Quote:
|
Originally posted by Gimpy so what's yer freakin point?????
|
The point being made is to first understand the demographics of all who enlisted or were drafted during that era, and then see where the President, or ourselves for that matter, fall into the numbers... by way of comparison with what is alledged about those facts.
Examples:
9,087,000 persons served in uniform during the era 1964-1975, one of whom was GW Bush.
compared with:
3,403,100 served in theatre, a difference of almost 6,000,000 who did not. Of the 3+ million, about 500,000 served in theatre but not in-country.
compared with:
648,500 (of 2.9 million) serving were draftees, a difference just short of 2.3 million contrary to common belief about how comparitively widespread the draft was.
compared with:
76% serving in theatre were from lower - middle class working backgrounds.
compared with:
About 6,000 National Guard served in-country.
compared with:
The VN war in particular spanned the years 1964-1973. Prior to 1964, 50,000 served there in uniform... among whom were the airmen with whom I became associated for and from MAAG-VN in a very small way. GW Bush's uniformed service was from 1968-73... i.e. the end of the war.
compared with:
The Paris "Peace Talks" lasted from 1967 - 1973... i.e. they began 3 years after the official onset of the war, and ended 6 years later. Something tells me that if Peace Talks begin 3 years after the onset of a war started by politicians, then everyone who suffers during the time thereafter suffers not because of their own conduct or misconduct, but rather due to the inability of politicians to make peace. That group would include GW Bush and many who post here on PF.
In other words:
a. George W. Bush was far from being unique in the duration or characteristics of his service. So, why single him out? Every single time I have seen the President in the presence of our serving military, he is cheered and welcomed wholeheartedly... and every single one of those doing the cheering are surely, by now, aware that he was in the Air National Guard. No, he is not an exemplary VN combat hero... not all were, even among those who served there; though only a few know what it takes to receive or give angry fire. To those of you who did so, in whatever way, wherever, for however long, with whomever... thank you. Your sacrifice is honored by yourselves, in family memories, here on PF and other similar places and by The Wall for anyone having any care.
b. The chances of serving in combat in-country Vietnam were relatively small in relation to the total number in uniform OR in-country.
c. G.W. Bush's chances of BEING sent in-country were far higher than the great majority in uniform simply because he was flying a combat jet. That is to say, he was not a clerk-typist.
d. Since he is clearly NOT among the lower - middle working class, his chances of being sent under ANY conditions were roughly 25%, at best.
e. If only 6,000+ National Guard served in-country, in what sense would he have been "hiding out" among them in unform?
Obviously his service is not comparable to that of Mr. Murtha, but then neither were either of them on the front lines here at home protesting that war, nor were either of them dodging the draft, getting deferrments and the like.
Questions that might be asked of those who did serve in combat there could include:
1. Did you have a choice or the final say about your MOS or where you were deployed?
2. If you chose to serve in a combat job, weren't there a great many times when you maybe wished you hadn't been so eager to do so?
3. Though many disparage those non-combatants who served in-country or at home as "REMF", could you have gotten along without most of them?
4. Why, are you still so angry, at everyone else? And even if justifiably angry, is there not a better option?
I don't see how anyone who did not serve in-country and especially in a combat unit there can ever possibly know what those who did know... or feel, or experience, or live with every day since that time. All the rest can do is be supportive and empathize... and even thank heaven it wasn't us. This is one reason us "REMF"s, among others who were not REMF, are so determined this time to make absolutely sure that we routinely resist every single attempt to undermine the war effort... and to endure all manner of insults and misleading statements to the contrary, by anyone, including VN combat Vets such as was Mr. Kerry during his "Winter Soldier" testimony. Some say this tendency stems from guilt... and maybe for some it does. But, I think it stems from "Lessons Learned"... and it is surprising that any Vietnam combat Vet would ever repeat the systematic error of not simply waiting until the war had been finished to join in anything that might so much as possibly hamper the efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Anyone on this site who still takes anything I think or write seriously will recall that I did everything possible to speak out AGAINST the onset of this war when I first came here. I did so, and I believe presciently, articulating almost point for point what was going to be, and has now been, the most likely strategic outcome. Indeed, David posted a poll on my request in those early days, asking whether or not America should go to war.
I did think that more time should have been given to UN inspectors. I did predict an increase of insurgent violence. I did state that this war had been planned prior to 9/11. I did express doubt about the presence of wmd as a justification for opening armed hostilities. However, I also stated that once it begins, we must all pull together to win it... and have endeavored ever since then to be faithful to that premise. Nothing else matters at this time, than to complete the mission successfully and to be true to those who are doing the fighting in word and deed.
In the interim, I have done my very best to familiarize myself with the history and traditions of those who live in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with all that led up to this war. I have done my very best to understand the logic or illogic of the warfare and the war from our side and theirs... strategically, tactically and logistically. I have come away from that research seeing that the war was inevitable, and even quite a bit tardy. Hopefully, apparently, not TOO much so.
None of this makes either one of them (Bush, Murtha nor any of us) more right or more wrong about their positions on the war in Iraq or Afghanistan... is perhaps the key point being made.