Why Shouldn't They Spit on the Soldiers?John Hawkins
picked up on
this article that I highlighted last week.
Now I have to wonder about the desire by some on the left who are trying to deny that soldiers were ever spat upon. Jerry Lembcke's motivation appears obvious:
It [The Spitting "Myth"] disparages the reputation of those who opposed that war and intimidates a new generation of activists now finding the courage to resist Vietnam-type ventures in the 21st century.But think about the image of the US military men back in the early 1970s? They were, we were
assured by a deep thinker of the time, men who had:
"...raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."Now I ask you in all seriousness: If you believed that US soldiers had done that, and done it routinely:
"...several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."Then why in the world would you
not spit on the soldiers?
For once, Ted Rall
gets it right. Supporting the troops while opposing the war is like saying that a building is butt-ugly, but I support the architect.
So why do they deny that they spat on the troops? Because they know it's politically smart, even if it's intellectually dishonest.
