War and the Warrior

C

Cancel 2016.11

Darla
This story really caught my eye because I love Hayes, and also because this was a huge issue in the peace movement. Modern peace activists understood clearly that the first thing you always say is "I Support the Troops". In my role as media coordinator for a peace group I did many interviews and I always said that first and last. This was a lesson handed down to us by the history of the Vietnam war. One of the most riveting moments occurred when two members of the old guard, one a Veteran for Peace and a veteran of the Vietnam War, and one an old flower child got into one of these old battles during one of our meetings. The woman actually came right out and called soldiers "baby killers'. Me and my friend Sue almost died. We were flabbergasted, not at all offended, just like, holy shit I can't believe she laid that down!

And then Mike the vietnam vet got up and his veins were busting out of his head, and he was just screaming, and low and behold there was a knockout drag down. Me and Sue were just like, damn we should have brought popcorn! It was awesome. Then at the end of it Mike says "well scratch a leftist find a soldier-hater". Several years later after my final falling out with him I looked at him and said "well, scratch a man find a woman-hater". And boy he did not like that, I can report. But he was a so-called leftist intellectual, a ph.d, a college professor, and a sexist with serious woman issues. Anyway, I am rather surprised that Hayes was so naive as to believe that he could say this and not be buried. It's just a fact that in this country you simply cannot say anything about war, until you first say "of course I support the heros, our troops". Period. Now you can rebel against that or you can accept it and play within those boundaries. You will get a lot farther if you play along. We can't have an honest conversation about war and the warrior's role and what, if any, responsibility they hold. That is not possible because the PC police (heh heh, see what I did there?) will shut you down.

"MSNBC's Chris Hayes sparked controversy and debate on Sunday when he said that he felt "uncomfortable" calling soldiers killed in action "heroes" because the term can be used to justify potentially unjust wars. He later apologized for the statement. (See apology below.)

Hayes spent a large portion of his Memorial Day-themed show on questions of war and of the people killed on all sides of military conflicts, from American soldiers to Afghan civilians.

After speaking with a former Marine whose job it was to notify families of the death of soldiers, he turned to his panel and, clearly wrestling with what to say, raised the issue of language:

"I think it's interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words "heroes." Why do I feel so [uncomfortable] about the word "hero"? I feel comfortable -- uncomfortable -- about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don't want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that's fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I'm wrong about that."

Hayes' fellow panelists expressed similar discomfort. Linguist and columnist John McWhorter said that he would "almost rather not say 'hero" and called the term "manipulative," even if it was unintentionally so.

Hayes then said that, on the flip side, it could be seen as "noble" to join the military. "This is voluntary," he said, adding that, though a "liberal caricature" like himself would not understand "submitting so totally to what the electorate or people in power are going to decide about using your body," he saw valor in it.

The Nation's Liliana Segura then chimed in, saying that "hero" is often used to paint wars in a "righteous" way.

"These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ... aren't righteous wars," she said. "We can't be so afraid of criticizing a policy."

Full story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/28/chris-hayes-uncomfortable-soldiers-heroes_n_1550643.html
 
I don't have a problem w/ the word "hero," personally. It actually never occurred to me that using it would add or imply any justification for the particular conflict the soldier was fighting in.

I read about that dude who got the medal of honor recently after his actions in Vietnam over 40 years ago. What he did in battle was unreal, and he saved quite a few people - there is no doubt that the guy is a hero, and should be celebrated & honored as such. And, for that matter, anyone else who put themselves in harm's way, no matter what the war is. And I haven't really supported any war in my lifetime (Afghanistan is the lone exception to that one, but I have come to regret that support a lot).

The lesson from Vietnam that you refer to - to always be clear about supporting the troops - is a good one. It is so important to separate the masters of war - idiots like Cheney & Rumsfeld & Wolfowicz, as well as LBJ, Reagan, et al. - from the soldiers, the ones who willingly sign up to protect us, and who have no choice but to trust that what their leaders decide is true & just. Soldiers in a battlefield shouldn't be expected to weigh the moral implications of the broader conflict they're involved in and act accordingly; it would be chaos if they did.

We can call them heroes, and still have a very clear idea & judgment on who the villains are.
 
Onceler said:
I don't have a problem w/ the word "hero," personally. It actually never occurred to me that using it would add or imply any justification for the particular conflict the soldier was fighting in.

I read about that dude who got the medal of honor recently after his actions in Vietnam over 40 years ago. What he did in battle was unreal, and he saved quite a few people - there is no doubt that the guy is a hero, and should be celebrated & honored as such. And, for that matter, anyone else who put themselves in harm's way, no matter what the war is. And I haven't really supported any war in my lifetime (Afghanistan is the lone exception to that one, but I have come to regret that support a lot).

The lesson from Vietnam that you refer to - to always be clear about supporting the troops - is a good one. It is so important to separate the masters of war - idiots like Cheney & Rumsfeld & Wolfowicz, as well as LBJ, Reagan, et al. - from the soldiers, the ones who willingly sign up to protect us, and who have no choice but to trust that what their leaders decide is true & just. Soldiers in a battlefield shouldn't be expected to weigh the moral implications of the broader conflict they're involved in and act accordingly; it would be chaos if they did.

We can call them heroes, and still have a very clear idea & judgment on who the villains are.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think we really can for many reasons (few of which have anything to do with the individual soldier), but there is no way to have that discussion in this country, and I am surprised Hayes didn't know it.
 
Onceler said:
I don't have a problem w/ the word "hero," personally. It actually never occurred to me that using it would add or imply any justification for the particular conflict the soldier was fighting in.

I read about that dude who got the medal of honor recently after his actions in Vietnam over 40 years ago. What he did in battle was unreal, and he saved quite a few people - there is no doubt that the guy is a hero, and should be celebrated & honored as such. And, for that matter, anyone else who put themselves in harm's way, no matter what the war is. And I haven't really supported any war in my lifetime (Afghanistan is the lone exception to that one, but I have come to regret that support a lot).

The lesson from Vietnam that you refer to - to always be clear about supporting the troops - is a good one. It is so important to separate the masters of war - idiots like Cheney & Rumsfeld & Wolfowicz, as well as LBJ, Reagan, et al. - from the soldiers, the ones who willingly sign up to protect us, and who have no choice but to trust that what their leaders decide is true & just. Soldiers in a battlefield shouldn't be expected to weigh the moral implications of the broader conflict they're involved in and act accordingly; it would be chaos if they did.

We can call them heroes, and still have a very clear idea & judgment on who the villains are.
Click to expand...

I think it was easier to have that separation during the Vietnam War, because most of the people fighting it were draftees. They had no choice (or very limited choices).

But that separation is the key to the comfort level in calling soldiers "hero", regardless of whether the war is right or wrong. But I do believe that 99% of our volunteer force is in there for the right reasons. Whether it is their sense of patriotic duty, the economy forcing them to seek out a job & training, or the large number of reservists called up.
 
WinterBorn said:
I think it was easier to have that separation during the Vietnam War, because most of the people fighting it were draftees. They had no choice (or very limited choices).

But that separation is the key to the comfort level in calling soldiers "hero", regardless of whether the war is right or wrong. But I do believe that 99% of our volunteer force is in there for the right reasons. Whether it is their sense of patriotic duty, the economy forcing them to seek out a job & training, or the large number of reservists called up.
Click to expand...

Well, the interesting thing is our cultural imperative to support the troops is always, always, always, used as a way to quiet dissent and anti-war sentiment. I mean, we can't all have been unconscious during the Bush years and we all certainly learned that in order to support the troops you had to support the war and any dissent gave comfort to the terrorists and demoralized our troops.

So...can we be forced to call the troops heros and still have free, honest, and open discussion about war? I don't really think so.

Oh, edit to say that I support the troops.
 
Actually, sarcasm aside, having met a good many returning soldiers, I by and large found them to be very introspective, thoughtful men and women. I found many of them to be harmed by their time in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. But it won't be for years before anyone really knows how badly.

The Vietnam vets I knew were almost to a man, self-pitying, sexist, fools. I know many of them raped women in Vietnam. Then they came back here and expect me to cry for them. So I don't know if the recent vets will turn into the same thing, or if they are just a different breed because they did indeed volunteer. I really don't know. I don't not support them. But I recognize how it has been turned into a sort of McCarthyism as well. It's a more complex subject than we are permitted to explore IMO.
 
Darla said:
Well, the interesting thing is our cultural imperative to support the troops is always, always, always, used as a way to quiet dissent and anti-war sentiment. I mean, we can't all have been unconscious during the Bush years and we all certainly learned that in order to support the troops you had to support the war and any dissent gave comfort to the terrorists and demoralized our troops.

So...can we be forced to call the troops heros and still have free, honest, and open discussion about war? I don't really think so.

Oh, edit to say that I support the troops.
Click to expand...

Oh I remember the "Criticism is unpatriotic" claims of the Bush era. It was truly pitiful.

I can separate the troops from the war. I know they are just guys who are scared to death and trained to do what they are told. The people who decide to send them in are the guilty parties.

I also think the "You must support troops" is backlash from the horrible ways in which our soldiers were welcomed home. I understand protesting a war, and it should always be protested. But to have such horrible slurs thrown at draftees was terrible. I think part of what has happened is backlash to make sure that never happens again.
 
Darla said:
Well, the interesting thing is our cultural imperative to support the troops is always, always, always, used as a way to quiet dissent and anti-war sentiment. I mean, we can't all have been unconscious during the Bush years and we all certainly learned that in order to support the troops you had to support the war and any dissent gave comfort to the terrorists and demoralized our troops.
So...can we be forced to call the troops heros and still have free, honest, and open discussion about war? I don't really think so.

Oh, edit to say that I support the troops.
Click to expand...

The bolded has truth, but it's such a perversion of any true sentiment to "support the troops." It's a false premise, and dissenters really need to take that on (in large part, I think they have through the years). I know what you mean about our inability nationally to have an honest conversation about this stuff, but I'm tired of letting the idiots set the parameters.

Opposing an unjust cause or unnecessary war is essential to any intention of "supporting the troops," imo. Dissent IS patriotic when you feel that way. I know I don't have to tell you this, but all Americans should be deeply concerned about what happened with Iraq. Every aspect of it - from the war's inception, to the deceptive way it was sold to the public. But they should be even more concerned about the way politicians, pundits & the public reacted to dissent, and the way dissenters were portrayed.
 
WinterBorn said:
I think it was easier to have that separation during the Vietnam War, because most of the people fighting it were draftees. They had no choice (or very limited choices).

But that separation is the key to the comfort level in calling soldiers "hero", regardless of whether the war is right or wrong. But I do believe that 99% of our volunteer force is in there for the right reasons. Whether it is their sense of patriotic duty, the economy forcing them to seek out a job & training, or the large number of reservists called up.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying, but I don't see too much distinction between draftees & volunteers. Like you said, I think many volunteer out of patriotic duty or economic necessity. The leaders are the ones who we have to hold accountable. The soldiers are just doing a job - and I'm always glad that they sign up to do it.
 
Darla said:
Actually, sarcasm aside, having met a good many returning soldiers, I by and large found them to be very introspective, thoughtful men and women. I found many of them to be harmed by their time in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. But it won't be for years before anyone really knows how badly.

The Vietnam vets I knew were almost to a man, self-pitying, sexist, fools. I know many of them raped women in Vietnam. Then they came back here and expect me to cry for them. So I don't know if the recent vets will turn into the same thing, or if they are just a different breed because they did indeed volunteer. I really don't know. I don't not support them. But I recognize how it has been turned into a sort of McCarthyism as well. It's a more complex subject than we are permitted to explore IMO.
Click to expand...

I think the damages done to the Vietnam vets is far worse than we imagine. And I think the reasons are a combination of the fact that most were draftees, the way we fought the war, and the environment in which they were forced to live. I doubt you could come up with a better large-scale way to destroy the psyche of young men than that war.
 
In Defense of Chris Hayes

(Excerpt) What about the morality of the cause? Does anyone think brave Nazi soldiers during the World War II era were heroes? How about the soldiers in Stalin's army? Does the nature of the mission matter, so that a Soviet soldier who died liberating a death camp was a hero, whereas another who died while ravaging German civilians he was ordered to take revenge upon isn't? There's this reality to confront: if bestowing the title hero has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of the cause or mission, we'll have to grant the honorific to individuals who took part in deeply immoral acts... and yet, if the mission does matter, do we really want to deny the heroism of a GI who jumped on a grenade to save his platoon, even if we think the platoon's presence in country X was immoral? It's a confounding choice. (End) http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/in-defense-of-chris-hayes/257744/
 
I understand what both of you are saying, Onceler and WB, and i agree. But it's so easy to say these things when we are not subjected to some of the actions. There was this former soldier, his name was Matthis Chiroux, and he was a rapist. And what was most amazing about him is that he described the rape he committed, in nauseating detail, and then claimed it wasn't a rape. I can post it here, it was in 2009 but I have saved it. It precipitated my split from the LI peace movement. Kris Goldsmith was a peace activist, and he worked closely with liberal and leftist peace groups. But in the end, he also had many ties with the right wing. I think his politics were not yet fully formed. It's unimportant except that it caused him to take his grievances against Chiroux to a right wing blogger who published Goldsmith's accusations that Chiroux was a rapist. The LI peace movement exploded over this, though no one else knows, nor cares. Nor ever will. Both Goldsmith and Chiroux were veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Many of the vietnam vets eviscerated Goldsmith for taking it to the right wing blogger. And they were not very concerned with whether the accusations were true. Then Chiroux published his version of what happened among the LI peace movement, well he distributed it to the peace movement at large. And he had raped this underaged girl, and it was so horrible to read, hard not to vomit. I of course became involved in a terrible fight with many of the other veterans. One of whom I was very close to at one point, but who I had come to know had himself raped a girl in Vietnam and now was "suffering from PTSD' from the rape. Yeah, get your mind around that one. And he was defending Chrioux to a point by saying, well if he really is a rapist let's deal with it ourselves. If. There is no way you could read his own words and not know he was a rapist.

Anyway, I know this is getting babbling, but all I can tell you is that it became not so easy for me, not so black and white. And that is why I am no longer in the peace movement, and that is why I find it hard to look at supporting the troops as so clear cut. Again, it's complex. It's very complex.

And no, this guy wasn't a bad apple. See, that's the scary part. There's a whole lot of bad apples and they are formed from day one when the United States Military gets a hold of them and tells them that the enemy is not human. Whose fault is it? The military leaders? The political leaders? The soldiers themselves? The people of this country who themselves dehumanize our "enemies"?

I say it's all of us. All of them and all of us.
 
Onceler said:
I don't have a problem w/ the word "hero," personally. It actually never occurred to me that using it would add or imply any justification for the particular conflict the soldier was fighting in.

I read about that dude who got the medal of honor recently after his actions in Vietnam over 40 years ago. What he did in battle was unreal, and he saved quite a few people - there is no doubt that the guy is a hero, and should be celebrated & honored as such. And, for that matter, anyone else who put themselves in harm's way, no matter what the war is. And I haven't really supported any war in my lifetime (Afghanistan is the lone exception to that one, but I have come to regret that support a lot).

The lesson from Vietnam that you refer to - to always be clear about supporting the troops - is a good one. It is so important to separate the masters of war - idiots like Cheney & Rumsfeld & Wolfowicz, as well as LBJ, Reagan, et al. - from the soldiers, the ones who willingly sign up to protect us, and who have no choice but to trust that what their leaders decide is true & just. Soldiers in a battlefield shouldn't be expected to weigh the moral implications of the broader conflict they're involved in and act accordingly; it would be chaos if they did.

We can call them heroes, and still have a very clear idea & judgment on who the villains are.
Click to expand...


Odd, you didn't mention Obama and his sending our military to bomb, kill and maim Libyans that were not even a remote threat or danger to the US US citizens.....
guess his killing of another nations citizens was just one of those things....

No mention of Clinton and his ordering of our military to bomb and kill the people of Yugoslavia not too long ago......again,
not even a remote threat or danger to the US or our citizens.

My guess is, the double standard is alive and well,... as it always is ...... most Dims just can do no wrong....
 
Darla said:
I understand what both of you are saying, Onceler and WB, and i agree. But it's so easy to say these things when we are not subjected to some of the actions. There was this former soldier, his name was Matthis Chiroux, and he was a rapist. And what was most amazing about him is that he described the rape he committed, in nauseating detail, and then claimed it wasn't a rape. I can post it here, it was in 2009 but I have saved it. It precipitated my split from the LI peace movement. Kris Goldsmith was a peace activist, and he worked closely with liberal and leftist peace groups. But in the end, he also had many ties with the right wing. I think his politics were not yet fully formed. It's unimportant except that it caused him to take his grievances against Chiroux to a right wing blogger who published Goldsmith's accusations that Chiroux was a rapist. The LI peace movement exploded over this, though no one else knows, nor cares. Nor ever will. Both Goldsmith and Chiroux were veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Many of the vietnam vets eviscerated Goldsmith for taking it to the right wing blogger. And they were not very concerned with whether the accusations were true. Then Chiroux published his version of what happened among the LI peace movement, well he distributed it to the peace movement at large. And he had raped this underaged girl, and it was so horrible to read, hard not to vomit. I of course became involved in a terrible fight with many of the other veterans. One of whom I was very close to at one point, but who I had come to know had himself raped a girl in Vietnam and now was "suffering from PTSD' from the rape. Yeah, get your mind around that one. And he was defending Chrioux to a point by saying, well if he really is a rapist let's deal with it ourselves. If. There is no way you could read his own words and not know he was a rapist.

Anyway, I know this is getting babbling, but all I can tell you is that it became not so easy for me, not so black and white. And that is why I am no longer in the peace movement, and that is why I find it hard to look at supporting the troops as so clear cut. Again, it's complex. It's very complex.

And no, this guy wasn't a bad apple. See, that's the scary part. There's a whole lot of bad apples and they are formed from day one when the United States Military gets a hold of them and tells them that the enemy is not human. Whose fault is it? The military leaders? The political leaders? The soldiers themselves? The people of this country who themselves dehumanize our "enemies"?

I say it's all of us. All of them and all of us.
Click to expand...

This is such a well-written post, and really, I agree with all of it. Most of all, that it is incredibly complex. Obviously, it's way too simplistic to say "if you're a soldier, you're a hero." Our actions define us more than what our role happens to be.

But that is where the last part of what you wrote comes in. War is about putting young men & women into situations that are simply impossible. It's a mindf**k of epic proportions, complete with horrific day-to-day circumstances, as well as some of the brainwashing you refer to, where "the enemy" is dehumanized as a strategy. I think "Platoon" did an excellent job of showing how the horror that soldiers live w/ every day in a way can build up & boil over, and lead them to do things they never thought themselves capable of. I remember seeing a special on My Lai, and there was one vet who talked about the atrocities he committed that day; he had no explanation whatsoever for why he snapped, but the fact that he did ruined his life.

It gets back to the old argument, that war is a last resort, always. It's why Iraq w/ its whole PNAC agenda was so infuriating.
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Odd, you didn't mention Obama and his sending our military to bomb, kill and maim Libyans that were not even a remote threat or danger to the US US citizens.....
guess his killing of another nations citizens was just one of those things....

No mention of Clinton and his ordering of our military to bomb and kill the people of Yugoslavia not too long ago......again,
not even a remote threat or danger to the US or our citizens.

My guess is, the double standard is alive and well,... as it always is ...... most Dims just can do no wrong....
Click to expand...

Pipe down, ya old braindead hack. People are trying to have an intelligent conversation.
 
Darla said:
I understand what both of you are saying, Onceler and WB, and i agree. But it's so easy to say these things when we are not subjected to some of the actions. There was this former soldier, his name was Matthis Chiroux, and he was a rapist. And what was most amazing about him is that he described the rape he committed, in nauseating detail, and then claimed it wasn't a rape. I can post it here, it was in 2009 but I have saved it. It precipitated my split from the LI peace movement. Kris Goldsmith was a peace activist, and he worked closely with liberal and leftist peace groups. But in the end, he also had many ties with the right wing. I think his politics were not yet fully formed. It's unimportant except that it caused him to take his grievances against Chiroux to a right wing blogger who published Goldsmith's accusations that Chiroux was a rapist. The LI peace movement exploded over this, though no one else knows, nor cares. Nor ever will. Both Goldsmith and Chiroux were veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Many of the vietnam vets eviscerated Goldsmith for taking it to the right wing blogger. And they were not very concerned with whether the accusations were true. Then Chiroux published his version of what happened among the LI peace movement, well he distributed it to the peace movement at large. And he had raped this underaged girl, and it was so horrible to read, hard not to vomit. I of course became involved in a terrible fight with many of the other veterans. One of whom I was very close to at one point, but who I had come to know had himself raped a girl in Vietnam and now was "suffering from PTSD' from the rape. Yeah, get your mind around that one. And he was defending Chrioux to a point by saying, well if he really is a rapist let's deal with it ourselves. If. There is no way you could read his own words and not know he was a rapist.

Anyway, I know this is getting babbling, but all I can tell you is that it became not so easy for me, not so black and white. And that is why I am no longer in the peace movement, and that is why I find it hard to look at supporting the troops as so clear cut. Again, it's complex. It's very complex.

And no, this guy wasn't a bad apple. See, that's the scary part. There's a whole lot of bad apples and they are formed from day one when the United States Military gets a hold of them and tells them that the enemy is not human. Whose fault is it? The military leaders? The political leaders? The soldiers themselves? The people of this country who themselves dehumanize our "enemies"?

I say it's all of us. All of them and all of us.
Click to expand...

I think teh closest comparison to what combat vets have gone through, and whether we excuse their behavior in a war zone is the "burning bed" defense by abused women. The levels of stress and horrors seen by these young men is beyond our wildest imaginings. I missed being on the draft list for Vietnam by just a few years. I had friends who were drafted and came back different in ways even they couldn't explain. I also think there are undeniable differences in the experiences of the Vietnam era vets and those from Desert Storm and the current debacle.

I have done a quick search and wasn't able to find the stats for time "under fire" in Vietnam, but I know it was significantly greater than previous wars. There is also the huge issue of the terrain and the inability to see what was coming or to be able to prepare for it. That meant being on high alert at all times. That sort of stress takes a tremendous toll.

There was also the isolation of the soldiers in Vietnam. In WWII there were huge numbers in most operations. In Vietnam it was small units and small numbers. The communications back to their loved ones was also sketchy. I think the difference between a stack of letters every few months and instant emails or Skype communications cannot be ignored.

I also think the views of the people at home had an impact, especially when paired with the draftee/volunteer thing.

If you volunteered for the Iraq war and saw tons of ribbons and bumper stickers supporting you it m,akes it much easier than being denigrated, spat upon and the like for going to war when you had no choice. I had a friend who said he was told he had to go whether he wanted to or not. Then he was treated like a war criminal when he returned. It was hard to come to terms with that sort of stuff.
 
Darla said:
Actually, sarcasm aside, having met a good many returning soldiers, I by and large found them to be very introspective, thoughtful men and women. I found many of them to be harmed by their time in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. But it won't be for years before anyone really knows how badly.

The Vietnam vets I knew were almost to a man, self-pitying, sexist, fools. I know many of them raped women in Vietnam. Then they came back here and expect me to cry for them. So I don't know if the recent vets will turn into the same thing, or if they are just a different breed because they did indeed volunteer. I really don't know. I don't not support them. But I recognize how it has been turned into a sort of McCarthyism as well. It's a more complex subject than we are permitted to explore IMO.
Click to expand...


The difference between volunteers and draftees is certainly apparent...between those that are there because they want to serve and believe its an honor and their duty and
the others.....the ones that 'loath' the military or whose choice was jail or a uniform.....
but unless your physic, you can't know which are the good guys ......
War, and even preparing for war, changes EVERY man or women that sees it up close and in color....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top