Thank a Vet//I�m still searching for a reason.

Thank a Vet?

We�ve all seen the bumper stickers: "My son is in the Air Force," "If
You Can Read This in English, Thank a Marine," "Proud Vietnam
Veteran," "Fly Navy," and of course, "Thank a Vet."  Why should we?
Why should we call them heroes, give them military discounts, grant
them veterans preference, express our support for them with ribbons on
our cars, honor them with a holiday, hold military appreciation church
services for them, and thank them for their "service"?

Veterans Day began as Armistice Day to commemorate the signing of the
armistice that ended World War I. It had nothing to do with honoring
current and former members of the military like Veterans Day is
celebrated today. And if the sole purpose of Armistice Day was to
honor World War I veterans, it should never have been celebrated since
no American soldier did anything honorable by intervening in a
European foreign war. And it doesn�t matter if he was drafted or not.
Britain�s last World War I combat veteran, Harry Patch, died last year
at the age of 111. He boasted that he hadn�t killed anyone in combat.
"War isn�t worth one life," Patch said, it is "calculated and condoned
slaughter of human beings." In his autobiography The Last Fighting
Tommy, Patch wrote that "politicians who took us to war should have
been given the guns and told to settle their differences themselves,
instead of organising nothing better than legalised mass murder." In
the last years of his life, Patch warned some young naval recruits
that they shouldn�t join.

Frank Buckles, age 109, is the only American veteran of World War I
still living. When asked while being honored for his service at a 2007
Veterans Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery what he thought
about being there while the United States was at war, he replied: "I�m
no authority, but I�m not in favor of war unless it�s an emergency." I
think that Buckles is more of an authority on the horrors of war and
the folly and wickedness of war than the current members of the Joint
Chiefs. It is only because World War I did not turn out to be the "war
to end all wars" that the holiday was changed to Veterans Day as a
tribute to all soldiers who fought for their country.

Although I believe World War II to be neither necessary nor good, I
come not on this Veterans Day to criticize the "greatest generation,"
who, it turns out, were also great at pillaging and carousing.
For reasons I explained in "U.S. Presidents and Those Who Kill for
Them," World War II marks the permanent establishment of the American
military as the president�s personal attack force to kill by his
decree Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Grenadians,
Panamanians, Yugoslavs, Serbians, Afghans, Iraqis, Somalis, Yemenis,
and Pakistanis. Next on the list is Iranians. Sometimes these
presidential decrees are rubberstamped by a congressional
authorization to use force, but they are always preceded by
presidential lies and warmonger propaganda.

So why should a Vietnam veteran be proud? He was typically young,
ignorant, deceived, and drafted. He may have fought obediently,
valiantly, selflessly, and fearlessly, but since he had no business
fighting in Vietnam in the first place, I have nothing to thank him
for. And I certainly can�t thank him for preventing the Viet Cong from
turning America into a socialist republic. Besides, LBJ beat Ho Chi
Minh to that anyway. Many Vietnam veterans have written me and
expressed shame, remorse, anger, and resentment � not pride � for
having been duped into going thousands of miles away from American
soil to intervene in another country�s civil war. In fact, I have
found that it is those who are not Vietnam veterans who are the most
vociferous defenders of the war in Vietnam.

The most undeserved and oftentimes disgusting outpouring of
thankfulness I have ever seen is over those who have fought or are
fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The praise and adoration of those
fighting in "the front lines in the war on terror" reaches its apex on
Veterans Day, which has become a day to defend U.S. wars and recognize
all things military. These soldiers certainly have done nothing worthy
of thanks. Sure, they have rebuilt infrastructure � after bombing it
to smithereens. They no doubt removed a brutal dictator � and
unleashed American brutality in the process. And yes, they have
rescued orphan children � after blowing their parents and brothers and
sisters to kingdom come.
What is there to thank our soldiers for? They are not defending our
freedoms. They are not keeping us safe from our enemies. They are not
protecting us from terrorists. They are not guaranteeing our First
Amendment rights. They are not defending U.S. borders. They are not
guarding U.S. shores. They are not patrolling U.S. coasts. They are
not enforcing no-fly zones over U.S. skies. They are not fighting
"over there" so we don�t have to fight "over here." They are not
avenging 9/11. They are not safeguarding the American way of life. Oh,
and they are not ensuring that I have the liberty to write what I do
about the military.

What, then, should we thank our soldiers for? Should we thank them for
fighting an unconstitutional war, an unscriptural war, an immoral war,
an offensive war, an unjust war, or a senseless war? Should we thank
our veterans for helping to carry out an aggressive, reckless,
belligerent, and interventionist foreign policy? Should we thank the
military for sucking $1 trillion out of the federal budget? But, some
will say, these soldiers are just doing their jobs. They can�t help it
if the U.S. military sends them to fight in an unjust war in Iraq or
Afghanistan. They are just following orders. They didn�t enlist in the
military to kill people. What would any sane man think about a doctor
who takes a job at a hospital knowing that the hospital instructs its
doctors to euthanize old and sickly patients � and then says he was
just doing his job, following orders, and didn�t take the job to kill
people?

Why are soldiers treated so differently? Why do they get a pass on
committing or supporting those who commit murder and mayhem?
But, someone else says, the military has lowered its recruiting
standards and is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Many soldiers are
ignorant about the true nature of the military and U.S. foreign
policy. Why should we fault them for their ignorance? Why should they
be criticized for unjustly killing Iraqis or Afghans or Pakistanis?
They are just following orders. Let�s go back to the doctor I
mentioned. Suppose that after he takes a job in ignorance at what he
thinks is a reputable hospital he is instructed to euthanize old and
sickly patients? What should he do? I don�t know of anyone who would
say anything else but that he should quit his job or at least refuse
to euthanize anyone.
Again, why are soldiers treated so differently? Why do they get a pass
on committing or supporting those who commit murder and mayhem?
But, comes another reply, soldiers have a term of enlistment. They
can�t just quit their jobs. Doctors can walk away from their jobs at
any time. Then I guess it all comes down to morality: Be a mercenary
and kill for the state or refuse to do so and suffer the consequences
of dishonorable discharge and/or imprisonment.

It is high time that Americans stop holding veterans and current
members of the military in such high esteem. It is scientists,
engineers, inventors, businessmen, industrialists, software
developers, and entrepreneurs that made America great � not veterans
of foreign wars. It is doctors, iron workers, taxi drivers,
bricklayers, writers, electricians, and cooks that positively
contribute to society � not soldiers.

I would like to be able to thank a vet � on Veterans Day and every
other day of the year � but I�m still searching for a reason.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance216.html