In case you missed it, there was a recent report about the firing of a woman
and her co-worker from their jobs at a non-profit in Cape Cod, because of a
picture that was posted on Facebook. In the picture, the woman is seen
"flipping the bird" to the fallen and appearing to scream at
Arlington National Cemetery, next to a sign reading "Silence and
Respect." Do a search on the Internet and you can find a copy of the
picture.
Before continuing, Well Done to the non-profit for firing the
woman. Her actions, including staging and publicizing the photograph,
were undeniably, indisputably across the line. Some companies would not
take this wholly appropriate action. Well Done to Living
Independently Forever (LIFE).
Once my visceral reaction to the photograph passed, a deep concern set
in. First, the visceral reaction. The last time I was at Arlington,
it was to attend the funeral (with full honors) for a close friend and fellow
Marine, who died as a result of exposure to Agent Orange during the Viet Nam
War. He'd served as an enlisted Marine, then went to college to earn his
degree and receive a commission in the Marines. An exceptional Marine,
mentor to hundreds, and leader. The ceremony included a Marine band, two
platoons of Marines, an Honor Guard, rifle salute, and Army
Caisson. We walked behind horse drawn caisson to the grave site,
listed to taps and the rifle volleys, and watched as my fellow Marine was laid
to rest. The lady's actions were an unspeakable offense to his honorable
and faithful service to our nation, as they were to all those laid to rest among
their comrades.
What possesses a young adult to act so horrendously? Clearly it isn't
something taken out of context, as the photo was obviously deliberate.
Does she not realize the freedoms she so dismissively enjoys were purchased by
the blood of many of those laying in rest at Arlington?
The above report includes what is described as a statement from this
woman. "We never meant any disrespect to any of the people
nationwide who have served this country and defended our freedom so
valiantly."
It is my sense the woman believes there are no consequences for her actions,
that she is not responsible for them. If my sensing is correct, it
provides for tremendous concern if this is indicative of the belief of some
younger members of our society.
Despite the statement, the woman can not be forgiven. She appears to
be one of many who believe that they can take any action, no matter how
egregious or offensive, then be excused by insincerely saying "sorry, my
bad." No responsibility taken for her actions. If she is truly
remorseful for this exceptionally horrific act, then I await her actions
demonstrating that remorse. Perhaps she can volunteer thousands of hours
at a VA hospital; volunteer to place the American flag at thousands of graves
of our fallen for Memorial Day; volunteer to serve thousands of hours as a
docent at a military cemetery; volunteer for thousands of hours at one of the
numerous non-profits supporting our wounded and veterans.
Until or unless she takes action as indisputably respectful of the fallen,
as her actions were undeniably disrespectful, her supposed statement rings
hollow. In life, we are responsible for our actions. It is time for
this woman to take that responsibility and take action that demonstrates her
embracing responsibility for this despicable act.
(Wonder why Obama hasn't commented
upon it? He seems compelled to comment on so many other issues unrelated
to the office of President, why isn't he commenting now? Does he hold the
military fallen and their families in less regard than a college
professor?)
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Coming together
Sadly, over the weekend we attended the service for wife of a friend, who left behind her husband, daughter, and son. The somber, religious service is what our society expects at such times. But it was neither the service, the graveside internment, nor the inconsolable sadness for the remaining family that motivates this posting. The coming together of so many people was inspirational.
The service was conducted in a chapel at a local cemetery. We arrived approximately 15 minutes before the scheduled start, offered a hug and condolences to the grieving husband, our friend, and took our seats. At that point, there were numerous seats remaining. Candidly I wondered to myself if they would all be filled when the services began. I needed have wondered. By the end of the service, there literally standing room only, with folks lined up along the walls and at the the entry. My buddy and I were standing, having offered our seats to ladies who had been standing. Far more people arrived than the facility could accommodate.
These people, from multiple faiths and numerous generations had come together to pay their respects, offer their condolences in person, grieve, and provide moral support to the family.
Again, they came together. Each gave of the one thing we can not create more of in our lives. We can get a second job to earn more money, we can work hard to make more friends, we can engage in more activities that provide a smile. But we can not create more time in the day. None of those gathered in the chapel that afternoon woke that morning and declared there would be 28 hours that Sunday, with four of them set aside for the service. Rather, they came together, willingly giving of their time.
In another example, friends of the family opened their home for a gathering after the service and internment. Once more, people came together. This time in a more personal forum. I say more personal, because during the service and graveside internment there was a degree of anonymity created by the solemnity and sadness of the moment. One is not expected to chat with the others in attendance. However, at the gathering, names are exchanged with individuals most had not met previously. Small talk ensued, with reference to the deceased and family, but also with some effort to establish another connection, one not associated with the sadness.
Again, individuals came together for a common purpose, even though from widely disparate sectors of society. This common purpose transcended their differences. The grief of the family was unifying.
From this sad event, I can't help but wonder why we can't come together more often, in pursuit of common objectives and goals?
The service was conducted in a chapel at a local cemetery. We arrived approximately 15 minutes before the scheduled start, offered a hug and condolences to the grieving husband, our friend, and took our seats. At that point, there were numerous seats remaining. Candidly I wondered to myself if they would all be filled when the services began. I needed have wondered. By the end of the service, there literally standing room only, with folks lined up along the walls and at the the entry. My buddy and I were standing, having offered our seats to ladies who had been standing. Far more people arrived than the facility could accommodate.
These people, from multiple faiths and numerous generations had come together to pay their respects, offer their condolences in person, grieve, and provide moral support to the family.
Again, they came together. Each gave of the one thing we can not create more of in our lives. We can get a second job to earn more money, we can work hard to make more friends, we can engage in more activities that provide a smile. But we can not create more time in the day. None of those gathered in the chapel that afternoon woke that morning and declared there would be 28 hours that Sunday, with four of them set aside for the service. Rather, they came together, willingly giving of their time.
In another example, friends of the family opened their home for a gathering after the service and internment. Once more, people came together. This time in a more personal forum. I say more personal, because during the service and graveside internment there was a degree of anonymity created by the solemnity and sadness of the moment. One is not expected to chat with the others in attendance. However, at the gathering, names are exchanged with individuals most had not met previously. Small talk ensued, with reference to the deceased and family, but also with some effort to establish another connection, one not associated with the sadness.
Again, individuals came together for a common purpose, even though from widely disparate sectors of society. This common purpose transcended their differences. The grief of the family was unifying.
From this sad event, I can't help but wonder why we can't come together more often, in pursuit of common objectives and goals?
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Higher level of responsibility
The news carries a report that the Secretary of Defense has ordered a review to "find out why so many generals and admirals have become embroiled in legal and ethical problems." Reports include allegations of sexual assault, misuse of public funds, gross leadership failure, and "creating a toxic work environment."
Those at the highest levels of military leadership must be held to a higher level of responsibility. The uniqueness of the military demands it. On this, there is virtually no disagreement. However, as practiced, lingering questions exist.
While not purporting to be an expert on the subject, during my military career I found some situations involving senior officers to be dealt with in strangely inconsistent ways, when compared to the discipline of the junior enlisted personnel. A commanding officer who falsified travel claims and plans was removed, but then allowed to retire, without being disciplined. A high ranking general involved in a physical relationship with an enlisted woman was allowed to retire, without being disciplined. Allowing one to retire rather than face legal discipline is an option not offered/available to the Private First Class who violated the UCMJ. Frankly, I don't accept the offered explanation that permitting senior officers to retire is in the interest of good order and discipline, and is "punishment enough." Personally, I was part of the Board that dismissed a field grade officer due to adultery (fired...no retirement, no benefits). Haven't heard of a general officer disciplined in the same manner.
Putting together the review ordered by the Secretary of Defense and other occurrences leads me to wonder about the process for selecting flag officers (generals and admirals). The exceptionally small population of flag officers is responsible for selecting the new members of the small club. Are the best being selected?
Certainly politics play a large part in this selection process. Those favorably connected in political ways to those in "the club" -- current flag officers -- stand a much better chance of selection for flag rank than do those who are not similarly connected. This connection extends to other aspects of the military career, such as selection for certain assignments. In the Marine Corps, certain assignments are critical in the grooming of officers for competition for selection to general, most notably command. With fewer command opportunities than aspirants, selection for command is highly competitive and limiting at the same time. Without command at the lieutenant colonel and colonel levels, selection for promotion to brigadier general is almost nil. And who controls the selection and assignment process? The current crop of general officers. So, by extension, those in "the club" are controlling who will compete to join "the club." Likewise, it is the membership of the "the club" that selects those for entry. Sounds like fraternity/sorority rush doesn't it?
How does the above fit together and relate to the news article? If senior officers are not held to higher standards, why? If the number of generals and admirals facing legal and ethical issues is a concern (and it is), are we selecting the right officers? Are the rumored issues involving flag officers being swept under the rug true? Is the "club" protecting its own?
Certainly, during my career there were officers selected for flag rank that didn't rate it in my opinion, just as well deserving officers were passed over. Incompetence trumped war fighting capability, integrity, military skills, and proven leadership. Politics over substance. Again, in my opinion. And it should not be forgotten that the precepts for the selection boards are approved, if not directed, by the civilian leadership, those appointed by POTUS. Thus, depending on the way the political winds are blowing, certain categories of officers are placed at the head of the line for flag rank. These, of course, are just my opinions.
If, however, the recent news is an indication of a problem (and it is), then the military and its civilian leadership must be held to a higher level of responsibility. First, vigorous prosecution of those accused of crimes under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), unfettered or restrained by political concerns - a crime is a crime. Second, internal review of the selection process within each service. Only those best qualified must be accorded the unique recognition of future capability that is provided by selection for flag rank. And once selected, all flag officers must be held to the highest possible standards and levels of responsibility. And not in word only.
The men and women in uniform and our nation deserve nothing less.
Those at the highest levels of military leadership must be held to a higher level of responsibility. The uniqueness of the military demands it. On this, there is virtually no disagreement. However, as practiced, lingering questions exist.
While not purporting to be an expert on the subject, during my military career I found some situations involving senior officers to be dealt with in strangely inconsistent ways, when compared to the discipline of the junior enlisted personnel. A commanding officer who falsified travel claims and plans was removed, but then allowed to retire, without being disciplined. A high ranking general involved in a physical relationship with an enlisted woman was allowed to retire, without being disciplined. Allowing one to retire rather than face legal discipline is an option not offered/available to the Private First Class who violated the UCMJ. Frankly, I don't accept the offered explanation that permitting senior officers to retire is in the interest of good order and discipline, and is "punishment enough." Personally, I was part of the Board that dismissed a field grade officer due to adultery (fired...no retirement, no benefits). Haven't heard of a general officer disciplined in the same manner.
Putting together the review ordered by the Secretary of Defense and other occurrences leads me to wonder about the process for selecting flag officers (generals and admirals). The exceptionally small population of flag officers is responsible for selecting the new members of the small club. Are the best being selected?
Certainly politics play a large part in this selection process. Those favorably connected in political ways to those in "the club" -- current flag officers -- stand a much better chance of selection for flag rank than do those who are not similarly connected. This connection extends to other aspects of the military career, such as selection for certain assignments. In the Marine Corps, certain assignments are critical in the grooming of officers for competition for selection to general, most notably command. With fewer command opportunities than aspirants, selection for command is highly competitive and limiting at the same time. Without command at the lieutenant colonel and colonel levels, selection for promotion to brigadier general is almost nil. And who controls the selection and assignment process? The current crop of general officers. So, by extension, those in "the club" are controlling who will compete to join "the club." Likewise, it is the membership of the "the club" that selects those for entry. Sounds like fraternity/sorority rush doesn't it?
How does the above fit together and relate to the news article? If senior officers are not held to higher standards, why? If the number of generals and admirals facing legal and ethical issues is a concern (and it is), are we selecting the right officers? Are the rumored issues involving flag officers being swept under the rug true? Is the "club" protecting its own?
Certainly, during my career there were officers selected for flag rank that didn't rate it in my opinion, just as well deserving officers were passed over. Incompetence trumped war fighting capability, integrity, military skills, and proven leadership. Politics over substance. Again, in my opinion. And it should not be forgotten that the precepts for the selection boards are approved, if not directed, by the civilian leadership, those appointed by POTUS. Thus, depending on the way the political winds are blowing, certain categories of officers are placed at the head of the line for flag rank. These, of course, are just my opinions.
If, however, the recent news is an indication of a problem (and it is), then the military and its civilian leadership must be held to a higher level of responsibility. First, vigorous prosecution of those accused of crimes under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), unfettered or restrained by political concerns - a crime is a crime. Second, internal review of the selection process within each service. Only those best qualified must be accorded the unique recognition of future capability that is provided by selection for flag rank. And once selected, all flag officers must be held to the highest possible standards and levels of responsibility. And not in word only.
The men and women in uniform and our nation deserve nothing less.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Blessed
Like many of us, I can whine and complain about something or another. I also worry about various matters (the economy, our kids, our grand-kids, politics, national security, disappearing civility, excessively liberal media, overt attacks on Christianity, loss of free speech on college campuses, economic security, health, etc.). Surely, there are some matters worthy of deliberate thought and analysis, both of which may legitimately contribute to worry and concern. But, when it comes down to the bottom line, my wife and I are truly blessed.
Every now and then, something occurs that jerks a knot in my chain, reminding me of the blessings we enjoy. One such occurrence was the recent passing of the wife of a friend. Younger than we, it was a shock to learn of her passing. As stated above, it jerked a knot in my chain.
Sitting here over a cup of coffee, I've been trying to imagine what it would be like to lose my wife, soul mate, high school sweetheart, anchor in our marriage, mother to our children, and grandmother to our grandchildren. She's the centerpiece of my life, so it is incomprehensible to imagine life without her. From these thoughts, I migrated to the petty and not-so-petty worries. All pale to the minor or inconsequential when thinking of such a loss.
We are truly blessed. We enjoy good-to-great health; have terrific children and grandchildren; have close, loving friends; are financially secure (at least for the moment - there is worry about the liberal agenda); live free in the greatest nation on earth, enjoying our uniquely American freedoms; enjoy the area in which we live; participate in activities that provide smiles and purpose; enjoy memories of 44 years together; are proud of an exceptional career in the Marines; and foresee smiles and laughter in the future.
Yes, Thanksgiving will soon be upon us and the deluge of stories and commentary regarding that for which we are thankful will begin. I, for one, intend to spend more time thinking of the positive, inspirational, and smile-producing aspects of our life. Those elements that contribute to the blessings from which we are so fortunate to benefit.
Life is indeed too short to fret over that which doesn't make us happy.
Every now and then, something occurs that jerks a knot in my chain, reminding me of the blessings we enjoy. One such occurrence was the recent passing of the wife of a friend. Younger than we, it was a shock to learn of her passing. As stated above, it jerked a knot in my chain.
Sitting here over a cup of coffee, I've been trying to imagine what it would be like to lose my wife, soul mate, high school sweetheart, anchor in our marriage, mother to our children, and grandmother to our grandchildren. She's the centerpiece of my life, so it is incomprehensible to imagine life without her. From these thoughts, I migrated to the petty and not-so-petty worries. All pale to the minor or inconsequential when thinking of such a loss.
We are truly blessed. We enjoy good-to-great health; have terrific children and grandchildren; have close, loving friends; are financially secure (at least for the moment - there is worry about the liberal agenda); live free in the greatest nation on earth, enjoying our uniquely American freedoms; enjoy the area in which we live; participate in activities that provide smiles and purpose; enjoy memories of 44 years together; are proud of an exceptional career in the Marines; and foresee smiles and laughter in the future.
Yes, Thanksgiving will soon be upon us and the deluge of stories and commentary regarding that for which we are thankful will begin. I, for one, intend to spend more time thinking of the positive, inspirational, and smile-producing aspects of our life. Those elements that contribute to the blessings from which we are so fortunate to benefit.
Life is indeed too short to fret over that which doesn't make us happy.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Proud to be an American
I'm proud to be an American, unashamed in this pride, which includes standing and saluting during the playing of our National Anthem. All too often we learn of those who decide, for whatever reason, to eliminate the playing of the National Anthem.
The latest is the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Hockey League, which decided to cease the playing of the National Anthem at their high school ice hockey games. The stated reason is the financial cost, with the league claiming it costs $300 per hour to rent the ice rink(s) at which the games are played.
If the playing of the Anthem takes between 1:30 and 2:00 minutes, that's a cost of $7.50 and $10 per game. Sounds rather absurd to contend cost is the issue, doesn't it. My guess is that there is something more behind this story. Perhaps an excessively liberal individual who is ashamed of his/her country, or who is anti-military, or is a socialist. From looking at comments on the web, the local people aren't buying the pitch that the decision was cost driven. Rightfully so in my view.
Apart from the farcical aspect of this all too sad true situation, there is a much broader point we, as citizens, MUST take to heart. We have a responsibility as citizens to be proud and to display that pride. This responsibility is more crucial now than it has been for many years.
The latest election shows us to be a nation divided, a nation polarized. Unless and until we come together as Americans, it will be terribly challenging to bridge the divide and to bring to the polar extremes to the middle.
Coming together to stand and display our pride during the playing of the National Anthem is one significant step forward in demonstrating our love for our country.
The action of the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Hockey League to eliminate this short ceremony, for the stated reason(s), is not only absurd, it is insulting. Maybe the coaches, teams, and fans can take matters into their own hands and conduct their own playing of the National Anthem, demonstrating their pride in being Americans.
The latest is the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Hockey League, which decided to cease the playing of the National Anthem at their high school ice hockey games. The stated reason is the financial cost, with the league claiming it costs $300 per hour to rent the ice rink(s) at which the games are played.
If the playing of the Anthem takes between 1:30 and 2:00 minutes, that's a cost of $7.50 and $10 per game. Sounds rather absurd to contend cost is the issue, doesn't it. My guess is that there is something more behind this story. Perhaps an excessively liberal individual who is ashamed of his/her country, or who is anti-military, or is a socialist. From looking at comments on the web, the local people aren't buying the pitch that the decision was cost driven. Rightfully so in my view.
Apart from the farcical aspect of this all too sad true situation, there is a much broader point we, as citizens, MUST take to heart. We have a responsibility as citizens to be proud and to display that pride. This responsibility is more crucial now than it has been for many years.
The latest election shows us to be a nation divided, a nation polarized. Unless and until we come together as Americans, it will be terribly challenging to bridge the divide and to bring to the polar extremes to the middle.
Coming together to stand and display our pride during the playing of the National Anthem is one significant step forward in demonstrating our love for our country.
The action of the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Hockey League to eliminate this short ceremony, for the stated reason(s), is not only absurd, it is insulting. Maybe the coaches, teams, and fans can take matters into their own hands and conduct their own playing of the National Anthem, demonstrating their pride in being Americans.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Fidelity, ethics, integrity
If the electorate, regardless of political affiliation, learns from the recently concluded election cycle, it should be to demand fidelity, ethics, and integrity from those running for public office, their surrogates and campaigns, the media, plus from itself.
First, some definitions:
This deficiency permeates all too insidiously throughout the broader society. Examples abound: general officers in the military being tried for sexual assault and misuse of public funds; a member of the U.S. House of Representatives forced to resign (rather than being "fired") for sending sexually provocative electronic pictures of himself to women, then lying about it; the U. S. Secretary of State, while campaigning for her political party's nomination for President, falsely claiming she'd landed "under fire" in Bosnia in 1996; the Senate Majority Leader failing to bring a budget to a vote in the Senate, for multiple years; a decorated military veteran, elected to Congress, then sent to prison for corruption while in office; school teachers convicted of sexual relationships with their students, some of who were underage; the Penn State scandal; unions spending their members' dues on political causes, without the approval of the membership; deliberate and selective editing of a 9-1-1 call in the Trayvon Martin case by the media; the Enron scandal; falsifying one's resume, such as a Radio Shack CEO and a case at MIT; a minister close to POTUS spewing racist and inflammatory invective from the pulpit; elected representatives missing countless votes, while campaigning; etc. In none of the examples can it be argued that the individuals involved acted with faithfulness to duty, moral fitness, or ethics.
If elected leaders are to be exemplary icons in our community, role models for our youth, and stewards of the crucial management of government at all levels, then they must embody unimpeachable fidelity, ethics, and integrity. In selecting such individuals, the electorate as a whole must act based upon these standards. Else-wise, the process fails and individuals falling short of "those best qualified" will be empowered by our ballots to make monumental decisions impacting us all.
First, some definitions:
- Fidelity: Faithfulness to obligations, duties, or observances.
- Ethics: The moral fitness of a decision, course of action, etc.
- Integrity: Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
This deficiency permeates all too insidiously throughout the broader society. Examples abound: general officers in the military being tried for sexual assault and misuse of public funds; a member of the U.S. House of Representatives forced to resign (rather than being "fired") for sending sexually provocative electronic pictures of himself to women, then lying about it; the U. S. Secretary of State, while campaigning for her political party's nomination for President, falsely claiming she'd landed "under fire" in Bosnia in 1996; the Senate Majority Leader failing to bring a budget to a vote in the Senate, for multiple years; a decorated military veteran, elected to Congress, then sent to prison for corruption while in office; school teachers convicted of sexual relationships with their students, some of who were underage; the Penn State scandal; unions spending their members' dues on political causes, without the approval of the membership; deliberate and selective editing of a 9-1-1 call in the Trayvon Martin case by the media; the Enron scandal; falsifying one's resume, such as a Radio Shack CEO and a case at MIT; a minister close to POTUS spewing racist and inflammatory invective from the pulpit; elected representatives missing countless votes, while campaigning; etc. In none of the examples can it be argued that the individuals involved acted with faithfulness to duty, moral fitness, or ethics.
If elected leaders are to be exemplary icons in our community, role models for our youth, and stewards of the crucial management of government at all levels, then they must embody unimpeachable fidelity, ethics, and integrity. In selecting such individuals, the electorate as a whole must act based upon these standards. Else-wise, the process fails and individuals falling short of "those best qualified" will be empowered by our ballots to make monumental decisions impacting us all.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Welcome home
In an earlier blog, I described a mission with the Patriot Guard Riders. Yesterday was another mission, this time for an Army Sergeant killed in combat in Afghanistan. He leaves behind a young wife and toddler son.
Of the dozens of riders in yesterday's mission, there was a very high percentage of Viet Nam vets. Each was there to do something that was missed for their generation. Each was there to welcome home a warrior.
So very much has changed, for the better, over the past four plus decades. The average citizen now respects the men, and women, in uniform. That was not the case for these vets.
Then, there was much animosity towards the war. Today, there are similar views. Then, the men and women in uniform, many of whom were drafted, became the targets of the anger and animosity towards the war. Lost on our citizens was that these warriors weren't making the decisions about the management of the war. This resulted in military orders that uniforms not be worn by those serving in our military headquarters in Washington, DC for a period. Though not a Viet Nam veteran, as a Marine, I did serve overseas for the first time in 1974-75, leaving behind my wife, who was pregnant with our first. My long awaited return was delayed due to the mission of the final evacuation from Viet Nam. When the return flight finally landed in CONUS (continental US), I was excited about seeing my 8 month old son for the first time. As I was walking through the airport in San Francisco to my connecting flight, I was accosted by the proverbial "hippies." In voices that grew louder and louder, they were peppering me with the phrases of the day, such as "How many women and children did you kill today?" And this was just days after we finally evacuated the Ambassador and thousands of Vietnamese from Saigon. As angry as that episode made me, I can't really imagine what it must have been like for those who lost buddies while fighting in Viet Nam.
Today, I'm proud that the Viet Nam generation of veterans has led the way in making sure our men and women in uniform know they are respected, their sacrifices recognized, and their service honored. As a nation, our conscience finally awakened to recognize the importance of the service of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. Citizens have come out in droves at major airports to welcome home those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines can be seen traveling in uniform, to be stopped and thanked for their service.
It's my view that those Viet Nam vets who participated in yesterday's mission, and on other missions across the nation, are standing to ensure those who wear the cloth of our nation are welcomed home. To these vets who give of their time, Welcome Home, brothers.
UPDATE
On 7 November, we gathered again to honor this fallen soldier as he was laid to rest. We old, gray bearded vets formed two flag lines at the cemetery for the private ceremony. The young (all too young) widow and mother of the hero walked the lines and shook the hand of each and every one of us. As Taps was played, we each saluted, offering this final welcome home to one of our fallen.
Of the dozens of riders in yesterday's mission, there was a very high percentage of Viet Nam vets. Each was there to do something that was missed for their generation. Each was there to welcome home a warrior.
So very much has changed, for the better, over the past four plus decades. The average citizen now respects the men, and women, in uniform. That was not the case for these vets.
Then, there was much animosity towards the war. Today, there are similar views. Then, the men and women in uniform, many of whom were drafted, became the targets of the anger and animosity towards the war. Lost on our citizens was that these warriors weren't making the decisions about the management of the war. This resulted in military orders that uniforms not be worn by those serving in our military headquarters in Washington, DC for a period. Though not a Viet Nam veteran, as a Marine, I did serve overseas for the first time in 1974-75, leaving behind my wife, who was pregnant with our first. My long awaited return was delayed due to the mission of the final evacuation from Viet Nam. When the return flight finally landed in CONUS (continental US), I was excited about seeing my 8 month old son for the first time. As I was walking through the airport in San Francisco to my connecting flight, I was accosted by the proverbial "hippies." In voices that grew louder and louder, they were peppering me with the phrases of the day, such as "How many women and children did you kill today?" And this was just days after we finally evacuated the Ambassador and thousands of Vietnamese from Saigon. As angry as that episode made me, I can't really imagine what it must have been like for those who lost buddies while fighting in Viet Nam.
Today, I'm proud that the Viet Nam generation of veterans has led the way in making sure our men and women in uniform know they are respected, their sacrifices recognized, and their service honored. As a nation, our conscience finally awakened to recognize the importance of the service of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. Citizens have come out in droves at major airports to welcome home those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines can be seen traveling in uniform, to be stopped and thanked for their service.
It's my view that those Viet Nam vets who participated in yesterday's mission, and on other missions across the nation, are standing to ensure those who wear the cloth of our nation are welcomed home. To these vets who give of their time, Welcome Home, brothers.
UPDATE
On 7 November, we gathered again to honor this fallen soldier as he was laid to rest. We old, gray bearded vets formed two flag lines at the cemetery for the private ceremony. The young (all too young) widow and mother of the hero walked the lines and shook the hand of each and every one of us. As Taps was played, we each saluted, offering this final welcome home to one of our fallen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)