The brouhaha over what President Bush did or didnt
do in Alabama during the war in Vietnam misses the point.
Even if he put in all the time required by the Air
National Guard, the real question, which nearly everyone
evades, is: what obligation did a young man have with
respect to that war?
Every respectable politician must say (if he
is to remain respectable) that when
ones country calls one to war, one goes. In 1968
men were being drafted and sent 10,000 miles from home to
shoot Vietnamese, so it was said, to save Vietnam from
communism. But there were legal ways to avoid the draft.
You could go to college. After that you could go to
graduate school. (That eventually became a less-sure
out.)
Or you could join the National Guard. This is not a slur
on the Guard. Its units are being sent to war today
regrettably. But during the Vietnam war, this was
not so. Everyone my age (54) knew in the late 1960s that
if you got into the Guard, you would not be sent to
Vietnam. Thats why people joined or tried to
join. Not everyone could get in. You needed connections.
A Bush in Texas, needless to say, had connections.
President Bush said he supported the war in Vietnam,
although he thinks it was a mistake to let the
politicians run it. (Reality check: Wars are waged by
governments. Therefore, all wars are political, as
Clausewitz taught us.) He supported it, but he opted out
of volunteering to go even when he joined the Guard. Why?
I suppose his reason was something like Vice President
Cheneys reason for taking student deferments from
the draft: he had other priorities.
Thats okay, but I imagine all the other draftees
did too. (As a potential draftee, I certainly did;
luckily I was medically deferred.) What they didnt
have were connections or academic credentials. Too bad
for them. Colin Powell, a Vietnam vet and now secretary
of state, used to resent it that privileged kids were
able to avoid Vietnam. He doesnt talk that way now.
In my view, the problem back then was not that the rich
and well-connected could get out of what is preciously
called service. The problem was that the
unrich and unconnected couldnt. In other words, the
problem (or one of them) was the draft. By any reasonable
definition, the draft is slavery. It may be for only two
years (if the draftee survives), but it is slavery
nonetheless.
What about this alleged obligation to fight when your
country calls? I have news for you: countries
dont call. Governments do. No wait; thats
still too abstract, too elevated. During the Vietnam war,
it was Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon who were calling.
Two corrupt political men were sending kids to kill and
die in a jungle theyd never have gone to otherwise.
(We shouldnt let the pro-war members of Congress
off the hook either. They could have stopped it.) If
were going to de-romanticize war, we can start by
getting clear about who does the calling.
Now we have a different question. Was a young man morally
obligated to obey Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon when
ordered off to war? I cant see where this
obligation would come from. Back then an 18-year-old
couldnt even vote. But even if he could, why would
that impose an obligation to abandon his life on command?
The upshot is that no one should be faulted today for
having avoided Vietnam, however he accomplished it. (Yes,
that includes Bill Clinton.) Any society dedicated to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if it is to
have any integrity, must acknowledge that the draft was
criminal and that avoidance was justified.
President Bushs flaw lies not in having avoided
Vietnam. It lies in his not saying forthrightly that he
should not have had to face that necessity and
that no American should ever have to face such a
necessity in the future.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Send him email.
|
Send to a friend
Printer Friendly PDF Format
Subscribe to FFF Email Update
Subscribe to Freedom Daily
|
|
|
|