Monday, August 29, 2011

Perry Wakes Up One of His Gorillas

Or maybe it's "guerilla" as Perry now wants to start up again the arguments about the Viet Nam War. He might as well start up arguments about secession. Oh, wait.

According to this report, Perry spoke to a Veterans' group to lay out his foreign policy which is apparently non-interventionist except when we do and then we have to stay in charge to we can win and not have to fight civilian enemies at home like all the Viet Nam Vets did. Oh, my heck!

Let's back up a bit, quite a bit. Veterans of Viet Nam deserve our utmost respect for serving their country well when their country called, even when the mission was not that clear. They served with distinction, at great sacrifice, and with the best of intents, for the most part. I had a friend in my office a few years back who was a Viet Nam Vet. I was in DC at the Viet Nam Memorial where the veterans maintain their little kiosks in ongoing remembrance of the lost, MIAs ,and the dead. I saw a bumper sticker I had to buy for him. "We were winning when I left." He loved it.

Yet, I also have some respect for those who protested that war. At the time, I was young, trusting, and much more conservative than now. I fully supported our nation in that perilous war. I have an Uncle who served in Nam with the Marines and we followed his exploits with justified pride and gratitude. Yet, when my high school days ended, the war was over and I was in that brief window of births from 1957-1960 of those who did not even have to register for the Selective Service. And for that I was grateful.

I had also read up enough by that time that I wasn't certain that the Viet Nam War was such a good idea to begin with, or executed that well, nor could it have been executed well when it had begun so ill.

Perry apparently sees the war protests as part of the culture war ongoing since then, all apparently part of everything he doesn't agree with on the attack against true American values. Well, at his version of American values.

Now, America--or at least registered Republicans in the primaries, will have a chance to decide, again, on what side of those values we are on. But what if we see value in both sides?


  1. (Anon/M) Wait! He opposes "military adventurism" while also advocating for "taking the fight to the enemy"? Isn't that a patent example of talking through both sides of his mouth?

  2. I think it just might be his double talk around what appears to be Obama's stunning success with Libya where I think our President took exactly the right approach, supporting a legitimate and internationally-backed internal struggle to put down a vile dictator without us "owning" the conflict by putting troops on the ground or trying to be the boss of the world. I'll watch him and Libya of course to see how this goes.

  3. It may be that the opposite of "nuance" is "arrogance" which I thought our last President from Texas had shown. Not to mention his VP with his new book, which I also do not intend to read.

  4. (Anon/M) Things are never really so black and white. A "legitimate internal struggle" against a "vile dictator" today will look a little less worthy of international backing as more and more piles of summarily-executed bodies are discovered all over the place. The situation is more fluid and murky in Libya than we are led to believe.

  5. Good point, Anon/M. We'll see.


Comments are welcome. Feel free to disagree as many do. You can even be passionate (in moderation). Comments that contain offensive language, too many caps, conspiracy theories, gratuitous Mormon bashing, personal attacks on others who comment, or commercial solicitations- I send to spam. This is a troll-free zone. Charity always!