HOLLYWOOD VIETNAM

Fabulous documentary. One morning really early, I couldn't sleep and started flipping the TV, just as I'm about to go to music, I run across this documentary, Hollywood Vietnam. It is how Hollywood deals with war. What was absolutely mesmerizing is the fact that I'm looking at this while we are at war in Iraq. The documentary was made during Iraq and makes no reference to it. Openings were everywhere to show the insaneness of war and especially in light of what a mess we are in in Iraq, Nada.

The documentary uses comments from those like former Georgia Senator, Max Cleland, one of my heroes. I could not help but think of how he was unseated in his bid for a second term in the Senate. Mostly it was a smear campaign by the right wing, mainly those like Anne Caulder who has now been mostly discredited by anyone who thinks. Her outrageous statements are designed mainly to build her bank account. During the campaign, she said that Cleland should not be considered a war hero because what took his legs and arm was a routine accident. Many Georgia voters apparently bought her rantings. I would love to know where those voters stand now in light of Iraq. Probably at the same place: don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up. Shameful.

Lee Ermey, who was the drill sergeant, in the best movie I think about Vietnam, Full Medal Jacket, and was killed in the movie by one of his crazed recruits. Matthew Modine was really good. There's one scene where some Colonel accosts him in Vietnam. Modine is wearing a peace symbol. The Colonel lets go with a barrage of typical stuff: do you love your country, etc.; Modine comes forth as a very respectful Marine and says something like, "the symbol is about the duality of man. A Jungian thing." Funny!

Bobby Muller, founder of Vietnam Veterans of America, was very eloquent. I've read about him for years. I was a VVA member for awhile and probably still would be if they had been better at marketing. Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam vet, with somewhat political babble talked about a more balanced view of the Vietnam vet and issues of an Army out of control.

Hollywood Vietnam shows the transitions of what we see in war and in Vietnam in particular. We start off with the heroism of War, the WW ll movies, Sands of Iwo Jima, John Wayne, Audie Murphy, Battleground. We want to translate that to Vietnam and in the beginning Hollywood depicts just that, i. e., Green Berets with John Wayne. It's kind of heroist but not totally: movies like, Boys in Company C, Purple Hearts which single out individuals but still with some degree of positive.

The country changes and movies take on more a flavor of negativism and surreal existence: Apolcalyse Now and Platoon. In Apocalyse Now, there's one telling scene that Frances Ford Coppola insists upon to tell the story that he wants to tell: the boat crew suddenly stops a boat of Vietnamese and ends up killing them. It is a kind of MyLai right in the middle of the movie.

Next Hollywood begins to depict the returning vet as some sort of crazy. America is tired and wants to get out. LBJ says, "I can't be the first President to lose a war."

Then there comes more of a sympathetic view in movies like, Coming Home and the Deer Hunter. Ten years after the 1968 Tet offensive which most Americans viewed as the turning point of the lost war--the Vietnam war was a loser, therefore Vietnam vets became losers. Hollywood is not left with any real winners as they see it and so they have to find some stories where there's personal winners: movies like, Born on the Fourth of July. Ron Kovics, the writer, played by Tom Cruise in the movie makes a pivotal speech that is so applicable today; basically that the government is not the people. These are angry guys from Vietnam with a cause.

In Hollywood Vietnam, someone says vets need a parade--we put you through this and as a society, we owe you a parade. We never did that with Vietnam vets. The War at Home and other movies began to depict the hair trigger nut. Vietnam vets who were nutso. Nutso Vietnam vets in movies like Black Sunday. Gardens of Stone, Rolling Thunder, and even comedies like Caddy Shack, with Bill Murray, a Vietnam vet who was unhinged.

Then, there's the kind of redemptive movie or attempts at it where Jon Voight says, "I'm not the enemy, the enemy is War." Deer Hunter was another of those attempting to be sympathetic while telling a story, sometimes inaccurate, i. e., the crazy Russian roulette scene which never was.

Movies were primarily the media that informed America about Vietnam. In movies like, Flight of the Intruder, people are dying for nothing. America wanted to believe if you just had Chuck Norris, Syvester Stallone. just the right mix--Special Forces. Look at Iraq, still searching for a stragedy, with the seeming idea that if we can just find the right mix. Forget it! Often, movies had nothing to do with reality.

There seemed to be some sort of evolvement; instead of the crazed, there's a flesh and blood, hero in the movie, We were soldiers.

Is it that we have a love of war? Can't learn from history, My favorite depiction in Hollywood Vietnam is one where Bruce Willis in, In Country, is facing the Vietnam Memorial in contemplation, he leaves a Bronze Star Medal and a pack of camels--this is his closure. We wish it were that easy.

What I came away from this accidental viewing of HOLLYWOOD VIETNAM is sadness: a sadness that as a country, we never learn. The undeniable stupidity that we are at war after having the experience of Vietnam is almost unbelievable. If we had a Vietnam vet president, I doubt seriously that we'd be in Iraq but we know that story, right?

Deja vu

When I was watching this movie, I immediately thought, "Wow, what a concept for Iraq." The basic story is that Denzel Washington is an ATF Agent and is called to the scene of an awful terrorist attack. A group of sailors on leave on a ferry boat, along with scores of other innocents, are blown up.

Denzel is one of my favorite actors, always good and cool. In the process of his investigation and in cooperation with the local gendarmes, he is introduced to what he thinks is an intricate surveillance system, only to discover that it can actually recreate the past. Do you see where I am going here? He recreates the past, discovers the culprit and someway sends himself back into the past to prevent the terrorist act and save the girl. I love movies/books/tv, they can make what they want happen. Always.

Apply this to Iraq. Let's go back. Saddam: let's keep containing him, getting good intelligence. We turn back the clock before 9-11, Afghanistan. See what I mean? The movies can do what they want. Real life just ain't so. God bless us.

UNSEEMLY

Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate isn't serving himself well by badmouthing the military in the form of General Paetraus and the ousted Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Pace. I want to see Reid's "military record." Then and then only can Reid be even close to criticizing Pace. And, to blame Pace for the debacle in Iraq is about the epitome of stupid. Maybe Pace was not as forceful with Rumsfelt or now with Gates as possible but he's served his country well and has now been treated shabbily.

I really don't know what someone like Pace could do. Well, he could have resigned, I guess and yet, in the big picture what would it have served? Rumsfelt although a Patriot, still operated with a "I have my mind made up and so don't confuse me with facts." I'll bet you that Gates wishes he was back at Texas A and M. Replacing Pace is a long shot from making any difference in Iraq as if anything could short of rewinding and hanging on to Saddam.

In a recent survey of Americans on who they trusted most? (Although I'm not all that big on surveys--much has to do with how questions are asked). Question was, who is most trustworthy? It ain't the President and surely not Chaney; of the fifteen folks trusted, Chaney is fifteen and the President is next to him. Got to love it! Guess who was number ONE, uno--Patreus. People trust him and Reid even put the bad mouth on him because Pretraus said some places in Iraq had improved. And, they have and Paetraus may be able to bring this "quagmire" home but it would take five to ten more years minimum, plus lots of pain.

Reid is not serving his party well or maybe those of us who care. One of the only positive thing about Iraq happens to be the soldiers. And, this is no small thing, believe me. And, When Reid, representing the Majority party blames the military for the morass in Iraq, we have got to think that he is maybe suffering some TIAs or something. More likely, he was speaking to a bunch of left wing bloggers and was warming to his audience. Politicians do it all the time. They get in trouble by listening to the enthusiasm of a bunch of zeolots and the first thing you know, they've transferred into stupid.

THE FIRED GENERAL

I'm sure that General Pace won't quite feel it like many of my Vietnam vet buddies who were summarily fired after surviving several tours in the Nam. Many had shed their life's blood and Uncle Sam called them in and said, Sayonara. Officially it was called a RIF (reduction in force) and later downsizing. But, any spin you put on it, call it fired.

Thus far, I've not been a fan of General Pace or his boss, Gates. Let's call it what it is, politics. And, all generals above the 1 star are political or else they would not be where they are. As they face the tribunals for promotion, they have to have a sponsor, somebody already there, sometimes even a politician who makes sure they are afforded all the necessary considerations. And, so it is that Pace is where he is because of some element of politics. This does not mean he is not a good leader and honorable man; simply, it means that ascendancy just didn't occur on his good record alone. Scores of others whose records were equally as good were not chosen.

I feel bad for him. In his present job, he has not distinguished himself other than somewhat of a "yes" man. But, this is understandable. Military people learn to say "yes" to superiors, it is in their nature. Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full! We would like to think that the good Marine General, at some point, behind closed doors said to Gates and surely to Rumsfelt before him, "You are full of it." I've always felt that generals at the top levels need to be advocates for soldiers. Here we have a military with legions of problems: military recruiting, equipment being run in the ground, multiple tours at war, lack of preparation for returning vets--the list is endless. Advocacy at the top level is what is needed, not compliance.

Gates fired him pretty publicly even while killing him with kindness: he no longer can leap tall buildings with a single bound but is good at small ones. Politics really did General Pace in and in a sense, nothing to be done about it. Here's what I think would have given him a lasting legacy: be courageous in the same way he was while a combat Lieutenant in Vietnam. He's been talking to politicians who want to blame you for the debacles of Iraq. Most wouldn't know a pair of combat boots if it ran over them. To hell with them, Pace is better off and his firing won't solve Iraq.

WHAT WE NEED IS A WAR

The not so secret saying among Vietnam vets during the aftermath of Vietnam and our shabby treatment was, "What we need is a war." To vets this meant that with war comes attention to the vet. This is exactly what we are seeing now with the emphasis by the Congress on veteran treatment. If the Vietnam vet has any legacy, it has to be that Americans who care never want to see the present day vet treated as badly as we were.

As most of us search for anything positive about Iraq, I think I might have found something. The thought was given me by this doc I was with in Vietnam. He said something like, "What most people don't realize is that those of us who served in Vietnam and came back and made a life for ourselves in medicine are usually 10 times better and more experienced docs than those who didn't have Vietnam". Why? Mainly it's the experience. Just think about it as my bud went on to say, "had we been in the states in an emergency room or going through some sort of specialty training, we would have seen the normal sorts of medical difficulties. In Vietnam, we saw everything and had to do things that we'd never have gotten a chance to see or do as civilians. I discovered that I was so far more advanced than other medical types when I returned. Where they might see two or three cases a day of a particular trauma, I would be involved in 25."

THINK IRAQ. Based on my friend's comment, imagine what we are and will be seeing from our present war. For one thing, a flood of wounded GIs, those who would probably have died on the battlefield but now because of technology and new techniques and the ability to get to wounded soldiers almost immediately, many are saved that would have otherwise died. And, this doesn't even account for the traumatic psychological wounds that will inevitably result.

The "bean counters" are already tallying up what it's going to cost. For us vets, we "get it" better than most. Think of this. After Vietnam, vets had to fight for every single thing: many dying before their claims could even be processed. It was shameful and like all wars, when Vietnam was over, the mantra was, "let's shrink the military and send the soldiers home and forget about them."

Already Congress has appropriated over 6 billion for vets benefits and claims. It appears like we have at least learned a few things.

There's great lessons in all of this. When a country goes to war, they don't think about the aftermath. We've learned that for many combat soldiers, PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) occurs long after the combat is over. I've seen many of my buddies, now 40 plus years after Vietnam, who still suffer the traumas of war and many of them are still dealing with it on their own. WHY? Well, there are lots of reasons, mainly among Vietnam vets, the feelings of old about how much a hassle in trying to get anything out of VA. VA has changed for the better, however, but still, the future for Iraqi vets is NOW and we must prepare. Us vets are watching.

WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE SMOKING?

When the Bush team mentioned that our debacle in Iraq might well be another Korea, it was all I could do to keep from losing my breakfast. I have resisted saying that our Leader is out to lunch, honestly, but where he gets such notions is beyond me. And, I can't figure that others who should know better about history don't jump up and say, "Are you kidding me?" It is not about staying in Iraq that is even plausible, it is in thinking that we could replicate what happened in Korea to Iraq. This must drive athopologists crazy. Imagine trying to compare the Koreans to Iraqis.

Korea is homogeneous

Simply this means that the people are culturally mostly the same. For God's sake, they only have about five or six surnames, Kim, Lee, Hwong, Yu, a few others. Their very nature is based in Confucianism which is mostly a philosophy. In Confucianism, it is mostly three common things: authority over subject, father is over the son, the husband is over the wife. Have you ever wondered how someone like Kim, Il Jong has been able to subjugate the people of North Korea. In many ways, it is in their nature. King over subject.

South Korea or called by its official name, Republic of Korea, is a fascinating country. They are Buddhist, even though the largest Christian Church in the world is in Seoul. However, even Christianity is practiced with a Confucian/Buddhist flavor. South Korea has a great sense of country and regardless of all else practiced, at their core, they are very much alike with a national identity.

This is very simplified but basically right on. Iraq is a tribal country, plain and simple. Loyalty is to the tribe. They will never get past this if we stay there a thousand years. To even suggest that we can keep or maintain soldiers in that country indefinitely is about as stupid as anything I am yet to hear.

South Korea would not even exist today had not we come to their rescue in 1950. How much this plays a part in our still being there eludes me even. I have advocated for some time that it is pretty foolish to keep the level of soldiers in Korea that we have. The ROK has the absolute best ground army in the world, spare none. They are extremely well trained, disciplined, and they are very much a homogeneous force--they are Koreans. Consequently, keeping a Division (20,000 or so troops) on the DMZ is to me, simply not very bright.

WHAT HAPPENED TO REALITY

The powers that be have long ago, to be precise, over 4 years ago let go of a realistic view of what is going on in Iraq and what the prospects are. As we've often said, they seem to exist in parallel universes. And, the mere mention of a model as in a Korean standoff has to come from somebody on too much of the weed. It is the only explanation I can see.

THE NATIONAL GUARD OR HOME GUARD

Recently, Lawrence Kolb proposed that because of how we have depleted the National Guard, we should develop a Home Guard in addition. I surely don't doubt that we need something. However, the fact that the Guard has been used as it has is pretty shameful. I'm not sure of the history of how the Guards and Reserves were used in other wars but from what I know, it appears that they were never intended to supplement the active forces. It is one of the great myths or crimes of how we have treated the military in the past by reducing it to numbers that made performing its mission almost impossible. Plus, as a nation we have visited upon the Guard and Reserves a terrible injustice. They didnot sign up for Iraq or war in general. For most, they wanted to serve, nice to be a uniformed patriot and said affectionately, a weekend warrior. And yet, the young Guardsman from the cornfields of Iowa who didn't sign up for war has been thrust into it and it is wrong. When I was in the Reserves back in the dark ages, a weekend drill meant a little training, some great bonding, a possible escape from normal family duties. It was a good patriotic feeling.

Where I would probably see it a little different from Mr. Korb is in creating another quasi military force to fill in for the Guard. My view would be to restore the Guard to the position it was designed to be. Let's not accept the idea that the Guard is always going to be needed for our wars. Instead of a Home Guard, what about some type of National Service modeled on the military draft. I have advocated this for at least the last 12 years or so. Talk about a voice crying in the wilderness. But, it would work, phased in over a ten or so years and giving kids from 18-26 a choice of where to serve: the miliary would be only one of many: Peace Corp, Teach America, Americorp, any non profit with a program or youngsters could design their own. It can't be viewed as forced volunteerism but giving Americans a chance to give back for the great privilege of being an American.

I don't have much faith in the present administration to have any concept of "new or different ideas" from Mr. Korb or anybody for that matter. Some speech writer probably wrote in something like "freedom corps" or "civilian reserve corp" mentioned by the President but like so many things that matter with this present administration, there is no real teeth. Politics has so bogged down the process of tackling real problems of which this is merely one.

My idea is restore the Guard to its numbers in the States and let them do what they are designed to do. No more fighting misadventures overseas. Increase the size of the active Army where they can do the job if need be anywhere in the world. Beef up the elite forces like the 82d Airborne, Delta Force, Green Berets, Special Operations of all services; have a conventional force that can be deployed if in fact we face a "big" war where ground forces truly face each other and not in the sense of an urban guerrilla war created by us.

We have some good thinkers in our country and Lawrence Kolb is one of them. Unfortunately, his ideas make too much sense and consequently, they will usually be headed to the "round" file.

SOLDIER HEROES PROBABLY ARE RELUCTANT HEROES

When we look at editorial Memorial Day comments, what do they say? Something like, "Memorial Day represents one day of national awareness and reverence, honoring those Americans who died while defending our Nation and its values. While we should honor these heroes every day for the profound contribution they have made to securing our Nation's freedom, we should honor them especially on Memorial Day."

WHAT DOES THIS REALLY SAY? What is the "core" message? YOUNG AMERICANS DIED IN THE DEFENSE OF FREEDOM AND WE SHOULD HONOR THEM. Let's get real here: young Americans dying in Iraq hardly qualifies for securing our freedom at home. The vast majority of Americans think about the day's baseball scores more than the sacrifices of these young soldier heroes who paid the ultimate price. Still, it is not a bad thing to set aside a day to remember them. It is the absolute least we can do.

SHAMLESS

My Mom would often say, "have they no shame?" This is the way I feel about a couple of things I've read recently: one on John Edwards who loves to call himself the poor man's bud; the one who is going to eliminate poverty in America. The guy who is the son of a textile mill worker. OK.

He charged University of California at Davis, $55,000 for a speech on get this: poverty. How do they live with themselves? I mean, the guy gets $400 haircuts and lives in a house with a basketball and squash court, I hear, not to mention that it is the biggest house in Chatham country as any North Carolinian will tell you. Let's don't even mention the fact that he got $500,000 from a hedge fund, which is typically open to only a limited range of investors, mainly the wealthy. Mr. "I just want to help the poor" here is a little hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

Edwards, of course, is not alone. This whole speech fee thing is irritating to me. St. Ronald Reagan was given a mil by the Japanese for a speech, Bill Clinton regularly gets a hundred thousand, and then there's Rudy Giuliani who was about to be run out of town before 9-11 and was recently given a $100,000 for a speech at Oklahoma State University plus $47,000 for a private jet.

I must say too that Institutions of Lower Learning who are parties to paying this sort of money for speeches must start their days with stupid pills. I don't get it.

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING FOR

A slender, black-haired girl is dragged in a headlock through a braying mob of men. Within seconds, she is on the ground in a fetal position, covering her head with her arms in a futile attempt to defend off a shower of stones.

Someone slams a concrete block into the back of her head. A river of blood oozes from beneath her long, tangled hair. The girl stops moving, but the rocks keep coming as well as the victorious shouts of the men delivering them.

Her crime? The 17 year old Iraqi female's crime was to love a boy from another religion. For her uncle and cousins, that was reason enough to stone her to death.

Sixty Minutes Review

If I were president, what I could do is have some aide listening to Sixty Minutes every Sunday so I could jump on what they exposed. One story was homeless dumping by hospitals. No denials because they had a video of it. Very sad. And, the hospitals owned up. One was Kaiser and I immediately thought, "they should cut back their advertising budget." They have two commercials that I love: one has this guy who is older, dancing, doing the splits. Wow. Some theme like, Live life. The other is another guy trying to lose weight, the comercial takes him through what he needs to do: well done, theme is "Be your own project."

The commercials for Kaiser didn't look too swift as a video showed an older demented woman wandering around in a hospital gown on Skid Row. First time I've heard that term, Skid Row, mentioned in some time. Sad to the max. In American with all our plenty, how we still have people living on the streets is beyond me. Could you imagine what we could do about this problem if we didn't have to fund the war in Iraq. I realize, of course, that it is not as simple as I would like. Homelessness is no simple process from any direction and having done volunteer work with homeless Vietnam vets, I can tell you for a fact that it is more than putting a roof over someone's head.

At least a third of those who are called homeless are mentally ill as was the woman in the program on Sixty Minutes. No excuses to dump her but an example of the entrenched problem. They did send her away with a diaper, thank you very much. Many are on the streets because they want to be there: addicted, into drugs of various sorts and their existence has become a lifestyle. And, then there's a small percentage that we could actually help if we were a mind too as my Mom says.

A Second unbelievable investigative report from Sixty Minutes had to do with the Coast Guard. They have spent millions on upgrading the fleet. A total waste as the ships they built were not even sea worthy. Get this: they were told by all kinds of experts that they wanted to do was the wrong way to go--lenghten ships they already had. The Coast Guard, whoever they were, told the whistleblowers, shut up. What was fascinating about the story was that nobody seemed to be accountable. And, get this: they would not even allow congressmen to check things out or talk to those who were responsible. What is this? Talk about if I were a Congressman, I would be lightening flashing mad. The Congress can not make them do anything but they have the purse strings and if they are willing to use them, someone in the Coast Guard will listen. An aside is the same thing that we are seeing now in the debate over Iraq: controlling the purse strings, want to make a difference in Iraq? Close the checkbook.

Regardless, the taxpayer always pays. Is anybody listening?

IF YOU WANT ME TO SING

I can't blog because I have to go out and fight. This GI blogged an entire book while he was in Iraq. Won a prize of $10,000; the military has now banned blogging on their computers: good idea, they are suppose to be fighting a war.

The "girlfriends" discussed the latest stuff about the Pope, convinced I'm down on the Catholics: not true but things like the Pope's pronouncements do set me off a bit. Pope calls on drug dealers to quit kidnapping citizens, oh yeah, like they are going to pay attention. He also put the badmouth on contraception and abortion. What he didn't say was that the lack of birth control forced poor folks to have large families, contributing to massive poverty in counties like Brazil, where they have the largest population of Catholics in the world. Someone who should know told me recently, "in countries where women are in control of their reproductive rights, the level of affluence is raised substantially." No, I am not down on the Catholics, just ignorance. My perspective. Also, Pope Benedict urged bishops to mold a new generation of Roman Catholic leaders in politics to reverse the church's declining influence. If I'm not mistaken, I think they've already tried that.

When I was a pastor just starting out, we had a guy in our church who could hardly sing but always said, "If you want me to sing, asked me, if you don't, don't asked me." OK. It is a little like John Travolta being ticked off because a documentarian called Scientology a cult. Dud! What would he like to call it? Scientology, like all cults, is built around a person literally cutting themselves off from their family. The guy doing the documentary calls it brainwashing and? I liked this: supposedly, at one point in the filming, the documentarian lost his cool and had a shouting match with a Scientologist. Later on, he apologized and said, "It was my seventh day with Scientologists and I defy anyone to spend that long with them and not feel brainwashed." IF YOU WANT ME TO SING, ASK ME. IF YOU DON'T, DON'T ASK ME.tt

VIETNAM AND IRAQ

Daily, I'm reading or hearing someone talk about how Iraq is related to Vietnam and by extension, how in the hell can we extract ourselves from the Iraqi quagmire. I don't think withdrawing in wholesale scale is it. Remember the idea, "we are like a gambler at the table who can't quit the game." That's it!

I do agree with Stanley A. Karnow who wrote "Vietnam: A History." It was one of the first books I read about Vietnam, years after I had put the literal war behind me. Karnow says of Iraq: it is "unwinnable;" Dud! What I do like about his present day thinking is the idea of partitioning of Iraq: Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. And, he wants to set a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal and begin phased withdrawals immediately. I think so.

What has basically happened in the Iraq war is what always happens in war: the planning goes to hell in a handbasket. Knowing the military as I do, the planning was down to a ghat's hair. And, if it had worked out, then we would have been "hunky dory" as my Mom would say. But, in war, it never works out as we plan. In Vietnam, LBJ started out as belligerent: we'll show those little guys running around in black pajamas. We know what happened.

In Iraq, we can't prevail because we face a dogged adversary every bit as determined as those little guys in black pajamas in Vietnam. In Vietnam, they were prepared to take unlimited losses to the point that you could never break their morale no matter how many we killed. In the end, politics tripped us up and we got out.

I've never gone along with the idea they beat us. They out patienced us. And, for my two cents, the powers that be never figured out that our mix of troops was wrong. The moment we introduced conventional forces into Vietnam, it was the beginning of the end. Conventional soldiers proved themselves more than adequate for the job. However, the drawback was simply the "conventional." The military was prepared to stand and fight. The enemy in Vietnam did not stand and fight. They fought and hid.

We could have salvaged Vietnam in my view had we gone back to the original tactical view of using the Special Forces (Green Berets) to continue to take the fight to the enemy. We had the firepower, the strategy. The thinking at the highest level was like a booby trap ready to be sprung. We tried to fight a conventional war with an unconventional enemy. If we had moved the conventional forces out, started a phased withdrawal and just kept doggedly struggling, I think Ho Chi Minh would have sued for peace and we'd have been at a standoff.

Would this have been better. The 64,000 question! The gigantic difference in Iraq and Vietnam is the fact that in Iraq, the enemy has no regard for life--their own or their countrymen/women and what we seem to refuse to deal with is a religious fanaticism centered in tribalism. In Vietnam, the enemy, based in Ho, had one goal: unify Vietnam." They were "nationalist" goals. In Iraq, the one consistent goal of the enemery is "kill Americans" and therein, we have to figure out a way to "quit the table."

WHAT ARE WE TO THINK

A few weeks ago, my granddaughter and I were crossing the street in San Fran near where I live. Suddenly her eyes grew wide. She didn't say a word but there in full burka was a rather large woman. I should have used the moment to discuss differences, diversity, and tolerance but I could not bring myself to do it. WHY? Well, I am struggling in the same way that I think many Americas are struggling. When 7 men are arrested for wanting to kill as many Americans as possible at Fort Dix, what do we think? Not that they were a bunch of right wing Christians or Jews or Buddhists. We immediately think radical Muslims if there is such a thing. And, most of the time, we are right.

THE WAR ON TERROR

What the Fort Dix incident says to us is that the terrorism hatched in Muslim minds is indeed a war. The suspects include three brothers, ethnic Albanians from the former Yugoslavia, living illegally in the United States and working at a roofing business. The others are legal residents. All six were described as being in their 20s.

And, this is pretty much a "homegrown" plot. Young men enjoying the benefits of a free society succumbing to an ideology which to Americans is simply insane. And, of course, now their families are affected in ways that we have no way of comprehending. All we know are the news reports: one whose family owned a pizzeria and of all things named Family Pizza. One terrorist was intimately acquainted with Fort Dix because of his pizza deliveries.

Even with the gross mismanagement of our involvement in Iraq, we see terrorism there on a daily basis: killing of Americans and innocent civilians, all based on a religious belief from the Koran which says "kill Americans."

WHAT ARE WE TO THINK???????????????

WEST POINT

One constant and mostly friendly debate over the years has been the question of whether West Point, the Army's military academy, is in fact a University or a training school for soldiers. Regardless, West Point, is a much sought after appointment. By all measures, only one in a dozen gets admitted. They never have such great athletic teams because they are cadets first and those who aspire for big lucrative athletic futures don't go to West Point or any of the Service academies. After graduation, the cadets, now young Lieutenants, face a 4 year commitment to the military.

Iraq has not been kind to West Pointers or "ring knockers" as they are often called. 53 dead in Iraq or Afghanistan, a higher percentage of West Pointers than in any other war in recent history. This includes Emily Perez, a 2005 graduate who was the first minority female command sergeant in the West Point's history. She was killed in Iraq last September at 23. Well Done, be thou at peace, is inscribed on the Final Roll Call, a listing the website of the Academy's Association of Graduates maintains. WELL DONE INDEED!

VICTIM OR SAVAGE

Recently, I talked with a documentary film maker at the San Francisco Film festival. She has quite the view of the media at large. She says that the media only wants to support the soldier when he/she can be seen either as a victim or a savage. At first I didn't see it but as I've watched the papers for this trend, the NY Times and other media like TV, there is something to what she says. A good example is a story in a recent NY Times Magazine about female soldiers; based on the story, all are sexually harassed and raped.

The Director went on to postulate about Vietnam, "if Vietnam became notorious as a war that combined violence and sex, with Southeast Asian brothels being the destination of choice for soldiers on temporary leave from the war, the sexual politics of the Iraq war are, as of yet, unclear." Maybe the director is on to something.

COMPARISONS OF VIETNAM AND IRAQ

The scenes from Forest Gump, surrounding Vietnam, are some of the best ever. The movie depicts how absurd war is under any circumstance but more dramatically, the human loss. What is really going to be an ongoing fascination to those of us who care is that once the Iraqi quagmire is over, if ever, will be the comparisons to Vietnam.

Because Iraq is truly our first saturated media war, aligned with all the commo technology, i. e., emails, text messaging, etc., it is going to be an overexposed war time experience to a weary public. My prediction. This is already happening. There are not less than four or five documentaries, soldiers' diaries, etc. presently on TV or HBO or at various film festivals. The various offerings depict Iraq or Afghanistan. In face, one was shot completely on a "cell phone." It is called, Why Didn't Anybody Tell Me It Would Become This Bad In Afghanistan. It is only the beginning.

Think about it: GIs have all this instant commo, they are calling, emailing wives, girlfriends, Moms and Dads every single day. Sometimes, they communicate more from Iraq than they did when they were home. Reporters are embedded with them--the media is right there recording and processing everything.

Some general said recently, a National Guard type, who was returning to his college where he was something like the dean, "there's no comparison in Vietnam and Iraq. In Iraq I was shot at occasionally; in Vietnam, I was shot at every day." This is somewhat capsulized as the practical--the philosophical likenesses and differences are much broader, of course. And, most of those documentaries, books and movies are yet to come. The war in Iraq will end one of these days and the comparisons to Vietnam will be a part of the aftermath.

TIDBITS

SERIAL KILLERS. I'm always fascinated or appalled may be the best term in talking about those whose moral compass has seemingly gone south. Is there any pattern of behavior to those who commit awful atrocities like Virginia Tech. What do we know: alienation, bullied, hearing voices. If we could have had a profile of the Virginia Tech killer could the tragedy have been prevented. No, not really, just as 9-11 probably could not. And, as we keep trying to make sense out of the overwhelming sense of loss, we can do a few things. One of them is change the laws about guns. Under anybody's definition who thinks, the laws are way to lax. What does someone like Cho need with an automatic 9mm glock; give me a break. What does a hunter need an AK47 for? And, we need to get this out of politics. I'm surely not a gun control nut but being smart and a zeolot are not one and the same. Come on!

IRAQ. Then there's always Iraq. Iraqi civilians are caught in the crosshairs of a civil war. Seeing a couple of families profiled, the inevitable question: were they better under Saddam. Since I'm the one asking the question, my answer. Absolutely. We are going to be haunted by Iraq for a long time just as we are about Vietnam. The vast difference is that Vietnam nowhere knew the violence visited upon innocent civilians. In Vietnam, eventually, we were two armies opposing each other on the battle field. The farmers were still growing their rice and South Vietnam was still functioning. In Iraq nothing is functioning. A country with enormous oil reserves and lines for as many as 3 days is more the rule than the exception. What is wrong with this picture?

RANGERS

There is simply no military unit that has the pride and esprit of Army Rangers. I cannot tell you the numbers of Rangers that I've met who are simply cut from a different cloth. Pat Tillman and his buddies of the 75th Rangers were all special.

Now, with yet another investigation, Army Rangers speak about what happened. They acknowledged the true story would have been devastating for the 75th Regiment. What they really meant is that it will bring shame on the Rangers and nothing could be worse.

Ranger training includes weeks of deprivation, surviving, living in the most extreme conditions. Most fail. I don't know the exact percentages but I would say, close to 80% don't make it. When it's over, the soldier is forever changed. His only reward is a tab, a Ranger Tab worn on his left shoulder in his dress uniform or a pen signifying he's a Ranger. And, so a Ranger doesn't dare bring shame upon other Rangers.

One of Pat Tillman's fellow Rangers said, "I mean, it's horrible that Pat was dead. Absolutely horrible. But it hurts even more to know that it was one of our own guys that did it. We just, we didn't want to get anything, you know, bad said about the Regiment or anything like that. That was my guess to what the whole thing was about. We didn't want the world finding out what actually happened."

So, there you have; cover up. Not really to this soldier. Just a bunch of Rangers who didn't want to bring disgrace on fellow Rangers. Unfortunately, modern wartime, often fought in the media, has obfuscated honorable motives. My suspicion is that Pat Tillman would be the last wanting this investigation to continue. Noway would he want to take a chance on smudging the reputation of his beloved Rangers.

One soldier's opinion and I will not speak of this again.

Leonitus and Themistocles

These are two of my neighbors. Just kidding. Greek guys for sure. Anyway, one Sunday afternoon my niece and I are hanging out and decide to take in the movie, 300. I had read a review and thought that it sounded good. Unschooled in Greek mythology, we lasted about thirty minutes. The movie reminded me of some of those comic book movies that many like. Plus, the movie was peopled with young teenagers, this should have told us something.

When I got time, I learned a little about the main characters of the movie. This three hundred Greek force met the Persians by the thousands. The Greeks were schooled in tactics and devoured the Persians as they came at the Greeks in a carefully created section--a small opening. Leonitus was quite the warrior and looked the part: brave, straightforward and self sacrificing. All the qualities of a good leader. However, his earlier arrogance caused him to make a fatal mistake: he rejected help from a less than perfect warrior who eventually was responsible for helping the Persians defeat the Greeks by showing them a secret passage.

Eventually, the Greeks triumphed over the Persians but it was not Leonitus but another Greek, much less idealistic. In fact, he was downright the opposite of the great warrior, Leonitus. But, he was a super tactician and was not above manipulating intelligence to give him the favored result. Heard this before. He talked the Greeks who desperately needed a victory after the terrible defeat at Thermopylae. Themistocles gave it to them when he maneuvered the Personas into a battle on unfriendly waters with their heavy and slow Greek warships. Theo, as I like to call him, was not above stretching the truth as he lied to the Persian King.

There's a couple of real lessons here: stay out of war if you are not threatened. We get that. But, the most important lesson is to elect a leader who is much more Theo than Leo. Looking the part may play well on TV and has been an anathama to us for the last several years. The best don't make it to the top and we are all the poorer for it.