAW (it is not anything good, not among those I know).

There was an element of the Vietnam protest movement known colloquially as the Jane Fonda Brigade. Contrary to popular belief, these hell-raising, so-called "hippie types" represented the smallest segment of the overall movement which consisted mainly of letter writing campaigns, speaking engagements, leaflet distribution and visits to Congressional offices. The reason the Jane Fonda Brigade became popularly representative of the movement was their general demeanor and aggressive style which attracted media attention. It was this demeanor and aggressive style which eventually gave rise to the alleged spitting on homecoming vets myth, which has proven to be utterly false. That never happened.

I can't speak for any other part of the Country, but the most aggressive manifestation of the protest movement in the New York City area consisted of the sit-ins at Columbia and Fordham Universities. At no time did I ever witness any form of abusive conduct toward military personnel. As an ex-Marine, and speaking for those actual Vietnam veterans who joined the movement, that kind of thing would not have been tolerated. Our contact with active military personnel, including recruiters, consisted mainly of trying to convince them that they were serving a corrupted, incompetent government and not their Country. We did not encourage desertion or mutiny. The only illegal conduct I ever saw or heard of were the draft-card burnings.

For the most part Vietnam protest demonstrations remained relatively peaceful until the My Lai incident exposure drew attention to aspects of the Vietnam debacle which were simply intolerable. That kind of manifest insanity is what caused voices to be raised.

 

[The Gadfly]

Mike,

Mr. Hornberger directed his remarks to the troops. Since they are , to use your words, "only doing what is required by the UCMJ", it can be easily inferred that the intended purpose of those remarks would be to encourage them to (a) desert, (b) resist deployment, (c)resist and/or disobey orders (d) not re-enlist or any and all of the foregoing. Well, that's not new, either; did the "protest movement not encourage any or all of the same, in its messages/comments to soldiers during Vietnam? A simple yes or no will suffice. I am not asking if you personally did so, or if any members of VVAW did so (I already know the answer to the latter). Did people involved in the protest movement advocate MUTINY? Isn't that what Mr. Hornberger in effect advocates now? I was just informing him (and you) that despite your hopes, that is not going to happen; it didn't back then, and won't now.

P.S. You have any idea of what the majority of Vietnam vets think of VVAW (it is not anything good, not among those I know).

There was an element of the Vietnam protest movement known colloquially as the Jane Fonda Brigade. Contrary to popular belief, these hell-raising, so-called "hippie types" represented the smallest segment of the overall movement which consisted mainly of letter writing campaigns, speaking engagements, leaflet distribution and visits to Congressional offices. The reason the Jane Fonda Brigade became popularly representative of the movement was their general demeanor and aggressive style which attracted media attention. It was this demeanor and aggressive style which eventually gave rise to the alleged spitting on homecoming vets myth, which has proven to be utterly false. That never happened.

I can't speak for any other part of the Country, but the most aggressive manifestation of the protest movement in the New York City area consisted of the sit-ins at Columbia and Fordham Universities. At no time did I ever witness any form of abusive conduct toward military personnel. As an ex-Marine, and speaking for those actual Vietnam veterans who joined the movement, that kind of thing would not have been tolerated. Our contact with active military personnel, including recruiters, consisted mainly of trying to convince them that they were serving a corrupted, incompetent government and not their Country. We did not encourage desertion or mutiny. The only illegal conduct I ever saw or heard of were the draft-card burnings.

For the most part Vietnam protest demonstrations remained relatively peaceful until the My Lai incident exposure drew attention to aspects of the Vietnam debacle which were simply intolerable. That kind of manifest insanity is what caused voices to be raised.

Mike,
I'm not saying the anti-war movement was a monolith-it clearly was not. As you know, it comprised everything from committed pacifists, to communist radicals, everything from disaffected vets to extremists like Ayers and Fonda. The movement as a whole may not have encouraged any illegality, but some elements of it did; there were definitely calls for troops to desert or mutiny. Most of that, like the curses and insults, the throwing of things (tomatoes, eggs, and on one documented occasion, blood or something meant to resemble it) was from small groups of what we could call the lunatic fringe (I'm sure you'll agree there were such people). To be fair about it, I've heard from other vets that some of the protestors treated them very kindly; that wasn't my experience, but I have no reason to doubt it.

Incidentally I ran across your other post regarding the "Rambo movies". Actually I've never seen them. I think the first war movie I watched after Vietnam was "Saving Private Ryan". Somehow, having repeated replays of the real thing in my dreams kind of took away my enthusiasm for the genre. I don't know whether any "spitting incidents were ever officially verified, or not. I don't think any of that was ever on a mass scale, either, though there were, I believe, individual acts. In any case, the curses and insults definitely DID happen, and regardless of who was responsible for them, they still hurt. Of course, I guess you'll insist I "prove" that, too.

You may be and may have been completely honorable in your own behavior; I hope, that as a veteran yourself, you would be. However, that movement of yours had some very dishonorable people associated with it, and you could at least acknowledge that much. I mean, after all, after the My Lai business came out, there were those among your movement telling the world that ALL officers were just like him. Dammit, we were NOT. Calley failed his oath, failed his country, failed his superiors, and failed his men. His actions (and his inactions) were a disgrace. Most of us did anything but what he did, and yet, from the "movement" out came the broad brush. Some of it got really mean after that. Sorry, but when I've done nothing wrong, I'll be damned if I'm going to act ashamed, to make people who hate everything I stand for to begin with feel better. You may not have intended to encourage people like that, but the antiwar movement did encourage them, whether it intended to, or not. A lot of us did have a long road back, and lunatic fringe or not, those people made it harder. You're at least as stuck with them, as we are with those soldiers who went too far in-country.

In any case, you have your view, and I have mine. I think it's safe to say we are never going to agree on Vietnam, and probably not any other war since or to come, either.

 

[MikeK]

[Mike,

I'm not saying the anti-war movement was a monolith-it clearly was not. As you know, it comprised everything from committed pacifists, to communist radicals, everything from disaffected vets to extremists like Ayers and Fonda. The movement as a whole may not have encouraged any illegality, but some elements of it did; there were definitely calls for troops to desert or mutiny. Most of that, like the curses and insults, the throwing of things (tomatoes, eggs, and on one documented occasion, blood or something meant to resemble it) was from small groups of what we could call the lunatic fringe (I'm sure you'll agree there were such people). To be fair about it, I've heard from other vets that some of the protestors treated them very kindly; that wasn't my experience, but I have no reason to doubt it.

[...]

The diversity of personalities attending this (and any other) Internet forum is analogous to the diversity of types who participated in the Vietnam protest movement. And for the same reason I have relegated a dozen or so punks, bad-mouthers and crazies to my Ignore list and transact only with those who are capable of civilized communication, the protest group I associated with in Brooklyn consisted of people who were not inclined to stupid, uncivilized behavior. I can honestly tell you I never saw anyone behaving toward uniformed military personnel the way it's been described. I won't insist that it didn't happen but I never saw it and for that reason I tend to believe it was the exception rather than the rule.

I should add that my group certainly didn't believe that gathering at an airport and cursing at homecoming troops would benefit our objective. And it should be noted that quite a few of the Vietnam protesters were relatives of conscripts who were serving. Mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. These people were pissed off -- but not at the troops.

Unfortunately the media paid attention to and sensationalized the hell-raisers but pretty much ignored the bulk of the movement. Reporters never attended the PTA and union meetings where we spoke and passed out literature. Our concern was not to denigrate the troops but to put an end to the purposeless madness in Vietnam and get them out of there.