Supporting Combat Veterans

<p>This op-ed written by James Webb, Secretary of the Navy during the Reagen administration, was published last week in The New York Times. (The link I added earlier disappeared with many other posts.) I believe Mr. Webb raises some very important issues.</p>

<p>================================
Purple Heartbreakers </p>

<p>By JAMES WEBB
Published: January 18, 2006 </p>

<p>Arlington, Va. </p>

<p>IT should come as no surprise that an arch-conservative Web site is questioning whether Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has been critical of the war in Iraq, deserved the combat awards he received in Vietnam. </p>

<p>After all, in recent years extremist Republican operatives have inverted a longstanding principle: that our combat veterans be accorded a place of honor in political circles. This trend began with the ugly insinuations leveled at Senator John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries and continued with the slurs against Senators Max Cleland and John Kerry, and now Mr. Murtha. </p>

<p>Military people past and present have good reason to wonder if the current administration truly values their service beyond its immediate effect on its battlefield of choice. The casting of suspicion and doubt about the actions of veterans who have run against President Bush or opposed his policies has been a constant theme of his career. This pattern of denigrating the service of those with whom they disagree risks cheapening the public's appreciation of what it means to serve, and in the long term may hurt the Republicans themselves. </p>

<p>Not unlike the Clinton "triangulation" strategy, the approach has been to attack an opponent's greatest perceived strength in order to diminish his overall credibility. To no one's surprise, surrogates carry out the attacks, leaving President Bush and other Republican leaders to benefit from the results while publicly distancing themselves from the actual remarks. </p>

<p>During the 2000 primary season, John McCain's life-defining experiences as a prisoner of war in Vietnam were diminished through whispers that he was too scarred by those years to handle the emotional burdens of the presidency. The wide admiration that Senator Max Cleland gained from building a career despite losing three limbs in Vietnam brought on the smug non sequitur from critics that he had been injured in an accident and not by enemy fire. John Kerry's voluntary combat duty was systematically diminished by the well-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in a highly successful effort to insulate a president who avoided having to go to war. </p>

<p>And now comes Jack Murtha. The administration tried a number of times to derail the congressman's criticism of the Iraq war, including a largely ineffective effort to get senior military officials to publicly rebuke him (Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was the only one to do the administration's bidding there). </p>

<p>Now the Cybercast News Service, a supposedly independent organization with deep ties to the Republican Party, has dusted off the Swift Boat Veterans playbook, questioning whether Mr. Murtha deserved his two Purple Hearts. The article also implied that Mr. Murtha did not deserve the Bronze Star he received, and that the combat-distinguishing "V" on it was questionable. It then called on Mr. Murtha to open up his military records. </p>

<p>Cybercast News Service is run by David Thibault, who formerly worked as the senior producer for "Rising Tide," the televised weekly news magazine produced by the Republican National Committee. One of the authors of the Murtha article was Marc Morano, a long-time writer and producer for Rush Limbaugh. </p>

<p>The accusations against Mr. Murtha were very old news, principally coming from defeated political rivals. Aligned against their charges are an official letter from Marine Corps Headquarters written nearly 40 years ago affirming Mr. Murtha's eligibility for his Purple Hearts - "you are entitled to the Purple Heart and a Gold Star in lieu of a second Purple Heart for wounds received in action" - and the strict tradition of the Marine Corps regarding awards. While in other services lower-level commanders have frequently had authority to issue prestigious awards, in the Marines Mr. Murtha's Vietnam Bronze Star would have required the approval of four different awards boards. </p>

<p>The Bush administration's failure to support those who have served goes beyond the smearing of these political opponents. One of the most regrettable examples comes, oddly enough, from modern-day Vietnam. The government-run War Remnants Museum, a popular tourist site in downtown Ho Chi Minh City, includes an extensive section on "American atrocities." The largest display is devoted to Bob Kerrey, a former United States senator and governor of Nebraska, recipient of the Medal of Honor and member of the 9/11 commission. </p>

<p>In the display, Mr. Kerrey is flatly labeled a war criminal by the Vietnamese government, and the accompanying text gives a thoroughly propagandized version of an incident that resulted in civilian deaths during his time in Vietnam. This display has been up for more than two years. One finds it hard to imagine another example in which a foreign government has been allowed to so characterize the service of a distinguished American with no hint of a diplomatic protest. </p>

<p>The political tactic of playing up the soldiers on the battlefield while tearing down the reputations of veterans who oppose them could eventually cost the Republicans dearly. It may be one reason that a preponderance of the Iraq war veterans who thus far have decided to run for office are doing so as Democrats. </p>

<p>A young American now serving in Iraq might rightly wonder whether his or her service will be deliberately misconstrued 20 years from now, in the next rendition of politically motivated spinmeisters who never had the courage to step forward and put their own lives on the line. </p>

<p>Rudyard Kipling summed up this syndrome quite neatly more than a century ago, writing about the frequent hypocrisy directed at the British soldiers of his day: </p>

<p>An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; </p>

<p>An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees! </p>

<p>James Webb, a secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, was a Marine platoon and company commander in Vietnam.</p>

<p>Let the games begin!!</p>

<p>(Im staying out of this one!)</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>"(Im staying out of this one!)"</p>

<p>Me too, but just this once.</p>

<p>Well, I am staying out for right now; but that's just because I am having another drink . . . . [Other than that, I think its a good article that smacks of the truth!]</p>

<p>cheers bill,
currently enjoying a glass of delightful champagne from a California vineyard!</p>

<p>I don't see any non-partisan points in that piece.</p>

<p>it was in the op-ed section of The New York Times! (see original post) Are you questioning the veracity of the author?</p>

<p>Politics has always been dirty and I don't have much hope that it will improve without major statute reform and enforcement over decades.</p>

<p>Ok head first for me!
First - I can read all sides of an issue from various newspapers, also pay attention to the TV, bloggs, talk radio. Can we please leave this stuff out - politics with military - please.
Second - Regarding Mr. Murta, how many of our leading democrats supported his efforts when he first came home in the 60's. How many of them called him a hero back then?? Who is using who ?
Third - I 'll try real hard to stop commenting about politics, I will probably be biting my lip after what I've been reading these last few days. Chill out (I say to myself)...</p>

<p>Just never mix politics and military in you heart (I'd like to believe most people don't)...you'll live longer! ;)</p>

<p>Unfortunately, military is one of the rawest forms of human power manifestation and as such, will always draw corruption. Covering up the corruption, is where politics comes in.</p>

<p>We finally have a commander in chief who not only cares about world liberty and peace, but is willing to call bluff on all those who would pretend to care and just look the other way unless forced to pay attention to world liberty.</p>

<p>The days of world governments turning the other cheek to tyrants or terrorist natured organizations' hate crimes and racial or religious human exterminations have to end sooner than later if this world is to survive into the next centuries. The world powers have to unite in this regard, and if it takes war to force this right for human dignity...than so be it.</p>

<p>Controlling corruption along the way is probably the most daunting task of all. In the end....unless human nature corrals on the side of good nature and humility, we are doomed as a species. Some will say freedom breeds corruption, but without freedom, what's the point to life.</p>

<p>Thank god we have our dearly beloved soldiers (past, present and future) to stand on the line for principal which is bedrock in our constitution. And god we pray that our leaders who command these armed forces will stay true to the trust we bestow upon them.</p>

<p>Dad2be2010 ............ :)</p>

<p>So the Constitution is a charter to create world liberty, or is that only after reason 1 (no WMD"S in Iraq posing imminent threat to the US and reason 2 (no Al-Queda sitting down to dinner with Saddam) don't pan out?</p>

<p>When 9/11 happened did our commander in chief stand up and say our mission is to liberate the world from bad people? I don't think so.
The mission was to hunt down the perpetrators of 9/11 and anyone who harbors them. The world was right there with us. Instead of cultivating the world support for our cause after 9/11 we let it whither. We went in with one mission and now somehow we have found ourselves committed to liberating the Middle East from a cultural and religious reality that just isn't going to go away. Some of our leaders need to be a lot smarter and more forward thinking than they have demonstrated themselves to be as of late. Bush II did not learn the lesson from Bush 1, that toppling Iraq's government would leave a power vacuum after the first gulf war that Iran and it's Mullah's would be only too happy to pick up. Now we see Iran flexing it's muscles again as they see their neighbor gone and we are stuck in Iraq trying to keep it from being gobbled up by internal disputes or by it's neighbors.
We have hitched our wagon to the fate of the Iraqi people in the middle of looking for Osama and his network. </p>

<p>In the end it's not about politics or who is trying to cover up corruption---it's about good and bad decisions and the consequences of both.</p>

<p>We "thought" Iraq was working on a nuclear weapons program and we invaded to protect ourselves from the potential threat....now Iran says they ARE working on nuclear capability, they certainly have a chemical weapons capability after the Iran/Iraq war---they are certainly a threat to world peace, certainly Israel, why have we not begun massing on their borders? I think it's because we are learning our lessons in the Middle east the hard way.</p>

<p>If we are going to liberate the Middle East and protect the liberty of the oppressed all over the world as has been suggested above, we had better get the draft rolling again, and a wartime tax would most certainly be apropriate given the mission we are going to undertake. We had better start making friends with our allies again as well.</p>

<p>AND, we had better be prepared to be responsible for the outcome, because it's OUR sons and daughters we are depending on to achieve OUR mission. </p>

<p>I know, I know.........</p>

<p>The political climate after 911 was ripe to do what was right for the world. Anyone who thinks we went into IRAQ to find WMD or proof of ties with Osama is just kidding themselves.</p>

<p>We went in because of Saddam's blatent history of attrocities and his continued defiance of UN sanctions, etc.</p>

<p>Let's just stop denying this...</p>

<p>We went in for all the right reasons. It is just sad that politics prevents us from admitting it.</p>

<p>That is not what our President said. Was he playing "politics?"
Was Colin Powel playing "politics" when he made the case for War to the UN? I don't remember him saying anything about going to war in Iraq to stop "atrocities". It seems to me that North Korea stepped over both of those lines long before Sadaam was around, and continues to do so. "Politics" again? If you asked Americans then they will tell you what their President told them, we went into Iraq to disarm Iraq from WMD's and this effort was central to the "war on terror" and stopping Al-Queda. More "politics."?
Sounds a bit revisionist to me. There is nothing for the American people to "admit"---it's what our leadership told US and the world!</p>

<p>"Just never mix politics and military in your heart..." dad2b'2010</p>

<p>I strongly disagree for a number of reasons. Most importantly, a fundamental requirement of citizenship is participating in our democracy and being informed about issues that affect our nation (and hopefully the world). You’re naïve and wrong if you think politics and the military don’t mix. I would hope that US military officers and enlisted personnel would possess a keen awareness of domestic and global politics. Of course one doesn’t get this from listening to talk radio or watching Fox news. If you want a legitimate conservative point of view, at least read The Wall Street Journal.</p>

<p>The United States Naval Academy offers a Political Science major and has a dynamic and distinguished Department of Political Science:</p>

<p>“Welcome to the Naval Academy Political Science Department. Many of you might be surprised that the U.S. Naval Academy offers political science. If so, you may be even more surprised that we are regularly the largest single major at the Academy with an average of over 140 majors per class year (nearly 15 percent of the student body). We offer the full range of political science courses plus a number of more uncommon offerings such as Low Intensity Conflict, Civil-Military Relations and Intelligence and National Security. Our enrollments are about equal in courses on American political institutions and processes and those focusing on international relations and comparative government. Political science graduates excel in every warfare specialty in the Navy and Marine Corps. However, some of our graduates gravitate toward a professional career in political-military affairs.”</p>

<p>Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, though not a USNA grad, is a prime example of a military officer with a professional career in political-military affairs. Something is terribly wrong when we lose great talent like Mr. Powell. He also had great credibility with other nations.</p>

<p>dad2b'2010,
You may want to reread the speech Secretary of State Powell made to the UN Security Council. Are you suggesting that he didn't really believe what he was saying?</p>

<p>dad2b'2010,
Don't want to send you over the edge, but guess what major my mid is selecting? ;)</p>

<p>It doesn't matter what was said really. The action taken is what tells the real story. Politics is a necessary evil. And as far as the 'politics and military' thing...I was just suggesting that if you take politics to heart, you will almost always be disappointed. Where as taking military and our sons and daughters who serve to heart is a given necessity. You figure it out.</p>

<p>Also, 'policy' and 'politics' bear little resemblance in the modern world.</p>

<p>My world is still round...no edges to jump off or fall over at...Yet ;)</p>

<p>"It doesn't matter what was said really"</p>

<p>Wow, that was certainly true in Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, even Saddam's Iraq, but that's a big problem in a democracy. Particularly one that is trying to show the world that we "walk the talk".</p>

<p>What is in the press is rarely what is presented at the table. That is why the press isn't invited to national security meetings where key, real time decisions are made.</p>

<p>What is it you think is new about this? Since when does the general public EVER know what really goes on when it comes to national security.</p>

<p>National security and public forum will never mix efficiently in a timely enough manner to allow decisive real time national security action decisions. Even some policy decisions must be severely delayed and/or hidden from the public to allow our freedom to flourish. That is why we have a president, and that is why he has such power when it comes to national security. </p>

<p>We have to trust the decisions of those in the know. We don't have to like them after the fact, and no administration will ever be perfect, and we can influence general policy decisions of the future through discussion and protest.</p>

<p>But never will we have knowledge of live decisions which must remain secret to protect our sovereignty (unless we have some overly optimistic idiots in the positions we trust with our freedom).</p>