 |
|
Add to My Group
|
February 21, 2007 at 12:22:04
White House and Pentagon Cowards Betray Real War Heroes, Again, Failing to Support the Troops by Rob Kall Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
Real war heroes-- the kinds who demonstrate incredible courage and the face of death-- have not been recognized by the Bush Pentagon. It's another way the troops have been let down and not supported by those who claim to support them.
Newsweek has a great article, Medal Shortage discussing the fact that only two medals of honor have been awarded since the war began, and both of them have been posthumous and took two years to award.
The medal of honor is the highest recognition of heroism America offers it's war veterans. In a time when the media and politicians are quick to call anyone who enlists or is called up to fight in Iraq a hero, it's strange that no living soldiers have been awarded the medal.
The Newsweek article reports, Still, criticism over the scant number of medals awarded led the Pentagon to review the citation process; findings are expected in the coming week. One of the most vocal critics has been Joseph Kinney, a 57-year-old Vietnam veteran from North Carolina, who says the dearth of medals has a demoralizing effect. Kinney, who has testified before Congress on the issue, spoke with NEWSWEEK's Dan Ephron.
NEWSWEEK: Why are we seeing fewer medals?
Joseph Kinney: I personally believe they (the administration) were terrified of doing anything that would make this look like a real war. I'm convinced they didn't want people knowing how lucky they were from the start. And I think they were doing everything they could to make this look like a little police action and not a real war-- It's a travesty these people were not recognized.
This is an interesting situation. Four years of war, over a half million GIs fighting, and the Pentagon only feels two dead soldiers are worthy of medals of honor. This may seem like a slur upon all those soldiers. The military argues that they don't want to give medals to people they may have to take them back from. This brings to mind, in the first days and weeks of the war, when Jessica Lynch was first lauded as a hero, only to have the truth come out that she survived. Wikipedia gives this account:Months after returning, Lynch finally began speaking to the public. Her statements tended to be sharply critical of the original story presented by the Pentagon. When asked about her hero status, "That wasn't me. I'm not about to take credit for something I didn't do... I'm just a survivor."
She denied the claims that she fought until being wounded, reporting that her weapon jammed immediately, and that she could not have done anything anyway. Interviewed with Diane Sawyer, Lynch stated, concerning the Pentagon: "They used me to symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things". She also stated "I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees. And that's the last I remember." She reported excellent treatment in Iraq, and that one person in the hospital even sang to her to help her feel at home.
Maybe this incident also chastened the Pentagon and or the Bush administration to take an extra cautious policy on awarding medals.
Newsweek asks Kinney, "How do you define courage? What makes a person fall on a grenade?"
His answer is eminently quotable;
There's no manual on being courageous. It's like art. You recognize when you see it.
In response to his Newsweek interviewer's comment that this is a different era, a different war, without a draft, Kinney replies, "If we had some heroes to celebrate, it would put more of a face on this war. We'd be able to understand more about what's going on. The war is pretty abstract. It's hard to celebrate dead people. I remember when our parents got our first TV, watching the “Sands of Iwo Jima.” There were 27 medals at the time awarded there, all within six weeks. We used to have parades for military heroes up and down Fifth Avenue. There hasn't been a military hero paraded in New York in 53 years. We've gotten away from that culturally and I think it's something we ought to think about it."
How to fix the problem? Kinney suggests that combat experienced vets be brought in, more involved, that the Generals are too worried about their careers. That's for sure, Bush has weeded out all the Generals with guts to speak up and advise the truth. All that are left are Generals who say what they think needs to be said to keep their jobs.
This is another example of how the soldiers are being screwed by the Bush administration and the culture of obsequiance and managed image that must be tightly controlled. Just as caskets are not allowed to be shown when they arrive in the states, heroes-- true, examples of exemplary bravery and courage-- are also not allowed to be shown. Real heroes stand out from the average. They also show the danger the risk, the life threatening aspects of being at war. Maybe the military has decided it would be bad for recruiting-- that the lure of having the opportunity to become a real hero is outweighed by the deadly reality real descriptions of the situations real heroes face will be a turnoff to a generation of vido game playing enlistees who expect to go into battle playing heavy metal on their Ipods.
Maybe Karl ROve and Bush's misguided advisors have decided that, like Kinney says, awarding real medals of honor to real heroes will accentuate the fact that this is a brutal bloody war. Maybe the pathetic generals running this war with eyes closed, with all their strings pulled by George Bush and his moron appointees, like Donald Rumsfeld, who "war hero" John McCain has called the worst in history, don't like real heroes getting attention they could be getting.
Bottom line, the failure to recognize real courage-- to have the courage to make awards, even with the potential for mistakes-- is one more way, besides not providing body armor, not build hummers right, not taking care of families, cutting pay, and sending wounded to cockroach infested hospitals, that the Bush administration and its lackey military are failing, or worse, betraying, this generation of troops. When there is talk of supporting the troops, add this to the list of ways the right wing has failed to do its job. 
1 | 2
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 20 comments |
|
Never-ending list
There's twenty-two months to go and my list of outrages must have already hit a zillion and three. They just keep on acomin' from the Bush administration. I hope by the time this is all over that I'm not so outraged-out that I go back to being a voter dropout. by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 at 1:59:12 PM  (0+)
|
|
How can someone fighting an illegal, immoral war be a hero?
An unjust war is mass murder. How does one become a "real hero" in such a context? If that's possible, then I'm sure there are probably lots of "heroes" in LA street gangs as well. Let's see: Harry is a hero because he threw himself on top of a grenade, thereby saving Bill's life, so Bill could go on to shoot up many more Iraqi families at checkpoints? No, that doesn't sound right. I'm sorry, I just can't see it. by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 at 5:36:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You really have no clue, do you?
It is my contention, and I state this openly and in public forum that this poster is a flamer and a right wing plant whose every post seems designed to charicature the positions of the liberal and progressive. I do not , not for one moment, believe there is a single other person on this site, or within the liberal body politic who adheres to this stupidly hateful concept. Our soldiers are doing their duty, as they are ordered to do. They serve this nation with honor and distinction and we are all (except this nut job) rightly proud of each and every one. That there have been incidents of less than honorable behavior is an aberation of war and a reason, among many, for not undertaking war excepting as a very last resort. Every year I travel to Washington DC to visit some old friends, whose names appear on a certain wall there. I do this to honor their service to this nation. That they died for a bunch of lying and agendised fools in positions of power in no way dishonors their service or the price they paid for that service, just as those who serve in Iraq are not to blame for the terrible failure of leadership that sent them there. Someone please tell this poster that this is a site for adults and to go away until he qualifies as such. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 at 6:25:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You really have no principles, do you?
Flagged Comment for nasty, insulting language. Respond with ideas, not name calling. Consider this a warning. Your opinion is fine. A tough response is fine. But your name calling is unacceptably trollish. Rob Kall, publisher. "You really have no clue, do you?" Nope; I don't have a clue as to how a mass murderer can ever be considered a "hero". "It is my contention, and I state this openly and in public forum that this poster is a flamer and a right wing plant whose every post seems designed to charicature the positions of the liberal and progressive." You might sound a little less like the moron you are, gramps, if you at least knew how to spell. And "right wing"? LOL! "I do not , not for one moment, believe there is a single other person on this site, or within the liberal body politic who adheres to this stupidly hateful concept." Calling a mass murderer a mass murderer is a "hateful concept"? "Our soldiers are doing their duty, as they are ordered to do." Sorry chumpy, but the only soldiers who are doing their "duty" are Ehren Watada, Camilo Mejia, and the like minded others who've lived up to their Enlistment Oath and served their country by telling Bush to shove it. If anyone is a hero, it is Watada et al. "They serve this nation with honor and distinction and we are all (except this nut job) rightly proud of each and every one." Yo, sh*t-for-brains, killing people who've neither attacked nor threatened us, and destroying their country, is an heinous war crime of the type for which Germans were executed at Nuremberg. That the criminals were just following orders is no more an excuse now than it was then. Mass murder of Iraqis does not "serve this nation with honor"; rather, it drags everyone down into the gutter with Bush and his demonic handlers. "That there have been incidents of less than honorable behavior is an aberation of war and a reason, among many, for not undertaking war excepting as a very last resort. Every year I travel to Washington DC to visit some old friends, whose names appear on a certain wall there. I do this to honor their service to this nation. That they died for a bunch of lying and agendised fools in positions of power in no way dishonors their service or the price they paid for that service, just as those who serve in Iraq are not to blame for the terrible failure of leadership that sent them there." Idiot, the war itself is the atrocity. And anyone who participates in an aggressive war shares the responsibility with the politicians that planned it. "Someone please tell this poster that this is a site for adults and to go away until he qualifies as such." Coming from an ignorant, unprincipled, mentally and morally defective fool like you, I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks. by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 at 7:12:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I have to agree with the basic principles stated here...
which I think are these: I don't have a clue as to how a mass murderer can ever be considered a "hero". Calling a mass murderer a mass murderer is a "hateful concept"? The only soldiers who are doing their "duty" are Ehren Watada, Camilo Mejia, and the like minded others who've lived up to their Enlistment Oath and served their country by telling Bush to shove it. If anyone is a hero, it is Watada et al. Killing people who've neither attacked nor threatened us, and destroying their country, is an heinous war crime of the type for which Germans were executed at Nuremberg. That the criminals were just following orders is no more an excuse now than it was then. Mass murder of Iraqis does not "serve this nation with honor"; rather, it drags everyone down into the gutter with Bush and his demonic handlers. The war itself is the atrocity. And anyone who participates in an aggressive war shares the responsibility with the politicians that planned it. And I would add what I've said elsewhere: Hitler never killed anyone but himself; he had others do the killing for him. George Bush is not doing the killing in Iraq; others are doing it for him. At the same time, it is not hard to understand why joining the military seems like the best choice for young men and women fresh out of high school, perhaps in a small town and no obvious way out; or to imagine someone raised in a "military" or right wing family and/or neighborhood, who sees joining the armed forces as a glorious or at least altruistic event. I guess the bottom line for myself is something like what Mark Twain said: I have no interest in killing people until I get to know them first. by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:22:38 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: sticking to the basics
there will come a point when even the armed forces are complicit, they cant claim that they were just following orders it didnt work for the Nazis and it wont work for the U.S. click here by Matt Kovach (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 10:55:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Shame on you, Daniel
Unlike that ridiculously callow youth, who never served his nation in any capacity, including volunteer work or even in the Boy Scouts, has no concept of what citizenship requires and believes that anger is political expression (god help his parents)I expected more thoughtful dialogue from you. Many families have a tradition of military service, where it is expected that they serve after High School or College. Many are simply eighteen year old children doing what they are taught is their duty, the great majority, like the great majority of civilians as well, have no political bent whatsoever. Many more can find no decent jobs in this Bush economy and join to learn such skills as will benefit them in their careers. Calling these children "mass murderers" would be expected from the abysmally ingorant child above, you on the other hand are no such thing and should know far better. Lt. Watada is a brave and committed man and has my respect and admiration, yet you expect kids who have no political foundation to face years in a stockade? You agree with stupid, above, that they earn such epithet? In boot camp one is indoctrinated and taught that we are in the right and the enemy imperils our families and our nation, which you might know had you ever donned the uniform of your country. Many returning veterans are embittered and politically awakened by that which they have found so untrue, the heart of the Viet Nam protests were such men and women, myself included. It is right and just to blame our leadership, just as many in the Pentagon have done, only to earn early retirement. It is dead wrong to blame private Smith or call him names. Not only wrong but stupidly so. These soldiers are our allies, not our enemies, our countrymen not war criminals. To believe otherwise is to display such an enormous error as to be politically useless to us all and especially to this nations dire need. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:46:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Is "Ardee" going to be warned for his insults, or just me?
I should point out that "Ardee" is always the one who starts with the name calling...and here he is keeping it up as well. I suppose in a way I almost feel sorry for "Ardee". He obviously has nothing meaningful to say, so he has to resort to personal insults. Sad case, actually. by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 4:35:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Do you realy think anyone pays attention to you?
have another temper tantrum little one...All you are is an adrenaline junkie, going into rages because that rush feels soooo good. You havent a political opinion worthy of a ten year old. Or the maturity either. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 5:21:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well you're certainly obsessed with me, chumpy.
"Do you realy think anyone pays attention to you?" Let's see, in addition to your obsession with me, I'd have to say that, in light of the fact that most of the comments in this discussion seem to indicate agreement with me, and not with you, yes, apparently they are paying attention to me. (BTW, it's "really", not "realy"). "have another temper tantrum little one...All you are is an adrenaline junkie, going into rages because that rush feels soooo good." Frankly, you seem to be the one losing control, gramps. Although in your defense, I imagine it must be frustrating as hell to be you and apparently unable to muster even a single coherent thought. "You havent a political opinion worthy of a ten year old. Or the maturity either." Well, maybe you can get your nurse or guardian (you must have someone looking after you, right?) to read this thread and explain to you that most of the comments appear to indicate agreement with me, and not you. by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 6:52:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Daniel excuse me but I must add to this
Your position on this is Rush Limbaugh's wet dream you understand. You post as that archetypical and nonexistant "libral troop hater" that Rush and Bill and Sean all rant about all the time. For many years we on the left have been reaching out to middle America and now, after this Iraq war debacle is seeping into the consciousness of the very folks we need to ally with you try to destroy the fragile alliances before they are even fully formed. Not good Daniel. As to mass murderers in uniform, how do you feel about Hugh Thompson, recently deceased, or Lawrence Coburn and Glen Androtta, all Viet Nam veterans, and thus mass murderers you would say? These three landed a helicopter between the villagers of My Lai and troops commanded by a LT. Calley engaged in a real massacre. They pointed their machine guns at these troops and commanded them to stop this awful action. They saved many lives that day and deserve our respect and admiration. That war produces horrific acts is moot, that war should never be entered into without exhausting every other possibility is obvious. That those who serve in our armed forces are doing so to serve their nation as best they can is a fact, one you should really think hard about,sir. Your criticism should be directed at those who command them to engage in wars that should never have been fought and not at those who fight them as ordered. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 5:33:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: A moral quiz for "Ardee".
You go into a bank with a gun and demand money. A security guard sees you and attempts to draw his gun. You shoot first, killing him. Did you: A) Act in legitimate self-defense; or, B) commit felony murder? Please explain which is correct and why. ******************************************** Harry and a long-time criminal associate, Bill, go into a bank with guns and demand money. While in the bank, Harry sees a cop. The cop has his hands up in the air like everyone else, but Harry hates cops, and prepares to shoot the cop anyway. Harry's accomplice, Bill, demands that Harry not shoot the defenseless cop. Harry gives in, and they leave the bank with the loot. A short time later they are captured. You are on the Jury at their trial. Is Bill guilty of bank robbery? by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 7:24:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You are not Daniel
the post was addressed to him, and not to a pimply faced little testosterone overdosing child. By the by, your analogies are absurdly childish as well. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:30:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Didn't expect a substantive reply from you, chump.
As you're obviously not capable of it. by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 4:42:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: arent you taking valuable time
away from your high school homework assignments? by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Feb 25, 2007 at 9:58:04 AM (0+)
|
|
Bad apple's revenge
Got to expect the worst from an administration full of draft dodging buffoons. This really has came as no surprise to me. Its compares to putting a nerd in charge of all the cool kids at a school. Nerds revenge/ draft dodger revenge they probably preform masochistic sex behind there closed office doors in the white house as well. by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 at 8:30:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Plenty of Heroes
I'd bet that Newsweak forgot to mention that Medals of Honor are extraordinarily rare. In fact, there were only three awarded since Vietnam. The requirements for our nation's highest medal make it the most rare of honors. http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/smith/medal/index.html However, plenty of other citations have been handed out in recognition of the courageous men and women of our armed forces. http://patriotfiles.org/HallOfHeroes.htm by Rev. Jim Sutter (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 at 10:27:15 PM (0+)
|
|
on heroes etc
Bertold Brecht said,'That nation which needs heroes is unfortunate'. Folks, in the former country of mine nearly every man was a soldier in the great war 1941-1945. It was a just war but horrible and merciless nonetheless. Practically no one was unblemished. Neither those who did not do horrors themselves. Only the dead were free of guilt. So what we have to do now, here is to acknowledge the truth: this war is an abomination. The people who are in charge are bastards. Those who allowed that abomination to happen are cowards. The privates who died there died in vain. Those, who survived, each of them separately must be told the truth. And then let them decide, each of them if they want to be 'heroes' or not. That's how those men in my former country decided for themselves. Millions of them. And let me tell you something: the true heroes wore those medals very rarely. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 10:21:57 AM (0+)
|
|
"War Heroes" -- Ugh. Uncritical worship of the military is a
major feature of the pathology of American society. In effect, the US has a state religion with outsized components of militarism & nationalism. It glorifies conquest & victory, & consistently warps the actual history of events to make the US seem far more beneficent, noble & glorious than it really is. Consider the '04 Kerry campaign. Here was a guy who first won public attention for his loud (showy) opposition to the Vietnam War, which he correctly saw in 1971 as a monstrous unjust crime. But as a Dem nominee in '04, the main theme of his campaign was him parading around as a "war hero," making no mention of the fact that he'd strongly opposed that war, at the time. Though the similarities between Iraq & Vietnam are obvious to anyone with half a brain, Kerry's 2004 position on Iraq was essentially that he supported the war, but felt he could "win" it more effectively than Bush. He even apologized on Meet the Press in '04, for his outspoken criticism of the Vietnam atrocity, in his youth (ie, when he was actually correct, as opposed to '04, when he'd now swung to the side of the Washington warmongers). It's hard to find words for this degree of hypocrisy. But the fact that the Kerry people thought they could market their guy mainly as a "war hero" -- this speaks volumes about America's inability to think critically about war and militarism. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:20:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ironic aint it
Kerry's best feature was his opposition to that war........ by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 5:35:49 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
