If anyone in America has an obligation to vote, it is most certainly Veterans--men and women who have personally sacrificed to preserve the principles that guide the greatest nation in the world. As a voting-block, we rank with AARP as one of the single-largest groups that should be courted by any person seeking elective political office. Sadly, there are fewer politicians serving in the United States Senate and House of Representatives than at any time in our history. I believe most military veterans will quickly agree with me that we need more of our brothers and sisters in elective office. I'm afraid, however, many of you will be quick to disagree with the issue I would like to address in this column.
There is great danger for any veteran who steps forward to seek elective office. Sadly, it seems that veterans are quick to "eat their own." Several years ago while attending a high-profile veterans function in Washington, DC, I was surprised to learn that the majority of the rhetoric was aimed at blasting Senator John McCain. The web was full of negative stories about the former Prisoner of War, much of it sensational and tabloid journalism. But the repetition of the criticism by so many veterans caused me to begin to wonder if my own admiring assessment of the man might be in error.
Then, while attending a Medal of Honor convention as a guest of the Society, I heard Medal of Honor recipient George Bud Day talk about his time at the Hanoi Hilton with John McCain. One of the most decorated heroes in American military history, Colonel Day is an incredible hero and an American icon. His respect for John McCain was quickly apparent, and I learned promptly the danger of giving too much credence to rumor and diatribe in the veteran community. Whether stemming from jealousy, or from some other source, the easiest way to become the enemy of a small but highly vocal group of veterans is to become high-profile and successful. Sadly, it can be a dangerous thing to be a veteran in the spotlight. One of the first things to be called into question is the nature of one's service...and all too often it comes from fellow veterans.
During the last presidential campaign, as a conservative and as a Republican I supported George Bush. Nonetheless, I was greatly disturbed to see veterans turn on Al Gore for the sheltered nature of his Vietnam service. First and foremost, I could understand that. If I had been the man's company commander, I'd have taken every step possible to keep the son of a prominent American politician out of harm's way. Secondarily, Al Gore as a correspondent for Castle Courier, my own unit's newspaper, covered the Lam Son 719 mission in the field. I was involved in that mission, earned the ARCOM with "V" for the initial assault, and may well have bumped into him in the early months of 1971. I know he was not TOTALLY sheltered--there was NO safe place when we returned to Khe Sahn.
The bottom line is this:
The honorable service of no veteran should be called into question, purely for political purpose or because one disagrees with the affiliation of that politician.
In the days leading up to the war in Iraq, one of the most high-profile protestors of the war was a former Army chaplain who earned the Medal of Honor in Vietnam. This man returned his Medal years ago in protest against other political policies, and continues to be involved in unpopular and often-radical movements. What this man has done since his service in Vietnam may be offensive to many, but it does not diminish the acts of heroism that earned him the title "hero" in Vietnam. Though he is not involved in the Medal of Honor Society, he is STILL a man who performed heroically under fire, and having heard first-hand from men who were there at the time, these still admire him for his courage in that moment in time. We may disagree with his current political activism, even despise his anti-war activities in Iraq, but the man's personal service in Vietnam is deserving of our respect.
In recent years we've seen former Senator Robert Kerrey assailed by some in the veterans community, his Medal of Honor called into question, and his service in Vietnam scrutinized for every detail of sensational war-crimes. As with Al Gore, I am certainly not a Kerrey fan politically, but I have ultimate respect for the man and his military service. I am saddened that so many of his fellow veterans, men who were not there to witness the man's service, are quick to jump on the bandwagon to try and destroy an American hero.
Heroism, and the nature of one's service, is in the eye of the beholder. As a historian, I could not begin to count the number of heroes I've heard bashed. Recently, while doing a story on a WWII airman, I interviewed a crewman who flew on the mission in which this individual died earning the Medal of Honor. "(Name) was an *****, this man told me. He never deserved to receive the Medal of Honor, and the Army only gave it to him because he was killed."
A few days later I interviewed another member of the crew of that same aircraft. This man was with the dying hero, indeed held him in his arms until the man died. With great emotion he related, "(Name) was one of the greatest heroes of the air war. It's sad so few people have ever heard his story."
I opted to make this the current topic for commentary, for we are now entering a new round of political maneuvering for the White House. Recently my email has been full of messages from veterans assailing the military record of Democratic front-runner Senator John Kerry (no relation to Bob Kerrey and NOT a Medal of Honor recipient). Despite the fact that Senator Kerry came home from Vietnam and engaged in radical anti-war activities, one cannot deny respect to his service before coming home that earned him the Silver Star, Bronze Star with "V", and three Purple Hearts. Sure, you will hear veterans claim that his Purple Hearts were awarded for minor wounds. The argument is unfair, many other Vietnam Veterans received Purple Hearts for minor wounds but I would certainly NOT take away from them the legitimate right to wear the award or to be rendered the respect it deserves. Others will question the merits of John Kerry's Silver Star. Almost without exception, the outcry will come from veterans who have never met the Massachusetts Senator and who have NO personal knowledge of the details behind the award other than the text of the citation.
I, for one, will not vote for John Kerry if he receives the Democratic nomination to run against George Bush. I make this decision based SOLELY upon what John Kerry has done SINCE his military service in Vietnam, and based upon his current political agenda. I will NOT, however, criticize his military service in Vietnam or downplay his medals. For all the wrong things he may have done since the war, while in the uniform of the United States Navy he did some things VERY WELL, and I will honor that.
I hope that others of the veterans community will do likewise.
Doug Sterner
The honorable service of no veteran should be called into question, purely for political purpose or because one disagrees with the affiliation of that politician.
It is Kerry who has made his military record the centerpiece of his campaign. He is pushing it down our throat almost every time he speaks. He invites an examination of his war record. It raises many questions for Vietnam veterans like myself and I want them answered. I don't agree that his war record should be out of bounds given the fact that Kerry touts his war record as a major reason why he should be President. Kerry is attacking GWB's national guard service. Let's put Kerry on the defensive.