No Honor in Imperialist War

With the 2004 election farce in high gear and spewing out the kind of politics this two-party system has come to be known for, I was initially surprised at the level of my anger at the Bush & Kerry spitting contest over who wears the mantle of veteran. But after thinking about what is going on, I now understand where the reaction is coming from. To understand the "veteran" question in this campaign, it is important to understand what is at stake with their attempts to define themselves as veterans and, more importantly, what kind of veteran they want to be seen as.

Both Bush & Kerry served in the military during the Vietnam War and, in their own ways, opposed that war Bush with his Vietnam-avoiding National Guard stint and Kerry afterwards, as a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, by correctly and righteously protesting against that war. Through the involvement of thousands of veterans against the war, with actions like the Winter Soldier War Crimes Tribunal, Dewey Canyon III and the throwing back of medals and ribbons on the Capitol steps, that war changed the image of what it meant to be a veteran in the U.S. No longer was the image of veteran that of jingoistic flag-waving VFW troglodyte, rather it was now one of an anti-war activist veteran speaking out and acting in opposition to militaristic policies and actions of the government. Simply put, to be a Vietnam veteran was to be against the war.

It was through our experience in the military that anti-war veterans came to see the larger role of the U.S. military in this country's foreign policy. This understanding was a key component of our opposition to the overt and covert operations in Central and South America in the late '70s and '80s Anti-war veterans were among the first to oppose the first Gulf War by Bush the Elder, calling it out for the illegal and immoral invasion it was. When Papa Bush declared that, with the so-called victory of the first Gulf War, the Vietnam syndrome was dead, he was stating much more of a hope than a fact. You see, the Vietnam syndrome was not just that this country had lost a war but also that the people of this country, especially its veterans, had seen the iron fist behind the velvet glove of U.S. imperialism and were not willing to go along with such wars in the future war. This is what Papa Bush was hoping had been erased with the Gulf War and buried with his declaration. However, as the numbers of WWII and Korean War veterans decrease with each passing day, the makeup of the veteran population is becoming dominated by veterans of the Vietnam War and later. Dominated by masses of veterans who were politically changed by their time in the military in a different way than the previous generations. We were changed in ways that another illegal war and wishful thinking cannot easily undo.

It is us, the changed veterans, and our opposition to illegal wars that Junior has to deal with if he is to carry out his much expanded (and ongoing) war of terror. If Kerry wins we will be something he'll have to deal with as well, since he plans to continue and expand the war of terror into the future as well.

It has been said that the most important thing that a country needs, besides its military might, to wage war, especially a war of aggression, is a willing population. But a willing population is not what this country currently consists of, especially within the ranks of its veterans. When a population is not willing, it must be made willing (prodded into action with a highly emotional lie) or kept in place and neutralized (hence the need to have laws like The Patriot Act and the atmosphere of fear). It is important to understand that no matter who wins the election in November, the war of terror will go on and we must not let up in our efforts in ending it. At the basic levels, Bush and Kerry are alike. They are members of the ruling class in this country; a class that is basically united over their bid for unchallenged world dominance. A bid which requires waging a protracted war of terror against the peoples of the world to achieve. A dominance that requires a large military of willing soldiers supported in action by flag-waving veterans who encourage the youth of this country to join in. A role of veterans that requires a certain image, one that has been changed by the opposition of the mass of anti-war, and especially anti-imperialist, veterans. So Bush AND Kerry need to reinvent the image.

To understand the significance of this need, it is important to understand what is means to be an anti-war veteran and what role these veterans must play in the anti-war movement, especially in these times. Our country has a very distorted view and experience with war, the result of the fact that, for over 150 years, war has been something waged in other peoples' countries not ours. Having seen, experienced and participated in the horrors of war, veterans have a unique relationship to war that gives them a special right to speak on the subject to the rest of the population. This relationship and right are all the more important when veterans speak out against war and help the rest of the country understand the true cost and impacts of this country's military aggressions. When those who have waged war speak against it, it is a powerful message.

However, this special right carries with it a special responsibility for anti-war veterans. To have a strong anti-war movement, anti-war veterans have to play a strong and leading role in the reaction and response to key critical and emotional questions about war. These key questions are those of supporting the troops and of honoring the warriors. Both of these are comprised of highly emotional components, which are used by the government to force people into supporting their wars and aggression. The military is made up of our friends and neighbors, our family members and loved ones. No one wants to see someone they love die so this emotion is used to get us to support our loved ones at all costs, even if they are waging an illegal and immoral war. So what are the costs and consequences? And what role should anti-war veterans play in regards to these questions?

We learned through the world's collective and Germany's particular experience with the atrocities committed under the Nazis during World War II that those involved cannot shed their obligations. Simply following orders does not relieve you of your responsibility as a person of conscience. It certainly does not shield you from the loss of your humanity that comes with participation in such immoral, inhumane and illegal acts. We cannot excuse the soldiers who committed those atrocities anymore than we can excuse the population who supported the soldiers. The same holds true today with this country's illegal, inhumane and immoral war against the people of Iraq. Wars are waged by the troops. Even in a fancy high-tech military like the one the U.S. maintains it still takes troops to engage and kill the "enemy." If the war being waged is immoral, illegal and unjust then the actions of the troops are immoral, illegal and unjust. One cannot be separated from the other. If our loved ones are involved in an immoral, illegal and unjust war then their actions are immoral, illegal and unjust as well. Supporting this war by supporting the troops waging this war robs us all of our humanity and makes us all culpable in the crimes.

So when the anti-war movement embraces the question of supporting the troops, however well intended, the strength and focus of the movement is compromised and its ability to truly prevent and stop war has been stripped away. We cannot and should not hide from this truth. To do so would make the purpose and aim of the anti-war movement a lie, for we would not really be against the war.

The same thing is true with the question of honoring the warrior but not the war. The warrior wages the war and if the war is not honorable then the actions of the warrior are not honorable either. To hold otherwise would be like saying that while the war the Nazi troops waged in Europe was not honorable they did the honorable thing by following their orders and waging it. ...Don't think so.

No, in this country, veterans who want to see this nation be one of peace, not of war, and who do not want this war of terror launched by Junior to be waged in our names, must face up to the hard questions. We must stand on the side of right and justice and call out the harsh reality of war- not only what it does to us here at home but also what it does to the lives of our so-called enemy. We face special challenges within the anti-war movement in the U.S. We must put a face on the targets of our missiles, bombs and bullets against the tendency in this country to focus on the plight of "our troops." We must not let the people of this country forget that the majority of those killed are civilians and innocent victims- the infants and children. We also have to put a face on "our troops," even if it is one of oppressor. We must expose the nature of this system and the role its military. We must help the people of this country know what it really takes to carry out an illegal, immoral and unjust war. Anti-war veterans must practice a form of tough love concerning the military, saying out loud what people already know and are trying to hide. It is by stepping up to these challenges that anti-war veterans- within the belly of the beast of terror- can play our role towards stopping this madness. Time will tell if we are up to it.

[Ian Antius, Vietnam era veteran of the U.S. Navy, and a member of VVAWAI.]