James Lileks: Kerry Supporters Have a New Take on Vietnam War

Newhouse News Service ^ | May 5, 2004 | James Lileks

[quidnunc]

Making John Kerry commander in chief would be like making Louis Farrakhan the ambassador to Israel. At least that's the opinion of several scores of military commanders and other soldiers, all of whom have signed a damning letter critical of Kerry's approach to national defense.

Cue the predictable howls: You can't question his patriotism! Well, no one did. They just questioned his judgment. Ralph Nader would be a bad CinC; he'd make the Army redesign the tanks to run on solar power and demand that unmanned Predators be piloted to create jobs. Dennis Kucinich would be a wretched CinC; he'd send the Navy to sail into foreign ports and use the big guns to shoot flowers and stuffed animals into hostile territory. Pat Buchanan would deploy the entire infantry on the Mexican border with orders to shoot anyone darker than a grocery bag — bad CinC. Yet each of these men in his own curious way is a patriot, inasmuch as he wants the best for America. They just have unusual definitions of what's best.

Kerry's supporters find proof of his patriotism in his Vietnam service, but this forces Democrats to describe the war in terms one hasn't found on the left since John F. Kennedy's day. As Dick Durbin, D-Ill., put it the other day on the Senate floor: "John Kerry led men into battle. He defended America."

Wait a minute. Hold on. So it's now accepted wisdom on the left that the Vietnam War was conducted in the defense of the United States? Interesting. Nice to know they've come around to realize it was part of a battle against Communism. (You remember Communism. It was in all the papers.) Vietnam wasn't the long twilight-struggle part, this was the broad-daylight-struggle portion of the Cold War. But didn't the left view Vietnam as a racist, atrocity-packed, misguided intervention in a civil war? Can it be all those bad things and still be considered to be a defensive act?

Apparently so. Maybe in 30 years the left will have a similar epiphany about Iraq.

-snip-

[cvq3842]

Great article! I marveled at the first sentence alone! I'll have to use the link and read the whole thing.

[what's up]

Amazing how all the Dims now seem so patriotic about Vietnam...going on about how the soldiers there were so brave, etc.

It has been their practice until this year to diss those who served in Vietnam.

[Prov1322]

BTTT

[upchuck]

Great article! I marveled at the first sentence alone! I'll have to use the link and read the whole thing.

No bother, here it is. There was no reason to excerpt it as newhousenews is not on the list^.

Making John Kerry commander in chief would be like making Louis Farrakhan the ambassador to Israel. At least that's the opinion of several scores of military commanders and other soldiers, all of whom have signed a damning letter critical of Kerry's approach to national defense.

Cue the predictable howls: You can't question his patriotism! Well, no one did. They just questioned his judgment. Ralph Nader would be a bad CinC; he'd make the Army redesign the tanks to run on solar power and demand that unmanned Predators be piloted to create jobs. Dennis Kucinich would be a wretched CinC; he'd send the Navy to sail into foreign ports and use the big guns to shoot flowers and stuffed animals into hostile territory. Pat Buchanan would deploy the entire infantry on the Mexican border with orders to shoot anyone darker than a grocery bag -- bad CinC. Yet each of these men in his own curious way is a patriot, inasmuch as he wants the best for America. They just have unusual definitions of what's best.

Kerry's supporters find proof of his patriotism in his Vietnam service, but this forces Democrats to describe the war in terms one hasn't found on the left since John F. Kennedy's day. As Dick Durbin, D-Ill., put it the other day on the Senate floor: "John Kerry led men into battle. He defended America."

Wait a minute. Hold on. So it's now accepted wisdom on the left that the Vietnam War was conducted in the defense of the United States? Interesting. Nice to know they've come around to realize it was part of a battle against Communism. (You remember Communism. It was in all the papers.) Vietnam wasn't the long twilight-struggle part, this was the broad-daylight-struggle portion of the Cold War. But didn't the left view Vietnam as a racist, atrocity-packed, misguided intervention in a civil war? Can it be all those bad things and still be considered to be a defensive act?

Apparently so. Maybe in 30 years the left will have a similar epiphany about Iraq.

Which brings us to the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. Some insist you have to serve before you can have an opinion on military matters. Otherwise you're a Chickenhawk. Does this mean you're a Chickenjudge if you criticize the miscreants who abused the prisoners? Probably. Who cares? We can all agree that the idiots who abused these prisoners should stand trial, and if they're guilty, make them swap the uniform they disgraced for one with black and white stripes. Here's your hammer; there's the rock pile. Five years or five tons of pebbles, whichever comes first.

But there we go again, questioning their patriotism.

Doesn't that seem like an utterly irrelevant accusation now? Sure. And it's as meaningless as another hoary trope of the left: "We Support the Troops." "Support" was always conditional, and defined rather narrowly: It meant "bring them home as soon as possible, and in the meantime send happy be-safe mind-beams in their direction." It's difficult to support the troops and oppose the mission. Do the people who opposed the war but supported the troops support the troops who just flushed America's reputation down the commode? Of course not. A more accurate slogan would be "We Support Some Troops Performing a Limited Set of Non-Violent Objectives," but it makes a lousy bumper sticker. And it makes you look less, well, patriotic.

We've become so mired in these cliches that we are losing sight of the goal: victory. The withdrawal from Fallujah may have strategic wisdom, but it feels wrong. The misdeeds of the prison guards make us suspect we've ceded all possible claims to the moral high ground -- indeed, to some our moral high ground looks like Tora Bora. At home, the inanities of the presidential campaign seem like a diversion from the war, not a clarification of the struggle we face.

It may take a hard right cross to the jaw to focus our attention on the job. And yet you think: Pray it never comes.

May 4, 2004

[nothingnew]

Thanks for the full post upchuck.

FMCDH

[Tacis]

Why can't we question Kerry's patriotism? He bugged out! He avoided contact with the enemy and used the AWOL time to bad-mouth the brave men he left behind to do his job.

That's treason and cowardice!! After his summer vacation in Nam he worked harder and longer for Charlie than he ever had for the USN. Now, when asked about his records, he submits partial and doctored records that falsify what he did and what he has said about his actions.

He has told so many lies about his service and avoided so many opportunities to correct those lies that, absolutely, his patriotism is in question! Remember, Benedict Arnold had a good reputation 'til HE turned traitor!

[antaresequity]

Pat Buchanan would deploy the entire infantry on the Mexican border with orders to shoot anyone darker than a grocery bag

rotflmao

[Doug Loss]

My dictionary defines patriotism as "love and loyal support of one's country." John Kerry's patriotism (and indeed, that of virtually every hard-leftist) isn't in question. It doesn't exist, by definition. When Hillary says, "How DARE you call us unpatriotic?!" (even though no one did at that point; we just thought it) the answer is easy. "Your actions have betrayed your heart to us. You are unpatriotic from your first words."

[AlaskaErik]

Yet each of these men in his own curious way is a patriot, inasmuch as he wants the best for America. They just have unusual definitions of what's best.

So if someone wanted communism for America because he feels that's what would be best, would he still be a patriot? I believe that patriotism has to be grounded in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You can't want to destroy America and be a patriot...they are mutually exclusive.

[devolve]

John Kerry confessed to the Harvard Crimson staff that he signed out fraudulently at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, put on civvies, and flew Bobby Kennedy's ex speech writer and then anti-war protest organizer to a New York VVAW protest rally.

Not while in the Navy active Reserves or inactive Reserves.

While on active duty.

Not AWOL.

Desertion and aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.

A Court Martial offense with hard time on conviction.

Doubt it?

Ask the libs at the Harvard Crimson!

[NWO Slave]

[alloysteel]

Actually I do question John Kerry's patriotism. Not that he is not stirred by strong emotion for what he considers to be his intellectual home, but that home is not the America I recognize and pledge allegiance to. His shining illuminated ideal is the United Nations, which he has shown to be foremost in his thoughts, both as a guiding principle and as a final repository of authority. In that travesty of a world government, he sees the US as but another province, one that should be kept in check lest too much advantage over other nation-states should accrue and the fragile balance between the weak and the strong forever tilts to the strong.

The UN is not a parliament, it is not even a decent debating society. There is, however, ample opportunity to insert some means of intercepting certain flows of capital between various countries, and if the arrangement can be made sufficiently advantageous, many individual fortunes may be accumulated in this manner. There is not much legal oversight of these deals, and no effective means of prosecuting those who exceed their authority. Unelected and unaccountable, the UN lives mostly at the sufferance of the wealthiest nations, yet many of those same relatively wealthy nations shrug off the burden that should rightly fall upon them. For many years, the US carried an inordinate part of the burden of maintaining the UN, and even now, these other nations that are well able to assume the responsibilities will not step up and will not assert even the smallest initiative to fund the UN, or carry out its chartered duties.

If only for the question of whether the US should surrender its sovereigny to the UN, I say, those who propose and support that view have no business being in charge of things in the US.

The rest of the world would have to become like America before that is an acceptable objective. It can't be, you say? And why not?

[quidnunc]

upchuck wrote: There was no reason to excerpt it as newhousenews is not on the list.

Oh yeah?

Read the Newhouse News user agreement here:

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/useragree.html

[driftless]

Using the standard screwball lib logic, if you are not a cop, you can never question the way cops do their job. You should never be able to demand policemen do their duty if you yourself were never on the force. How dare you demand that a law enforcement officer arrest a dangerous criminal if you yourself are not ready and eager to do so. Ditto for firemen. There's a huge fire threatening to burn town half the town. How dare you demand that firemen fight the blaze if you yourself are not ready to ride the truck and grab a hose. And if there's a building on fire full of people, how dare you demand that the firemen try to save them if you yourself are not ready to grab an axe and enter the conflagration. Standard lib (il)logic.

[potlatch]

I love your graphic, sounds just like him, LOL.

[cvq3842]

Thanks!

[upchuck]

Yer most welcome!

[cvq3842]

ROTFL!