This should be the last of the “history” posts for now. The RSS feeders must be going crazy. :)

Sometime in early May an email hit my Inbox, “Soldier’s Letter to John Kerry”. This letter was chain e-mailed through several people who decided to add their own responses, and the last couple of items were such emotional brainwash that I had to respond on my own. :) As always, dates and names are suppressed to protect the guilty.

I addressed two responses to this chain letter:

Sent: 5/4/2004 1:53:56 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Soldier’s Letter to Kerry

Too bad he didn’t make the comparison to the current “Commander-in-Chief” as well. Many of us may like to see how he would stack up.

I would have ignored it except for this response:

Sent: May 4, 2004 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Soldier’s Letter to Kerry

Nor, dear friends, can our nation survive another four years of George W. Bush pandering to the rich and destroying the middle class, working American. Demand that President Bush institute the DRAFT NOW to take the pressure off our troops now on active duty and being “extended” indefinitely in Iraq. You’ll quickly find out where Mr. Bush’s true allegiance is. I have a real name (has anyone verified the identity of this “letter” writer? Perhaps someone on Bush’s re-election team……..), and I served an eight year commitment as an Infantry officer in the United States Army, including two years active duty. Our son, Robert, is an Infantry master sergeant called up from the National Guard and now on active duty in BAGHDAD. Use the mind and heart GOD gave you: DEMAND THAT PRESIDENT BUSH, OUR SELF-PROCLAIMED WARTIME LEADER, PUT THE MILITARY DRAFT INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. His response will tell you to whom his mind and heart belong. And have you read the “warm and fuzzy” one about the President greeting a little old lady in church? Yet another literary gem. [name and address suppressed] Real name. Real Address. Real concerned.

Fearing perhaps that this person was pulling a Billy Madison (see the Principal) on my family and friends (they were cc:ed) with this, I felt this needed some perspective:

Sent: 5/5/2004 12:37 PM

There is a term on the Internet for certain types of messages that are propaganda, whatever the slant, and those messages are affectionately referred to as FUD. FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

In my opinion both the original John Kerry slam and this message that we demand to reinstate the draft may fall into this category. “Can our nation survive another four years” and “DEMAND THAT PRESIDENT BUSH…” are emotional statements that have to be set aside, letting cooler heads prevail in important discussions such as choosing the person who will set forth policies for the next presidential term. I do not care what President Bush has done 20-30 years ago. Ditto John Kerry. Actions closer to the present reflect more greatly on one someone is going to do in the near future than whether someone threw medals or dodged the actives for the reserves (a risk, some may point out, that doesn’t pay out in today’s “War on Terror”, with all the reservist activities now).

Regarding the draft, I do not think this is the best approach. Drafting people by definition sends people to war that do not want to go. Now put yourself in a military leadership post. Do you want people in your organization that do not want to fight? How much more force do you need in your units to compensate for this? I too have relatives that have either served or are serving active duty/reserves. As much as I love them and would not want to see them in harm’s way, I would not buy their lives with those who would not put out their best effort to defend this country. If the Armed Forces need more people, then it needs to attract more volunteer forces with incentives. If there are not enough forces to do the job in an area, maybe we need more people, and maybe we are trying to do too much.

As far as which person would make a better Commander-in-Chief, I have to try to do my civic duty to remain informed on the facts and the actions of each person, and match them up with my preferential priorities. In my opinion, each person is pockmarked, but one more so than the other. In the case of the Senator, one only has to go to senate.gov and look up voting records. The recent record of denials of funding and equipment to our Armed Forces is irrefutable. One has to only decide whether a person with such a record would suddenly turn around and build up our Armed Forces if he were CIC. In the case of our President, we have to look at his actions in the last four years. Neither George Bush, nor Bill Clinton, nor Condoleeza Rice, nor Sandy Berger bombed the WTC in 1993 nor flew airplanes into it in 2001. Al-Qaeda did. Our President insists on hunting them down to prevent future attacks. I think this is a noble cause. If Bill Clinton had done it I would have been for it too. Now, again, President Bush is pockmarked, because in my opinion his policies on immigration are detrimental to national security. On this matter, Kerry is silent, but one can conjecture that a President Kerry as well would not seal our borders. As far as “pandering to the rich and destroying the middle class”, this is not related to the draft nor national security. Taxes I would save for another email, as there is a whole new domain of discussion in that area.

I realize that I may have spent some time in this response, but I do so in the hopes that we think through what we ask for rationally and to do our best to avoid unintended consequences. I thank you for your time and attention.

[my name, withheld] (real name, too! :) )

I got one response in return from probably the most non-rabid Kerry supporter I know:

I don’t think we really want to get into who’s the worse, etc. And yes, there certainly is a lot more involved than just the draft issue. “If Bill Clinton had done it I would have been for it too.” Unfortunately, you’re one of the few. Very few Americans before 9-11 would either admit there was any kind of pontential[sic] problems nor would they support any one of any party trying to prepare, or even react on the actual incidents that happened. Of course, on this side of 9-11, most of the same people would not admit to their previous position. Don’t know if you remember back in 1978 when I became a Lee’s Summit Police Officer, but during my time on the dept. we were repeatedly warned that the day of serious terrorist attacks on America was coming. We had seminars and presentations in to attempt to prepare us. The public did not want to hear any of that then, not in 1993 when there was a big wake-up call, and not when our destroyer was hit.

I am glad that you’re attempting to be informed about political and civic matters. Keep researching both candidates. They both have areas of weakness and short-coming. And personally, I would rather have a CIC that actually served honorably and heriocally[sic], and when he came home tried to stop a war that he (and many Americans) believed to be wrong than a CIC who has problems finding proof that he even showed up for National guard duty (which at that time was one of the legal ways to avoid duty in Nam).

In retrospect I probably should have refuted the Vietnam point with more brevity. :)