OK, so I just talked to Jonn. Or rather, Doped up Jonn, who is in the recovery room at Walter Reed and he said I should throw this up. It is from Christopher Raissi, who I don’t know much about except that he was a Marine, and served in Iraq. He’s also incredibly humorous from his facebook comments. I believe I heard at one time he is a libertarian who lives in Atlanta, but I may be making that up. Anyway, as a service to all IVAW members scrambling for the nearest life rafts, we once again offer you a place to vent your frustrations. Chris, welcome my friend, and hope you start commenting here. We might not agree with you, and the readers may be rough from time to time, but you are always welcome here.
Resignation letter after the jump. (I haven’t even read it yet, so this is a breaking story.)
Following Sholom, Kris, and Casey on the “abandon IVAW bandwagon”:
Much has been said by others on this subject, so I will not go into beating a dead horse. What I will do is stress some points that are extremely relevant to my personal reasons for leaving and that that I think need to be revisited by me in order to get things off my chest. Most people that know me realize that I have a penchant for hyperbole, so bear that in mind while reading my words.
Many of the decisions made regarding IVAW have not been made with the best interests of the organization at heart. In debates at the national convention last year, both among small groups of members and among folks participating in panels, the focus was always on the abstract entity known as “the movement.” Two key areas where an interest in preserving “the movement” has harmed IVAW are in reference to membership requirements and an official policy regarding Afghanistan. Both of those decisions had a direct negative impact on our credibility.
Membership:
Ever since discovering that anyone who had served after 9/11 could join, I started having problems with the policy. Kris said it really well when he wrote that any three year old reading our shirt would infer that we are a group of Iraq veterans. In spite of the half assed rationalizations that I have heard, the decision to open up membership to this broad definition of veterans was clearly motivated by an attempt to increase member numbers. The appointment of Alex Bacon as Executive Director explicitly refutes those half assed rationalizations while confirming “the movement” circle jerk nature of the decision.
The primary rationalization is that there are people in military hospitals in CONUS, and OCONUS but outside of the AOR, treating those wounded in Iraq. There are also intelligence personnel translating and processing intelligence gathered in Iraq who may themselves be physically removed from the area of operations. Someone could reasonably argue that those people should be permitted to join, as their service was clearly given in support of that war. Alex Bacon doesn’t fit into either of those categories. He was a member of the Department of Transportation who went UA before 9/11. He has absolutely zero credibility as it relates to calling himself in “Iraq veteran.”
Evidence of the broad membership criteria being a part of “the movement” circle jerk is apparent to anyone who has read his bio. He is a member of the organization because he is willing to be active. He is the Executive Director because he is an experienced organizer. At no point did credibility as an Iraq veteran come into consideration. In defense of his appointment, all I have heard is that no other Iraq veterans had applied for the position. That is hardly a defense. As I’ve said before, I don’t care if this clown has the community organizing skills of Martin Luther King Jr., since he is not an Iraq veteran he should not be the Executive Director of Iraq Veterans Against the War. (Personally, I don’t even think he should be a member of the organization in the first place.)
It is on this issue alone that have decided to leave IVAW. Everything else just confirms that I have made the right decision.
Afghanistan:
Throughout the entire national convention, it was clear that the membership was not together on the issue. A large portion of the membership is not from the ultra-pacifist progressive/socialist left. Many of us are libertarians who oppose the war in Iraq for myriad political and ethical reasons, but do not desire to venture into the treacherous territory of Afghanistan. There are various opinions among the membership regarding Afghanistan, but the one opinion that appeared to be driving the issue was that in order to stay relevant to “the movement,” IVAW would have to take on Afghanistan. They went so far as to demand a change to the points of unity, a move that many members expressed would result in their immediate resignation. Those concerns were ignored by “the movement” circle jerkers. They were busy getting off together on the notion of IVAW being the tip of the spear of “the movement” even after the end of the war/occupation in Iraq.
With regard to that issue, things turned out in a mediocre way. We didn’t change the points of unity, but we came out with a policy on which the active majority of the membership had levied a yea vote. What is most relevant about the issue is the debate. There is a clear split in the membership between ISO members who see themselves and IVAW as a part of the revolution, and more reformist members who love their country but would like to see it returned on its rightful path. “Afghanistance,” as Jason Lemieux calls it, is one example of that rift.
Sit-Rep:
Sit-Rep the another. While at the national convention, Shalom was trying to rally support for the excellent pamphlet he was editing. After he made his pitch, some Erykah Badu looking woman said she has a problem with Sit-Rep being an organizational publication because she has never felt any patriotism for or devotion to the United States of America. At that point, the publication died. So now the rest of the membership is in a position where passive aggressive ISO members have pushed out any patriotic reform talk, yet the rest of us are expected to rally in front of people carrying revolutionary socialist nonsense.
Further evidence of this rift, and the indefensible loose membership requirements, is a conversation I had with Jacob Flom. This birth control goggle wearing clown was in the Air Force for a little while after 9/11, never served in Iraq, and is a communist. He explicitly told me that he wants to use IVAW as a way to grab disaffected veterans and radicalize them to his communist ideology. Why is he a member of this organization? A quick google search will give you the answer: He’s a chapter president (good at organizing!) and very active. When I pointed out that I’m a libertarian, a member of the NRA, and that you don’t see me trying to recruit people for my political causes, he looked at me like I was some ignorant redneck from the South. So I have to be tolerant of communists using IVAW to recruit, and yet I’m loathed for not being a pacifist hippy. I expected IVAW to be different, but it is apparently another progressive organization where multiculturalism and tolerance doesn’t extend to people who practice traditional American culture.
Circle Jerk:
I use the term circle jerk a lot. The reason why is that most of the “organizing” we do is just jerking each other off. One group organizes a panel, folks from other groups that already agree come, listen, and give donations. Next week, one of those other groups holds a protest march. People from other groups that already agree come, listen, and give donations. The cycle continues on ad infinitum. We’re doing shit just to be doing shit.
I joined IVAW because I wanted to reach out to other socially conservative libertarians, people who are neutral or possibly even passive supporters. I didn’t join the organization so I could spend my time getting kudos from people who already agree with me. Sure, fundraising and building a base is a part of organizing, but in the year I’ve been with IVAW we haven’t don’t anything else. Based on the fact that the expressed desire of a lot of progressives in the org is always to remain relevant to “the movement” rather than to accomplish our objectives and move on, I have no basis for expecting anything to change.
I’ve been trying to oppose a mini-Naval Academy being set up here in Atlanta. Everyone else has been MIA. Clearly, people from all sides should oppose this thing. Conservatives: Last month you congregated in Atlanta wearing 18th century outfits talking about our founders and their principles. Those guys opposed standing armies because they’re the enemies of liberty. You think they would support 13 year olds in a mini service academy? If you do, you’re an idiot. Progressives: I don’t need to explain this one. In 2007 I got run out of town by every black person below the poverty level in six counties all over middle Georgia. “Fuck dat, I ain’t gonna go fight no Gawg Bush’s war.” Now they’re all about some militarism and war since their Obama is in office.
This should be a no brainer. After all, this is something that has a direct affect on the community, something where we could actually make a difference. Yet I’m working with AFSC on this, and IVAW is MIA. Circle jerk march? Cool, let’s get some visibility. Stopping an indoctrination camp in our community? Uh, you handle that one, Chris.
As much as I disagree with the war and occupation of Iraq, as much as I think that America is the proud owner of a de facto empire operated by a military-industrial complex of the kind warned against by Eisenhower in his farewell address, and as much as I’d like to continue to be a member of IVAW and be vocal about my opinions, I simply can’t. I cannot identify myself as a member of an organization called “Iraq Veterans Against the War” that led by a fake vet who went UA before 9/11, and tolerates the membership subversive communists who want to use the organization to help with the revolution.
See you later, IVAW. I hope you change your course, but it won’t be me tossing the coal into the boiler.
Finally, the people I have worked with here in Atlanta have been great, so hopefully I can continue to be active as an Iraq war veteran unaffiliated with any organization.
“Points of unity” = “You’re either with us or against us”
Welcome Home ..Thank you for your service.
I have total Disrept for Honoi John Kerry ..VVAW & There spawn..VFP…Few DD-214s Required
As a two tour Vietnam Vet..Tet 68 Saigon I hope IVAW will take time to honor you KIAs..Push for a new Wall in DC..Like your Vietnam Wall..Both would be ..Holy Ground.
Push your leadership within the IVAW.. to lobby Congress for your new Wall..If you do not …I need say no more.
“Uncle George”
CWO..US Army Retired
Gathering of Eagles.
Toe Tag Troop Supporter.
“I’ve been trying to oppose a mini-Naval Academy being set up here in Atlanta….You think they would support 13 year olds in a mini service academy?”
Actually, historically speaking, during the time of the American revolution (and after) most Midshipman in the world’s major navies started out at around 12. Only in the 20th century did the entrance age rise to 18.
So no, they probably would not oppose it. They would just find it odd they were doing it in a school and not at sea.
A lot of my personal opposition to the school stems from the fact that they’re selling it on a lie. They’re denying to the community that Marine Corps participation in the school has anything to do with recruiting, but their internal documents explicitly cite the connection. I was a member of a group of citizens opposed to the school who met with the Congressman from that district, Hank Johnson. The Congressman started off by saying he thinks we need schools like that because we need young people interested in the military. Yet whenever you read the words of the school board chair, all he wants to tell the poor single mothers of DeKalb County is that he’s building a school to discipline their kids.
Obviously, the reason the Marine Corps is funding the thing is because they’re going to be grabbing future Tier I Alphas and socializing them with Marine Corps traditions and practices while they’re adolescents. No fatherless children are going to be instilled with discipline as the school is going to preselect for students with good grades and no history of discipline problems. Even so, at the end of the day DeKalb County is still going to have a school funded with someone else’s money. If they’re transparent and forthright about the connection, then I am in no position to stand in their way. I just want them to have all the facts before they make a decision.
Bottom line, the board is being dishonest to the community. I think we can all agree that transparency and integrity are values that should be practiced by our government.
Thanks for the historical info. I think that a key difference is the fact that the children involved in academies like West Point during the eighteenth century were training to be officers in the military. This is just a school that would militarize our kids. I still believe that the founders would reject the notion that this country’s major cities should be filled with schools that militarize and indoctrinate our kids. This whole thing is a pet project of Obama’s education people. The first of these schools were set up in Chicago, and now that Obama is in the White House his people are trying to spread them around the country. Ordinarily conservatives don’t like schools indoctrinating kids with a mentality that makes them believe the state is the answer to all of society’s problems, yet with these schools they’re abandoning that principle. If you want your kids to learn how to shoot and scoot, send them to a private military school or enroll them in the young Marines. Don’t have the federal government operating indoctrination camps.
George, I think the IAVA is going to be the group that will be successful in setting up a memorial. Hell, the post-9/11 GI Bill is about the best show of respect for Iraq and Afghanistan vets that this country can deliver.
I cannot identify myself as a member of an organization called “Iraq Veterans Against the War” that led by a fake vet who went UA before 9/11, and tolerates the membership subversive communists who want to use the organization to help with the revolution.
Welcome home SOLIDER.. I want to thank you for your service and sacrifice defending what millions of previous Vets before you have done. As a Vietnam Vet, I lived vicariously through the victories that brave men and women like your self archived fighting for a nations freedom from a cruel communist dictator.
You sir have made my day by recognizing the twisted, brain dead shenanigans, that the leaders of IVAW have digressed into, of which many of us have tried to bring to light from the very inception of this insidious corrupt orgasm that you so very well described as a “CIRCLE JERK”..
Sir, I salute you. You will go far in what ever you decide to do in life.
hey there Chris
welcome home and thanks so much for your service.
Well, Chris? There’s only a certain amount of horsepucky one can take. Glad you seen it and called it for what it is. Actually, you were seeing and experiencing socialism (communism) at work.
Welcome home and thank you for your service!
Get well, Jonn.
Well, Chris, at first I was rather ‘meh’ on the issue you described, but you’ve sort of brought me around to your way of thinking. A lot of that is because running a school in Georgia seems to be way out of the USMC’s lane.
While all these resignations from IVAW are all well and good, I still don’t understand the mentality of anyone who would join such a group in the first place. While I learned about the sh!tb@gs of IVAW from Greyhawk and others *almost two years* ago, why is it that there are still some people joining this group even after most of us — including some of us mere civilians — know what this group is — and always has been — all about?
Now, I can understand maybe joining the IAVA, even though that group is mostly about being anti-GOP, pro-Democrat/Obama douchebags. But what mentality and ideology drives someone to join IVAW in the first place? The VVAW, from which IVAW comes, was all about lies, smearing the entire military and working relentlessly to smear the war effort, undermine the war effort and influence the media and the American people to turn against the war effort.
So, knowing that history, why would an Iraq War Veteran decide to join a group whose mission would be to tell lies, smear the military, smear the war effort, undermine the war effort and work to get the media and American public to turn against the war effort?
As I said, it’s all well and good that people are leaving the group, but really, who gives a sh*t? What I want to know is why people were joining this group in the first place. What was their mission, knowing that such a group is anti-American, pro-Communism, anti-military and in favor of undermining the war effort for their own ideological purposes? Was their purpose of joining a veterans group, whose names states they are against the war effort, to work together to undermine the war effort and cause it to fail? If so, I don’t find that honorable and whether people are resigning now or not, the fact that they joined up with the group for that purpose in the first place is despicable.
“I still believe that the founders would reject the notion that this country’s major cities should be filled with schools that militarize and indoctrinate our kids. … Don’t have the federal government operating indoctrination camps.”
Ummm, the entire public school system nowadays — and for the past few decades — has done nothing but indoctrinate our kids. The federal government *is* operating indoctrination camps. The only thing seemingly different about this school is it would focus on military education, instead of the socialist, revisionist history, dumbed down crap they teach in our current public school system.
Now, you first say that you are opposing the “mini-Naval Academy being set up”, but then you say you are just against the lack of transparency. Which is it? Are you against the school in principle, or simply against it *only* if there is a lack of transparency about it?
Michael, how old are you? Your diatribe seems to be based on the notion that everyone should possess an identical historical knowledge of VVAW and IVAW as you, which is clearly a faulty premise.
What you appear to be missing from all the resignations from IVAW is that there are a lot of actual Iraq veterans who oppose the war. (This shouldn’t be news to you, as the numbers of Americans in general who still support the war is extraordinarily low. It stands to reason that some of them would be vets.) When those veterans decide, based on their own personal reasons, that they are opposed to the war, they reach out over modern social networking tools like Google and Facebook. When they do that, IVAW is the first thing that comes up. Based on a lot of the information that is put out publicly by IVAW, it looks like a group of Iraq vets that oppose the war but are unaffiliated with any particular ideology. It is not until new members start peeling back layers and getting more involved that they see the things problems with the organization. Remember, we’re probably half your age, in our early twenties. We don’t have the benefit of having been through this thing before.
Regarding the school, there are two facets to my opposition. One facet would be my personal reasons for standing opposed to the Marine Corps operating a high school. The other is my objective in speaking out against the school.
My personal opposition is very clear. If government indoctrination of students to be dependent upon the state is wrong, the solution is not to set up another school that does the exact same thing but from a militaristic perspective. The solution is to try to effectively end the practice of public schools indoctrinating Americans to love the welfare state.
Besides, these schools are a pet project of Obama and the clowns in his administration. If you think that they’re going to be getting anything other than the standard left-wing welfare state nonsense just because there is going to be a Marine “commandant” in charge, you’re mistaken. As I heard many times from a MSgt I worked for in the Marines, “you can’t polish a turd.” In other words, putting a Marine Corps uniform on a welfare state indoctrination camp doesn’t change it into something other than a welfare state indoctrination camp.
If you want me to break it down further, the school itself is an example teaching society to accept the state as its caretaker. Look at how it is being sold to one of the poorest African-American counties in Georgia: We’re going to take your children and teach them discipline. They’re telling the poor single black mothers of DeKalb County, “Don’t worry about providing for your own children. Don’t worry about raising them not to become criminals. Don’t worry about having a father in the home to act a positive male role model for your children. Don’t worry about any of that. Send your kid to our school.” That kind of attitude is wrong for any school, regardless of whether there is a retired Marine officer or a progressive with a sham degree in “social justice” from a leftist academic institution running that school.
That second facet, my objective in speaking out against the school, is what has to do with transparency. Ultimately, it is up to the residents of DeKalb County as to whether or not they want to support that school. Though I attend college in DeKalb County, I am not a resident. My purpose is to let residents and parents of DeKalb know the real deal about that school so that they can make an educated decision on their own.
As I said, the discipline line is a farce. We already know that they are going to be preselecting for kids who are already disciplined and have good grades. The bottom line is DeKalb wants a school without having to pay for it, and the Marine Corps wants access to future Tier I Alphas. The parents of DeKalb should know that before they render a decision on whether to support that school.
“Michael, how old are you? Your diatribe seems to be based on the notion that everyone should possess an identical historical knowledge of VVAW and IVAW as you, which is clearly a faulty premise.”
I’m 33. And you still have not answered my question of why you decided to join a group named “Iraq Veterans Against the War”.
My position — and the position of most veterans that I know in my personal life and read from their blogs — is that if one disagrees with a war effort, one makes his/her opinion known loudly and clearly BEFORE we enter the war effort. AFTER we are in that war effort, one does everything within his/her abilities to see the execution of the war effort through to a successful completion. And, considering the only way that wars conclude is either through victory or defeat, then the activities of every American should be to do everything within their abilities to see the war effort through to victory.
Now, back to my question. What is the purpose of joining a group which clearly states it is against the war? Is it to sit around with like-minded people and gripe about the experiences in the war, gripe about the government sending the military into the war, have some beers, eat some pizza and then go home? What did you aim to do within an ‘anti-America involved in a war effort in Iraq’ group? Was it like joining a church to simply fellowship with like minded people who were against the war effort? Or were you looking to join with a group of people who were (1) against the war effort and (2) looking to undermine it in every way in order to have the war effort end in defeat and retreat as the VVAW did with the Vietnam War effort?
This is not snark either. I am sincerely asking what your mentality was for joining a group whose title explicitly states they are against the war. Was it simply fellowship with like-minded individuals you seeked or did you seek a group who would be active in tearing down the war effort and you simply left it, because you found out there were Communists involved who were not just in favor of tearing down the war effort, but also tearing down the United States?
If you were just seeking fellowship, then that I can understand. However, if you were seeking a group to be active in tearing down the war effort, then I stand by my initial critique that that is despicable, whether you are leaving the group now or not.
As far as the school is concerned, thank you for the clarification. If I am reading you correctly, you are against it both in principle and because of the lack of transparency. Depending on the curriculum and the honesty of the teachings, I would have no problem with the school in principle. However, if the teaching is just as poor as most of public education these days, then I would be against that. I would also join you in being against the lack of transparency of the school officials. However, if the school officials were transparent in their goals and mission for the school and their subject matter was honest and factual, I would have no problem with the school in principle. I am in favor of parents having a school choice. Public schools, charter schools, private Catholic or Lutheran schools and now here with these military-foundational schools. I am not in the military, but I have come to respect it and the people within it over the course of the last 7+ years that I have studied it, the history and gotten to know many, many great military members and veterans.
I tried to give you a broad justification for why people would not only be against the war in Iraq, but also actively speak out against that war, without getting into a point by point debate about my personal reasons for opposing the war.
On the subject of the larger relationship between war and participation in a republican government, to state that once the decision is made to send in troops everyone should stop talking is a cop out that completely denies everything we as a nation know about the relationship between politics and war. At its core, war is not this gigantic heroic endeavor where the glorious good guys oppose the evil doers in a battle over civilization. War is simply an extension of politics. When our elected leaders fail to accomplish their goals through diplomatic means, they send in our military to achieve those political objectives through force. As a consequence, the debate over military and foreign policy is as dynamic as any other political debate in that as circumstances change, so to should our policies and objectives. Therefore, I oppose the notion that there is anything despicable about citizens debating the policies of a republic.
At the end of the day, when we’re talking about opposition to the war in Iraq, or any war for that matter, we’re not talking about being anti-American. We’re talking about being against a policy. Certainly there are people against the war in Iraq that are revolutionaries who want to see America burn, but that is generally not the case. A vast majority of Americans no longer support the war in Iraq, and for very valid reasons that have nothing to do with opposing the United States of America.
Personally, I’m against unnecessary wars of aggression that were predicated upon lies. I’m well aware of the justifications articulated for the war in Iraq, and I understand them. I just don’t buy them. Smedley Butler once said that there are only two reasons to go to war. One is to defend the Bill of Rights, the other is to defend our homes. That is what I believe in, and as a citizen of a republic I have an obligation to engage in the conversation about our policy.
A lot of this is just basic theory about the relationship between war and politics, things that are covered in limited scope by OCS candidates and recommended for reading for senior SNCOs in the Marines. If you’re interested, google the Commandant’s reading list and start making your way through.
CRaissi—
You’re still not answering my question. I don’t care why you are against the war. I understand and fully accept that there are civilians and military members alike who disagree with the reasoning for going to war in Iraq. But I asked you what your purpose was in joining IVAW and what you intended to do as a part of the group.
Here, just answer this: Did you join the group in order to actively undermine the war effort and influence the media and American public to turn against the war effort and to encourage the government to surrender and retreat from Iraq? Yes or No?
Whatever your justifications for opposing the reasoning behind the war, I don’t see ANY justification for ever undermining a war effort in which the United States of America is engaged.
So, answer my question. Did you join IVAW in order to undermine the war effort and encourage us to cut and run. Yes or No?
This is important, because if you joined for that purpose, then your resignation from IVAW is meaningless, in my opinion, since you still intend to undermine the war, just without the cooperation of Communists and non-war veterans who lead IVAW.
Chris,
Very good statement. While I may disagree with you on some of the conclusions, I find your post very well put. There’s that common ground thing, again.
Michael, please reread my statement. Pay special attention to this part:
“At its core, war is not this gigantic heroic endeavor where the glorious good guys oppose the evil doers in a battle over civilization. War is simply an extension of politics. When our elected leaders fail to accomplish their goals through diplomatic means, they send in our military to achieve those political objectives through force. As a consequence, the debate over military and foreign policy is as dynamic as any other political debate in that as circumstances change, so too should our policies and objectives. Therefore, I oppose the notion that there is anything despicable about citizens debating the policies of a republic.”
The bottom line is that saying that someone is trying to “undermine the war” is as fatuous as saying someone is trying to “undermine Social Security” since at the end of the day all we’re talking about is government policy. Since we live in a republic, it is the responsibility of citizens to take part in the debates over that policy.
Speeches, interviews, marches, all of those activities are Constitutionally protected speech that, according to the laws and traditions of this nation, cannot be defined as “undermining the war effort.” What I would define as “undermining the war effort” would be things like sabotage, blockades, and giving material aid and comfort to the enemy.
___
Thanks, OldTrooper!
“Speeches, interviews, marches, all of those activities are Constitutionally protected speech that, according to the laws and traditions of this nation, cannot be defined as ‘undermining the war effort.’ What I would define as ‘undermining the war effort’ would be things like sabotage, blockades, and giving material aid and comfort to the enemy.”
You still refuse to answer my question.
Was it your intention to participate in activities through IVAW which would influence the media and American public to turn against the war effort AND to encourage the American government to end the war effort in Iraq through quitting and pulling out. Yes or no?
And, a follow-up. Is it your intention still, upon leaving IVAW, to continue to participate in activities which will (2) influence the media and American public to look poorly upon — and hopefully turn against our efforts in — the war effort in Iraq and (2) encourage the government to end the war effort through quitting and pulling out? Yes or no?
Yes, it is every American’s legal right to be able to protest, give speeches and interviews on any topic they like, but it is also my right to call out that person as a despicable American if they are using their influence to tell lies, smears and make the job of our American military in combat that much more difficult.
As I initially stated, I believe that once our country sends our military into battle, it is the responsibility and duty of Patriots to do everything within their ability to see the war effort through to victory. While the laws and freedoms of this nation permit us all to do the opposite, I don’t consider people who choose to work against our efforts to be in the right. Sure, they are legally in the right, that does not mean they are morally in the right.
I’ll leave it at this. If you are using your freedoms and influence in activities to work against the best interests of the success of the war effort in Iraq, I respect your right to do so while thinking you are despicable for doing so as well. Just because someone has the freedom to do something does not make what they choose to do non-despicable. We have the freedom in this nation to pierce the head of a baby in the womb at 8+ months and then suck out the brain and other body parts, for any reason whatsoever, simply based on the choice of the mother. Women can argue with me all day that they have the right to do that, I will never consider anyone who chooses to do that for the reasons of convenience to be anything less than despicable.
Same goes here. Sure organizations like ANSWER and CODE PINK and IVAW and IAVA have the right to protest the war effort in any way they please. That doesn’t mean that I have to sit by and say that what they are doing is “patriotic” and in the best interests of the successful execution of a war effort.
Now, maybe I just don’t understand, because I am a cowardly civilian (and I say that in all sincerity, as I know as a young man of average health, I had the civic duty to at least enlist and wash out of boot), but I just don’t understand honoring anyone who is actively working against the war effort of their country, whether they are doing it as a part of a despicable group like IVAW or on their own.
Lastly, you state that you define “undermining the war effort” as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”. It is well known that part of the reason the NVietnamese never gave up is because they took comfort from finding out about the efforts of those back in the United States who were against the war effort and were active in tearing down support for it. So, the way I see it, when Iraq Vets are actively out in public doing the same things the “anti-war” groups did in Vietnam, I consider that “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”. So, by your own definition of “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”, you admit you are participating in “undermining the war effort”.
And that is my point. Despite leaving IVAW, you still intend to “undermine the war effort” through activities that will “give aid and comfort to the enemy”. Thus, the reason why I don’t see why anyone gives you credit for leaving IVAW when you still intend — and intended all along — to “undermine the war effort”.
But, I am obviously in the minority here, so, so be it.
Your question is based on the false premise that discussing and attempting to influence government policy becomes sedition once people are deployed. No one, not even Dick Cheney, evidently, believes that once troops are deployed Americans can no longer try to discuss and influence policy.
So in that sense, yeah, you are in the minority. You are one of the few people who apparently believe that once troops are deployed, all Americans must unquestioningly support the policies of the Congress and President. Just like you probably unquestioningly support the policies of President Obama, right?
You are projecting everything you don’t like about ANSWER, Code Pink, and IVAW onto me. Not only that, but apparently you want me to take responsibility for late term abortions and Jane Fonda. I’m not a doctor, I’m not responsible for what crazy people did decades before I was born, and you’re not going to pin me down as “anti-American” or “despicable” using “my words” while misquoting me. Work out your inadequacy issues on your own. If you are indeed 33, in good health, and meet the other mental and moral requirements for the Army, a recruiter would be happy to see you.
“You are one of the few people who apparently believe that once troops are deployed, all Americans must unquestioningly support the policies of the Congress and President.”
Wrong. I believe exactly as I stated previously:
“My position — and the position of most veterans that I know in my personal life and read from their blogs — is that if one disagrees with a war effort, one makes his/her opinion known loudly and clearly BEFORE we enter the war effort. AFTER we are in that war effort, one does everything within his/her abilities to see the execution of the war effort through to a successful completion. And, considering the only way that wars conclude is either through victory or defeat, then the activities of every American should be to do everything within their abilities to see the war effort through to victory.”
No where in that statement is a proclamation of unquestioning support for all policies of Congress and the Executive branch. There is a big difference between supporting policies and supporting the war effort to victory.
If a group is questioning policies in a beneficial manner in order to help the war effort be executed better in order to achieve victory, then I have no problem with that. If you had joined a group called Iraq Veterans for the Successful Completion of the War, then I would not question your motives in undermining the war effort. However, you did not. You joined a group that explicitly states you are against the war effort and implies you are going to undermine it.
What else can anyone assume? If I joined a group called Civilians Against Abortion, why would anyone think that I would participate in activities to support the success of abortions? If I joined a group called Civilians Against the Military, why would anyone think I would participate in activities to support the success of the military? How about, hypothetically, if I joined CODE PINK, because I felt that the military was bad and corrupting our nation, so I wanted to protest at military recruitment centers. I looked online and found out they share my disgust of the military, so I join them. But after seeing their despicable behavior towards military members, I decide to leave the group, since I have nothing against individual military members, only the organization. While I left the group, my mission is still to protest recruitment centers and convince people to not join the military. So while CODE PINK and I are on different levels of expressing our distaste of the military, our activities and mission are still the same: to undermine the military. Same thing here. You left IVAW, but I contend that you share their mission and plan to participate in similar activities to them, just not as a part of their group.
I asked you a simple question of what you intended to do within a group which is against a war effort and you can’t answer it. That tells me all I need to know.
Just like you probably unquestioningly support the policies of President Obama, right?
For the record, I don’t support any of his domestic policies. I do support his foreign policy policies when they are in the best interest of successful completion of military missions. He has decided to have a “surge” in Afghanistan. While I have read in many places that this may not be a good idea, but it may be successful depending upon how it it implemented, I will support our efforts in Afghanistan to a successful completion. If I think some of his policies for achieving victory in Afghanistan are off, I will voice my opinions on those hoping that he will change those policies in order to better achieve victory. (ie, a valid discussion during the war effort was whether or not having a large footprint of troops on the ground was better, or a smaller footprint. Another valid discussion was whether or not to enact COIN operations within the neighborhoods. That is good discussion to be had, in the context of pushing the leaders to have strategies which will succeed. But using those discussions in a manner to paint the war effort as immoral or illegal solely based on the fact that some strategies are not working is ridiculous, in my opinion. As ridiculous and on par with someone saying that our efforts in WWII were illegal and immoral and we should retreat based on the thousands killed in a practice exercise for D-Day, among the many other failures and deaths suffered by the Allies in that war).
What I will not do is focus on nothing but death counts, focus on nothing but the bad parts of the war effort and say nothing about all the progress that is happening, focus on a few bad apples in the military and smear the entire military and their mission based on their actions, focus on smearing Obama as a war-monger and torturer and compare him to Hitler and use that as a basis for saying that the war effort is illegal or immoral or a religious crusade, etc.
Once our country goes to war, we support the war effort. Within that support comes intellectual discussion of policies enacted to try to win the war effort. But under no circumstances do I believe any American should be working to do anything which will force the end of the war effort in defeat and/or retreat.
“Work out your inadequacy issues on your own. If you are indeed 33, in good health, and meet the other mental and moral requirements for the Army, a recruiter would be happy to see you.”
Thank you, but I am not inadequate. I only am as compared to those in the military, which include my two younger brothers. I fully admit that. It’s a matter of humility, not inadequacy. I am 33, but no longer of good health. Thus I do what I can in other areas to support the military. Had I been a better, more aware person when I was younger and of good health, I would have enlisted. But, as it is, that was not the case for me. So I live with that and do what I can to make up for my failures in my youth by being a better, more aware adult.
I cannot answer your question because it is borne of ignorance. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of war. What is most ironic about your ignorance is that while claiming to have respect for the military, you are completely ignorant of their trade. Not only are you ignorant of the basic nature of war, but you’re ignorant of the concept of non-traditional wars against insurgencies where terms such as “successful completion” have terribly ambiguous definitions.
I suggest that you read a few books before trying to engage in silly arguments about “undermining the war effort.” Once again, I’d recommend that you google “commandant’s reading list” and start at 2ndLt working your way up.