Download PDF of this full issue: v45n2.pdf (18.2 MB)

Fraggin'

By Bill Shunas

"You a veteran?"
"Yeah."
"Vietnam?"
"Yeah."
"Thank you for your service."
"Well, thanks. But we shouldn't have been there."
"Thank you for your service." He seemed irritated.
"It was a civil war and and all. Their civil war. Not ours."
"Thank you for your service," he said again, this time with teeth clenched.

Ever get in such a conversation? Makes you wonder. In the evolution of American attitudes towards war veterans it would seem to be a good thing to be thanked for our service as has been happening over the last couple of decades. In terms of the political debates about fighting a war, or of pursuing deeper involvement in a war or demanding an exit from a war, "Thank you for your service" allows a person to show respect and avoid offending anyone, but overall that's not a good thing. That's because it kills discussion.

Serious issues — like war — need serious dialogue. Forces of reaction would probably not want serious talk about issues. They win if there is no discussion, no opposition. It is the nature of progress that it all happens when it is discussed and forced. If discussion is stifled by leaving it at "Thank you for your service," then progress is stifled.

It is hard in these days of Iraq and Afghanistan and ISIS. Americans are 15 years tired of war, even those who wanted it years ago. Because of ISIS doing some awful thing or the Taliban committing some atrocity, the attitude becomes, "We're tired of war, but what can you do?" In his book "The Operators," Michael Hastings laments the lack of opposition to these recent and current wars in American culture. He compares it to cultural opposition during the time of Vietnam. Anti-war songs started to come out with "For What Its Worth" by Buffalo Springfield in 1967 and probably some Dylan before that. Debates about that war raged while there were various art forms of protest.

Today there seems to be activism in other areas like Civil Rights, equality, environment and justice. After 15 years of the current wars, war protest seems a little tepid. Do we have war fatigue and protest fatigue? Maybe I'm disconnected with our youth, but that's how it seems. Maybe it's because the body count is comparatively lower and because there is no draft and death and destruction are not on the TV news like during Vietnam. Whatever the reason, the American people seem to have little to say and little influence on policies relating to these wars, and "Thank you for your service" enables that.

My attitude toward the electoral process has been to vote for the lesser of two evils. In the presidential race this time around I'm going to get to vote for the lesser of 23 evils. Wait. Make that 22. Adios, Governor Perry. Usually I try not to pay attention to the political races until a month or so before the elections. This time, maybe because of so many candidates and so much money coming in from wealthy individuals and corporations, you can't get away from it. It's in full swing. It demands your attention. Or maybe it grabs you because that strawberry blond blow-viator keeps bringing out the 17 year old in all of us.

People are disenchanted and want something different. That's on both the left and the right. Early on the focus has been on the right with all these would-be candidates. They and their followers want something different even if they're not sure of what. They want less government, outsider politicians, a launching pad for ascension and gays back in the closet. For this they want someone who hasn't been in government. And they are trying to squeeze out rational discussion. After all, rational people often have short careers in politics. So, it's easy for candidates to descend into situations where thoughtfulness gets excluded.

Then the strawberry blond talks about making America great again. And he includes being militarily strong as part of being great. Naturally all the other candidates can't let that one go. Except for the Libertarian and the Socialist, they all are going to make America great again, including strengthening the military and carrying the big stick around the world. And you hear the giant sucking sound. There go veterans benefits and a few other good programs as the military costs and foreign adventures increase.

And they want to be tough with Iran, outdoing each other with what actions they'd take if Iran violates the treaty. I don't think that even these fools would activate the nukes. An air and naval war? You'd lose shipping (oil) in the Persian Gulf with no guarantees of knocking out Iran's nuclear facilities. A ground war? Against a heavily populated country? In mountainous terrain? If you liked the unintended consequences of the Iraq War, you'll love war with Iran. Learn to live with the Persians. If fact, this treaty with Iran should have happened a long time ago — fourteen years ago. Right after 9/11 the perpetrators went to the hills in Afghanistan. Next door to Sunni Afghanistan was Shia Iran. No love lost there. Iranians would have made great allies.

Nowadays there is only one superpower. That is us. So what does it mean to make us even stronger? In relation to whom? Maybe these people want it to be like World War II. That was the Good War. Mano a mano. None of this crap about fighting guerillas and mujahadeen. They don't fight fair.

So open a beer, settle in and watch. It's past kickoff time. This game has another year to go. If you can stand it.

Bill Shunas is a Vietnam veteran, author and VVAW member in the Chicago chapter.