THE IRONY OF BASHING ANTI-WAR MONGERS

Americans have forgotten a few important things about supporting wars and supporting soldiers.

Firstly, there is an important distinction between supporting a war and supporting a soldier. At the onset of our current War Crime Fiasco in Iraq, there was a lot of political sloganing about supporting soldiers under the main guise of not letting our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan face some of the "nasty anti-soldier sentiment" that faced returning soldiers from Vietnam.

This was George Bush's attempt to gain support for an invasion of Iraq by confusing Americans into thinking that by blindly supporting this current war we could somehow undo some of the negative experiences experienced by soldiers returning from Vietnam.

There was an uneasy feeling in the air in America that if you didn't somehow endorse a criminal invasion of Iraq, then you agreed to spitting on Vietnam vets and calling them "baby killers".

A giant part of America fell for this sham.

Before we look at the current war in Iraq, lets take a second look at the war and anti-war movement surrounding the Vietnam war.

Most men can agree with the standard definition of a "hero" as a man who charges a machine gun nest, or throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies. A hero could be a soldier or a Marine who shows no fear in the face of the enemy and rallies his friends in the field to extraordinary acts of courage and "saves the day". I agree with these standard images of what defines a "hero" . A hero is a man who uses unusual bravery and personal energy to cause more of his buddies to survive a war and come home to their families, often through personal sacrifice, or death. Heroes deserve medals, heroes save lives.

However, I think it is time to expand our idea of what defines a "hero of the Vietnam era." I think it is time to expand our minds on what or who actually saved lives in the Vietnam war.

As stated above, heroes come in a military form, but what about persons not in the military. Can they be considered "heroes" also? If the definition of a "hero" "a man who uses unusual bravery or personal energy to cause more of his buddies/fellow citizens to come home alive, often through personal sacrifice or death, then is a peach demonstrator of the Vietnam era a "hero" also.

A peace demonstrator, a hippie, a flower child, or whatever you call them didn't jump on any grenades, they didn't stand up against any machine gun fire. They didn't see anyone die in their arms. They bear no mental scars of witnessing a violent disaster every day. They don't wake up crying, or suddenly remember their hearts are still broken over their teenage friends that died in Vietnam.

How can a hippie, a flower child, or a peace demonstrator be mentioned on the same page as a "hero" , a real traditional hero from the Vietnam era?

The answer is that our mainstream political machine was in no hurry to bring our troops home from Vietnam. If it were up to them, we would probably still be there, still bleeding, and still dying. It was largely from INTENSE domestic political pressure did our government feel the need to pull our soldiers from Vietnam. Every day that the Vietnam war ended early SAVED LIVES!!

The Vietnam war was a difficult war to fight because our enemy used non-traditional methods of attack such as putting bombs on kids and having them run up to soldiers. Our soldiers were faced with the horrible task of sometimes firing at kids they suspected of carrying bombs. Sometimes our soldiers were correct, and sometimes they made mistakes. Our soldiers were ordered to raid villages at night, forced to fire into the darkness to kill an enemy before they could fire their weapons. Sometimes enemies were killed, sometimes Vietnamese civilians were killed. This was a dirty and heartbreaking war for our often teenage soldiers tasked to fight it. There was no clean or good way for our soldiers to survive the Vietnam war. They did exactly what the soldiers of any land would have done in their position.

Our bombers targeted enemy villages, sometimes they killed enemies, sometimes they killed innocent civilians, and sometimes both.

Returning soldiers from Vietnam were sometimes "spit upon" and sometimes called "baby killer". These same soldiers had recently come home after being in deadly jungle combat only days or weeks ago. Our country was not prepared to mend the psychological wounds of very young men who had recently been in terrible situations.

Our media and popular culture has confused a Vietnam era "peace protester" with the same kind of insensive ignorant clod who would "spit on" or yell "baby killer" at a returning veteran.

Our modern culture feels terrible about the lack of attention and the mistreatment of our Vietnam era veterans. And we should feel terrible about many aspects of their treatment.

However, modern culture has incorrectly lumped "peace protesters" and "anti-war mongers" together with the clods whose treatment of our returning Vietnam era vets have become some kind of a "hateful congealed mirage" that represents "all peace activist" and "all anti-war protesters".

This confusion on the part of modern America opened up a giant opportunity for the Bush war machine to "shame America" into not organizing an effective "anti-war machine" to resist his criminal actions in Iraq.

The idea that America shouldn't spit on or harass its returning soldiers is correct. The idea that protesting a war isn't helpful in saving soldiers lives is not correct. These are two completely different genre's of thought and action.

The irony of bashing , even subtly our countries anti - war mongers, or peace protesters is that they are partially responsible for saving the lives of our soldiers in Vietnam.

It is correct for Americans to be repulsed at the image of some drunken hippies yelling "baby killer" at a lonely Vietnam vet when he steps off the greyhound bus trying to get home to his mother. This is a sad and troubling image.

It is also correct to be similarly repulsed at the idea of some clod yelling "babykiller" at some guy in a small military parade when he returns home from "surving" in Vietnam.

However, it is Ironic and sickening that our own draft dodging President Bush should enjoy enjoy his war crime fiasco being protected by a morphed image of these jerks abusing vietnam era vets, and legitimate peace protesters of the same period.

Bush has piggybacked our country's shameful treatment of Vietnam era vets into a shield protecting his war crime.

This is Ironic because legitimate peace protesters in the Vietnam era saved lives in no small measure, and modern war protesters are saving lives in a similar fasion.

So when the Bush machine is denying the validity of an anti-war protester, he his denying life and survival to a certain number of soldiers currently in Iraq.

Michael Miller