Download PDF of this full issue: v27n1.pdf (9.8 MB)

Notes From the Boonies

By Paul Wisovaty

I know how many members we have in VVAW. (Well, OK, I don't, but somebody in the Chicago office does.) I don't know how many vets belong to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion and Amvets. But I do know one thing: there are a heck of a lot more of them than there are of us.

Why? And what do those numbers tell us about (1) what veterans look for in the organizations they join, and (2) what America looks for in its veterans, and, by extrapolation, in itself?

To tell you the truth, these questions scare the hell out of me. I've been actively involved with the VFW for ten years, and I have not seen, in the leadership of that organization, too many attitudes that I consider particularly healthy, or that I think paint a bright picture for this country as we head into the 21st Century.

First, some qualification. I can say with complete honesty that you will never find a nicer bunch of guys than the members of Tuscola VFW Post 10009. If you have a flat tire, they'll change it. If your kid needs a ride to school, you got it. I am sincerely proud to be able to count these individuals as personal friends, and I suspect that similar statements may be made about members of any VFW Post in America.

But we're not talking about a Monday night euchre club here. We're talking about an organization which claims to speak for all veterans, and to which non-veterans in our society look for leadership, and for articulation of the views of veterans as an interest group. And herein lies the rub.

What do these mainstream veterans' organizations have to say about issues that VVAW thinks are important?

First of all, they tell us that we damn sure would have won that war in Vietnam, if only the politicians in Washington hadn't tied one hand behind our backs. We were the good guys and those scraggly, slant-eyed Victor Charlies were the bad guys, just as sure as the sun comes up over the Gulf of Tonkin and Jane Fonda sleeps around. Ho Chi Minh wasn't much more than a Russian stooge, and Rusty Calley deserves the CMH. (You get my drift.) I suppose I could live with that if these were just a few guys sitting around a bar trying to justify their misspent youth. But they are of course much more. They are a few million American veterans, very well funded and organized, who would like to get my teenage daughter to believe all that crap. (Yeah, sometimes it hits home.) Probably what is more important is that their attitudes on this issue perpetuate the festering of this great open sore we call our Vietnam experience. There's a saying in prison that the first step to freedom is to admit you're guilty. America will never be able to take that step as long as its mainstream veterans' organizations keep insisting we're innocent.

What else? Well, they believe that the American flag is a lot more important than anything it stands for, and they tell anyone who'll listen that all veterans feel the same way. Never mind that some highly decorated vets in the US Senate -- John Kerry, Daniel Inouye and Bob Kerry -- voted against a Constitutional amendment to "protect" the flag. I suspect that, if you gave them the chance, lots of VFW vets would also vote for an amendment to outlaw burning pictures of Ronald Reagan.

To tie my first point (Nam) into my second (the icon-izing of the flag), they don't seem to be especially fond of civil liberties either. They think free speech is the greatest thing since fruit cocktail in C-rats, as long as that speech is along lines they agree with. Protest the Vietnam War? You might as well throw one of their wives into the back of a deuce-and-a-half like one of mama-san's granddaughters.

Do they do anything right? Well, they try. They have consistently lobbied Washington for increased funding for the Veterans Administration, and especially for VA hospital programs. But even here, when they have a bona fide chance to do something right, they still can't see the forest for the trees.

In the most recent presidential election, they overwhelmingly supported the Republican candidate, for the sole reason that he served in the military. His opponent not only did not serve, but even went so far as to protest our involvement in Vietnam. (Those who don't know any better might assume that such was his Constitutional right, but the VFW will straighten you out on that.) They were not the least bit concerned that their fellow vet promised to cut income taxes 15% across the board, and to cut capital gains taxes a great deal more than that, all the while moving us toward a balanced budget. I am not taking a position here with regard to either taxation or a balanced budget, nor am I trying to promote Bill Clinton. But I think it rather inescapable that, had the VFW's candidate won, a great many social programs -- to include the Veterans Administration -- would have seen very serious decreases in federal funding.

None of this seems to matter at all to the mainstream organizations. Bob Dole put on a uniform so by God he's their man, and that draft-dodging old Slick Willie sleeps in the White House while homeless vets sleep in the streets. Funding for the VA? Well, like Reagan used to say, you can't solve the country's problems just by throwing money at them.

I suppose that having just turned 50, I'm getting to be a pretty crusty old fart, and I just don't have the tolerance I used to have. On the other hand, maybe I just don't feel like listening to it anymore.

And none of us should either. If nothing else, my daughter deserves better.

Paul Wisovaty is a member of VVAW. He lives in Tuscola, IL, where he works for the probation department. He was in Vietnam with the US Army 9th Division in 1968.