Almost two years ago to the day my brother returned from Iraq, after serving two years straight overseas. I know the immediate reaction to this statement is going to be that he couldn't, he would have gotten leave. He got leave, but gave it away to another officer who's son was in the hospital back in the states, potentially dying of leukemia. Martyr? Hardly. He's my older brother. One of two, actually, but the only one who moved far away and then was shipped further away to fight a war backed by one man, one dream, and one regime.
I don't quite consider myself a liberal. Hardly that. But when it comes to a war that's looking more and more every day like it's going to mimic what happened in Vietnam, I'm a little less easily convinced to support it. And as more and more citizens of the United States are coming to realize that they know or are related to someone overseas, they also realize they want them back home safe, without thinking of the repercussions that such thoughts bring; like the failure of humiliation at thinking such when death is shoved in their face.
No, my brother is not dead. He's safe, and happy, and married. But his best friend is dead. Not someone he went to college with, or met in the army. His best friend was like another brother to me. Someone my older brothers grew up with. Jeremy, my brother who was in Iraq, consistently seemed to follow Randy, his best friend who was killed, through life. They went to pre-school, elementary school, middle school, highschool, and even college together.
Environmental science majors.
Now, there's a difference between just wanting to have someone home safe, and trying to do something about it. 2008 elections are coming up, and what is there to do about it except vote? Truthfully, nothing. But when one votes, do they consider fully the reciprocating value of their vote? I don't think so. I don't think many voters today have a very real or unique opinion on matters that really should have a voice to the individual. In fact, it seems more individuals my age (18-24) are relying on opinions of those around them to base their own opinion on. Which is fine to be influenced by those around you, but to exponentially copy exactly the opinion of a friend or family member? That's not a voice, that's a recording.
I think the only reason that hearing a candidate say, "we need to be over there; we can't show them we're weak. We need to be strong", makes me so angry because I know those who have seen this first hand. Why don't we let the soldiers vote on the sole issue of war in Iraq? Isn't that fair? They're the ones who have seen this first hand; they're the ones who truly know the grit and grime to the issues everyone is arguing about. Let them decide.
To be honest though, I don't want to waste more time than is necessary over there. And to hear a candidate say that we can't seem weak to "the enemy" by pulling out? That just seems like a personal issue of pride showing through. Do we want another president who's so uncomfortable in their career position that they can't be themselves and get the job done?
I know I don't. I also know I'm not the only voice that speaks, and I hope, and increasingly see, others negotiating with themselves to speak out. Even if they don't speak for something I agree with, they're speaking out for something they believe in. Which is primarily the concern for today's youth; they don't have anything to speak for because they have nothing but video games and television to vouche for. And that's not the way I was raised, that's not the world I want to adapt to.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I don’t believe that American Soldiers should have the only vote when it comes to the situation in Iraq. I know that they are the ones on the front line dying, but they are not the only ones that are feeling the effects of the war. Please don’t get me wrong I am not trying to diminish in any way the role of our soldiers, or how much each of them has sacrificed. In fact, I have extreme admiration for the dedication that each of them shows to our country. However, there are people who are not in the military that are losing their jobs and their homes because of the condition the war in Iraq has left our economy in. I just believe that every American should have a voice as to what we should do in Iraq. I personally believe that we should pull our soldiers out and will be voting for a presidential candidate that has similar views.
I realized after reading your comment that you're right; the war has a more widespread effect than on just the soldiers (obviously). I also realized through your explanation that I was almost suggesting something similar to evoking certain people's rights based on the events, trials, and tribulations they've been through; or initiating others' rights based on the same thing. Thank you for you input! Greatly appreciated
Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking as I read her post.
"The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next"
-Ralph Waldo Emerson.
am the person who wrote the post.
"to be the worst of any downfall, you have to be unable to get back up."
I don't think the insurgency in Iraq is like the Vietnam War at all. The war in Vietnam was fought with what was mostly a draftee army. Soldiers served one or two-year tours of duty. This meant that just as combat units were becoming truly effective, some key members would be sent home. It has been said that the Vietnam wasn't one ten-year war, it was ten one-year wars (the draft was abolished in 1973). The army in Iraq is an all-volunteer, professional force. To me, this is why the casualty figures in Iraq are so much lower than they were in Vietnam. I'm not saying that 4,000 dead & 30,000 wounded after five years in Iraq are anything to scoff at, but after being in Vietnam for ten years, almost 60,000 Americans had lost their lives.
It should also be remembered that the Cold War was going on while we were in Vietnam. The Soviets had military advisors in North Vietnam. As a result, our politicians told our military commanders in South Vietnam not to bomb certain areas in the north (out of fear of killing the advisors & thus possibly escalating the war). So our military truly was fighting in Vietnam, "with one arm tied behind it's back." An unrestricted bombing campaign of North Vietnam probably would have contributed greatly to a quick & decisive victory for the US.
The strong anti-war movement here also didn't help our cause in Vietnam. Jane Fonda should have been tried for treason for visiting North Vietnam in the early 1970's. Photographs were taken of her sitting on an anti-aircraft gun (& smiling). Jane Fonda also visited with American POWs that were being brutalized by the Communists & asked them if they were sorry for bombing the North Vietnamese people.
Has George Bush mismanaged the situation in Iraq? Absolutely. He thought this was going to be a quick, easy & clean conflict. War is rarely like that. The situation in Iraq would probably be over with by now if Bush had done the following:
1) Gone into Iraq with a lot more troops. If you're going to war, you put every available boot on the ground. Instead, Bush limited the number of troops that could be used.
2) Secured & destroyed conventional-weapon caches that our troops came across during the invasion. Some of this ordinance wound up in the hands of insurgents, & was used to make road-side bombs.
3)Secured Iraq's borders with Iran & Syria, thereby cutting off the flow of foreign fighters & weapons into the country. Then again, Bush isn't interested in securing our own borders, so why would he care about securing Iraq's?
Despite all this, in no way should Iraq ever be compared to Vietnam.