Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media

By Ellen Ratner
Today is Memorial Day, once called Decoration Day and set aside after the Civil War as the occasion to place flowers and other remembrances on the graves of those who died during that conflict. Since that time, it has been a day set aside for such remembrances of both the living and the dead of all American wars. On this Memorial Day, with conflicts continuing to threaten American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems like an appropriate occasion for this liberal to honor our veterans, and in the process, shed some light on what being ''anti-war'' is – or should be – about.

First, it is not anti-soldier, sailor, or airman or airwoman. Those who volunteer, or in the past, who have been conscripted to serve this country, deserve the highest respect, as well as unlimited public support in terms of both morale and supplies. Thus, to be anti-war is not to be anti-military.

Second, to be anti-war is not to oppose all wars, at all times. Most folks, like myself, who oppose Bush's ill-considered invasion and disastrous occupation of Iraq, evaluate their wars one at a time. Our Revolution eventually planted a democracy on our shores whose existence has been – and still might be – the beacon of the world. The War of 1812 expelled British invaders, the Civil War ended the monstrosity of slavery, and World War II finished the specter of worldwide fascism. Likewise, our overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan after it refused to turn over or evict Osama bin Laden began as justified.

However, one can object to the 1898 war against Spain and our entry into World War I as unnecessary, with the former conflict being little more than rank U.S. imperialism. One can also object to Vietnam as wasteful of life and treasure in the service of a flawed theory of the militarized containment of Communism everywhere, all the time. One can also object to the overdone action against Panama to arrest Noriega and the idiotic, trumped-up ''war'' against Grenada, the main purpose of which seemed to have been to deflect public disgust with an incompetent deployment of U.S. Marines in Lebanon that resulted in the deaths of over 200 men. One can – and I do – object to U.S. entry in these wars as foolish and myopic, and one can do it without being any less patriotic than those who stupidly cheer on the Bush administration's stupidity; which, because of some of the worst occupation policies in world history, has resulted in the unnecessary deaths and maimings of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Granted, there are those on the left who do oppose all wars at all times, without ever answering the questions of how they would have ended slavery or stopped Hitler. But most liberals are not in this group. Rather, I would ask my right-wing friends (those who still back the U.S. presence in Iraq – a diminishing number) a few questions of my own: who is the better general? The one who expends life to secure unworthy objectives, or the one who conserves power and expends it only when necessary? Who is the better commander in chief? The one who leads in front, holds his fireside chats and press conferences, makes it a priority early and often to publicly justify a war's cost in blood and treasure, or the one who arrogantly assumes that, without so much as a declaration of war, he can lead by hiding under his desk?

Quite frankly, a few on the left who declare that ''dissent is the highest form of patriotism'' aren't always right. I'm not sure the German-American Bund during World War II or the Copperheads during the Civil War were my kind – or anybody's kind – of patriots. But what do you call those like Rep. John Murtha, whose patriotism, public service and heroism in uniform are beyond question, when he criticizes the Iraq disaster? Unpatriotic? A traitor? I don't think so. Rather, I think the courage, devotion to country and discipline he learned during 30 years in the United States Marine Corps are paying off now – once again, on behalf of all Americans.

So this Memorial Day, I urge all of my readers, whatever your views, to remember there are times and places where criticisms of wartime presidents may in fact be the highest duty.

The thousands upon thousands of white stones that dot the hills at Arlington represent sacrifices by men and women most of us will never know – but they were Americans who thought enough of duty to die for future generations they would never know. In their memory and in their honor, we owe it them, as well as to ourselves, to be straight about which causes are worth dying for.