How to Die for a Mistake

If he wins the election, no doubt President John Kerry will utter many memorable words but so far his most famous words were spoken in 1971: “How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?” Kerry’s question, a product of anger, sorrow and loyalty, is the sine qua non of leadership. No leader wants to bear the responsibility for telling the people for whom he or she is responsible that their efforts are in vain, especially when those efforts involve the suffering and trauma of combat. Nowhere else in human existence are we asked to become un-human, to kill and destroy. To do this and then find out that it was nothing leaves a person devoid of their humanity with nothing of value to show for it. All that remains is the hole where humanity used to be.

Admitting mistakes involving armed aggression is probably the most difficult thing a society can do. It forces the society to confront its motives and values. And because aggression is normally considered a crime, no one wants to admit committing such an act without strong justification. Armed aggression is the most lethal action one society can take against another so it must always be justified. As John Kerry said in the 30 September debate,

“...[Y]ou have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.” (emphasis added)

(Note to George Bush: Check your dictionary before saying more about the “global test.” Or at least read Will Saletan’s and Juan Cole’s thoughts about it. Global doesn’t mean what you think.)

Simply put, use of force must always be legitimate; some great good must result from that exercise of power. Something must compensate for the humanity sacrificed in the cause. That’s why Kerry’s words were so powerful in 1971. When he spoke, the United States had over six years of active combat in Vietnam and was well into its second decade of military operations in that country. We had bombed, strafed, napalmed, poisoned, burned and killed. We were anything but human. Of course, we had our reasons but by 1971 the number of dead and wounded had reached the point where it seemed to have little purpose. John Kerry and the many Vietnam Veterans Against the War were the witnesses to both America’s lack of purpose and its cost.

As we approach the 2004 presidential election, America is again debating John Kerry’s question. Not because we are interested in history but rather because the United States is now asking its citizens to shed their humanity to kill and destroy in Iraq. As always, Americans trusted the president and other leaders when they said that invading Iraq was necessary to protect America. Now the nation is not so certain and wonders about the wisdom of our actions. But even John Kerry won’t call the War on Iraq a mistake. He knows that Americans are not ready to hear that message from a presidential candidate, so he walks a verbal tightrope in his criticism of the war.

My experience in Vietnam tells me that dying for a mistake is harder than dying a for a cause. At least when you believe in what you’re fighting for, you have some energy, some drive, some reason for the sacrifice you are making. You can confront the horror that you create while telling yourself that some good will emerge. The good compensates for the humanity you lose in the fighting. Without that motivation, that justification, your sacrifice is pointless. You kill and destroy for no reason. Nothing counterbalances the evil inherent in your action. To die in such a manner is tragic because your life is wasted. Surviving the mistake also brings its own pain as the veteran lives with the inhumanity of his or her actions but cannot balance the inhumanity with the good produced by those actions.

Dying for a mistake isn’t hard. You just have to follow a leader who doesn’t understand war or the need to honestly justify the use of force to his fellow countrymen. Americans will always answer their country’s call and will sacrifice willingly. A wise leader knows not to waste that sacrifice.

Debating Points

Last night’s presidential debate was better than I expected. John Kerry and George Bush debated the substance of the War in Iraq. They laid out two contrasting visions of the world. I thought the discussion was meaningful and well focused. Bush argued that the war was the right war and that the invasion could not be delayed. Saddam Hussein would have been “tougher, stronger” had the US waited. Kerry lamented Bush’s lack of “patience”. Bush insisted that he made the right decision (“that’s what you do when you’re president”) and all we need is to be resolute. He distorted Kerry’s positions far more than Kerry did Bush’s. Kerry’s questions and reservations about the war came across as sincere and consistent.

John Kerry stood his ground and made a strong case for himself. Kerry was Bush’s equal throughout. He never wilted. He was resolute. Kerry stood up for his anti-war actions, placing them in the context of keeping faith with the troops, and reminded Americans that he has had a substantive career in the US Senate and his command of information and detail was far better than Bush’s. Kerry spoke boldly and firmly: No long term US designs on Iraq; No new bunker busting nuclear weapons. Bush talked about core values but those values added up to little more than “Trust me. I know. Don’t question me.” Kerry, on the other hand did not speak about core values directly; his ideas and words illustrated his values, much to his advantage.

Kerry sounded false only one time. He refused to call the war a mistake as he did in 1971 speaking about Vietnam, although “mistake” was the logic of everything he had about Iraqup to that point. Instead of insisting that Iraq isn’t a mistake, Kerry should have said something like, “If we don’t get our act together, it may well be a mistake and if it is, another generation of veterans will be asking ‘Why?’ I know what that’s like”. As it was he stammered bit and didn’t sound convincing. The moment passed bit Kerry missed one of his best opportunities for a knockout punch. Will Saletan addresses this very well in Slate.com.

But the question of the war’s value and purpose was clearly in play. Bush said that a commander-in-chief who cannot say “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” and retain any credibility with the troops. “What would they say?” he asked. Well, Mister President, the troops would say “We’re screwed” which is what they are saying now. They already know the real story. I think they would welcome a commander-in-chief who has a handle on reality. I think they would welcome a commander-in-chief who understands what is happening to them at the end of the “pipeline”. I know I would have welcomed that kind of honest leadership when I was in Vietnam during 1971. As it was, the only ones speaking the truth then were John Kerry and his fellow Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Bush definitely looked under attack. He gripped the podium often and at times seemed to be ducking behind it. He paused and stammered often as he collected his thoughts. His uncertainty was especially apparent on nuclear proliferation as he tried to recall his administration’s policies and accomplishments in that area. It was clear that nuclear proliferation is not a subject that he spends much time thinking about. But despite his poor performance, Bush did not wilt. He stood his ground, although less convincingly, I thought, than Kerry. Where Kerry was articulate and thoughtful, Bush often fell back to his stump speech buzzwords: “offense”, “mixed messages”, “resolve”, “hard work”.

The debate presented two very different pictures of America in the world. Bush promised to lead America on “offense”, a word he used often. Bush’s America acts on its own for its own purposes, regardless of what the world thinks. Kerry offered a vision of America working with and through other nations, not relinquishing the option to take strong action when needed but recognizing that world opinion does count, especially when the issue is preemptive attacks. Bush dismissed the idea of a “global test” which he described as merely an attempt to court favor.

Kerry also looked and sounded very strong on nuclear proliferation as the most serious threat facing this nation and the world. Jim Leher barely finished his question before Kerry responded and began listing the danger of weapons grade materials loose in the world and the failures of the Bush administration to effectively control nuclear materials. Bush was left, not quite speechless, but certainly at a loss for words. His answer was “me too” but without a lot to show he means it.

The debate was significant for me because it demonstrated why John Kerry better represents my values and the kind of world I want my generation to pass on the future. He spoke America as part of a world community. He rejected any long term designs on Iraqi territory or resources. And he highlighted the hypocrisy of the US seeking to reduce weapons of mass destruction even as we develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. The debate was clearly the most substantive that I can recall. I wonder how Vietnam would have turned out had such a debate occurred in 1968 or 1972.

Kerry was clearly at his best last night. He’s back in the game but it’s far from over.