Opinions from This Combat Veteran of the Vietnam War

          Since the day the Unites States declared war on the terrorists who seized airliners filled with innocents and flew them into American buildings, I have supported our leaders and our troops in every way I can.  In the early campaigns, it seemed that the vast majority of Americans also supported the troops; but as time passed and our presence in the Middle East was prolonged by insurgencies I have watched as staunch support dwindled toward apathy and the ugly face of politics entered the fray.  In recent years, political opposition from even those who voted in Congress to go to war arose to the point that some, who opposed President Bush politically, prematurely declared defeat in Iraq.  As a combat veteran and writer of military history, my worst nightmares are coming true.  History is repeating itself; the real nightmare of the Vietnam War – perhaps well-intentioned but definitely wrong-headed political micromanagement of our military – is recurring.

          At the epicenter of this controversy are the military’s Rules of Engagement, which are assigned to them for every mission by our political and senior military leadership.  When they are assigned a combat mission, our military leaders use a very thorough and battle-tested formula to ensure that they have covered all the bases:  Situation, Mission, Execution, Administration, and Command, Control and Communications (SMEAC).  Unit leaders, when planning combat operations, must first thoroughly understand the situation they are in, through observation and intelligence gathering.  The mission statement must be clear and concise, and the mission must be achievable.  They must develop a sound strategy and plan the tactics they will use, and then execute the plan affectively and aggressively.  They must ensure that the troops have all the “beans, Band-aids and bullets” they need to accomplish the mission and that their logistical plan is sound.  Finally, they must ensure that the troops have the communications tools they need to coordinate their efforts.  Underlying all of these important elements of a combat mission are the Rules of Engagement (ROE).  ROE can either support their efforts to accomplish their mission with a minimum of friendly and civilian casualties, or they can, and often do, hamper their effectiveness resulting in greater losses.

          In military operations, the Rules of Engagement determine when, where, and how force shall be used.  ROE are used in the American military to ensure that our troops fight humanely.  Rules of Engagement are theoretically put in place to avoid “collateral damage,” that terribly inadequate term used to politely describe the destruction of people’s homes and the violent deaths of innocents.  In my experience, however, the Rules of Engagement forced upon me and my fellow Marines and soldiers during the Vietnam War did little to avoid these horrible consequences of war.  Ultimately in war, innocents die and homes and churches and businesses are destroyed.  In Vietnam, the ROE did more to kill American soldiers and Marines, did more to destroy our faith and trust in our political and military leaders, than they did to save innocent lives.

           I do understand the political need and humane desire, especially on the part of Americans, to keep civilian casualties at a minimum; but I am not so sure that the President, or any of my fellow Americans who have no personal experience in combat, understand the risk and danger in implementing policies that unnecessarily restrain our use of military power.  Americans have a compulsion to “fight fair.”  We are taught, from a young age, that we must not take advantage of the weak.  Those lessons of our youth carry forward into young adulthood.  Those few brave young Americans who have volunteered to serve in our military over the past decade have gotten a rude awakening during training when they are taught, rightfully, that trying to choreograph a fair fight during wartime is simply stupid.  As a Marine infantry officer during the Vietnam War, I witnessed the tragic stupidity of overly restrictive ROE on many, many occasions.  I learned first-hand what can happen, and what did happen too many times, when the Commander in Chief, through my Chain of Command, ordered my Marines into battle after tying our hands behind our backs.  This happened many times during my 13-month tour in Vietnam.  I can remember vividly our frustration on one occasion in the Spring of 1968, when we caught a VC mortar squad red-handed, out in the open, but because but our Rules of Engagement, we let them get away. 

          Our infantry company’s mission was the security of several bridges along Highway 1 just south of Phu Bai.  My platoon was manning our defensive positions around Bridge 1 one afternoon when the sounds and concussion of incoming enemy mortars shattered the afternoon calm.  One of the other platoons in our infantry company had been patrolling west of us, and one of their observation posts surrounding their hidden daytime bivouac position reported that they had heard the first “bloops” of 60mm mortars being fired in our direction, and they had quickly spotted the VC.  At the same time, a Huey gunship was running a “canopy patrol” not far away, and the platoon commander switched to the Forward Air Control (FAC) frequency and requested a fire mission.  The Huey pilot acknowledged that they could clearly see the VC mortar squad out in the open, about a click from the safety of the jungle-covered mountains west of us.  We knew this was an enemy unit trying to kill us – there was no doubt.  The company commander and the platoon commander both requested a fire mission, but the Huey pilot reminded us that we were in a “restricted fire zone” and that he would need to get approval from his headquarters before he could unleash his rockets on these sitting ducks.  Approval finally came, about a half hour later, but the VC mortar squad had already escaped into the mountains.  The Huey unleashed its rockets in the general direction of the VC, but we all knew that this VC unit had survived and would be back to haunt us another day.

          Rules of engagement in Vietnam resulted in areas being organized around Zones:  Free Fire Zones (in which we could use all our firepower if we saw anything troubling, without receiving advance approval) and Restricted Fire Zones (in which we could not fire at anything, even if it was obviously an enemy unit, without prior approval).  The reasoning behind the Restricted Fire Zones was to keep civilian casualties in the nearby villages to a minimum, and to avoid our firing on “friendly units,” those from the South Vietnamese Army.  These rules were inviolable and we all knew that if we didn’t follow the rules there would be hell to pay.  This is one of many instances during my tour in Vietnam when we became our own worst enemy.

          The most atrocious instance of this stupidity occurred on 13 February 1968, when my platoon of U. S. Marines was ordered to frontally assault a vastly superior enemy force in the Citadel Fortress of Hué, with no supporting arms.  No air strikes, no artillery, no preparatory fires or heavy support of any kind.  These ROE were put into place because the politicians didn’t want to destroy any of the buildings in the sacred imperial capital of Hué, a historically important city that was at the heart of the Vietnamese soul. Our “sister” battalion, 2^nd Battalion, 5^th Marines, had been hampered by these same ROE during their earlier actions in South Hué, for the first six days of their battle, severely restricting their ability to destroy the NVA units that had captured that section of this historic city during the infamous Tet Offensive of 1968.  Despite the fact that the ROE had only resulted in the postponement of the destruction of homes and other buildings in South Hué and had caused untold numbers of unnecessary American casualties, despite the fact that the ROE didn’t work, one week later our Chain of Command and our Commander in Chief placed the same damnable ROE on our use of heavy support.  On that day, 13 February 1968, the 1^st Battalion, 5^th Marines, with my platoon on point, advanced toward an entrenched, determined enemy force with our hands tied neatly behind our backs.

          The first result of that terrible decision was that 60% of my Marines were either killed or severely wounded that day, after attempting three frontal assaults, and we made absolutely no progress against the enemy.  Those Rules of Engagement stayed in force for two more terrible days resulting in over 40% casualties in my battalion (a force of about 1,000 infantry Marines), with absolutely no progress against the enemy.

          We were an outstanding infantry battalion that had achieved victory after victory against this same enemy, the North Vietnamese Army; but in Hué during those first three very tragic days, all we accomplished was to get our own men killed.  I have imagined for over 40 years that our enemy was happily amazed during those three days, and laughing at us the whole time.  What they had never been able to accomplish, defeating us, was now being accomplished by our Commander in Chief, President Lyndon Johnson, and the American military’s Chain of Command.

          Fortunately for us, a famous Marine Corps General, Lieutenant General Victor H. “Brute” Krulak, heard about our situation and, risking his career and defying the politicians, lifted the ROE and allowed us to fight the way we had been trained.  Ten days later, we had accomplished our mission, the sound defeat of two NVA regiments, a force that turned out to be five times our size.  Unfortunately for the Vietnamese people, many of the ancient buildings in Hué were damaged or destroyed, but most of those Vietnamese civilians I saw during the aftermath, at least those who were still alive (the NVA rounded up and murdered over 3,000 South Vietnamese people in Hué while this battle was raging) were simply happy that the fighting was over and that the enemy had been soundly defeated.  Our victory, however, soured in our mouths because we all knew that many young Americans had died unnecessarily.  My own guilt as part of that Chain of Command haunts me to this day.  I knew it was wrong, my men knew it was wrong, everyone involved knew that this was just plain wrong, but we were given our orders and we had to obey.  Damaged real estate can be fixed; those outstanding young Marines I lost in Hué will never be recovered.  Now, today, in Afghanistan, history is repeating. 

          I believe the most important duty of the President of the United States, especially during a time of war, is his duty as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.  America is at war right now, on many fronts.  Outstanding young Americans are dying tragically every day, in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Some of those deaths are the wages of war; some of them lie squarely at the feet of our military’s Chain of Command and the Commander in Chief, because the Rules of Engagement for our troops in harms’ way are totally out of balance with their ability to accomplish their mission.  The lives of brave young Americans who have volunteered to serve in our military are being put at risk, unnecessarily, so that the lives of Iraqi and Afghani civilians will not be.

          I call your attention to three Associated Press articles published over the past few months.  The first went nearly unnoticed by most Americans:

23 June 2009

Associated Press

Changes to the Rules of Engagement for Afghanistan

The U.S. commander in Afghanistan will soon order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding among villagers, an official said Monday, announcing one of the strongest measures yet to protect Afghan civilians.

The most contentious civilian casualty cases in recent years occurred during battles in Afghan villages when U.S. airstrikes aimed at militants also killed civilians. American commanders say such deaths hurt their mission because they turn average Afghans against the government and international forces …

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the “number of Afghans shielded from violence” — not the number of militants killed.

McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.

“But if there is a compound they’re taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that’s the option they should take,” Smith said. “Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban.”

          Now, today, our young Marines fighting in Afghanistan have their hands tied behind their backs, and our enemies are surely laughing at us once again.  A few months ago, shortly after these new ROE were put into affect, a Marine infantry company patrolling in Southern Afghanistan was ambushed by a group of Afghani insurgents.  A large firefight took place and casualties were taken on both sides.  Getting the upper hand through their superior weapons and marksmanship, the Marines aggressively pursued their enemy who broke off from the fight and fled into a nearby village.  The company commander, mindful of the new ROE, surrounded the village but ordered a cease fire and had an interpreter talk to the insurgents over a loudspeaker.  The insurgents were told that they were trapped, and the interpreter asked them to release the women and children.  After a short time, several women and children exited the village and were released.  Once the ROE could be honored, and the “innocent” civilians were out of harm’s way, the Marines swept through the area and searched the village only to discover that the enemy had fled.  They had dressed up in the tent-like dresses of the Afghani women, covered their faces, and snuck out of Dodge.  Due to these ROE, this group of enemy fighters, just like that VC mortar squad, lived to fight another day.

          The second Associated Press article dramatically and tragically reports on the horror of this kind of limited war, and the horrendously negative impact of these ridiculous and overly restrictive Rules of Engagement:

Father of Dying Marine in AP Photo Calls for Changes in Afghanistan Rules of Engagement

By DAVID SHARP

Published: October 13, 2009 2:13 PM ET

NEW PORTLAND, Maine It was the last way John Bernard would have wanted his voice to gain prominence in the national debate over the war in Afghanistan.

The retired Marine had been writing to lawmakers for weeks complaining of the new rules of engagement he believed put U.S. troops at unacceptable risk in the insurgency-wracked country. He got little response.

Then Bernard’s only son, 21-year-old Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard — a Marine, like his dad — was killed in an insurgent ambush in Afghanistan’s volatile Helmand province, the latest victim of a surge in U.S. combat deaths.

Three weeks later, Joshua became the face of that toll when The Associated Press published photos of the dying Marine against his father’s wishes and John Bernard was thrust into a national debate about the role of the press in wartime.

Suddenly, for all the worst reasons, John Bernard’s voice was being heard.

The loss of his son and the furor over the photo have given new resonance to his view that changes must be made in how the war is fought before President Barack Obama sends any more troops to battle the Taliban and al-Qaida.

“For better or for worse, I may be the face of this. That’s fine,” said Bernard, sitting on his porch as he drank coffee from a Marine Corps mug. “As soon as someone bigger can run with it, they can have the whole thing.”

Bernard’s criticism is aimed at new rules of engagement imposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the senior American commander in Afghanistan, five weeks before Joshua Bernard was killed. They limit the use of airstrikes and require troops to break off combat when civilians are present, even if it means letting the enemy escape. They also call for greater cooperation with the Afghan National Army.

Under those rules, John Bernard said, Marines and soldiers are being denied artillery and air support for fear of killing civilians, and the Taliban is using that to its tactical advantage. In a letter to his congressman and Maine’s U.S. senators, Bernard condemned “the insanity of the current situation and the suicidal position this administration has placed these warriors in.”

 …..

“We’ve abandoned them in this Catch-22 where we’re supposed to defend the population, but we can’t defend them because we can’t engage the enemy that is supposed to be the problem,” he said in an interview with the AP.

As a retired Marine, Bernard said he’s obligated to speak up. His son is now gone, but he said others are still at risk.

“We’ve got guys in harm’s way getting shot at and getting killed,” he said. “To me, it’s immoral that anybody in this country wouldn’t have that first and last on their minds.”

          I mourn today with Marine John Bernard and his family.  I cannot fathom his loss.  When I think about his loss, I remember those young Marines in Hué, those who obeyed my commands to rise up and assault the enemy, time after time, never once questioning the stupidity of their situation.  They had been trained to fight using supporting arms, but their Chain of Command and their Commander in Chief utterly failed them at a critical moment, and they went to their deaths.  Their names are different: Lance Corporal Ed Estes, PFC Kellynn Snow, PFC Charles Morgan, PFC Dennis Langrock and PFC Jerry Mounts all died that day, 13 February 1968.  Twenty-four others were severely wounded and medevacced – as a direct result of wrong-headed, overly restrictive Rules of Engagement.  Their wounds, their deaths, fall squarely at my feet, as part of their Chain of Command, and at the feet of their Commander in Chief.

          Young Joshua Bernard was trained, as a U. S. Marine, to fight the enemy using supporting arms.  He spent months and months in training, being constantly assured that he would receive the support he and his fellow Marines would need when the chips were down.  Although he knew he was in a dangerous occupation, I know he felt solace in the fact that the Marine on his left, and the Marine on his right, the supporting Marines behind him and above him would fight hard for him and his buddies.  He expected, with good reason, that his Chain of Command and his Commander in Chief would support him and in every way, with good intelligence and communications, with air power and artillery.  And, again tragically, his Chain of Command, his Commander in Chief, failed him at the critical moment.  Losses during a time of war are one thing; unnecessary losses are unacceptable.

          Another AP article reports on recent surveys taken by American troops serving in Afghanistan, headlined: “Army Says Morale Down Among Troops in Afghanistan.”  It cites numerous causes for declining morale, including “significantly more marital problems, increased exposure to combat, the wearing affect of long deployments,” and other factors.  Although the situation they are reporting on is tragic and should concern every American today, they have missed the essential point.

          The point they have missed (or blatantly failed to report) is that these great young Americans have come to realize that their Chain of Command, including their Commander in Chief, care less about them than they do about the “innocent” civilians.  Rules of Engagement have been established, and are being enforced, that put them at a severe disadvantage, and they know it.  We are told that this is necessary because we can’t afford to injure or kill innocent Afghani civilians.  The insanity of this statement is that we are unnecessarily risking the lives of American soldiers and Marines by trying to save Afghani lives.  This type of thing is simply politics, at its ugliest.  Those who have served in the cauldron of combat know that war is hell, and civilians are killed, no matter what steps are taken to avoid that tragic but inevitable consequence of war.

          I was somewhat heartened to read a recent article written by Senator James Webb, Democrat from Virginia.  Jim Webb is a highly decorated U. S. Marine Corp veteran of the Vietnam War.  His article, entitled “A Plan In Need Of Clarity” was written in response to President Obama’s speech at West Point, and his points are critically important to the success of our troops in Afghanistan.  Senator Webb is an outstanding writer, and his points are succinctly made with great clarity.  He states, “Our strategy is sound only if framed with clearly defined and attainable goals, an understandable end point and a regional perspective.”  When viewing the “big picture” in Afghanistan, these issues are certainly paramount to our ultimate success there.  But wars are not fought by people looking at the “big picture.”  They are not fought by Senators and Presidents and senior military leaders looking through TV screens and situational monitors.  They are fought on the ground, by our young people, by flesh and blood.  They are fought by those who have the most to lose – their lives.  Their fight is a desperate, daily struggle for success and survival.  Those who are fighting these wars every day deserve every advantage we can give them. 

          I have been told that I need to give President Obama a break – that he’s inexperienced and needs time to learn.  Although I do agree that he’s inexperienced in military matters, I will not give him a break.  Ignorance in warfare is never a valid excuse for slaughtering your own troops.  30,000 new troops in Afghanistan or 300,000 more troops?  It won’t matter very much if our Commander in Chief and the Chain of Command fail to give them all the tools and every advantage they need to accomplish their mission, and that the Rules of Engagement they are forced to live with, are reasonable and in balance with their ability to accomplish their mission.

          My charge to President Obama is that his highest priority is to give our troops every tool and complete latitude to protect themselves, to accomplish their mission, and to protect our country.  He must ensure, as our Commander in Chief, that the Rules of Engagement assigned to our military units are reasonable.  Our political goals for long term peace are important, but they are not more important than our sons and daughters who, on our behalf, face this vicious enemy, an enemy who has repeatedly defied every rule of warfare.  Our foreign partners will just have to understand that.

Nicholas Warr – 13 December 2009

          I was there, at the Washington, D. C. Mall, last Saturday, March 17, 2007, to witness the “Great Anti-war Rally and March on the Pentagon,” and to act as a guardian or sentinel.  My mission:  protect the Vietnam Veterans Memorial; if necessary, to guard our memorials from those who might demean them.  I also planned to spend some time with those I served with, those who died under my command during the Vietnam War. 

          Prepared for wet weather, unfortunately I wasn’t prepared for the windy cold we got that day, but I managed to bundle up somewhat and made it through a half hour wait for the train at the Franconia Station in the company of many other Americans who were headed for the Mall.  At first glance, one group projected an “anti-“look (I must be honest here – they looked that way because one young man was dressed in black leather and chains – I had forgotten that was my son’s favorite garb when he was young, and he’s now a 2^nd Class Petty Officer in the US Navy!); they turned out to be “pro-troops,” or “anti-anti-“ (which ever way you want to look at it).  They were a Vietnam Veteran father and a nice family, wife and kids; they were there to support him, and to support our troops.

          We walked from the Metro station several blocks before reaching the Mall at about its midsection.  The Washington Monument towered over us on our left flank, and we saw glimmers of the Lincoln Memorial on the horizon.  We turned west down Constitution Avenue arriving in the vicinity of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial a few minutes past 10:00 a.m., the start time for the anti-war rally.  Those of us who had grouped together on the walk from the Metro Station were all there to stand in support of our troops, and to honor those who lost their lives during the Vietnam War, Korean War, WWII and all other conflicts.  I think I speak for most of us in that small squad when I say that I was very apprehensive about what I would see.  My main concern was for the sanctity of our Memorials, especially the Vietnam Wall.  Our concern stemmed from an incident a couple of months ago during an “Anti-war” rally during which our Capitol Building was defaced.  That was simply unacceptable, and I was determined that it was not going to happen again.  Not here, not today; not ever again. 

          The lines of demarcation became rapidly apparent.  A small cluster of folks with yellow signs were separated from the veterans, who overwhelmed the north eastern corner of the Mall.  It took several minutes to make our way through this happy throng, but finally The Wall came into sight.  It looked so small from that distance, but my heart broke once again when I saw that distant slash, because I know how enormous it truly is.  Our walk around the southern edge of the Memorial grounds was quiet, thoughtful.  I saw that my mission was already accomplished; our Wall was protected, by the Park Police who had done such an outstanding job of erecting a security barrier and enforcing security all throughout that day, and by the throng of Americans who formed a huge perimeter, a human shield, of average, ordinary people – fathers and mothers, aunts and uncles, sons and daughters, grandpas and grandmas – between our Memorials and the anti-war demonstration.  We all knew in our soul that the people who were protesting the war last Saturday were a younger generation of those who protested the Vietnam War and who in their ignorance and antics actually prolonged that war causing many more thousands of casualties.  Now here they were, doing it all over again.  They can’t possibly understand the harm they are doing to our nation, and to our young men and women in the military; if they did they would stop their craziness right now.  As I saw their gathering, I thought, “Well, there they are, and they’re going to do it all over again.  I guess that’s their right as Americans.”  At the same time I just knew they didn’t belong anywhere near our national Memorials, especially The Wall.  My primary mission was accomplished without lifting a finger or speaking a word – the Vietnam Wall was the most peaceful place in Washington, D. C. last Saturday.  The tumult around it was pretty amazing, though.

          We arrived at the security checkpoint, the only portal to The Wall that day, located not too far from the Lincoln Memorial, just past the Statue of the Three Grunts.  The line was long but orderly, as though a great calming wave of contentment had washed over us all.  It didn’t matter how long the wait was; this was where I belonged.  I didn’t actually know anyone I stood with that day, but I was among friends.  I was with my buddies.

          I had pulled a rolling backpack along, having filled it with various items I planned to drop off at “my” section of The Wall – a copy of my book, several copies of a recent “op / ed” piece I wrote entitled Congress has Abandoned our Troops, a commemorative coin, etc.  Learning to my dismay that I couldn’t drag the bag into the Memorial, I spent a few minutes looking at those who had made it through security.  Every person who made his or her way down that long brick walkway represented the Veterans of America, or those who truly support our troops.  Everyone there that day with the intent to call our President names, and to demean the outstanding job our troops are doing, were too busy chanting matras to come over and visit their fellow Americans, those who truly know that war sucks because they served and died in a war.

          My mission was easily accomplished that day, because the “gash in the heart of America’s soul” was the most peaceful place in Washington, D. C. that day.  The Park Police did a spectacular job of managing this “happening.”  They provided excellent security for our Memorials, and they did a spectacular job of keeping the two factions at a distance from each other.  It was probably a very good thing.

          I spent the rest of that day looking at faces; that’s not always easy when you are in the middle of a huge crowd.  Some have estimated that a few thousand “anti-war protestors” showed up that day.  Although I honestly never had a vantage point allowing me to view the entire gathering, I got the impression that we outnumbered the “anti’s” at least three to one; our crowd was estimated by others to be 30,000 strong.  Whatever the numbers, the folks who showed up on our side of the street vastly outnumbered those on the other side.  Those on the other side of the street spent most of their time chanting, accompanied by the warped sounds of bad amplifiers and the boom-boom-diddy-boom vibrations of hip hop noise.  I couldn’t actually understand a word of their messages, but that wasn’t a problem because I could read their signs, and I could read their faces.  Their faces were old and wrinkled, young and inexperienced, bearded and smooth cheeked.  To me, looking at their faces and trying to ignore the roar of the crowd and the bizarre protest signs, most of them just seemed angry.  Angry at life; angry at the war; angry at Bush; angry at us.  Just plain angry.

          There was the young man, posturing at the front of the barrier, puffed up in an aggressive stance, gesturing, calling out any of us old farts who would be willing to take him on.  When I noticed his antics and chuckled, a man standing next to me said, in a rather amazed tone, “That jackass actually jumped over the barrier a few minutes ago; he ran out in the street, crossed the ‘no-man’s-land,’ and was angrily running toward our side of the street, when the Park Police ran him down on horseback and drove him back.”  This very stupid young man was still there, angry, yelling, gesturing.  I turned to look at the faces of those on our side of the street, to see and absorb their reactions, and I saw amazement and humor.  People were pretty relaxed, and most were chuckling.  A few were gesturing back, and hooting and hollering as much as the “anti’s” but they were all smiling.  Sadly smiling, as though these people had seen this all before, but it just never ceased to amaze them what people would do or say.  This young man represented what I believe is a large segment of these “anti-war” protests – those who are just looking for a party, those who are looking to get laid.  My theory is that these folks represent anywhere from one third to a half of the “anti” crowd.  My theory was proved out when I noticed a young girl, not far behind one of his thrust-out elbows, watching in obvious admiration as this young jackass “proved” his courage on the street that day.  My mind suddenly wrenched to another street, a long time ago – that street was dubbed Phase Line Green, a street in Hue, the place my platoon died.  That street was the scene of much courage, true courage, of young men rising up to face an entrenched enemy, no more than fifty feet away….  I wrenched it back, and saw the young man again, no more than fifty feet away, hollering, gesturing.  I don’t think he was saying, “I support the troops, but…..”  He was angry.  He was pissed.  But, maybe he would get lucky tonight!

          The others on the his side of the road, those with “political convictions” were well-represented by the old grandmother, one of many older folks in the “anti” crowd across the street from us.  I watched her face as her harsh gaze fell upon me and my fellow veterans.  She was lividly angry.  She was angrily pointing at us, and then pointing at her sign, one of the many signs that claimed all manner of vile atrocities on the part of the Bush Administration.  One such sign claimed that the attacks of 9/11 were a “put up job” by the Bushies; many more claimed that America is guilty of murder, racism and other dastardly motives for going to war in Iraq.  I could tell from her expression that she hated us, hated veterans, just like she hated our military. 

          Then there was the other young man, this one seemingly more grown-up than the jackass, who spent several minutes trying to send us hand signals; I thought he was trying to say that he “loved” us veterans.  He kept going through this exercise in hand signals, starting by pointing at all those around him (the old lady and the young kid included), then by placing his hands dramatically over his heart as the universal symbol of love, and then by pointing across the street, at us, the veterans.  His message was that he and all those “anti’s” really did love us veterans, really do support our troops.  Then, after he seemed to start to get his message across – some of us started to believe that he really felt that way – he proudly held up his huge sign saying “Listen” and started sending all the other messages (we hate President Bush, we hate the terrible war, America must leave Iraq now, etc., etc.).  I moved quickly to look at those around me, and saw once again the sad humor on the faces of those who know better.  We all knew that the young man did love us, as long as we agreed with his message.  That we must leave Iraq; that we must abandon another nation.

          Those of us who served our military during the Vietnam War, many of whom were there that day, and those who have studied its damaging affects on our countrymen and our nation over the past four decades, do understand what’s at stake here.  Yes, we’re in a war.  Yes, war sucks.  But we know, history proves, the only way out is to win the war – militarily, and to get it over with as rapidly as possible.  Those of us who stood between the “anti’s” and our memorials that day understand the importance of completing this mission, and we know that the greatest failure for our nation during our generation was the failure of the vast majority of Americans, once aptly dubbed the “silent majority” by the media, to stand up and support our troops, and to stand against politicians who would end a war by simply giving up and leaving.  Those of us who fought there remember many who died there.  For what?  The Vietnam War has gone down in history as the only war we have fought wherein we won all of our battles against the enemy, some of them under incredibly difficult odds.  And yet, we lost that war.  How could that be?  In the end, our politicians and political activists dictated a failure that will live in our nation’s soul forever.  We are, as a nation, at terrible risk of repeating that failure today, and we (I speak for myself but I think I represent the vast majority of veterans in this conviction) simply cannot let that happen.

          The worst look I saw on any of the faces that day came from across the DMZ.  His face looked familiar, but his visage was warped by conflicting emotions – sadness, anger, confusion, guilt, unhappiness.  It came from a Vietnam Veteran, one of a few who stood under a banner that read, “Vietnam Veterans Against the War.”  He was on the side he thought was right.  As I watched his face, an incredible range of emotions morphed his expressions, driven by his dialogue with some on my side of the street.  He was sad (I believed from his expressions) because he was separated from the vast majority of his fellow veterans.  He was obviously imploring his fellow veterans to understand his belief, that this was an “illegal war,” that once again politicians were killing people needlessly, and that he stood against war.  He was angry that we all didn’t “get it.”    I watched confusion and sadness abruptly replaced by his final and lasting emotion, anger, as someone on our side made a compelling argument of some sort (it was very hard to hear any individual dialogue, just crowd roar); he just stood more upright and made his final gesture of anger and defiance, the bird.

          One of the funniest signs at the rally last Saturday was actually on our side of the road.  It displayed the “peace symbol” (or the sign of the Great American Chicken as some of us remember it), and underneath it was the word “sucks.”  That’s right, folks, the sign read “Peace Sucks!”  Those on the other side of the road were most likely shocked at that sign, because they probably read it literally, but I busted up.  It was pure irony, and it was funny!  The Vietnam Veterans in the crowd that day were greatly amused, and irony was used many times to portray our amusement.  It was sad, and funny, and tragic, because, at the end of the day, the media coverage focused on the “anti’s” and said very little about the huge crowd that gathered to keep them in their place – on the other side of the road, kept at a distance from our Memorials. 

          Later that afternoon, back in my hotel room,  I watched a local news broadcast report on the rally.  The primary focus was spent on the anti-war demonstration with little mention of the pro-troops rally on the other side of the street.  When the reporter did make mention of us, he described the folks from Rolling Thunder, and dismissed us as a bunch of “bikers” in leather and chains.  That was it.  No mention of all the moms and dads out there with entire families.  We love the Rolling Thunder biker guys and gals – thanks, Rolling Thunder, for supporting our rally.  Thanks for being there on the curb, standing tall and looking good in your colorful leather.  But you know you only represented a small fraction of the pro-troops rally that day.  The vast majority there that day, the human shield, was made up of just “average Joe’s” and their families; but they were, I believe, the point element of a movement of true support for our troops.  I believe the Vietnam Veterans of today will stand up to prevent history from repeating itself.  We will be underestimated, we will be disrespected, and we will be taken for granted.  We will be labeled “counter-culture” rabble, flowing against the “tide” of polls “proving” that the American people are against our President and against the War in Iraq.  We are told daily that the war is an abject failure, and that we must get out of there as soon as possible, at all costs.  We are told that the military must “strategically re-deploy” which is “political speak” meaning “withdraw.”  We are told that “65% of the American people are against the President and the war.”  Well, I believe that when the people of America (especially you “silent majority” folks) truly understand that the only way out of the war in Iraq is to win it militarily, to secure the new government of Iraq and help them learn how to take care of themselves, they will support the military who are just doing a fantastic job. 

          Although you won’t read much about it in the daily newspaper, or see it on the evening news, the actual news being released by the Public Affairs Office of the Multi-National Corps – Iraq, is filled with many stories about positive news that demonstrates that our major effort to train up the Iraqi Army and Police Force is paying off.  More and more Iraqi units are accepting complete responsibility for the security of entire TAOR’s.  Iraqi citizens, tired of being terrorized, worked with the Iraqi and American military a few weeks ago to ambush a large force of terrorists who had been hounding them for months.  These folks took their lives in their hands, and they stood up against fear.  The Iraqi military and their advisors helped them end a chapter of terrorism.  Local tribal leaders are sitting down and planning their community’s future with the Iraqi Police, the Iraqi Army, and the coalition forces.  Daily evidence of progress, in the form of news dispatches released by the multi-national forces, is ignored by the mainstream media, so those of us who choose to receive our news by watching TV or reading the local paper don’t really get the true picture.  We are being told that the war is over, it’s a failure, and the Congress of the United States of America is actually discussing how they can manage the “end” of the war by holding the purse strings, and strangling it if necessary.  I think this is all just pure politics, because I believe that if the American people truly understand what is at stake here, they will be 85% in support of completing this mission militarily.  This can be accomplished, and it will be accomplished, despite the daily toll of Iraqis and Americans at the hands of murderers.  If only America stands up this time.

          There will be many more rallies before the War in Iraq is over.  I think it’s about time for the “silent majority” to get up off your butts and to speak your mind.  During the Vietnam War, a very small, very vocal group led our nation into ruin; politicians and anti-war protestors led us to betray an ally, to abandon the Vietnamese people we had pledged to support, and they helped ruin the reputation of American veterans.  Where was the “greatest generation” when that was going on?  The World War II veterans should have known better than let a minor splinter group change our history.  You Korean War veterans should have gotten up off your butts; you should have called your congressmen and sent letters to your newspapers voicing true support for our troops.  What you are starting to see today, as witnessed by the 30,000 who gathered at The Wall, is the Vietnam Veteran generation getting off our butts and standing up.  We challenge you all to stand up with us, for what it right for our nation.  When you decide to stand up, I won’t tell you what to say, or what questions to ask.  You can figure that out if you will just take a few minutes to get “all” the news.  Watch the TV and read the papers, but also take a look at the Internet.  You’ll be amazed at what you find out.

          The best faces I saw last Saturday were those of five young Marines, presently serving at Marine Barracks – 8^th & I.  I was taking photos and looking at faces in the crowd, my head on a swivel.  As I “panned” past them, the sun’s reflection off their shaved heads caught my eye.  Obviously they were on active duty, and I wanted to go shake their hands, thank them for their service and ask them why they were here today, why they were standing on our side of the street.  “For support, sir.”  They said they wanted to support us, but they also wanted to support those who are in harms’ way right now.  They were all serving in a dream duty station, at the Marine Barracks where it all started, but they all, each one of them, wanted nothing more than to get re-assigned as grunts and go to Iraq to serve in combat.  When I spend time with these young Marines, and all young Americans who are ready and willing to serve their country and fellow Americans (despite the antics of a few jackasses) they never fail to impress me with their bearing which always reflects honor, courage and commitment, the values that our Marine Corps lives by today – values that some Americans seem to have lost sight of.

          The mission to protect our memorials was accomplished last Saturday, but I believe we Vietnam Veterans still have another, more important mission.  We must show more true empathy, and less apathy, or history will be repeated.  We must stand up for what is right, and against those who would tear us apart.  We cannot let a small but vocal group, motivated from fear, or ignorance, or just plain politics, dictate national policy.  I call on all Vietnam Veterans to stand against the “anti’s” and stand up for what’s right.  Support our Troops, support our Veterans, and only go to war to win.

Nicholas Warr – March 21, 2007

          This past week has been filled with activities that have caused me to reflect on this question:  can we truly support the troops in Iraq if we don’t support their mission? 

          I just returned from a “Tiger Cruise” aboard the U. S. S. Nimitz aircraft carrier, along with my older brother, Steve, and my son, Airman Brenton Warr, U. S. Navy.  Brent enlisted, at the age of 30, a little over a year ago.  Now a member of the famed Black Aces Squadron (VFA-41) of FA/18 Super Hornets, Brent joined the squadron three months ago while they were already engaged in the War on Terrorism in the Persian Gulf.  Brother Steve, a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U. S. Army, and I (a Vietnam Veteran of the U. S. Marine Corps) boarded the Nimitz in Pearl Harbor and sailed with them to their home port in San Diego.  It was an experience of a lifetime, and one I will never forget.

          Filled with pride in my son and his fellow sailors and Marines of Carrier Air Group-11 (all of the aviation units aboard the Nimitz), who have done an excellent job under very difficult conditions, I arrived home in beautiful Hendersonville just in time to attend the Veteran’s Day ceremony at Forest Lawn.  The keynote speaker, a retired Air Force Colonel, spoke eloquently about those who have served in the American military over the generations, but he directed his main efforts to speak about the young men and women who are serving in our military today.  He stated that those in the military today are terrific young people, that they are doing an outstanding job, and that they richly deserve 100% of our support.  I wholeheartedly agree.

          Interestingly, it appears that a very high percentage of Americans also agree.  A recent poll reported that “98% of Americans say that they support the troops overseas.”  At the same time, many of those same people who claim that they support the troops were quick to say that they absolutely don’t support the troops’ mission, especially those fighting the war in Iraq.

          A new friend, an amazing American serving in the U. S. Naval Reserve who put his thriving medical practice on hold to go on active duty when Operation Iraqi Freedom was mounting up, served as the Division Surgeon with the 1^st Marine Division (my old outfit) during the heavy fighting on the march toward Baghdad.  He told me of his “welcome home” when a woman approached him in an east coast airport.  She asked him if he was returning home from Iraq.  When he answered in the positive, this seemingly nice person bluntly told him that she and her friends felt that what he was doing was horrible and criminal and that he should be put in prison for “fighting George Bush’s illegal war.”  Momentarily taken aback, my friend recovered and just said, “That’s okay, lady.  It’s obvious to me that you don’t know what you’re talking about,” and walked away.  Shades of the Vietnam War chapter of our country’s history. 

          Some of my closest friends, most of whom are combat veterans of the Vietnam War, have told me firmly that they definitely support those in uniform but they are adamantly opposed to the war.  Some of them have studied the situation, and just feel that this is a “war of choice,” not a “war of necessity” and that we shouldn’t be there.  Some of them just hate George Bush and everything he does, and they are vehemently against the war.  Although these veterans have certainly earned the right to speak their minds, and in this wonderful country of ours we all have the right to say pretty much anything we want to say, I question whether or not they have really heard what they have said when it comes to supporting the troops.

          Let’s fall back for a moment, and consider “Communications 101.”  One of the most important aspects of effectively communicating with others, whether we are having a simple conversation or we are making an important speech, is to understand your audience.  When we communicate with others, when we are trying to make a point, when we are trying to convince those we are speaking to of the wisdom of our viewpoint, it is necessary to understand who they are and where they are coming from.  So, you tell me.  If I tell you that I like you, but I just loathe what you do, how will you react to that message?  Will you feel liked?  Will you feel loathed?  Or, will you just feel confused?

          Confused.  That’s how I feel when my veteran buddies make that statement, that they admire the young men and women who serve our country in the military but that they think the war is horrible, or illegal, or just downright wrong.  Yes, I’m certainly confused.  But, much more importantly, how does Lance Corporal Schmucatelli, a U. S. Marine with his face in the desert sand in the Middle East, feel?  If I put myself in his boots, and I answer that question honestly, I think Schmucatelli feels confused, at best, and more likely he feels pretty damned bad.  Certainly, there is no way that he feels “supported” by someone who makes that statement.

          Those of us who have served in the military, especially those of us who spent any time in combat, know that war is ugly.  War is terrible.  There is nothing positive that can be said about war.  It’s just that sometimes there are things worth fighting for.  Those of us back home can debate that issue until we are all blue in the face.  But Schmucatelli doesn’t get to engage in that debate, or make those decisions.  Schmucatelli enlisted in the service for reasons of his (or her) own, and may have opinions that are either for or against a particular war.  It doesn’t really matter.  Because when he enlisted, he took an oath.  She swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  He swore to obey the orders of the officers appointed over him.  She swore to obey the orders given by the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States.

          While others may debate the causes of war and the “righteousness” of a particular war, those who wear the uniform cannot.  When they are called, they must simply go; they must do their jobs, they must obey their orders.  When called to serve in combat during wartime, they must forget about their own opinions, they must leave behind their natural human desire for comfort and convenience, and in many instances they must willingly enter environments that are terribly dangerous for human beings and they must put themselves in harm’s way.  For us.  For all of us in this country who have the freedom to think and act however we want, and to say just about anything.  Even if it’s ignorant, or just downright stupid.  We are free to say that we support the troops, but that we don’t support the war.  But, and now I’m speaking to those who really believe that statement, just understand that when you say that, your message, when received by the troops, is garbled.  When they hear that statement, they are confused at best, disheartened at worst.

          So, if you are against the war in Iraq, you have the freedom to speak your mind, so go right ahead and say it.  Please feel free to do so.  But if you are talking to a young American in uniform, don’t waste your time by making that stupid statement.  You might feel good, but they won’t believe a word you are saying.

Nicholas Warr – November 11, 2005