Tag Archives: Vietnam War

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.

Trump’s disrespect is a bottomless pit

Donald Trump gestures while speaking surrounded by people whose families were victims of illegal immigrants on July 10, 2015 while meeting with the press at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills, California, where some shared their stories of the loss of a loved one. The US business magnate Trump, who is running for president in the 2016 presidential elections, angered members of the Latino community with recent comments but says he will win the Latino vote. AFP PHOTO / FREDERIC J. BROWN (Photo credit should read FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images)

Donald Trump’s list of disrespected opponents has grown by two.

They are the parents of a fallen U.S. Army officer who was killed in combat in Afghanistan. They spoke at the Democratic National Convention this week against the Republican presidential nominee.

Trump’s response was, well, typical Trump.

The father of the soldier told Trump that he’d never “sacrificed.” Trump responded with a ridiculous retort about how he has built all those structures. Then he ridiculed the mother of the soldier. Why? Because she didn’t speak.

Yes, the couple is Muslim, as was their heroic son.

Some comments out there have asked about the “Have you no decency?” quotient. Have we reached that point as it regards this individual.

* He has mocked a reporter with a severe physical disability.

* He has made tasteless comments about a female journalist who asked him tough questions during a televised debate.

* He has referred to a female celebrity as a “fat pig.”

* He has accused the Mexican government of “sending” criminals across the border into this country illegally.

* He has mocked the heroic military service of a U.S. senator who served more than five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.

But in this year with all the “conventional rules” of decorum tossed into the crapper, Trump gets away with it.

Does the Republican nominee have any decency?

My own conclusion is a simple “no.”

This ceremony is worth watching … over and over

President Barack Obama took a few minutes out of his busy day this week to hang a medal around the neck of an 86-year-old hero.

The hero’s name is Charles Kettles. Nearly 50 years ago — yes, 50 years — Kettles found himself in the middle of an intense fire fight in Vietnam.

Kettles, an Army pilot, already had been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his effort to rescue his fellow soldiers, flying them out of the landing zone to safety.

But someone in Ypsilanti, Mich., where Kettles lives, heard about the story and worked for five years to ensure that Kettles received the nation’s highest military award, the Medal of Honor.

This video tells the story. It’s moving. It speaks to one man’s humility, which as I’ve long believed speaks to the fundamental character that all true heroes share.

The event also enables us, as the president noted, to honor the “basic goodness” of Americans. “It’s been a tough couple of weeks,” the president said.

Indeed it has … which helps make this presentation so meaningful.

Thank you, Lt. Col. Kettles.

Getting ready for a pile of negativity

Clinton-and-Trump

I am steeling myself for what I know is coming.

The election of the next president of the United States is going to be an ugly, nasty affair.

It’s a function, I suppose, of anger among the electorate. I am having difficulty processing the reasons why folks are so angry.

My larger sense, though, is that the negativity will be fueled by quality of the two major-party nominees.

Republican Donald J. Trump will be nominated first. This coming week in Cleveland, delegates will gather to send this fellow off to do battle with the Democratic nominee.

Hillary Rodham Clinton will receive the Democrats’ nomination.

Both of these individuals will pack a large load of negative baggage onto the campaign trail. Trump’s unfavorable rating is the 70 percent range; Clinton’s is in the high 50s, low 60s.

So, with little to commend these folks’ positive attributes, they and their campaigns are likely to resort to extreme negativity to tell us all why the other candidate is so repugnant.

I came of age in the late 1960s. I remember a time when the nation was torn to shreds by political unrest. The Vietnam War was going badly. My first political hero, Robert F. Kennedy, was gunned down while he campaigned for the presidency … two months after an assassin killed Martin Luther King Jr. The year was 1968 and it will go down as the most tumultuous year of the final half of the 20th century.

RFK used to consider politics to be a “noble profession” and I bought into it. My belief in its nobility, though, has taken plenty of hits over the years. Money has corrupted the system. We keep seeing the same faces and hearing the same voices every four years.

And that brings us to this campaign.

Are the major-party candidates driven by their grand vision? Will they offer us chapter-and-verse dissertations on why they represent the very best of Americans?

I am not holding my breath.

If my fears prove to be true — that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will drive voters to stay home rather than having their voices heard at the ballot box — then we can lay a good chunk of the blame at the negativity we will have heard.

Let’s all get ready for what we know is coming.

Some pictures have this way of becoming iconic

baton rouge

Take a gander at this picture. It is rapidly becoming an iconic image of protest.

Police in Baton Rouge, La., were all suited up for the worst when demonstrators marched to protest the shooting death of a young black man by a police officer.

Why has this photo gone viral? Beats me. Perhaps it speaks to the fragile line between civil disobedience and armed conflict.

Yes, it does remind me of a couple of other historic images:

guy and tanks

We have this one, shot in 1989 as demonstrators marched through Tiananmen Square in Beijing to protest the dictatorial rule of the People’s Republic of China.

The man standing in front of the row of tanks would move back and forth, blocking the tanks’ progress.

I’ve heard reports over the years that the protester was arrested and has since died.

Then there’s this one:

Antiwar-demonstrators-tri-001

Those of us of a certain age and older remember this image and what it represents.

The Vietnam War was raging and it wasn’t going too well for us politically. Marchers took to the streets and at times confronted armed troops. Some of the marchers reacted badly. Others reacted the way this young man did.

Photojournalists were able to capture this — and many other — images. They are saved for posterity.

It does us well to look back at them to remind ourselves of how we arrived at the present day.

Can Donald Trump really ‘change’ his ways?

trump

I’m trying to understand an admonition that’s coming from leading Republican officeholders, strategists and assorted loyalist as it pertains to the party’s presumed presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.

They want him to “change.” They dislike the name-calling, the insults, the innuendo, the reckless riffs that pour forth whenever he takes the podium as he campaigns for the presidency.

If he changes, they say, they might be able to endorse him. They might actually campaign for him. They’ll support the candidate more than in name only.

I keep wondering: How does a man who’s nearly 70 years of age do that?

What’s more, how do Americans who’ve heard the astonishing things that he’s said ignore them if — and this remains a y-u-u-u-u-g-e stretch — Trump actually becomes a more presentable candidate for president?

It’s like the judge in a trial who tells a jury to “disregard what you’ve just heard” from a criminal defendant or from a prosecuting attorney. Sure thing, Your Honor. We’ll just blot that out of our memory.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has endorsed Trump, but with reservations. He dislikes intensely the candidate’s racist views on U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel and his assertion that Curiel’s heritage disqualifies him from presiding over a lawsuit brought against Trump over his defunct “university.”

Ryan has called Trump’s assertions “racist” in nature, but he’s going to support him.

A lot of Americans — millions of them, in fact — aren’t going to forget those comments. They won’t forget the insults Trump has hurled at women, or his mocking of a reporter’s physical disability, or his assertion that Sen. John McCain is a war hero “because he got captured” by the North Vietnamese.

They won’t forget his plan to ban all Muslims from entering the United States, or his claim that illegal immigrants are coming here to commit crimes.

And then we have the lies, such as when he said he witnessed “thousands upon thousands of Muslims” cheering when the Twin Towers tumbled down on 9/11.

So, he’s supposed to “change” the way he campaigns to make himself more suitable to voters.

How does that happen?

Anti-Islam sentiment: nothing new

Anti-Islamic-Sentiment

Muhammad Ali’s death this past week brings to mind something that I hadn’t considered until, oh, just a few minutes ago.

The legendary fighter’s religious conversion became the subject of considerable discussion — and scorn — when he made that conversion … in 1964!

Which brings to mind this thought: The anti-Muslim sentiment we’re seeing in the present day is nothing new in this country. It’s been there for decades, maybe centuries.

Cassius Clay won the heavyweight boxing championship by scoring a technical knockout over Sonny Liston. Clay then announced he was becoming a Muslim and would change his name; he became Cassius X and later Muhammad Ali.

Sure, over time Ali’s stature would rise to heights not seen in professional athletes. He became a revered figure not so much because he changed his religious affiliation, but because of the courage he displayed in the face of the hatred that was slung at him.

The mid to late 1960s brought a level of turmoil that we hadn’t seen since, perhaps, the Civil War.

The Vietnam War was going badly. Ali became a spokesman against that war. That he became a Muslim — let alone a member of the Nation of Islam — and changed his name to that foreign-sounding moniker only inflamed many people’s passions against him.

Was there religious and racial bigotry coming to the fore then?

I believe there was.

Which brings us to what many Americans are feeling today about people who worship Islam.

Yes, it’s different now. Terrorists have perverted a great religion and committed unspeakable acts in that religion’s name. A leading presidential candidate — Donald J. Trump — has declared his desire to impose a moratorium on all Muslims entering this country; how in the world he would enact such a thing is beyond me.

As Ali’s death has revealed, though, the anti-Muslim sentiment in this country is far from anything that was ginned up by those 9/11 attacks and by the Islamic State’s hideous actions.

The bigotry and intolerance has been wrong for a long time.

As for Ali’s anti-war protest …

muhammad-ali-refuses-army-induction

So much has been written and spoken for nearly 50 years about the time Muhammad Ali refused induction into the armed forces, I hesitate to mention anything about it here.

Awww, but I will anyway.

The Champ’s death Friday saddens me beyond measure. I’ll be grieving for a long time.

I do want to set the record straight, though, on what I believe has been a mischaracterization of Ali’s refusal to be drafted.

It’s been reported that he did so in 1967 out of conscience. He had converted just three years earlier to Islam. He told the Houston draft board he couldn’t serve in the armed forces because of religious conviction, that he couldn’t carry out orders to kill other human beings.

I get that.

What has not been discussed in all the commentary about Ali’s death, though, is that he could have filed as a conscientious objector and still served in the armed forces — in a non-combat role.

No Pentagon bureaucrat in his or her right mind ever would send the reigning heavyweight boxing champion of the world — especially someone such as Muhammad Ali, for crying out loud! — to any training center to be schooled in the combat arms: infantry, armor or artillery.

I served in a basic training company in Fort Lewis, Wash., with a young man who was a conscientious objector. When we completed our boot camp training in October 1968, he got orders for artillery school in Fort Sill, Okla. He hit the ceiling. The last time I saw him before I departed for aircraft maintenance school in Fort Eustis, Va., he was marching into the orderly room to file a protest over the orders he received. I hope he got them changed.

Muhammad Ali would have been given a special assignment, much as Joe Louis received when that former heavyweight champion saw duty during World War II. The Army was full of clerical jobs or other rear-echelon assignments that would have kept Ali far from harm’s way.

Now, having said that, I do not know what was in Muhammad Ali’s heart when he said “no” to being inducted. It well might have been a broader statement against the Vietnam War, that under no circumstances could he don a military uniform while the nation was engaged in all-out war in Southeast Asia.

If that were the case, well, I respect that, too.

Ali’s era: simple and complex all at once

Mohammed Ali

As I’ve spent the day pondering last night’s sad news about Muhammad Ali’s death, I was struck by a realization of the era in which he was such a dominant force.

It was that he flourished in a simpler and more complex time.

Ali died of Parkinson’s disease at the age of 74. He apparently had become quite frail in the final months of his life. But what a departure from the picture of strength he exhibited back in the day.

The simplicity of his era is marked by this fact: As the heavyweight boxing champion of the world, Muhammad Ali was the baddest man on the planet.

The night he stopped Sonny Liston after the sixth round to win the title the first of three times, he yelled, “I shook up the world! I’m a ba-a-a-a-d man!” Yes he was.

In those days, without the multitude of boxing commissions and sanctioning bodies we have today, you had an undisputed champ. Ali was that man.

Today, well, it’s far different. You’ve got at least three heavyweight champions of the world. There are times when you have something called “interim champion”; I don’t even know what the hell that means.

All these “world champs” are recognized only by certain governing bodies. If you’ve got the patience, you can slog through all of them.

I quit following the sport — certainly the heavyweight division of it — about the time Larry Holmes walked away from the championship.

The complexity of Ali’s prime time is reflected in the political climate of the era.

Ali got his draft notice from the Selective Service Administration. He had converted to Islam. He vowed never to take up arms against people. Ali refused to be inducted into the armed forces to protest the Vietnam War.

And by 1967, the political mood of the nation had turned against the war. We weren’t winning it the way to which we had grown accustomed. Ali’s refusal to serve rubbed many millions of Americans raw. How dare this brash, young fighter refuse to serve his country, many people said. Why, he had amassed tremendous wealth because of all that the country had offered him.

That didn’t matter to Ali. He stood on principle.

The boxing authorities — the few of them that existed at the time — stripped him of his title. They denied him permits to fight. He was denied an opportunity to do the one thing he did better than anyone on Earth: beat people up.

The Vietnam War raged on while Ali was denied permission to fight.

The champ did not recede quietly into the shadows. He spoke out against the war. He spoke against what he perceived to be the systemic racism that was denying him his right of free expression.

Muhammad Ali became “the most recognizable person on Earth.”

Who today can make that claim?

The U.S. Supreme Court finally would undo the injustice brought to Ali. It voted unanimously to throw out Ali’s conviction for draft evasion. He returned to the ring.

The rest became history … and what a story Muhammad Ali was able to tell.