Tag Archives: Vietnam War

From major threat to potential ally?

putin_trump_and_i_are-a2fab9090657f98b004db89c40af5dfd

It seems like yesterday. Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee for president of the United States, said Russia had emerged as the most dangerous “global geopolitical threat” to the United States.

Many of us scoffed at that notion. It seemed so, oh, Cold War-ish. I mean, c’mon, Mitt! We won the Cold War. The Soviet Union vanished in 1991. Democracy was returning, albeit in dribs and drabs, to a new Russia. Isn’t that what many of us said and/or thought?

Well, it turns out Mitt was right. His critics were wrong. Russia has sought to do a lot of harm to the world and, quite possibly, to the U.S. electoral process.

But wait! This new Republican Party is being led by someone with an entirely different view of the Big Bear. Donald J. Trump is about to become president. He is forming his government. He is building his Cabinet.

Who is the new president apparently about to select as the nation’s secretary of state, its top diplomat, its foreign policy vicar? It appears to be a fellow named Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil — and a close ally of the nation Mitt ID’d as America’s top threat.

Exxon Mobil has extensive business ties in Russia. Tillerson is said to be friends with Putin.

For that matter, let’s recall that Trump has said some flattering things about the man who once ran the Soviet Union’s spy agency, the hated KGB. He called him a “strong leader”; he accepted Putin’s praise with gratitude; he invited Russia to find some missing e-mails that Hillary Clinton had deleted from her personal server while she was working as secretary of state; he suggested that Russian forces should enter Syria and take on the Islamic State; he said “wouldn’t it be great?” if we got along better with Russia.

You’ve heard the term “identity politics,” yes? It’s meant to pigeonhole certain groups and political affiliations into categories. Democrats once were identified as the party that was “soft on communism” and, thus, soft on the Soviet Union. Republicans were identified as the opposite of that squishy label.

Communism officially has died in Russia. What has emerged in its place, though, appears to be its oppressive equal.

Democrats now are alarmed at the budding U.S.-Russia coziness. Republicans — with a few notable exceptions — seem somewhat OK with it.

U.S. Sen. John McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee and one-time Vietnam War prisoner, has expressed “concern” about Tillerson’s relationship with Putin. You would expect McCain to raise those questions; he dislikes the president-elect and he damn sure detests the Russians, given what their former agents — the North Vietnamese — did to him for more than five years in that POW cell in Hanoi.

Frankly, I am beginning to long for the good old days that, in the grand scheme, were just a little while ago.

I also am thinking the reason Mitt likely won’t get the State job has less to do with what he said about Trump — the “fraud” and “phony” stuff — and more to do with what he said about the Russians.

Fighter of the Year … finally!

bbtpxbu

The Ring Magazine has been called the pre-eminent publication about professional boxing.

It made a huge mistake in 1966, though, in failing to name the then-heavyweight champion of the world its Fighter of the Year.

The magazine declined to give the honor to a fellow named Muhammad Ali, who defended his title five times that year, wiping out the competition with ease. Ali was at the peak of his boxing powers.

The magazine, though, disliked his objection to the Vietnam War as well as his affiliation with the Nation of Islam. It refused to call him by the name he chose and used his birth name, Cassius Clay, when referencing The Champ.

Times change — and so do attitudes.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/retroactive-ring-magazine-names-ali-1966-fighter-of-year/ar-AAlk6a2?li=BBnba9I

The magazine has decided to grant Ali the title he deserved all along. Fifty years later, Ring has named Ali its Fighter of the Year for 1966, to along with several other such honors the magazine had granted him. It didn’t select a Fighter of the Year in 1966.

It’s a curious thing, though, about the timing of this decision.

Ali won his court fight over his suspension from boxing in 1971, when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that boxing authorities had violated his constitutional rights by denying him the chance to earn a living. Ring honored him with Fighter of the Year accolades in 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1978. It also honored him in 1963, before he announced his Muslim faith.

Ali died this year at the age of 74.

A more fitting tribute would have been to grant the honor denied to Ali while he was still able to accept and appreciate it.

Those of us — along with his loved ones — who marveled at the man’s skill in the ring and his courage outside of it will accept the honor on The Champ’s behalf.

The world changed 75 years ago

pearl-harbor

It took a sneak attack on American warships moored in a Honolulu bay to change the world forever.

The attack occurred 75 years ago at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Japanese pilots taking off from Japanese aircraft carriers swooped in over the harbor on that Sunday morning. They strafed and bombed the ships, sinking several of them where they were docked. They did the same thing to our Army aircraft at Hickam Field.

Thousands of American sailors and soldiers died that day.

The nation was shocked beyond its ability to believe what had just happened. Think of it today as the “original 9/11.” Most Americans weren’t prepared to cope with the idea that a foreign power could strike us on our soil, killing our military personnel.

President Roosevelt stood the next day before a joint congressional assembly and asked for a declaration of war. It came quickly and overwhelmingly.

We stood united. We rallied ourselves. We mobilized. We turned our huge industrial capacity into a weapons-making machine.

All told, our nation sent 16 million Americans into the fight against the Japanese … and against the Nazi Germans and the Italians in Europe.

We seemingly don’t fight “righteous” wars these days. Our nation remains divided in the extreme as we continue to battle international terrorists in faraway places. Indeed, today’s division has its roots arguably as we fought the Korean War, then the Vietnam War.

World War II was different. We coalesced behind the president. We drafted young men into the military and sent them into harm’s way.

We created “The Greatest Generation,” which was given that title in a book of that name written by legendary broadcast journalist Tom Brokaw. It truly was the greatest generation.

Many of us today owe our very existence to the men who fought the tyrants and returned home safely to start their families. I am one of them. My late father was among the 16 million. I am proud of what he did in the Navy to save our nation from the tyranny that presented a clear danger to this great nation.

We ushered in the nuclear age and near the end of that world war, we used that terrible weapon against those provoked us into the fight. The Japanese started it; we ended it. Just like that.

Thus, the world changed forever.

Those men who answered the nation’s call to battle are dying now. Only a fraction of them remain with us. They are in their 90s.

I’ll be out and about for the next couple of days. I believe I am going to thank any of those men I see wearing a ball cap with the words “World War II veteran” embroidered on it.

We owe them everything.

Listen to Sen. McCain; he knows torture when he sees it

mccain

I have leveled my share of criticism at U.S. Sen. John McCain over the years.

However, when it comes to an issue with which he has intimate knowledge, I defer to the Arizona Republican every time the issue comes up.

The man knows torture. He endured it during his more than five years as a captive of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

When this heroic American says that waterboarding is “torture” and that the United States need not torture captives taken in battle, well, he needs to be heard.

The president-elect once denigrated McCain’s service during the Vietnam War — which the next president managed to avoid through several deferments. Donald J. Trump once said famously that McCain was a “hero” only because he was “captured. I like people who aren’t captured, OK?”

McCain has made a stern vow: The United States will not waterboard prisoners. “I don’t give a damn what the president of the United States wants to do. We will not waterboard,” McCain told an audience at the annual Halifax International Security Forum. “We will not torture people … It doesn’t work”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/john-mccain-trump-torture-waterboarding-231668

I get that McCain lost badly to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign. I did not vote for him. However, I also honor this man’s service during the Vietnam War. He was subjected to unbelievable torture tactics after he was shot down over Hanoi in 1967.

When this war hero says waterboarding doesn’t work, I believe him.

The United States has plenty of “enhanced interrogation” techniques at its disposal to glean intelligence from captives that do not involve torture. Must we resort to tactics used by our enemies? No. We’re far better than that.

Listen to this guy, Mr. President-elect

mccain

One might not expect Donald J. Trump to take much of what Sen. John McCain has to say all that seriously … even about things with which he is intimately familiar.

After all, Trump said McCain wasn’t “really a war hero” during the Vietnam War, adding that “I like people who weren’t captured, OK?”

McCain, though, offers a serious word of advice to the president-elect: Do not make nice with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/john-mccain-trump-no-putin-231423

According to Politico: “Vladimir Putin has rejoined Bashar Assad in his barbaric war against the Syrian people with the resumption of large-scale Russian air and missile strikes in Idlib and Homs,” the Arizona senator who was the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, said in a statement. “Another brutal assault on the city of Aleppo could soon follow.”

“With the U.S. presidential transition underway, Vladimir Putin has said in recent days that he wants to improve relations with the United States,” McCain added. “We should place as much faith in such statements as any other made by a former KGB agent who has plunged his country into tyranny, murdered his political opponents, invaded his neighbors, threatened America’s allies and attempted to undermine America’s elections.”

And Trump wants to try to get Putin on our side? He wants to link arms with the Russians in a fight to the death against the Islamic State?

McCain is correct to underscore Putin’s one-time role as the head of the Soviet spy agency, the KGB.

I’m no fan of McCain, although I certainly honor his service during the Vietnam War. He’s a war hero, no matter what Trump has said about him. McCain also understands the world stage in a way that Trump hasn’t even begun to grasp.

I almost can hear Trump now: “Who is this guy McCain telling me how to conduct foreign policy. I mean, I won a presidential election. He’s a loser.”

Sure, McCain lost the 2008 election. He knows his way around the world stage. The new president would do well to heed this man’s advice.

Recalling the first time

politics-word-cloud

I am in a reminiscing kind of mood today.

I’m thinking of the first vote I cast for president of the United States. It was 44 years ago; that’s 11 presidential elections ago! I was 22 years of age. Newly married. My wife was pregnant with our first son. I was full of exuberant idealism.

The Vietnam War was still raging. My candidate for the presidency wanted to end the war quickly. I had returned from service in the Army as confused about the war as I was when I reported for duty at a place called Marble Mountain in the spring of 1969.

He got my vote on Nov. 7, 1972. Sen. George McGovern needed a whole lot more votes than he got that day. He lost the election huge to President Nixon.

I was proud of that vote.

Eleven elections later, I am decidedly less proud of the vote I am about to cast. To be certain, my enthusiasm for presidential candidates has had its ups and downs. Some campaigns got me far more excited than others.

This one, though, feels different — and it’s not in a good way.

You might ask: Is this a difficult choice? No. Not at all. My preference is clear. Both major-party candidates are deeply flawed. One of them, though, is far more flawed than the other.

When it’s over — and I expect we’ll have a new president chosen by the end of the night Tuesday — I am going to cling to another hope.

It will be that the loser will accept the result, deliver a concession speech that at least contains a semblance of grace and agrees to support the next president.

Do I expect all of that to happen? Will the person who should lose this contest — Donald J. Trump — toss aside the stuff about “rigged elections” and do the right thing? I am not holding my breath.

However, as they say: Hope springs eternal.

Having declared my general unhappiness with the choices we face, I remain proud of the fact that I have the right to make that decision. I will go to our polling place Tuesday morning excited that I will have my voice heard.

I just wish I could be as proud of the vote I am about to cast as I was the first time.

Check out this poll … from Texas, of all places!

clintontrump-split_jpg_800x1000_q100

OK, as long as we’re talking about public opinion polls that are all the rage as the presidential campaigns heads for the stretch …

A WFAA/SurveyUSA poll puts Donald J. Trump up by 4 percentage points over Hillary Rodham Clinton … in Texas!

Trump, the Republican nominee, is reeling after revelations of that hideous recording of him boasting of what he tried to do and what he could do with — or to — women. Clinton, the Democratic nominee, is now beginning to put some distance between her and her foe in the campaign’s final weeks.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/13/poll-trump-leads-clinton-only-4-texas/

I’m not going to suggest that Clinton will win Texas’s 38 electoral votes. The WFAA/SurveyUSA survey, though, suggests some movement away from the GOP nominee in a state that has become as reliably Republican as they come.

And get this: The survey contains a 4 percent margin of error, which makes the Clinton-Trump contest in Texas a virtual dead heat.

Huh? What the hey?

Isn’t this supposed to be one of Trump’s “firewall” states, where he actually could shoot someone — as he once boasted — and still retain his supporters?

It is fascinating in the extreme that with all the utterly miserable statements Trump has made during his entire presidential career — which comprises this campaign — that a video and audio recording of Trump’s vulgar references to women has turned voters against him.

It wasn’t enough that he ridiculed Sen. John McCain’s service during the Vietnam War; or that he mocked a reporter with a physical disability; or that he said a U.S.-born federal judge couldn’t preside over a case involving Trump University because of his Mexican heritage; or that he would ridicule a Gold Star family because of their Muslim faith.

Oh, no. None of that stuck.

He talks dirty about women? He boasts about his attempts to commit “sexual assault”? His constant berating of women’s appearance? Yep, now he’s done it. Clinton has been talking about Trump’s “unfitness” for the presidency. There it is, in plain view.

Now we’re talking some serious erosion of political support — even, apparently, in Texas.

Maybe …

There he goes again … offending veterans

trump

Donald J. Trump once said his time as a student in a military academy was just like serving in the military.

It damn sure isn’t.

Trump also said U.S. Sen. John McCain earned his war hero status only because he was captured by the North Vietnamese, who then held him as a POW for five years.

Now comes this. He seemed to suggest that combat veterans who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder aren’t as strong as those who don’t suffer from PTSD.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-angers-with-suggestion-that-vets-with-ptsd-are-weak/ar-BBwXHeL?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

This guy needs a reality check.

Veterans groups have listened to Trump’s remarks. They hoped Trump’s comments were “taken out of context.” They discovered that the reporting has been complete.

The vets say that PTSD victims need help and do not need to be told they are “weak or deficient,” according to The Associated Press.

My own father suffered a form of PTSD when he returned home from World War II. I wasn’t yet around, but my mother used to tell me how Dad would flinch at the sound of airplanes … which was a natural reaction for someone who had endured constant aerial bombardment while serving aboard ship in the Navy in the Mediterranean theater.

They called it “shell shock” back then. Dad got through it.

As the son of a combat veteran, well, I take great offense to the implication that the Republican presidential nominee has uttered in relation to this generation of combat vets.

So many Trump insult targets … where to begin?

trump-military

Donald J. Trump’s insult-fueled rise to the Republican Party’s presidential nomination makes observers like me torn as to which one of the insults causes the most disgust.

I’ll comment today on the invective he has hurled at our military establishment.

Trump continually calls our military a “disaster.” He laments what he calls a failed foreign policy and the allegation that “we don’t win anymore.”

Two points need attention.

One of them is that Trump has no military service in his record. He doesn’t have any real understanding of military life, of military chain of command, of the stresses associated with serving during a time of war, let alone in a war zone.

To be fair, Barack Obama has no military experience, either. Nor does Hillary Rodham Clinton, the current Democratic Party presidential nominee. Then again, they have nothing but high praise for the men and women who serve in our military.

That this kind of criticism would fly out of the mouth of someone who sought multiple deferments during the Vietnam War disgusts me in the extreme.

The second point of contention is that I have several members of my family  who’ve served in the military during the past two decades. A young cousin served in the Navy; another first cousin of mine is currently serving in the Army — and has gone through several deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan; a young nephew of mine saw heavy combat during one of his two tours in Iraq while he served with an Army armored unit that breached the Iraqi frontier at the beginning of the Iraq War in March 2003; and another nephew is currently serving in the U.S. Air Force.

They all have served — right along with their fellow servicemen and women — with honor.

I resent highly any inference from a presidential candidate that their service has been a “disaster.”

And yet this clown’s insults fly over the heads of supporters who hear him utter them, and which — in my view — defame the very men and women he seeks to lead as their commander in chief.

Go figure.

This man puts social media politics into perspective

social-media

Jim Boyd and I became acquainted in 1989 as we prepared to take part in a three-week tour of Southeast Asia as part of a delegation of editorial writers and editors.

I learned we had a couple of things in common. One is that we spent time in Oregon, where I grew up and where Boyd attended college. Another is that we both are Vietnam War veterans, although Jim’s duty was much tougher than mine.

He posted this item on Facebook. I want to share it here.

Some of my Facebook friends speak of the pains they go to avoiding a discussion of politics on social media. I have a different view.

I’ve seven years of university education and 30 years of professional experience in considering and writing about public policies and the politics that go into making them work.

Plus, there are several dozen human beings I care about deeply whose future depends on good politics and good public policy. Begin with our five children and their terrific spouses and our 10 grandchildren.

Then, looking back, add in about 50 guys from my army experience who were fed into the unjustified maw of destruction called Vietnam — a huge failure of public policy and politics that we repeated in Iraq. I owe them a continuing debt to live dutifully the life they did not get a chance to live.

So to me, it is important to continue writing and discussing politics in a reasonable way, refusing to argue, respecting everyone’s right to an opinion (though not respecting all of those opinions equally) and not hesitating to point out “facts” that are fanciful partisan creations.

I do understand that some will choose to block these posts. That’s fine. But I will continue making them.

The passage in his message that resonates most with me today is the part of about “refusing to argue, respecting everyone’s right to an opinion … and not hesitating to point out ‘facts’ that are fanciful partisan creations.”

I’ve wrestled a bit, too, over the griping about politics on Facebook. Some of my own friends have complained about it. I’ve talked it over with some of my own friends privately. I’ve decided to keep using the medium to distribute my blog posts. I figure that’s a legitimate way to increase exposure to my blog, which I have declared to be a forum for politics and public policy discussion … as well as some personal stuff.

I do get frustrated — and yes, angry — over the argumentative tone that develops from the posts.

I chose in most cases to let the others have the last word. I don’t have the time, the patience of the intestinal fortitude to keep yammering back and forth.

With that … thank you, Jim Boyd, for giving me a chance to spout off once again.

There will be more of it.