kb
2008-04-15 04:33:38 UTC
Published on Monday, April 14, 2008 by The Christian Science Monitor
What Does It Mean To Call McCain A 'War Hero' Candidate?
McCain is running as one, but those who oppose dishonorable wars are
also heroes.
by Charles Derber and Yale Magrass
"624787." In his first national campaign ad for president, John McCain
is shown reciting his rank and serial number as he lies in a
Vietnamese hospital bed as a prisoner of war. The ad describes him as
"a real hero."
Let's be clear; Senator McCain is running for president as a war hero
who plans to win the campaign based on character and honor. On the
surface, it seems churlish to critique the idea of a war hero. And
criticizing a tribute to courageous and self-sacrificing soldiers
would be disrespectful.
But inextricably tied to the idea of the war hero for president is a
discussion that goes beyond individual soldiers or prisoners of war,
such as McCain, to the wars they fight and what their role in the war
says about their moral merits as national leaders. This turns out to
be surprisingly problematic.
We need to distinguish the war hero from the war. Fixed ideas about
war heroes get into what we call "morality wars," crucial struggles
about which values should prevail, who should be admired and for what
qualities.
When we call McCain a war hero, we engage in moral discourse about the
Vietnam War and now Iraq. We also give McCain - currently the
country's most celebrated war hero - the ultimate political weapon:
power by virtue of heroism and the ability to discredit opponents as
weak or unpatriotic.
The public has treated McCain's record in Vietnam and his status as a
war hero as something unchangeable. But placing his sacrifice beyond
the pale of criticism also implicitly places the cause he served
beyond the pale, and that hushes important dialogue.
McCain's heroism stems entirely from Vietnam. McCain was brave in
captivity, but he and his fellow pilots dropped more bombs on Vietnam
than all those dropped in World War II, leading to the conclusion that
"we had to destroy Vietnam in order to save it." But he did not
acknowledge the war itself as immoral. Had he engaged in such
"straight talk" about the war itself, or if we had a more enlightened
concept of heroism, he might not be getting so close to becoming the
next president.
This language of war heroism is used unfairly to confuse unjust wars
and their architects with the honor of brave soldiers. By promoting
the idea that Vietnam was an honorable war and denigrating antiwar
Democrats as too weak to "stay the course," Richard Nixon won the
election in 1968. He then kept the war going for another five futile
years, sustained by that myth.
Playing the war hero card has long been a political strategy to elect
Republicans; legitimize imperial wars; and portray Democrats and peace
activists as weak, cowardly, or traitorous. John Kerry, also a
courageous soldier, was swift-boated as a traitor because he became a
peace activist in Vietnam.
Republicans even did the same to Daniel Ellsberg, a real hero of the
Vietnam era. Ellsberg was a war planner who turned against the war and
in 1971, at great personal risk, released to The New York Times the
"Pentagon Papers," the military's internal and damning history of the
war. But as there are no peace heroes, only war heroes in the American
moral discourse, President Nixon tried to indict him and many still
brand him as a traitor.
Ten out of 11 presidents after the Civil War were Republicans, the
majority of whom were generals who ran as war heroes. In the 20th
century, Republicans continued to serve up war-hero candidates like
Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush, a strategy that
has worked for tens of decades. And now we have John McCain.
If the Democrats are to win elections in the 21st century, the key is
to finally engage in straight talk about war and war heroes.
First, they must renounce the morality of militarism.
Second, they must be clear that the architects of unjust wars are not
honorable or heroic but immoral moralists, those who wage evil in the
name of good.
Third, they must create a new language of heroism. Brave soldiers in
just and unjust wars may be heroes, if we refer purely to personal
courage and sacrifice in battle. But it is critical that we recognize
that those who oppose dishonorable wars are also heroes. Surely, their
courage should also qualify as a character virtue for the highest
office in the land.
The peace hero - even more than the war hero - should be the ultimate
moral force in the world we now inhabit.
Charles Derber and Yale Magrass are coauthors of "Morality Wars: How
Empires, the Born Again, and the Politically Correct Do Evil in the
Name of Good."
Article copied from:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/14/8278/
===================
McCain dropped bombs on a sovereign nation, murdered innocent women &
children & was justly imprisoned. He is not a hero, but another
terrorist killer and criminal. He has no remorse for all the killing
he did. He should be locked up in a nut house, not strutting around
like he's great. He's a dummy who swallowed the lies, and began
helping to spread them all over the globe. He represents the worst of
America. Shame on him, and shame on all the fools that call him a
hero!
KB
What Does It Mean To Call McCain A 'War Hero' Candidate?
McCain is running as one, but those who oppose dishonorable wars are
also heroes.
by Charles Derber and Yale Magrass
"624787." In his first national campaign ad for president, John McCain
is shown reciting his rank and serial number as he lies in a
Vietnamese hospital bed as a prisoner of war. The ad describes him as
"a real hero."
Let's be clear; Senator McCain is running for president as a war hero
who plans to win the campaign based on character and honor. On the
surface, it seems churlish to critique the idea of a war hero. And
criticizing a tribute to courageous and self-sacrificing soldiers
would be disrespectful.
But inextricably tied to the idea of the war hero for president is a
discussion that goes beyond individual soldiers or prisoners of war,
such as McCain, to the wars they fight and what their role in the war
says about their moral merits as national leaders. This turns out to
be surprisingly problematic.
We need to distinguish the war hero from the war. Fixed ideas about
war heroes get into what we call "morality wars," crucial struggles
about which values should prevail, who should be admired and for what
qualities.
When we call McCain a war hero, we engage in moral discourse about the
Vietnam War and now Iraq. We also give McCain - currently the
country's most celebrated war hero - the ultimate political weapon:
power by virtue of heroism and the ability to discredit opponents as
weak or unpatriotic.
The public has treated McCain's record in Vietnam and his status as a
war hero as something unchangeable. But placing his sacrifice beyond
the pale of criticism also implicitly places the cause he served
beyond the pale, and that hushes important dialogue.
McCain's heroism stems entirely from Vietnam. McCain was brave in
captivity, but he and his fellow pilots dropped more bombs on Vietnam
than all those dropped in World War II, leading to the conclusion that
"we had to destroy Vietnam in order to save it." But he did not
acknowledge the war itself as immoral. Had he engaged in such
"straight talk" about the war itself, or if we had a more enlightened
concept of heroism, he might not be getting so close to becoming the
next president.
This language of war heroism is used unfairly to confuse unjust wars
and their architects with the honor of brave soldiers. By promoting
the idea that Vietnam was an honorable war and denigrating antiwar
Democrats as too weak to "stay the course," Richard Nixon won the
election in 1968. He then kept the war going for another five futile
years, sustained by that myth.
Playing the war hero card has long been a political strategy to elect
Republicans; legitimize imperial wars; and portray Democrats and peace
activists as weak, cowardly, or traitorous. John Kerry, also a
courageous soldier, was swift-boated as a traitor because he became a
peace activist in Vietnam.
Republicans even did the same to Daniel Ellsberg, a real hero of the
Vietnam era. Ellsberg was a war planner who turned against the war and
in 1971, at great personal risk, released to The New York Times the
"Pentagon Papers," the military's internal and damning history of the
war. But as there are no peace heroes, only war heroes in the American
moral discourse, President Nixon tried to indict him and many still
brand him as a traitor.
Ten out of 11 presidents after the Civil War were Republicans, the
majority of whom were generals who ran as war heroes. In the 20th
century, Republicans continued to serve up war-hero candidates like
Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush, a strategy that
has worked for tens of decades. And now we have John McCain.
If the Democrats are to win elections in the 21st century, the key is
to finally engage in straight talk about war and war heroes.
First, they must renounce the morality of militarism.
Second, they must be clear that the architects of unjust wars are not
honorable or heroic but immoral moralists, those who wage evil in the
name of good.
Third, they must create a new language of heroism. Brave soldiers in
just and unjust wars may be heroes, if we refer purely to personal
courage and sacrifice in battle. But it is critical that we recognize
that those who oppose dishonorable wars are also heroes. Surely, their
courage should also qualify as a character virtue for the highest
office in the land.
The peace hero - even more than the war hero - should be the ultimate
moral force in the world we now inhabit.
Charles Derber and Yale Magrass are coauthors of "Morality Wars: How
Empires, the Born Again, and the Politically Correct Do Evil in the
Name of Good."
Article copied from:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/14/8278/
===================
McCain dropped bombs on a sovereign nation, murdered innocent women &
children & was justly imprisoned. He is not a hero, but another
terrorist killer and criminal. He has no remorse for all the killing
he did. He should be locked up in a nut house, not strutting around
like he's great. He's a dummy who swallowed the lies, and began
helping to spread them all over the globe. He represents the worst of
America. Shame on him, and shame on all the fools that call him a
hero!
KB