Posted By Ariel & Dave Lindorff July 1, 2008
The teacup tempest over retired Gen. Wesley Clark’s
self-evident remark about John McCain—to whit that flying a
fighter aircraft and getting shot down and captured is not
particularly relevant to the skill set needed to be a
president—raises a larger question: Why do veterans, and
particularly the veterans of the criminal and pointless war in
Iraq, or the earlier criminal and pointless one in Vietnam,
automatically get “hero” status, and why are they seen as
naturals to run for higher national office?
I’m sure there are plenty of heroes in the military—people
who put their lives on the line, and even give their lives, for
their comrades, people who give up safe jobs and leave their
families for what they see as a patriotic duty. But let’s face
it: the whole recruiting project is about convincing young men
and women that joining the military is in their self-interest—a
way to get ahead, a way to see the world, a way to get financial
aid for college, a way to have some excitement, a way to get a
fat signing bonus so you can buy that new car you’ve been
coveting. And people who sign up for these self-interested
reasons are no more heroic than people who go to work for
Merrill Lynch or Wal-Mart.
Furthermore, while there are dangerous posts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the nature of the military is that the vast
majority of people who wear a uniform just work in offices or
motor pools, and face dangers no greater than workers who do the
same thing in civilian life at home. In fact, in the case of
more hazardous work, like heavy equipment repair or flying cargo
planes, it’s probably safe to say that after years of speedups
and of gutting worker safety rules and inspections, it may be
safer working for the Pentagon than working for a civilian
employer.
Beyond that, there are people who are easily as heroic as
many of our uniformed citizens who don’t get any credit for
their courage and dedication to humanity and to their country.
How about young doctors who eschew lucrative careers in plastic
surgery to work as GPs in low-income communities or on Indian
reservations? How about Peace Corps or Vista volunteers who go
to dangerous places at home and abroad to help people improve
their lives? The Pennsylvania soldier who died throwing himself
on top of a live grenade to save his buddies is a true hero. But
so is the 23-year-old math teacher slain in Philadelphia last
month who left safe, suburban Minnesota to take a low-wage post
teaching underserved kids in this notorious murder capital. Even
in uniform there are heroes who don’t get credit for their
courage. How about people like Lt. Ehren Watada or Sgt. Camilo
Mejia, or other members of the military who risked jail, or even
did hard time rather than fight, or continue to fight in an
illegal war?
There are heroes in our schools, heroes on the job, heroes
who work in jobs like police officer or firefighter, heroes
trying to raise families in adversity, even heroes in politics
(though these are few and far between!). Most of them aren’t
ever recognized by society for what they do. Not everyone who
serves in the military is a hero, and plenty of people who
don’t, or won’t, wear a uniform are genuine heroes.
Furthermore, as Gen. Clark noted, wearing a uniform, and
going to war, or even earning a medal, do not make a person
better suited for government or politics. But I’d go him one
further. Even having been a high-ranking officer, and having had
significant administrative or policy-making experience in the
military does not make a person any better suited for an
executive or a legislative position in government. In fact,
arguably, it makes a person less well suited for government in a
democratic society. The military is not a place that values open
expression of opinions. It is a top-down organization in which
obedience to “superiors” is valued more highly than initiative
and self-direction. The military isn’t even as democratic as the
old Bolshevik Party. At least in theory, Lenin’s Bolshevik model
was supposed to encourage democratic discussion until a decision
was reached by the leadership, after which there would be
discipline and unquestioned obedience. In the military, the
democratic discussion part is eliminated from the model. What
that has to do with democratic governance I don’t know.
Don’t get me wrong. I have a endless sympathy for the
hundreds of thousands of military personnel, active duty,
reservist and National Guard members, who got dragged off under
false pretenses to have to serve in an illegal war of
aggression, even to get seriously wounded or to die there, and
I’m a strong supporter of generous veterans’ benefits for all of
them and for their long-suffering families.
But let’s not cheapen the term “hero” by assigning it to all
of them—especially while ignoring the heroism of those who have
refused to fight, or of those who engage in heroic efforts to
better the lives of their fellow human beings instead of just
helping to kill them.
And let’s stop pretending that having worn a uniform somehow
automatically makes someone a better person, and a more
competent leader, than someone who never wore one.
The returned soldiers I’ve known from Vietnam, and the
soldiers I’ve spoken to who have served in Iraq, have for the
most part been the first to say that they don’t feel like
heroes. It is, in fact, the charlatans and political cowards in
government who are busy promoting endless war who are tossing
that label around with such abandon. They are in both parties,
and we should recognize their abuse of the term, “hero” and
their fake stances of “respect” and “support” for the troops,
for what it is: cheap political posturing, designed to
intimidate critics of a criminal war. |