The American media machine adores
veterans; specifically the suffering of veterans, and veterans
running for political office. The news loves to report the sudden
deaths of military personnel, while skirting the root cause of their
demise. The media will ignore any flaw to turn military experience
into the ultimate qualification.
Articles by powerful organizations advocating for veterans to run for public office, litter the internet like landmines. When the media isn't trumpeting veterans, it's bemoaning the lack thereof. The Military Times is disappointed that Congress will have fewer veterans than since World War II. The New York Times repeatedly reminds Democrats not to ignore veteran candidates. Politico wrote about how Democrat voters love military candidates, and how they are key to winning back the House. AP news, NBC, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal have all composed multiple love letters to the veteran politician in the past four years.
Politically aware voters can name the candidate that challenged Andy Barr for Kentucky's 6th Congressional Seat in 2018, and more famously, for challenging Mitch McConnell in 2020. Why was Amy McGrath, a candidate with no chance of unseating the Republican Senate leader, so well known? Why did donors waste $90 million on a race McGrath lost by 19%? Unearned exposure. She was a military pioneer. She was a moderate. The media loved her, boosted her, couldn't stop talking about her. A Democratic aligned PAC, VoteVets, endorsed her at the start of the primary. Supposedly the largest organization of its kind, VoteVets mission includes, “ending forever wars,” and “combating …. the rise of violent extremism”.
The first is a common refrain from those who support military candidates. The argument goes; veterans, having seen the horrors of war, will not approve combat without proper consideration. Readers can trust these liars, or look at the data. Of the 100 Senators that voted on the issue of war with Iraq, thirty-nine were veterans (they served in uniform, even if it was only in the national guard, or only for a few months). Of those thirty-nine veterans, thirty-two voted for the unjustified, illegal invasion of Iraq. Seven voted against. 82% of veterans voted for the war, a terror that continues to destabilize the Middle East, an atrocity that swallowed up American minds and lives. Of the sixty-one non-veterans, forty-five voted for the war, generating a percentage of 73! Veterans in the Senate were more likely to vote for an abomination of a war, than their non-veteran counterparts.
Bush used The Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 to commit atrocities like torture, the mass murder of civilians, and the devastation of nations. Only one single Congressperson voted against it. One against five-hundred and eighteen. She was not a veteran. The Persian Gulf war was authorized by fifty-two Senators to forty-seven. Fifty percent of veterans voted for the war. A slightly higher percentage of non-veterans voted for the war, 57%. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was approved by five hundred and four Congress people, with only two against. They were veterans. At best, veterans are as willing to declare war as non-veterans. In the two invasions of Iraq, political party was more indicative of voting record, with Democrats more likely to vote against war (But skimming briefly the Senate roll call vote for the resolution authorizing Democratic President Bill Clinton to conduct military operations against Yugoslavia, Democrats supported the intervention more than Republicans). Senator Biden was the lead sponsor.
One hundred percent of Veterans in the Senate voted for the Patriot Act, since ninety-eight Senators voted for it, with one against, and that resister wasn't a veteran.
There is no data to back up the claim of the “wise veteran,” and I challenge those who continuously spout unsupported nonsense to present evidence. The burden of proof shouldn't be on the public, but the PACs.
VoteVets highlights its ability to care for veterans. This is believable. Veteran organizations should care for people damaged by war. The United States government should care for its returning soldiers. It has historically failed in that duty.
But VoteVets, and other veteran agencies, also argue that veterans combat violent extremism. They must mean that veterans use violence in combat as extremists. According to Pew, 7% of the American public served in uniform. But NPR reported (in late January) that 19% of the individuals arrested as a result of the January 6th insurrection were veterans. A later review by CNN in May concluded that at least 10% of the rioters were veterans. The conclusion is obvious; veterans were either as likely as the general populace, or more likely than the general populace, to participate in an attempt to overthrow the duly elected president of the United States. They are at least as likely to internalize conservative propaganda and react violently.
Coming from a generation born after the draft (though I still had to register for the Selective Service), I see a distinction between different generations of veterans. World War II vets were drafted into the most justifiable war in modern U.S. History. Vietnam veterans were drafted, and suffered terrible society pressure, but many recognized the injustice of American foreign policy and fled to Canada. These war resisters highlighted the moral failure of the leaders, the system, and their compliant compatriots.
World War II, Korea, and Vietnam made many Americans veterans against their wills, but this changed in1972 with the end of draft.
Though the United States engaged in low level conflicts after Vietnam and Cambodia, soldiers lived through a few relatively peaceful decades until the 1st Gulf War and Bosnian Wars.
The veterans of the War on Terror, whether of the initial enlistment, or those who joined later, are made different by the conflict's strange beginning, and its extended length.
Of the twenty-nine candidates in the 2020 Democratic primary, six were veterans. Mike Gravel served in the Counterintelligence Corps during the Korean War. Joe Sestak served for thirty-one years starting in 1974. Richard Ojeda joined the Army in 1989, and deployed to Korea, Jordan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. They joined for different reasons; Gravel was about to be drafted, Sestak sought a career as an elite naval officer (graduating 2nd at the U.S. Naval Academy), and Ojeda described his decision as, “Where I come from, when you graduate high school, there’s only three choices—dig coal, sell dope, or join the Army. And I chose the military.”
Three younger candidates differed in their experience, and even from each other. Seth Moulton, Tulsi Gabbard, and Pete Buttigeg served in the War on Terror, in Iraq or Afghanistan. The difference between them is in the timing. Moulton was already training with the Marine Corps in 2001, months before 9/11. Gabbard enlisted in 2003. Buttigieg joined in 2009.
Next article, a consideration of these candidates, along with other information about veterans in the War on Terror.
Recent:
Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order: Return of the ClicheRelevant:
For the Love of WarThe Presidential Events: August 2021
Democratic Error Sacrifices the Climate for a Bipartisan Bill
Comments
Post a Comment